Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Why TV sucks: Part seven

Because cell phone users can't be bothered to be smart with their money unless a conventionally attractive woman shows up at their door. Duh.

Parts one, two, three, four, five, six.


Anonymous said...

So what? I notice a lot of feminist complaints about "conventionally" attractive (you can drop the "conventionally", attractive is attractive, unattractive is unattractive, the end) women, but they tend to fall silent when it comes to attractive men.

Many of them are quick to point out the flaws in unattractive males. How does that work, exactly?

Amelia said...

I get bored sometimes, so I publish comments like Anonymous' just for the heck of it.

I will start by saying, Why don't you ask them, Anonymous? If you see a feminist being quick to point out the flaws of an unattractive male, get back to me. Since I wasn't doing that, I can't respond. I can only speak for myself, and my personal feminism. Picking one feminist to speak for an entire group is uneducated. There are so many kinds of feminisms it's amazing.

Also, you do a great job of thinking in black and white. But that's not how the real world works. There are many types of "attractive" depending on personal tastes, etc. When I say conventionally attractive, I mean in the western (American) sense or being thin, toned, tall, made up, etc.

Also, don't be surprised if you get no more comments published. Your "What about the men!?" attitude is not acceptable. It has nothing to do with the content of this post.

heavyarmor said...

Anonymous is hilarious.

First, he invokes the strawman of feminists complaining about attractive women, but not attractive men. This is a case of attempting an active separation of "feminists" from "women" in an unconscious attempt to keep the "Feminists want to take away the Sexy" meme going - in this instance, by Feminists complaining about attractive women. This also comes off as challenge: Are you a "real" Woman, or are you one of those "ugly Feminists"?

Second, the fallback of "Male Exploitation" is used, not as a supplement to encourage discussion, but to shutdown the main point of the post - that Female Beauty and attractiveness sells. It is a false canard to begin with. Also, there is no effort made to tie the "unattractive/attractive man's flaws" to the point of this post, and as such becomes an attempt at diversion. It has nothing to do with the use of Female Attractiveness vs. Celebrity Endorsement to sell a product.

Meanwhile, the commercial's impact would have been different if the last person to answer the door was not a man in the same age range as Catherine Zeta Jones. If it were a woman or teenage kids, for example, the slack-jawed stammering could be attributed to, "Wow! Famous person at my door! And they want to talk to ME!" Instead, we get the usual pseudo-sexual dynamic played out at the end before the actual celebrity sales pitch - and TV suffers because of it once again.