Campbell Soup Spiderman Commericial

[Krystalina]

I would have posted this in my regular places of Facebook, but I already frighten people away with my war on institutionalized racism, not to mention the usual lack of open-minded individuals...i.e. if I start pointing out this gender double standard, homophobes, many if not all my loved ones, would be more focused on why I'm pointing this out(I haven't told anyone about my love for crossdressing) as opposed to the double standard itself.

There is this otherwise great Campbell Soup commercial featuring a child in a Spider-Man costume doing the usual child antics with imagination, which ends with the child pulling off the mask to reveal a girl underneath. A quick scan of the Internet, as well as the YouTube comments, showcased unlimited support...the girl was breaking down gender barriers(although there are actual female counterparts to Spider-Man to begin with, for one thing), all the usual pats on the back, nothing about perversion or anything.

It just annoyed me. A woman putting on male clothes is not exactly breaking down gender barriers. But what if the commercial had a young boy wanting to be Elsa(FROZEN) or even Emma Swan(ONCE UPON A TIME)? That is the commericial I would want to see, and if anyone in the mainstream would come forth and say he is breaking down gender barriers.

To showcase the hypocrisy even more, YOUTUBE had a commericial with a young man who dressed in women's clothing at the end of it. The cool thing about this is that there is really no context: he could have been a crossdresser, androgynous, going to a costume party, transgendered, etc. Yet, the comments were vastly different, with people whining about "oh, they are pushing this on me". What a load of garbage.

[Kate Simmons]

In the 1990's Marvel had a futuristic spin off series of the female offspring of Peter and Mary Jane Parker inheriting Peter's spider powers as the Amazing Spider Girl. She kind of made mistakes like Peter did in the beginning but otherwise a bona fide spider person, complete with costumes and super villains. And the spider legacy lived on. Works for me because I'm an adventuress myself. :battingeyelashes::)

[Jenniferathome]

...It just annoyed me. A woman putting on male clothes is not exactly breaking down gender barriers. But what if the commercial had a young boy wanting to be Elsa(FROZEN) or even Emma Swan(ONCE UPON A TIME)? That is the commericial I would want to see, and if anyone in the mainstream would come forth and say he is breaking down gender barriers.....

I think the context is different. The Spiderman "costume" is actually androgynous. It covers all and has no clothing "norm" reference. The Elsa and Emma DO have clothing "norm" references. A dress is a dress. Perhaps the proper comparison is Catwoman. I think it's fair to state that a boy could not wear that in a commercial.

I think the key here is that it's ok for girls to be "strong" or show strength, but boys/men can not show weakness, which is implied in a dress or other female clothing. A double standard that fair or unfair, is real and pervasive and won't go away any time soon.

[Lana Mae]

Jennifer is right. It will take a long time for all the hate, ignorance, and bigotry to settle down. All we can do is do what we do! Hugs Lana Mae

[Curiouser&Curiouser]

I agree with Jennifer, though maybe not with the end statement - femininity is weakness culturally, so it is not okay to show. This is something my wife and I have discussed a lot, and a lot more since my revelation to her a few months ago: It's okay to want to be a boy, but only girls can want to be girls. I do, however, think there are ways to fight this, and with everything, it starts with kids. I'm really working on my nephews to instill in them the notion that being a girls is just as important and valuable and laudable as being a boy. My favorite way is to use the wrong honorific - sir or madam - and have them respond negatively then ask what is wrong about being a girl. I don't want to force understanding on them, but at least get them thinking.

Man, this topic gets me excited; I really hope this next generation has a real chance at acceptance on a larger scale. :sb:

- Sandra

[ReineD]

It’s not about a little girl dressing like a boy, Krystalina. It’s what the costume represents - the inner self.

Superman symbolizes strength and power. Can-do attitude. Confidence. Hero. Even more than Supergirl did. She was always second banana to Superman anyway, which girls don't aspire to anymore.

It’s what we aspire BOTH our girls AND boys to be now. We want them ALL to be strong, confident, capable people. Trouble is, girls traditionally have had some catching up to do. They’re getting there, but Campbell appeals to the message that we are all giving our daughters nowadays, which is that they no longer need to live with any gender barriers in their careers and their lives.


But what if the commercial had a young boy wanting to be Elsa(FROZEN) or even Emma Swan(ONCE UPON A TIME)? That is the commericial I would want to see, and if anyone in the mainstream would come forth and say he is breaking down gender barriers.

He doesn’t have to be Elsa or Emma. He doesn't have to break down gender barriers for himself, he's already there! ... unless he wants to support a female Superman. He’s already a boy, so he’s got the historical privilege of power already. Again, it's not about the clothes.

You might say, if we tell our girls it is good to be strong (Superman, Elsa, etc), then shouldn’t we tell our boys it is OK to be weak? But then why would anyone want to aspire to that - and I don’t think there are any weak characters out there that kids might want to be.

(Note, it’s OK for everyone to be in touch with the full breadth of human emotion when they need to. Everyone is sad or afraid sometimes. There’s no shame in that, for either girls or boys. But these are private moments shared with family or good friends. Both girls and boys are not disavowing their ability to be human, just because they want to portray characters that have courage and strength.)



Man, this topic gets me excited; I really hope this next generation has a real chance at acceptance on a larger scale. :sb:

A lot of them are there already. :)

[Stephanie47]

I'm in agreement with Reine. We only assume the person in the Spiderman costume is a male because that has been the sex of the character since Spiderman's inception. There's is nothing male or female about the costume. Is it necessary to dress up a young boy in a skirt and blouse or dress with ribbons in his hair to sell an "Easy Bake Oven?" Wouldn't the message that baking is an enjoyable activity be better conveyed with a boy dressed as a boy and a girl as a girl? It would be totally counter productive to dress the boy as a girl because it would convey the misconception baking is a "girlie:" or feminine activity.

[sometimes_miss]

He doesn’t have to be Elsa or Emma. He doesn't have to break down gender barriers for himself, he's already there! ... unless he wants to support a female Superman. He’s already a boy, so he’s got the historical privilege of power already. Again, it's not about the clothes.
You might say, if we tell our girls it is good to be strong (Superman, Elsa, etc), then shouldn’t we tell our boys it is OK to be weak? But then why would anyone want to aspire to that

Perhaps just more misconceptions.
It's not about aspiring to be 'weak'. It's about being perfectly ok with aspiring to be something other than the most dominant person in every situation. For boys, it's always a pecking order about who's the most successful, the strongest, the fastest, and of course, the toughest. Until women start finding men attractive who are in roles and jobs that traditionally AND CURRENTLY are only seen acceptable for females, there certainly IS a gender barrier in place.


I don’t think there are any weak characters out there that kids might want to be.
Again, it's not 'weak' characters. It's ANY female one. Any boy who wants to be the little mermaid, Jasmine, Belle, Sleeping Beauty, Rapunzel, Pocahontas, etc., will be ridiculed. They are not 'weak' characters; they simply don't always display what are the only acceptable masculine traits.

[Krisi]

........ I think the key here is that it's ok for girls to be "strong" or show strength, but boys/men can not show weakness, which is implied in a dress or other female clothing. A double standard that fair or unfair, is real and pervasive and won't go away any time soon.

Yep, that's the answer. A female can move "up" but a male cannot move "down".

[dolovewell]

I think you are being outraged for the sake of being outraged.

[Mayo]

You might say, if we tell our girls it is good to be strong (Superman, Elsa, etc), then shouldn’t we tell our boys it is OK to be weak? But then why would anyone want to aspire to that - and I don’t think there are any weak characters out there that kids might want to be.
In line with what Curiouser and Krisi said, this repeats our cultural stereotype that girls are weak, and therefore nobody would aspire to be one. This is the very thing the commercial is striving to overcome by saying that girls can be just as strong as boys and play the same roles.

The company was probably looking for some way to say that they're 'changing with the times' and that their product is still 'relevant' and I'm guessing they picked this one because it's progressive in an acceptable way. Some companies are now even running ads that show gay couples (which still gets some segments of society hot under the collar), but the idea of a boy in a dress is not one that they're ready for yet. In this sense I agree with the OP that it does reflect society's hypocrisy about gender and gender roles. There are still only a few ways you can show a man in a traditionally female role (e.g. chef, male nurse) but I for one look forward to seeing an ad that puts a boy or man in a dress in a way that looks good rather than as some sort of stereotype.

[Krisi]

I think it would be wise to consider that the purpose of this commercial is to sell soup and nothing more. The "girl in a boy's costume" thing is only to get the public to remember the commercial and buy more soup.

I've seen commercials with a guy in a female costume and bi-racial couples or families are big these days. It's all to get people to buy a product. Nothing more.

Personally, I usually use the commercial time to browse through the guide to see what I want to watch next.

[Lily Catherine]

Considering Campbell's has been portraying inclusive tropes in recent history, I get what they're getting at with this; it's in the same vein as the "Meet Alex" billboard from The Body Shop, with the exact same fundamental assumption.

Sadly, most male-to-female crossdressing in modern media seems to be either played for comedic value (in the 'laughing at' sense), or is sexualised - occasionally positively, but still mostly in the 'pervert' sense.

[Micki_Finn]

So... you're outraged that a commercial that advances one group's cause doesn't do anything for your group? Do you protest Caesar Chavez day because he didn't do anything for TG rights? How about down with Lincoln because he didn't give women the vote?

A commercial about women's empowerment is apples to your gender ID oranges.

[Jesse Six]

You might say, if we tell our girls it is good to be strong (Superman, Elsa, etc), then shouldn’t we tell our boys it is OK to be weak? But then why would anyone want to aspire to that - and I don’t think there are any weak characters out there that kids might want to be.


You're suggesting that anyone that doesn't aspire to be a hero is weak.

This isn't about "aspiring to be weak". It's about being "allowed to not be aggressive."

It's because not every person wants to be a warrior. It's not in their personality. There are plenty of people that are confident and brave, but want nothing to do with competition. If that person happens to be female, they're allowed to do that - our society has a role for women who prefer to nurture, not fight. If they're male, there is no such equivalent role - they're judged to be a failure.


Do you think the reason that many girls aren't interested in violent movies or games is because they're weak? What if that girl is a boy, is he allowed the same latitude?

[Tracii G]

Why do things like this upset CDers

[Krisi]

It doesn't upset me one bit. It's a soup commercial. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Tracii G]

Sounds like social justice warrior stuff.
Institutional racism? Really?

If you don't like the commercial email Campbell's soup and say something

[Jodi]

I've seen this commercial many times and all I saw was a cute commercial. I guess I'm not really keyed in.

jodi

[Lorileah]

So...here's what I am getting. A girl dresses as a superhero. The people here don't like it because they can't dress as a princess (dunno who made that rule but ...OK). So someone explains that is empowering and someone else retorts that girls can move up but boys can't move down (again dunno whose rules those are but...OK). Then someone asks why you get all butt hurt because you have barriers in your own mind and that it should be seen as a positive but you reply you can't because some unknown force has made the rules.

Let's address some of this.

No one says you can't be a princess, or a frog, or a rock or whatever. YOU say you can't do those those things. Yet, you make no effort to go against that unknown force (as the little girl and her parents evidently did) to break a stereotype you find unfair (Tracii did suggest you do this).

Ok the weak/strong thing. I find it incredibly strong for someone to stand up to injustice. Has nothing to do with gender or physical strength. I find it incredibly strong to be a parent who raises a child no matter what gender they are. I find it incredibly strong for a man to be a nurse or teacher or admin assistant. How do you get the idea that if you do something you become weaker (Not talking physically...I am talking emotionally or intelligence or even hierarchy). Once again, I am amazed how so many here hold outdated ideals of what is power and what is weakness. Also the argument of women can but we can't has become threadbare. You can't because you won't. You won't change what "is" until you stand up against it.

I wish I could post a mirror so you all can see who your biggest barrier is. You know the cliches. one drop begins to wear the boulder. one voice can break the silence., even a small wind can topple a tree.

You don't like how things "are" work to change them.

Or complain how your life sucks....your choice

[Jenniferathome]

Lorileah, this, "No one says you can't be a princess,..." is disingenuous.

Society "says" boys can't dress like girls. While unwritten, it is abundantly clear through deeds and actions that this cultural norm is real. Now, does one have to accept it? No. But it's pervasiveness can't be ignored.

- - - Updated - - -


You're suggesting that anyone that doesn't aspire to be a hero is weak....

Come on, Reine did NOT suggest nor intimate this. She only commented that no one aspires to be weak.

[ellbee]

Had to see what all the hub-bub was about...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9Lm886PPPA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9Lm886PPPA


Well, I guess they are officially calling it "Spider-Man Soups" :strugglin


Eh, just seems like some large corp trying to be edgy -- without being *too* edgy.

Wake me up when they reverse the roles. I'd love to see all the "positive" comments from the general public on that one! ;)

[donnalee]

Or could it be that Campbells thought they could double their market by including girls in that commercial.

[Jane P]

Commercials like this make me think only one thing ...

Mmmm , soup!

[ReineD]

You're suggesting that anyone that doesn't aspire to be a hero is weak.

No.

I was pointing out that Campbells is not making a statement about crossdressing. It's not about the clothes, it's about the inner self. Campbells applauds women's changing roles in society. Women are all but closing the gender gap (except for salaries), by making great inroads in academia and in the work force toward being accepted as equally capable as men. Men haven't been moving the other way. They don't need to, they're already there. This is a social issue, not a presentation issue.

The OP chose an example of opposites: a girl in a Superman suit vs. a boy dressed as Elsa. I wanted to point out that the opposite of a strong inner self is weakness and not an Elsa costume.

We don't have to be heroes in order to be strong.

And if a boy wants to dress like Elsa for Halloween, I actually admire his courage because his male peers will give him a hard time over it. No matter how much we all wish that all men could present as women without anyone raising an eyebrow, the rest of the population simply isn't there, because most men do not want to present as women.

That said, young people are increasingly doing away with gendered differences in the last remaining gendered area, which is clothing and hairstyles. This is a good thing. But, unisex styling is not as feminine as many members here would like, I'm afraid. Unisex clothing tends to be not traditionally feminine or masculine.

EDIT - Just looked at the Campbell's Spiderman commercial. LOVE it! :)

An annecdote: today I spoke to a 22 yr-old female art education major about Barbie dolls. I asked if they had them in secondary roles when she was a little girl (secretary outfits, airline stewardess, or in pink, flimsy little skirts, etc). She said they did and for this reason her mother encouraged other toys. But, she did have a few Barbie dolls, which she engaged in battle with her twin brother and his GI Joes. I asked her who won the battles, and she said she did. I gave her a high 5. :)

And look at all these great gender-neutral toys! The gender barriers are breaking down here too, because these little boys will need to grow up learning how to share childcare and household responsibilities with their wives! This is one area of "boys going the other way" that I missed earlier, but again it's not about dressing like a girl.

http://static.boredpanda.com/blog/wp-content/org_uploads/2012/12/gender-neutral-toy-catalogue-top-toy-5.jpg
http://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/Cars.jpg
http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-VN012_Housew_G_20121129132050.jpg

Not to mention musical intruments, arts & crafts, science sets, books, gameboys, etc.

[kayegirl]

It's a commercial, nothing more nothing less. End of story!!!

[ellbee]

Men haven't been moving the other way.

A simple Google search of "men falling behind" or something like that says otherwise.


Of course, anyone can say anything, as it is the internet, after all. :D

[Jane P]

Given that the female spider is usually the stronger and more dominant of the species perhaps Campbells has it right , and this is what Peter Parker has always aspired to be ; as strong as a female (spider).

Oh yeah , mmmm soup.

[Tracii G]

I 'm surprised no one has pulled the lesbian card yet.

[ReineD]

A simple Google search of "men falling behind" or something like that says otherwise.

I suppose it depends on the point of view. I have no doubt that men who want to hang on to 1950s gender roles will feel left behind. There are articles about job loss in the manufacturing sector, but hopefully young men coming up will train themselves for jobs that are available?

But, younger people who embrace gender equality do not feel left behind. To them, full equality in social roles is just normal.

Tracii, what is the lesbian card. I'm genuinely curious as to how someone's sexual preference impacts gender equality?

[ellbee]

If anyone thinks it's simply confined to blue-collar manufacturing, they might want to look into a bit more.


You don't think this kind of crap happens in the *white*-collar world? Think again.

Yes, even in supposedly "gender-neutral" industries, there are "old girls' clubs" present & very active. Even if it's only somewhat tilted, at say, 60% GG / 40% male workforce, that can be a huge impact. Guess what? They don't want "icky boys" there! And they will gang up & attack. Not only have I observed this happening to others at a number of corporations, I've also experienced it myself. I've even left for greener pastures because of it, multiple times.

Men are the "evil" ones, in their eyes. And they will crap on them like there's no tomorrow. Don't kid yourselves.


Anyway, ever watch sitcoms on TV -- and the commercials peppered throughout? Yep, father/husband is portrayed as dumb & bumbling -- but the mother/wife? Smart, capable & powerful. You mean to tell me that individuals & society, as a whole, being bombarded by those kinds of messages all day, every day, year after year, decade after decade, *isn't* going to have a wee bit of an impact?? Please.


Or how about education? Probably started becoming more prevalent in the '80s & '90s. "Oh, the girls have been left behind. They need to be empowered. Let's focus on them!" Of course, there only so many resources to go around, so yeah, it comes at the boys' expense. It's a zero-sum game. And look where we are today... "Magically" the girls are getting the better grades, going to college more than guys are, getting more degrees than the guys -- and yep, entering the *white*-collar world where they get to experience the privilege & continuation of the old girls' club.


So, no, it's just about "retraining" because some guy lost his job to a low-wage country. It goes a lot deeper than that. And it's been happening a lot longer than you think. AND it's a vicious & entrenched cycle that feeds upon itself & is difficult to right itself once it reaches a certain tipping-point. GG's of all should understand that. :)


Now about that Campbell's Soup commercial where a boy plays Wonder Woman... ;)

[Tracii G]

Reine I'm sure there are some that would argue a girl in a boy type suit like Spiderman must mean she is a lesbian or is going to turn in to one eventually.
Or that she is transgender and it just isn't right because gender lines are black and white.

[ReineD]

OK thanks, Tracii.

Yes, I'm sure some people would think that, especially here. :p



Yes, even in supposedly "gender-neutral" industries, there are "old girls' clubs" present & very active. Even if it's only somewhat tilted, at say, 60% GG / 40% male workforce, that can be a huge impact. Guess what? They don't want "icky boys" there! And they will gang up & attack.

No doubt there are people mistrustful of the opposite sex. I personally have never understood this. Thank goodness there are plenty of people who can value others for what they contribute, over what sex they are, and I think you will find this increasingly true among the Millenials.



Anyway, ever watch sitcoms on TV -- and the commercials peppered throughout?

I don't watch that stuff. It's riddled with meaningless stereotypes and it does not reflect the real world.



Or how about education? Probably started becoming more prevalent in the '80s & '90s. "Oh, the girls have been left behind. They need to be empowered. Let's focus on them!"

Well, women have indeed had to catch up beginning with voting rights at the beginning of the 20th century, to being accepted in colleges during the middle of the century. Gosh, there used to be sex-segregated colleges, where women were taught the art of pleasant conversation and men were taught business and science! It took time before there were enough women graduating with professional degrees to make inroads in the private and public sectors and yes, they did have to break through glass ceilings riddled with long-standing attitudes that women weren't capable and they should instead continue to be limited to "women's work". It took countless women who refused to be kept back and laws championed by feminist movements to change this.

But, I think we've turned the corner now and other than salaries, we are pretty much caught up for those of us who want meaningful careers, at least in some fields (medicine, the law, academia). Yet, it is still challenging to attract an equal amount of girls than boys to the STEM fields (science, technology, engineering, and math), but they are increasing in numbers there as well. Despite the fact there are many women who don't limit themselves, there still is a significant number of women who don't see themselves in those fields because they have traditionally been male fields, despite the fact that these women are fully capable.

It takes a long time to fully catch up and I have great hopes for the children of Millenials.

THIS is what the Campbells ad addressed.




So, no, it's just about "retraining" because some guy lost his job to a low-wage country. It goes a lot deeper than that. And it's been happening a lot longer than you think. AND it's a vicious & entrenched cycle that feeds upon itself & is difficult to right itself once it reaches a certain tipping-point. GG's of all should understand that. :)

Sorry, but I still don't get what you're saying. Are you saying the world is now ruled by women who are keeping men out?

[ellbee]

Doesn't matter if you don't watch TV. Neither do I. Yet millions of others still do.


As for the salary thing, I don't buy it. There are studies out there saying apples-to-apples, men & women earn the same.

At one job I worked at, I had the accidental "pleasure" of finding out how much all my departmental peers made. Guess what? No real differences, when taking into account an individual's experience, length of service & actual contribution. Yes, only one example. But a very real-world one. I've also found the same to be true at other jobs I've had (people can be careless with that kind of info ;) ).


And yes, there are definitely areas out there in corporate America where it's ruled by women (20-somethings thru 50-somethings) & their toxic thug mentality. Or as one of my peers once put it, "a bunch of man-haters." Trust me, they exist. And they will hire & promote women because they're "part of the club" -- while crapping on guys because, well, they're guys. Not a company I want to work for. I guess I just come from a world where it doesn't matter if you're green or purple, 2 feet tall or 10 feet tall... If you can do the job & do it well, that's all that matters to me.


So anyway, why are boys underperforming in school? Did they suddenly & mysteriously get stupid as a whole? Or are they getting left behind, being forced to take a back-seat to girls, being punished for simply being boys?

And considering there's a roughly 50/50 split between GG's & men, why are so many more women going to college & earning degrees than men these days? Shouldn't it be more or less even?


Yes, fully aware of women's history. But now we're talking about the past 20 years to the present -- not 75 years ago.


Institutionalized discrimination & indoctrination goes both ways, you know. The pendulum has swung too far the other way, IMO, based on my observations & experiences.

[ReineD]

Laurababe, I’m talking about the last 20-30 years too. This is the time period when there have been the most significant gains in reducing the gender gap. I just gave a bit of historical background for interest. So on to your points:


The gender gap in salaries: There is a lot of research available, and men on average do earn more than women, although the gap is shrinking. Have you heard of the Pew Research Center? It’s a nonpartisan, non-advocacy demographic research and public opinion poll. It’s a treasure trove of well researched data.

This is an excellent 4 minute video that follows the gender pay gap from 1980 to now, and it offers interesting insight:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/on-equal-pay-day-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-gender-pay-gap/

Women outpacing men in college graduation: You should read this article from Inside Higher Ed (a publication I respect):

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/02/21/new-book-explains-why-women-outpace-men-education

They’re basically saying it is because girls on average take their education more seriously than boys during elementary and high school years, and so they outpace boys by the time they’re all ready for college. Contrary to what you say, boys are not discriminated against in schools, and neither are girls. To remediate the situation for boys, they propose having much better guidance counseling during their younger years. It’s worth reading this short article if you want insight from people who actually are in the business of educating students.

[Krisi]

......... The gender gap in salaries: There is a lot of research available, and men on average do earn more than women, although the gap is shrinking. ................

Perhaps that reflects the careers women typically choose and their commitment to their careers vs. family.

Where I worked, people were paid by pay grade and longevity. Period. A female and a male in the same job with the same number of years of service were paid equally.

[Mayo]

Of course, there only so many resources to go around, so yeah, it comes at the boys' expense. It's a zero-sum game.
This is the essence of privilege. When others who have been held back now have the same rights and opportunities it seems like a loss for the ones who were previously on top of the heap. Now, in some sense, it is a loss for them, but what this statement implies is that it's a bad thing (for men) when women are equal because men now only have 50% of the pie instead of 90%. Just as it's a bad thing for whites when non-whites are equal because you might just have to take orders from one because they're your manager now instead of your slave....

[ReineD]

Great point, Mayo!


Perhaps that reflects the careers women typically choose and their commitment to their careers vs. family.

This is true, but it is only one factor among several others. Some women, who are committed to their careers, are denied the opportunity to advance. Did you watch the 4 minute video in my post #35? I appreciate your personal experience, but a few data points is not a reflection of averages. And some companies do pay women less.

Here's more detail, with graphs:

Women and Leadership: Public Says Women are Equally Qualified, but Barriers Persist (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/01/14/women-and-leadership/)


In any event, why are we even arguing about whether women have the advantage over men. Historically they haven't and no argument can dispute this. I know that things are getting better, but we're not fully there yet. Some girls still limit themselves. It takes time to change attitudes across the board that have been with us for generations. That said, I understand that in this forum particularly, there are members who are prone to believe that women have it better than men. It stands to reason that a woman's position would seem an advantage, to a group of people who strive to be or to emulate women.

And to bring this discussion back to the OP, this is precisely the encouragement that Campbells delivered to girls: they are indeed able and competent, just like men.

[ellbee]

Have you heard of the Pew Research Center? It’s a nonpartisan, non-advocacy...

Says who? Them? LOL

Sorry, but *all* of these groups have a bias & an agenda & even unintentional flaws in their methods (including those who put out studies that would back *my* argument). If you don't want to believe that, then fine. And no, they will not come & say that, themselves. Of course they wouldn't. But with a little more digging & some thought put into it, it doesn't take much to put two & two together. These types of groups exist for a reason, and it's not as innocent as some like to claim or believe.




They’re basically saying it is because girls on average take their education more seriously than boys during elementary and high school years, and so they outpace boys by the time they’re all ready for college.

Yeah, I probably wouldn't take school so seriously, either, if the focus was on girls, while I got penalized for the simple fact that I was a boy -- who arguably as a whole, have some biological differences in the way the two sexes think & behave. And that's fine if you don't want to believe that, but I do based on observations & experiences. Men & women are instinctively & naturally different from one another, on certain levels.


And Mayo, it *is* a zero-sum game. That's fine if teachers & the shift in curriculum want to focus more energies on the girls. Go for it. But again, there are limited resources (ask any teacher about that, LOL), and adding to one group means taking away from the other -- when there's an absence of *additional* resources. And that would be great if it were actually around 50/50 -- but again, it's *not* anymore. Even Reine's link shows that. It's simple math, really. ;)



Anyway, now that this thread has been sufficiently hi-jacked ( :( ), I'll just leave it that we are going to disagree on this. All good! :)

[ciel64]

Watching the video I get why a lot of people here could take issue with it, being born as a male and being denied by society (implicitly) the chance to be a princess, or be feminine in any way, and then having ads like this campbells soup ad on television all the while mtf crossdressers and transfeminine people in general are usually not given any sort of representation save the occasional butt-end of the joke on tv.

I mean of course campbell made that ad get people to buy their soup, obviously, but nevertheless even though there should be more representation for transfem people this video (imo) still portrays an important message.

as with the whole "it's okay for boys to be weak" thing, it sounds more like the problem is that society tries to tell people that feminine=weak, like for instance i've always thought for muscular legs to be a feminine body trait, but surprise surprise society says that slender legs are feminine, I could go on but I digress.

So I guess what I'm saying is that society should stop equating femininity with weakness, then if young boys want to be feminine or anything they won't have the problem of seeing that as being weak.

[ReineD]

Laurababe, sounds like you’re pretty much stuck in your beliefs and you will give no credence to research that doesn’t support your personal views. That’s your prerogative. I wish you all the best, and hope that one day you will somehow feel better about the treatment of males in our society. It's all good here too. :)

[scarlett]

To showcase the hypocrisy even more, YOUTUBE had a commericial with a young man who dressed in women's clothing at the end of it. The cool thing about this is that there is really no context: he could have been a crossdresser, androgynous, going to a costume party, transgendered, etc. Yet, the comments were vastly different, with people whining about "oh, they are pushing this on me". What a load of garbage.

What you tube commercial?

[sometimes_miss]

Perhaps that reflects the careers women typically choose and their commitment to their careers vs. family. Where I worked, people were paid by pay grade and longevity. Period. A female and a male in the same job with the same number of years of service were paid equally.
^same with me.

The pay inequity hypothesis comes crashing down, when there is one simple fact that it's supporters cannot explain: If, indeed, equally talented and skilled women WERE available for the same job, and a company could hire those women for less than men, it would, and increase profits. Businessmen (and businesswomen) are ruthless; there are no ethics in business. The boss will not keep one group of employees if he can replace them and increase his profits by even, oh, 3% (one of the stats mentioned in a recent article about pay inequity). Why? Well, especially in large corporations, if a junior exec can show how he can cut labor costs 3% which his boss refuses to do, that boss will soon be out of a job when the stockholders get wind of it.

And, how come female owned businesses haven't been and aren't hiring all those talented, skilled women?

[ReineD]

The pay inequity hypothesis ...

Hypothesis? Do you think there are organizations that, for some obscure reasons, would want the world to believe that women earn less and so they concoct hypotheses to further their agenda, without any data to back their hypotheses? What could be a reason for doing such a thing.

Pew gets their data from publicly available data sources and in this case it comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But, if you think the BLS exists as a scam, accumulating fake data in order to fool all of us (again for reasons that would be beyond my imagination), then I don't know what to say. Have you ever done research and are you familiar with reliable data sources? I am continuously amazed when people are so tenacious with their own, unresearched personal beliefs, they are uttterly unable or unwilling to consider the documented work done by panels of economists, statisticians, and demographers. Or, do you believe in conspiracy stories.

This is how Pew analyzed the data for the gender pay gap, for those of you who are willing to read and consider it, and a BLS report with tables and tables of data:

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/11/how-pew-research-measured-the-gender-pay-gap/
http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/womens-earnings/archive/highlights-of-womens-earnings-in-2013.pdf

My other big question is, why on earth would some members here not want to believe that women on average earn less than men. Is it a question of wanting to believe that women lead ideal lives and they are so much better off than men? I really don't get it.

[ellbee]

Reine,

People here are sharing some of their personal real-world experiences & observations re: salaries / wages.

And for some odd reason, they are flying in the face of these "official" studies. Why is this? Because obviously something is askew, here.


Who should we believe? Our own eyes -- or someone telling us what we should believe? I know which I'm choosing, because it's been the real world that I live in, anyway.


That 80-something % from BLS? Please. I have seen nothing come even close to that. Again, apples-to-apples, everything has been on par between men & women (and yes, I've been quite the job-hopper over the decades, seeing quite a lot to back up my position).

Finally, believe it or not, many knowledgeable & intelligent people out there are quite critical of BLS -- probably rightfully so. :)

[ReineD]

Laura, yes I understand about personal experiences. Some places pay women equally and some less. But it takes millions of individual personal experiences to produce a meaningful data set and the aggregate of all the data is what we are talking about here. If you looked at the video, you will have seen that the gap has narrowed considerably for very young women entering the work force now, although the older women they work with are further behind. Overall, women are paid less. What can I say. Do you really think that people lie about this stuff? What would be the reason for lying about such things. lol

Have you ever taken courses in statistics and data analysis at school? Do you understand how crucial is the accumulation of data for planning purposes (people's genders, age groups, occupations, incomes, levels of education, in other words all the demographics accumulated by the Census Bureau and other data accumulation entities), in order to plan for roads, schools, transportation and other infra-structure required to support businesses that will provide work for all these people, plus things like deciding how many old-folks homes to build, how to determine insurance rates, what drugs and other interventions should be researched by people in the medical profession, what public policies to adopt for the welfare of the population, plus a million other things. All these things take planning and data is what drives it all.

Have you actually read the links I posted? It doesn't sound as if you did. There are categories within the data because not everyone fits the same demographic. But, if you don't believe in data or if you don't understand where to find it, then I'm sorry but I don't know what else to say. I cannot continue to discuss this with you in any meaningful way.



Finally, believe it or not, many knowledgeable & intelligent people out there are quite critical of BLS -- probably rightfully so. :)

OK ... you got me. lol. You're just trolling, right? :) Do you understand the function of the BLS, to whom it provides the data and for what purpose? Or do you think that everything is a conspiracy.


EDIT - Again ... back to the OP, even though your post relates to the meaning of a girl wearing a Spiderman costume, if you've read the part of the discussion about women coming up from a position of disadvantage under men, I hope you can understand Campbell's intent in choosing this particular theme in their ads.

[sometimes_miss]

Reine, this pay gap issue getting off topic, but you did bring up the subject. I had a very long post written out, but upon review, know that nothing I write will change your mind, so I deleted it all.

People will believe what they want to believe. All the information is available. The simple facts are that women are less likely to pursue money because it is not as important to them as it is to men. Women are not valued by men for how much money they make. Men are valued by women for how much money they make. That is what makes men work harder, longer, in jobs that are terrible, which in the end results in them making more money. More women don't want, and don't take, those jobs. Women also do not negotiate for salary increases as much as men, so they DON'T GET THEM, and no one is going to just be nice and give it to them. Life doesn't work that way.

Women who want to earn more, can. The opportunities are there. They simply don't want it as much as guys do.

[Alice Torn]

I repect Reine's wisdom most all the time, but this time, i must disagree with her, an agree with laurababe, due to what i have observed, and experienced, in 62 years, and what i observe in the conrol freak media. I heard it discussed on a talk show, and magazines, and i was personlly rejected for a full time state highway dept job, because i was male, despite my score was much higher than the female who was hired. We had both worked as temporaries four years, and a permenant job became open. She was hired, but was fired years later, because she simply put on way too much weight, hurt her knee, and could no longer do the job. She attacked her supervisor visciously. She did get disability, though. ALso have heard MANY sources,including The Economist, say that men are now the weaker sex jobwise, and economically. One lady i dated a few times was the head of a city parks dept, and told me she would never marry a man, that could not buy her a better bigger house. several years later, she bought a bigger house, all by herself. Men are not needed anymore. But, only young MEN are required to sign up for selective service. Equality.

[CONSUELO]

I think that Reine is correct. This is an advertisement that features empowerment not cross gender roles.
As to the latter, there are strong and unwritten "rules" about cross gender roles that are only now being challenged. Lorileah is correct in saying that it is up to us to take on the challenge and push the boundaries. Society is not going to create a "gender vacuum" into which we can safely move.
Homosexuals had to take on some great risks in order to gain acceptance. They were the ones who did things like gay parades that were very open about their sexuality and demanded acceptance and tolerance from the community. We cross dressers have ridden on their coat tails but most of us are content to stay in the shadows. That is OK, but it will not push the barriers and we should understand that.

[dolovewell]

Women are not valued by men for how much money they make.

Lots of truth here.

When I am out at bars(in male mode) and am talking to women I ask them why I should find them attractive and want to date them

A lot of times I get the answer "Well, I am smart, successful, independent, with a good career...." and laugh and say "Those are qualities that make men attractive, not women".

[Teresa]

Krystalina,
Sometimes you have to make it known that the media isn't considering minority groups.

About a year ago the Moneysupermarket ads started running with a guy wearing heels. You would think no harm being done, but I was going through a bad patch with my wife and the last thing she wanted to see was a guy crossdressed in heels doing a provocative dance . The series have moved on through several editions but it is wearing thin now, I began to think about the various parties that may be struggling with TG issues. Parents with children with identity problems, couples like me going through a bad patch ,couples who have separated or divorced, and a husband who has finally decided he's TS.

We do have a voice so I used it and Emailed the Advertising Complaints Commission , I outlined the problem and then questioned the validity of the contents of the ad to the product being sold. I did get a very nice reply back which basically said the ad agency hadn't given it a full enough thought and had failed to contact relevant TG bodies to consult them. They have now done this but decided that the series of ads hadn't contravened any basic rights, and as the majority of the public hadn't raised any complaints no further action would be taken.

After a few weeks I received another Email from the authority that oversees the Ad Agency saying that they felt the decision was borderline and asked me to fill in a full questionnaire, they also asked if I was prepared to be interviewed if necessary. That put me in a spot, I felt strongly about it but was concerned that although my wife didn't like the ads she may not be happy about me voicing an opinion on behalf of the TG community. I decided to still tick yes, they are offering me the right and chance to speak up for others, I may not get the opportunity again, the minority shouldn't silently always have to give in to the majority.

[Alice Torn]

Women who are attractive do not need to make big bucks. They attract many suitors simply because of beauty/

[Lana Mae]

It is a soup ad. Designed to sell soup. That is all. Hugs Lana Mae

[ellbee]

Reine,

Yep, just keep deferring to the "experts" & "authorities" for everything. Because they know better. Your real-world experiences & observations mean absolutely nothing -- they are insignificant, not real, obviously incorrect, and have no relevancy or impact on your everyday life.


And when those same entities tell you that the sky is actually green, and not blue, you better darn believe them, contrary to what your own eyes see. Simply accept, defer & make sure you regurgitate the BS.


You're right about one thing, anyway: It's pointless debating this. :)



Mods: Sorry for the OT tangent. I'm done, I swear! :D

[char GG]

Personally, I take everything on TV, especially commercials, with a grain of salt. In my opinion, there is not much on TV worth watching. Most of it is mind numbing junk. I wouldn't worry about some dumb commercial and I would not make a big deal out of it. It's not relevant.

[ReineD]

I heard it discussed on a talk show, and magazines, and i was personlly rejected for a full time state highway dept job, because i was male, despite my score was much higher than the female who was hired.

I’m sorry you got passed up for the job, Alice. It happened to me as well except in my case, they hired a younger male. I don’t think they made their choice due to a gender preference though. In my case, I think it was age.

But again, these are all individual experiences. When both men and women apply for jobs, only one gets it which results in the others losing out … and sometimes men lose out while at other times women lose out.

In this thread I initially suggested that the Campbell’s ad was motivated with the historical perspective of men having held positions of power by virtue of generally having been the sole income earners (as recently as the 1960s), and that although women have been catching up since the 1970s, they still have a ways to go. I cited the wage gap as one of the ways that women still lag, and also the predominance of men in the STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) fields.

When challenged on the wage gap (by people who did not provide any evidence to the contrary), I backed up my statement with statistics from the Pew Research Center and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The BLS gathers source data directly from employers across the country and they report on their findings. There’s a link to a BLS report in my post #44 (the second link), that shows a breakdown of wages earned by both men and women in hundreds of different occupations (see pages 9 to 23 of the report). You can look at each occupation to see for yourself whether men or women make more money in those fields.

————————————————†”———————


So Alice, I’m afraid that the wage data accumulated within each sector is not an "opinion" that someone can either agree or disagree on. It is simply source data provided by employers across the country for the purpose of analyzing trends like unemployment, poverty, family and household income, etc.


… unless the whole thing is a hoax and these pages and pages of data, "supposedly" provided by employers, are instead all fictitious numbers pulled from the air just to get this forum’s members ticked off. :p

[dolovewell]

Personally, I take everything on TV, especially commercials, with a grain of salt. In my opinion, there is not much on TV worth watching. Most of it is mind numbing junk. I wouldn't worry about some dumb commercial and I would not make a big deal out of it. It's not relevant.

I work in the TV industry and I even agree 100%. All media exists to push narratives and shape public opinion. Not entertain or report news.

[Lorileah]

I am sure we all agree that everyone should get equal pay for equal work without any other things interfering. So now that THAT is settled, stick with the OP. Thanks