Oh, Italy. I'm only glad I left on days that end with a Y.

(She's not doing her laundry, though, she's dyeing her clothes black. Coloreria Italiana isn't detergent, it's dye.)

I'd also give the advertisers the benefit of the doubt for using the word "colored", in their mind it probably had no negative connotation. When English is used for advertising purposes, or indeed as a "trendy" method of communication, the subtleties of meaning are entirely ignored. Someone ran it through Babelfish and fucked up.

Not that this diminishes the othering and objectifying any, mind. Especially nowadays, when racism and xenophobia are practically the sum total of Italian political discourse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77wSICyzhhc&feature=related

Oh man, I realize it's racist but the man's is kinda funny.

I giggled at both but I felt guilty.

I'm not sure who is supposed to feel insulted here. Black men, for being treated as sex objects? White men, for being deemed inferior?

How about we just laugh? It's funny.

--Dave

I saw nothing funny about that commercial. I am insulted that the ad saw men as nothing more than mere objects.

And yes, it is also racist and xenophobic. A rare trifecta.

WTF? The second one makes no sense at all.

And Dave -- yes, because the best reaction to being challenged with too many difficult ideas at the same time is to walk away quickly and pretend we never noticed any of them.

I note that a black man with no visible hair was sexier than a balding hairy white man, and the treatment magically added muscles.

I consider it funny. But Dave, as Glenn Sacks' visitors would say, how funny would it be if a man forced his howling white wife head first into a washer, and drooled when a sultry Beyonce come out?

The ad is offensive black men because they are often stereotyped as animalistic sex machines.

I didn't even get the second ad. Why would a black dude pop out for the white guy? The machine accidently changed the woman's race AND sex?

The violent sounds of the machine, coupled with the sounds of the man crying-out, groaning, and desperately yelling "no, no, no", then shrieking in pain, the woman forcing it on him and keeping him in there while it was happening to him and hearing it happen to him! --- it evoked torture pretty strongly in my eyes. For me, this came across as an extremely cruel and reprehensible anti-men video.

Beside the torture issue, the man is forced to adopt a certain appearance and image of muscularity and physical strength to appeal to the woman. Again, very anti-men.

Her torturing him, her forcing him to change his appearance to please her---this is basically one of the most extreme anti-men messages I’ve seen in a long time. In fact, I would have included "anti-men sexism" in the title of the post right up there with the word "racism". I was actually quite surprised that it wasn't included in the title.

"this is basically one of the most extreme anti-men messages I’ve seen in a long time."

Though I am no MRA, I am pleased to see some can recognize anti-male messages or those making light of DV and torture, subtle or otherwise.

At the same time, I must point out that many other nations, including those considered more progressive than the US, do not operate under our politically correct value system, and what they consider funny (or suitable for TV which may be viewed by children) is what we would consider offensive.

For example, the Netherlands is held up, as in the adolescent sex thread, as a very progressive country (where women and youth also enjoy more rights than in the US), and I certainly agree. So how do we explain this TV commercial that features the humor of the f-word? [Sorry, can't find the high quality vids I've seen]:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDMVam03pX8

or this safe sex ad?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TYa9vwLn_4

Is there such a high proportion of black men in the Dutch population, who are also in need of instruction on condom use? No. That's ridiculous. But the message is good for public health education, the likes of which we in the US will likely never see.

I consider those cultural issues, not something for which I as a foreigner should send complaints to advertisers and networks. Based on my many years of dealing with foreigners and trying to "enlighten" them, they'd likely consider me a PC American whiner who can't mind my own business, and can't look after my own country's affairs.

Holy crap. There really is an ad from the same company, where that same idiot forces a white woman into the washer, subjecting her to the same treatment.

And out comes the same black guy. Oh, ha. Because, you know, it's "What Women Want" Sarah - your very own shaved, buff black man in briefs. And the man was reading "Passionate Girls" magazine with a voluptuous black woman in lingerie coming out of a washing machine on the cover.

OK, it is about black sexual stereotypes.

A male, the Netherlands may be held up as a very progressive country, but that safe sex ad still looks racist to me - and I am Dutch. If they'd focussed on some white men as well, instead of just on black men, it might have been okay. But this? Ew. I have never seen that ad on Dutch TV though.

If it hadn't been for the tagline, I would have assumed it was about, you know, a silly, poorly done joke about trading up.

Wow. I wonder what they thought they meant by that?

Also what Sarah said.

Are there common stereotypes of black people in the Netherlands?

One concern I always have online of course, is what we see is not factual, or concerning those ads, not real.

I have visited the advertised site "SOAAIDS" and it appears to be sex ed aimed at children or teens. The content appears sound, however, despite the colorful and cheerful presentation. They promote barrier methods, such as "Always use a condom!" even if one is on the pill, to prevent disease, which I always appreciate. They seem very open minded and encouraging.

http://www.safesex.nl/# (beware survey pop up)

Their ads seem to feature humor (and as often as not, black people or rap/hip hop music and culture):

http://www.safesex.nl/funzone/index.cfm

Is "black" culture popular in the Netherlands among the young?

I consider it funny. But Dave, as Glenn Sacks' visitors would say, how funny would it be if a man forced his howling white wife head first into a washer, and drooled when a sultry Beyonce come out?

This conjures memories of an argument my girlfriend and I had and never really resolved, in which she acted in a way (regarding sex, which is important to the story but at the same time I'd rather not provide a whole bunch of details to a blog :) ) that I felt uncomfortable with, and I pointed out that if the roles were reversed and I said/did what she said/did, she would have had every right to take offense. She said I was making a false comparison, but I'm not so sure...

So what do you all think? Do the lines governing sexual/racial misconduct change when the roles are reversed, and, I guess you could say, the party in the "social majority" is the victim? (sorry if I'm not up to snuff on my terminologies... its been a while since those sociology classes)

I think things do change when the social majority or "top dog" is the victim of sexual/racial jokes or advertising.

This commercial is hugely racist and sexist against black men, but I can't say I feel that it's anti-male in general. Look at the matching commercial Saywhat posted, after all. The man stuffs the woman into the machine hoping a black woman will pop out as well. Taken in context, this commercial is very racist, but it is not anti-male.

I am unable to reconcile my considering the first commercial funny, but not the second (putting the woman in the washer). Also note, the "husband" in the second commercial continues to be a slob while the "wife" is doing domestic chores, and has his desires crushed in the end, denied his scantily clad voluptuous black woman, as he nervously swallows with a bead of sweat running down his face. At least in the first commercial, the woman gets something she is *superficially* more impressed with than her previous man.

Why is it increasingly acceptable today (I fully admit I enjoy it) to show incompetent, slow witted, or "unmanly" men (who may furthermore be ridiculed, assisted, saved, or even physically assaulted by smart, strong, competent women) in advertising? It is apparently a growing, decades long international phenomenon. Is this simply equality, a turnabout of what has gone before, or something different?

"If all these women portrayed in commercials are supposed represent how females really are, then women have extremely bad judgment. How else would you characterize someone who chooses a buffoon as her life mate? We could give the benefit of the doubt and surmise that there were no smart guys at the bar where she used to meet men, and she got the best of the bunch. Or figure that her ego was just too fragile—and she deliberately picked someone less than herself. "

[omission]

"Unlike Mr. [Glenn Sacks, MRA], I think we need more than a less-demeaning portrayal of men. I think we need to raise the 'relationship' bar. Perhaps a little marriage counseling is in order as we create the characters who represent our clients' products. If you're an ad man, ask yourself if you would want to be the partner of the smug, disdainful shrew you've created. If you're an ad woman, ask yourself whether you would even want to meet, much less marry, Mr. Duh-how-do-you-get-the-stain-out? Then maybe couples in commercials will start to seem better together than apart."

http://www.adweek.com/aw/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003559590

"According to Paul Nathanson and Katharine Young, two authors at the heart of the movement, the advert exemplifies the growing phenomenon of misandry: hatred of men. They insist that misandry is now pervasive and that we should be every bit as alert to it as we are to misogyny."

"They argue that men are now routinely defined by a limited set of negative stereotypes: the man as fool, slob or irrelevance. And they contend that nowhere are these archetypes more apparent than in advertising."

"But is it really of concern? 'Ask women why they thought it was a problem when they were ridiculed,' says Nathanson. 'I don’t think men and women are different in that respect. Do two wrongs make a right?'�

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=985

Note: I do not share in MRA outrage, do not believe in a feminist conspiracy against men, and would not consider a letter writing campaign for so called male bashing or anti-father advertising, much less a company boycott over something I assume was meant to be humorous, if intentional at all. I continue to be much more likely to be offended by insensitive or unfavorable portrayals of women. Am I biased?

I am unable to reconcile my considering the first commercial funny, but not the second (putting the woman in the washer). Also note, the "husband" in the second commercial continues to be a slob while the "wife" is doing domestic chores, and has his desires crushed in the end, denied his scantily clad voluptuous black woman, as he nervously swallows with a bead of sweat running down his face. At least in the first commercial, the woman gets something she is *superficially* more impressed with than her previous man.

Why is it increasingly acceptable today (I fully admit I enjoy it) to show incompetent, slow witted, or "unmanly" men (who may furthermore be ridiculed, assisted, saved, or even physically assaulted by smart, strong, competent women) in advertising? It is apparently a growing, decades long international phenomenon. Is this simply equality, a turnabout of what has gone before, or something different?

"If all these women portrayed in commercials are supposed represent how females really are, then women have extremely bad judgment. How else would you characterize someone who chooses a buffoon as her life mate? We could give the benefit of the doubt and surmise that there were no smart guys at the bar where she used to meet men, and she got the best of the bunch. Or figure that her ego was just too fragile—and she deliberately picked someone less than herself. "

[omission]

"Unlike Mr. [Glenn Sacks, MRA], I think we need more than a less-demeaning portrayal of men. I think we need to raise the 'relationship' bar. Perhaps a little marriage counseling is in order as we create the characters who represent our clients' products. If you're an ad man, ask yourself if you would want to be the partner of the smug, disdainful shrew you've created. If you're an ad woman, ask yourself whether you would even want to meet, much less marry, Mr. Duh-how-do-you-get-the-stain-out? Then maybe couples in commercials will start to seem better together than apart."

http://www.adweek.com/aw/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003559590

"According to Paul Nathanson and Katharine Young, two authors at the heart of the movement, the advert exemplifies the growing phenomenon of misandry: hatred of men. They insist that misandry is now pervasive and that we should be every bit as alert to it as we are to misogyny."

"They argue that men are now routinely defined by a limited set of negative stereotypes: the man as fool, slob or irrelevance. And they contend that nowhere are these archetypes more apparent than in advertising."

"But is it really of concern? 'Ask women why they thought it was a problem when they were ridiculed,' says Nathanson. 'I don’t think men and women are different in that respect. Do two wrongs make a right?'�

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=985

Note: I do not share in MRA outrage, do not believe in a feminist conspiracy against men, and would not consider a letter writing campaign for so called male bashing or anti-father advertising, much less a company boycott over something I assume was meant to be humorous, if intentional at all. I continue to be much more likely to be offended by insensitive or unfavorable portrayals of women. Am I biased?

This hits on what I was getting at back on the faux post it ad thread. By making that first ad about a man, the advertisers are playing that tired 'empowerment' line. You know - we can't be sexist, because we're not doing this to you women, we're doing it to men! See, you get to trade up to!

It frustrates that people continue to play into the idea that feminists are humourless and simply frustrated that men aren't objectified in the same way as women - you know, as opposed to NOBODY being objectified.

Do the lines governing sexual/racial misconduct change when the roles are reversed, and, I guess you could say, the party in the "social majority" is the victim?

Absolutely. This is why satire is only funny when the powerless mock the powerful.
Like The Colbert Show or The Daily Show. It's not funny when the folks in power take jabs at the oppressed.

This is not offensive. This is humor, the same way it would have been if the genders had been reversed.

I wish some people could get a sense of humor =/.

"I wish some people could get a sense of humor =/."

I like this "male" version of the commercial, but I wonder if black people or victims of domestic violence would be able to see the humor in the male or female versions of this commercial. There are also drowning and child abuse cases involving washing machines.

Just a few comments from Italy. A bit of background:

The hubby and I watched this together (I'm black American, he's white Italian); we had a bit of a discussion and here are a few things we came up with.

To my American eyes, I like many, see the "mythical Black stud" stereotype. But neither of us was offended and here is why: It's all about intent. This stereotype, is actually based on a deep seated FEAR, on the part of white American males, that dates back to slavery. Italy doesn't share that cultural legacy with the US and, speaking anecdotally, I doubt very much that this concept translates here.

Also Italian men are also victims of their own "mythical Mediterranean lover" stereotype. So in a way this commercial can be seen as a challenge to that stereotype; or alternatively an extension of it, i.e, tall dark and handsome becomes taller, darker and handsome.

Another thing not to be missed is that this commercial really goes against reality. In Europe and North America, the white majority (male or female) are considered the romantic default; and in many cases (not all) the most desirable partner to be with--to which all other groups are compared.

In the US, the most extreme examples of this are the persistent stereotypes that dog Asian men and black women.

In Italy, an average "Giuseppe", like the one shown in the commercial is still considered "a catch". He is desirable. The commercial speaks lies, not the truth. Yet it is often the truth that hurts the most. Imagine a black guy pushing his woman into the washer and out pops a white women, with the long flowing hair. ouch.

And as far as the violence in the video:

There seems to be collective lack of empathy in response to media violence. And unfortunately, any critique of the violent media is often thwarted by free speech proponents (violent porn is a great example of this); thus empathy on the part majority consumer seems almost non-existent.

Maybe it's a good to show the other side of the coin now and again. Bottom line is that if we cannot empathize with one another, we get nowhere.

Just some thoughts. Hopefully I have not offended :)

Not at all. This is why I enjoy insight into foreign culture, as seen in media, or in my dealings with people from different culture and class, and have chosen to study about world cultures since early in university.