Comments on: The Super Bowl and Madison Avenue Misogyny

By: FeministLookingGlass

FeministLookingGlass — Fri, 12 Feb 2010 00:17:29 +0000

http://feministlookingglass.com/2010/02/11/feminist-rebuttal-to-sexist-dodge-commercial/

[...] featured an onslaught of sexist commercials, apparently geared towards men who feel ‘emasculated’ [...]

By: P.T. Smith

P.T. Smith — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 13:37:10 +0000

“and it sounds to me (having watched some interviews as well) that Hall is in-character as Dexter in that commercial. ”

Yeah, at first I was dismissive of the Dexter connection, but once I saw the ad, yeah, even if he isn’t “playing Dexter,” and the audience has no idea who or what Dexter is, he is using a very, very similiar tone, and there is a reason he uses that tone in Dexter. So, yeah, adding to the creep factor.

By: lauredhel

lauredhel — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 12:37:39 +0000

Dexter relies heavily on first-person voiceover, and it sounds to me (having watched some interviews as well) that Hall is in-character as Dexter in that commercial. (I found a youtube version here.) Which, yes, adds to the creep factor.

By: tinfoil hattie

tinfoil hattie — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 09:40:46 +0000

why discount what it did well?

Because I disagree that it did something “well.” Hence the terms “boring, trivial, cliched.”

As part of the other 51% of the population, I’m not all that influenced by some fictional dude finding some fictional “French girl” to marry.

By: PTS

PTS — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 06:58:58 +0000

Is the Michael Hall/serial killer thing a joke? I certainly hope so.

By: Red Stapler

Red Stapler — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:09:30 +0000

@tinfoil hattie: Yes, but it was charming and romantic, and told a story, which can’t be said about most of the ads this year.

There was an elegance to the storytelling that is missing in a lot of media today, let alone our advertising.

That it’s from a male POV and heteronormative shouldn’t be ignored, but why discount what it did well?

By: tinfoil hattie

tinfoil hattie — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:13:18 +0000

Implicit to the ad’s very concept is the assumption that this man has agency in his decisions to love, to marry, and to have a family life.

Yes. Another story about a man. A man with agency, which women don’t have in patriarchy. A presumably heterosexual man, because he’s a “mignon” looking for a French “girl.”

Assumes men want to get married; assumes men are the pursuers; assumes men are heterosexual.

Boring, trivial, cliched.

By: Ginjoint

Ginjoint — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 18:07:56 +0000

I agree with Angie and Nicole – that Bridgestone ad? I was sitting on my couch, but my jaw was on the floor. The implication of impending gang-rape was right there, no doubt about it. And hey! My car does need new tires. Guess which kind I won’t be buying.

By: PrettyAmiable

PrettyAmiable — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:59:38 +0000

inconsistent*

By: PrettyAmiable

PrettyAmiable — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:58:52 +0000

Wait, why hasn’t this prick been banned yet? Can we get on this? He or she has actually been going post to post to berate those of us who have an opinion that is consistent with his or hers. We’re uncivil, we have nothing better to do with our time, etc. I’m done. Can we have a call (and a nomination for the Next Top Troll)?