Young girls at Dairy Queen are evil
Tue, 2008-05-06 06:03
#1
rural - Francesca
Young girls at Dairy Queen are evil
Tue, 2008-05-06 06:03
#2
rural - Francesca
[url=http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1014998]Letter to the editor[/url]
[b]My response:[/b]
There are not a lot of things that make me laugh out loud, you know, the big guffaw. But recently there were two incidents that just took me by surprise and I burst out into gales of laughter.
The first was an ad from Dairy Queen. You know the one where the little girl declines a sundae only to have an equally young boy buy her one; quipping to her mother “it’s like shooting fish in a barrel”. Fell off the couch laughing I did, brilliant I thought, a strong young girl.
The second was when I read the letter to the editor concern the same commercial.
With all the bad commercials out there, the writer chose THIS one to write about.
She (yes SHE) didn’t write about the Corell Dinnerware commercial where Corell seeks to prove how durable their dinnerware is by making women fall down – because making women fall and hurt themselves is perfectly acceptable.
She didn’t write bout the Axe brand commercials where women are reduced to over sexualized women, where young men are taught that women are on this planet simply for their pleasure. Not to mention the paradox that Unilever makes Axe and Dove. So out of one side of their mouth they are telling women about ‘real’ beauty and out of the other – women are objects. Unilever doesn’t’ get any of my household income.
She didn’t write about the Coors Light commercials where men are trying to get into the Coors Light Mansion to hang out with barely clothed women, a male directed marketing campaign despite my son telling me that Coors Light is a “girls” beer. So if a girl wins the contest and gets into the Coors Light Mansion – then what?
So we have one, ONE commercial with a woman in a position of power; she’s using her friendship with a boy to get a free sundae. Yet against the onslaught of anti-woman images we encounter daily, this is the one commercial worth flogging as wrong?
I don’t think so.
Watching television we are led to believe that women are young, white, with large breasts and preoccupied with looks and fashion. They are dependant upon men for approval, protection and are the caregivers and nurturers of families, and specifically children. They are often the victim of circumstances and violence, which tends to always have sexual overtones.
Men are portrayed as invulnerable emotionless and always in control. Fast cars, booze, buddies and babes dominate their interest. They achieve their goals often through violence, but they also come in all sorts of colours, shapes and sizes. They provide the voice that ‘informs’ as they are the ones who seem to know best.
So rather than focusing on one commercial, where for once, there is a strong confident young lady, lets turn our attention to the commercials that tell us that she will grow up to decorate a product, only valued for her physical assets and her ability to use her sexuality to ‘sell’ whatever she is told to sell. That’s what needs to change on TV.
In terms of finding anti-woman messages on TV; it’s like shooting fish in a barrel.
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PtMDnkl88c]Corelle Dinner Ware[/url]
Tue, 2008-05-06 06:20
#3
Maysie
Hot damn I've missed you, rural - Fransesca!
Women policing other women is one of the oldest patriarchal tools in the book. Sadly, our friend Helen fits right into that.
Tue, 2008-05-06 06:26
#4
rural - Francesca
I've lurked but things got a bit crazy and I had to 'regroup".
I just couldn't believe this when I read the letter in the paper this morning.
(thanks for the cheers)
Tue, 2008-05-06 07:30
#5
I'm sorry but the commercial shows a young, pretty child using her looks to get a boy to buy her something it's far from original.
She bats her eyes and the boy buys her things, how is this any different than the rest of what little girls are taught? How is this not utterly anti-feminist?
The little brat should have bought her own Sundae with money she earned cutting grass.
Strong confident women don't need men to buy them things, nor should we reward a kid for using her looks to get what she wants and snickering about how easy it is to use her looks to get what she wants instead of, oh I don't know, her brain?
quote:
So rather than focusing on one commercial, where for once, there is a strong confident young lady, lets turn our attention to the commercials that tell us that she will grow up to decorate a product, only valued for her physical assets and her ability to use her sexuality to ‘sell’ whatever she is told to sell.
This commercial is just the pre-teen version of what's to come, pretending it's otherwise is a stretch for me.
Tue, 2008-05-06 08:55
#6
While it's great to see a confident young girl, it is problematic for a woman to use her looks for power ( not that there is no power in female sexuality- although she is a little young for that). Our society's enourmous madonna/whore complex can make that a source of oppression instead of liberation if care is not taken.
Tue, 2008-05-06 09:24
#7
Kudos, Francesca for writing to the Editor with your views. I think it’s great that you take the time to do that, but I have to agree with Scout – a strong, confident woman buys her own Sundae. I think the DQ commercial plays on the stereotype of women manipulating men with their looks. I agree that the Axe and Coors Light commercials are worse but I don’t think DQ should be congratulated on reversing gender stereotypes or depicting a strong confident women. How often does a woman buy a man a drink?
I read the letter to the Editor and the writer does not suggest that the girl is evil for using her feminine wiles to procure a Sundae. She seems to dislike the commercial because it plays like a bad movie and plays up on the stereotype that attractive women can get free food/drink from men.
I’ve never watched an Axe or a Coors commercial and questioned the self-esteem of the women in them. I’ve questioned the reality of the situation and have shaken my head that people buy the products as a result…I would argue that it takes a much stronger and more confident woman to jump a man because she likes his deodorant/cologne or to parade around a mansion in lingerie, than it takes to get a free sundae. The issue with all these commercials is what they suggest a strong, confident woman is or should be like.
Tue, 2008-05-06 09:28
#8
The ad was a form of satire. And the response, just another person with no sense of humour. And the sense of sexuality in a pre-teen. BS. My brother still does a great impression of my daughter milking me for a pair of designer jeans because she "only had two." You can look at life and laugh at it, or you can appreciate it for what it is. ANd if what you're saying is girls should adopt a more manish way of getting or asking for things, I'm gonna have to brand you as a HIggins. "Why can't a woman be more like a man?" Sorry, I'm not buying it. And don't even start the sexist role models growing up. My daughter loved pink dresses, dolls and stuffed toys growing up and now she's an engineer.
Some people just don't know when to laugh. I'd say they have "issues" but my wife made m promise to stop saying that.
Tue, 2008-05-06 09:39
#9
Maysie
Hi retiredguy. Re. coming in to the feminist forum and lecturing women. It's highly advised you don't do that.
As for the commercial, which I haven't seen, I agree that it's clearly reiterating stereotypes which is sexist and not feminist. But I'm very happy to see rural fran again, I love her narrative style, and I need to be clear that [i]how[/i] women respond, like the letter writer, can also reiterate sexism.
I know that within sexism women have limited choices laid out for us and what many women have already done (sorry retired guy, this has been going on for several decades) is push out and over. I also know that sexuality has been reclaimed in different ways. Not that this ad, from the descriptions, is doing that.
Tue, 2008-05-06 09:46
#10
Really happy to see rural Fran back again, and your writing style is captivating and brilliant as always.
Tue, 2008-05-06 09:48
#11
Timebandit
quote:
I read the letter to the Editor and the writer does not suggest that the girl is evil for using her feminine wiles to procure a Sundae. She seems to dislike the commercial because it plays like a bad movie and plays up on the stereotype that attractive women can get free food/drink from men.
Getting free drinks from men thing has burned more than one pretty young thing, too. Doped drink leading to rape is not that uncommon.
I think we're better off teaching our daughters independence over manipulation. That's what I'm teaching mine, anyway.
Tue, 2008-05-06 09:49
#12
So as you see rural Fran, you can say pretty much what you want as long as you continue to say it so well. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Had I realised you were gone, I would have missed you too. I have to say though, that without having seen the ad, I'm inclined to agree with scout. The ad sounds dreadful.
Tue, 2008-05-06 11:15
#13
rural - Francesca
How can a child, approximate age of 10, use her "sexuality" to get the free sundea?
What is sexual about a 10 year old?
My frustration and response to the letter writer, was the fact that she simply chose THAT commercial to write in about, out of all the crap out there.
It would be like standing beside the tar sands and chewing out your neighbour for not recycling his newspaper. Yeah he's wrong, but holy big picture batman!
[it's nice to be missed [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] ]
Tue, 2008-05-06 11:39
#14
Manipulation of others is pretty much the first thing that anyone learns. baby quickly learns that a high pitched wail will bring Mumy scurrying, children quickly learn how to guilt parents into getting what they want, we quickly learn our sibs' hot buttons, the first week of classes are spent learning where the boundaries of the teachers' envelopes occur. it would seem manipulation (and its adult extension of greed) is basic to human society.
More than anything, this ad overtly points to our culture's quest to eliminate childhood. We don't allow children to be children anymore, but now are viewed as mini-adults waiting to grow into adult bodies. We don't allow children just to go out and play anymore: play-dates must be arranged, kids are ferried around town to their 'appointments' in SUV's like visiting dignitaries to their expensive organized activities. Pre-pubescent girls demanding piercings and make-up. My nine-year old nephew said he wanted a gym membership, so he could be "buff."
Ten year olds with daytimers is so wrong.
People have a lifetime to be greedy, corrupt and shallow and manipulative, why do we force this upon our children?
Tue, 2008-05-06 11:44
#15
Timebandit
quote:
How can a child, approximate age of 10, use her "sexuality" to get the free sundea?
What is sexual about a 10 year old?
Maybe that's what's so creepy about the whole thing, the use of a sexualized precocity...
[ 06 May 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]
Tue, 2008-05-06 11:46
#16
quote:
The ad was a form of satire.
I'm killing myself laughing over this. DQ doing satire? Snort! That sounds like an article from The Onion.
Tue, 2008-05-06 11:48
#17
quote:
Maybe that's what's so creepy about the whole thing, the use of a sexualized precocity...
Exactly. She seems so jaded too, which is also creepy.
Tue, 2008-05-06 12:00
#18
rural - Francesca
But why wouldn't we be jaded?
I know in my worst poverty sticken moments I have manipulated groceries out of parents, boyfriends, friends, neighbours, want-ta-be boyfriends.
When you are left powerless by your gender, using what God gave you as a last resort is just reality.
Tue, 2008-05-06 12:03
#19
quote:
Originally posted by rural - Francesca:
[b]My frustration and response to the letter writer, was the fact that she simply chose THAT commercial to write in about, out of all the crap out there.[/b]
I agree, and that's where the focus should be. It's just that when you frame it as a defence of the DQ ad, the focus tends to shift.
Tue, 2008-05-06 12:13
#20
rural - Francesca
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I agree, and that's where the focus should be. It's just that when you frame it as a defence of the DQ ad, the focus tends to shift.[/b]
Ahh my "it's not so bad as _____" derailed the rant a bit.
Gotcha
Tue, 2008-05-06 12:25
#21
quote:
But why wouldn't we be jaded?
I didn't say we, I said "she", the 10 year old. The "shooting fish" comment is a bit jaded for a 10 year old and that's disturbing.
And I think it is as bad as most ads, so why not rant about a jaded ten year old trading on her looks? It wasn't an article it's a letter to the editor, so I don't feel this person is required to include all sorts of context and examples of other ads and how much worse they may be and why. I think under the circumstances you can rant about a single ad without being told you didn't rant far and wide enough to have your opinion be valid. How do you even know what commercials she has seen?
quote:
When you are left powerless by your gender, using what God gave you as a last resort is just reality.
Well that makes it okay then, go DQ.
Tue, 2008-05-06 13:18
#22
It's not just offensive to women, it's also misleading. I wish Corelleware actually did that. Instead it seems to explode all over my kitchen when I drop it.
Tue, 2008-05-06 17:30
#23
quote:
Originally posted by rural - Francesca:
[b]How can a child, approximate age of 10, use her "sexuality" to get the free sundea?What is sexual about a 10 year old?
My frustration and response to the letter writer, was the fact that she simply chose THAT commercial to write in about, out of all the crap out there.
It would be like standing beside the tar sands and chewing out your neighbour for not recycling his newspaper. Yeah he's wrong, but holy big picture batman!
[it's nice to be missed [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] ][/b]
The coors light and axe deoderent ads are about adults.
This dairy queen ad is about kids, and a lot of people are worried about the corporate ambition to sexualize kids.
*****
Here is a link to a slate.com story profiling how disney is using prebuscent girls to sell cute underwear. [url=http://www.slate.com/id/2190209/]http://www.slate.com/id/2190209/[/url] It would be ridiculous to say these ads are not worrisome due to the fact Calvin Klein ads are worse.
[ 06 May 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Tue, 2008-05-06 17:51
#24
Timebandit
quote:
I know in my worst poverty sticken moments I have manipulated groceries out of parents, boyfriends, friends, neighbours, want-ta-be boyfriends.When you are left powerless by your gender, using what God gave you as a last resort is just reality.
Oh, give me a fucking break! [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
I'd rather go hungry than manipulate groceries out of anybody. Ask for, sure, but manipulate? What an utter cop-out. "Sure, I'm manipulative, but it's because I'm a girl that I have no choice!"
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Tue, 2008-05-06 18:25
#25
I think that Francesca was actually sharing a personal experience here, saying that she did that herself when she was desperate to put food on the table during a time when she was impoverished.
Tue, 2008-05-06 19:03
#26
Timebandit
Yup, in the context of saying it's perfectly all right to manipulate people and I responded. I've been impoverished and I've gone hungry -- I've never used poverty or my sex as an excuse for manipulating anyone. I think it's wrong and a justification that I find ethically distasteful.
Tue, 2008-05-06 19:06
#27
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]I think that Francesca was actually sharing a personal experience here, saying that she did that herself when she was desperate to put food on the table during a time when she was impoverished.[/b]
Some might feel it is never ok to exploit other human beings.
When I was hungry and fearing I was going to flunk out of school (couldn't afford reading glasses to see the blackboard, textbooks, etc), I signed up for clinical trials. Francesca manipulated "wanna-be-boyfriends" in exchange for groceries. I don't think she has any conception of what she did to those men or to the future women in their lives.
[ 06 May 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Tue, 2008-05-06 20:16
#28
Are there threads on babble on "Commercials I hate," or "Commercials I like"?
I wanted to say something about this advert, then I saw it discussed here, but I feel out-of-place in a feminist forum.
Wed, 2008-05-07 00:10
#29
[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=002253&p=... you go![/url]
Wed, 2008-05-07 05:04
#30
rural - Francesca
yep that's me
I will do or say anything to ensure a roof over my children's head and food on their table.
So will tons of other women in the same circumstance.
And as long as Ontario Works workers tell women to "find a man" when they complain they need more money, women will continue to 'prostitute' themselves for the basic needs of life.
That makes them strong women, not weak women, because they put their children first.
Wed, 2008-05-07 05:13
#31
It's one thing to do what you gotta do it's another to suggest that a 10 year old using manipulation to get shit she doesn't need is some how a role model.
So which is it? Is manipulation something you do when it needs to be done but something we should be working to remove the need for or something we praise little girls for picking up so quickly?
[ 07 May 2008: Message edited by: Scout ]
[ 07 May 2008: Message edited by: Scout ]
Wed, 2008-05-07 06:07
#32
rural - Francesca
Totally agree that 10 year old girls should have to worry about roofs and food.
I showed this thread to my 18 year old daughter last night and then the commercial was on again.
We watched more carefully and the young girls is definately under 11 years of age, most likely 9 or 10. She had a dress on with a sweater over top, no serious skin showing etc.
She just smiles at the little boy and waves.
Typical little kid "romantic" stuff that occurs at that age. You know, when you're kid gets engaged in kindergarten and it lasts until grade 1 when the boyfriend ditches her for showing the other boys her undewear (because it's shocking to do that).
There is nothing 'sexual' about her actions, and anyone who sees sexuality in it, is creepy.
Wed, 2008-05-07 06:27
#33
Well, people are sexual from the day they are born until the day they die (which in no way excuses the sexual exploitation of children). It worries me when that is denied.
Wed, 2008-05-07 06:33
#34
rural - Francesca
I'm sorry but I totally disagree with you on that point
Wed, 2008-05-07 06:35
#35
One point that I haven't seen anyone making -- as some launched into the too-familiar "railing at women for being immoral" trope -- is that the young female character in the DQ commercial didn't have to use her looks, wiles, sex or whatever to get that sundae. Her mother had already offered it to her! My reading is that she used the sundae to make contact with that boy and mentioned how easy that proved to be - men being so intent on using money to impress women. Does anyone really need to complain to the CHRC about that or to trounce women's choices about how they get what they want? Sheesh!
Wed, 2008-05-07 06:39
#36
Francesca, on what grounds? That is a fairly basic psychological understanding. It doesn't mean that children should be exploited sexually or even that they should have sex with each other. Very small children masturbate. Sexual curiosity is a vital part of being a human being.
I haven't seen the commercial - never watch TV. But I agree with martin that it seems the little girl is far more interested in the boy than the sundae. Reminds me of childhood crushes I've had...
Wed, 2008-05-07 07:07
#37
rural - Francesca
It amazes me that the focus has become on the DQ commercial.
Again I ask, why are we trashing that commercial, when there are so many others out there
Wed, 2008-05-07 07:10
#38
Timebandit
Ummm... 'Cause you started a thread on it?
[img]confused.gif" border="0[/img]
Wed, 2008-05-07 07:13
#39
rural - Francesca
quote:
Originally posted by lagatta:
[b]Francesca, on what grounds? That is a fairly basic psychological understanding. It doesn't mean that children should be exploited sexually or even that they should have sex with each other. Very small children masturbate. Sexual curiosity is a vital part of being a human being. [/b]
Feeling 'pleasure' from body parts, as a child, isn't sexual under the same definition for teens and adults (IMHO)
Wed, 2008-05-07 07:14
#40
Indeed, and that is the title of this thread.
There have been MANY threads on this and other boards over the years, on sexist, violent, stereotypical and/or exploitative publicity, and also on the hypocrisy of certain companies and brands (American Apparel and Unilever -Dove but also Axe - come to mind).
I still don't understand on what grounds you can think children are asexual. The fact that they ARE sexual, but not yet able to exercise adult judgements, is one of the reasons they need protection from predators.
Wed, 2008-05-07 07:30
#41
rural - Francesca
quote:
Originally posted by Timebandit:
[b]Ummm... 'Cause you started a thread on it?[img]confused.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
My intent, so lost now, was to position the letter to the editor, spurred by the DQ ad, against the onslaught of more horrifying images we endure daily.
My point seems to have become lost in a nit picking session of questionable motivation and adherence to standards beyond simplicity
Wed, 2008-05-07 07:54
#42
quote:
Again I ask, why are we trashing that commercial, when there are so many others out there
Why talk about Tibet when the Palestinians are suffer so? Why shouldn’t we talk about this commercial? I think some of us are enjoying some good quality Feminist discourse in the Feminism Forum for a change and even have some differing reason why the ad isn’t Feminist to us and we even have one person who think it is pro-feminist and she hasn’t been run out of the forum yet, I think this thread is great. Of course we do have a man finger wagging about morals or immorals or some such nonsense but we can ignore that.
quote:
There is nothing 'sexual' about her actions, and anyone who sees sexuality in it, is creepy.
I'm sorry, people who see a child mimic adult behaviours that are in fact sexual are the creepy ones? Are we playing I know you are but what am I now?
Personally I said she traded on her looks, I never mentioned sexuality and yet I still think the ad is demeaning to women. Pretty, flirty girls get free shit - that's wrong on a level some what removed from sexualizing children for profit.
The "shooting fish" comment raises the stakes though - this isn't simple childish flirting, which apparently is now an asexual behaviour, but a jaded cynical comment an adult might make about using people.
This was a kiddie version of a guy sending over a drink to a women in bar - pretending it isn’t an adult scenario, laden with the adult connotations and stereotypes is weak Feminist analysis, the advertiser is counting on the audience getting the subtext. The girl spots an anonymous boy, uses her looks to get something for nothing and then laughs about his stupidity at falling for her tricks. This isn’t some cute grade school crush, it’s a commercial that portrays a shitty stereotype of women being shallow manipulators that naive men get taken advantage of by and should watch out for all to sell a frickin sundae.
I don’t care if a woman trades on her looks because she wants to but I won’t pretend it isn’t nicely tucked in there with what the patriarchy wants and pat her on the back for it. This commercial sucks and pretending otherwise does a disservice to all the not so mainstreamly cute but smart and industrious little girls out there who buy their own sundae’s and one for the homeless guy outside. Instead we have people defending manipulation for manipulation sake and generic white bread beauty standard as feminist role models and suggesting that we are creepy for seeing it or moralizing prigs for being irate.
quote:
My intent, so lost now, was to position the letter to the editor, spurred by the DQ ad, against the onslaught of more horrifying images we endure daily.
My point seems to have become lost in a nit picking session of questionable motivation and adherence to standards beyond simplicity
Now hold on a second, this is the Feminist Forum and you posited something as being a positive example for young women, many of us disagree and quite clearly articulated why. It’s not nit picking, it’s discussion. Whose motivation is questionable, and I am asking that seriously? People disagree with you, no harm no foul except your tone is staring to ooze sour grapes because people disagree with what you posted.
quote:
So we have one, ONE commercial with a woman in a position of power; she’s using her friendship with a boy to get a free sundae. Yet against the onslaught of anti-woman images we encounter daily, this is the one commercial worth flogging as wrong?
I don’t think so.Watching television we are led to believe that women are young, white, with large breasts and preoccupied with looks and fashion. They are dependant upon men for approval, protection and are the caregivers and nurturers of families, and specifically children. They are often the victim of circumstances and violence, which tends to always have sexual overtones.
Being pretty isn’t a position of power and abusing any form of power isn’t Feminism, your heroine from the first point is the star of your second point too.
Wed, 2008-05-07 07:58
#43
At the risk of courting "thread drift", an expression as vague as "being sexual" almost invites misinterpretation by some and exploitation by others, who feel or assert that all sexual interactions are essentially good, and often defend sex with minors on that basis - or dismiss opponents of this as treating children as asexual.
This is usually done by focussing the discussion on children's sexual nature, thus displacing from view older persons' too-common interest in sexual interaction with as young a person as possible.
I am not saying that anyone here is specifically doing this here, but discourse about children being sexual from the moment of birth opens the door very wide to such advocacy, especially when we take into account - as we should - what "being sexual" means for older people. Caveats such as "X doesn't mean Y" aren't enough: one has to be aware of what use is made of essentialist/naive concepts in this very real patriarchy we live in, where sex is too often conceptualized and used as a form of power over people, the younger and more disposessed the better.
Wed, 2008-05-07 08:40
#44
rural - Francesca
interesting points all around
Let me try and sort my thoughts for a second
If I had a choice between Axe type commercials and the DQ commercial, I'd go for the DQ commercial.
I like the commercial because the female is in control of the situation, not a victim of circumstance - as per most commercials.
Is there a case to be made that it portrays the wrong kind of feminine power, I think so too, but a little noise on the "over the top inappropriate feminine power" will hardly be heard over the roar of objectification that dominates the airways.
As for the letter to the editor writer, my response was to call into question the motivation in picking on the DQ commercial.
If she had wanted to write about 'bad' commercials; across the board, then she would have so many to chose from she could fill an edition of the paper (at least Monday's anyway). Yet she chose the ONE commercial that show female dominance, and therefore I question her motivation.
I also believe in the commercial the two children are known to each other, I have no proof, but that's the sense I get. Ten year old girls don't ten to wave at boys they don't know.
Wed, 2008-05-07 08:52
#45
I can't add anything to what Scout said so convincingly just above. I find the DQ commercial repulsive -- perhaps inherently of more concern than the Axe or the various beer commercials as it's trying to disguise itself as cute and harmless when it is neither.
Also, from my feminist point of view, that little girl is portrayed as obnoxious -- she's not at all like so many of the smart little girls whom I know and like.
Wed, 2008-05-07 09:29
#46
quote:
If I had a choice between Axe type commercials and the DQ commercial, I'd go for the DQ commercial.
I’d go for the Axe one, adult women being horny doesn’t offend me – yes there are things that are wrong with the ads but horny women don’t bother me, sexualized children do. But I’m open to being convinced the Axe ads really are awful instead of silly.
quote:
I like the commercial because the female is in control of the situation, not a victim of circumstance - as per most commercials.
The female is a minor child and we still are going to have to disagree on the amount of control. Control is walking up and paying for what you want, relying on your looks only works if you are found attractive to the person your attempting to manipulate, that's iffy – you also can’t control the response of the guy after you manipulate him into giving you something – cause nothing is ever free and there is going to be an expectation of return on his investment. This makes it look like you can get what you want by being cute and there won’t be any consequences, it doesn’t show how ugly a guy can get when his drink doesn’t get him into your pants. Instead the guy looks like a chump. End of story. As opposed to what would really happen if we saw the stereotype alive and well in a club on a Saturday night downtown.
Using your looks to get what you want isn’t female dominance, it’s an illusion, it’s a manifestation of the patriarchy not mention probably the dominant white culture as well. She is still relying on a man to provide for her instead of providing for herself so I see no control or power in her hands at all, she has to do something to please him and hope to get what she wants. There is an implicit sexual offer in this type of manipulation you can see that right?
quote:
I also believe in the commercial the two children are known to each other, I have no proof, but that's the sense I get. Ten year old girls don't ten to wave at boys they don't know.
Ten year olds don’t make comments about “shooting fish in a barrel” either.
Wed, 2008-05-07 11:48
#47
quote:
Originally posted by rural - Francesca:
[b]interesting points all around
If I had a choice between Axe type commercials and the DQ commercial, I'd go for the DQ commercial.[/b]
I'm for the Axe commercial. I'm tired of ad agencies attempting to make kids act like adults.
Wed, 2008-05-07 11:50
#48
After seeing this commercial a couple of times over the past few days - I was compelled to talk about it with colleagues of mine at a sexual abuse treatment centre. We often share discourse about the mixed messages that young girls are constantly fielding - the lolita-esque school girl slut image that Brittany Spears capitalized on comes to mind. The DQ ad clearly uses an adult sub-text in the guise of being cute.
It ain't cute - and as long as people find little girls acting in sexualized or precocious ways cute, we have our work cut out for us.
The ad is creepy. There is nothing funny about it.
Fri, 2008-05-09 08:35
#49
[url=http://feministing.com/archives/009165.html]Feministing is having the same conversation (and they posted the video)[/url]
Fri, 2008-05-09 11:53
#50
laine lowe
When I first saw that ad, I thought the interplay between the young girl and boy was cute and fairly accurate since I remember that kind of flirtation at that age but the punch line about "shooting fish in a barrel" definitely put it in creepy territory. I'm sure the ad creative thought they were being clever by spinning innocence on it's head with a jaded adult perspective on what happens at pick-up joints.
On subsequent viewing (and commercials are a repetitive reality), the subtext is very clear and the manipulative female messaging upsetting.
There's another ad campaign that portrays kids of a similar age as middle aged, out of shape adults. That one is clever in hitting you over the head that adults need more healthy and active lives to stave off premature aging.
Fri, 2008-05-09 12:13
#51
Yeah, I'm creeped out by it too. In order to tell you why, I'd just have to rewrite everything that Scout said. Instead, I'll just say, "What Scout said." [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
You know what this commercial reminds me of, a bit? It reminds me of that commercial where the little boy knocks on the little girl's door several times (we assume on different days), each time bearing a gift, and each time she slams the door in his face.
Then he comes along with flowers in a big pitcher, and she smiles sweetly at him, accepts the flowers - then slams the door in his face again, goes to the kitchen, dumps the flowers, empties the pitcher, and then mixes herself some sort of juice from concentrate (which is what they're advertising).
With that one, I couldn't figure out which one I found more annoying - the cruelty of the little girl, playing on the stereotype of the beautiful bitch who treats "nice guys" like shit; or the reinforcement of idea that boys don't have to take "no" for an answer and can keep bugging and bugging and bugging a girl to get involved with him no matter how many times she says no.