Why is it that men in charge are called ‘the boss’, but powerful women in charge are called ‘bossy’?
Why is it that men who are open about what they want are called ‘persuasive’, but women are called ‘pushy’?
And why is it that men who try to split time between their career and kids are called ‘dedicated’, but powerful women who do the same are called ‘selfish’?
These are questions that women ask themselves all the time. They’re nothing new. What is new, is seeing the message articulated so well in a mainstream commercial.
This Pantene commercial from the Philippines takes less than a minute to highlight the gaping double standards for men and women in the workplace.
It’s awesome:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOjNcZvwjxI
Well played, Pantene. Well played.
Is this something that you experience in the workplace or at home? Share this with your friends to show your support for changing these outdated attitudes towards powerful women…
Top Comments
I
Mark Neil V Very true here is an image which shows in the opposite direction... agreed negative labeling is bad but does it really have to apply to a specific group? I'm sure that most have been labeled negatively from one point to another... but don't pin it on a group of sorts...
Unfortunately this is a bit Feminism 101. All of these behaviours/double standards come from out-dated ideas about women. For example, splitting the bill is "independent" for a woman because for years, men controlled women's finances. Women are seen as less capable at work because for years, women did not have "proper" jobs. The rest of these are sex-based, and women are thought of as not having sex drives/being pure. So these double standards actually come from *past patriarchal systems*. We need to fight gender misconceptions on all levels - women can be sexual (and sexually aggressive), physically aggressive, etc. And this should be pointed out and societal treated as not okay. However, don't try to derail a feminist argument by saying "Men have standards against them too!" It's all because of past systems.
Also, the image is a bit patronizing "Women doing work: help me"? Is that referring to heavy lifting? Because men actually have more muscle mass than women. If it is referring to general work, then, totally patronizing.
What group have I pinned it on in my comment? Or are you just internalizing it?
yes, double standards exist. But this ad is incredibly one sided, as if women are the only ones to suffer double standards, and some of the double standards are a stretch ... neat vs vain? a man primping himself in the mirror all the time would most certainly be called vein at best, but more likely gay. neat is hardly an adjective that would be used. And how about supermom vs babysitter. Fact is, this is just another ad trying to bread resentment in women against men, by presenting women as victims vs the unfairly advantaged men.
? So you're saying that all the damage of past ideas about women is gone now? I don't think it is.
Men who are seen as "gay" for preening - this comes from looking down on women for spending "too much time" getting ready, that taking time to look good is "feminine" and therefore unworthy.
Supermom vs babysitter - comes from the damaging idea that men aren't "made" for child rearing, that child rearing is a woman's role. Actually a damaging belief about women too.
It's not breeding resentment, it's fighting these old ideas - women = baby care & taking a lot of time to look nice = feminine = bad.
"So you're saying that all the damage of past ideas about women is gone now?"
Is that what I said? Clearly not, as my very first post acknowledged that double standards do still exist, and my saying "as if women are the only ones to suffer double standards" clearly implies they still do. Take that strawman and burn it somewhere else.
"Men who are seen as "gay" for preening - this comes from looking down on women for spending "too much time" getting ready, that taking time to look good is "feminine" and therefore unworthy."
Assuming the malevolence you are projecting onto male intent is accurate (which I don't agree with), does that make the double standard any less a double standard? One can frame anything into a victimization when they feel entitled to assume the emotional and cognitive intent behind an entire classes thoughts and actions.
"Actually a damaging belief about women too."
Correct. It damages women TOO, but it does damage men, and that is never acknowledged. One typically enforced more by women than by men.
"It's not breeding resentment, it's fighting these old ideas"
When you present these issues as one sided. When you only show the "victimization" of one group, and perpetually leave out how it affects the other side, and then blame that other side and twist the cause of the one sided analysis into yet another victimization, then yes, you very much DO bread resentment. Your very last line specifically calls women (and baby care?) bad, all the while ignoring where men fit into it, except in the blame you leveled against them in the previous two paragraphs. That's setting up a victim/oppressor dynamic, that can ONLY bread resentment. It can't be said to be fighting old ideas because it's not even examining those ideas in full (or honestly, IMHO)