In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

A Sundae Never Looked So Gross

Cara

This ad is bad enough due to the disturbing, creepy and regressively gendered messages, and lots of people are talking about that. To be clear, I don’t see myself supporting the idea that having men buy things for you is some kind of grand life achievement (one to be impressed by!), no matter what the context.

But will someone please tell me what the fuck this commercial has to do with ice cream?

I’ve watched it three or four times now, trying to work out the link. And I’m absolutely convinced that there isn’t one. The “fall in love” line is extremely tenuous at best. I mean, if advertisers are going to make these kinds of shamelessly sexist ads, shouldn’t they at least try to find a way to defend it as somehow related to the product? I can’t even work this out on a “they’re selling a lifestyle” level. Is there a Dairy Queen lifestyle that I’m unfamiliar with, where children are taught that it’s women’s job to look pretty, and men’s job to throw money around to impress them?

This has to be part of the reason why I so rarely watch television . . . and why I mute the ads when I do.

Thanks to Violet for the link.

83 thoughts on A Sundae Never Looked So Gross

  1. I’ve added DQ to the list of places I won’t eat (not that I ate there much, anyway). i really don’t understand what they are trying to sell us here.

    I’m with you on the tv thing. I can’t hardly stand to watch it anymore because of content of the commercials. I have to make an exception for The Daily Show and The Colbert Report (I usually mute the commercials and read during that time), but the rest of the TV shows I watch these days come from NetFlix. No commercials, no problem. Gotta love it!

  2. Dragonfly, with the exception of Lost, I’m exactly the same way. I watch TV shows — just not when they’re “on television”. I watched the first season of Lost for the first time on DVD, too, and actually think it’s a superior experience. I just can’t wait that long.

  4. I don’t think it’s any more complicated than “kids doing grownup things are adorable.”

    girl:woman :: DQ:bar, to put it in SAT lingo.

    And yes. Puke.

  6. I saw this commercial the other day on tv and just didn’t understand at all why they had 2 young children acting this way. and like you mentioned what the hell did it have to do with selling ice cream

  8. girl:woman :: DQ:bar, to put it in SAT lingo.

    Add the “dinner whore” stereotype if in NYC area. That ad immediately reminded me of co-workers who constantly complained about the prevalence of them.

  9. I hated this commercial the minute I saw it. It reinforces the idea that women will use their sexuality to manipulate men into supporting them. The fact that they use children further shows that these qualities are innate. I fail to see the link with ice cream and see this as another advertisement demonizing women and young girls.

  10. It’s sexist, but I understand how it sells ice cream. The boy likes the girl, so to impress her he buys her the newest yummy sundae. The ice cream is what you buy for people you like – because it’s so good it will make them like you back.

  11. and that girl has a southern accent, as if playing up the southern belle thing gets it a pass for being quaint & not racist as well as sexist.

    the feeling i get when i watch it is id like to smack that brat’s face, then the brat’s mother for being so appreciative (not that i would ever, but i do feel like it!). i have a sister who’s raising her kid to be like that; she’s too dumb to realize that Cosmo is not a valid life philosophy.

  12. Well, with grown-ups it would be sexist, with kids it’s disturbingly creepy.

    Btw, I occasionally fall in love with food, especially ice cream, but that sundae doesn’t look very promising.

  13. Commercials are offensive to me by nature, but I don’t see what’s especially offensive about this one.

    What the hell are “regressive gendered messages”?

  14. What the hell are “regressive gendered messages”?

    Uh, messages about gender that are regressive? “Regressive” means returning to a state that is not as advanced, or opposing progress. “Gendered” means making distinctions that are gender-based. I’m honestly kind of confused by the question. But thanks for bringing my attention to the grammatical error. I’m pretty sure that should say “regressively“.

  15. Elizabeth says:
    The boy likes the girl, so to impress her he buys her the newest yummy sundae. The ice cream is what you buy for people you like – because it’s so good it will make them like you back.

    It’s not so much that he’s buys the ice cream for her, its that the girl consciously ‘schemes’ to have him buy the ice cream for her. That’s the sexist part..

  16. No, SoE, it’s both sexist AND disturbingly creepy: it’s saying that females ARE the sex-class no matter how old (the creepy part) whose only “natural job” is being in a meat-for-sex relationship (the sexist part) AND that males are all dumb enough to fall for the gold-digging – ie led by their dicks – no matter how young or old, which is equally in the same ways both sexist and creepy.

    Del Capslock, it’s an old, old MRA fantasy (the Roman de la Rose, 13th century runaway bestseller among Courtly Love fanboys, spends whole CHAPTERS on this subject), the idea that women as a class naturally exploit poor hapless men for money, which is how it’s a regressive (as opposed to progressive) idea as well as a gendered one. (Imagine how different it would be to have a hunky guy refusing to allow his friend to buy him a beer, because he counts on his good looks to get him free drinks from every woman he winks at – and it works! but you’ll never see this “role-reversal” of stereotypes in a commercial, I suspect.)

  17. And it’s a triple-whammy. Not only is the girl getting something bought for her by the boy, but the ad also casts the girl as some kind of manipulator, and finally the mother in the ad just looks at her daughter with surprise, rather than disappointment. Go progress.

    And I’m also incredibly creeped out at the fact that there’s a site called childstarlets.com.

  18. Cara, defining each word in a phrase doesn’t necessarily explain what is meant by the phrase. It just struck me as hyper-academized words designed to intimidate opposing viewpoints (as was your attempt to “explain” the phrase) rather than explain what you found to be offensive about the stupid commercial.

    Man and women do engage in sexual politics. Denying it is not the way to change it, if changing it is what you want.

  20. Man and women do engage in sexual politics. Denying it is not the way to change it, if changing it is what you want.

    Are 10-year-old children supposed to be engaging in the same sexual politics that adults do at a singles bar?

  21. Del, I told you that I honestly didn’t understand what could be so confusing about the phrase, at least if you know what the words mean. Not all phrases can be explained by defining the words in it, but it absolutely is the case here. Taken the two definitions I provided to you, the meaning of the phrase amounts to “A message that represents gender relations in a way that is absolutely not progressive.” Does that help? If you actually knew what the phrase meant and just wanted to criticize it because you think it’s overly academic, you probably should have said that rather than asking for a definition.

    And if you can’t tell what is sexist about a commercial in which it is presented as the natural order of things for females to manipulate males into financially supporting them through a bit of flirting, you’re probably on the wrong blog. That’s not trying to intimidate opposing viewpoints, it’s telling you very honestly that I don’t have time in my day to engage in feminism 101 with everyone who puts forward a request. Also, I provided a link where many, many people are discussing what is sexist about the commercial. And numerous people have explained it in the comments here. Typical blog etiquette dictates that you put forth a reasonable effort to make sure that question has not already been answered before you ask it.

    If you have a substantial criticism of my interpretation of the ad, let’s hear it.

  23. Also, Del Capslock, no one was denying that men and women engage in sexual politics, but rather we deny the idea that these behaviors are somehow biologically linked and therefore innate and unchangeable. An assertion that is accomplished in the ad by having young children act out sexual scripts that are generally associated with adults.

  25. Well, with grown-ups it would be sexist, with kids it’s disturbingly creepy.

    The creepy thing for me is that it seems all too plausible that some girls will absorb gender expectations to that degree. There is a girl who’s already been moulded into proper feminine manipulation, and it’s supposed to give us good feelings about the product. And clearly it did give enough of the test audiences good feelings, or they wouldn’t be showing it.

    If I’m not making sense, it’s because I’m afraid for my little girl.

  26. Was the mom appreciative? I look at it, when I have to, and it looks like the Mom is shocked. But maybe that is just my perception of the matter.

    But…Definitely Creepy with a capital-C.

  27. I thought that she looked shocked but in an amused and impressed way, not a disapproving one. I guess that part is open to interpretation.

  28. But will someone please tell me what the fuck this commercial has to do with ice cream?

    Cara, when have commercials ever had anything to do with the products that are being marketed?

    This has to be part of the reason why I so rarely watch television

    Just sell your TV set. I did today. Got $40 for it at a pawn shop and went and bought Jhumpa Lahiri’s new book. Still had some loot leftover for coffee. Awesome!

  29. I thought it was cute. I think the sub theme (if you notice the music its very 50sish) is that dairy queen the brand hearkens back to an earlier time and the commercial is trying to play on nostalgia.

    The branding trying to be done is sort of a pleasantville type thing. The regressive gendered act drives the point home as it isn’t something that would be too likely to happen today.

  30. The branding trying to be done is sort of a pleasantville type thing. The regressive gendered act drives the point home as it isn’t something that would be too likely to happen today.

    Umm….the former co-workers who complained about the “dinner whores” would beg to differ. Also have a few old friends whose exes felt entitled to demand to be take to budget busting restaurants.

    Never had much of a problem personally as such behavior whether on a date or with a few friends is a brightly blinking cue for me to immediately terminate any further interaction with such people.

    Unfortunately, too many people just do not know how to say no to others when it is most appropriate and necessary.

  31. Cara, defining each word in a phrase doesn’t necessarily explain what is meant by the phrase.

    *rolleyes*

    You know, something mystifies me.

    This Del type strikes me as similar to Mitchforth on other threads. Argumentative about minutiae — and ostensibly deliberately obtuse in their stubborn refusal to draw reasonable inferences — in what seems to me to be a clear attempt to derail the topic.

    Why do the rest of the commenters here engage with that type at all?

  32. @Mnemosyne, thanks for bringing up Shirley Temple. I was thinking something similar.

    @Terra – a “Pleasantville” atmosphere? Maybe. But did the 10-year-old girls in that (fantasy) milieu wear lipstick?

    Somebody mentioned child starlets? The girl in the commercial immediately invoked memories of Jon-Benet Ramsay, which wrecked it for me as far as the advertisers getting any message through goes. It was about ice cream? Okay. But next time I get my bucket out of the fridge I don’t imagine I’ll be remembering DQ.

  33. Yes.. when have commercials had anything to do with the products they sell?

    We feminists have no problem when it’s a storage company using pro-choice messages to sell storage space; but when it comes to this commercial, we expect it has to have something to do with ice cream.

    By the way, the commercial does not explicitly link the girl’s actions to her biological gender. If anything, you could read it as a young girl mimicking the bad behavior of adult women who use their sexuality to get what they want — and the mother is shocked by the behavior. It’s kind of annoying, the way any of these cutesy-girl-acting-like-a-bad-adult commercials are annoying, but it isn’t the earth-shattering example of sexism these comments are making it out to be. Srsly, bigger fish to fry.

  35. Well, I just wrote ’em … here’s the link (this one’s for Canadians but the US is available too).

    http://www.dairyqueen.com/ca-en/talk-to-dq/contact-us/
    My comment:

    I want to strongly object to your latest television advertisment. Sexualizing a child is bad enough – in fact it is outrageously horrific, while falling back on sterotypes that were offensive 30 years ago and doubly so today (girls look pretty, therefore they get free stuff from boys) is not only regressive but revolting.

    Further, the mother’s approval of her daughter’s sexualized manipulation is just plain WRONG.

    My daughters will buy their own damn ice cream thank you very much – however, they will NOT be buying at Dairy Queen.

  36. We feminists have no problem when it’s a storage company using pro-choice messages to sell storage space; but when it comes to this commercial, we expect it has to have something to do with ice cream.

    The storage company at least bothered to link up their concept with a cute catchphrase. Dairy Queen didn’t even go that far. Lots of commercials don’t have anything to do with the product — and I think that they’re also shit, as a general rule. The fact is that usually the concept of this kind of commercial isn’t an offensive one. When it is, it can be attributed to selling a lifestyle, as I said — drink these beer and hot women will want to fuck you! kind of stuff. Still obnoxious and sexist crap, but ostensibly related to the product at least. Again, what is the message here? Eat Dairy Queen and little girls will flirt with you? My point was that if you’re going to put out something offensive, you really ought to at lest have a backup explanation, and other than “it’s cute” I absolutely do not see one here.

    Srsly, bigger fish to fry.

    Yeah, of course there are. That doesn’t mean that I can’t occasionally write about something less earth-shattering but still really sexist and really obnoxious, or that people can’t discuss it. In fact, I think that it’s sometimes good for our (or at least my) mental health to get upset about something not as serious every once in a while in a world where I spend all of my days reading about and expressing outrage at rape. Though I can’t say I’m surprised that the comment turned up. I was kind of waiting for it, in fact.

  37. It’s kind of annoying, the way any of these cutesy-girl-acting-like-a-bad-adult commercials are annoying, but it isn’t the earth-shattering example of sexism these comments are making it out to be. Srsly, bigger fish to fry.

    Pray tell, what does something have to be to constitute an earth-shattering example of sexism? Because sexualizing a 9-year-old and having her act like a regressive stereotype clearly isn’t enough.

    Also, I kind of wonder if the kid wearing a donkey t-shirt is meant to call attention to the fact that he’s being made an ass of.

  38. i have to say, though, even without this revolting ad, buying a fudge sundae called the “temptation” would be pretty well beneath my dignity. can we please have a chocolate product that ISN’T marketed exclusively towards women in terms of sex and/or sin? jeez.

  39. Because sexualizing a 9-year-old and having her act like a regressive stereotype clearly isn’t enough.

    Pray tell, how was the ad sexualizing a 9-year-old? This discussion is just ridiculous.

    I was not saying don’t be concerned about the ad, and Cara, I wasn’t saying don’t post about it. I’m glad that you did. All I was requesting is a little thoughtfulness in the discussion. One after another the comments have been nothing but righteous indignation (of evil fizz’s sort), a knee-jerk reaction against pop culture which, by the way, has gotten feminism in a shithole many-a-time (for being too white-washed, for being unfriendly to working class women). I would love to see more nuanced discussion of how pop culture portrays women, but the idea that consumers are passive idiots — that young women seeing this ad are going to be seriously affected by its message — needs to be revisited, and discussed at length. “Repugnant!” and “Puck!” are not helping.

    By now, the discussion on this post isn’t the place for it to happen, but I would love to see a more thoughtful approach to popular culture and advertisements such as these on Feministe.

  40. Pray tell, how was the ad sexualizing a 9-year-old?

    You mean other than having her flirt with a boy like a grown woman does in a bar when she’s looking for a one-night stand?

    I would love to see more nuanced discussion of how pop culture portrays women, but the idea that consumers are passive idiots — that young women seeing this ad are going to be seriously affected by its message — needs to be revisited, and discussed at length.

    Girls who are 10 and under like the one in this commercial are not “young women.” They are children. And it is well-known and well-studied that children are very susceptible to the messages they get in commercials. That’s why the FCC has very severe restrictions on what you can say and do in commercials that are aimed at children.

    You may not be disturbed that we’re sending a message to young girls that their role in life is to be pretty so boys will want to give them presents, but I sure am.

    Are adults going to buy into this ad? Honestly, I don’t really care, because I don’t think it’s aimed at them. I think it’s aimed at kids. And that’s pretty despicable.

  41. for being too white-washed, for being unfriendly to working class women).

    Was hoping others may pick up on what was immediately obvious to me….but it looks like I need to point this out. With the possible exception of one or two backgrounded individuals, everyone else especially the main interactive characters in this ad is White!!!

    Though there may be pockets of the US where the population is nearly completely 100% White, that certainly does not represent every part of the real US of A I’ve lived and been to…..even in the most Whitewashed sections of Ohio, New England, and Virginia.

    Girls who are 10 and under like the one in this commercial are not “young women.” They are children. And it is well-known and well-studied that children are very susceptible to the messages they get in commercials. That’s why the FCC has very severe restrictions on what you can say and do in commercials that are aimed at children.

    You may not be disturbed that we’re sending a message to young girls that their role in life is to be pretty so boys will want to give them presents, but I sure am.

    Agreed. Ads like these are insidious about inculcating unhealthy and anti-social messages in young children. As practiced, those FCC standards don’t seem to have much of an impact judging by how spoiled overentitled behavior among children and adolescents are praised by the current mass media.

    Moreover, I am also disturbed at how this ad follows the pattern of other ads of manipulating children into spoiled overentitlement so they feel right in cajoling their parents into buying stuff for them.

    Unfortunately, this behavior often follows them into adulthood as my experience with spendthrift co-workers from upper/upper-middle class backgrounds who replaced furniture. electronics, cars, etc just because they wanted the “latest and greatest”, called me “cheap” for not conforming to their wasteful lifestyle, and had the chutzpah to whine about being up to their ears in debt. 🙄

  42. Meant to say replaced furniture, electronics, cars, etc every three to six months just because they wanted the “latest and greatest”

  43. Here’s the problem. Women (note I did not say all) can and do resort to this kind of behavior to get what they want. It is totally anti-feminist and learned at a young age. As long as the behavior is socially acceptable it will continue to the detriment of the acceptance of feminist philosophy. The fact that the commercial cleared focus group testing and rigorous review from DQ’s Marketing Department as well as their advertising agency, that should be super sensitive to the possiblity of offending the consumer, proves that the message is acceptable to their target market, which is probably families with young children. And so it goes on.

  44. And it is well-known and well-studied that children are very susceptible to the messages they get in commercials. That’s why the FCC has very severe restrictions on what you can say and do in commercials that are aimed at children.

    I know this is a popular assumption in feminism, but it actually has very serious flaws that have been (and are) being challenged by research in audience studies. If you’re interested, look to the work of John Fiske, Henry Jenkins, feminist studies of slash, etc.etc. This isn’t my field, but I could find more if you’re interested.

    I really wish this idea (that we’re all thoughtlessly absorbing what media throws at us) wasn’t so canonical in feminism. There’s some really interesting discussions going on about this very issue in communication theory/media studies right now, but it’s been all but ignored in favor of knee-jerk posts against anything that has a whiff of sexist stereotyping — by comments like this:

    You may not be disturbed that we’re sending a message to young girls that their role in life is to be pretty so boys will want to give them presents, but I sure am.

    Really, calm down.

  45. I really wish this idea (that we’re all thoughtlessly absorbing what media throws at us) wasn’t so canonical in feminism.

    It isn’t just a feminist thing….but a common observation based on observing how insidious marketing efforts…especially television ads can be. One reason why corporations and businesses continue to put on such ads is precisely because it usually works well enough to get most people, especially consumerist-obsessed Americans to buy whatever crap they are selling….whether they actually need it or not.

    It is one reason too many people I know/knew….especially those from upper/upper-middle class backgrounds have an insatiable need to constantly replace perfectly functional stuff because they “gotta have it now” and thus…get themselves into financial trouble…..and that was way before the dot-com bust…much less the subprime crisis our country is facing now.

  46. One reason why corporations and businesses continue to put on such ads is precisely because it usually works well enough to get most people, especially consumerist-obsessed Americans to buy whatever crap they are selling….whether they actually need it or not.

    Not necessarily. 90% of advertising is mindshare.

    Thats why advertisements tend to go for things that stick out in your mind rather than the directly manipulative.

    People like to believe those bad things work, but the people paying the commercial producers are often the ones being deluded.

  47. So, whitneyanne, it’s plausible to you that the girl is mimicking the behavior of adult women she’s seen, but the idea that children mimic behavior depicted in the media is somehow far-fetched? And you’re somehow involved with media studies or some such discipline, and yet somehow the current *tidal wave* of evidence that Bratz et al. and Disney princesses and other examples of princess merchandising / sexualization-marketing have taken millions of young girls and their families completely *hostage* has escaped you?

    And the idea that other women find this ad nauseating on a gut level is so offensive to you as to warrant a “calm down” and other patronizing language? Hey, I’m an academic too, so I get the “insert researchers here” thing, I really do, but a little refresher for you: women and girls’ individual experiences are also an important facet of feminism, not something that should automatically be discounted because there’s some other *data* out there that suggests our reactions are *silly* or *overblown*. Because that’s been a technique to negate our experiences for a long time, if you’ll recall. Feminism asks us to look *critically* at research that, while important, does not hold every definitive answer and in fact privileges certain *data* and certain voices over others. Which is not to say that the researchers you cited actually claim that advertising doesn’t impact children at all; from what I’ve seen, they don’t claim that.

    And your comments about more urgent feminist matters – perhaps you were referring to humanitarian crises or anti-racist work or something of that nature – are well-taken, but would be even more so if your own site prioritized those matters, no?

  48. All I was requesting is a little thoughtfulness in the discussion. One after another the comments have been nothing but righteous indignation (of evil fizz’s sort), a knee-jerk reaction against pop culture which, by the way, has gotten feminism in a shithole many-a-time (for being too white-washed, for being unfriendly to working class women).

    Sweet FSM, I’m not being righteously indignant. Although your insistence on mounting your high horse to lecture everyone about how they’re overreacting (gee, where have we heard this before?), is getting kinda grating.

    I’m also missing the part where it’s antithetical to thoughtful discussion to explain how an ad relies on sexualizing a child and regressive stereotypes is problematic.

  50. You know, trying to paint feminists as hysterical by telling them to calm down when they’re actually being calm — something that happens very often to women, actually — doesn’t exactly win you any points. Though it certainly does encourage the idea that you’re not commenting in good faith.

  51. Pingback: A Sunday Sundae « Bacardi & Diet

  52. I have this rosy vision of a commercial that depicts the kid (girl or boy, two different commercials, same content) working hard – mowing lawns, selling lemonade, whatever. And at the end, the parents and the kid go into the store (DQ in this case) and the parents order a treat and are rooting through their wallet when the kid holds their arm and says, “No, no, *I’ll* pay,” complete with the look of pride and accomplishment.

    And then it says “Introducing the new DQ sundae, Satisfaction.” Or something. This? This is crap.

  54. I really wish this idea (that we’re all thoughtlessly absorbing what media throws at us) wasn’t so canonical in feminism.

    No effect? Zero?

    I’m sorry, but media can make a difference.

    I grew up in East Texas. When I was a child in the 60s, everyone in my life thought “coloreds” weren’t really people. And a goodly number of them called them much worse things (the polite people used colored). Segregation was a fact of life.

    I had nothing in my life to keep me from becoming a racist like everyone around me.

    And yet I’m not one, and I know it was a choice I actively made. I know why.

    One word: TV. When I was a little girl, I absorbed messages coming from TV about how treating black people like scumbags simply because they were black just wasn’t right (a frequent topic at the time in all kinds of TV venues)–while the people in the room around me were talking about the uppity n***ers. And they still do it, to this day (or did it to their dying day).

    Why did the media’s message influence me, but not other kids around me who also watched TV? Or the adults? Why I absorbed that message, but clearly understood that what happened in Looney Tunes wasn’t anything I needed to emulate, I have no idea. Maybe I was actually paying attention and gave serious thought to what I was seeing/hearing that other kids didn’t. Whatever the case, I know my attitudes about race would be far different if it hadn’t been for the media messages of my childhood.

    Of course, someone like whineyanne wouldn’t accept personal anecdote, but that’s not a problem.

    In two famous Florida State University studies, researchers found a direct correlation of how people perceived the rise or fall of crime rates to how much/often they watched local TV news. Big surprise: In a media culture of “if it bleeds, it leads,” with so many local newscasts focusing huge portions of their broadcasts on crime news, the more often people watched local news the more likely they thought crime was increasing, when it had actually been on a steady, long-term decline (as of the time of the study). The impact tended to affect public policy opinion, like supporting harsher punishments for juvenile offenders.

    So, really, calm down, whitneyanne. It’s not the end of the world, much less antithetical to feminism, if people have an adverse reaction to seeing an ad.

  56. And you’re somehow involved with media studies or some such discipline, and yet somehow the current *tidal wave* of evidence that Bratz et al. and Disney princesses and other examples of princess merchandising / sexualization-marketing have taken millions of young girls and their families completely *hostage* has escaped you?

    No, not at all, I recently saw a film on this out of UMass-Amherst. I just don’t completely agree. A lot of people don’t.

    And the idea that other women find this ad nauseating on a gut level is so offensive to you as to warrant a “calm down” and other patronizing language?

    Wow. The people I see being patronizing on here are the ones reacting so strongly to my comments. I feel I have been reasonable — I’ve stuck to the ideas I wanted to bring into the discussion, not personal attacks — and my request to ask someone to calm down (which was because her SARCASM, not her HYSTERIA, was out of control — I’m on your side here guys) was WAY out of proportion dose of sarcasm.

    You know, trying to paint feminists as hysterical by telling them to calm down when they’re actually being calm — something that happens very often to women, actually — doesn’t exactly win you any points. Though it certainly does encourage the idea that you’re not commenting in good faith.

    Again, my comments have been in NOTHING but good faith. I haven’t resorted to bitter sarcasm (as others have) but have simply tried to introduce a new idea into the discussion — that the commercials we see aren’t as harmful as we think, and that I would love to see this idea debated. Again, I know this is canonical, that we’re all “taken hostage” (as someone put) by media, but this idea deserves revisiting. Honestly, I’m not willing to give these commercials that much power over my life.

    This is not a “high-horse”, or anything like it. It was an attempt to challenge an assumption in the comments. I am a long-time reader of Feministe, although this is only my second or so time I’ve posted, and frankly I don’t think I’ll ever post again. It seems this isn’t a place for discussion, where people consider interesting ideas about the post, but come to vent with reactionary sarcasm and mean-spirited attacks.

  57. And by the way Bellatry, I don’t see anything I’ve said on the anti-feminist bingo card, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

    I’m not a he, or working for DQ. I’m a woman, an active feminist and anti-war activist. I edited a book about activism. It’s no secret, you can go to the link on my name and see exactly who I am.

    But, again, I really think the sarcasm isn’t warranted. Neither is the mean-girls “let’s make fun of her in the third person as if she isn’t really here” attitude.

  58. I haven’t resorted to bitter sarcasm (as others have)

    Because ingenuous patronization is so much better…

    Bast

  59. Also, gotta say that I do not see what the hell the work of Henry Jenkins has to do with this discussion. Isn’t the bulk of his work about media fandom? If you were referring to something else in his work i think you should have been more specific.

    The fact that some people are actively and critically engaging with some forms of media does not mean that media messages have no effect on people. Some people actively and critically engage with what they get taught in school, or what they were taught by their parents. Does that mean that messages and models of behaviour from schools and parents are also something that feminists should not be concerned by?

    I’m genuinely trying to understand what argument you’re making here; it doesn’t seem to make any sense.

  60. Why did the media’s message influence me, but not other kids around me who also watched TV? Or the adults? Why I absorbed that message, but clearly understood that what happened in Looney Tunes wasn’t anything I needed to emulate, I have no idea. Maybe I was actually paying attention and gave serious thought to what I was seeing/hearing that other kids didn’t. Whatever the case, I know my attitudes about race would be far different if it hadn’t been for the media messages of my childhood.

    Of course, someone like whineyanne wouldn’t accept personal anecdote, but that’s not a problem.

    Actually, I do — I’m not sure why you would think this. In fact, exactly what I’ve been arguing is for a qualitative (rather than purely quantitative, which is why I reject a lot of the studies about Disney, etc., that have been cited) approach

    And Aquaria, your anecdote addresses my point exactly. People read media in different ways. We all have stories about playing with Barbies in what would be perceived as antithetical to the core message of the Barbie franchise. We aren’t “taken hostage” by any one corporation or message — we have the power to take the good and reject the bad, to react in more or less thoughtful ways. In regards to this commercial, I think it’s annoying — but instead of using it as a way to complain about commercials not being linked to content, etc.etc., perhaps we could see it as a way to educate girls about stereotypes of heterosexual women. Girls seeing it are seeing it a particular context, hopefully with a parent around — it isn’t a one way flow from DQ to passive consumer, who suddenly starts winking at men to get ice cream sundaes.

  61. You know, my husband, who is really not much of a feminist, was watching TV last night when this commercial came on. And when it was over, he blew out a breath he had been clearly holding, and said “Damn. It’s like we’re all supposed to think that girls are just born to be whores.”

  62. Whitneyanne, If you’ve really edited a book I pity the authors, since your reading comprehension is so poor – you missed that you got “You’re being silly and overemotional” (O4 on card 1) and “…hysterical…” and “You should…” and “Get off your bum and spend your time on more important causes.”(I2, N3 & G3 on card 2) to which we can now add “…feminist echo chamber” (G4) and the variant of “I have a friend who is a woman and she thinks you are wrong” (N5) – you’re doing classic concern trollery, even if you call yourself a feminist.

    And what Bast said, too.

  63. “You’re being silly and overemotional” (O4 on card 1) and “…hysterical…” and “You should…” and “Get off your bum and spend your time on more important causes.”(I2, N3 & G3 on card 2) to which we can now add “…feminist echo chamber” (G4) and the variant of “I have a friend who is a woman and she thinks you are wrong” (N5) – you’re doing classic concern trollery, even if you call yourself a feminist.

    Whoa. I never called anyone silly or overemotional, hysterical, never told ANYONE what to do, nor I have I told anyone to give off their bum. I asked someone to calm down, because her sarcasm was out of proportion to the tone of my comment. The genre of snarkiness that seems so popular here gets in the way of the debate. And the “I have a friend who is a woman” thing — I don’t even know where to begin to understand how anything I’ve said could be construed as such. I’m trying to contribute to the discussion. I’m not a concern troll — as I said before, I really am who my name says I am, and I am making a genuine attempt to challenge what I see as a dangerous assumption in feminism.

    But I give up. You guys win. I’m a horrible patronizing bitch, I shouldn’t call myself a feminist and my only goal has been to annoy you. I don’t deserve the right to call myself a feminist. I should just bow down to the doctrine of Big Bad Media Brainwashing Us, since apparently you have to conform to certain narrowly-conceived beliefs if you don’t want YOUR VERY GENDER — and more disgustingly, YOUR VERY RIGHT TO CALL YOURSELF A FEMINIST —questioned on, OF ALL PLACES, A FEMINIST BLOG.

    I’m taking Feministe off my reader. I put a lot of faith in the power of blogs to mobilize groups to action, but this whole experience has seriously depressed me.

    Eleanor, I appreciate your comment; Henry is one of my advisers at MIT. If you’re truly interested, you may want to visit http://www.henryjenkins.org and search for “gender” or “feminism”. A whole host of interesting posts and interviews come up that discuss how fans have appropriated corporate media in feminist ways.

  64. I don’t really call myself a feminist, (more marxist) but I thought the advert was disgusting and I wrote to Dairy Queen about it so thanks for the discussion.
    John

  65. Pingback: Need a laugh? : The Curvature

  66. Anyway, what do you think of it being expected and/or acceptable (as it is considered by some) for a woman not to pay half on dates? I think it is unfair, and contributes to the idea that women are just golddiggers. I always pay half, and I think everyone should.
    As for free drinks, sad to say you never know what’s in them. I wouldn’t chance it if I were you.

  67. Girls seeing it are seeing it a particular context, hopefully with a parent around — it isn’t a one way flow from DQ to passive consumer, who suddenly starts winking at men to get ice cream sundaes.

    It isn’t the girls seeing it that is troublesome. Who bought the sundae? The 9-year-old boy? Or the adult with him? There is a subtext of adult behavior here that underscores the malleability of women/girl’s public boundaries, contrary to the wishes of either women or girls. The ad underscores our society wide perception that if a woman/girl is out in public, she is fair game for sexual advances.

    You might be right, the ad might not have a going-forth influence on all 9-year-old girls. However, you can’t deny that the message the ad promotes was not pulled out of an ad maker’s ass, but from the general social content that dictates women’s/girl’s worth on their sexual availability. You also can’t deny the underlying pedophilic direction of this ad.

  68. When I first saw this ad, my reaction to the first part was “Aw, she knows that boy has a crush on her, it’s kind of sweet” – and then she makes the comment about shooting fish in a barrel, which took it from sweet to icky.

    Anyway, what do you think of it being expected and/or acceptable (as it is considered by some) for a woman not to pay half on dates? I think it is unfair, and contributes to the idea that women are just golddiggers. I always pay half, and I think everyone should

    The actual old rule, as opposed to the man-always-pays rule that some people have invented, was that the host should pay, whether that was the woman or the man. That is, the person who invited, paid. There were also ways of asking that made it clear that pay-your-own was expected.
    I did have a mild degree of success for a while at having a younger friend’s boyfriends buy drinks for me when we were all at a bar together (soda, that is, as I’m not much of a drinker). Not sure if they were doing it to impress her or because they were polite men who wanted to be respectful to the older lady, but I wasn’t about to object to free ginger ale.

  69. “The actual old rule, as opposed to the man-always-pays rule that some people have invented, was that the host should pay, whether that was the woman or the man. That is, the person who invited, paid.”

    That’s how I’ve always done it. If my boyfriend and I collectively decide to go out to eat, then we split the costs. Well, kind of. We weren’t counting dimes or anything, sometime I’d pay and sometimes he’d pay, and sometimes we’d each pay for what we ordered, but it mostly evened out in the end.

    However, when some guy kept asking me out on dates, even though I was clearly not all that in to him, I let him pay. He was the one who kept wanting to go out to eat and see a movie, I would have been ok just sitting on the couch watching a movie.

  70. This commercial makes the boy look like an idiot as well. He forks out for a sundae in exchange for a smile and a wink? Come on. The message for boys here is that girls are only interested in boys for their purchasing power, and that all you have to do to impress them is to wave something shiny or pretty in their direction. (Incidentally, there’s a passage in the 15th Century romance Tirant lo Blanch talking about what women will do for sweets.)

    And Luxdancer? I like your idea for a commercial! It’s probably got zero chance of actually getting made, but hey, it’s a wonderfully positive concept.

  71. The actual old rule, as opposed to the man-always-pays rule that some people have invented, was that the host should pay, whether that was the woman or the man. That is, the person who invited, paid. There were also ways of asking that made it clear that pay-your-own was expected.

    Out of curiosity, when did the rules start changing?

    Among my peers growing up in NYC and working professionally in Boston & NY in the 80’s and 90’s, men were considered “cheap” if they actually accepted their female date’s offer to defray part/all the costs of a date and were to contemptuously looked down upon. It was seen as a way to test dudes on their social and financial capabilities.

  72. The message for boys here is that girls are only interested in boys for their purchasing power, and that all you have to do to impress them is to wave something shiny or pretty in their direction.

    Isn’t this true? After all my wife has been having an affair with a man who makes about 4 x what I make and this after I moved from a place where I made about 30% more than what I earn now so she could advance her career at the expense of mine. When she realized what had occurred she sought out someone with greater earning power. This happens alot I fear. For most men the criteria they seek in a woman is not their earning potential but how supportive they will be toward their husband’s aspirations. I am not sure the same could be said for women.

  73. Whiteyanne, you’re exhibiting all of the trademarks of a troll:

    1) You patronize the posters here by telling them to calm down when they’re not being irrational

    2) You pout and snivel and whine about how mean everyone is for calling you on this

    3) You declare that you won’t post here again because of how meeeeaaaannn everyone is and how they’re not interested in “discussion” (see the calm down comment, and have a happy passive-aggressive day)

    4) You continue to post. So I’m thinking that your latest declaration that you won’t be back is a load of horseshit.

    Oh, and Whitey? Calm down. I think the only one who’s pitching a fit here is you.

    Enlightened, I know plenty of women who have been in your shoes. Most of them are the very women who were supportive of their husbands’ aspirations and found that their husbands were screwing around and/or wanted to divorce them to be with someone else.

  75. What really squicks me out is that, at the end of that video, YouTube seems to have links to several other videos featuring that little girl. Why? I mean, who would be interested?

  76. I too thought the ad was okay until the “fish in a barrel” line came up, which gave an entirely different cast to the exchange.

    Here’s the problem. Women (note I did not say all) can and do resort to this kind of behavior to get what they want. It is totally anti-feminist and learned at a young age. As long as the behavior is socially acceptable it will continue to the detriment of the acceptance of feminist philosophy. The fact that the commercial cleared focus group testing and rigorous review from DQ’s Marketing Department as well as their advertising agency, that should be super sensitive to the possiblity of offending the consumer, proves that the message is acceptable to their target market, which is probably families with young children. And so it goes on.

    Which is exactly why we need to call people out on this bullshit.

    It is tremendously interesting what we can take out of media– I got a love of travel and different peoples out of the tremendously, offensively, racist Jonny Quest– but that doesn’t mean we don’t have a responsibility to make better media. Quite the opposite, as far as I’m concerned.

  77. There are still some men who want to pay for everything, so I think it is best to discuss payment before the date. It is awkward of course, but it is better than her assuming you want to pay and you considering her a golddigger for not paying.

  78. Seriosly, why is anyone putting the fact that some people engage in the whole “drinks/meal for sex/flirtation” as a reason not to say it’s wrong?

    It’s like saying we shouldn’t be mad at a commercial where someone kicks a dog and just gets a laugh, all because some people really do abuse animals.

    The fact that that sort of sexual parley (ooo nice phrase, i have to remember that one, heh. yeah, ego trip :P) goes on so very much is just proving the point that we don’t object to it enough.

    So really, stop saying ‘Some women do it, therefore it’s fine’ cause it isn’t. and it’s even worse that it’s portraying a kid doing it.

    P.S. Sexual parley is a great name for a band 😛

  79. Enlightened, I know plenty of women who have been in your shoes. Most of them are the very women who were supportive of their husbands’ aspirations and found that their husbands were screwing around and/or wanted to divorce them to be with someone else.

    Sheelzebub, here’s the problem with your point. My wife, ostensibly a career oriented feminist when we married 15 years ago sought the primary breadwinner role and I being a feminist man accommodated that aspiration (to my regret). Now, finding the role more stressful than she would like she has retreated to a traditional feminine role and is pursuing a man who’s earning power is much greater than mine and ironically his is greater than mine because he refused to move to an area where his wife’s job propects were better because the job prospects were better for him here. So my advice to my two sons is do not even consider marrying a woman with equal or greater earning capacity than yourself, you will regret it. I guess the upside for me is my wife will now have to pay me alimony and child support, but at my age my job prospects have diminished considerably.

  80. Or, enlightened, maybe your wife just doesn’t like you.

    That’s nice Rika. She probably should have articulated that before we had 3 kids together and were married for 15 years, don’t you think? Maybe you would allow 3 new lives to come into being and spend 15 years before you figured that out, but most people with 1/2 a brain would have figured it out alot sooner.

  81. Enlightened, here’s the problem with your point: A lot of women who married men who wanted someone who would be willing to stay at home. These women did just that, for their husbands, and then got kicked to the curb because after having a few kids they weren’t young and hot anymore, and after being homemakers, they just weren’t interesting company (according to their husbands). You’d think that they’d figure this out before spending years with their wives and having kids with them, but I guess they don’t even have half a brain.

    You make it sound as if this never happens to women. This has happened to women since marriage was created. It’s a big reason why a lot of women told their daughters to NOT give up their careers for a husband. It’s why I’ll never do it.

  82. You make it sound as if this never happens to women. This has happened to women since marriage was created. It’s a big reason why a lot of women told their daughters to NOT give up their careers for a husband. It’s why I’ll never do it.

    Sheelzebub: You are not understanding my point. Who has historically been the primary breadwinner in a family and in fact still is in 2 out of 3 households? Men. My wife sought that role in our house. Though not completely comfortable with her in that role I accommodated her career aspirations to the detriment of my own and she now out earns me 4 to 1. But now she doesn’t want that role. She has sought out a man with many times my earning capacity and decided to ditch me. She is seeking a man to take care of her financially. She is reverting to the role of traditional women who seek to be taken care of by men. She has repudiated feminist philosophy. The men you speak of shed aging wives for younger versions of the same. They don’t seek out women who are potential earning competitors. They seek women who are likely to be dependent on them. That is not what my wife is seeking. My wife is seeking a man she can depend upon financially. She could have done that with me if I had not accommodated her career aspirations. So I guess the lesson for men marrying women with career aspirations is be forewarned if she decides she doesn’t like the role of primary breadwinner she can always find another man who will financially support her because its like shooting fish in a barrel.

    YOU CAN”T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS!!

Comments are currently closed.