Sexism Against Men in TV Commercials

It is bad and ignored.

I understand that people do not like to read through a video. I tried to keep the text to a minimum in my video "TV Commercials and Gender" at mountsiyeh.substack.com. So I would like to expand the discussion of the video here, fill in some of the blanks, and add some further ideas.

First, I would like to discuss a couple of rules that did not make the video.

Rule: the male/female relationship is a very meretricious one, i.e., it is prostitution. This can be seen in such things as men paying for dates, community property, alimony, etc. But it can also be seen in TV commercials. I remember an ad from several years ago that I could not find to include in the video. It showed a husband trying to coax his wife out of bed to get ready for work. She wanted to stay in bed because it was her birthday or their anniversary or something. He insisted that she get up and go to work to show her co-workers the jewelry gift he now hands her. She melts. They kiss, and the ad ends with them both drifting back into bed. To be blunt, he gives her a gift, and then she gives him sex. Prostitution. Most Valentine's Day ads have this theme---maybe not quite this explicitly. But most VD ads show him giving her a gift, and her responding with a kiss, i.e., the beginnings of sex. After all, "Every Kiss Begins With Kay."

But what kind of a deal is this? He gives her a gift, and he gets sex. But she gets sex too. She gets two gifts, while he only gets one. But it is even worse than this. Chances are that he is doing all of the work involved with sex, while she just lies there. She gets three gifts, while he only gets one. I'm having a little trouble believing the Patriarchy came up with this exchange. There is no Patriarchy, only a Matriarchy, and it is very, very selfish.

This next omitted rule adds evidence to the existence of the Matriarchy. Rule: Gifts to men can be work related, while gifts to women cannot. Commercials show this. Gifts for men can include things like tools, drills, sanders, weed wackers, trimmers, gardening tools, car maintenance tools---things that involve work around the house. But men are not allowed to consider traditional housework aids as gifts for women. Things like pots and pans, mops, brooms, blenders, food processors, and washing machines, are considered to be horrible gifts for women. These things must be considered as basic household items, not gifts. Gifts for women must be jewelry, chocolate, flowers, new cars, etc. Gifts for men can be related to household labor, but gifts for women cannot. Women can gift men extra work, but men better not gift women more work. Again, the Patriarchy did not make up this rule.

I think the main themes of my video include the following.

Commercials are very biased against men.

Women good, men bad.

Women superior, men inferior.

Women are human, men are animals and sub-human.

Women deserve our charity and attention, while men deserve violence---which is comical.

These themes lead to the contradiction of many common stereotypes.

Why are commercials this way? My immediate answer to this question is "capitalism." Women make most decisions concerning what products and what brands to purchase. A prevalent and well-known statistic is that women are the primary deciders for the purchase of 80 percent of all consumer products. This gives women great power. After all, people get power not from making money, but from spending it. We hear constantly that men have all the economic power because men are the CEOs of companies, and because men make most of the money. But these things do not represent power. (Another stereotype contradicted.) Because men give the money they make to women (prostitution?) to spend, women have much more economic power than men.

This economic power of women is reflected in TV commercials. Because women decide on which brands to buy, advertisers must aim their ads at women. Even ads for men's products are often aimed at women. Men are not going to get a fair shake in this situation. And because all advertising media want to attract advertisers, all advertising media must also slant toward women. So TV, radio, magazines, and the internet must bias their content toward women in order to get more advertising dollars. Again, this is not a very good situation for men.

Is this bias against men really necessary? To compare, let's take a look at the recent trend toward DEI---Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. Because of DEI pressure, TV programming and commercials now include many more people of color, LGBTQ+, people with disabilities, women, interracial couples, etc., than they used to. I dare say that DEI does not include one group in its Inclusion, and that group is men, and in particular, white, heterosexual men. And surprise, surprise, they are the ones who have been replaced on TV and in TV ads. There are not very many white, heterosexual men on TV anymore. Of course, there is one exception to this new trend---most all stupid, incompetent doofuses on TV are still white, heterosexual men.

This DEI influence has been most noticeable in regards to African-Americans. Even though African-Americans are only about 14 percent of the U.S. population, they now dominate in many areas on TV. For example, two-thirds of morning show hosts are now black. Most game shows and talk shows are now hosted by African-Americans. And look at all the court shows that have black judges. African-Americans are also over-represented in TV commercials.

I don't know if this over-representation of African-Americans is justified in an affirmative-action sort of way. But my point here is that this is not "capitalism." Why would advertisers over-represent African-Americans in commercials? Certainly, blacks do not spend more or purchase more products than whites. This over-representation appears to be a form of "socialism." If advertisers can ignore their capitalistic tendencies to over-represent African-Americans, then why can't they do something similar for men? Why can't they include men in the Equity of DEI and stop being so biased against men?

I stated in the video that women were the chauvinistic gender. There are studies backing up this conclusion. For example, researchers Laurie Rudman and Stephanie Goodman found that women like women more than they like men, but that men have no gender preference. Researcher Paul Connor found that people tend to have an implicit bias in favor of women and against men. A study by Maja Craso found that in regards to instrumental harm, both men and women are more protective of women, but that women were especially protective of women. A study by Tania Reynolds found that both sexes see men as perpetrators and women as victims, but that this bias is much stronger in women. The study showed that even when women were portrayed as perpetrators, women still somehow saw them as victims. One has to wonder how men got the reputation for being the chauvinists. Perhaps this comes from women being allowed to complain while men aren't.

This female chauvinism is expressed in women demanding products that are just for them. This also indicates a strong narcissism in women. Why would so many products of a general nature be just for women? If men and women were really so different that women should get different products just for them, then men should also get just as many products just for them to account for the differences they have with women. If men and women are so different that women deserve three breakfast cereals just for them (Special K, Curves, Smart Start), then men also deserve three breakfast cereals just for men to account for men's differences from women. Men also deserve 22 laxatives just for men, gyms just for men, yogurts just for men, probiotics just for men, hemorrhoid creams just for men, power bars just for men, etc. Of course, men do have some items now just for them (deodorant, hair color, vitamins), but only because women earlier claimed these items as their own with Ice Blue Secret, Tickle, Toni, Miss Clairol and Geritol. I suspect that the problem here is that if a product can also be used by men, then it just isn't good enough for women. It seems women think they are superior to men, and women, therefore, deserve their own products. It is pure chauvinistic narcissism.

In the video I showed many examples of ads belittling men's manhood. I could not find any ads disparaging women's womanhood. This is an effect of the fact that men must constantly prove themselves as men, while women never need to prove their womanhood. Women are automatically women, while men are always at risk of losing their manhood. This is related to why men cannot complain.

In the video I stated that men are not allowed to complain, while women complain a lot. I believe these tendencies are due to sexual selection. Human children are helpless for several years. Unlike in other species, mothers need much help in raising their offspring. They get this help from fathers, who need to be strong, competent, helpful, protective, and generous. Women can determine which men have these qualities by complaining and seeing which men come running to their aid. Men who are weak, who can't even take care of themselves, and who complain are ignored by women. These men would not be much help in raising children. So to be attractive to women and to stay attractive to women, men must always be strong and manly. Men can lose their manhood at any time if they show any sign of weakness. Women have no such need to prove their womanhood---they are always automatically women. Therefore, women benefit from complaining, while men do not.

An example of how trivial women's complaining can be can be seen in a recent Peleton commercial. In the ad a husband buys his wife an exercise bike for Christmas, and she describes her yearlong fitness journey. Women complained that this was sexist---that the husband was only interested in keeping his wife slim, as if that is the only reason to use an exercise bike. Alternatively, this complaint from women might have something to do with what I mentioned earlier---gifts for women cannot involve work.

Even though men are not allowed to complain, a Gillette ad shown during the 2019 Super Bowl raised the ire of many men. Even though the ad was for a men's product, the ad was probably aimed at women. (As I said earlier, advertisers for men's products do often aim their ads at women, since women often buy these products for their husbands and sons.) The commercial portrayed men as toxic, mean, and bullying sexual abusers. Many men complained and boycotted Gillette. So even though men generally are not allowed to complain, they can be pushed too far. Gillette learned this the hard way. The fact that Gillette thought that it could get away with this slander of men indicates Gillette thought men would never complain.

Since women are allowed to complain and men aren't, this results in men not receiving much help. This is why most all charity goes to women. This also shows that men are very protective and supportive of women. Even though men get and die of cancer more often and at a younger age than women, still, breast cancer in women gets most all of the attention. Even though men die of heart disease about ten years younger than women and in nearly equal numbers, the Go Red For Women Campaign focuses only on women. Even though men on average die about 6 years younger than women, and men die younger and more often of 14 of the top 15 causes of death, most of the attention and aid goes to women. (Men would probably be 15 out of 15 except that they are usually dead before they are old enough to get Alzheimer's Disease.) Even when men do receive help, it has to be framed as men helping women, or women calling the doctor for men, since men aren't allowed to do this for themselves.

As I said in the video, women often appear in ads for men's products---often prominently. Again, this shows how egalitarian men are, and how considerate and protective they are of women, since men's products are often advertised as benefiting women as well as men. But men rarely appear in ads for women's products, and then, only in the background. Since we don’t see men in ads for women’s products, it again shows how self-centered and chauvinistic women are, and how condescending they are of men.

Women are constantly purchasing products that enhance their sexual appearance. This is odd and very hypocritical considering that any sexuality by men is quite risky in today's environment. The #MeToo Movement has punished men severely for the smallest of sexual infractions. A recent YouGov survey found that 8% of women thought that a man asking a woman out for a drink is sexual harassment. This poll also found that 55% of women thought that a man looking at a woman's breasts is sexual harassment. This is odd considering that several ads in my video were selling padded and push-up bras. (Is a woman who wears a push-up bra guilty of sexual harassment?) I would also like to point out the women in the video with their butts hanging out during a college athletic competition. It appears women are allowed to be sexual, but men are not. Would the Patriarchy make these rules? Women are in charge, and their hypocrisy is quite rich.

But the sexual product most offensive to me is lipstick. Here are several arguments why lipstick is extremely sexual, and is, in fact, imitation, engorged, vaginal lips painted on a woman’s face. Argument 1: lipstick is usually a shade of pink with a little brown thrown in, which are exactly the colors one would expect for vaginal lips. If lipstick were just a form of decoration, it would be any color that would go with the rest of a woman's outfit. But it is almost always pink. Of course, the fact that the lips are reddish takes away from this argument a bit. Argument 2: women inject poison into their lips to make them larger, i.e., more engorged. If plump, luscious, kissable lips are desirable, then why don't men with thin lips make them bigger? Argument 3: we do not allow 5-year-old girls to wear lipstick (or any other makeup) because it is sexual. If it is sexual on a 5-year-old, then it is also sexual on a 25-year-old woman. Sure, lipstick is more acceptable on a 25-year-old, but it is still very sexual. Is it OK for a 25-year-old woman to wear lipstick to work, or is that sexual harassment? Argument 4: glossy lipstick. Why do women make their lips look wet? Slobbering is not sexy. But wet vaginal lips are very sexual, and painting wet, engorged, vaginal lips on a woman's face is also very sexual. The hypocrisy of women toward sexuality is staggering. And the fact that they can get away with all this duplicity is again an indicator that women are in charge.

The fact that violence against men in commercials is not only acceptable, but funny, is disturbing. As I pointed out in the video, the extent to which advertisers promote violence against men and avoid any violence against women is extreme. I suppose the fact that all animals and other non or sub-human characters in ads are male may contribute to the violence against men in ads as well as in real life. The dehumanization of men makes violence against them easier. And humorous.

Sexual violence against women in commercials is strictly forbidden, yet sexual violence against men in ads is not only acceptable, but, again, funny. Just imagine the outcry if the genders were reversed in any of those sexually violent ads appearing in the video.

I've seen an estimate that we watch an average of about 270 minutes of television every day, and about one quarter of this is commercial advertising. Another estimate is that we watch two million ads by the age of 65. TV commercials must be having an effect on both men and women. Advertisers must believe this too, otherwise they would not spend so much on advertising. But just how negative is this effect on people---especially on men?

Both men and women have valid complaints against commercials. But only women complain and often their complaints are petty. If you google something like “sexism in TV commercials,” you will see that all of the hits will be about sexism against women. Because men do not complain, sexism against men is invisible and ignored. But complaints about sexism against women in ads are everywhere. The previously mentioned complaint about the Peleton ad and the ever-present complaints of sexual objectification of women in ads are examples of this. But, I think it is obvious that the sexism against men is much worse, but ignored.

Probably the most prominent complainer concerning how women are portrayed in ads is Jean Kilbourne. She has made a career of complaining about how women are treated in ads---mostly magazine ads, but she has also ventured into TV commercials. She has many videos online. So feel free to watch her videos and compare them to my video. See how she focuses on ads supposedly disparaging to women that few of us have ever seen while missing the disparagement of men in TV ads that we have all seen tens or hundreds of times each.

Men have much to complain about concerning TV commercials. But they don't complain. They should start. They should use what they did for the offensive Gillette ad as a model for action against other advertisers. Women could certainly help men out in this situation. Women like to complain. They could complain about the treatment of men in ads and benefit their fathers, husbands, and sons. But women are superior, selfish, condescending, and chauvinistic, so don't hold your breath.