# Interracial couples on tv adverts.



## qooqiiu (Oct 12, 2007)

Hard to raise a subject like this without appearing to be coming at it from a racist standpoint, but trust me I'm not.

This year there seems to be a concerted effort by add firms/companys to really push this out to the public. It seems like every other advert on tv that features a couple or a family it has to be interracial. No way is that representative of the nation as a whole. Even the animated adverts have a interacial flavor.

Anyone else noticed?


----------



## Hoggy (May 8, 2002)

Hi, Yes, same as disabled people on the weather & watchdog, nothing wrong with it & should give everyone the chance & treated the same.
Has certainly changed over the last 12 months.
Hoggy.


----------



## Stiff (Jun 15, 2015)

It's been creeping in steadily for a fair while now. And I'll bet it won't be that long before the LGBTQPRFC crowd are throwing hissy fits about being left out too. Pretty soon you won't be able to tell the difference between Janet and John ('cept Janet is the one with the beard, and John the one with the tits and tan) sitting on that DFS sofa (there's got to be a pun in there somewhere) , bright-eyed and giggling.
The world is becoming a very mixed up place with all this 'left out' and 'offended' b0ll0cks.


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

:lol: You forgot Janet and John's adopted child.

The pink pound is becoming a lucrative currency they'll have you know.


----------



## Stiff (Jun 15, 2015)

leopard said:


> :lol: You forgot Janet and John's adopted child.


Oh yes, little Antifa with the rainbow socks. Born a boy but by the age of eight will aspire to become a girl before the hairs start to sprout. Just like uncle Helen. :-*



leopard said:


> The pink pound is becoming a lucrative currency they'll have you know.


And here was me thinking it was some kind of toy.


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

Hoggy said:


> Hi, Yes, same as disabled people on the weather & watchdog, nothing wrong with it & should give everyone the chance & treated the same.
> Has certainly changed over the last 12 months.
> Hoggy.


Nothing wrong in giving everybody an even chance but I've always felt uncomfortable with positive discrimination. Which is what I think OP was alluding to.


----------



## Hoggy (May 8, 2002)

ZephyR2 said:


> Hoggy said:
> 
> 
> > Hi, Yes, same as disabled people on the weather & watchdog, nothing wrong with it & should give everyone the chance & treated the same.
> ...


Hi, [smiley=thumbsup.gif] 
Hoggy.


----------



## Bartsimpsonhead (Aug 14, 2011)

Nothing wrong with it in my opinion - everyone is an individual and should be accepted for who they are or identify with/as.

And working in advertising as I do I appreciate that the companies advertising can appeal to two demographics for the price of one advertising campaign, so financially it make perfect sense, and the broader racial mix is representative of society today.


----------



## John-H (Jul 13, 2005)

Bartsimpsonhead said:


> Nothing wrong with it in my opinion - everyone is an individual and should be accepted for who they are or identify with/as.
> 
> And working in advertising as I do I appreciate that the companies advertising can appeal to two demographics for the price of one advertising campaign, so financially it make perfect sense, and the broader racial mix is representative of society today.


A very astute observation.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

Ask yourself this. If a pretty young woman was presenting an entertainment programme would you all start wondering what her qualifications were, how she got the job, is she there on her merits? The same if it's a well-spoken white guy. If, being completely honest, you can't answer 'yes' to that, then you need to think about why those are your first thoughts when you see someone from an ethnic minority, or someone disabled, or any other kind of minority.

And on a separate note, while I understand the logical argument against positive discrimination, it tends to rely on the notion that institutional racism doesn't exist anymore. You have to believe that, left to their own devices, companies will always hire the best person regardless of skin colour, age, disability, sexuality, etc. The statistics would indicate this isn't the case.

So what do you do to try to 'level the playing field' when it's almost impossible to police individual hiring decisions? How do you force people to not be biased when interviewing candidates, when those people won't even realise they're being biased (and when you can't prove they were biased after the fact)?


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

Spandex said:


> Ask yourself this. If a pretty young woman was presenting an entertainment programme would you all start wondering what her qualifications were, how she got the job, is she there on her merits? The same if it's a well-spoken white guy. If, being completely honest, you can't answer 'yes' to that, then you need to think about why those are your first thoughts when you see someone from an ethnic minority, or someone disabled, or any other kind of minority.
> 
> And on a separate note, while I understand the logical argument against positive discrimination, it tends to rely on the notion that institutional racism doesn't exist anymore. You have to believe that, left to their own devices, companies will always hire the best person regardless of skin colour, age, disability, sexuality, etc. The statistics would indicate this isn't the case.
> 
> So what do you do to try to 'level the playing field' when it's almost impossible to police individual hiring decisions? How do you force people to not be biased when interviewing candidates, when those people won't even realise they're being biased (and when you can't prove they were biased after the fact)?


There's alot of variables here for example, all the pretty young things on Countdown have high end alma maters'.

As for hiring indescrapancies, sure I'm biased. I won't hire anybody who has visible tattoos or face furniture to name a few, sue me...


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

Spandex said:


> And on a separate note, while I understand the logical argument against positive discrimination, it tends to rely on the notion that institutional racism doesn't exist anymore. You have to believe that, left to their own devices, companies will always hire the best person regardless of skin colour, age, disability, sexuality, etc. The statistics would indicate this isn't the case.


I would agree and on the face of it positive discrimination would seem to be a good way to countering the negative effects of institutional racism etc. However when people discover that positive discrimination is being applied it fires up resentment and greater discriminatory tensions leading to accusations like "you only got the job cos you're black".
There's no easy answer. Mankind is tribal by nature.



Spandex said:


> Ask yourself this. If a pretty young woman was presenting an entertainment programme would you all start wondering what her qualifications were, how she got the job, is she there on her merits?


Can I suggest that weather presenter Louise Lear is an argument for not employing a pretty woman as a presenter. Whenever she is doing the weather I usually have to play it back twice before I manage to catch the forecast.


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

leopard said:


> There's alot of variables here for example, all the pretty young things on Countdown have high end alma maters'.
> 
> As for hiring indescrapancies, sure I'm biased. I won't hire anybody who has visible tattoos or face furniture to name a few, sue me...


Yes, there will always be presenting jobs where the person needs to be a subject matter expert and while I'm sure there are many, many women (or men) in the country more qualified than Rachel Riley to solve the maths problems on countdown, I personally have no way of knowing who else auditioned for the job so it's pointless talking about specifics.

But in general, the point still stands. It's not so much about the people in the presenting roles, it's about our reaction to them. Why do certain groups of people see a disabled person presenting the weather and immediately see it as a bad thing - not because they don't like disabled people (they will be quick to tell us), but because they assume the only way a disabled person could have got the job is because the channel has some sort of 'agenda'. As though being disabled affects your ability to excel at meteorology. And yet, they will never have even considered the credentials or meteorological knowledge of the numerous pretty women they're used to seeing presenting the weather. They won't have ever complained that the tv channel seems to have some sort of positive discrimination policy towards pretty people, or white people, or people who aren't in wheelchairs, or people with the normal number of limbs. But the moment they see a few disabled people around, they suddenly get very concerned


----------



## Spandex (Feb 20, 2009)

ZephyR2 said:


> Spandex said:
> 
> 
> > And on a separate note, while I understand the logical argument against positive discrimination, it tends to rely on the notion that institutional racism doesn't exist anymore. You have to believe that, left to their own devices, companies will always hire the best person regardless of skin colour, age, disability, sexuality, etc. The statistics would indicate this isn't the case.
> ...


Yep, don't get me wrong, I think positive discrimination is problematic. But I also think that it's a bit hypocritical for the ethnic group that has benefited from centuries of positive discrimination to then have a hissy fit when the tables are turned to a tiny degree, in a few small areas of their lives, in a way that probably has absolutely no measurable effect on them at all.

I mean, it would take the brassiest of necks to complain about that, in the context of the last few hundred years.


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

ZephyR2 said:


> Can I suggest that weather presenter Louise Lear is an argument for not employing a pretty woman as a presenter. Whenever she is doing the weather I usually have to play it back twice before I manage to catch the forecast.


Really :lol:

Here's 'Yanet Garcia'


----------



## Danny1 (Sep 2, 2010)

leopard said:


> ZephyR2 said:
> 
> 
> > Can I suggest that weather presenter Louise Lear is an argument for not employing a pretty woman as a presenter. Whenever she is doing the weather I usually have to play it back twice before I manage to catch the forecast.
> ...


Wait a minute I feel this is going off topic now, back in a few minutes, just googling miss garcia


----------



## leopard (May 1, 2015)

LOL :lol: :lol:

"Looks like it's going to be a bloody mint day for a barbie"


----------



## Hoggy (May 8, 2002)

[smiley=dude.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif] 
Compared to most of the women that have been in my life she has to be disabled. :lol: :lol: 
Hoggy.


----------



## Hoggy (May 8, 2002)

Hoggy said:


> [smiley=dude.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]
> Compared to most of the women that have been in my life she has to be disabled. :lol: :lol:
> Hoggy.


Hi, Preferably with handcuffs :lol: :lol: 
Hoggy.


----------



## ZephyR2 (Feb 20, 2013)

leopard said:


> https://youtu.be/YZeAtinpWiw
> 
> LOL :lol: :lol:
> 
> "Looks like it's going to be a bloody mint day for a barbie"


Got to agree with that guy, there's something unnerving about that Russian girl.


----------

