I watched a segment today about a Bonds TV commercial. In the commercial, a random man and woman (unknown to me) are shown playing around. The woman aggressively kicks a punching bag, pulls down the pants of the man and punches the man on the backside. The purpose of the aggressive actions is not clear, nor how aggression relates to the product.
This program mocked people who called this advert sexist. It labeled them as stupid, it talked about the need to get even (ie. justified sexism). They also said that the actors were a husband and wife team. Their point was that it was fine for one partner to punch another. Among their pearls of wisdom was something akin to "it doesn't matter if some people get offended by hitting, it's how it was MEANT to be interpreted that counts". They also said that these attitudes were justifiable because women were weak and/or incapable of standing up for themselves.
Any show that condones sexism and violence is NOT fine in my book. I'm sorry, I really thought that Australian society had agreed that violence was NOT fine. What purpose did this aggressive behaviour serve for Bonds? Was it meant to re-enforce the idea of one partner striking another as being acceptable?
I expect daytime TV to be of low quality, but to endorse hitting (especially between partners) is about as low as you can get. Dismissing complaints with personal attacks (implying the complainers are idiots) is very sad. Is this what Australian media now resorts to, or is this just sheer desperation for ratings at all costs?
