Yellow Book Commercial
Yellow Book Commercial
If they shot the exact same script, but with the husband and wife roles swapped, it would be demeaning and sexist. So why isn’t it demeaning and sexist as it is?
Trick question.
It is.
Originally posted here by my husband.
I couldn't agree more!
posted by Amanda Shankle-Knowlton | 3:36 PM
3 Comments:
The whole point of the person who originally posted this and my comment about it was to indicate that the commercial was sexist. Against men. A man taking out life insurance on a woman would not be made into a commercial because women's groups would go crazy. But somehow the reverse is okay and is even supposed to be "funny". It's not fair. To MEN.
So I would say I agree with you, but your anonymous personal attack makes it hard for me to do that.
Isn't it incredibly annoying when people lack basic reading comprehension? Especially when they are hostile about it? Clearly this is a troll.
I agree that this commercial really highlights a way that sexist ideas hurt men. Men are supposed to provide income and that's apparently all they're needed for. The "reverse" ad would create too much cognitive dissonance to be funny (to most people) because it wouldn't make sense to people that a man should rely on his wife for income. Since it wouldn't be "funny", people would then see it as sexist.
One could say that if we lived in a non-sexist society, you could reverse the genders and it would still "work". In that case, it would just be mean. I happen to still hate that kind of ad, whether sexist or not. (Like ones where parents are mean to kids & vice-versa.) The tougher nuts to crack (related to sexism) are the ones where there isn't hostility/meanness, because it's harder to get offended by them.
My first reaction to the commercial was "Wow, A spouse's death isn't funny at all" - and then I was mad because it wouldn't have even been done the other way around (for the same reasons you mentioned).
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home