When we were watching
the Dodge ad during class on Tuesday, I was offended by how they were
portraying women, but I was also shocked at how they were representing men. The
commercial made it seem like men only do things because women nag them. Is this
commercial assuming that men only go to work so that their wives or girlfriend
stop nagging them? Or only separate the recycling? Not because they want to be
helpful but because they feel like that have to. That discredits men and their
ability to do things by their own volition. I know that there are men who do
things to maintain the house or help their significant other because they want
to, not just to get her to stop nagging him. I do not feel bad for men, as the
response ad suggested sarcastically, but I don't think that this represents men
well either.
After reading Frye, I
now believe that oppressors cannot be oppressed. I had never thought about it
that way before, but I think that it is true. There are individual acts of
sexism towards men, but overall, they cannot be oppressed in the same way
because they are the oppressors. This is because they set up the system of oppression
and because they are responsible, we should not fight against the
"oppression" of men.
That being said, I still
think that commercials like this need to be eliminated from TV because they harm
both women and men. I think that the makers of the commercial were being
sarcastic, but they are still perpetuating ideas about genders and gender
roles. If I had not been presented this commercial in class, I would have been
offended by it but I would not have really thought about it, and I think most
Americans are the same way. The humor of the ad also detracts from people
thinking about the social implications.
I found the responses
very interesting as well. Especially when Dr. J pointed out that most of the
things the women said could not be applied to men, but everything a man said
applied to women as well. That is what really drove the point home for me. Men may
have a negative stereotypes, but they are nothing compared to stereotypes that
are used against women.
I seem to be extra
sensitive to these issues since our class started and being aware of such
sexism and oppression has really change how I see everyday interactions. I haven’t
seen many commercials yet, but I know that I will be a lot more conscious. Do
you feel the same way? Have there been things that you have noticed recently as
well?
If you are right that the producers of the "Ram" commercial were writing in jest, effectively satirizing the way in which men portray themselves as victims, then why should the commercial be taken down? I think you may very well be correct, that the commercial is joking, but the joke is at the expense of men. This comes to an interesting question about critique through art, if you can call that commercial art: is the "oppressor" impervious to shame? My answer would be yes. Unfortunately, that makes the issue of restructuring the hegemonic class much more difficult. In India, for example, Anna Hazare uses shame specifically to tackle issues of corruption. His culture enables this form of social progress. It is obvious that such a move will not work in the United States for example; however, there must be some other ways to draw attention to these issues. Does not the hyperbolic nature of the "ram" commercial eventuate the peculiarity of the "ball-and-chain" perspective held by many men?
ReplyDeleteMichelle, I think you make some good points. I too seem to be extra sensitive to the issues of sexism since the class started. However, I do not know if completely taking the commercials off the air would do any significant good. Since the commercial is used in a joking manner at the expense of men, I do not think that people would find it reasonable to take it off the air. Although it would seem like it would be a step in the right direction to ending the sexist behavior, I simply can't seem to find enough justification for the commercial to stop airing. I do agree with garta though, i think that this commercial just shows that the oppressor is incapable of shame. Even removing the commercial would not discontinue the sexist mindset.
ReplyDeleteI think commercials are a particularly interesting form of sexism. They not only sell products, they sell ideas and images that they know will be perceived well by viewers. This commercial is really interesting because it places the oppression on the oppressor. It's like we discussed in class, men can choose to go into the birdcage when they want to but also have the choice to leave.
ReplyDeleteI find commercialism and sexism a really interesting connection. I'm sad I was sick during that class period.
If the oppressors cannot be oppressed, can we really say that this commercial is humorous at the expense of men? I understand that it was attempting to show how men are "oppressed," but I can't help but feel like it was still largely at the expense of women.
ReplyDeleteMost of the complaints that these men had in the commercial made reference to stereotypical attributes of women, namely the nagging or needy woman. Even though it is a male narrator delivering the message, it seems like the commercial is still oppressive to women.