|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thanksgiving morning, I logged on to AOL and found an insulting anti-male feature in the welcome screen. The following email was sent to AOL (stevecase@aol.com) describing the reason why I canceled my account (and switched to AT&T Worldnet) that very same day:
Dear Sir or Madam,
I found the following caption in my America Online welcome screen this morning:
Men: Don't be that guy
When I clicked on the link to investigate, there was a picture of a man with a turkey for a head. The narrative read like this:
Beast of the Feast? DON'T BE THAT GUY! Are you giblet-brained about Thanksgiving? DON'T BE THAT GUY! Take our handy quiz and find out if you're fit to sit at the grown-ups table this year.
Below this demeaning blurb was the link:
AOL Men: Bad behavior with all the trimmings.
I'm very disappointed that AOL has put this anti-male feature in its welcome screen again. I had written to you back in August regarding your welcome screen messages, and it seemed like the anti-male messages had stopped for awhile. It seems that I was mistaken.
I had warned you that I would terminate my AOL membership if I ever saw anything like that again in my welcome screen. Therefore, I will be canceling my account as of the end of this billing cycle.
It is unfortunate that it has come to this, but I don't feel like subscribing to a service that devalues men and boys in this manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Individually boycotting is one thing, but threatening to enlist others in your boycott (by the way where did this word come from, is there a girlcott?) is much more effective.
And what about products that you wouldn't buy anyway but which advertisement bugs teh %@$# out of you? I've seen plenty of these and a handful have gotten me hot enough to write to the company over and also include a link ot a website where I dis their ad to others. They never responded, but I like to think they have some impact.
One was an ad by DeBeers the diamond company. They ran a print and billboard ad a few years ago that went something like this: A man is presenting a diamond to a woman at a fancy dinner table and the caption ran "You'll get your reward little later".
Now, I'm not in the market to buy diamonds (nor do I wish to receieve them) but this ad made me mad as hell. It is highly insulting to men and women. For women is suggests that all women are prostitutes, for men is suggests that even some men have to resort to "buying" sex. I personally only have sex with a man who sexually attracts me, not manipulates or bribes me .... and I assume men do the same. And I know many other women who respond sexually in the same manner. As far as men, when I posted the ad on a website, most men were equally offended.
But most were not in a position to simply not buy DeBeers diamonds. So a letter writing campaign is in order. In this case DeBeers pulled this ad it seemed to me rather quickly. At least it didn't last the usual 3 month run in glossy high end magazines, so I'm assuming they got a lot of flak from it.
Conversely, what if there is a product X that is simply superior to product Y, yet produc X has objectionable advertising? Then you can punish yourself buy using product Y for eternity or write the Product X company and threaten to boycott and to incite others to as well (nevermind that you'll continue to use product X, if you're mad enough you won't of course).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I should add that advertising such as the furniture ad is deeply embarrasing and insulting to women as well, both on behalf if it bashing men, and from the perspective of them assuming all women will "relate" to the ad and find it funny or somehow affirming. That is deeply offensive to me, the ad producers are not thinking of this possible angle of insulting their potential female buyers as well.
I remember once going car shopping (with my white male SO) and the salesman using as one of his "pitches" that we surely had enough money and/or credit rating to buy THIS car as opposed to "blacks" (he used another word) and single mothers who didn't. We didn't have to settle for the less expensive model was the point he was trying to make, the bank would give us "white" male-head-of-household (he assumed) people a good deal. He specifically aimed his comments at my male SO in a way to try to bolster his ego both on race and sex. (How sick and how dare he assume that all white men were as bigoted as him!)
We were so disgusted we left. Later, my SO called the dealership and complained about the salesman's tactics and told him he lost them a sale. I hope he got fired.
So it doesn't have to just offend the group that is being bashed in the ad. It can also offend the group who is assumed to approve the bashing! Please take heart in that.
When I see this simple-minded comeuppance type male bashing being pitched to me, a female, I'm deeply embarrassed and ashamed, not for being female, but for the fact that people automatically assume I support it. I'm insulted that they make that leap of logic on my behalf. I'm embarrassed in the same way I'm embarrased to be a human when I happen to see a bit of Jerry Springer. It's not my fault I share some characteristics (being human) with those people!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again, I think that companies do respond to complaints about their ads, and they'd have to be stupid not to, unless the head of the marketing department is sleeping with the president. It's not as though the company has to change their whole style and approach; they need do nothing more than walk into the advertising section and say, "Hey, numbskulls! Next time come up with something that doesn't alienate customers!"
With one or two exceptions, companies are not sexist, and have no interest in running an ad that annoys people if they can run another ad that is equally effective and doesn't annoy people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lorianne, you are absolutely correct that the DeBeers ad is offensive to *both* men and women.
As for your boycott question, etymology is a secret passion of mine. The following is from The Dictionary of Word Origins by John Ayto:
"The word boycott sprang into general use in the year 1880, to describe the activities of the Irish Land League. This was an organization set up in 1879 by the Irish nationalist Miachel Davitt to press for agrarian reforms, rent reductions, etc. Those woh did not agree with its aims, it subjected to an organized campaign of ostracism. One of the first to suffer from this was one Captain Charles Cunningham Boycott (1832-97), a British estate manager in County Mayo. Hence 'to boycott,' which became a buzzword of the early 1880s, was quickly adopted by other European languages, and has remained in current use ever since."
So, you see, "boycott" actually has no etymological connection to the word "boy," the full etymology of which is not exactly clear. From the same book:
"Boy has long been problematical, but hte now most generally accepted view is that it is probably a reduced form of an unrecorded Anglo-Norman *abuie or *embuie 'fettered,' from the Old French verb embuier 'fetter.' This came from vulgar Latin *imboiare, a compound verb based on Latin boiae 'leather collar, fetter,' which was adapted from Greek boeiai doraf 'ox hides' (hence 'ox-leather thongs'), from bous 'ox' (related to English bovine and cow). The apparently implausible semantic connection is elucidated by the early meaning of boy in English, which was 'male servant'; according to this view, a boy was etymologically someone kept in leather fetters, and hence a 'slave' or 'servant.' The current main sense 'young male,' developed in the 14th century."
Considering the above, fellow masculists, how about we start calling our boys "young men?" Or, considering "man" actually has its etymological basis in "person" rather than "male," how about we start calling them young "wers" and ourselves "wers?" "Wer," the etymological evolution of which is still used today in terms like "werewolf" (human male wolf), originally was used to define the male sex in Old English. "Wif," from which we eventually derived "wife" was used to refer to women.
How about it? Are we men or are we "wers?" :)
(My suggestion is, of course, not serious.) :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doesn't Canada have an Anti-Hate Speech law?
We are the attorneys for the Montauk Group.
Our client operates highly reputed upscale furniture stores specializing in luxury and exclusive design sofas under the MONTAUK banner across Canada and the United States.
Our client is the owner of the copyright to original work being advertisement featuring a woman seated in an oversized sofa and dialogue text in graduated font size, in association with the sale of our client's wares and, more particularly, sofas. Our client's advertisement is featured regularly in national and international magazines as well as on our client's catalogues, brochures and web site. Attached are copies of sample advertising by our client as appears on the home page from our client's web site - www.montauksofa.com (the "Montauk Advertisement").
The Montauk Advertisement is well known in the industry and to the public as part of our client's marketing campaign since 1995 in Quebec, elsewhere in Canada and the United States. The Montauk Advertisement is a key part of our client's image marketing which costs an average annual amount of CAD $125,000. The Montauk Advertisement is also critically acclaimed as part of our client's distinctive marketing campaign, and it has won the Grand Prize in the décor category of the 1996 Premier concurs de publicité.
Our client informs us that you have illegally copied the Montauk Advertisement, specifically the photo portion, and are publishing same on the home page of your web site - www.dancurry.com which is registered in your name (copy attached). We assume that you have other advertising which would contain the infringing photo. All such advertisement by you is in flagrant violation of our client's exclusive copyright in the Montauk Advertisement. In so doing, you have wrongfully appropriated our client's property.
Further, your distortion of the advertising text that accompanies the Montauk Advertisement is harmful to our client's goodwill and reputation.
Your unauthorized reproduction of our client's copyright in the Montauk Advertisement and derogatory use of same for your mens' issues / talk radio web site have caused our client to suffer damages. Our client will not tolerate your violation of their rights in any way. Consequently, given your illegal and harmful acts which cause and will continue to cause serious prejudice to our clients, we have received instructions to demand that you immediately:
a) cease and desist immediately from all use and publication of the Montauk Advertisement or any variation thereof, including without limitation, the advertisement as published in your web site - www.dancurry.com;
b) notify all third parties, including the web site designer, magazine publishers and advertising agencies to immediately remove all your advertising which infringes our client's copyright in the Montauk Advertisement or any variation thereof, and provide us with a list of the names, addresses, telephone and fax numbers, of all such third parties and copies of your notices to them;
c) remove and destroy all advertisements, promotional articles, brochures and publications, be it printed, visual or electronic, in your possession or under your control which infringe our client's copyright in the Montauk Advertisement or any variation thereof; and
d) sign and return the attached Undertaking that you will not infringe on our client's copyright in the Montauk Advertisement in any way whatsoever.
We expect return of the attached Undertaking signed by a duly authorized representative of your Company, accompanied by the documents required under section (b) above, and this, by no later than December 7, 2001.
Should you fail to comply integrally with the above, and/or should we fail to receive the Undertaking within the delay specified, we have strict instructions to take all appropriate legal proceedings against you, without further notice or delay, including proceedings for injunctive relief and damages.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gee, Dan. I'm surprised they didn't hire you as a graphic designer rather than disparage your version of their ad. How THEIR version is any better for their reputation than YOUR version is beyond me.
What's your next step, bud? (If you can discuss it here.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan,
How classic. I'm sure people from Montauk have been browsing this site and while they've been doing nothing to remove or apologize for their ad, they sure took some action when they saw the parody!
I'm not a lawyer, but I know parodies are protected speech in the U.S, if not Canada as well.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
p.s. If they're REALLY paying $125,000/year for a piece of crap ad like that running in major publications, they're getting off easy. I'd wager this ad campaign isn't really as popular and widespread as they claim it is (otherwise, why in the hell would the bother complaining about Dan's parody? People parody [without permission] other major advertising campaigns all the time. Just watch Jay Leno some night).
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
