stereotypes, gender roles, and milwaukee's best

[LoveTown]

all I have to say is that guys have it sooooo rough. If they act like macho jerks women say "why cant you be more sensitive?" if they are too sensitive men AND women are likely to say "uh is he gay?"

no wonder you poor fellas just seem to tune out and do the "yes dear" thing so often

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

LOL, good point, LoveTown.

But as I said early on in this thread, I personally quite like the sweet, sensitive men .

Angela

 

[nbcrusader]

I dunno, I'm pretty good at avoiding the "subliminal" messages . I don't automatically accept something to be true because that's how it's shown on TV. For instance, I'm aware that not all transvestites are clownish. And I don't even know any transvestites personally. If someone's gonna stereotype a group of people based on the behavior of some on TV, then they're a moron, plain and simple, who can't seem to think for themselves.

Do you think "subliminal" messages can have an influence on people in general?

 

[Sherry Darling]

The commercial is at least as offensive to men as to women (to the extent that a beer commercial should be taken seriously). Our culture seems to equate "kind" with "weak" when really, it takes far more guts to be gentle most times. This boxes men in and lables them with all sorts of silly cartoonish sterotypes.

Also, their beer sucks. I much prefer Sam Adams, St. Pauly's Girl or Yingling

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Do you think "subliminal" messages can have an influence on people in general?

I think they can only be influential if people allow them to be. These people aren't forcing you to buy into their stereotypes/ideas of what is good and bad/etc., after all. It's up to each person individually to decide how they want to absorb the information that bombards them day in and day out through various means. Do they want to just take it all as truth, or do they wish to question it?

Angela

 

[BonosSaint]

I think subliminal messages can wreak havoc on your insecurities. I don't think they can touch the things you're confident about.

 

[foray]

Ever thought to yourself "I'm never gonna do to my kids what my parents used to do to me" and end up doing it anyway?

(-_-)

foray

 

[nbcrusader]

I think they can only be influential if people allow them to be. These people aren't forcing you to buy into their stereotypes/ideas of what is good and bad/etc., after all. It's up to each person individually to decide how they want to absorb the information that bombards them day in and day out through various means. Do they want to just take it all as truth, or do they wish to question it?

Angela

A subliminal message is not one that you can necessarily "allow" to influence you. Whether you think you have control or not, your surroundings will influence your behavior. People tend to behave like the people with which they keep company. Absent solid teaching to the contrary, these influences act as teaching - the individual won't even know to question the various influences.

Advertising, for example, is not about forcing, but about influencing.

The same goes for the images we view. We don't decide which images we absorb. Many people hate viewing horror movies because the images stick in their minds. All images stick in our minds. We have only partial control over what we see.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

A subliminal message is not one that you can necessarily "allow" to influence you. Whether you think you have control or not, your surroundings will influence your behavior. People tend to behave like the people with which they keep company. Absent solid teaching to the contrary, these influences act as teaching - the individual won't even know to question the various influences.

And that's why we need people around to act as solid teachers. We shouldn't blame the TV for influencing people in this case, we should instead just question why there wasn't a good role model around to help someone learn to question the images they're bombarded with.

Course, my thoughts on this subject tend to stem from the fact that I've always found the whole idea of subliminal messages a bit amusing, anyway. I tend to think that a lot of the time, it's a result of people reading way too much into something. Either that, or maybe I've just been lucky enough to not get caught by these supposed subliminal messages .

Originally posted by nbcrusader
Advertising, for example, is not about forcing, but about influencing.

Advertisers try to influence people to buy their things, yes, but everyone still ultimately makes their own decision as to whether or not they want to buy it. If every advertiser's influence was working, every single person would own every single thing that was ever advertised. But that isn't the case, so obviously each person was deciding for themselves what products they personally did or didn't want to own.

Originally posted by nbcrusader
The same goes for the images we view. We don't decide which images we absorb. Many people hate viewing horror movies because the images stick in their minds. All images stick in our minds. We have only partial control over what we see.

No, we have total control over what we see. We have remote controls and parental blocking systems and ratings systems and all that sort of thing nowadays, so we really have no excuse here, we can definitely control what we wish to see and not see on our television sets. If I start watching a movie and find it too disturbing, know what I do? I turn the channel. It's not that hard. An image can only be disturbing to me if I allow it to be.

Angela

 

[nbcrusader]

And that's why we need people around to act as solid teachers. We shouldn't blame the TV for influencing people in this case, we should instead just question why there wasn't a good role model around to help someone learn to question the images they're bombarded with.

Still, these influences still teach and have an affect absent strong role models. I think there is a reasonable argument that we should question and limit the messages used in entertainment and advertising.

No, we have total control over what we see. We have remote controls and parental blocking systems and ratings systems and all that sort of thing nowadays, so we really have no excuse here, we can definitely control what we wish to see and not see on our television sets. If I start watching a movie and find it too disturbing, know what I do? I turn the channel. It's not that hard. An image can only be disturbing to me if I allow it to be.

Angela

No No No. The tools you suggest only stop a fraction of the images that invade the home. Take the example of NFL football. My 10-year old loves to watch games. It should not be unreasonable to let him watch these games. However, the commercials cut in with many graphic images to promote television shows or products. You can only use the remote after the image arrives on the screen.

And in you own example, you change the channel after you find the images too disturbing. The human brain can process these images very quickly - much faster than our hand can react to changing the channel.

The idea that we have total control over the images we see can only work if we never leave the house and watch pre-edited material on the television.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Still, these influences still teach and have an affect absent strong role models. I think there is a reasonable argument that we should question and limit the messages used in entertainment and advertising.

Question them, yes, but I don't agree with limiting them. Everyone reacts differently to different images and messages, after all, so it's hard to regulate that sort of thing.

Originally posted by nbcrusader
No No No. The tools you suggest only stop a fraction of the images that invade the home. Take the example of NFL football. My 10-year old loves to watch games. It should not be unreasonable to let him watch these games. However, the commercials cut in with many graphic images to promote television shows or products.

Yes, and that sort of thing has been happening for years now, it's nothing new at all. A person would have to be quite naive to think that football games were going to be innocent little viewing occasions.

Besides that, some people see football itself as graphic because it involves people hitting each other and all that sort of thing. Should we regulate football games, too? I find it rather amusing that people sit there and watch a game that involves people hitting each other constantly, but then complain about other various violent images that are shown during the commercials. What exactly is the difference?

Originally posted by nbcrusader
You can only use the remote after the image arrives on the screen.

Yes, and you're also warned ahead of time with the rating system-isn't the whole point of those things to keep people from watching material they may personally find bothersome? If you're about to watch a show, and see the rating, you can decide for yourself whether or not you want to continue watching it. And if you do continue to watch it, well, you are the one who made that choice, therefore, you have nobody else to blame but yourself.

Originally posted by nbcrusader
And in you own example, you change the channel after you find the images too disturbing. The human brain can process these images very quickly - much faster than our hand can react to changing the channel.

Yes. I change the channel, and move on with my life and try and find ways to weed those bad images out of my head. It works pretty well, too. Days go by when none of the bad images even enter my mind, they only come up if a discussion is going about said movie, and then they come back. Isn't there a thing people can do where they block out traumatic images?

Originally posted by nbcrusader
The idea that we have total control over the images we see can only work if we never leave the house and watch pre-edited material on the television.

No, it can work if people actually pay attention to the ratings (people demanded those for years, after all, well, you got them, now use them) and if people can learn to think for themselves and use their remote controls. If people are that paranoid about everything in the world influencing them, why watch TV, then?

Angela

 

[Angela Harlem]

A cursory look at psychology shws how effective subliminal approach can be. We aren't always even aware it is occurring. And it encompasses good and bad, not just bad. It's only the bad we complain about and deny does any damage, but we are affected by absolutely everything in our environments. The brain takes in images and sights, sounds, smells, the whole lot, so much faster than we can even comprehend. Subliminal is precisely the subtle and unannounced.

It doesn't seem like much of what you both are arguing is the subliminal anyway, lol, but the overt and open nature of direct advertising and media. In any case though, this world is surely screwed up enough for people to let go of a few things. Society is violent and apathetic in so many ways. Is it going to do anyone any harm to cull the amount of negative we have?

 

[MissVelvetDress_75]

I know several guys that are in their late 20's and 30s who will answer the phone rudely towards their SO because they interrupted their poker game.

 

[nbcrusader]

No, it can work if people actually pay attention to the ratings (people demanded those for years, after all, well, you got them, now use them) and if people can learn to think for themselves and use their remote controls. If people are that paranoid about everything in the world influencing them, why watch TV, then?

Angela

You are putting a lot of faith in to a couple of tools. Ratings systems are vague and are not used on all shows. And ratings are not used at all on commercials (the original item of discussion).

I find it hard to believe that such common events such as NFL football cannot be viewed due to potential for disturbing images during the commercials. I guess this also will apply to things like CartoonNetwork, which, in the evening, begins to run some very un-childlike commercials (well before the pseudo-adult cartoons begin).

 

[sallycinnamon78]

Doesn't Howard Stern get praise for these type of messages?

Any intelligent person who is stupid enough to take Howard Stern's brand of horse manure seriously, needs slapping until they wake up to reality.

Just my (slightly off original topic) opinion.

 

[sallycinnamon78]

Re: Re: stereotypes, gender roles, and milwaukee's best

it's funny how commercials like this almost legitimize guys being jerks to girls, and even portray them as being attractive to women, when in reality, this is totally NOT the case.

Well said!

But as I said early on in this thread, I personally quite like the sweet, sensitive men .

Yes, same here, definitely.

I completely understand you being somewhat offended by the stereotypical nonsense, Se7en. I'm big on individualism and seeing representations of 'the perfect male', 'the perfect female', 'the perfect mother', etc, irritates me no end. Personally, I find that the easiest way to fight that sort of garbage is to be oneself.

if i interrupted my bf's poker game, and he was an asshole to me, rest assured that he wouldn't be poking anything when he got home. bet on THAT.

Couldn't agree more!

 

[sallycinnamon78]

*damn double posts!*