Mad Manfred wrote:
It's degrading to both sexes: to men because it assumes they are cheaters and to women because it encourages men to cheat on them.
It's worth distinguishing the difference that it doesn't assume that men cheat, but that they want to.
It gives both sexes a reason not to buy Reebok's hobby jogger shoes.
What does the quality of the ad have to do with the product?
I'd be pretty far back in line to defend of misogynist, but how exactly did that poster not[/it] express said misogyny without consequence? What consequence has he or she suffered? The disregard of an anonymous stranger making an unlikely claim?
I'd be pretty far back in line to defend of misogynist, but how exactly did that poster not[/it] express said misogyny without consequence? What consequence has he or she suffered? The disregard of an anonymous stranger making an unlikely claim?
Edited
roughly20% wrote:
You know that roughly 20% of children in america are born to fathers who aren't the ones listed on the birth certificate, right? Some studies figure it closer to 30%. This evidence is overwhelming, noone in this field really disputes it. So much for the argument that men are the cheaters, at least when they do its just for sex and not to dupe some poor schmuck into raising someone else's child. sigh...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/magazine/22Paternity-t.html?pagewanted=all'Of course, the men who take the tests already question their paternity, and for about 30 percent of them, their hunch is right'- I like this quote.
Your post is grotesquely misleading. It is unclear as to whether this is a result of ignorance or dishonesty.
"The report concluded that 2 percent of men with “high paternity confidence” — married men who had every reason to believe they were their children’s father — were, in fact, not biological parents." - I like this quote.
themanontherun wrote:
If anything, it's degrading to men. The ad is supposed to appeal to men who...
1) want the physique of the man in the ad, musclebound beyond what is natural (ie. without use of steroids or professional level talent and background).
2) want to imagine themselves as the kind of man who could have two women at the same time and get away with it, or the kind of guy who could attract a woman for just sex (ie. with the woman he's cheating with).
3) want to be dedicated to "the goal" and place their own achievements in abstract contests above human relationships.
How do you think the advertising execs see the average male? They see him as wimpy and insecure about his body. They see him as unsatisfied with the amount of sex he's getting, or more importantly as someone who needs the affection or attraction of women to feel good about himself, someone who bases his self worth on his ability to attract women. They see him as someone willing to replace having a social life with having a hobby that gets 100% focus and attention.
Is that the picture of someone the advertising execs respect?
The creatives in an advertising agency are basically 60% women and 35% gay men.
themanontherun wrote:
a) I don't feel I fit that demographic and b) I'm not particularly concerned with what a stranger in a board thinks of me (unless they're offering me something).
If they're offering you candy you shouldn't take it. That's what my Mom told me and I'm pretty sure she was right.
Wasn't it reebok that did the "run easy" ads a few years ago? What a bunch of flip floppers. They just want to stand out, but neither of those ads really make me want to buy their product.
UGH
Agree.
I've never tried their stuff, but really have no desire to. What elites wear Reebok other than Curtis? I know Zap is sponsored by them. I know a couple guys who said that was a deterrent for joining their group because they didn't want to have to wear Reebok.
Miss Clamishia Bootytuck wrote:
I wonder id some other blogger( or you?) will end up run this up Gloria Steinham's flagpole and result in sit-ins at Reebok stores nationwide.
For the young folk who might not get the reference, Steinem is a famous Playboy Bunny who recently found her true calling in later life and turned into a housewife and homemaker.
http://cdn2.holytaco.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/gloria-steinem5.jpg
Do you really think this is an accurate history of Gloria Steinem, or are you just a troll?
Man Dad wrote:
You probably don't believe me, but I've been married for 17 years and have never cheated, never thought about cheating (save for the intangible 10 second fantasy) and have never put myself into a situation where my faithfulness would be questioned. My wife is my best friend and closest ally. I love her.
I'm probably not the most attractive guy in the world but most would call me good looking. I've been successful in the office and have a great social life.
Don't get down on men. There are good ones out there, probably trying to find you right now. Go after guys who have values and you will have better luck.
I think you should get your testosterone levels checked. It is evolutionarily unnatural for a male to not sexually desire females and there are no "values" nor any marriage that can prevent this. The values and marriage commitment may prevent the man from acting on these desires but if you've seriously never had these desires, either you surround yourself by ugly, ugly, ugly women or you are suffering from some sort of health problem.
"Cheat on your girlfriend, not your workout."
If we deconstruct this, what it basically is saying is that certain relationships are worthy of respect, others not. It posits that the central relationship, the one that warrants a sacred place, is the relationship to one's body by extension from the workout. It could have said "cheat on your taxes, not your workout", if it wasn't that there was a point to be made by choosing to cheat on one's girlfriend. We can suppose that the girlfriend and workout are in opposition, as is not the case between taxes and workouts. Where does this opposition come from? Possibly from the fact that both workouts and girlfriends suppose a daily time investment, that is made to reap benefits in the long term. What the ad is saying, therefore, is that the workout will benefit in the long term, whereas the girlfriend may or may not.
In this way, it gives credence to individualism, not misogyny. We wouldn't be more (or less) shocked by the slogan "cheat on your boyfriend, not your workout". What offends us, therefore, is not that it demeans women, but that it negates the legitimacy of long-term relationships.
The ad is degrading not to women, but the sport, in its celebration of "the sport of fitness."
gramthlete wrote:
What offends us, therefore, is not that it demeans women, but that it negates the legitimacy of long-term relationships.
Actually, I'm not offended at all.
Seriously, are any of you? Who gives a flying F what some ad says. It's of zero importance in my life.
Not Easily Offended wrote:
Actually, I'm not offended at all.
Seriously, are any of you? Who gives a flying F what some ad says. It's of zero importance in my life.
Why would you take the time to post a reply to state that the subject is not important? I submit for your attention that you *are* offended, by the overwrought importance of this ad and, while I respect that, I'm bored at work and firmly intend to pursue my deconstruction of the Reebok ad.
Even though I think their distance running shoes suck and would never buy a pair, ad or no ad.
+1!
It's for girls who have more than one girl partner.
gramthlete wrote:
Why would you take the time to post a reply to state that the subject is not important? I submit for your attention that you *are* offended, by the overwrought importance of this ad and, while I respect that, I'm bored at work and firmly intend to pursue my deconstruction of the Reebok ad.
Even though I think their distance running shoes suck and would never buy a pair, ad or no ad.
Why would I take the time to post? Why does anyone post anything? In this case I am surprised that anyone would give a sh!t about some ad. So, I suppose that I am checking as to whether folks really are or is this all just for the fun of arguing.
You "submit that (I am) offended"? Seriously? So here I am wondering if people (in this case you) realize how incredibly stupid it is to tell others (in this case me) what they really think. Do you?
OK, this has taken 54 seconds to post. Guess I shouldn't take so much time.
My teammates and I have been saying this for years. Some of us have girlfriends, some don't. No girl has ever complained to any of us about it. They think it's funny. We repeat it all the time to each batch of incoming freshman whether they have girlfriends or not. You are all so sensitive it's just silly.
Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
Not Easily Offended wrote:
Why would I take the time to post? Why does anyone post anything? In this case I am surprised that anyone would give a sh!t about some ad. So, I suppose that I am checking as to whether folks really are or is this all just for the fun of arguing.
You "submit that (I am) offended"? Seriously? So here I am wondering if people (in this case you) realize how incredibly stupid it is to tell others (in this case me) what they really think. Do you?
OK, this has taken 54 seconds to post. Guess I shouldn't take so much time.
No, I didn't seriously think you were offended (the latter part of the post was intended to clarify that).
I would, however, like to adress the "why should anyone give a sh!t about some ad". Ads are terribly effective at selling stuff, in fact some would claim that that is their purpose, and they do so by striking at the very core of our values, even the ones we don't even admit to ourselves. Also, they occupy a considerable cultural space, on billboards, airwaves, tv screens, internet pages etc. Should we ignore them? Of course. Can we? Doubtful. Studies show how frightfully effective they are at digging into our subconscious mind and exerting a subtle control on our buying habits. So a discussion of what an ad, especially a country-wide ad, is saying, is not a useless exercise.
Of course, you may say that talking about them just makes them *more* effective. Which is true. But understanding what they are saying at a subtextual level frees us somewhat from their influence, which is not useless.
