Swedish ISP spanked for sexist 'distracted boyfriend' advert for developer jobs A job ad using the ubiquitous distracted boyfriend image, fodder for countless social media posts, has been declared sexist by Sweden's advertising ombudsman following a handful of complaints. The ad, posted on Facebook and Instagram, is based on Antonio Guillem's "distracted boyfriend" stock photo, formally referred to on …
The photographer put the guy into focus, he is the object, the light is on him and he is being portrayed dishonest.
I would therefore consider this image as a negative portrayal of men.
The woman in red is not even in focus, for all it matters she could have been completely out of the picture.
Logic &
reason
Society
Yet another
social media-
driven outrage
This post has been deleted by its author
If they swapped the guy for another girl, would there still be outrage? It'd still be objectifying women, so the complaints should still roll in...
If they were feeling vaguely creative they could have run a series of the different possible permutations (what if it's a guy in the red top?), which would have been funnier and might have avoided trouble too.
"If they swapped the guy for another girl, would there still be outrage?
There certainly would be from the girlfriend! Guys ogling other women is bad enough but goes with the territory, ogling other men is a whole heap more of trouble."
Uh, that really, really depends on the people involved. There's an enormously complex spectrum of sexuality out there, and not everybody fits into the nice neat pigeon holes you see in popular culture. Maybe most people don't, in some way.
My wife, for example, would have loved to see me get it on with another guy.
If they swapped the guy for another girl, would there still be outrage?
"Girls who put out are tramps. Girls who don't are ladies. This is, however, a rather archaic usage of the word. Should one of you boys happen upon a girl who doesn't put out, do not jump to the conclusion that you have found a lady. What you have probably found is a lesbian." - Fran Lebowitz
This is the bit I found strange, it is a posed shot with actors and both women are extremely presentable but not in the guy's league to be fair. The question here is am I objectifying everyone in an equal opportunities way? I suppose I need to say that the photographer seems to be a bit of a git.
Whoever is in focus, the picture is a pretty negative portrayal of both men and women when compared to the ideal espoused by society... woman in red portrayed as sex object, man portrayed as unfaithful, woman in blue as jealous....
On the other hand it is a 100% accurate portrayal of men and woman as the animals that we really are. Whatever the societal ideals are, both sexes dress up and style themselves to look attractive, both sexes especially males are hardwired to be open to multiple sex partners, and both sexes experience jealousy which is a normal reaction to sexual competition.
The reason that the picture is so great is that it is a true snapshot of real life.
Personally, I'd not be tempted to go work for a company using this image as it's advertising material.
No moral or human dignity reasons, it's just such a tired out, overused and above all probably cheap.
Such a company wouldn't be worth working for. They'd likely be as unimaginative in every other endevour as they are for their choice of marketing material, they wouldn't pay well (such a cheap ad), and they'd be at least several years behind anywhere else, this image was fresh some time ago, it's way stale now.
Damn, am I completely out of touch? I've just seen the image for the first time here on El Reg. Does that make my reaction to it more spontaneous than anyone else's?
I rather like it. A good chuckle. Catches an archetype.
Objectifying? Hmm, that's a bit of a stretch. Yes she's attractive, but only in the same way as women you'll randomly pass in your everyday business. All the more attractive for NOT being tarted up as a sex object. And she's not even in focus!
Sexist against men? Definitely plays on that stereotype. But too good, and too genuinely humorous, for that to be offensive, IMHO. The sexism would probably be gratuitous if it lacked those redeeming merits.
What about the girlfriend? OK, she's (also) the butt of the joke and could legitimately be p***ed off at the use of the image. Is that offensive or sexist? Surely no more than the ubiquitous image of the dumb male in advertising today.
If there's a real issue, it's whether the image is being used with or without permission of the protagonists, and (given the commercial use) were they paid royalties?
We're not talking about whether the image itself, per se and on its own, is sexist, derogatory, offensive, stereotypical, discriminatory or otherwise.
We're talking about whether using it in an ad for a job is consistent with the spirit of equal opportunity that the company responsible pays the usual lip service to. Which it quite obviously isn't. Bahnhof are a bunch of sexist bros in a hole and should stop digging.
"it's whether the image is being used with or without permission of the protagonists"
Considering that's an obvious posed shot, they probably came from a modeling pool, signed a waiver and received a few bucks (scale, perhaps) at the end of the shoot. So no to the royalties (or residuals) ... unless their agent was really on the ball.
The funniest thing about it is that in my experience, the male models in such situations are almost universally gay.
Damn, am I completely out of touch? I've just seen the image for the first time here on El Reg. Does that make my reaction to it more spontaneous than anyone else's?
It sounds like you've been spending more time outside than is healthy. This picture has been done to death over the last couple of years. Mildly funny (the joke being the guy in the picture is shortly going to have neither lady), but I hope the ad agency gave them a discount for refurbished material.
Yep - me too.
Then again it could be my memory failing or my lack of tracking Internet memes.
I think some of you are spending more time inside than is healthy. Get out in the fresh air more; it could help you get some perspective.
I agree that a series of three person adverts with the roles changed could have been interesting. Trying to deny sexual attraction exists or make it a taboo subject is like trying to push water uphill with a feather duster.
Perhaps the guy regrets not having gone for gender reassignment surgery some years before, and looks at other women with an eye to how he expected he may have looked/dressed as a woman. And the woman in the blue outfit is planning a F-to-M transformation, and is pissed her "trainer" is getting distracted from the task at hand.
We don't know what's happening out of the frame. Is the woman in red carrying the latest iPhone? Does she have a really nice briefcase? Has, she forgotten to put her trousers on? Maybe she's walking a particularly fine dog. The woman on his arm could be giving him a hard time just because he's not paying attention to whatever she's been saying.
Seriously, all of these things occurred to me at the same time as him checking out the lass's behind, because I was expecting something clever.
On the one hand, "following a handful of complaints" sure, let's pretend basic male behavior doesn't exist. I'm soon to hit my 52nd birthday and I do not tire of watching a beauty go by. My wife is not offended by that - although I do restrain myself from doing the full head swivel, tempting though it is sometimes. After all, I am definitely no longer of the age where that can be even half acceptable - some decorum is required.
On the other hand, for frak's sake why does advertising always seem to start with "hey, we can use a girl !" and then stop there ? On top of the fact that this is indeed cliché and rather tired, the same picture was already used twice, and you go ahead and use it again ? You could'nt find another one ? You couldn't find another subject ? Are most people in marketing males ?
Ugh. We need to get to the 4th millennium.
"On the other hand, for frak's sake why does advertising always seem to start with "hey, we can use a girl !""
Because advertisers all know sex sells, they are too lazy most of the time to try to think of anything else and most of them have the mentality of a teenaged boy (at best).
I think advertisers belong in the same slimy, stagnant pool as lawyers; they over charge, are frugal with or misrepresent the truth and have inflated opinions of their worth.
"let's pretend basic human behavior doesn't exist."
FTFY
The ladies ogle the guys, too. And some ogle other ladies. And some guys ogle other guys. And some folks ogle both. And I know one person who ogles couples. But we all ogle. It's part of what makes us human.
Why do you think that company named itself "go ogle"?
The ladies ogle the guys, too. And some ogle other ladies. And some guys ogle other guys. And some folks ogle both. And I know one person who ogles couples. But we all ogle. It's part of what makes us human.
My wife ogles John Barrowman, even knowing she couldn't have him even if he were standing naked in our house. As for myself, I might appreciate he could be sexy, but even if I were female I'd still prefer women.
Let's face it, the ad is shit. Want techies to come and work for you? Then use gadget porn because proper nerds don't even have girlfriends to upset.
But running the cheap and shitty ad and then getting slapped on the wrist for its sexism is bound to get headlines and presumably more job applications from people outraged at the silly censorship.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof, as they say in Germany.
This photo isn't about sex at all. The guy noticed the strange slogan on the back of the woman in red, and is about to say "What the fuck?". The woman in blue is keeping a close eye on where the guy is looking, as she picks his pocket. Both women are in cahoots, the red wearing one is the distraction.
Using political correctness and the moral outage brigade to provide you with world wide coverage for next to no investment. Whilst the [###]ism whiners are the loudest they are not in the majority.
Louder the outcry the greater the coverage . I can see this being used more often
I once made a grave error of this sort, my wife and I were out shopping, and I noticed a rather fine young filly wearing a summer dress. My wife elbowed me in the ribs and chastised me for looking at her. "You're with me, pay attention to me, not her" was her comment. I then put my foot firmly in my mouth by saying "Just because I drive a Mondeo doesn't mean I can't admire an E Type". "Oh, so that's what I am, a Mondeo compared to her E Type, am I?". I could feel the temperature rapidly approaching Absolute Zero, so I made a desperate attempt to rescue the situation by saying "Yes, you're comfortable, solid, and reliable, but she'd be unreliable and would cost a lot to run, what is referred to as High Maintenance". Wife was somewhat mollified, and I was forgiven (eventually).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
