http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xF8k1rSfmp0&feature=related
Res Ipsa Locquitor (Ref: my previous post)
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Add that up
Inspired by Bird's blog, I wanted to share my pet peeve ad of recent times: have you seen these Max New York Life Insurance Pension Fund Ads? I've seen two of the series so far. In the first one this (fairly old) guy is being scolded like a kid by a harassed wife, for being out the whole day without telling her where he was. Apparently, the guy was playing truant with his buddies, and went off on a drive from Lucknow to Kanpur or some such. Then the voice-over proclaims that this life of ease will be yours on retirement if you invest in their pension fund.
The second Ad of the series shows the same wife slaving in the kitchen while the hubby sits comfortably on the sofa looking at a wedding card and telling his wife that they will be going to Calcutta soon for a wedding (it turns out this is the wedding of a friend's neighbour's colleague's daughter). The point being, you will have enough time and money to waste/spend after retirement if you invest in the advertised pension fund.
How bloody insensitive!! And yet, how bloody typical..So the man deserves a break after years of slogging it in the office, whereas the woman (who is portrayed in both ads as totally hassled) continues to slave it out at home. Obviously whoever made that ad never even thought about the plight of the woman- in any case, home-makers dont get to retire do they? They dont get to put their feet up, and just relax, because now that the hubby is home all the time, they can share the work-load. Or now that they have enough money, they can hire domestic help. Obviously not, that's downright blasphemous! And so, talking about the life of ease of the man, while at the same time showing the woman as working away is no big deal- it obviously did not even occur to those making the ad.
I was just wondering what the ad would look like if the gender roles were reversed. Make an ad showing the woman chilling in front of the TV, while the man runs around getting dinner set up. And the voice over proclaiming: invest your household money now so that you can chill when your husband retires. I wonder how that ad would be received.
But you know you cant really blame the ad makers. The invisibility of household work has been a constant theme in most feminist critiques of the gender division of labour. We dont accord economic value to house work; we don't have the idea of community property in India; and yes, if you dont cook for your husband, that's a ground for divorce since it amounts to cruelty (I am not saying it, the honourable the Supreme Court is). I am sure many of us come from homes where the Dads chill on Sundays and the Moms end up doing more work, like making special food etc. I also know that most women home makers would feel terribly guilty if they were asked to relax and chill out while the other members of the family took care of the house for a day (or in the case of my Mom, would shudder at the mess she would have to clear up once we were done with playing house!). But to put it up in an ad that talks about leisure for the "man of the house" just shows the level of insensitivity we as a society accord to our moms/wives.
The problem with ads like these, as Bird points out, is that we are socializing the next generation, as well as reinforcing the views of the present one, with the same idea of gender roles and identities. This idea that doing "outside" work, entitles you to privileges, whereas domestic work is just duty; that it is ok for the man to chill when there is work to be done around the house; that since a homemaker has not "worked" her entire life, she has to continue to "not work" even when the man gets to chill...all of this gets doubly reinforced by ads like this. Of course, since we are an enlightened society, we do, by and large, let our women do "outside" work , as well. It's never an either/or situation, though it can be a neither/nor one for the man!
The second Ad of the series shows the same wife slaving in the kitchen while the hubby sits comfortably on the sofa looking at a wedding card and telling his wife that they will be going to Calcutta soon for a wedding (it turns out this is the wedding of a friend's neighbour's colleague's daughter). The point being, you will have enough time and money to waste/spend after retirement if you invest in the advertised pension fund.
How bloody insensitive!! And yet, how bloody typical..So the man deserves a break after years of slogging it in the office, whereas the woman (who is portrayed in both ads as totally hassled) continues to slave it out at home. Obviously whoever made that ad never even thought about the plight of the woman- in any case, home-makers dont get to retire do they? They dont get to put their feet up, and just relax, because now that the hubby is home all the time, they can share the work-load. Or now that they have enough money, they can hire domestic help. Obviously not, that's downright blasphemous! And so, talking about the life of ease of the man, while at the same time showing the woman as working away is no big deal- it obviously did not even occur to those making the ad.
I was just wondering what the ad would look like if the gender roles were reversed. Make an ad showing the woman chilling in front of the TV, while the man runs around getting dinner set up. And the voice over proclaiming: invest your household money now so that you can chill when your husband retires. I wonder how that ad would be received.
But you know you cant really blame the ad makers. The invisibility of household work has been a constant theme in most feminist critiques of the gender division of labour. We dont accord economic value to house work; we don't have the idea of community property in India; and yes, if you dont cook for your husband, that's a ground for divorce since it amounts to cruelty (I am not saying it, the honourable the Supreme Court is). I am sure many of us come from homes where the Dads chill on Sundays and the Moms end up doing more work, like making special food etc. I also know that most women home makers would feel terribly guilty if they were asked to relax and chill out while the other members of the family took care of the house for a day (or in the case of my Mom, would shudder at the mess she would have to clear up once we were done with playing house!). But to put it up in an ad that talks about leisure for the "man of the house" just shows the level of insensitivity we as a society accord to our moms/wives.
The problem with ads like these, as Bird points out, is that we are socializing the next generation, as well as reinforcing the views of the present one, with the same idea of gender roles and identities. This idea that doing "outside" work, entitles you to privileges, whereas domestic work is just duty; that it is ok for the man to chill when there is work to be done around the house; that since a homemaker has not "worked" her entire life, she has to continue to "not work" even when the man gets to chill...all of this gets doubly reinforced by ads like this. Of course, since we are an enlightened society, we do, by and large, let our women do "outside" work , as well. It's never an either/or situation, though it can be a neither/nor one for the man!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
