Am I just getting older or are Super Bowl ads more offensive every year? I mean, we don't set the bar very high for beer and car commercials and yet somehow the ads have an increasingly difficult time clearing it. Last year's theme was that dark people talk funny; this year, it is that women are bitches.
Don't get me wrong, every commercial aimed at men is at least vaguely misogynist. Empty-headed bimbos eager to rip off their clothes are like set pieces in the average ad intended to be aired during a football game. But somehow that baseline level of bad didn't seem sufficiently attention-getting to the 2010 TV audience. If you watched the game you already know the ad I am about to show you. Like the "Sales Genie" ads from two years ago, this commercial left not a single viewer unclear about the fact that he or she had just seen something that turned the offensive up to 11:
For the first 20 seconds it's actually a decent ad. Creepy, no doubt, but it does what ads are supposed to do. It draws in the viewer's attention and has the "What the hell is this?" factor. Advertisers like that. And for the first 20 seconds it's standard "Man beaten down by traffic jams, alarm clocks, and his inane job needs Product X to make him feel alive again" fare. It's probably more unsettling than a good ad should be. It doesn't help that Michael Hall (of Dexter) is doing the voiceover while angry looking men glare into the camera, but up to this point it's pleasantly forgettable.
Then it takes a sharp right turn onto What the Fuck Avenue. The middle third is devoted to the real root of Man's dilemma – shrill, bitchy women.
"I will listen to your opinions of my friends. I will listen to your friends opinions of my friends. I will be civil to your mother."
"I will put the seat down. I will carry your lip balm. I will watch your vampire TV shows with you."
"I will take my socks off before getting into bed. I will put my underwear in the basket."
"And because I do all of this…I will drive the car I want to drive."
Cue the vroom-vroom footage of the Dodge Charger promising to compensate for your tiny genitals and your nagging stupid ball-and-chain. Ads like these never fail to amaze me. Dozens and dozens of people saw this at various stages from conception to the airwaves and nobody said "Are you kidding"? I realize there are no women in the upper management at Chrysler and the ad agency is probably 99% white male as well but the odds of not one person having enough common sense to nix this seem low. Given that the auto market is, you know, half female it is questionable strategy to run an ad straight out of the 1950s that basically says, "You put up with all of that bitch's crap; now it's time to lay down the law."
Way to go, Chrysler. It took something special to top this Bridgestone ad…and you delivered.
BrianC says:
Thanks for once again making me feel sane. In a perverse way, I'm looking forward to next year. With the bar this low, I'm expecting the tag line of next's year's carcolhol advertising abomination to be: "Because your woman is a stupid bitch."
ladiesbane says:
Perhaps the unstated reverse is at play. Women are used to identifying with male protagonists, despite the lack of reciprocity — after all, it's not William Shakespeare's "Ophelia" or "Hermione Granger and the Sorcerer's Stone" or anything.
The underlying message these ads send to women is, "You do most of the housework even though you both work full time, and you hyphenated your last name even though he didn't, and he makes more than you do even though you have the same job; you should feel the need to placate him, for some reason. He doesn't appreciate you, but he'll let you get away with murder if you give him this One Stupid Overpriced Thing."
Does it work? Teabaggers would love a return to 1952. So for them, Hell Yes!
What I don't get is why they are so desperate to defend heterosexuality when they clearly endorse contempt between the sexes. They want women to view men as cash machines, and men to view women as sex machines, then curse each other for lack of empathy. They don't even want detente.
(Ed, thank you for noticing all that BS. My boyfriend didn't think I was making it up, but he did think no one else would see it that way.)
dbsmall says:
What's interesting is that this is not only mysoginist, but more generally misanthropic. I mean, it also falls into the long line of ads that bank on "men are simple-minded."
Consumer behavior experts say you need four things to drive adoption or purchase:
– Motivation: the consumer must be interested (hence the use of the magical triad – sex, small animals, or cute children. Do not combine the first with either of the other two)
– Ability: you must target your communications to an audience capable of adopting or purchasing. (In the US, the general assumption is that, for non-luxury items, that's everyone. Debt will get you there.)
– Opportunity: you must follow up the communication with a purchase opportunity. (that's why a good ad tells yoiu where you can make the purchase…I guess they assumed that was obvious, for cars)
– A message that is not *very* discrepant from the consumer's view of the world.
The fact that these condescending ads are proven effective, means that it's not the ads that are offensive. It's our communal "view".
And, if I may, the fact that the Dodge ad is only moderately discrepant from many people's perspectives, also tells you why Sarah Palin can pull in $100K for a speech.
Prudence says:
Oh lawdy that
jon says:
The thing is, advertising only needs to positively effect a tiny fraction of the audience for it to be effective. The Dodge ad says, "Be a man, drive a fun car" to a portion of the audience, and it offends another, probably much larger portion. But if that first group buys enough cars, sometimes choosing a Dodge over a Camaro or a Mustang partially because doing so offends the second group, then that's a good ad. Dodge doesn't rely on efficient, practical vehicles for its existence to the extent Ford or Chevy does*, so it can risk offending more of the audience to reach its target. In a similar vein, Girls Gone Wild doesn't advertise much on the Hallmark Channel.
*And they don't do it all that well, either. Still, the Dodge line is gaudy overpowered and -styled machismo on rubber. It's Ed Hardy as a car company.
jon says:
And by good, I don't mean "of upstanding moral character", only "effective". The Bridgestone ad is just plain stupid, since no one would throw away a wife that looked like that. (I understand the sexist mind too well sometimes, I fear.)
waldo says:
Chomsky has said it all about the media. It is Bernay's monster.
And about 30% of Americans are his perfect audience.
displaced Capitalist says:
I dunno I really didn't see it that way. Yes, this commercial would be offensive if it were talking about real women, but I didn't get that impression. I got the impression it was just making a caricature along the lines of the shrill women popularized by sitcoms since I Love Lucy. But perhaps I'm just being naive.
comrade x says:
The corporate media has worked very hard to convince us that the ideal American male is an obnoxious, lazy, apolitical, misoginyst and anti- intellectual slob whose mental and emotional development ended at 14 years of age.
Think of all those sit- coms that popped up since the 1990s where our hero's life revolves around outwitting his shrewish wife so he can watch the big game or buy something stupid.
John Danley says:
I agree with dbsmall, these sensatiomercials makes men look like sahelanthropic troglodytes and presents women as their "necessary" antagonists.
This represents an endemic perpetuation of cultural stereotypes foisted on the public by greed-mongering marketing "psychologists" eager to insure prestidigitation at the expense of interpersonal aesthetics.
Meretricious dreck.
MarilynJean says:
I don't know why I found the Bridgestone commerical more offensive (Wait, I do know). Sadly, I think, I'm just that desensitized to misogynist advertising. I have seen a lot worse, especially in print ads. I'm jealous that men get a car to escape their nagging female partners and all women get are scented candles and new household cleaning products, or the occasional chocolate treat.
The other thing about these commericals is that it depicts only a certain kind of woman. That Dodge commerical reeks of class overtones that only apply to certain women/relationships/families. That is their right to target audiences, I guess. I just also find that to be bothersome.
ladiesbane really makes a great point about our societal need to reinforce patriarchal structures all while capitalizing on the inherent problems with it.
Zamboni Sam says:
I've never subscribed to the media theory that basically says "since this one, then all" – there are a million ads and media properties that show whatever you want to see. And as a whole, women are no more objectified then men, they're just objectified for different things. I don't think objectifying women as sex objects (or shrill controllers – which is it?) is any worse than objectifying men as breadwinners, football fans, barbecue enthusiasts or fratboys? It's advertising… it sucks pretty much all the time.
Here's my question – aren't there men who ARE in crappy marriages with shrill controlling wives? That ad doesn't speak to me, my wife is awesome. But I do know guys in really unhappy marriages who stick through it because of loyalty or because there's kids. For these guys, maybe they want to drive a fast car and go vroom if it relieves the soul-numbing nastiness of his life.
And what about the first half of the commercial? Would you be okay if some pro-capitalist "shut up and do your job" republican type took offense that it generalizes that all management is incompetent and evil? Because it does.
OneMadClown says:
I don't think objectifying women as sex objects (or shrill controllers
skyskier says:
For working in Marketing (but not advertising) I can tell you that you will find the most despicable ads for products that try to reach audiences way outside what your typical Marketing/Advertising employee is. These folks by enlarge are white, upper middle class (or desperately trying to be), educated and think of themselves as "getting it". When this bunch tries to come with something that will resonate with lower socio economic or ethnicly diverse populations, watch out. Dodge is easily one of these blue-collar, lower-quality products that a bunch of uptown folks just can't figure out how to sell smartly.
fuzzbuzz215 says:
Zamboni Sam is on to something. The media objectives and stereotypes everyone. Like most family oriented sitcoms, for example, the guy is always a useless shlub that would be reduced to a retarded monkey laying in his own feces if some beautiful wife, who knows everything, wasn't there to keep his fat ass in check. The media has displayed men as useless whipping boys for years but you dont hear us complaining. Until now.
Ed says:
Um, I think we have a ways to go before we reach gender parity in advertising offensiveness.
Mrs. Chili says:
Nice. Now I'm really not sorry I didn't watch the Super Bowl. What. Ever.
Angie says:
Thanks Ed, most discussions of this type lead to some sort of oppression competition, which is ridiculous (and no contest). Nice to see you try and keep it on topic.
Liz says:
Hey dudes, I know that feminist media theorists are all just whiners, but they have been pointing out the idiot husband stereotypes for just as long as they have been pointing out the useless-except-for-sex or shrill wife ones– they go hand-in-hand.
"Here's my question
Desargues says:
There are limited ways of selling a shoddily-made, ridiculously-looking product in an overcrowded market. Plus, can you really underestimate the gullibility of a great deal of American consumers? They've been sold SUVs and pick-ups for decades now. Res ipsae loquuntur. Also, look at the car itself — how else would you it? If you had to pitch Cops or Leave It to Lamas, would you go on the Nat Ge Channel and advertise their educational value? C'mon.
SarahMC says:
Zamboni, do you know what "objectify" means? Men are the subjects/protagonists in nearly all sitcoms and commercials that don't advertise yogurt or cleaning products. You are not "objectified" as breadwinners. You are stereotyped that way – not by feminists (who also complain about male stereotypes) – but by fellow men who run the companies and ad agencies and who produce and write the tv shows.
SarahMC says:
However, I don't necessarily blame the ad men or Hollywood exclusively. They wouldn't make that shit if the American public didn't eat it up with a spoon. But the fact that misogyny sells doesn't make it right; it makes the buyers misogynists.
Da Moose says:
If you lived in DC, you'd appreciate this commercial. Sorry to say but there is a certain degree of truth to this issue. Many women these days want a man to be like their best female friends, sensitive and talkative, while still being manly. This ad along with many of the others is a natural and expected backlash to the feminization of men in America.
Ed says:
hmmmmm.
Some interesting theories we have here. I must have gotten a hotlink from the Hannity.com forums.
SarahMC says:
That's not true, Da Moose! I live in DC and I'm looking for an inconsiderate man who only speaks to me when he's trying to get a piece or telling me the house needs a cleaning.
Zamboni Sam says:
You are a thing that exists to provide sex for men.
You are a thing that exists to provide a home and security for women.
You are a nagging shrill anchor destroying male liberty.
You are a complete doofus who needs a woman to function.
Models and porn stars highlight your inadequacies as a woman.
Movie stars and athletes highlight your inadequacies as a man.
You are nothing unless you're beautiful.
You are nothing unless you're rich.
You Are A Thing That Exists To Please Someone Else.
I know what objectify means, SarahMc.
On a societal basis, women have clearly gotten the shit end of the stick for millennia. You'll get no argument from me there.
But from a cultural/media point of view? You only see your own agenda. The Media objectifies EVERYONE – especially in advertising. Because all of us are the biggest object of all… consumers.
5 X-Ray says:
SarahMC, if I weren't in Iraq I'd be in the process of moving to DC to fulfill the roll for you ;) J/K.
As far as the commercial I'll say this. To quote Fight Club, "we're a generation of men raised by women." Just the fact that we're made aware everyday how misognyst and horrible we are destroys our manhood. We've had it drilled into us that anything outher than a Toyota Prius is just a man trying to "compensate for what is in his pants". I think this commercial is saying, look at all the times you bend over backwards (even if that's not true for the majority of American males) grab your sack and do one thing manly for yourself.
Besides I thought according to pop culture media women were getting sick of the uber femenized metrosexuals with nicer hair than them. Does anyone want a man's man?
Also, lest we forget, IT IS A COMMMERCIAL! How in touch with reality have any of these advertisers ever really been?! Not to mention they operate on the theory that any publicity is good publicity and here we are dedicating our free time days after the commercial to talking about it! So right or wrong, it got people to talk about the product, and let's face it anyone who was in the market for a flashy car isn't going to be deterred from buying this vehicle because acolytes of Ann Cahill don't like the commercials.
(BTW for anyone who is giong to call me a misogynist violence monger, just the fact that I know who Ann Cahill is and you don't should prove that men in general are MUCH more aware of women's issues etc than they were 50 years ago)
That's just my 2 cents (currently worth .013 Euros).
Da Moose says:
Hannity forums, my ass! Look, the reality is that there is an imbalance in the role of genders throughout the globe. In the East, men dominate socially. In the West, women dominate socially. These are generalizations but, by and large, it's true and it's one of the underlying reasons why we have this clash between east and west. There are so many men I know who refer to their wives as their mothers. Why is that? Married men find that there is something missing in their lives. Can you explain it to me? Characterizing these ads as some sort of chauvinistic tripe ignores this emerging social trend and ignores the fact that many men in America feel like their lives are meaningless. Look at the stats. More and more boys and young men are no longer going to college. Why is that? Many men in America are depressed. Why? Ed, put down your "How to be a card carrying liberal" book for a minute and use your head to think beyond the BS from the left and the right. Something's going on with the American male ego and it aint positive. Obviously, it's not right to blame women but I know many women who are taking full advantage….
Da Moose says:
This writer understands that expectations that women in America have put on men to satisfy their every need has created a lot of hidden resentment in men. She gets it. Ed does not get it. But, maybe he will after reading this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/feb/06/lori-gottlieb-feminists-marriage
Ed says:
"Many men in America are depressed. Why?"
Because of women, and because they are too feminine. Right?
"Married men find that there is something missing in their lives. Can you explain it to me? "
Yes, they are idiots. They married idiots and their wives did the same. This country has always had a vast population of dipshits who take cues and develop relationship expectations from TV and magazines.
But it's good to draw some attention to this new phenomenon of married men of middle age feeling like something is missing in their lives.
"There are so many men I know who refer to their wives as their mothers. Why is that?"
Because your friends are emotionally about 13. If a relationship feels that way, get the hell out of it. If you can't find a woman who doesn't act like a character from Sex and the City, maybe the problem is you.
"Something's going on with the American male ego and it aint positive."
OK, you keep focusing on how men are being feminized and I'll take a look at the fact that in a society that expects them to be breadwinners none of them can find a decent-paying career with job security.
Ed says:
"This writer understands that expectations that women in America have put on men to satisfy their every need has created a lot of hidden resentment in men."
See, statements like this make it pretty obvious that the problem is you. Not sure what I can say to open your mind to that possibility.
Your argument is essentially "Ed is an effete liberal douchebag who refuses to see what demanding fucking cunts women are." Maybe it's time to re-examine your fundamental premise, heretofore presented beg-the-question style, that women are in reality the way that women are in your mind.
fuzzbuzz215 says:
5 X Ray…I was so gonna use that Chuck Palahniuk quote from "Fight CLub." Also, Zamboni hit it on the head again. And way to make the "We're all commodified" argument. Way to be.
SarahMC says:
Besides I thought according to pop culture media women were getting sick of the uber femenized metrosexuals with nicer hair than them. Does anyone want a man's man?
Define "man's man."
"Women" are not a monolithic group. Metrosexuals are not my type but neither are macho men who are anxious about their masculinity. My guy has scruffy hair and a beard and we both spend the majority of our time in t-shirts. We also have a lot of common interests and enjoy each other's company. That's right: he's neither "metrosexual" nor a stoic jerk who pretends not to have feelings. He actually sees me as a partner, not as a substitute mommy, because he does not view the empowerment of women as the dis-empowerment of men. A lot of men are probably so terribly unhappy because they can't deal with women's increased status in our society. They don't know who they are if not "the one who wears the pants," or "the boss," or "the head of the household." That's their problem; not women's.
Pan Sapiens says:
""Ed is an effete liberal douchebag".
Hmm. Hey! That pretty much works as a counter point to all your arguments. I think I'll stick wit dat.
Now, come on, peoples. Aren't we getting just a tad bit weird? Using empirical evidence taken FROM OFF THE TV for your psycho-social analysis of American males and females? What are you all, aliens from Outer Space, trying to make sense of life on earth from our transmissions (or if you will, our electromagnetic excreta)?
Or is this a tie-in to Ed's prior post about the, what, impending permanent bleed between the virtual and the real?
Ike says:
I think it was basically saying that the Dodge Charger is intended to be purchased by closet serial killers. What's the big fuss? Now we have an easy way to profile those guys.
Da Moose says:
I don't understand how the statement regarding men's resentment reflects on me personally. I know many men who feel that they can't express why they feel smothered in their relationships and are subsequently resentful for it. Perhaps it does reflect on me and does illustrate that the problem is me but I don't see it. I am open to seeing it though.
I do agree with you that there is some truth to the fact that what I want to see is what I get…in women. I am definitely working on that aspect of my emotional foundation. But, I don't think that you are a douche bag liberal at all. I just think that you are too partisan sometimes. But, I am not going to fault you for it. Day in and day out you create the content that allows me to think about stuff so I appreciate that. I don't reciprocate with my own blog. You are the one putting your neck out there, not I so you will always have that advantage.
If we have a vast population of fools who take cues from TV, to paraphrase a previous statement, then are you also not a fool for taking these TV commercials this seriously because if you give it that much social weight than why is it wrong for American dimwits to take their social cues from it?
Finally, it's ironic that I found your blog based upon a brilliant diatribe you put together about Palin's book. It's ironic because you attack these chauvinistic Super Bowl commercials weeks after you write a book review that, in your heart of hearts, can you admit would have been written with the same tenor if Palin was a dude?
Da Moose says:
One more thing, because I think it's important to say, if you want your blog to be a place where partisan liberals can rant and find like minded people who will only reinforce partisan ideas and concepts about the right and not a place where ideas can be debated without fear of immediate categorization (i.e hannity forum comment) then I intend to stop visiting your site. I must emphasize that we are much closer to collapse than anybody is willing to recognize. We can ill afford to find solace with those who think like us if we want to find a way forward.
jazzbumpa says:
Does it work? Teabaggers would love a return to 1952. So for them, Hell Yes!
Make that 1752. Back then, we had a King.
And he had divine rights.
Better now, no matter how screwed up things get.
Cheers (I guess)
JzB
5 X-Ray says:
I think SarahMC hit the nail on the head. The media continually plays people's biases and fears off each other. Mainly because fear mongering gets ratings. If women's stock is rising mine (men's stock) MUST be falling, but that is patently absurd. Respect is infinite, everyone (who deserves it anyway) can be given it.
Ultimately this commercial boils down to, how do we get people to talk about our product? Obviously they succeeded in that aspect. Regardless of that, I think the underlying issue that Ed is trying to address is, why does the media insist on re-enforcing negative stereotypes? IE My wife is a naggy bitch, or I'm not a real man unless I buy a cool car that goes, real fast.
I would say it's because A) the media ultimately doesn't care about the consumer/viewer's "mental health" and B) becuase most comedy comes at someone's or some group's expense. Someone has to be the butt of the joke, in this case it's women who are "naggy whiners" and men who are SO unhappy and so emasculated in their lives that they think the solution is a Dodge Charger. The sad part is that men and women like that do exist.
At any rate, I think Yogi Berra would agree that without MEN and WOMEN we couldn't survive as a species. After all, women are the yang to men's ying or vice versa. They should be equal partners, I want the woman that wants to be the bread winner too, heck, I want the woman that likes taking part in the adventure that is my life, who wants a bystander that just sits on the sidelines and observes/cheerleads as a meek servant?
ladiesbane says:
Look, amigos, dissatisfied people buy more unnecessary crap than content folks do. There are different ways to sell things, but one successful way is to amplify discord. “Life sucks! You deserve a treat!” “Guys are unreliable swine! Microwavable chocolate goo will soothe your broken heart!” “Women have the pussy monopoly and your girl will only give it up if you buy her a diamond worth a quarter of your annual salary!” It’s all BS, but we are a nation of insecure children who think feeling better is something you can buy.
I'll save my manifesto on Why We All Need To Be Stand-Up Guys (which is the sequel to "Why Straight People Need to Learn to Like the Opposite Sex") for another day, when our host has chosen it as the topic du jour. Until then, I'm with JazzBumpa: things are better now, no matter how screwed up. Cheers, All.
beau says:
Wow. Back away from the edge, Moose. Many of us regulars have had our asses handed to us on these very boards. Welcome to the club. It'll hurt less next time. Try lying on your stomach.
To those quoting Palahniuk – As a gay satirical novelist, do you think it's possible ol' Chuck might have been taking the piss with that line?
And way back @John Danley – Fuck, man. We all love SHIFT+F7, but CALM DOWN.
Prudence says:
Da Moose, Palin is dumbass, with or without a vag. And coming up in here with the "men are feminized… waaaah!" BS will just not fly.
I live in DC, and I think I know SarahMC from another site, so if you´d like to meet up sometime and complain about how we´re ruining your masculinity, let´s do it. I´m back in the US of A in March.
OneMadClown says:
Dammit…the patriarchy ate my last comment.
Elle says:
I know many men who feel that they can't express why they feel smothered in their relationships and are subsequently resentful for it.
This is so interesting.
The research suggests that (heterosexual partnered) women's principal source of emotional support is outside their relationships/marriages. Asked to cite the greatest source of their happiness for an Australian study, men listed marriage above other factors, whereas women listed friends, health and family support.
Other research has found that men principally cite their wives/partners as their 'best friend' or 'must trusted confidante', but women are more likely to discuss problems with other people.
The evidence seems to suggest that levels of emotional support in heterosexual relationships aren't reciprocal. Maybe women (as a group) are seeking greater parity in emotional support and this is somehow offputting to the men you know.
I find this really interesting because it runs counter to the tropes that exist around women and marriage (like that braindead Lori Gottlieb book that someone cited upthread) that women are desperate for someone to put a ring on it, and demand enormous emotional inputs from men using sex as a instrument of control
Mayya says:
ALL GENERATIONS have been raised by women. Grow the fuck up.
Larkspur says:
I was watching that Charger commercial before I even knew that Michael Hall was narrating it, and my first thought was, OMG, that first guy is a cold-blooded killer.
I'm trying to imagine a sunnier Charger commercial, and honestly, I can. Instead of intoning all those dead-serious sacrifices he's made, it could be a voice-over with a man and woman going through their day, working hard on their house (maybe moving in), with a few funny bits about him on the ladder and she's trying to hand him stuff, or how he gets stuck with an almost runaway wheelbarrow – the point being that even when people are happy and working together, there are just things we do automatically: he does the climb-y lift-y stuff, she unpacks the china and gathers up the packing paper. At the end, they call it a day. She pours herself a glass of wine and puts her feet up, and holds out the car keys so he can grab 'em as he heads out the door for some relaxing muscle-car man-driving. She doesn't *allow* him to have the keys; she's simply handing them off and indicating he should go have a good time.
But no: Dexter spits out some white-knuckled thinly-veiled threats, and nobody has a nice day.
As for the Bridgestone ad, it's irredeemable. I can't stop the inevitable imagery that follows when a slender, under-dressed, frightened young woman is thrown out of a car, in the rain, and left to face a bunch of threatening thugs, alone. No amount of trying to blunt the effect by indicating that the thugs know they've failed can keep that next sequence from playing out in my mind.
Now I'm going to go re-watch that Discovery Channel Boom-de-yada commercial; then I'll feel better.
Boom-De-Yada
dbsmall says:
I'm confused by most of this, except the parts where people called each other names.
(That was actually sincere. I went back and read what I wrote this morning, and it's a verbose, inarticulate way of trying to say—there's a reason for these ads likely work. And the reason they work is that this is not the society that an effete, liberal douchebag like Ed wants it to be.)
Now, if you'll excuse me, I gotta go put my son to bed. My poor, poor, masculinity-threatened, zeta-male son. I blame TV.
Shane says:
A bit of a late addition, but a worthy contribution to the discussion.
http://jezebel.com/5469882/i-will-see-paul-blart-mall-cop–twice-a-womans-response-to-the-dodge-charger-ad
Aslan Maskhadov says:
How the hell is driving a "reward" anyway? When I used to live in Phoenix, driving was absolute hell. I had to drive during my job most of the time, so by the time I got home the last thing I wanted to do was get back on the road.
Ed says:
I'm a little sad on the inside now that someone actually came to this site and cited Lori Gottlieb in a "Read this, it will explain everything" context. It's a step up from citing the Protocols, but not a large enough step to make me feel good.
Larkspur says:
Gosh darn it, now I have to find out who Lori Gottlieb is. Oh, don't bother to fill me in; I can do the research. I really need to get out more anyway.
Meanwhile, I know I should do a search of the site in case you've discussed this before, but has everyone seen this Embrace Life – Wear Your Darn Seat-Belt PSA? It's kind of brilliant, and doesn't make anyone look dumb, it just makes them (mom, dad, and daughter) look loving and strong.
Seat Belts
David R says:
From the article Da Moose linked, Laura Gottlieb is a woman who decided that birthing and raising a child alone while maintaining a career would be a liberating feminist adventure… then discovered otherwise and blamed feminism as a whole for her own extremist/foolish behavior.
What I can't figure out, and would like to ask Da Moose— if he's still following this thread— is what the article has to do with male resentment, or the effect of women's expectations of men? The article didn't really mention men at all on a personal level. It seemed to be more about one woman's quest for happiness, and how her own bad decisions kept her from being happy.
(As an aside, the notion that deliberately choosing to raise a child alone is empowering is kind of silly. Kids are hard work, especially in the first few years. I have a small child, and if my wife passed away, my kid and I would be moving back in with my parents and I would be frantically, selfishly searching for a new mate. Not saying the latter course of action is right, just saying I can see why Gottlieb snapped.)
Elle says:
As an aside, the notion that deliberately choosing to raise a child alone is empowering is kind of silly.
I don't know about 'empowering', but in some circumstances it might be less work. If you have a very traditional heterosexual partnership, then a husband might be such a drain on a wife's time/emotional resources that things might be easier without him.
This would never have occurred to me, but I'm reading a book on domestic labour (Wifework, by Susan Maushart), and she describes having a lot more time on her hands when she and her own partner split up, leaving her with sole care of three children. A staggering number of men do less housework when they have children, rather than the more I see my own male friends doing, and almost no men do a genuine fifty per cent of the childcare/housework available, even when both partners work full-time. (Interestingly, even where the only thing partners split equitably is playing with the children, women still report their male partners as doing half. I guess most enlightened couples want to believe that they're both pulling their weight, even when they're patently not.)
Julie says:
Yeah, i couldn't believe this when I saw it. What the hell?