Banned: “Your wife is hot” Air-con ad

It’s been a while since I made a post about some bullshit news but, to be completely honest, I no longer find it worth my time to get annoyed at the news anymore, especially when it plays into the hands of our lovely media and their determination to split us into Camp Left and Camp Right before pitting both camps against each other in a fight to the death. Perhaps I NEVER should have invested ANY of my time and energy into dissecting mind-blowingly pathetic ‘news’ but hey; you live and learn.

Sometimes however, a freshly-laid, steamer of Bullshit News comes along and, because I’m only human (as The Human League once reminded us), I cannot help but analyse the shit that pops up while I’m looking at other, actual news items of importance.

Such as this advert that got certain people screeching “won’t somebody please think of the children?!?”

aircon-ad-1
[Source]
I saw it and thought it was an amusing ad – a bit of harmless fun that raised a small smile. But I guess that makes me some sort of 1950’s sexist pig according to those who demand that all humour and fun be sucked from the atmosphere.

Before I go any further though, I will say (in the interests of being impartial and balanced) that I understand why an ad like this would irk the progressive types who see it as a throwback to ye olden days where ad agencies would drape sexy girls over cars to sell them. I get it; I really do. Furthermore, the billboard looks cheap and a bit tacky so it won’t win any awards there.

Usually I would try and write some sort of detailed analysis or debate-style piece at this point but instead, I’m just going to be lazy, quote stuff from the news article on the BBC’s website and call out the bullshit where I see it.

The air conditioning advert – described by an academic as “plain sexist” – features the line: “Your wife is hot!”

First of all, what kind of “academic” gets themselves involved in cheap journalism like this? What is their field of expertise?

It was meant to appear on seven buses in Nottingham but Adverta, which places adverts on buses and trams in the city, blocked it and said it could cause offence.

All I can say is that if you get offended by an advertising billboard like this then you clearly have little else to give a fuck about. It reminds me of those people who write into the rants section in the back of the TV guide to complain about an inaccuracy in a TV soap or the cleavage that a female host displayed at an “inappropriate” time of day. Roll your eyes and forget about it. As a man, I’m used to doing that when I see ads that make the man of the house out to be a fuck-up that can’t handle the finances without a woman’s help or is (apparently) unable to multi-task. Does it offend me though? No because I have more important shit to think about and – when it really – comes down to it? We are clueless when it comes to certain things that women are better at.

Prof Carrie Paechter, director of the Nottingham Centre for Children, Young People and Families, said the advert was “like something out of the 1950s” and called for it to be removed.

A professor now? Gee, we really are having some high-IQ intellectual types getting involved in this. I will agree with Ms. Paechter that the ad is “like something out of the 1950’s” however. Removing it though? I’m not a supporter of that. My main concern is that old chestnut of “where does it end?”. If we have certain segments of society shouting “Ban this”, “Ban that”, “Censor this” and “don’t allow that” then we end up with an environment edited by pressure groups to suit their own vision of what the world should be like. Obviously, there ARE things that should not be permitted but on the whole, free speech and humour should not be threatened because a certain section of society disagrees with something. There was no malice or sexism intended by the creator of this advert. In fact…

The advert – at the junction of Woodborough Road and Porchester Road in Mapperley – was designed by Not Just Cooling owner Mr Davies.

“I don’t mean to offend anybody,” he said.

“I saw an advert like this in America, I chuckled to myself and thought ‘why not?’. Air conditioning is a very hard thing to advertise.”

He said he ran the idea past his team of engineers, who are all men, and discussed the idea with his mother and wife, who approved too.

“My wife knows what I’m like,” he said. “She thinks it’s funny because my wife knows my sense of humour.”

I suppose the “academics” in our midsts would say that Mr Davies’ wife and mother were brainwashed or are being subjected to some sort of toxic masculinity regime. Or – back in the real world – maybe they are just normal women who can see the joke without flying into an offended rage about it? All I can say – from my own personal experience – is that I have yet to encounter any women (or men) who bang on about banning billboards or trivial things being sexist. At work, the blokes take the piss out of the women and they take the piss out of us. We might tell them that they can gossip for the country about utter crap. They tell us that we are useless, one-track-minded blokes. Nobody takes any personal offence or gets wound up about it.

“The subliminal message about society is that it’s OK to comment on women’s bodies, and comment on women’s bodies as if they are the possession of someone else – ‘your wife’.

Ah, the convenient and vague subliminal messages. First of all, it isn’t a fact – it’s a perception of one person. Second of all, it’s a crime to comment on women’s bodies? Look, I in no way condone insulting women or making derogatory remarks about their form if their body isn’t considered ‘optimal’ by society. That shit should indeed fuck right off. Nor do I condone groups of men publicly shouting at women and giving them unwanted attention – acting like slobbering dogs who have never seen an attractive female before. But appreciative talk happens. Always has done and always will do. It’s natural among men and no more “wrong” than when women get a twinkle in their eye and gush over the likes of Magic Mike XL or whatever the fuck he/it is called.

MMXXL-1
Saying that a woman is sexually attractive is offensive but women debating the aesthetic values of men’s abs and pecs is fine? Double standards much? [Source]
And lastly…

“It also gives the subliminal message that it’s the man of the house that’s responsible for getting the air conditioning fixed.”

Another subliminal message that I guess we normal people are just too stupid to see lurking in the background like a social assassin striking from the shadows. Or is it somebody reading way too deeply into a fucking billboard that was created as a joke? Honestly, I can see BOTH sides of the argument for most of this billboard drama but these two lines here are absolutely hilarious. For a crude advertisement supposedly stuck in the 50’s, it sure has some intelligent subliminal logic behind its seemingly blunt imagery.

What do you know? I guess I did end up wasting my time on a petty news item after all. Stories like this are intentionally broadcast to us to wind up the political right and reinforce the idea that the world has gone maaaaad and that feminists are out to ruin their lives. The reality is that the internet, social media and the news outlets have seriously warped our perception of the world around us. As I previously mentioned, I have yet to meet anybody who thinks like those who get offended so easily in these news reports. Of course, I may well be wrong, but to me that says that the ‘problem’ isn’t as big as some paranoid blokes believe.

Ultimately, I would just ignore the easily-offended snowflakes and dismiss their outrage. It is only because of social media and virtual echo chambers that people are able to make a noise about things that nobody would have gone to the effort of giving two fucks about back in the day.

This billboard isn’t classy and it isn’t highbrow but not everything has to be.

Bullshit News: Red Bull poster banned

I haven’t posted anything here for around a week (I think) but I’ve been having internet issues that have, quite honestly, left me not feeling up to broadcasting my witty insightful ragged viewpoints if there’s no guarantee that I can get online to publish them. Society’s ability to bamboozle those of us with a common sense approach isn’t hindered by such first-world issues however and so all kinds of “WTF?!?” stories have been flying about and escaping my criticism in the meantime. This one is just a quickie to keep my foot in the blogging door while I work on some “better” stuff.

So, what would you think if you saw the following poster from energy drink giant Red Bull while passing through the London Underground?

rb-1

Clearly it’s just a playful joke but it seems that some people have had a sense of humour malfunction and actually taken time out of their day to complain to the UK’s Advertising Standards Authority. Then again, here I am taking time out of my day to talk about people taking time out of their day to complain about something. The irony isn’t lost on me, I can assure you.

Anyway, the ASA banned the advertisement on the grounds that it implied “unauthorised health claims”. To quote the report from BBC News’ website directly:

One person who saw the poster complained to the ASA that the advert implied the caffeinated energy drink had a positive effect on health, improving focus and concentration.

And here we have the magic word! “Implied”. I’m going to (mostly) gloss over the fact that somebody saw a poster on the tube and went to the trouble of contacting the ASA to lodge a complaint. Haven’t people got better things to do? Perhaps I’m the only one who doesn’t really pay any attention to adverts like this beyond the pictures. After all, it’s always some sort of marketing speak or “clever” wording to get at the cash in your wallet and so I don’t tend to give 95% of ads any of my time.

The thing is though, energy drinks DO improve focus and concentration so there’s no lie there. Reading the ingredients and looking at the facts on how the likes of caffeine, taurine and the various other minerals impact on your body/mind shows that these drinks will give you a boost. This boost is only temporary though and drinking the likes of Red Bull in excessive amounts will either reduce the effectiveness of the drinks over a period of time or simply make you ill. None of this has ever been denied and it should be common knowledge.

Nowhere on energy drink cans does it ever state that the contents provide a positive effect for a consumer’s health. As I said, it should be common knowledge that a can loaded up with sugar, caffeine and fuck knows what else cannot be ‘good’ for you in any way and should be consumed in moderation (or better yet, not at all). If you feel that a poster advertisement is all it takes to lead the general populance astray however then I’m (not) sorry but you are an idiot.

Energy drinks – like alcholol, cigarettes, porn, drugs etc. – provide a quick and easy rush that you KNOW is bad for you. I don’t believe that any of these things should be banned or cracked down on because those who use them responsibly and in moderation will pay the price for everybody else’s lack of self control and education. I firmly believe in doing whatever the hell you want (excluding the likes of murder, rape, abuse etc.) but also being aware of and being prepared to face the consequences should you fuck up.

Furthermore, I don’t believe that consumers are as dim-witted and easily brainwashed as as the SJW and their “save people from themselves” mantra would have us believe. What’s actually happening is that millions of people have zero self-discipline or other underlying issues that they avoid by seeking the quick fixes offered by the likes of energy drinks. Rather than turning to a can of Red Bull, you should be questioning why you are tired or unmotivated in the first place and working to solve that problem. Perhaps you don’t get enough sleep or maybe your diet is the cause. The reason may even be that you aren’t happy in your job and need a change.

Not according to the ASA though:

But the ASA ruled against Red Bull, saying that consumers would understand that the poster did imply those health claims, which were not authorised on the EU Register.

Well I’m a consumer and I wouldn’t even entertain the notion of believing that Red Bull is good for my health, especially not by glancing at a fucking poster in a tube station. I hate to use the well-worn terminology here but it really is just Nanny-State hand-holding once again.

That and the word “Implied”. This word along with the likes of “Insinuate”, “Interpreted” and phrases such as “could be seen to…” are the real problem here. Any news item that uses this sort of vocabulary is either trying to turn vague rumblings into a ‘Story’ or is presenting the opinions of random nobodies on Twitter as facts which is a complete journalistic disgrace in my opinion and only worth printing in cheap, trashy rags calling themselves NEWSpapers. You’d get more factual information from the Page 3 girl’s tits than the garbage “news” printed on the other pages. To see such once-respectable sources such as the BBC promoting this crap above REAL news is sad to see.

The final tragic irony? Those who complained to the ASA probably feel vindicated now that the ad has been banned but the only winner here is Red Bull and the free publicity that they gained.