That’s interesting, I did not know that. However, never having seen him, I’m going to guess that he is smart and wise and very much unlike Mr. Lopart. Am I right?
What difference does it make? I white person still has a better chance of getting ahead in this country even if they aren’t smart and wise and in the case of George W Bush.
Uh, I’d think the people creating them are people who stake millions of dollars on what sells. Women most certainly have a “need” to see commercials this way, else they wouldn’t be depicted this way. Dopers like to be hand-raisers who love to claim they aren’t the norm, but advertisers don’t put their millions on what the Doper hand-raisers think.
The “dumb guy” stereotype gets tuned out just like I mostly tune out the queer fag stereotype but sometimes your jokes get to be a little much if we keep quiet and let you have your fun with us.
It would support my position.
That’s really a question for another thread, don’t you think?
You put words in my mouth in post 78.
Not in this case.
I’d say they’re probably mostly men. Certainly in sitcoms starring male idiots, the leads and writers are generally guys.
No, I don’t think that’s how it works: the stereotypes don’t get in the way of the ad and few people object. There’s no evidence anybody likes these ads; they’re just the path of least resistance.
That means absolutely nothing. It’s the viewer, not the producer. That a guy produced or wrote something doesn’t mean he’s pursuing a guy agenda. He’s pursuing a money-making agenda. Anyway, leave me out of the sitcom discussion. I’m talking about commercials.
They don’t put ads on TV for nothing. People spend their whole careers studying what the audience might respond to. It’s not like they toss stuff out there knowing we all hate it.
That’s nonsense. Here is my post 78 in it’s entirety:
It puts no words at all in your mouth but instead asks you a few simple questions. Ironically, your accusation of strawmanning is itself strawmanning.
Lol. And again, you evade my simple, reasonable question.
Anyway, I just checked my notes and I had forgotten that back on January 20 I decided not to engage with you any more. This exchange is concluded.
You have snitnotes? That’s kind of awesome.
Edit: to forestall the inevitable request, here’s a cite that you said you have snitnotes:
How about that Willie Horton ad? That sure didn’t depict him in a good light. Why’d they make that ad, I wonder?
Oh wait, I know. They wanted people who would be bothered by the depiction of white guys as thieves to be scared and go vote for HW.
I’m not sure what you mean by “snitnotes,” but thank you.
If you liked Snitnotes, you’ll love The Compendium of Wrongs. While away the hours to all of your old favorites. Who could ever forget “Criminals in commercials should be depicted as black guys”? Or “White guys are the butt end of jokes”? And that timeless classic “It’s unfair that I can’t say “ni***r”?
Act now, and we’ll throw in at no extra charge The Little Black Book of Grievous Harm, where you’ll learn all about Welfare Queens and Cadillacs, the Great Hordes of Fraudulent Voters, and How I Didn’t Get into College Because They Gave My Spot to a ************.
Don’t forget, with your paid membership in Distorted Reality, you’ll get your very own Dubious Outrage delivered weekly right to your doorstep.
It makes a sequence of assumptions that were not warranted by any of my posts. You basically assumed you were dealing with knee-jerk liberalism.
Of course, you’re welcome to back out of any arguments you like when your views are opposed.
Maybe they had no choice but to use a black man since the ad was actually based on reality? Here’s a serious question for you: Were there any white convicted murderers at the time who were released from prison in Massachusetts on the weekend pass program; fled; and commited further violent crimes?
If the Bush campaign made a similar ad but used actors instead of actual convicts, what do you suppose the demographics of the faux convicts would have been? Do you think they would have used mainly black people?
oh
sorry
Noooo. Sex sells to women to; however, with women, the themes is always ‘If I buy this product I will be thin or young enough to laid.’
(Damn it. Men win again. They get laid with their schlubby bodies, but women have to dream of anorexia and surgery. I hate Madison Avenue.)
BUT Cleaning Products are different, aren’t they? Women dance with the dusters, and men just act dusted. Why? Because they are targeting married people (it being a well-know fact that single people’s houses never get dirty).
So, why does infantilizing men work for selling cleaning products?
Maybe because men believe that women learned more about that kind of stuff from their mothers. [Men learn how to clean from their drill sergeants; not a warm and fuzzy connection.]
But why on earth would women support portraying men as totally useless? (Other than there being no other option; not many want to make their own soap.) Wouldn’t we all want our partners to feel strong and competent about dusting furniture? This leads back to my original conclusion:
I really don’t know.
I don’t know either. Most of the women I know would probably prefer to see hot guys in their commercials, but would that make them buy the product? I remember those Diet Coke commercials with the hot shirtless guy sipping his coke but I wonder, did that make women rush out and buy Diet Coke or did it make men rush out and buy Diet Coke because they want women gushing over them? Or maybe it was just entertaining but didn’t affect sales much?
The thinking probably goes something like this:
-
Cleaning is not glamorous work. Maids and janitors aren’t exactly up there with physicians and lawyers in the status department.
-
Cleaning historically has been the province of women, because of gender roles and expectations. Men can have the place smelling like snakes and snails and puppy tails, and few willl judge him harshly for it. But a woman who does the same thing is of questionable sanity.
-
Even though societal expectations are shifting away from this mindset, we still are more apt to think of women before men when it comes to housework (and childrearing).
-
“Women’s work” is devalued. Childcare workers, nurses, and secretaries tend not to be as esteemed as construction workers, mechanics, and mail couriers.
-
Portraying men as natural dunces when it comes to “women’s work” is a device used to make tasks like cleaning–and by association, women–seem more valued than what they are. The implication is that men just aren’t cut out for such difficult, mind-boggling complicated labor. Only women can figure out how to work a vacuum cleaner, you see? Men should just get out of the way and deal with other, more easily solved problems. Like how to run the world.
Men are not being put down in commericals that employ this cliched strategem, but rather women are being talked down to. The formula is at least as old as the Flintstones, literally and figuratively.
Why does it persist? Probably because it works. Have a commerical in which a man is dancing around with a feather duster or twitching orgasmasically because his paper towels are of exceptional absorbancy, and the audience will be more inclined to think its a joke. Put a woman in the same role and the audience will be more likely to take it seriously, because “women are good at that kind of shit and on top of that, it makes them happy”. Add a dufusy male, and it drives the message home even quicker.
Conversely, don’t expect Big Mac commercials to feature women who are stoked about all the pounds of meat they can get for $1.05. Only men can eat without respect to their health or appearance, and still be socially acceptable. And only pussies (e.g. women or girly men) care about cholesterol and saturated fat.
I know the answer; devoted ginger-ale drinking women switched to Coke in the hopes of encouraging more commercials of that type.
But it wasn’t just for the beef-cake; it was because it turned the whole women & dieting meme around. It wasn’t about women making themselves desirable (by dieting) but about women desiring men.
OK, it was mostly about the beef-cake.
That’s the first time I’ve ever heard it said that the Bush campaign had no choice but to do the Willie Horton ad.
I don’t know, because nobody ever tried to play to my fears by hand-selecting a white criminal
I’m sure they would have done just what they did, because they weren’t interested in representing reality, they were interested in scaring people who worry about black criminals.
Here’s my suggestion - if you’re scared, stay home.
Please don’t strawman me. It’s hardly outrageous to make an attack ad which shows an actual murder convict, let out on weekend pass, who fled and commited serious violent crimes. Given the decision to use an actual convict, it may very well be that the only choice was Willie Horton, who happens to be black.
In that case, you shouldn’t assume that Willie Horton was chosen because of his race.
ROTFLMAO. Actually, the Bush campaign did make such an ad. Most of the actors who played the role of criminals were white.
LOLOL.
Here’s my suggestion: Rethink your position.
Odd that Lee Atwater said on his deathbed that he regretted the ad, then. This is actually a perfect example of how some people illustrate “reality” with cherrypicked facts that do not reflect the world they live it. While Willie Horton was a criminal, he was used in the ad because of the racial implications. The idea that the Bush campaign had no choice but to put him in the commercial is absurd, and the ad itself made some incorrect implications about Horton’s release as well.