I... Don't find this sexist. She's bathing in a bathtub full of dice. If she was writhing in ecstasy, clearly masturbating in the tub, or anything like that I'd be more inclined to agree. But she's clearly playing with the dice(and possibly in a great deal of pain, I did something similar and it FREAKING HURT!!!) and relaxing. I don't find it sexist, just weird.Ignoring the extremely obvious sexual connotations of this commercial is pointless, I think. Look at the way the scene is shot - the way the girl is looking at the scene, the way the camera tracks her body... she is not just a person relaxing in a shower, she is a hot woman getting naked.
This is a video. The women does not need to act as if she's in a porn movie in order for it to be 100000% clear that she is supposed to be viewed in a sexual way. It's in the way the camera is handled.
oh no, it's quite sexual-just about anyone getting naked is, but I don't think it's sexIST, Per se.
|
It's from a European country. The American prudishness formed by being founded by puritans and another 200 years of influence from the religious right is by no means universal. Cultural mores are different in different places.
Your comment doesn't have anything to do with anything. Firstly because you don't even know if any of the other commentators in this thread are American. Secondly because the issue people are taking is not that it's improper to show a naked woman on TV or something (that would have been the problem had prudishness been the root of the issue), it's the fact that a gaming related product is being sold by objectifying a woman. I like naked women as much as the next guy, but I can find better places to see them than a gaming dice commercial. More importantly, I want girls sharing my hobby, and this commercial is bound to make them less comfortable to do so. Not good.
So where is this convention being held? Would somebody from that country be able to say how that commercial is being regarded by its target audience?
So where is this convention being held?
Russia, looks like.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you sure you didn't just misspell "sexy?"
:P
Not my type necessarily, but seriously... this just looked fun and silly, if low-budget and simple in concept.
Creative and oh look... we're talking about their con... so it was also effective!
Anyone know what song that is? I want it! It's sexy too!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. That second add is dramatically different.
It also makes me want to actually attend the Con. The first? Not so much. Actually, I think "sex sells" is a victim of its own success. I've been blatantly lied to so often by commercials essentially telling me that purchasing their product would somehow equate to a beautiful woman that it fails to accomplish its purpose. Sure, it's eye candy, but I'm not going to go out and buy the product now that my base urges have been appealed to.
That second ad? That makes me want to go visit.
EDIT: That first ad WAS good for a laugh, though. That makes me think it's more the humorous poke that was proposed in the last page than a genuine effort to advertise through sex appeal.
Whenever people pop off with "sex sells, it's gonna keep selling", I like to point out that they obviously haven't noticed the fact that Pathfinder is outselling the competition by being so inclusive and progressive, some folks actually get cranky and storm away from the game.
Saying that objectification is okay simply because it "sells" is moot at this point, seeing how it's been proven that a company can succeed by not alienating women from the hobby.
|
Whenever people pop off with "sex sells, it's gonna keep selling", I like to point out that they obviously haven't noticed the fact that Pathfinder is outselling the competition by being so inclusive and progressive, some folks actually get cranky and storm away from the game.
Saying that objectification is okay simply because it "sells" is moot at this point, seeing how it's been proven that a company can succeed by not alienating women from the hobby.
Just because you can succeed by not doing it doesn't mean that doing it isn't going to be easy success. Nobody is saying its ok because its successful, they are saying its still used because it is still successful.
Also I don't think its fair to attribute being inclusive and progressive as the reason for Paizo's success against its competition.
Whenever people pop off with "sex sells, it's gonna keep selling", I like to point out that they obviously haven't noticed the fact that Pathfinder is outselling the competition by being so inclusive and progressive, some folks actually get cranky and storm away from the game.
Saying that objectification is okay simply because it "sells" is moot at this point, seeing how it's been proven that a company can succeed by not alienating women from the hobby.
You mean this Pathfinder?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait are you trying to say there's something wrong with any of those?
Wait are you trying to say there's something wrong with any of those?
Not at all. Well, I don't think so. But when you use Pathfinder as a shining example of how "sex sells" is wrong, I just like to point out that Pathfinder got plenty of sexy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My mistake, I forgot how vocal some people like to get about denying sexism, particularly if it approaches the gaming industry. I'll bow out.
The only thing surprising about the ad was that it was for a convention. Did you all miss the fact that she walks in in a sexy outfit and starts undressing next to a dice display case? So from the start I was expecting her to be using sex to sell something RPG related like dice.
Objectification of women is a form of sexism, so yes this was sexist. The fact that everyone it seems uses sex to sell isn't an excuse to continue... but since sex actually does work very well in selling I guess a few voices in objection aren't going to change anything. Money rules marketing not good ethics.
PS: Upon further consideration maybe men wouldn't have noticed the dice rack... they did pick someone attractive to undress, they probably didn't even look at the dice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing surprising about the ad was that it was for a convention. Did you all miss the fact that she walks in in a sexy outfit and starts undressing next to a dice display case? So from the start I was expecting her to be using sex to sell something RPG related like dice.
Objectification of women is a form of sexism, so yes this was sexist. The fact that everyone it seems uses sex to sell isn't an excuse to continue... but since sex actually does work very well in selling I guess a few voices in objection aren't going to change anything. Money rules marketing not good ethics.
PS: Upon further consideration maybe men wouldn't have noticed the dice rack... they did pick someone attractive to undress, they probably didn't even look at the dice.
and if it was a man undressing? Is it still sexism when a man does it?
they did pick someone attractive to undress, they probably didn't even look at the dice.
I did.
[Redacted redacted redacted]
and if it was a man undressing? Is it still sexism when a man does it?The only thing surprising about the ad was that it was for a convention. Did you all miss the fact that she walks in in a sexy outfit and starts undressing next to a dice display case? So from the start I was expecting her to be using sex to sell something RPG related like dice.
Objectification of women is a form of sexism, so yes this was sexist. The fact that everyone it seems uses sex to sell isn't an excuse to continue... but since sex actually does work very well in selling I guess a few voices in objection aren't going to change anything. Money rules marketing not good ethics.
PS: Upon further consideration maybe men wouldn't have noticed the dice rack... they did pick someone attractive to undress, they probably didn't even look at the dice.
Would I be objectifying a sexy man who started undressing for an ad showcasing dice? I might try not to... but I probably would. So yes I suppose it would be reverse sexism.
It still doesn't make it right even if you do it to a man Freehold DM.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Reverse" sexism?
It either is sexist or it isn't. "Reverse sexism" implies that sexism can only ever apply to a single sex.
Which is sexist.
"Reverse" sexism?
It either is sexist or it isn't. "Reverse sexism" implies that sexism can only ever apply to a single sex.
Which is sexist.
Are you confused by the term? Sexism is singled out in many cases as against women. While strictly it can mean against either gender; if you asked random people on the street about sexism most if not all of them would assume you meant against women. This makes the addition of "reverse" to the term necessary to make it clear you are targeting men not women.
Russia, looks like.So where is this convention being held?
OK, I'm not going to use the "S" word.
But if I saw this commercial running for a Con I had planned on attending, I would be seriously uncomfortable and looking into my options on how to cancel my attendance. I feel sorry for other female gamers who plan to attend, and even more sorry for any female RPG developers/booth reps who have to attend as part of their jobs.
A whole sh**storm was started by this video among Polish gamers... It went from accusations of sexism, exploitation of women (the actress as far as I know was co-creator and according to people who spoke with her about it had fun making the video) and went downhill to rather primitive namecalling and such. *sigh*
I learned about all that from FB and blog posts and still haven't watched the video.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Reverse" sexism?
It either is sexist or it isn't. "Reverse sexism" implies that sexism can only ever apply to a single sex.
Which is sexist.
Are you confused by the term? Sexism is singled out in many cases as against women. While strictly it can mean against either gender; if you asked random people on the street about sexism most if not all of them would assume you meant against women. This makes the addition of "reverse" to the term necessary to make it clear you are targeting men not women.
No, not really. It creates a false dichotomy, implying they're different things.
I also hate the term "reverse racism" when it's black on white racism or something instead of the other way around. Just call it what it is. Racism. Same as for anyone else.
Creating a second word for the same thing just contributes to separation.
@Drejk: It can't be Poland. There are no people shaped like balls.
Was there a point you were trying to make Rynjin? You know before you raged out over a common term.
Whenever people pop off with "sex sells, it's gonna keep selling", I like to point out that they obviously haven't noticed the fact that Pathfinder is outselling the competition by being so inclusive and progressive, some folks actually get cranky and storm away from the game.
.
Well, the phrase never specifies WHICH kind of sex sells more kinds= more customers....
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Was there a point you were trying to make Rynjin? You know before you raged out over a common term.
My point was that it's a hypocritical term. It's used pretty much exclusively by self-proclaimed Social Justice Warriors, who point out sexism (or racism, agism, being-a-toy-ism...) where they see it, oblivious to the fact that by creating a dichotomy where there is none, they're contributing to the exact thing they claim to be opposed to.
The "reverse" is not necessary, it's there to make you feel better about being sexist towards men. After all, it's not sexism, it's REVERSE sexism...which is completely different.
Likewise "reverse racism". It's okay when a black man is racist, because he's not really racist! He's REVERSE racist, which is completely different, because he's somehow justified in being racist because his race was/is discriminated against.
It's a terrible practice.
Um no... it isn't different. The "reverse" is there to help you identify who is being targeted. I fail to see why you have such rage over a helpful descriptor.
OK, I'm not going to use the "S" word.
But if I saw this commercial running for a Con I had planned on attending, I would be seriously uncomfortable and looking into my options on how to cancel my attendance. I feel sorry for other female gamers who plan to attend, and even more sorry for any female RPG developers/booth reps who have to attend as part of their jobs.
A whole sh**storm was started by this video among Polish gamers... It went from accusations of sexism, exploitation of women (the actress as far as I know was co-creator and according to people who spoke with her about it had fun making the video) and went downhill to rather primitive namecalling and such. *sigh*
I learned about all that from FB and blog posts and still haven't watched the video.
Ah -- that answers the question I asked a while back. The convention is apparently being held in Poland, and its target audience reacted very much as Americans have to the ad.
|
|
The "reverse" term is not helpful here. When being used it is often in a way that implies sexism/racism are being carried out in some sort of revenge act by victims. In this case we are talking about an ad using a man instead, would be simply sexist. Now if in protest of the ad a group was to make a video of a man to make a point, that would be "reverse" sexism. That is the way I understand it. I agree with Rynjin, I'd just prefer folks didn't use the reverse term at all.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I'm understanding Pan correctly, a site such as The Hawkeye Initiative would be 'reverse sexism', since the intent is to oppose sexism in the comics industry.
The way they do that, is to point out examples, and turn them around, asking male creatives, and fans, to reflect on just what they're doing, and consider how they would react if it were done to them and their icons.
It's breaking the fourth wall, and any sexism is carried out on a meta-level, that acknowledges they know exactly what they are doing, and why they are doing it. But they are only doing it for as long as they need to do so, until the message gets through. They would prefer to live in a world where they didn't have to do this.
If it were simply material trivialising male characters, done totally straight, for the purposes of pandering to the female or gay male market, with no satirical subtext?
That would not be 'reverse sexism', but just plain and simple 'sexism'.
Which is what Rynjin said.
|
|
If I'm understanding Pan correctly, a site such as The Hawkeye Initiative would be 'reverse sexism', since the intent is to oppose sexism in the comics industry.
The way they do that, is to point out examples, and turn them around, asking male creatives, and fans, to reflect on just what they're doing, and consider how they would react if it were done to them and their icons.
It's breaking the fourth wall, and any sexism is carried out on a meta-level, that acknowledges they know exactly what they are doing, and why they are doing it. But they are only doing it for as long as they need to do so, until the message gets through. They would prefer to live in a world where they didn't have to do this.If it were simply material trivialising male characters, done totally straight, for the purposes of pandering to the female or gay male market, with no satirical subtext?
That would not be 'reverse sexism', but just plain and simple 'sexism'.
Which is what Rynjin said.
Yeap.
~shrug~
I can see what your saying... I just don't think I will use it as anything more than the descriptor it is. I really don't see the need for adding more nuance to the term. Already people disagree with simple definitions I doubt a nuanced version will stick.
"Reverse" sexism?
It either is sexist or it isn't. "Reverse sexism" implies that sexism can only ever apply to a single sex.
Which is sexist.
Are you confused by the term? Sexism is singled out in many cases as against women. While strictly it can mean against either gender; if you asked random people on the street about sexism most if not all of them would assume you meant against women. This makes the addition of "reverse" to the term necessary to make it clear you are targeting men not women.
No, not really. It creates a false dichotomy, implying they're different things.
I also hate the term "reverse racism" when it's black on white racism or something instead of the other way around. Just call it what it is. Racism. Same as for anyone else.
Creating a second word for the same thing just contributes to separation.
@Drejk: It can't be Poland. There are no people shaped like balls.
It's kind of like saying reverse backwards, ATM machine, propelling the ball forward... It's a redundant word... Like the s you Yanks add to the words sport and Lego.....
Not sure how the s is redundant on either of those, honestly.
Baseball is a sport.
The collective of all sports is...sports. There are multiples of them, hence the s.
Same with Legos. Lego is the company, Legos are the bricks (a shortening of "Lego Bricks").
The "reverse" is there to help you identify who is being targeted.Why doesn't 'sexism towards males' suffice?
Sure you could use that too. It isn't the popular way but it gets the point across just as well I suppose. Feel free if "reverse" has too much baggage for you.
|
If I'm understanding Pan correctly, a site such as The Hawkeye Initiative would be 'reverse sexism', since the intent is to oppose sexism in the comics industry.
The way they do that, is to point out examples, and turn them around, asking male creatives, and fans, to reflect on just what they're doing, and consider how they would react if it were done to them and their icons.
It's breaking the fourth wall, and any sexism is carried out on a meta-level, that acknowledges they know exactly what they are doing, and why they are doing it. But they are only doing it for as long as they need to do so, until the message gets through. They would prefer to live in a world where they didn't have to do this.If it were simply material trivialising male characters, done totally straight, for the purposes of pandering to the female or gay male market, with no satirical subtext?
That would not be 'reverse sexism', but just plain and simple 'sexism'.
Which is what Rynjin said.
Given these definitions, the ad in the OP is 'reverse sexism', as it is knowingly making fun of sexist ads.
|
|
The "reverse" is there to help you identify who is being targeted.Why doesn't 'sexism towards males' suffice?Sure you could use that too. It isn't the popular way but it gets the point across just as well I suppose. Feel free if "reverse" has too much baggage for you.
You say its the popular way but I have never heard reverse sexism used this way except this thread.
That isn't surprising Pan. Men don't have to deal with sexist behavior on a daily basis. You probably only think of it in an academic sense if you think of it at all. So yeah, it isn't surprising if the term never came up in your circle of buddies. It isn't an issue for you, not even in the reverse direction.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That isn't surprising Pan. Men don't have to deal with sexist behavior on a daily basis. You probably only think of it in an academic sense if you think of it at all. So yeah, it isn't surprising if the term never came up in your circle of buddies. It isn't an issue for you, not even in the reverse direction.
Way to be dismissive of another human....
You are very blunt and lack tact.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say all of us humans have to deal with sexist behaviour on a daily basis. Both directed against us and against others. See, it isn't always obvious when it happens, is it? It behooves us all to respect the plight of our fellow humans, and claiming you have it worse than someone else is usually a matter of not understanding them.