Great post. I really want to post something from Jean Kilbourne, but I know it won't be watched or read.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Hotel apologizes for 'sexist' ad of couple enjoying breakfast in bed
- Thread starter Trojita
- Start date
- Status
Great post. I really want to post something from Jean Kilbourne, but I know it won't be watched or read.
So, fashion can only be deemed worthwhile when men take part in it? Women need men to justify their interest in a hobby such as fashion?
A woman is doing it so that means it's automatically a vapid endeavor? What? Seems like a lot of projection is going on here tbh.
I understand that it is reinforcing gender normative behavior on both sides, my argument is that in itself really shouldn't be offensive, though I understand that it is everyone's right to choose what offends them or not.
For me personally, I don't find the reinforcement of gender normative behavior as being offensive. It's when you are actively trying to enforce some sort of behavior that it becomes problematic.
Depicting people in a completely neutral situation like this with behavior/hobbies that would be considered 'normal' by most of the populace seems absolutely harmless.
Well I agree, and you're right about the outrage narrative. Something to keep in mind for sure.. I'm also saying the advertisement in question is benign and mostly harmless. What's more important is that there need to be advertisers out there that are breaking the norms. Calling out this one typical thing isn't as valuable as highlighting something that flips the script.. Like rewarding your cat for pissing in the litterbox instead of shouting at it when it doesn't do what you want, like using the corner.
But yeah maybe that's happening too, and these voices are all just drips in the bucket, none needing a thorough critique.
Pretty much this. Im disappointed theres so many 'If its realistic then it cant be sexist' posts in this thread though.
It's not a book about coffee tables. It's a book to place on your coffee table about the fashion brand Chanel.
I'm more offended by how pedestrian it is to be into Chanel. There's better fashion brands out there.
Last edited:
I don't appreciate your outrage at the outrage at the non-existent outrage.
Just chill ok we're all friends here no need to get heated.
Minority can be used to represent any subjugated or subordinate group. You can theoretically have more numbers, but lack social power.
In that sense, women are a minority in our society. I would use marginalized group as a more direct term, but it's not inaccurate.
I can't believe you didn't move the fruits to the other side.
Fixed. Was it REALLY that hard Sofitel Brisbane? Really?
That's just fucked up.
Huh. I didn't think minority would be the right word to use -- marginalized group, yeah. But minority? hrm. English sure can be weird.
Let's get a couple of things squared away:
1) Yes, interests and practices associated with femininity are typically seen as vapid or shallow. That's how sexism works. There are myriad factors playing into it, and it doesnt get solved by "well we shouldnt see a problem with that" wishful thinking. Miss me with the "well then you're the sexist one" bull shit.
2) Reinforcing gender norms inherently reinforces power structures, which reinforces systemic sexism. It doesnt matter whether or not you think it should be offensive, because you're not the target of sexism here.
I agree. I doubt they meant anything by it but I am betting they subconsciously made the choice as it "made sense"to them. It's good it is pointed out and it is good they listened. No, we shouldn't just ignore this, the hardest thing to fight on discrimination is the stuff we subconsciously do. Which we'll never get better on if it isn't pointed out.
Well it's an ad meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator right? Typical men and women. If it's accurate to say that men are mostly more interested in finances or golf or martial arts compared to women, who if it's accurate to say, prefer fashion or home improvement or crafts compared to the former topics.. Well you see what I'm saying.
Let's also have ads that aren't common. There should be an initiative within advertisers to address that, flip the scripts, but that doesn't mean a common reflection or sampling of reality in any given ad is harmful. Also, disagreement over the ad is assuming that fashion is a waste of time compared to finances or somehow the lesser topic. Who's to make that decision? Is it the very fact that it's typical that makes it dangerous? In that case, should we be mad that it's a straight male/female couple instead of two men, or two women? Or does it have to be the most atypical set up in order to not declare a message of loyalty to gender norms? Maybe it's not a statement. Maybe it's just an ad doing what ads do, which is appeal to the masses in order for the company to make money.
I recognize it may have small effect of reenforcement, but it's not an aggressive statement, it's a harmless sampling of the reality of the guests at the hotel. Men are less likely to be into women's fashion, women may be less likely to be into a magazine on finances directed at men. This doesn't represent all men and women certainly.
Who the hell is saying that? Ya'll really love to just stuff words into people's mouths. Miss me with that bullshit or join the ignore list.
So, advertising agencies should never be allowed to show what could be considered gender normative behavior in your opinion?
So here's my issue with this. People don't usually comment on media where men are depicted doing something stereotypically masculine. It's only women doing something feminine that's considered sexist, despite the fact that both of them reinforce gender norms. Why? Well because historically "feminine" pursuits were considered lesser pursuits. Growing up, I was regularly congratulated for being into masculine hobbies and interests. I consumed media where the tomboy was depicted as much cooler and more interesting than the girly girl. And as such, I grew up with a lot of internalized misogyny and toxic masculinity. Depicting women in traditionally feminine pursuits is not sexist. Doing it at the expense of other depictions is. What society needs is diversity in it's depictions of men, women, and everyone in-between. Not for people to continue shitting on "girly" things.
That's why I stated that a much better response to the criticism would have been to make a group of ads that with more diversity in how they depicted the people within. Not pull this ad when there was nothing inherently sexist about it.
That's why I stated that a much better response to the criticism would have been to make a group of ads that with more diversity in how they depicted the people within. Not pull this ad when there was nothing inherently sexist about it.
Lets snuff out the outrage with more outrage! Yaa woo!
Just curious. Who or what exactly is allowing outrage culture to exist and who exactly is supposed to stop it and how?
As long as people exist and have a voice, some people are going to be bothered by things that don't bother other people.
People are free to think things are offensive and others are free to think its not.
Just pick your battles. This ad is not a hill I am willing to die on, thats for sure.
"So [colossally stupid straw man extrapolation]?"
No. No one said anything close to that, and you've done it twice in a row now.
To the people getting annoyed over this,
Did you actually read the article? Because if you did you would see that that the journalist just pointed out that she also reads the financial reviews. She wasn't aggressive or in an uproar. In fact she even complemented them on their breakfast.
She never asked for the advert to be pulled down, that was all the hotel doing.
I might be wrong on this, but I think the world of fiance is mostly dominated by men.
I am westerner and I don't wear shoes indoor or on my bed.
Figured as much, bet you that they are mostly men.
Exactly, people are getting outraged over nothing.
Did you actually read the article? Because if you did you would see that that the journalist just pointed out that she also reads the financial reviews. She wasn't aggressive or in an uproar. In fact she even complemented them on their breakfast.
She never asked for the advert to be pulled down, that was all the hotel doing.
I might be wrong on this, but I think the world of fiance is mostly dominated by men.
I am westerner and I don't wear shoes indoor or on my bed.
Figured as much, bet you that they are mostly men.
Exactly, people are getting outraged over nothing.
I'm absolutely baffled at what the issue is then.
The ad is at worst showing a stereotypical gender normative couple.
There is no copy or imagery or anything that comes off as enforcing or trying to demean women.
And I am sorry but this is pretty close to saying what I stated:
You are basically saying that reinforcing gender norms is inherently sexist and offensive, correct? So that would mean that you don't think ad agencies should
push that angle.
How are you not saying that advertising agencies using gender normative imagery is problematic? Are you following your own logic?
Last edited:
You mean disrespecting women as your sentence is not only grammatically wrong, but it's also offensive.
Last edited:
You kinda did though? I mean he's just following your argument from bullet point 2 to it's natural conclusion.
Assuming the ad were legitimately problematic it typifies men just as much as women, so, yeah it kind of does assuming that the ad asserting gender normative stereotypes is stating that it's somehow wrong for me to enjoy a good fashion magazine as much as it is for a woman to enjoy finance.
This has been addressed multiple times already.
Think about it: if they printed 2 ads, and one of them featured a man reading a fashion magazine while a women reads a newspaper, and the other one featured the ad featured in the first post of this topic, the ads would not be gender normative outside of beauty standards.
So obviously, it's FINE to feature men and women in roles that fall within the scope of gender norms as long as that's not ALL that is being featured. Norm is a noun. Normative is an adjective. A norm existing within a context does not automatically make something normative.
I understand those points, but that's why I fail to see the issue with this ad. The books are not ALL that is being featured in this ad
and are mostly window dressing.
Can you find me an ad from that hotel that defies gender norms?
Yes because it's a fucking stereotype and reinforces gender norms. Why can't she be reading finance or something else? *sigh* I would absolutely be offended by this if I were a woman.
The fact that you think that is gender normative is part of the problem. There is nothing inherent in either gender depicted in the ad that means one gender reads one thing, the other something contrasting.
Saying the depiction is gender normative, as in "this is normal for those genders" is itself reinforcing gender stereotypes.
Whole situation is not nornal to begin with. Why would anyone criticize this pic at all? She's even not reading some dumb girl's magazine, and it's still somehow sexist. You are reading financial papers in bed? Ok, go on, this girl isn't you. And why hotel feels need to apology? You know why, actually, they thinking "oh shiit some can see this as sexist, we better do something before controversy starts!". I don't even talking about feminism, it's this apology culture that gone to far. Look at this thread, there are already minorities, privilege and alt-right mentioned somehow - because of coffe table book, just think about it.
People are crazy
Why did someone feel the need to come in and say "Yea but I'm not like that" about something that didn't even really have a message.
Why did someone feel the need to come in and say "Yea but I'm not like that" about something that didn't even really have a message.
I'm laughing at you because it's a coffee table book about fashion, not a book ABOUT coffee tables.
Hence the post below the one quoted about Kramer's coffee table book about coffee tables. Try to keep up.
Nope, probably not. So your issue isn't actually with the depiction in this ad but the fact that it doesn't have a more diverse counterpart?
I've said this before, but I don't think that reinforcing gender stereotypes in inherently a bad thing.
If it crosses the line to be demeaning, pandering, or offensive then I think people should be called out.
However, this seems like an innocent portrayal of what people consider a 'normal' couple to look like.
Again, merely pointing it out =/= does not mean outrage.
Because these biases permeate our society whether we like them or not. It doesn't hurt to point it out so we can be aware of them in the future and actually do something about them.
- Status