Hey cleaning product companies... want to get me to buy your stuff?
Show a man cleaning!
My boyfriend pointed out something to me yesterday... You almost NEVER see a man doing the laundry, dishes, or cleaning in a commercial.
I know for a fact men clean. I lived with a father that cleaned, and my boyfriend and I share the workload. When talking to him, I could see how it is almost insulting to guys as well as girls. I found it sexist that they assumed that we women are "turned on" and "amazed" by the stuff we buy. But what about men? If you're not in an Axe commercial (herding women like animals), or selling testosterone filled products, does that mean you're not a man at all? Or a man that is worth being sold to? Is the Brawny man and Mr.Clean the only men allowed in the kitchen?
What would get me to buy a product?
-Show a man washing dishes and discovering that they're amazing, just like women do in similar commercials.
-Show a man and woman doing the work together, and not just him "helping" or as a secondary do-er.
-Show guys discussing what products work for them. I know this happens. It isn't just women who have to get spots out of clothes. And, please, don't do this as a macho thing. Don't show me guys comparing their socks in the locker room, with a penis size joke thrown in.
-Show these things gender neutral. My vagina doesn't help get the clothes whiter or make the dishes wash themselves.
What do you think?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Men clean too!.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/10651
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
Agree.
I have an ex-boyfriend who used to go on Manly, Heroic Cleaning Sprees. It was pretty hilarious. He'd get fed up with the messiness of the apartment and just go nuts with the cleaning for a couple of hours, blasting loud music and being sort of comically war-like (yelling, "attacking" things with a mop, etc) about it if there was an audience (sometimes me, sometimes his friends) around to see it. I think it would be kind of hilariously ludicrous if they made a commercial out of this, for the X-TREEEEEM CLEANING POWER!!!1! of dish soap or something.
My dad is much the same way. He'll get tired of the fridge being cluttered, or his desk being messy, and blast music while cleaning it up. They really do look like they're at war with it.
I'm definitely agreeing with you, natatafish. I know there are a lot of men who do a much better job cleaning than I do, and I find it annoying when they are ignored.
To be honest, that's the way I prefer to clean as well -- it's much more fun if you can frame it as an EPIC BATTLE :D
OMG that's so funny.
Yeah, that's the only way they're going to be able to advertise cleaning products to men. I've noticed some commercials lately for men's beauty products like lotion and bodywash that use the same XTREEEEME!!!!! language, like, "This bodywash POWERS AWAY dirt and oil!!!" Before this, the only commercials I saw were for aftershave or something, and they would always have an attractive woman nuzzling up to the man's close-shaven face.
I agree. Besides, what about all the men who aren't living with women in the first place? Including men in ads for cleaning products could sell to that market too!
Just because they don't feature men in ads for cleaning products doesn't mean that men don't buy cleaning products. Demand for cleaning products is inelastic....we all need to clean.
"Just because they don't feature men in ads for cleaning products doesn't mean that men don't buy cleaning products."
I know that, but how about a cleaning product company advertising to men to encourage them to buy that company's stuff instead of a competitor's cleaning products?
Maybe because most men don't care if the subject in the commercial is a man or woman. I certainly don't. It's not like I see a woman washing dishes and think... "Oh washing dishes must be a woman's job. I'm just going to buy paper plates instead."
I'm not sure why feminists make out women to be so impressionable that they are affected by the lack of representation for their minority.
The original poster actually said "I would buy more cleaning products if they showed men in advertisements." ... and she's a woman! I guess she makes out women to be so impressionable because she clearly stated the fact that she is that impressionable! A marketers dream. If she were a man, she'd probably just wants something that works regardless of the sex of the person in the little 30 second TV advertisement. But there I go... thinking logically again.
I interpreted the OP's sentiment as being that she would be more inclined to want to buy a specific cleaning product if the ads for that product were non-gendered/didn't rely on sexist stereotypes about cleaning being 'women's work', which is a conscious decision rather than a reflection of mindless impressionability. Remember also that very few of us are immune to advertising, which relies more on subconscious preconceptions than on the assumption that people are rational, informed consumers - the latter is the last thing advertisers and manufacturers want.
I hope I didn't imply that she was mindlessly impressionable. She was very consciously stating the fact that she was looking at the sex of the actors in commercials that she watches. Now just because she states something consciously and knows her behavior is affected by it does not mean that the behavior can be rationalized except by her. I won't go into rationality because people have different values. One person might value a product that actually cleans. Another might value a product that doesn't clean very well but at least has men and women in the advertisements. We are all affected by advertisements but few of us consciously choose to buy something because of the identity of the (non-celebrity) actors in those advertisements.
If advertisers can manipulate the behavior of people (like the OP) simply based on their advertisements, again, that is their dream. If it's as easy as placing a man in a commercial washing dishes and the OP will likely buy their product, they don't need to worry about how effective their product actually is.
In my view, a rational, informed consumer (the ones that advertisers do not want...) would consciously prefer buying a product that actually does the job regardless of how persuasive the advertisement is, or if not persuasive, regardless of how many men or women are represented. Again, this is the perspective of a man. If the advertisements only show women cleaning, that doesn't mean I don't buy cleaning products. I don't understand people who buy products based on the identity of the actors in commercials. I suppose I'm just not a good consumer. I didn't even buy anything on Black Friday! :)
To try to make a the case that one person can be more of a rational shopper than someone else you need to demonstrate that a person makes shopping decisions based on product reviews and facts, which very consumers do for most minor purchases.
Many products, such as cleaning products, are actually equivalents only varying in the most superficial ways, fragrance, color, etc. So it make sense that advertisers would appeal to consumer preferences, values or other behaviors that are already in place, such as which person in the household is more likely to shop for the product (and there are companies whose job is to compile that data).
And there is actually a WEALTH of data demonstrating the power of advertising to change consumer behavior and consumer perceptions. Election ads are a good example. I'm always surprised when people think this is not the case.
A great area to look at this phenomenon is the field of medicine. It has well documented that when direct consumer marketing for medications was allowed back on TV and in magazines in the US, prescribing patterns of physicians changed.
Yet, the rationality of doctors or their ability to apply logic never comes into question surrounding this issue. Clearly it is a matter of being influenced by their patients, who acting as consumers demand the latest (and usually more expensive, surprise!) medications that they have seen advertised on TV. Physicians as well have been time and time again shown to be influenced directly by drug company advertising that often comes in the form of free office supplies, free drug samples, and other perks.
Remember, physicians and other prescribers are supposed to prescribe based on evidence-based data tailored to individual patients; and while most do, they can still be influenced by outside influences.
I'm not sure why you are writing about subconscious advertising influences. That's not really the topic here. In fact, that's exactly the opposite of what we're discussing. We're discussing people (the OP) specifically and consciously choosing products based on what they see in advertising that has nothing to do with the effectiveness of products.
It's one thing to be influenced based on subconscious biases. It's a whole other thing to consciously choose some product based on something they see which is entirely unrelated to the actual contents or effectiveness of a product. That's like consciously and explicitly choosing to vote for or against someone solely based on their sex. If it were voting, it would be sexist. "I won't vote for a woman candidate." now becomes "I won't buy a product because they don't have a man cleaning dishes." Despite the subconscious biases, the best we can hope for is people doing their best to be rational. I don't think the OP is even close to that and that's why I call out her behavior which I find absurd.
My response to you was based on this comment that you made:
"If advertisers can manipulate the behavior of people (like the OP) simply based on their advertisements, again, that is their dream."
Actually, they can to a certain degree (see previous comment).
then you said:
"In my view, a rational, informed consumer (the ones that advertisers do not want...) would consciously prefer buying a product that actually does the job regardless of how persuasive the advertisement is, or if not persuasive, regardless of how many men or women are represented. Again, this is the perspective of a man."
Let me ask you. Do you really think that there is a marked variation in dishwashing soap, laundry detergents and household cleaning products? Most people are buying these products based on personal preference (experience, word of mouth, fruity smell, coupons, etc); very rarely do the choices have anything to do with any type of rationality based on performance, because 99.99% of cleaning products are highly effective. Sure some people might swear by one product or another, but then somebody else won't like that same product.
"If it's as easy as placing a man in a commercial washing dishes and the OP will likely buy their product, they don't need to worry about how effective their product actually is."
C'mon...
If a company were to put out a crappy cleaning product, it wouldn't sell, unless perhaps it was so inexpensive such to compensate for its poorer efficacy. This is why there is so little variation in many household consumer staples. Markets (aka large groups of people) respond rationally and weed out inferior products, so that individuals don't necessarily have to; and here companies can use this to their advantage to gain an edge with ads.
The OP isn't talking about luxury items like cars or high tech devices here. If she were then your point on rational consumerism makes more sense.
And interestingly it works both ways. If more people somehow started buying the cleaning product whose ad showed men cleaning, then other advertisers would take notice as well and you would likely see more men cleaning in ads.
But I could be wrong. This is coming from a woman thinking logically...
Okay, I was talking about people (like the OP) consciously and explicitly choosing to following advertisers based on something as simple as changing the sex of the actors. I agree that unconscious biases can be and are used by advertisers but tapping into unconscious biases is a little more difficult than just hiring a man for the commercial. Advertisers would love if all they had to do was a hire a man to wash dishes. Maybe they just didn't think of it yet :)
Every one of those things you mentioned: Experience, word of mouth, fruity smell, coupons. Is in my opinion a rational choice for choosing a cleaning product.
I buy the cleaning products that my mom used to have around the house. Why? Because it worked for her for so many years, so it must be good. That is both an decision about experience and effectiveness. I've considered trying the product my SO uses because it works well for her.
"If a company were to put out a crappy cleaning product, it wouldn't sell, unless perhaps it was so inexpensive such to compensate for its poorer efficacy."
This is where marketing and advertising comes in. Inferior products get sold all the time! Why are American cars always rated the lowest in reliability, resale value, crash performance and made with fewer American workers than Japanese cars but plenty of people still buy them?
Do you purchase multiple types of dish washing liquids and keep track of how many strokes it takes to get a soiled dish clean? I certainly don't and don't know anyone that does. I would never actually know if one brand is inferior to another. Does a $10 Aveda shampoo make my hair better than $1.50 Suave? I don't know. I don't buy Aveda just because it has a fancy name. I buy Suave because it does the job just fine for me. They're close enough to the same as far as I can tell.
However, there is an entire industry based on describing to (mostly) rational consumers which products are the most effective. If I don't have someone I trust's first hand testimonial, I refer to these magazines or independent sites.
"The OP isn't talking about luxury items like cars or high tech devices here. If she were then your point on rational consumerism makes more sense."
Consumer Reports has reviewed clothing detergents and my brother buys the Costco brand specifically because of that review. I still use Tide because that's what my mom used to use. The ratings are there for anyone to see. Choosing any item luxury or not based on simply the sex of the actor is not what I as a man consider rational.
To clarify...
(Sorry I'm slow. Thanksgiving has me a little off.)
I wouldn't be more or less likely to buy anything because of the gender of the people in the ad, but seeing something different really would make my head turn. It would leave an impression. It would be refreshing.
I remember a few years ago there was a commercial in my area with a lesbian couple going on vacation with their children. I remember thinking "Wow, how progressive... I like this!" Obviously something there "stuck" because I'm still thinking about that commercial years later.
Yes, I do realize that advertising has unusual effects on people... myself included. But, as an artist, certain "creative choices" stand out to me more than most people. This is one.
In the end, how do I choose products?
A. Whatever is the best value (cost vs. working well)
B. Whatever my boyfriend chooses. (Back to the whole "Why aren't these products marketed to men?" issue!)
"Every one of those things you mentioned: Experience, word of mouth, fruity smell, coupons. Is in my opinion a rational choice for choosing a cleaning product."
I specifically said rational choice as it relates to PERFORMANCE...that's what rational consumerism is about, no?
"Consumer Reports has reviewed clothing detergents and my brother buys the Costco brand specifically because of that review."
Sure, but it's not like the other products are that bad, ya know? Plus people have an irrational fear of non-big-name-branded products,lol
"Inferior products get sold all the time! Why are American cars always rated the lowest in reliability, resale value, crash performance and made with fewer American workers than Japanese cars but plenty of people still buy them?"
Well thought I was clear that I was talking about consumer staple house hold stuff. Luxury goods are a different ball game and quality does vary markedly from product to product.
"Choosing any item luxury or not based on simply the sex of the actor is not what I as a man consider rational."
Yes, we get that. But I understand the OP to say that all things more or less equal (which these household products tend to be) she would pick the company more aligned with her values.
"I specifically said rational choice as it relates to PERFORMANCE...that's what rational consumerism is about, no?"
Rational consumers can choose something based on a quality of the product. Typically I'd say it's related to some aspect performance which can include a nice fragrance or cleaning effectiveness. Having a word of mouth recommendation is usually a proxy for product effectiveness.
"Sure, but it's not like the other products are that bad, ya know? Plus people have an irrational fear of non-big-name-branded products,lol"
I seriously missed the point of your response.
I gave you two examples, luxury items (car) and non-luxury (detergent). I don't know what you're trying to argue now. Many people are irrational and buy inferior products regardless of price. Not all consumers of course. Your original point was that people would not buy inferior cleaning products. Now you say that they might be buying inferior cleaning products because they're scared of non-major label brands?
"Well thought I was clear that I was talking about consumer staple house hold stuff. Luxury goods are a different ball game and quality does vary markedly from product to product."
That is absolutely false about there not being marked differences in non-luxury products:
http://www.wral.com/5onyourside/story/1203887/
"In a television commercial, OxiClean claims you can clean 25 loads with each detergent ball.
Consumer Reports testers say, however, that the OxiClean ball fell to the bottom of its ratings because of poor cleaning power. Plus, it costs almost five times as much as some other detergents that did a good job."
"For front-loading machines, Costco's Kirkland Signature Ultra was rated a best buy."
--
spike_the_cat:
"Yes, we get that. But I understand the OP to say that all things more or less equal (which these household products tend to be) she would pick the company more aligned with her values."
OP:
"Hey cleaning product companies... want to get me to buy your stuff?
Show a man cleaning!"
Non-luxury consumer items are NOT more or less equal. And the OP clearly (to me anyway) said that putting a man in a commercial would get her to buy the company's product. Maybe Oxi-Clean should put a man washing clothes because their product seems to need all the help it can get!
It would be nice you would actually read what I am saying instead of responding in a knee-jerk manner.
What I've said from the beginning was that most cleaning products, are highly effective with little variation between product efficacy. And you know what? Consumer Reports (your link) agrees with me. That's why they said they found only 1 or 2 standouts for performance and value out of 38 or so products.
And here is the real kicker. The differences between the majority of the products are so small in fact that most consumers wouldn't be able to tell the difference, even if they wanted to, without reading Consumer Reports. That's how good most of the products are.
I said MARKETS (or large groups of people) more tend to respond rationally. This is why instead of half of the products ranking poorly, consumer reports likely only found a few, such as the OXICLEAN.
I acknowledged many times that INDIVIDUAL consumers on the other hand might not necessarily be rational consumers (such as fear of off-label stuff). I said this many times yet you seem to keep missing that.
"What I've said from the beginning was that most cleaning products, are highly effective with little variation between product efficacy. And you know what? Consumer Reports (your link) agrees with me. That's why they said they found only 1 or 2 standouts for performance and value out of 38 or so products."
Consumer Reports usually only picks very few standouts. Usually one for best performance and one or two for best value. We don't have the details of all the scores so it is not valid to use that report to justify your statement that there is little difference in performance. Oxi-Clean was 5x more expensive and had the worst performance. The 5x worse value is pretty clear though. Sometimes consumer reports actually show pictures of the stains before and after with each detergent to show the actual differences.
Just yesterday I picked up a Consumer Reports and they reviewed coffee makers. The top rated one had a score more than 2x what the lowest rated one had. Yet they had exactly the same price, $100. They both make coffee, right? Just like Aveda and Suave both wash my hair. It's not like these products simply don't work. But it is a question of needing a $10 shampoo or a $1.50 shampoo. Unless you can tell the difference, it doesn't make sense to buy the fancy name brand.
"And here is the real kicker. The differences between the majority of the products are so small in fact that most consumers wouldn't be able to tell the difference, even if they wanted to, without reading Consumer Reports. That's how good most of the products are."
I find this hard to agree with because most consumers have not tried most products. I've tried a total of two detergents. A store brand and Tide. The store brand clearly was not good. I now use Tide. Does Cheer work as well as Tide? I don't know. I only know what I've specifically compared. Same with carpet cleaners. I have three cleaners. One works very well for a specific type of stain. A different works well for a different type. There are very clear differences and it's only because I've had the chance to try them out. You said consumers are scared of off-label brands, right? There's no way most people will have the chance to compare like I've been able to compare carpet cleaners. We should encourage shopping based on performance however and not advertising.
"I said MARKETS (or large groups of people) more tend to respond rationally. This is why instead of half of the products ranking poorly, consumer reports likely only found a few, such as the OXICLEAN."
Again, we don't have the full report. Point me to the full report online if you want to prove details about the non-mentioned products that are currently unavailable to me.
Do you want to take car companies as an example instead? I don't think there's any dispute that ALL the American car companies would be ranked poorly or at least in the bottom half for reliability, performance and value. Where was your "market" acting rationally? Your rational market was buying SUVs like there was no tomorrow! Now you can't even give them away.
"I acknowledged many times that INDIVIDUAL consumers on the other hand might not necessarily be rational consumers (such as fear of off-label stuff). I said this many times yet you seem to keep missing that.
Why did you think I missed that? My original argument with the OP was exactly that she was acting irrationally.
I don't need to see the report, thanks. Here is why:
Consumer Reports does rigorous testing far and beyond what most consumers need. If the products were so markedly different (as you suggest) such lengths would not be needed to assess the differences.
What you are missing from the picture is that different consumers have diverse needs.
Your assumption is that people will keep buying a detergent (such as Oxiclean) that leaves stains on their clothing. The more plausible explanation is that people have different cleaning needs and for some people even low-rated products clean just fine.
Not every consumer routinely requires lifting of heavy stains such as blood, grass, red wine (I know I don't). Some consumers' clothes simply aren't dirty enough for them to appreciate the benefit that the best performers have to offer. The concept also works with carpet cleaner, soap, toilet cleaner, etc.
I did mention previously that outright inferior brands can stay on the market if people feel that the lower price compensates (it works good enough for my needs). Oxiclean, which is more expensive, sounds like a gimmick, but I'm sure the repeat purchasers find that it works for them.
Bottom line: for most consumers, it doesn't matter whether they bought the best rated product or the worst rated product (in terms of efficacy). And even the worst product works just fine for somebody out there.
Would it be nice to have the comparisons? Sure. Is it irrational if one still buys brand M even if brand A is rated better? Not necessarily. If you've been using brand M and you are happy with it and the prices are comparable you may not notice the difference switching.
Why do you keep bring up non-household cleaning examples?? Stick with the topic: Not SUVS, not coffee makers. I already agreed with you that for cars and other big ticket items a cautious purchasing approach is warranted!!!
"Oxi-Clean was 5x more expensive and had the worst performance. The 5x worse value is pretty clear though. Sometimes consumer reports actually show pictures of the stains before and after with each detergent to show the actual differences."
Just wanted to also let you know (or perhaps you already knew) that according to several sources the OXICLEAN ball featured in Consumer Reports as the worst rated item has been discontinued by the manufacturer. Only secondary outlets are selling it (such as Amazon) at a deeply discounted price, most likely to deplete their stock. Even so, there are still a few repeat individual purchasers, who claim to like the product.
But the broader market has spoken-
Thank you for proving my point for me! I think you are making a complete circle in your arguments to prove my original points. This is exactly like you did when you tried to tell me that I didn't realize many consumers were irrational despite that being my original argument and proving my exact point about the OP (Dec 2, 1:58P)
Not all household products are the same performance and value which has been my argument from the beginning! Rational consumers as we all should be (in my opinion) will look towards review sites or simply see based on other price/performance measures which to buy because not all goods are the same. The poster should be looking at performance and value and not to the sex of the actors and actresses.
Oxi-Clean is a perfect example of how there is a variance in product performance and value so thank you for continuing discussing it. We don't know what happened to the 2nd worst product though, so the fact that the bottom rated is discontinued doesn't prove to us much about the trends of the market to remove poorly performing products. I have not made any statements about the trends of markets so if you want to make that argument you'll have to give me more evidence.
My first post on this topic:
"If she were a man, she'd probably just wants something that works regardless of the sex of the person in the little 30 second TV advertisement."
Your first rebuttal:
"To try to make a the case that one person can be more of a rational shopper than someone else you need to demonstrate that a person makes shopping decisions based on product reviews and facts, which very (few) consumers do for most minor purchases."
Since you've come in a complete circle now, the very few rational customers that you initially talked about are so powerful that they killed Oxi-Clean? I am not here to tell you why Oxi-Clean was discontinued. I don't have that information but I can only tell you what Consumer Reports found about it. Beyond that, you are making assumptions about the business decisions of Oxi-Clean that I don't presume to know. I can easily list 10 business reasons why a product is pulled from a market, and not one of them talking about a rational market.
I think I know why you want to restrict this discussion to household cleaners. Your whole argument about markets and markets as a whole making rational decisions completely falls apart if you look at the situation we're in today in the US.
My argument is simply that we should strive for rational decisions. Basing the decision for a household cleaner on the sex of a person in an advertisement is not rational in my view and should not be condoned. Your argument seems to be that it is okay for individuals to be irrational in this way and somehow magically everything will turn out in a rational outcome.
Is it okay for employees deciding against hiring a black person just for the color of their skin even though we know that behavior is irrational? We in this country (US) have decided that the job market does not act rationally unless we force it to be rational with anti-discrimination laws. I doubt you're an Adam Smith capitalist so you probably agree that there is needed regulation in virtually all markets. We should strive to reduce the irrationality that forces markets to have these regulations. For example, instead of creating a law that all advertisements should be have equal sex representation, why should try to improve ourselves to view the world rationally.
With same sex marriage in CA, what is the rational reason why two adult men or women can't choose to get married? There is none. Yet the voters left to their own human natures of prejudices and irrational fears chose through the voting process to remove the rights of same-sex marriage.
People are not necessarily rational, markets are not necessarily rational. We should strive to be rational and use our mind in all situations instead of being controlled by human nature and reactionary instincts that reduce us to nothing more than animals.
I'm not sure why feminists make out women to be so impressionable that they are affected by the lack of representation for their minority.
Of course, all feminists do this... please. The point is that everybody is impressionable when it comes to images they see over and over and over again. That's how advertising works. You can take a basic psychology class to find this out. I think the real concern is with the underlying cultural attitudes that are both shaped by and reflected in these ads. It's pretty hard to deny that when people, especially children, see these ads repeatedly, it does shape their view of housework and gender roles. How could it not?
You and Stephen Colbert are the only two people on earth who don't see gender, and Stephen Colbert is joking.
Ha! You're contradicting your username now. :D
You all are wonderful :) You make me smile!
I'm totally having a "D'uh, it's so obvious. Why didn't I think of it?"
So true. I'd have to say most men that I know know their way around a sink full of dishes, and are not mystified by the workings of a mop. Several even have full command of the oh so complicated operation of a washing machine (including the mysteries of separating whites, and that bright colors may bleed).
So why is the advertising so gendered?
This has been a phenomena for years... It is a damn shame...
You should send this as a letter to the manufacturers as well as the advertising agencies that create the ads we so despise.
I'm actually planning to write about this for my weekly column (in my school paper) this week. :)
Nice repetition of words, there, journalism major.
This is one of the issues that the EU is asking advertisers to address - the sexism that's involved in only showing women cleaning and cooking. For one thing, it sends such a bad message to the kids who are watching TV and soaking in the implicit messages in commercials.
My partner, who does his fair share around the house, also points out that when they do show men engaging in any housework or childcare activities they're often portrayed as incompetent fools who have to constantly be supervised by the women. It's a part of the perennial Dad-as-glorified-babysitter theme. This is really irritating to him, and I think it's damaging to both men and women.
Women are very seldom the only characters in cleaning commercials. There is usually at least one other family member, like a husband, child, even a pet, that fits nicely in a very defined, stereotypical role. There was a time that I would have said that cleaning commercials are geared towards women (and that time would have been like 10 seconds ago, since I just had an epiphany), but they're geared towards everyone, because everyone in those commercials has a traditional role. You know, what wives, husbands, and kids are "supposed" to be. Everybody knows that both women and men clean. But maybe men are buying certain cleaning products for a different reason than women. Women might see themselves in the women in these commercials ("I do need a better cleaning product, because my family makes a mess and expects me to do all the cleaning."). Men might see a commercial featuring a woman cleaning and find comfort in this display of traditional gender roles where patriarchy rules. Seeing a commercial with a man cleaning while his wife is sitting on her ass reading the paper might threaten men's masculinity and position in the hierarchy, and that can turn him off from that product. He gets a much better feeling from seeing the woman clean and seeing the man laze around, because it reinforces the near certainty that he won't have to clean anymore once he moves out of the bachelor pad and marries a woman who will clean up after him. That good feeling sticks with him when he goes to the grocery store, sees all of the products on the shelves, and buys Clorox instead of Swiffer. The good feeling is all that needs to stay with people after watching a commercial anyway, as feeling comes much more naturally than thinking. They don't have to remember if the commercial advertised a good product, just if the commercial advertised a feel-good product.
I forgot to say this earlier: another thing that pisses me off is cleaning commercials that show this cheerful mom following her family around the house cleaning up their messes as they make them with a huge smile on her face. One of the ads for some kind of furniture polish showed a mom following her kids with a rag as they drove cars over the furniture and scratched it in other ways. Instead of telling them to stop abusing the furniture and putting them in time out when they wouldn't listen, like a sensible mom would, she cheerfully sacrificed her entire afternoon to follow them around repairing their damage. A more recent one shows a mom smiling indulgently at her kids as they wrestle at the breakfast table, spilling an entire box of cereal on the floor. Then there was the Mr. Clean eraser ad where the mom followed the kid around the house erasing the crayon marks as he made them instead of just taking the crayons away. Message? Moms are indulgent, smiling morons who don't know how to problem-solve or engage in any preventative behavior modification that would keep them from having to spend every waking minute following their sloppy family members around and cleaning up their messes.
Yes! I've never understood this. It certainly wasn't my experience growing up either. I mean if I made a mess, my mom would be pissed and the mess would stay there until I cleaned it up. Even when I was sick once and threw up in the hall, my dad cleaned it the 1st time, then the second time he was like, here's the mop.
And why don't they show kids doing chores more often. How many kids come home from school to empty homes and have chores to do. I mean, at least have some damn diversity that reflects better what folks are doing.
My favorite is the Bounty commercial where the kid and the dad are staring at a spill wondering how many sheets it will take to clean it up. Meanwhile, the liquid is spreading across the hardwood floor and seeping into the carpet. And instead of screaming "Quit looking at it and clean it up, you little morons," Mom comes to the rescue with a sheet of paper towel that she can use over and over again. Hooray!
This phenomenon has been pissing me off for as long as I've been watching tv.
And contrary to Bill Diamond's assertions, advertising messages DO matter. Kids' attitudes are shaped by the media they absorb, and adults are not immune either. Only a fool thinks he's not susceptible to the messages put forth in advertising.
I would LOVE it if a company ran ads depicting men cooking and cleaning (WITHOUT treating it like a heroic feat or odd event - or refering to him as "Mr. Mom"). And yes, I would probably want to support such a company with my money.
The only fool is the one who puts words into someone else's mouth.
I wrote on November 30, 2008 6:02 PM:
"I agree that unconscious biases can be and are used by advertisers but tapping into unconscious biases is a little more difficult than just hiring a man for the commercial. Advertisers would love if all they had to do was a hire a man to wash dishes."
Are you just not getting our objection to this or something?
No... I get your objection to always seeing women in commercials. I understand. I'm just saying in my opinion *consciously* choosing to buy products based on something as pandering as demographic based advertising instead of based on product performance is irrational.
As I mentioned previously, I didn't stop buying dish washing liquid and start eating on paper plates because I noticed commercials show women washing dishes. I was not so focused on the sex of the actors that made me change my dish washing behavior. In fact, the dish washing liquid I use is a generic store brand. If they started showing men washing dishes, I in turn would not care either way. If you track my behavior you might find a bias, maybe I'd choose blue liquid because it's more manly (just kidding...) but at least I consciously attempt to not have biases against the sex of actors in commercials. That's what I object to in this discussion. The conscious choosing to support a product based on pandering advertisements instead of the product itself.
In my ideal world, we don't attempt to make advertisements fair and reaching every demographic. In my ideal world, we teach people to look beyond advertisements to the actual product. This society is very image conscious. Women bear much of the burden of this focus on the exterior. Wouldn't you like to reduce this emphasis on image and work more on substance?
This will not happen unless we choose consciously to put aside the image of a product given to us by advertisements and instead focus on the effectiveness and value of the product.
I understand the point you are trying to make about irrationality.
And I believe your continued attention to this subject bespeaks a simple fact: you have the luxury to be able to ignore the gender of the actors in the ad. Man or woman srcubbing that dish? Meh, no biggie. The mere site of a gendered body doesn't disturb your equilibrium.
I, a woman, do not have this luxury.
I live in a society which, since the rise of the nuclear middle class family in the late 19th century, has coerced, cajoled, indicted, guilted, shamed, enticed, and otherwise trapped into the kitchen (and bathroom) women ALONE.
Thus, when, in 2008, I turn on the TV and observe the revolting fact that this century-old disparity has NOT CHANGED ONE IOTA, I seek out companies making the same quality product whose values also align with my own. That is, if Clorox gets its butt in gear and offers a rotating trio of ads featuring (1) a woman cleaning (2) a man and woman cleaning together, and (3) a man cleaning, then Clorox gets my money. And my pots and pans do not suffer from the Clorox brand, either.
Choosing amongst SIMILAR/EQUAL products on the basis of other criteria like whether or not a company uses sweatshop labor or features ads with only women cleaning, is, IMO, thus supremely "rational."
But let's throw out this rational trope altogether. Many who cling to "rationality" and "logic" to the utter depletion of all other important concerns often do so for ideological motivations, or due to social blindspots. So, I'm game for common ground: I take you up on your "irrationality" charge.
And revel in it.
If what I describe above is what you call irrationality, I rejoice, wallow, and rejoice in my irrational choice to favor companies whose advertisements do not offend my every sensibility and society's most meager hopes for human equality.
That is, "I rejoice, wallow, and rejoice again."
Please consider that your own gender and its historical position in society cannot help but contribute to the ease with which you are able to disregard gendered advertisements.
As an ethnic minority, I get this from some European-Americans about other "perceived" slights that "really shouldn't matter because we've progressed and we're all equal and just turn off the TV if you don't like it and the market fixes itself..."
And I get it for gender, too.
It seems there's an awful lot of stuff that's going on in my crazy woman-minority mind. Why can't I just shuck off these darn CHIPS on my shoulder and receive all of society's noxious waste as complacently--er, healthily "unconcernedly"--as Europeans and men do?
[This is quite in good humor, by the way, and meant without hostility].
This is beautifully, beautifully put. Thank you.
I do have to laugh at the insistence that I personally test each and every brand out there to coldly and "rationally" determine which one performs best. Product performance is not the only factor that goes into most people's decision making process. Price, for instance, is an important factor. ALL of us, not just women, use emotion, our senses and even nostalgia to determine which brands we buy.
"Many who cling to "rationality" and "logic" to the utter depletion of all other important concerns often do so for ideological motivations, or due to social blindspots.
I believe the nail has been hit on the head.
RIWY, I believe I will copy and save this tidbit for future posts in response to those who shriek LOGICIrrationalLOGICDEMANDSRationalRational in a most illogical fashion.
Many of these posters imagine themselves to be logicians extraordinaire. In fact, most of their arguments are reduced to a pulp by posters like you, me, and others here who excel at logic excercises but do not trumpet ourselves as holy priests of it.
A word to the wise, Logicians' Apprentices: you have entered the ring here at Feministing with numerous women and men who traffic in logic for a living, and who see your invocations of the L-word for what they are: a smokescreen for the unsavory and intractable ideologies that lie beneath.
For real! I was about to launch into a discussion of how rational people do not make assertions that ignore or deny the validity of mountains of research on the effects of marketing based merely on their pet view of themselves as uber-consumers. But I see that my effort would be wasted, and I have a pile of papers to grade. Ironically, 60 of them are from a Critical Thinking course. Ha!
A delicious irony, indeed. I too have a massive undertaking for work to attend to. I cannot hold the hand of Bill Diamond or any other bordering-on-the-T-word poster who wears his privilege proudly, like a badge of honor.
"I'm not sure why feminists make out women to be so impressionable that they are affected by the lack of representation for their minority."
That seems kind of like putting words into a lot of people's mouths to me.
I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand the problem here. When people, and especially children, are inundated with images of women cleaning and cooking, and almost never see images of men engaging in these activities, it sends a very clear implicit message that this is women's work. The gender roles that are involved in the scenarios on tv are picked up by people whether they are aware of it or not. If you take even a basic psychology class, or a marketing class in the business department, you'll find all kinds of research that supports this.
My statement more accurately would be "some feminists".
I completely see the problem! I understand your feelings about seeing gender roles. This world very much focused on the exterior and images. And who better to tell me about images than the people so focused on them themselves.
I would prefer to promote rational choices about products instead of just getting advertisers to pander to all demographics. One advertisement for the Single Mom, one for the Married Hetero Mom, one for the Single Dad, one for the Married Gay Man, etc. Is it bad to want people to choose products based on their effectiveness or performance or value? Can't we look past advertisements and the exterior? That's all I'm asking for.
Obviously you don't get the point. Nobody here is asking advertisers to "pander to all demographics." Just showing anyone who's not a female cleaning once in awhile would be great. Why is that so hard to understand?
And it's not just stupid people who are too focused on images that are effected. Everybody is, to some extent.
"Is it bad to want people to choose products based on their effectiveness or performance or value?"
Let me rephrase this for you:
"Is it bad to want Mexican-Americans to choose products based on their effectiveness or performance or value [instead of IN PART on the fact that a certain company is the only one to reverse the historical trend of representing Mexicans/Chicanos as maids or hoodlums or migrant workers?]"
"Is it bad to want women of all colors to choose products based on their effectiveness or performance or value [instead of IN PART on the fact that a certain company is the only one to rerverse the historical trend of representing women alone as domestic workers or madonnas/whores or dreamy brides-to-be]?"
Yes. It is bad. Very bad.
"Can't we look past advertisements and the exterior?"
*You* are free to. I can't, no matter how much I want to turn away. Every time I turn on a TV, read a magazine, or walk past a subway ad, social norms thrust their way into my face, yet again reminding me and those around me of my proscribed roles as a woman and a member of my ethnic group.
It's unfortunate that you feel constantly bombarded by these messages. Much like men obsessed with their penis size, some people become obsessed with their own self image.
This comment leads to me to reverse my earlier belief that you are sincere in trying to understand feminist/humanist perpsectives, or indeed any other cultural critiques.
A person who writes "you FEEL constantly bombarded with these images" has willfully closed shut the proverbial cultural studies, media studies, sociology, or social anthropology textbooks brimming with documentation of the damaging depictions of women and ethnic minorities.
The fact that you glibly dismiss the negative effects on men of society's pathological exultation of large penises (and the corollary exultation of "tight" vaginas) means you have made the choice to shut your mind to the single most powerful feature of the human condition: society and socialization.
Ain't unconfronted privilege grand?
I leave you to your choice and bid a cheerful adieu to your willfully unbridled complacency.
Oh, but before I go: care to respond directly to my points at 1:16 and 1:29 AM on December 2?
No?
Jesus Christ! You are in such total denial of the effects of advertising on everyone, including yourself, and now you turn to personal attacks because the commenters on this thread won't agree with you. Engaging with you is a total waste of time. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you were just ignorant, but it's clearly much worse than that. I'm done.
I pointed out an analogy of self image complexes and that we should hope to move beyond outer images. I did not make a personal attack. There is a difference.
But interesting that you assume I was ignorant. I'm sure you have no problem assuming that of people who have the audacity to disagree with you. They must just all be ignorant if they don't share your viewpoints?
Oh, and since you seem to think it's just too complicated and inconvenient to use a diverse group of people to market products, I suggest companies switch from using White Male as it's default human being to Black Woman. In fact, I think they should only use White Men to portray bad characters such as murderers, rapists, liars, cheats and theives. What does it matter, after all?
I don't think it's complicated or inconvenient. I think it's pandering and unnecessary.
"In fact, I think they should only use White Men to portray bad characters such as murderers, rapists, liars, cheats and theives. What does it matter, after all?"
Ever watch the "Lifetime" channel? Every movie shows a bad scary white stalker/raper/murder/kidnapper type man. Or on the "Women's Entertainment" channel they have a program series literally called "Very Bad Men".
I find it amusing. It doesn't affect my view of myself. I find it interesting that apparently they have lots of women interested in this kind of material.
Again, I didn't stop washing dishes and switch to paper plates because I saw on TV that it must be a woman's role. I can only suspect what kind of psychological profile people must have when they are affected by these images so greatly.
You are free to respond, Bill Diamond, but I leave it to other posters to deal with you if they will. I haven't the time to respond to each of your points only to have you toss off a one-line response that does not address them.
I think statistics show that women purchase most of the things (groceries and such) for the home. I agree that men also clean, and should,
on another note
I can out clean anyone but my mother.