xarkGirl

More Motrin

I wasn't going to join in fray, but I have to now. I kinda missed the original incident, which was centered on this ad for Motrin that many women found insulting. I was Tweeted this morning with a link to a parody of the ad, which I finally watched.

The ad caused much controversy with "mommybloggers." Whatever the hell that means. (I mean , honestly, do we have "daddybloggers?" So cute, the little mommies!) But the reaction to the reaction has reeled me in. The aforementioned parody link to me took a post by one Steve Hall on a site called AdGabber.

Maybe these guys, the writer and the commenters, are not sexist jerks, but they sure are making it hard to think otherwise. Hall's opener:

This is one of those thing's that causes one to scream, "Oh for fuck's sake!" Or better yet, "Jesus, fucking Christ!" Why the harsh language? Because, yet again, America has lost its sense of humor and has gotten its underwear up its crack over an innocuous Motrin ad which pokes fun at babywearing.

Those damn women and their refusal to agree that an advertisement is funny! We did marketing studies!

Sexism and Sarah

With a Southern, Catholic mother who work for the anti-ERA movement while at the same time telling me over and over that there were no limits but my own on what I could accomplish, I have a paradoxical relationship with feminism.

My mother, like many women of her time, was worried about the ramifications of "equal = same" legislation.But it was not a fall-in-line, unthinking position. She's no shrinking violet. She made some courageous stands in the '70s South. She allowed me to be absolutely color-blind in my choice of friends and refused to attend functions -- even ones I know she really wanted to go to -- at the country club where blacks were not allowed memberships.

I have always struggled with that same equation. If "equal" does not mean "identical," why does it feel that way so often? That getting ahead somehow requires being less of a girl or that being a girl meant accepting a subordinate role?

I am becoming increasingly belligerent in my disgust for the residual work-place sexism that relegates women to being lieutenants [PDF] and cake-bringers. In my neck of the woods, the glass ceiling is 2-inch thick Plexiglass.  

I favored Obama, but, as a woman, I was absolutely appalled at the double standard in the treatment of Hillary Clinton.  My gawd, the beating she  took over a moment of honest emotion. The ludicrous, insulting obsession with her personal appearance. Her defeat sparked a new wave of discussion about women and sexism. On the heels of hordes of disenchanted women voters, in walks Sarah Palin.

Sexism, Rant 1

My current personal situation has made me  hyper aware, now, of the memes about women that pop culture and the MSM cling to and spread. Tired stereotypes are just recycled. Sweeping generalities are stated as if they are God's own truth.

My Scots-Irish is up over this comment in the wake of the debate:

As the front-runner Obama needed to hold the line tonight, and he did. He likely won favor with undecided voters and women because of his ability to motivate through emotion and tap into the emotional component of viewers’ personal values.  He earned extra credit for his cool, confident demeanor.

-Andrea Tantaros, Fox News

Women in general are more emotional than men. I have no problem with that. Our brains are wired for it. In fact, there are some very nice perks that come from our emotional intelligence. One study shows that emotional imprinting means better recall.

But in MSM and pop culture, it's portrayed, often subtly I'll grant you that, as a negative. Here, the subtext is that women like Obama because we are  "motivate[d] through emotion." Not because of issues like, gee, health care? Equal pay? Keeping our homes? We just like him 'cause he's adorable! And who doesn't need a big, strong man to make decisions for her?

Well, maybe, they have a point. Because I hate this kind of glib talking point.