While at first, the advertisement for the Dodge Charger seems overtly sexist and offensive towards women, I do not believe that it is. My reason for this claim lies in the words of the original ad itself, and the voice-over version of the video we watched in class.
First and foremost, nowhere in the original ad are women mentioned or shown, and it takes over half the “I wills” to get to something that can be close to positively identified as something a man would do for a women, but even then all the “I wills” are things that can be considered done out of necessity rather than being "oppressed" by a female in a relationship. Also, in the original ad, the man speaks in a rather somber, monotone voice, much unlike the parody with the voiceover.
In the parody, however, the woman speaking takes a much harsher tone that seems very critical and angry, and even though she sounds much different, until she gets to the end of the ad, says the same exact thing as the man. If she had followed the script verbatim, it would be perfectly gender neutral, with the only part mentioning any sort of gender being the “Man’s Last Stand” that pops up on the screen. The voice-over female version of the ad seems more offensive than the male version, especially with her tone of voice and diatribe at the end.
It is important to note too, the circumstances upon which this ad was aired on television. It was shown during the Super Bowl, and clearly has a target audience which I have no qualms saying was a majority of men. This ad was meant to serve the purpose of showing the men watching that it is a car they should drive.
Although the ad may seem sexist and offensive, the same exact script and type of advertisement could be used to effectively market a product to women, as long as a woman is used as the speaker and it could even then still say “Women’s Last Stand” at the end. I think we are taking a particular, prescriptive view of this ad given the context of our discussions that puts a certain weight and perspective on the ad that we would not do if we were to just see it on tv.
What I want to ask then, is if the ad was reversed (to Women’s Last Stand), with the same script, and a different product was used, would it still get the negative attention and outcries of sexism that it does now, in its current version?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEven though I may somewhat agree with what you are saying, Matthew; I do find it offensive after the realization that the "I wills" are related to women. The men look completely miserable, and make relationships seem like they are a bunch of chores led by naggy bitchy women who don't give those men everything (their bodies, minds, and time).
ReplyDeleteBut going back to your question, I do agree that if the roles were reversed and the ad was for a women's product it would not have as much negative attention. The reason to that is because even if the men are criticized in an ad or called out, reality is, they have supremacy in the social hierarchy and it really wouldn't affect it. In other words, even when criticized male dominance in a patriarchal society will still be carried out.
I disagree that this ad isn't sexist, or that the "I will"s are gender neutral. If the declarations were gender neutral, then why is it declared "Man's Last Stand"? Why isn't the person making declarations an unidentifiable gender? Then it could be "Everyone's Last Stand", and Dodge could sell cars to everyone. But this isn't the case. Dodge is selling cars using a gender stereotype, and ultimately in their commercial, they are granting men "power" through driving a fast car. You mentioned the super bowl audience targeting men, so why would Dodge use gender neutral tactics?
ReplyDeleteWomen don't need to be shown or mentioned in the ad. The point is clearly made especially at the end: Man's Last Stand. What is "man" standing up against? Their male partners? Their male roommates? Man is standing up against women, not other men.
I can certainly see this "Woman's Last Stand" phrase being used in another commercial and causing inflammatory reactions. Your key point there was that it would be used for a different product. I imagine that it would be for a cleaning product, like a Swiffer mop. It would show women chasing around children, muddy dogs, and lazy husbands making messes around the house. At the end, a trim woman would be dancing with her Swiffer mop: Woman's Last Stand. And of course people would be outraged, because it would be marketing using yet again another gender biased stereotype: that women are domestic and have children and husbands.
I agree with you in part. Whereas I don't think that the creators of this commercial were trying to intentionally be offensive or sexist, they were if only in part because they are perpetuating the stereotypes set forth by society. What I find truly offensive is the idea that these stereotypes are so ingrained in society that when I watched this commercial last year for the Super Bowl, I didn’t think anything about it. That is the same attitude that most people probably have towards this commercial. However, it is subtly perpetuating the stereotype that woman are nagging, annoying, and something that men just have to “deal with”. Media, like this commercial, reinforce that idea, not only in young men, but also in young women.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Huntley; I think the ad is sexist. The ad might have been made with a woman's voice but, as Huntley noted, it probably would have been about a mop or maybe a shampoo or conditioner. The problem is that the ad reaches for all of the negative stereotypes about women in a relationship and makes the man the completely put upon victim. Keyana asked a question about what stereotypes mean and do to us. Let's look at the ideal stereotype for a domestic woman, June Cleaver. She cleans; she takes care of the children; she cooks. The phrases in the ad depict a woman who cannot reach that ideal. She does her husband's laundry but wants him to put his clothes in the basked (shame). She is in the kitchen and wants to make sure that he eats something healthy. She involves him in the process of the relationship in a way that somehow makes her a villain, an imperfect woman (or the perfect embodiment of one negative stereotype, the nagging bitch) and him completely exhausted. If this commercial had been made about a woman, I assume the idea would have been that she deserves a reward for all of the things that she does, not that her partner is a useless, nagging tool. Certainly, the Swiffer or Herbal Essence wouldn't have burst forth in what Ariel noted was some weird ejaculatory gesture. I don't know; maybe this is an overreaction natural to a class on Feminism, but I really don't think so.
ReplyDelete