I didn’t watch the Super Bowl, but I did see some of the ads. Here’s one that really lit the fire of my ire.
It’s called “Man’s Last Stand.” In summary, it’s basically a bunch of men complaining about how women stifle their apish tendencies, thus making them behave like normal human beings. Apparently all their suffering at the hands of women means that they totally deserve a Dodge Charger.
Yeah, I’m not buying it. I’m sick and tired of women being constantly portrayed as this naggy, nit-picky, controlling force that stifles the manliness of men. Clearly I’m not alone. Some crafty women created a response “commercial,” which is naturally titled, “Woman’s Last Stand.”
Yes, it takes the same stereotypical stance as the male version of the commercial. However, this one mentions a few real reasons why women have a right to be angry (like unequal wages), and they never ask for a car as payment. I feel like watching it over and over again.
The Ebb and Flow 
8 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 12, 2010 at 2:56 PM
Copper
I appreciate the sentiment but…if you’re going to marry a guy who still wants to buy a Chrysler, you deserve what you get.
Also, there are a whole slew of “Dumb male/Wise female” commericals on tv (The Pepto Bismol ads jump to mind) so I don’t really see a gender inequality as far as advertising goes. Yes, one party is portrayed as negative while the other is portrayed as positive, and in a car commercial running during the Superbowl, surprise surprise, the negative party is women, but it could easily go the other way, and it has. Hell, the V8 commercials show babies as wise and mothers as stupid (the baby’s female too, from what I can tell)
My point? I say why get irked about how women are portrayed in a single commercial by a failing company; that’s an inconsequential victory that’s guaranteed anyway (when Chrysler folds). If this energy were diverted towards getting more women elected into government, for example, everyone would be much better off in the long run. Hell, how about putting some effort behind the idea that not all car commercials have to target men? Or even that putting female-geared Superbowl commercials isn’t a loss? I think those would be more productive efforts to advance the cause than making a response ad to Chrysler, of all companies. I mean, yeesh, those women probably put 10 times more thought into the response commercial than the marketing agency did towards the initial commercial. And for what?
February 15, 2010 at 7:15 PM
leeraloo
Look at all the sitcoms that perpetuate the stereotype of women/wives as naggy suppressors of masculinity. Basically every formulaic comedy show on television, past, present, and future, portrays the central relationship in this way. It’s really just a sign of a bigger problem. And yeah, I think that there are some commercials that portray men as stupid and women as smart (in general, I’m not upset at the sexism of this commercial so much as I am the ubiquity of gender stereotypes in advertising, and I think that the female version of this commercial is aware of the fact that they’ve created an “eye for an eye” type of response, and they address that a bit by pointing out some very real reasons why women have the right to complain) but I can’t really think of a massive televised event that plays host to these types of commercials that are specifically aimed at women as the Super Bowl does for commercials aimed at men. Mostly, I found this Dodge commercial to be a bit more offensive and explicit about these extremely biased, somewhat mean-spirited stereotypes than many other ads are. It’s difficult to tell what will get you fired up, and if these women had the resources and felt the compulsion to make this commercial because the initial ad pissed them off that much (and obviously they did), then more power to them, and I can understand it. Besides, I don’t see the point of a company alienating a good 50% of consumers when they don’t have to. Sure, tailoring an Old Spice deodorant commercial so that it speaks to men makes sense, but cars? That’s just ridiculous. Women drive too. In fact, when I think of the target audience for “cars that go fast and make lots of noise,” the first person I think of is my mom.
February 15, 2010 at 8:48 PM
Copper
Well, it’s not the product as much as the event it’s in. There are commercials geared towards women; they mostly play during Gilmore Girls reruns and during morning cartoons. No female-equivalent Superbowl, though, there is that.
And while there is is the negative stereotype in the average POS show on tv, there are plenty of shows that portray women positively as well (The Shield is, I think, the biggest example). Plus, there are formulaic shows with female leads or key female characters, like Ghost Whisperer and all the CSI shows. Good comedies that portray women positively include 30 Rock and How I met Your Mother, off the top of my head. But you have to note that the formulaic shows that portray women negatively survive with the support of both men and women, because if 50% of the population stops watching a tv show, that tv show won’t survive. The same goes for a tv show formula as well. So you can’t expect men to buck gender stereotypes if women are willing to accept them. That’d be the equivalent of black people crying racism, then going off and supporting the return of blackface.
As to a company alienating 50% of their consumers, it’s friggin Chrysler. You know, the company that would’ve been bankrupt at this point if your tax dollars weren’t keeping them afloat? Yeah, alienation of consumers (intentional or not, and in this case I’m inclined to think they’re just dumb rather than willfully malicious) is one of the reasons they’re in the position they’re in. The Ford commercials, you’ll see, are also about rough and tough men driving their trucks. The Toyota and Honda commercials, by contrast, are gender neutral, which is why they’re such top sellers. Chrysler as a company, frankly, sucks, and the commercial really does nothing more than prove that they haven’t learnt from their mistakes.
And it’s up to women to create a massive televised event that plays to women the way the Superbowl plays to men. Advertisers will go where the money is, so leave a money trail and the commercials will come.
February 15, 2010 at 9:45 PM
leeraloo
I don’t want it to seem like I’m targeting men with these opinions. I am all too aware that my fellow women could really care less about the way they’re depicted on television. That’s why I think we have to point out the things that seem almost pointless or inconsequential. Women have become too comfortable and desensitized in recent years, thinking that we’ve progressed and achieved equality when in truth, we really haven’t. I think advertising and television and even film have become more offensive and stereotype-based in recent years than they were in the 80s and 90s (especially advertising). I would love to see more intricate depictions of both women and men in entertainment and marketing, but to get to that even playing field, we have to be aware when the media being thrown at us is unfair and mean.
Regardless of the company, I just have a hard time comprehending the motivation behind commercials that are directed at a very specific audience for products that could appeal to a much wider array of consumers. It just seems like bad business. Look at Hardee’s – I’ve yet to see a commercial for Hardee’s (which is Carl’s Jr. in some places, by the way) that doesn’t completely alienate anyone but straight men (or that doesn’t seem offensive to women, homosexual men, and men with even a shred of self-respect). Why? There are all kinds of people who like hamburgers and fries and ridiculously greasy breakfast foods. It’s a good point to make that Chrysler is a struggling business, as is Hardee’s. To me, one of the clear issues is their advertising strategy.
There won’t be massive TV events for women until women can be taken seriously in the industry. For now, we remain an unpredictable, mysterious demographic to them. Every time a supposedly “female-oriented” film does big business, studios claim it a “shocker,” like they don’t know that women go to the movies. And then, when they produce films in the same vein as the shocking blockbuster, they rarely have even a shred of the success the initial movie did. I can’t pin down female tastes any better than they can, honestly. I know what I want, and I know what the (mostly male) heads of studios think we want, but I don’t have a clue what women as a whole look for in films, or what gets us into the theater. My point is that putting money into a project – either on television or film or whatever – that is geared at women is a big gamble (at least this is their argument), so I don’t see us having our own “Super Bowl” any time soon. Although, I suppose one could make the argument that the Super Bowl IS our Super Bowl; I think I read that 47% of the people who watch the Super Bowl are women. It’s just that they aren’t taking advantage of the female demographic during the game. Rather, they alienate them, like I said. I can’t imagine a woman seeing that Dodge Charger commercial and hearing anything other than “you’re naggy, selfish, you suppress my masculinity, you’re making me soft, you’re too demanding.” I can’t imagine it, though I do realize there are probably women who either don’t care or who even embrace the ad. I think if a company is going to have such a massive marketing fail that is both offensive and seemingly ineffective, then they deserve to be called out for their stupidity.
February 16, 2010 at 2:06 AM
Copper
Absolutely, but the way to call out their stupidity is not necessarily to highlight the mistakes in their ad, because that just perpetuates the original ad. This particular ad, for example, I would never have seen if you didn’t point it out here. The real way to hit a company is by not giving them your business, which is what is happening to Chrysler and Hardee’s (man, there’s a name I haven’t heard in years; we don’t even have Hardee’s up here). By calling out stupidity, best case scenario, you shame them, worst case scenario, you validate them. Either way, you give them publicity, which only helps them. If, instead, you let the ad sink to the bottom like the turd it is, they get no publicity, and they get no business, and that really hurts them. It would’ve been different if this was a popular commercial from a popular and successful company, but I just think that this counter-ad is the equivalent of pushing a boulder downhill; why expend even that amount of energy?
I absolutely agree that women have been desensitized, and I’m reminded of it every January when all my female peers express interest in the latest misogynistic romantic comedy to hit the big screen (27 Dresses, Bride Wars, and Leap Year). So yes, point out the meaningless, inconsequential things, but how about the shockingly poor portrayal of every single woman in Two and a Half Men, which is one of the top-rated comedies currently running? Now there’s a show where every woman is either a whore or a nag/bitch (except for one instance, where she’s a stalker). A counter-ad against this show would be a far better use of such resources, because then people would realise the rampant misogyny present, and stop watching, leading to the cancellation of the show, and the disintegration of the formula. What does this counter-ad achieve, in comparison? I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, but it’s more like, say, if you have two tests on the same day, with one being worth 40%, and one being worth 5%, and you focus more on the test that’s worth 5%.
And the way for women to be taken seriously in the industry is for women to infiltrate the industry. You know why you never see a misogynistic Pepsi ad? Because the CEO of Pepsi is female, and she won’t allow it. Once women get into positions of power, female stereotyping will weed itself out and commercials targeting women to buy gender non-specific products will increase to the point that it’s ubiquitous.
February 16, 2010 at 4:37 AM
leeraloo
Eh, I guess the reason they made the commercial response was because it was a fairly simple structure, and fairly easy to turn it on its head. In a way, I saw it as a general response to the misogynistic tendencies of a good portion of the Super Bowl adverts. It didn’t seem like it took them that much effort, and I’m not even sure it was created by any certain group. Nowadays, anyone can create a video of great quality in a matter of minutes. What’s more, they did almost exactly what the Dodge people did, but I’m sure it was for far less money, and that amuses me. And yes, “Two and a Half Men” is appalling. What a shocker that Charlie Sheen would be a part of a show that has such a low opinion of women. I just expect more from Duckie.
And as far as the argument that they could be doing more than creating a stupid internet video/ad, I’d argue that there’s a lot being done that isn’t in the news, and many people don’t know unless they pay attention to or participate in any feminist community. Everyone does what they can, but we live in a world where the only time “feminism” gets any real press is when Sarah Palin is complaining about some egregious slight against her that she perceives as sexist (a.k.a. any time someone says something that hurts Sarah Palin’s feelings). Right now, it’s all about planting little seeds, I think.
February 15, 2010 at 2:21 AM
Jen
Touché, roommate. I love that someone did a response to that. Clearly, I’m no “feminist”, but that commercial gave me a rash. “Boooo hooo” I have to go to work and do all the things that go with having a family so that means I have to have this super cool car.
And to the person who posted before me (who I assume is a man): you didn’t even get through the first sentence of your comment without sounding like a complete and utter ass. *Clearly* the car you drive determines what kind of man you are (not) — which is exactly why this women’s response commercial was made: to remind women why dumb guys with opinions like that aren’t worth their time anyway.
February 16, 2010 at 1:48 AM
Copper
I’m sorry, how did I come off as an ass, exactly? Seeing as how I said the ad was retarded and was coming from a failing company, but that there are things women can do to fix these issues above and beyond simply making counter-ads. I’m curious to know how and when during both those messages I looked like a complete and utter ass, because really, the opposite of my point would’ve been “FUCK YEAH, CHRYSLER IS RIGHT, BITCHES GOTTA LEARN THEIR PLACE”, which would’ve been the wise thing, going by your logic of my current points being idiotic.