Saw this commercial today and the obvious questions came to mind. I came to a conclusion (no) but wanted to hear your thoughts here

Is this video sexist?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yt-bHnxi0U[/youtube]

Discuss...

That's the music from the film Drive.

No, I don't think so (but then some will argue that I'm not the best judge )

Giving the message that, albeit tech, women should be respected is good. It was done in a cutesy, positive way, yea it was fun and positive

That's just weird. (The ad, that is)

I wouldn't say so.

You guys are no fun we need some feminazis in here.

Clearly this commercial endorses the idea that all women are slaves to the desires of men and exist only please their man.

And that women are bad drivers.

And look hot in skimpy little outfits.

I don't know if the suggestion that you can replace your girlfriend with a machine is that favorable to women, but on the other hand, what's the chances that someone takes this seriously? I'd say somewhere just shy of a snowball's chance in hell.

Wait, you mean the girl doesn't come with the car?

To be honest, I'd wonder whether the advertisers have very deliberately put the imagery in having concluded that pissing off enough women gets their ad placed on every web news site in the world for a much cheaper fee. I guess it's a fine art to make sure that most people don't end up taking their side.

CdesignProponentsist wrote:You guys are no fun we need some feminazis in here.

You rang?

<watches video>

Nope, not really.

If the gender roles were reversed, would that send the message that a woman driver needs a man to take care of it properly?

Why?

Evolving wrote:

CdesignProponentsist wrote:You guys are no fun we need some feminazis in here.

You rang?

<watches video>

Nope, not really.

If the gender roles were reversed, would that send the message that a woman driver needs a robot man to take care of it properly?

FIFY

Animavore wrote:Why?

I haven't responded to this query yet, and it's a bit gnomic: it might mean "why would it?", and it might mean "why do you ask?"

So I'm going to answer both:

- because (and I know this is fairly weak, but bear with me and see below) of the scene at the end where the passenger of the opposite sex thinks of turning the lamppost round where the birds are sitting, so that their droppings don't damage the paint;

- because if there's a sexist interpretation whichever way round the gender roles are, it's probably not sexist either way.

The other reason why it's not sexist (and this is, I take it, Doubtdispelled's point in fixing my post for me) is because it's not about humans anyway, but robots.

Cheers, DD! (on the other forum which I sometimes frequent, that abbreviation would indicate that you are my daughter!)

Sorry. It was just a general, "Why?" It was my response to the advert. Not your post

Nope, it's just like every advert I've ever seen with the exception of the black current tango ad... It didn't make me want to buy their product.

What about the Irn Bru ad?

Animavore wrote:Sorry. It was just a general, "Why?" It was my response to the advert. Not your post

More gnomic than I thought, then.

I heard the word "gnomic" on the radio this morning in the context of an item about garden gnomes, and it tickled me, and I decided to use it all day and see who understood what I meant and who thought I was strange.

My argument is, it is about the male condition and an unreasonable male fantasy. The female (unlike a real female) is programmed to be happy and attentive and always available sexually and is built like a brick shithouse.

The reason this isn't sexist in my opinion is that both sexes entertain unreasonable relationship fantasies. It is part of being human.

Fallible wrote:What about the Irn Bru ad?

The Irn Bru ads are the best ads on TV, they're brilliant! Do you get them Daaaan Saaaaaath?