Anyone seen the donedeal ad?

ChannelNo5

K-9 wrote: »

I don't know, I'd find the lack of general male support more concerning and pressing in general, than just getting at ChannelNo05 for posting an opinion in an internet forum.

Umm actually I do feel particularly "got at" tbh but sure don't post if you don't want feedback eh?

Maguined wrote: »

Because the men that don't report it are not reporting it because they do not find it offensive while ChannelNo05 earlier posts seemed to imply she is not reporting it because women have their own battles to fight ie only men should report adds that are offensive to men. This sort of stance I disagree with but Channel has since clarified her position so this is not actually the case.

Missed the word "not" in my last post, I do not find the adds offensive.

I think my original post was badly written on my part in fairness. Excuse my lack of eloquence. When i refered to fighting my own battles I was actually refering to a personal situation which i'm dealing with which is close enough to the subject matter here. My use of "We" was as in the royal "we"!:o Probably shouldn't have mentioned it really. Anyhoo... I would love to be able to fight the good fight for men, women, GLBT, animals etc etc (The list of injustices is depressingly long) but unfortunately we have to choose our battles most of the time and all i was trying to say was I agreed with the OP's reaction and objection. Anyway, it all seems to have become about me so i'll bow out of this now and let you get back to the discussion at hand.

Damn wimmens! Comin over here, takin over our threads!!:p

GarIT

I don't think its funny, I just don't get it, it seemed a bit simple and stupid. I'm not offended by it but I reported it because of the double standard.

Maguined

ChannelNo5 wrote: »

I think my original post was badly written on my part in fairness. Excuse my lack of eloquence. When i refered to fighting my own battles I was actually refering to a personal situation which i'm dealing with which is close enough to the subject matter here. My use of "We" was as in the royal "we"!:o Probably shouldn't have mentioned it really. Anyhoo... I would love to be able to fight the good fight for men, women, GLBT, animals etc etc (The list of injustices is depressingly long) but unfortunately we have to choose our battles most of the time and all i was trying to say was I agreed with the OP's reaction and objection. Anyway, it all seems to have become about me so i'll bow out of this now and let you get back to the discussion at hand.

Damn wimmens! Comin over here, takin over our threads!!:p

I don't mean to target you at all I was just using your first post as an example. Some people do promote an "us" and "them" approach to sexism and only report what offends their gender, I thought you were advocating this view but you were not. I definitely don't think you should bow out of the discussion at all as I certainly welcome your contributions.

I agree that people have to choose their battles, people have to fight for what they personally believe in which is why I personally don't understand the below:

GarIT wrote: »

I don't think its funny, I just don't get it, it seemed a bit simple and stupid. I'm not offended by it but I reported it because of the double standard.

If you don't find it offensive why would you report it GarIT? To me this comes across as two wrongs making a right. If some women complain about an add being sexist to women and it gets revoked therefore men must complain about adds being sexist to men regardless of whether you agreed with the female add being revoked or not?

iptba

There were three grounds in the ASAI code somebody picked out that could be used to complain about the ad. 2.17 doesn't use offence as such:

Decency and Propriety

2.15
A marketing communication should contain nothing that is likely to cause grave or widespread offence.

2.16
Marketing communications should respect the dignity of all persons and should avoid causing offence on grounds of gender, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, religion, age, disability, race or membership of the traveller community.

2.17
Marketing communications should respect the principle of the equality of men and women. They should avoid sex stereotyping and any exploitation or demeaning of men and women. Where appropriate, marketing communications should use generic terms that include both the masculine and feminine gender; for example, the term 'business executive' covers both men and women.

I think a distinction needs to be made between a comedy routine/comedy programme, and an ad.

Maguined

iptba wrote: »

I think a distinction needs to be made between a comedy routine/comedy programme, and an ad.

Why? Why shouldn't add makers be allowed to try and be funny?

18AD

I still don't see how an ad depicting one mans situation is representative of all men?

How does this leap of reason even occur? Is every individual representation of a person automatically a representation of all people of that type?

Surely it is the person making this leap of generalisation that is the one who is stereotyping?

listermint

18AD wrote: »

I still don't see how an ad depicting one mans situation is representative of all men?

How does this leap of reason even occur? Is every individual representation of a person automatically a representation of all people of that type?

Surely it is the person making this leap of generalisation that is the one who is stereotyping?

BOOM!

iptba

Maguined wrote: »

iptba wrote:

I think a distinction needs to be made between a comedy routine/comedy programme, and an ad.

Why?

One reason is because big corporations and interest groups could pick on weaker groups.

Maguined

iptba wrote: »

One reason is because big corporations and interest groups could pick on weaker groups.

The big corporations and interest groups can't achieve this through any other means than humour?

iptba

Maguined wrote: »

The big corporations and interest groups can't achieve this through any other means than humour?

Advertising is a huge opportunity to influence people. Not sure corporations have anything comparable.

Also, what is one person's humour is another person's insult sometimes, esp. with ham-fisted humour. A comedian is judged by the quality of their jokes; an ad is judged by the amount of items it sells (and similar matters relating to brand). The humour can be of low quality and could easily slip into stereotyping, etc.

listermint

iptba wrote: »

Advertising is a huge opportunity to influence people. Not sure corporations have anything comparable.

Also, what is one person's humour is another person's insult sometimes, esp. with ham-fisted humour. A comedian is judged by the quality of their jokes; an ad is judged by the amount of items it sells (and similar matters relating to brand). The humour can be of low quality and could easily slip into stereotyping, etc.

So where do you draw the line ?


Dont slag anyone ever ?



UGGGGHHHHH Boring world you live in

Maguined

iptba wrote: »

Advertising is a huge opportunity to influence people. Not sure corporations have anything comparable.

Also, what is one person's humour is another person's insult sometimes, esp. with ham-fisted humour. A comedian is judged by the quality of their jokes; an ad is judged by the amount of items it sells (and similar matters relating to brand). The humour can be of low quality and could easily slip into stereotyping, etc.

So in order to avoid potentially offending some of the population it is better to play it safe and create completely humourless adds? It seems a very defeatist attitude to apply to any aspect of life to me.

iptba

listermint wrote: »

So where do you draw the line ?

Dont slag anyone ever ?

As I say, there is a distinction between comedy programmes/routines, and advertising.

iptba

Maguined wrote: »

So in order to avoid potentially offending some of the population it is better to play it safe and create completely humourless adds? It seems a very defeatist attitude to apply to any aspect of life to me.

There are codes of conduct for advertising, and humour can be done within them. If people or advertisers want them changed, they could look for them to be changed, universally.

I think it's defeatist to let advertisers stereotype men as stupid, more animal-like/less human, etc and not try to do something about it when the pattern continues year after year.

Maguined

iptba wrote: »

There are codes of conduct for advertising, and humour can be done within them.

I think it's defeatist to let advertisers stereotype men as stupid, etc and not try to do something about it when the pattern continues year after year.

But as you said one man's joke is another man's insult, if you are going to stop one form of offence I can guarantee you that there is someone out there that will find offence to any joke possible.

I don't view it as defeatist myself, I view it as maturity and down to earth humbleness. I despise people that cannot laugh at themselves. I know people that will happily dole out friendly jokes and friendly slaggings towards their mates but as soon as it is directed at them they get upset by it. This is extremely juvenile and immature in my opinion so I always avoid such people. A good honest self deprecating sense of humour I have normally corresponds to a reasonable and considerate personality.

I laugh at jokes aimed at others, I laugh at jokes aimed at myself. I would hate to live in a world where anything that caused anyone "offence" was banned. It would be a bleak and boring world.

martingriff

BunShopVoyeur wrote: »

Their next ad should reverse the sexes. Some guy selling his wife to another, making remarks about her being a "goer".

The feminists would be out in force.

Gift grub did it

iptba

Maguined wrote: »

But as you said one man's joke is another man's insult, if you are going to stop one form of offence I can guarantee you that there is someone out there that will find offence to any joke possible.

I'm not sure if that is the case.

But if the equal application of the codes for advertising resulted in this, people can then complain that the codes should be loosened.

Personally, I don't depend on ads for my humour.

Also, I find looking at the media and the messages it sends out interesting. And I find some of the messages that go out about men in advertising frustrating: because men haven't complained in the past, they are getting "picked on". I can survive missing the odd piece of humour to try to rectify this. There is plenty of other humour to be found elsewhere.

Maguined

iptba wrote: »

I'm not sure if that is the case.

But if the equal application of the codes for advertising resulted in this, people can then complain that the codes should be loosened.

Personally, I don't depend on ads for my humour.

Also, I find looking at the media and the messages it sends out interesting. And I find some of the messages that go out about men in advertising frustrating: because men haven't complained in the past, they are getting "picked on". I can survive missing the odd piece of humour to try to rectify this. There is plenty of other humour to be found elsewhere.

I don't think anyone depends on ads for humour however given the choice between a world full of humorous adds and a would devoid of humorous adds I would wager the majority of people would prefer humour.

I don't agree that men are getting picked on, I think advertising companies will latch onto any idea and will target both genders given the chance. Just because more women take offence to more adds and lodge more complaints than men do is a choice and a reflection of those making such complaints. I do not think that men should follow suit just for the sake of arbitrary "if the roles were reversed" sake.

listermint

iptba wrote: »

I'm not sure if that is the case.

But if the equal application of the codes for advertising resulted in this, people can then complain that the codes should be loosened.

Personally, I don't depend on ads for my humour.

Also, I find looking at the media and the messages it sends out interesting. And I find some of the messages that go out about men in advertising frustrating: because men haven't complained in the past, they are getting "picked on". I can survive missing the odd piece of humour to try to rectify this. There is plenty of other humour to be found elsewhere.

Who the hell depends on advertising for humour?

Personally, you are coming across as humourless (no offence) just from your posts.

iptba

listermint wrote: »

Who the hell depends on advertising for humour?

Personally, you are coming across as humourless (no offence) just from your posts.

This is a discussion. Like with lots of discussions, many posts won't be humorous. Like with many discussions, sometimes you will get insulted by people who disagree with you.

iptba

Maguined wrote: »

I don't agree that men are getting picked on,

Personally I think men are picked on, so it looks like we are coming from different positions.

Maguined wrote: »

I think advertising companies will latch onto any idea and will target both genders given the chance.

And see, I don't think there are being targeted equally. I think advertisers have been "given the chance" to target one group more than another.

listermint

iptba wrote: »

This is a discussion. Like with lots of discussions, many posts won't be humorous. Like with many discussions, sometimes you will get insulted by people who disagree with you.

im no insulted, perplexed but not insulted.

Far from it, im judging the ad on its merits. Humourful, Its an obvious spoof joke anyone can see that. Its the type of joke that would appear in various programs that you will see on tv and taken at face value.

I dont believe it degrades men so there ya have it.

iptba

listermint wrote: »

iptba wrote:

Like with many discussions, sometimes you will get insulted by people who disagree with you.

im no insulted, perplexed but not insulted.

I was referring to your insulting comment about me.

Maguined

iptba wrote: »

Personally I think men are picked on, so it looks like we are coming from different positions.
And see, I don't think there are being targeted equally. I think advertisers have been "given the chance" to target one group more than another.

In what way are they given the chance? you admit that "if the roles were reversed" that similar adds targeting women would be removed? So by this you are admitting you have seen numerous occasions of ads that targeted women in the first place. Yes these ads were removed because women complained about them but the advertising companies are not the advertising standards enforcers. Both genders are targeted in the first place by advertising companies however more "anti-women" ads get removed than men's because more women complain about ads than men's.

You simply cannot claim men are targeted by the evidence that so many ads that targeted women were removed.

iptba

Maguined wrote: »

In what way are they given the chance? you admit that "if the roles were reversed" that similar adds targeting women would be removed? So by this you are admitting you have seen numerous occasions of ads that targeted women in the first place. Yes these ads were removed because women complained about them but the advertising companies are not the advertising standards enforcers. Both genders are targeted in the first place by advertising companies however more "anti-women" ads get removed than men's because more women complain about ads than men's.

I don't believe both groups are targeted equally but "anti-women" ads are simply removed more. It is more PC to insult men in some ways than women. Also, advertisers can know that there are individuals out there who might complain about "anti-women" ads. So advertisers can pre-empt this by producing less of them.

Maguined

iptba wrote: »

I don't believe both groups are targeted equally but "anti-women" ads are simply removed more. It is more PC to insult men in some ways than women. Also, advertisers can know that there are individuals out there who might complain about "anti-women" ads. So advertisers can pre-empt this by producing less of them.

I am sorry but that is completely flawed logic, you base your opinion that men are targeted on the fact that more ads targeting women are removed than ads removed targeting men. Ads can only be removed if they target women in the first place!

iptba

Maguined wrote: »

I am sorry but that is completely flawed logic, you base your opinion that men are targeted on the fact that more ads targeting women are removed than ads removed targeting men. Ads can only be removed if they target women in the first place!

I don't see the flaw in the logic. I believe women's groups complain about lots of things, not just ads, more than men's groups in society so I believe there is a bit of general caution out there. Also, specifically, if there are campaigns against/ complaints about certain ads that are seen as "anti-women", I believe this can also influence future ads. Complaints can lead to effects not just related to that ad but also other potential ads, so some "anti-women" ads don't get made.

fly_agaric

Maguined wrote: »

If some women complain about an add being sexist to women and it gets revoked therefore men must complain about adds being sexist to men regardless of whether you agreed with the female add being revoked or not?

A valid spoiler tactic maybe? If the complaints machinery exists people are within their rights to use it to make their point. If it creates trouble for companies/advertisers in general so much the better. It's hardly as if we've a dearth of advertising in Ireland or it is the sole source of amusement for most people!

BTW thought the advert was stupid and lazy, as funny as a rotten wisdom tooth! It's just a "joke", but we actually do live in a world where people are still bought + sold like objects every day.

MarkyTheLips

Chimpokomon wrote: »

So I'll see you all at the next feminist rally then lads? Good stuff

Which side will you be on?

GarIT

Maguined wrote: »

If you don't find it offensive why would you report it GarIT? To me this comes across as two wrongs making a right. If some women complain about an add being sexist to women and it gets revoked therefore men must complain about adds being sexist to men regardless of whether you agreed with the female add being revoked or not?

I feel that the add is wrong. What I meant is the add didn't offend me, I wasn't personally hurt by it but I still don't feel its acceptable to show it.