Men’s Rightsers and MGTOWers regularly lament what they see as the baleful influence of feminism on everyday life and popular culture. So it’s perhaps worth reminding people what things were really like before modern – that is, second and third wave – feminism.
Second-wave feminism was in its infancy in 1970 when this charming Goodyear ad was shown on the first broadcast of Monday Night Football.
Obviously, the whole “women drivers suck LOL” attitude lives on — in the form of countless dumb jokes, demotivational posters, YouTube compilations, you name it.
But none of that shit hits on the same visceral level as this ad. I think that’s partly because of the smug, patronizing tone of the narrator of the Goodyear commercial, and the hint of contempt that slips into his voice when he mentions the possibility of a mere woman taking the wheel. I think it’s also because to whomever made the ad—and presumably a great number of those watching it — the idea that women are awful drivers is simply considered an incontrovertible fact; the ad isn’t even trying to be funny.
Indeed, this deliberately cutesy vintage Volvo ad, while equally sexist, seems fairly innocuous by comparison. (My only question is why that poor woman seems to have married her father.)
The youtube compilation is kind of funny, especially given that you can’t tell in many cases whether they’re actually women or not, and in the few that you can, well…the part where the woman in the green car had such trouble parking, my boyfriend drives like that…lol
Also my stepgrandmother drives better than my grandfather, so…logic aside, my personal experience says this belief is bullshit.
And how much do you want to bet that some MRA is going to come saying that that ad is still feminist…somehow?
Well, I can’t really blame the MRAs for lamenting the loss of sexist ads like that. They were what made America great! Have you ever noticed that since we stopped openly acknowledging women’s fragile inferiority every time a company wants to sell a product, more and more MRAs have found it harder to get laid?
It’s so sad. Won’t you please help?
For what it’s worth, I find both ads equally distasteful. The Goodyear one seems to be trading on the “women are scary drivers” idea coupled with the “women are precious precious little angels that might break into a million pieces if they don’t lie in a quiet room all the time” idea. The Volvo combines “har, har! women can’t drive” with “har, har! my wife is a shrieking harridan who won’t let me buy anything!” While both are bad, it’s the “har har” part that really grates. It’s insidious, and it’s used to this day when someone wants to say that women are inferior, but doesn’t want to be held accountable.
http://guyism.com/humor/the-9-most-disturbingly-misogynistic-old-print-ads.html
http://www.top10listhq.com/ten-really-misogynistic-vintage-ads/
http://www.bspcn.com/2010/05/27/25-horribly-sexist-vintage-ads/
It was worse..
http://www.bspcn.com/2010/05/27/25-horribly-sexist-vintage-ads/
Oh I have seen the best advert from goodyear in India mocking Indian road conditions. Basically someone does something stereotypically [stupid] and the only thing that saves a motorcyclist is the tread on his tyres followed by “The road is filled with idiots – Goodyear”
So far there is “Man crosses road while talking on cellphone”, “Man opens car door while in traffic”, “Someone cuts down the wrong side of a street”. As someone who is terrified by Indian roads and their frankly lax attitude to driving I genuinely worry that one day I am going to be on the receiving end of some scary driving.
This is an excellent example of feminism and the way we tend to blame systemic structural problems on sexual differences. When those commercials were made,cars really were dangerous. Deadly, even.
Then there was Ralph Nader and “Unsafe At Any Speed” and congress held hearings and regulations were passed *mandating* car manufactures pay to develop and implement safety equipment that worked when tested.
And then, just like magic, women and men became better drivers. Wait, that didn’t happen, but people’s cars became less likely to turn into flaming death traps with sharp steel edges when they got rear-ended at a traffic light.
I like to play this scary music on a loop whenever I drive.
Misandry anyone?
Or is this a “good” feminist message? Born a boy, than you’re a potential rapist!!!
This is an insidious way to further privilege women, because it blames men for women’s dumbass mistakes.
I think the goodyear ad wasn’t playing on the “women are horrible drivers” stereotype as much as the “women are fragile and must be protected” stereotype. Probably both though. To me the Volvo ad was a little worse in it’s mocking of married relationships. I think the “nagging wife” thing is more insulting…but that’s just me.
NWOslave: The message in that ad is the opposite of what you say. They are saying that boys are NOT born rapists, but the messages society sends to children regarding gender, where girls are weak and inferior, and boys are “tough” and can’t show emotion creates an atmosphere where violence directed from men to women happens more often than the other way around. I don’t think the ad is very good, because it plays on people’s emotions instead of offering up any evidence for what they are saying. They could have used simple crime statistics, coupled with wording/imagery in ads for “boy’s” toys as support instead of emotional appeals and the ad would have been just as powerful. It makes the argument appear weaker than it actually is. (here is a word cloud of words appearing in boy toy ads: http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/3372921/Words_Used_to_Advertise_Boys'_Toys )
@Amanda…Can’t stay long, but if as you say that advert which was run during the superbowl was portraying men in a good light, than might I suggest one.
It goes like this…(cue the ominous music) She’s smart, she’s sexy, she’s independent and she’s committed adultery, obtained a restraining order, went to court and now has total child custody while her ex pays for the children and is allowed supervised visitation rights. (cue happy music)…Teaching women that kidnapping mens children and extorting money is wrong and needs to be taught in the home.
I’m guessing this little advert would also send a “good” message, and all you feminists would be more than happy to run it during a major event women watch. I mean after all, it sends a “positive” message, right?
NWOSlave, we already had an entire discussion about that ad, there was a post about it.
OK, just out of curiosity … what are you babbling about, MRAL? Specifically, when you say “This is an insidious way to further privilege women, because it blames men for women’s dumbass mistakes”, what do you intend “this” and “it” to refer to? I would say you’re talking about the Goodyear ad, but I didn’t notice any man-blaming, or dumbass-mistake-making. Plus, you’d be talking in the present tense about an commercial from 40 years ago. So that can’t be it.
By the way, have you checked out the Rise of the Zeta Male blog linked on the left hand side of the page? Just wondering. You never talk about the Zetas. It’s like you don’t even care about them. You probably walk around spitting on them. *sniff!* Poor Zeta males!!!
@NWO
Anecdote:
I had this friend in high school who had a really bitchy older sister. I don’t know what her deal was, because my friend was the nicest person imaginable and her sister was just a ragingly nasty, bitter specimen of humanity (who had good grades and lots of friends, so it really didn’t make sense).
BitchySister was in a relationship with Guy. We knew Guy too, because he was in some of our (me and the friend’s) classes. He’s a nice enough, goofy guy. We never quite got why he and BitchySister got together, but … whatever.
BitchySister and Guy got married. BitchySister and Guy had a couplefew kids.
BitchySister cheated on Guy and was caught red-handed.
BitchySister tried to run off with the kids. Guy fought for custody, using the affair as evidence against her. She tried to sabotage him by making shit up.
Who now has full custody of the kids?
.
.
.
GUY does. I think BitchySister might get them in the summer or on weekends or something, but I know she does NOT have full custody.
This Guy is not the most smart or responsible fellow in the universe, yet he somehow managed to get custody of their children. Imagine that.
Now back to your regularly scheduled whining.
(“But mennnnnnz nevar get custadiiiiiiiiiizzzz!”)
I “like” how the Goodyear ad portrays driving as so SUPER SCARY for those little wimmins brains. Oh no! Stop lights! Stop Signs! Having to read directions to choose the correct exit! How will the wimmins process this complex information?!?!?! ELEVENTY!!!
And my point, in case that was lost, is that if you have a reason to get full custody, it is possible to get full custody. Yeah, sometimes people get dicked over, but that goes for men and women.
If women “steal” “your” children, unless they’re running off to a country that hasn’t signed to the Hague Convention on child kidnapping, why don’t you try to get them back? Oh right, because you don’t want to PAY for them but you don’t want to take care of them either.
I personally know another gal who does not have custody of her kids (only gets them in summer). And I don’t think she should, either. Not that I think her ex should, mind you. They’re both pretty crappy people.
Gaaaawd, yeah, because taking YOUR children with you and letting the man pay child support is more horrible than physically and mentally humiliating someone.
Right. I remember here on this side, someone even equated rape with evil wimminz’ gold diggery (i. e. legal prostitution).
I’m not gonna say anything about this again, but really: Some guys are just so whiny.
@MRAL: YOU should never lose a word about Andrea Dworkin again. *giggles* By the way: I’m still smarter than you. There you go.
What about Andrea Dworkin? She’s dead, no one cares about that dumbass anymore.
NWO that ad wouldn’t make any sense, but anyone who has money can run an ad. People run ads that offend me pretty much daily and I wouldn’t try to stop them. Again, your proposed ad, like the original, would make emotional appeals with no hard evidence to support it. The difference between the two is that there exists evidence to support the original ad, but not yours.
…but I won’t discuss it further since there seems to have been a discussion about the ad already and I don’t want to derail the comments.
You guys know that Dworkin was actually a conservative, whether she wanted to admit it or not?
@MRAL: Didn’t you listen to me?… *rolleyes*
I honestly don’t think anyone who has the lack of willpower to stop stuffing her face with cake has the right to talk about real pain or real suffering or real injustice, because if you don’t even have the willpower to keep fat out of your mouth you clearly have never experienced any real hardship. Honestly.
Okay, that’s it. I’m calling Poe on MRAL.
(Note to myself: MRAs don’t have any sense of humour, sarcasm, irony or winks, so use NEITHER of these around them.)
People keep saying I’m a troll but I simply don’t see how someone morbidly obese like Dworkin can reasonably say that she knows what real pain or real suffering is.
Lydia, I get it, I’m using this as a springboard to bash Andrea Dworkin.