Sort of like Robert Silverberg's essay on how James Tiptree Jr. must be male, before finding out that she wasn't.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting. But I wish the writer had managed to pry and print the name of the editor involved. That would have been spectacular.
It's odd how this kind of thing goes on. I don't seem to encounter this stuff that often in my life. Or, rather -- maybe it's just such a common part of the culture I grew up in that I don't recognize it when I see it. I have a friend (or maybe she's an ex-friend, or an acquaintance, I don't know, now, not that it matters for this) who is majoring in gender studies at a liberal arts university. One day we were talking about depictions and perceptions of women in the media, and I thought she was being laughable when she said, "How do you know the green M&M is a woman?....Because she's a whore."
But then I thought about it and I was like: Oh yeah.
posted
For the longest time I swore Charles De Lint was a woman author, for the deep and powerful women in his stories. I was surprisingly disappointed to find out he wasn't.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
wait, isn't that a good thing though? Usually its "AllWritersAreMale" and we end up with weird on/off characterizations of women in most fiction. If it is male and its a deep and complex character isn't that good?
IP: Logged |
posted
Not if the deep complex character never makes it into print because of an editor's gender bias, no.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There was a little piece by NPR of a study a woman did looking at bias in screenplays I think. She had a donated piece from someone who had won awards for writing. Sent out like forty copies, half with a feminine name and half with a masculine name. As you could guess, much more critical responses for the female one. I believe the surprise was that a lot of the negative bias also came from the women editors.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Might be something of a "I had to go over the hurdles to make it to where I am, I resent the idea of anyone like me having it easier" response, consciously or unconsciously.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Anyone want to bet the new editor is somehow connected? Why else would he or she be given an already-finalized manuscript unless there was office politics in play?
There just isn't enough time to slap all the people in the world what need slapping.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love getting an unexpected dose of self-discovery. What does it say about me that I am convinced that the second editor was a woman? But, of course, since it shouldn't matter whether the manuscript was written by a man or a woman, the editor's gender shouldn't matter either.
Posts: 101 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
This incident would seem to argue strongly for a process with (at some level) a "blind" edit with no knowledge of the author- male or female, famous or unknown (or infamous). No "a male(female) couldn't write this character authentically," no "I'm not going to accept any propaganda from that (fascist/communist)", no "we're scarcely worthy to accept the bootscrapings of the great J. M. Hackenebula."
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
One day we were talking about depictions and perceptions of women in the media, and I thought she was being laughable when she said, "How do you know the green M&M is a woman?....Because she's a whore."
Doesn't the green M&M have a woman's voice in the ads? Or did that happen after viewers had decided that that M&M was a woman?
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I searched NPR and found the article I was referencing. It's here with the 17 minute segment linked from the lead-in.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jamio: I love getting an unexpected dose of self-discovery. What does it say about me that I am convinced that the second editor was a woman? But, of course, since it shouldn't matter whether the manuscript was written by a man or a woman, the editor's gender shouldn't matter either.
I misread the author's name as Ben instead of Bev and was horrifically confused throughout the entire article. My brain apparently refused to accept the name Bev next to the picture of a man.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jamio: I love getting an unexpected dose of self-discovery. What does it say about me that I am convinced that the second editor was a woman?
Isn't that interesting. I assumed that the second editor was a man. Huh.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jamio: I love getting an unexpected dose of self-discovery. What does it say about me that I am convinced that the second editor was a woman? But, of course, since it shouldn't matter whether the manuscript was written by a man or a woman, the editor's gender shouldn't matter either.
I misread the author's name as Ben instead of Bev and was horrifically confused throughout the entire article. My brain apparently refused to accept the name Bev next to the picture of a man.
I had the exact same problem.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Doesn't the green M&M have a woman's voice in the ads? Or did that happen after viewers had decided that that M&M was a woman?
Oh, I see -- you're talking--in literal terms. That's the same reaction I had before I thought about it overnight.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Some names that were once predominantly used as masculine given names are now primarily feminine given names, including Alexis, Ashley, Beverly, Carol, Evelyn, Hilary, Jocelyn, Meredith, Shirley, Shannon, Sharon, and Vivian."
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The (male) protagonist in The Story Girl and The Golden Road by Lucy Maud Montgomery is named Beverly.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually know a man called Beverly. I think he's always had a lot of problems with people assuming he was female. L.M. Montgomery seemed to do that a lot - in the 'Pat' books, the boy she loves is named Hillary. Which makes Gilbert and Teddy sound like the best of a bad bunch.
It works both ways though. I wonder what the respose would have been if Anne Rice had published her books under her real first name - Howard.
quote:I've thought about it overnight, and I still don't understand.
Okay, well think about it like this. There is an infinite array of possible personalities to assign to any fictional female character. Why did they settle on seductress for the green M&M? I submit that it is because making her slutty would be a personality that would be instantly recognizable to a society that is used to that being a standard, if not the standard portrayal of female characters in advertising. It's a shortcut. There is no surprise to see a seductive female character in an ad campaign, so we can immediately accept the premise, and the company can spend the remaining 30 seconds of the ad giving us the soft sell. It isn't so much specifically a complaint against them trying to sell us candy, as it is an observation about our culture--or at least our media. Why couldn't the female M&M be anything else? They could have made her a doctor or a horse trainer or a musician -- anything. But seductress is the shortcut we will most easily recognize and accept. It seems to me like we're still pretty much at that point -- and that's what my friend was saying. How do you know the green M&M is a woman? Because she's a whore. It's the only trait they've given her. She is entirely comprised of that which is seductive, and of nothing that is not. And for me, once I recognized it, the pattern in all other advertising became totally apparent.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of the most famous, most-missed (and IMHO, one of the best) actor/singer in Hong Kong is said to have picked the first name "Leslie" because it was unisex and could either be for a girl or for a guy.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
TL, it has long been an urban myth, prevalent among schoolchildren, that green M&Ms made you horny. I always assumed the company finally decided to capitalize on that myth with a wink-wink advertising campaign.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd never heard that-- that may indeed be the origin for the campaign. I have no idea. It doesn't change anything, though.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The green M&M is kind of like Smurfette isn't she?
The basic character shape is androgynous so just make most of them males which is obvious from voices and take the high pitched voices, which could be either women or children, and stick them behind exaggerated lips and eyelashes.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've thought about it overnight, and I still don't understand.
Okay, well think about it like this. There is an infinite array of possible personalities to assign to any fictional female character. Why did they settle on seductress for the green M&M? I submit that it is because making her slutty would be a personality that would be instantly recognizable to a society that is used to that being a standard, if not the standard portrayal of female characters in advertising. It's a shortcut. There is no surprise to see a seductive female character in an ad campaign, so we can immediately accept the premise, and the company can spend the remaining 30 seconds of the ad giving us the soft sell. It isn't so much specifically a complaint against them trying to sell us candy, as it is an observation about our culture--or at least our media. Why couldn't the female M&M be anything else? They could have made her a doctor or a horse trainer or a musician -- anything. But seductress is the shortcut we will most easily recognize and accept. It seems to me like we're still pretty much at that point -- and that's what my friend was saying. How do you know the green M&M is a woman? Because she's a whore. It's the only trait they've given her. She is entirely comprised of that which is seductive, and of nothing that is not. And for me, once I recognized it, the pattern in all other advertising became totally apparent.
Well...ok, so we're using an expanded definition of the word whore. That's not very fair.
Posts: 101 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote: It isn't so much specifically a complaint against them trying to sell us candy, as it is an observation about our culture--or at least our media. Why couldn't the female M&M be anything else?
I'm not sure it's an observation obout our media or our culture specifically. After all, why was Aphrodite a woman in ancient Greek culture thousands of years ago?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not sure it's an observation obout our media or our culture specifically.
I think the fact that they chose the green M&M to be the seductress is culture-specific, in that the color green has a long history in film and television for being the color worn by the 'exotic seductress' character. See, for example, the role played by Cyd Charisse in Singin' in the Rain. The 'green' woman is usually contrasted with the 'white' woman, who usually represents pure love; again from Singin' in the Rain, think of the part played by Debbie Reynolds.
I would disagree with TL that the seductress archetype is the stereotype used in advertising; I'd say rather that it's the stereotype for a specific type of advertising, namely any type of luxury advertising (which includes everything from non-essential foods like candy to sportscars to energy drinks, etc. etc.). Any time the product can be linked to sex, the seductress is an easy go-to stereotype, which are routinely used in advertising because of the limited time-frame in which to communicate.
However, if you were to look at other types of advertising, such as home or general business products, I think you'd find a very different archetype. Products for the home usually follow the 'good wife/mother' archetype--think of the recent Chef Boyardee commercial where the daughter asks what V-E-G-E-T-A-B-L-E-S spells and the mother has an argument with herself about why lying is bad and why vegetables are important.
If you look at business advertising (though I see these more in print than on television), you'd see yet another stereotype that has nothing to do with either seduction or homemaking, namely business competency and happiness as part of a team.
I suppose my biggest concern is that you've drawn a straight line from 'woman' to 'whore' in advertising, which may be applicable in some cases (if we accept a much-broadened definition of the word 'whore') but not at all in others.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't drawn a line, I've made an observation. I never said there weren't other stereotypes -- only that this one is common and instantly recognizable. In fact, I was going to mention the housewife stereotype as another example in support of my overall point, but decided against it because I thought it basically went without saying, and my post was already too long. I actually don't disagree with anything in your post.
quote:Well...ok, so we're using an expanded definition of the word whore. That's not very fair.
Fair? To whom? It's not really an expanded definition at all, it is a common colloquialism to use the word as meaning promiscuous/seductive, rather than: woman who has sex in exchange for money. It ought to be obvious from the context that that is how my friend used it, and how I was using it the entire time. Nothing has changed here. I'm not trying to pull the rug out from under you -- just clarifying what I meant. You did, after all, ask.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Whore" is a common derogatory colloquialism meaning promiscuous/seductive. Many women may be annoyed at the implication that you can't be seductive without being considered a whore. "Seductive" does not always equal "promiscuous," you see.
I also feel obligated to point out that the rest of the M&Ms embody the "bumbling male" stereotype, so it's not like everybody else in the bag is normal...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are they effective? I figure that the extremely well established and entrenched multi-national brands only advertise out of a vague sense of obligation, sort of like how I iron my shirts.
I mean it's either that or I'll be forced to believe that this idiocy actually tested well.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not fair to anyone you're trying to share the revelation with. "How do you know the green M&M is a woman? Because she's a seductress," makes a whole lot more sense. Most people, in my experience, call a seductress a whore when they want to be nasty to her. I had no reason to think your friend meant to be nasty.
But I never thought you were being deliberately tricky. I just got a little whiny. My bad.
Posts: 101 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
All the women I know (apart from relatives) are constantly trying to seduce me so it's possible that like me, the M&M ad men are just dead sexy and don't know any different Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Are they effective? I figure that the extremely well established and entrenched multi-national brands only advertise out of a vague sense of obligation, sort of like how I iron my shirts.
I mean it's either that or I'll be forced to believe that this idiocy actually tested well.
I've heard that advertising is effective whether it amuses or annoys the viewer, perhaps as a result of being memorable.
I know, it's hard for me to believe, too. There are some products I've utterly refused to buy simply for fear that a single cent might get back to the marketing firms responsible for their ad campaigns.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Whore" is a common derogatory colloquialism meaning promiscuous/seductive. Many women may be annoyed at the implication that you can't be seductive without being considered a whore. "Seductive" does not always equal "promiscuous," you see.
No kidding. Again, I don't disagree with you, except to say that I am certain no implication was made that you can't be seductive without being considered a whore. Leave me a little wiggle room, please. Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: This leaves me pretty damn speechless. (Sort of NSFW, depending on where you work).
Something equally blatant (but less visually provocative) that aired in the U.S. (and not just at night or during adult-targeted programming): Quiznos beats you over the head with their double entendres. (Nothing that will get you in trouble at work if you don't play the audio out loud, AFAICT.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've noticed this about myself, that I tend to judge women's writing that I think is bad worse than men's writing that is bad. I don't really know why. I acknowledge that it is not fair, but it is something I have noticed, and I have still not really figured out why. Just thought I'd throw that into the discussion.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: This leaves me pretty damn speechless. (Sort of NSFW, depending on where you work).
1. The blonde looks terrified.
2. I believe Burger King has just insured I will never touch this sandwich, let alone let it anywhere near my face.
3. "Most overtly ********y ad..." may be the most amusing adjective-ing of a noun I've read in some time.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
