Does Anybody Else Ever Find is Strange that, Despite the Last 50 Years Worth of Cultural Change, Modern "Household Product" Commercials Continue to Star a "Stay-at-home Mom" Role?

Whew. Sorry for the long title.

But yes. Am I the only one occasionally bothered by the continued "Stay-at-Home" mom role often portrayed in commercials?

Really, it's not so much that they're still portraying the whole "Stay at home mom" thing. That is okay. Obviously, that still exists, despite what this woman likes to think. I support stay-at-home mothers if that is what they choose to do. That said, I also support and acknowledge the existence of stay-at-home fathers, single parents (both mothers and fathers), and of course, gay and lesbian couples with children (gasp!). Oh, and though they are rarer (to my knowledge), there are polygamist families, even in the United States (also, they're probably not all Mormon families living in Utah).

However, right now, I'm not here to discuss the number of different types of families out there. Really, I'm asking a question to people in charge of advertising these common household products: People, why are you not updating your commercials? Even Television producers are way ahead of you all (and I'm not talking about anything airing on TLC).

Before I get accused of appearing ignorant, I'll take a moment to point out that I do understand more than it may seem at the moment.

• Right now, I imagine that most people in control of this kind of thing are Baby Boomers. Here is (what I believe to be) a somewhat relevant XKCD Comic. (However, with SOPA blackouts, I can't actually check and make sure I'm linking to the right one.) Most Baby Boomers grew up in that environment - raised by a stay at home mother and with a working father.
• Obviously, though I cite "Modern Family" as an example of this Other-Family Acceptance thing, I realize that this sort of thing is very recent, where it seems that, in the past, the mention of homosexuality was just that - mentioned. It seems most of these shows never actually "starred" a gay or lesbian person.
• Homosexuality was considered a mental disease until 1973.
• No matter what I say, somebody is going to see me as "ignorant."

Back to advertising. To this day, why do so many commercials selling household products work to appeal to moms? First off, doesn't everybody need some of these products? I am not a mother, but I'm pretty sure that I still need to clean my house every now and again. I haven't bought paper towels in ages, but I do find myself wishing I had some. Oh, and Kix Cereal - "Kid Tested, Mother Approved" - what about fathers, grandparents, adoptive parents, aunts, uncles, and older siblings? Sometimes other people, not just mothers, get stuck with the grocery shopping.

What about Bounty's above "Dance Cooking" commercial? What message is that trying to send? "My husband tried to tell me how to clean the house, but WHAT DOES HE KNOW BECAUSE HE DOESN'T CLEAN THE HOUSE?" What silly husband thinks that it takes three sheets of Bounty to clean up a mess, because it only takes one. Of course!

tl;dr: Advertisers, we're living in the 2012, which is culturally and socially much different from the 1950's. Isn't it time to consider updating your ads a little bit?

Color Photos from the 1950's

A Collection of Colored Photos from the 1950's from CNN.


I love these photos, because first off, it seems so rare to see colored photographs from before about the 1960's and 1970's.

For whatever reason, I feel compelled to post some of my favorites here.

To the left, this one is one of my favorites in the first set, merely because it is probably the first one that is very obviously from the 1950's. For me, these kinds of dresses on women that young are very rare to see in this day and age. Nowadays, such attire would probably be questioned - "You look nice, where are you going?" Not that these three people weren't already going somewhere nice - it is likely, particularly since the man is also gussied up in a suit and tie.

More amazing, though, is the sheer quality of the photo. There's absolutely no grain, very few strange, out of place colors, etc. It almost appears staged in a way, as if somebody dressed these people up, tracked down a vintage restored car, and ordered these people to stand and pretend they lived 50-60 years ago.

The photo to the left, on the other hand, shows a girl (teenaged girl?) celebrating her birthday. Or, at least, we assume it is her birthday, since she is the one sitting in front of the cake. I love this photo, because this scene is one that is probably a familiar image from many of our childhoods, and yet, based on the style of the hutch in the background, you kind of get the feeling that the girl is celebrating her birthday in her grandmother's house. At least, that was my first thought. However, I think that, when you think about it, it is momentarily amazing that birthdays obviously have not changed much in the past 50-60 years.

I'll admit it, this photo (left) I like mostly because of the woman standing second to the right. Either she is very unhappy to be at this outdoor buffet/party, or she completely missed the instructions to "Smile for the camera!" Other than that, I mostly love seeing all of these women wearing dresses, since such a sight in these times is so rare to see.

Rick Santorum's Wife's Abortion was Different.

We all know the saying, "The Only Good Abortion is My Abortion."

We all know people who claim they would "fight to the death" for abortion to be illegal.

Mother's life in danger? "She still has a chance!" Young teenager raped? "Well, it's not the baby's fault that it happened!" Incest? See the latter.

However, abortion is an issue where, at this point, not much more can be added to the debate, so I'm not even going to try. At this point in time, there's very little sense in me doing a post right now that details my thoughts and feelings on the matter.

That being said, here is an excellent article about Rick Santorum and his wife's abortion, which took place in 1996.

Also, for some momentary political humor, check out Spreading Santorum.

Modesty?

Taken from Reddit's TwoXChromosomes Subreddit.

To all three (?) of you: what are your thoughts?

See, I have a very weird opinion about this sort of thing...is it okay to dress like a slut?

Actually, I think I'm going to make a poll about that, after I proceed to quickly jot out my thoughts on this one.

First off, what is the problem, really, with women dressing "slutty"? What's the problem with a female choosing to dress herself in, say, a skirt that falls "a little north of the knee" rather than a pair of jeans or a longer skirt? 

Technically, nothing.

The problem is, that's not what I was told.

The problem is, even though it was never a defining problem during my teenage years, there was always a definite message of "don't wear skirts too short" or "that top is too low cut - pick something else". And, even without being told explicitly why, it wasn't difficult to infer the reasoning behind the "modest" ideal.

Naturally then, as I grew up, I started negatively judging other girls around my high school who violated these unwritten "rules". Why do her shorts have to be so damn short? Who is she dressing for? Who is she trying to impress with that skirt? 

As you can see, for some reason, dressing "slutty", in my mind, became, "somebody's trying to impress somebody else". This applied mostly towards the male sex.

"If he really likes you, he'll like you no matter what you wear."

But nowadays, the attitude seems to be changing, and changing rapidly. Or maybe it was always this way, and I was just too deluded to know it.

But now, the more time I spend time online, the more I read, the more apparent it becomes that these women, these "sluts", usually aren't dressing this way to impress other males. Usually, it seems, they're more likely dressing this way for reasons other than just, "I want to impress somebody". Actually, it seems to be somewhat of a confidence booster.

The funny thing is, I remember doing something similar in middle school. I remember wearing this knee-length black skirt for my quarterly choir concerts. I also remember rolling it up underneath my shirt, so that it would rise a little further above my knee. I certainly did not go overboard with this - it probably only rose and inch or two at the most. However, at the fragile age of fourteen, this little "fashion adjustment" seemed important to me. Why was it important? If you had asked me then, I probably couldn't have given you much of an answer. The fact is, I probably couldn't even tell you why I did it now.

Honestly, what do these outfits make you think of?

The first time I heard of the "Slutwalk", I thought the idea of women dressing up in "slutty" clothes and parading around with signs, most of which basically stated "I'll Dress How I Want" seemed slightly ludicrous to me. Sure, ladies, dress how you want, but why are you having a parade about it? However, after reading that it was more or less a movement to change how rape, rape victims, and victim-blaming were viewed, I did warm up to the idea a little more.

For those unfamiliar with the concept of a "Slut Walk", the basic idea is this: nobody "invites" rape. Nobody encourages others to rape them in any way, shape, or form. No action, whether it be a flirtatious move, a conscious choice to drink, or a particular style of dress, is, or should be viewed as, an invitation to rape. Slut Walk New York City's Website sums this up the best:

No matter who you are

No matter where you work 

No matter how you identify 

No matter how you flirt 

No matter what you wear 

No matter whom you choose to love 

No matter what you said before: 

NO ONE has the right to touch you without your consent. SlutWalk NYC is part of a worldwide grassroots movement challenging rape culture, victim-blaming and slut-shaming, and working to end sexual and domestic violence.

And so, with reading so many posts and stories about Slut Walks, and coming more to terms with "slutty dress", I did become somewhat more accepting. I tried to remind myself of these ideas whenever I saw somebody wearing a less than modest outfit. I tried not to vocalize those "I have underwear longer than her shorts!" thoughts. Did they still cross my mind? Absolutely. A few months of scouring the internet does not change many years of upbringing - it just doesn't happen, whether we like it or not. I still find myself conflicted when I see somebody wearing Daisy Duke-like shorts - I still question whether it's "right" or "wrong". Is it right or wrong? Actually, it's neither - in my mind, it's simply just "okay". 

The fact is, almost nobody is ever going to see me dressing "slutty". The fact is, whether it's right, wrong, or just okay, it's not who I am - I am just not comfortable with that kind of outfit, that kind of dress. I don't like wearing shorts so short that the pockets stick out. I hate worrying that my shirt is too low cut and my cleavage is showing. I really dislike worrying about how my legs are positioned when I'm wearing a short skirt or dress. I'm sorry, ladies, but it's just not me. It's not comfortable. But to all of you women who do prefer that style of dress - go for it. Just do it. Why? Because it's your body. If you're comfortable with dressing that way, if you're comfortable showing skin, and if you like showing off your girls, than who am I (or anybody else) to say no?