Today’s Lady News: Method Soap Commercial Thinks Sexual Harassment Is A Joke

lewomack
wrote on November 23 2009 @ 05:57 pm: [report]

I’m preeeeeeetty sure that priests can’t refuse to give you communion.

Even my pro-life roommate was like, “WHAT!? He can’t do that!!!”

tigerstripe
wrote on November 23 2009 @ 06:42 pm: [report]

That commercial is disturbing… I’m going to be freaked out in the shower tomorrow morning.

Also, not to be picky, but you should really proofread more carefully.  “Sexual harass” should be “sexually harass,” “plead guilty” should be “pleaded” and “film” should be “filming.”

Jessica Wakeman
wrote on November 23 2009 @ 06:43 pm: [report]

Thanks, tigerstripe. Sorry, I get tired at the end of a long day!

Susie
wrote on November 23 2009 @ 06:51 pm: [report]

I thought it was funny. It makes sense that the suds are creepy, they are supposed to be creepy. They are trying to say that Method soap isn’t creepy and won’t stare at you in the shower. Sexual harassment is bad = chemicals in your soap are bad. It makes sense.

theattack
wrote on November 23 2009 @ 07:17 pm: [report]

At first I thought the commercial was going to be just fine and a stretch at being inappropriate, but wow. It definitely goes way too far. The woman OBVIOUSLY looks uncomfortable. How is that okay?

sportzriter13
wrote on November 23 2009 @ 08:02 pm: [report]

(resident Rhode Islander)
I’m not usually one of Kennedy’s biggest fans. However, I think he deserves a kudos.
It seems that RI is one of the most catholic-laden states (between the largely Irish, Italian and Portuguese population). If the bishop so much as sneezes it’s on the 6’oclock news. I kid thee not.  Hence why Bishop Thomas Tobin thinks he can push the adgenda of the church on Kennedy. So this is a big deal here (made the front page of the Projo -providence journal-). 
Tobin needs to stick his job (preaching from the pulpit), and let Kennedy do his…which is serving ALL constituents, catholic or not.

So glad I’m Episcopal. We tend to be more progressive. and yes, I am proud to be a Rhoe Dylander (that’s how we say it, lol).

sportzriter13
wrote on November 23 2009 @ 08:13 pm: [report]

and I mean no offense to those who are catholic. I have many friends who are. I just don’t happen to agree with the views of the church and how it seems the church goes a little too far into the political arena.
Even as a Sunday school teacher, I firmly believe in separation of church and state, and one’s right to practice/not practice a religion.

H. Blue
wrote on November 23 2009 @ 08:33 pm: [report]

I thought that ad was funny.  I don’t understand what the big deal is.

Google-A-Git
wrote on November 23 2009 @ 08:56 pm: [report]

I don’t have any objections to the ad—it’s doing its job, associating toxic chemicals with discomfort and fear. I don’t think the average American has gotten the memo about just how damaging they are, and how pervasive.

Yes, it’s a campaign based on fear. But it’s not glorifying the harassment or the harassers (they should’ve made the bubbles less attractive colors).

MondimNebel
wrote on November 23 2009 @ 09:04 pm: [report]

Seriously? Sexually harassing? Come on. It IS a funny commercial. Lighten up. I thought it got their point across in a funny way (although, it won’t make me stop using my Scrubbing Bubbles).

Huny14
wrote on November 23 2009 @ 09:05 pm: [report]

@H.Blue I thought it was funny too. They’re bubbles, not real dudes.

NaomiK
wrote on November 23 2009 @ 09:06 pm: [report]

@H. Blue… Well I didn’t find it particularly funny, I also don’t really get the big deal. The fact that she’s uncomfortable is obviously the point. This commercial is drawing a parallel between two things no one wants around by using the more obvious one (the catcalling creepy bubbles) to illustrate the more obscure one (the chemicals in your shower cleaner). Going by only its comparison, it’s clearly saying that both weird chemicals and catcalling is wrong. If the commercial was trying to sell the cleaner by saying the bubbles made the woman feel so sexy she needs to clean her shower again, then it would be a problem. Can we start thinking through things before we start throwing around our indigence?

NaomiK
wrote on November 23 2009 @ 09:07 pm: [report]

*are wrong. Damn it, I hate it when I make grammar mistakes.

NaomiK
wrote on November 23 2009 @ 09:11 pm: [report]

*indignation Ugh! Damn whisky and spell check!

shellerbee
wrote on November 23 2009 @ 10:23 pm: [report]

So… I think method is just trying to prove that you really don’t know what is in your cleaner. You should be uncomfortable with all the things that are in most cleaners. How many people actually know that most laundry and household soap detergents are made with rendered animal products? If you do the research, Method is cleaner for the environment from start to finish (completely biodegradable) and completely vegan. I really don’t think they’re encouraging making women uncomfortable—they’re just getting at that if you really knew what was in your soap, you would be uncomfortable, too.

AnitaBath
wrote on November 23 2009 @ 10:29 pm: [report]

I thought the ad was hilarious, but I’ll be sure to act adequately offended the next time soap bubbles start cat calling me.

Countess Mariska
wrote on November 23 2009 @ 10:32 pm: [report]

I thought the commercial was funny. Not brilliant, but chuckle-inducing. And as shellerbee points out, rather effective in getting its point across.

The only thing that regularly offends me is people who go to great lengths to be offended by things.

Ghirardelli
wrote on November 23 2009 @ 10:41 pm: [report]

That was very creepy. Not funny at all.

Likesuchas
wrote on November 23 2009 @ 11:15 pm: [report]

Aaaaand the advertisers got you to do EXACTLY what they wanted you to. They knew they were creating a controversial ad. That was the point. They wanted us to talk about it. A few hours after the ad was posted, there are already numerous comments talking about Method products, and the ingredients in Method products.

Hook, line, and sinker.

Anniushka
wrote on November 23 2009 @ 11:35 pm: [report]

I thought that commercial was pretty straightforward to interpret. [I agree with NaomiK and shellerbee on their interpretation.] I find it hard to believe that people would miss the point and get offended by it. Do we have any powers of analysis here? Any at all? Did we go to high school? Hands, people? I’m confused.

NaomiK
wrote on November 23 2009 @ 11:46 pm: [report]

I think Countess Mariska’s got it. It’s so trendy to be pissed off about things that people will go out of their way to find things to be pissed off about. It is possible to be interesting without constantly being abhorred by everything on the freaking planet.

theattack
wrote on November 24 2009 @ 12:14 am: [report]

@Countess Mariska and Anniushka, It’s not going out to the way to be offended by something. I think those of us that are offended by this ad still understand what they’re trying to go for. Just because we are offended by it does not mean we just don’t get it. Some things are just more important to some people than they are to others, clearly, and that’s okay.

I just don’t understand why this was a necessary theme for the commercial. They could have made an almost identical commercial without the sexual aspects. The bubbles could have been telling her to make sure she scrubbed behind her ears or talking about things they overheard about her family throughout the day, indicating they’d been there a while. But no. They were unnecessarily sexualizing her, which is to be expected of the media unfortunately. Also, her facial expressions just make me cringe and feel really twisted and sick inside. I don’t like seeing anyone put in sexually compromising situations, and especially not in something like advertising that uses psychology to really get to people. It just makes me wonder what else is sticking to the mind alongside the product.

NaomiK
wrote on November 24 2009 @ 01:00 am: [report]

All advertising uses psychology and all persuasive writing uses basic appeals to ethos (ethics), pathos (emotions), or logos (logic). If she wasn’t offended by the bubbles or if they were merely annoying the message that the chemicals in the other cleaner wouldn’t have been as strong, and may have been lost all together. Considering most grocery shopping (and therefore the buying of household cleaners) is done by women they used an emotional appeal to persuade viewers to buy their product. As for

what else is sticking to the mind alongside the product.

the bubbles are clearly “bad” so I doubt anyone is going to see that and think it’s a good idea to catcall. If you look at any advertising for the entire history of advertising they use traditional gender rolls and values to sell their products because all advertising is aimed at the lowest common denominator. Why? They need to cast the widest possible net to get the most sales. That’s just how the system works and it goes way beyond the easy to spot stuff. Even the color palette they use is targeted to one demographic or another to get sales. I find this one much less offensive than those Cadillac commercials where the woman is going on and on about how her car makes her hot, gives her an orgasm, etc. Why? Because in those commercials they are sexualizing a situation that has nothing to do with sex. Not only that I find it condescending that they think that all women care about is how hot they look in their cars.
In this commercial they want to make your bathroom a dangerous place because they are trying to convince you that your bathroom cleaner is dangerous. What is the scariest thing that can happen in a place where you get naked? That is why this commercial makes sense. Granted some of the language the bubbles use is over the top, but the general theme of the ad is not out of bounds.

troisheures
wrote on November 24 2009 @ 01:20 am: [report]

I gotta say, I actually love the commercial… like a lot. I’ve watched it like 4 times now…

BrokenBrain
wrote on November 24 2009 @ 05:20 am: [report]

Eh, I think the problem was I felt actually uncomfortable watching the commercial, just so they could sell me soap.

I have no problem with the media portraying sexual harassment of women to make a point against said harassment, but using it as a discomforting analogy to household cleaners rubs me the wrong way.

I’m surprised Method produced that commercial, their brand is going to have a negative connotation in my head from now on not because of any particular outrage, but simply because of the ick factor I felt while watching it. Maybe not everyone will feel the same ick factor, but I think it will deter more customers than it attracts.

Maybe I just have a lower tolerance for that stuff than others do though. Catcalls on the street invariably make me feel uncomfortable, and I know some women like it.

H. Blue
wrote on November 24 2009 @ 08:35 am: [report]

I think if people stopped taking everything so seriously all the time, life would be a little easier.  I’m just sayin’.  There are plenty more things that are offensive and worth getting your knickers in a twist about.  This commercial is not one of them.
I think countess got it right.

Riley
wrote on November 24 2009 @ 08:42 am: [report]

@H.Blue - That would be too easy.  What about the folks that basically complain for a living?

spatula
wrote on November 24 2009 @ 08:57 am: [report]

The only thing that regularly offends me is people who go to great lengths to be offended by things.

and there you go.

MondimNebel
wrote on November 24 2009 @ 08:58 am: [report]

@ theAttack - would you be offended or call it sexual harassment if a random guy was catcalling at you while you were walking down the street? No- because it’s not harassment and if you think about it, it’s flattering.

As for the commercial, I’ve never found “natural” or “green” cleaning supplies to work anywhere NEAR as well as “harsh chemicals” - plus they often cost more.

bumbler
wrote on November 24 2009 @ 09:07 am: [report]

Would they make this commercial with a man?

Riley
wrote on November 24 2009 @ 09:13 am: [report]

@Bumbler - Yes.

bumbler
wrote on November 24 2009 @ 09:22 am: [report]

@Riley Do you really think so?  I’ve seen nothing even remotely similar in the mainstream media.

MuchoMacho
wrote on November 24 2009 @ 09:24 am: [report]

i went to a catholic wedding this summer and we were all told unless we were whatever kind of catholic the priest was, he wouldnt give us communion.  im not big on the whole jesus thing anyway, but i found that funny.

spatula
wrote on November 24 2009 @ 09:32 am: [report]

@Mucho: that’s actually pretty typical of Catholic churches, in my experience. The thing about P Kennedy is he IS a practicing Catholic, and that was his own church/diocese.

Even my pro-life, Catholic mother was talkin smack on that Bishop..you don’t eff with someone’s communion, apparently.

MondimNebel
wrote on November 24 2009 @ 09:41 am: [report]

My Catholic HS told us anyone can receive communion so long as they are “without sin.” Catholics make you go to confession, so if you haven’t been to confession since you’ve last sinned, then you’re not supposed to take it. Most (all?) protestant religions preach you can just talk to God about being sorry for your sins whenever you want and that will make your soul “clean.”

So, I’m sure there are plenty of Catholics who receive communion when they shouldn’t and plenty of other Christians who can receive it and don’t. Not that I would recommend it, it’s kind of nasty. My Congregationalist mom takes it from time to time.

C.Munro
wrote on November 24 2009 @ 09:51 am: [report]

Only five years, huh?  That sucks.  People serve longer sentences for pot.

MuchoMacho
wrote on November 24 2009 @ 09:56 am: [report]

Most (all?) protestant religions preach you can just talk to God about being sorry for your sins whenever you want and that will make your soul “clean.”

its funny to me that talking to a guy in a funny robe about how sorry yuu are is supposed to have more meaning than talking to an imaginary friend in the sky about how sorry you are…  does it actually say that in the bible?

MondimNebel
wrote on November 24 2009 @ 10:35 am: [report]

@ MuchoMacho - I have no idea what the Bible says about confessing your sins, but it seems (especially the Catholic rule) to be one of the “made up” rules. It probably at least says something about having a nice heart-to-heart with God about your sins though.

I never really bought the have-to-go-to-confession thing. Whether or not you believe in God, I think talking about your problems and things you feel bad about having done (with God or with any person) will make you feel better - which I always figured was the real point of going to confession, once you take the religion out of it. it’s almost like going to a psychologist who doesn’t diagnose you as having any mental disorder.

MuchoMacho
wrote on November 24 2009 @ 10:55 am: [report]

i dont have a problem with talking out your issues with someone you trust like your priest…  but when some people think that their choice of methods for coming to terms with their transgressions is the one and only way…  i mean whatever.  im anti-religion.  i guess that sums it up.

theattack
wrote on November 24 2009 @ 05:05 pm: [report]

@NaomiK - Yes, I understand the commercial. And yes, you’re right, there are things MUCH more offensive. I’m not on a soapbox here; I’m just saying they could have left that part out of the commercial. And it goes on and on and on. It’s not just one comment from the bubbles, but it seems to last forever. It’s painful to watch because of how excessive it is. I could live with one or two comments.

@bumbler - EXACTLY.

@MondimNebel - Actually quite a few women are offended/made uncomfortable by catcalling. I’m not offended by whistles or polite compliments from strangers, but yes, I am offended by some kinds of catcalling. When it goes beyond a compliment, usually it makes me uncomfortable. Everyone has their own personal comfort zone. I don’t think it’s harassment (usually), but I do think it’s rude, and typically don’t think it’s flattering unless it’s a direct compliment. But you might be surprised at some of the disgusting things men yell to women on the street that can be harassment.
I do agree with you that the green products don’t usually work as well, unfortunately. It’s hard to be healthy and clean while also being environmentally friendly. But Method does have hypo-allergenic hand soaps, and that’s always a plus.

MondimNebel
wrote on November 24 2009 @ 09:52 pm: [report]

@ theAttack - I would not call most men catcalling a gentleman or think them to be very intelligent, but they do it because there’s something they like about you and like making asses of themselves. So I’d call it flattering in a stupid and un-chivalrous way. Unless they’re really getting into your personal space and whatnot, women should lighten up and just deal with it… get on with our lives. I have better things to concern myself with than strangers trying to bother me.

nonenone
wrote on November 24 2009 @ 11:02 pm: [report]

i liked the commercial, you guys are such drama queens

Jewels86
wrote on November 25 2009 @ 10:19 am: [report]

I think the commercial did its job of making everyone uncomfortable. Not to say it would make me immediately switch to Method, but I won’t forget it. Thats for sure!

@muchomacho and MondimNebel:

Confession as done in the Catholic Church is an old tradition made up by the priests. There is no mention in the Bible about talking to a guy in a robe in a little box to tell him all your sins. I think it was set up by the church to find out information about people which they might not otherwise disclose. But under obligation by their religion to do so, they had to tell the priest everything they bad they had done. In the Bible it only mentions confessing sins to God/Jesus to have them “washed away.” Christianity is generally more focused on personal relationship with God/Jesus, whereas Catholic faith is mainly talking to God through other people (Ie Priest, Pope etc)

rsonnack
wrote on November 25 2009 @ 11:52 am: [report]

That commercial was really really funny. It may have gone a little too long, but it was hilarious.