Comments on: The Discovery Channel: “Not for Women’s Eyes”

By: Ollie

Ollie — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 01:12:16 +0000

I can see how someone who is only thinking about “how do i write a tagline that appeals to men” might not consider “how would this be interpreted in contrast to women”

So i bet it’s just a gaff… a nasty stupid gaff

By: BG

BG — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:13:00 +0000

Why is it whenever the target audience is men, they think that dissing women will draw in more men? I guess this goes with how masculinity is always constructed in opposition to femininity.

But, seriously? Wow, way to alienate 50% of the population. I love Mystbusters, mostly because they have women on the show too. I guess they don’t think that women who love science, like me, don’t exist.

By: Claire

Claire — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:35:31 +0000

From what I can tell, pretty much all of the content-oriented cable channels have been busy distancing themselves from that content and moving more toward fake celebrities, reality shows, and serious amounts of woo. So much for the claim that cable was going to free us from network television’s relentless drive toward the lowest common denominator.

By: How much is that linkspam in the window? (13th December, 2009) | Geek Feminism Blog

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:10:05 +0000

[...] The Discovery Channel: “Not for Women’s Eyes”: The Discovery Channel is marketing itself as “Not for women’s eyes. Discovery Channel has television men want to watch. Exciting, smart, interesting, adventurous, and most of all real. Watch for yourself.” [...]

By: Gravity’s Rainbow » Blog Archive » What I’ve noticed

Gravity’s Rainbow » Blog Archive » What I’ve noticed — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 15:25:41 +0000

[...] The Discovery Channel clearly doesn’t appreciate the women who watch their shows. Otherwise why would they put out such offensive ads? [...]

By: Alisa

Alisa — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 04:13:31 +0000

oh, I know what you mean! I go through the same thing with sports, mainly my favourite: soccer. I played on girls’ team and but I’ve always been aware that the boys didn’t think that was “real” soccer. (My friend from Germany says that attitude is a lot worse there.)

But for me, now grown up and playing casually with friends, I get terrified that I’ll screw up and the guys (because it’s mostly guys) will at least mentally roll their eyes and regret “allowing” me to play. I’ve had mini panic attacks playing my FAVOURITE sport. That’s sad.

And I can’t win, because if I don’t play they scoff at me for being wimpy or scared or assume that I just don’t want to mess up my hair.
grrr

By: J

Fri, 11 Dec 2009 04:37:53 +0000

I’m annoyed by that as well. It seems like the ‘Not For You’ label always appears when a channel starts cutting back on actual substance to appeal to demographic. Like it’s exclusive so only a certain group of people will like it, and, “wouldn’t you rather be in that exclusive group instead of complaining that we’re getting rid of the programming that gave our channel its name?”

Anyhow I’ve also had issues with society keeping me from doing certain things. Like videogames – a lot of guys complain that girls don’t like them. I was banned from playing them in my house, and when I visited a boy who could play them I was told they were not for me, or they were impatient when I didn’t know how at first. Now I have an inherent aversion, because I feel I’m going to be yelled at or laughed at if I inhibit the progress of the game. Boys don’t think about this when they’re young, so they often regurgitate this societal moray onto the girls they are often forced to play with by their parents. Some escape it – I did not.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:21:55 +0000

As much as “it’s ironic!” would be a nicer interpretation, there’s no irony in the ad itself.
This is a trend I’m noticing in a lot of advertising, there’s implied /irony/, in a “humorous” campaign, but they seem to forget to include any direct acknowledgment of it. I don’t know if it’s lazy, or sardonic, but an after the fact “haha, get it?” doesn’t create a joke, or automatically undo what the rest of the ad says.

The message here is still “Not for women”.
It doesn’t matter if it’s a joke, or all readers should always assume every day is opposite day, that is what is printed on the ad.

By: ugo

ugo — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:59:12 +0000

I don’t get why discovery channel wants to alienate a huge segment of the population with this ad. Wouldn’t cathering to both men and women bring more viewers and hence more money for them? FAIL!

By: KD

KD — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:14:51 +0000

So, according to that logic, this ad is, in fact, targeting women? Personally, I don’t believe this is true, but I appreciate your response.

By: Lynn

Lynn — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 19:16:53 +0000

I did some research, and I found this website: http://www.dawn.nl/#/work/discovery/factsandfigures

“Discovery Channel offers interesting, suspenseful television for men. And needed an equally suspenseful and interesting way to let them know this was the case. The idea: a series of arresting visuals, where women’s eyes were inserted into men’s portraits. The tagline is straightforward (we’re talking to men after all): for men’s eyes only.”

The Dutch text is somewhat different. A loose translation:

“Discovery Channel is aimed at men. A lot of men don’t know that yet. Something had to happen, in a way that is similar to the station. Smart, interesting, suspenseful. The idea: a series of arresting visuals, where women’s eyes were inserted into men’s portraits. The tagline is unambiguous: for men’s eyes only.”

Yeeaah. I still don’t get it, but that’s probably because I’m female.

By: Ashley

Ashley — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:51:07 +0000

Oh god I knew those eyes reminded me of someone but I couldn’t place it until this comment XD

By: AJS

AJS — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:31:00 +0000

Since when has the History Channel had anything pertaining to WWII other than Mail Call a few years ago? Let alone anything else referring to actual history- unlike the 2012 shows they were running last time I clicked by.

I don’t watch the station anymore, nor Discovery, nor TLC (I remember when it used to have shows like James Burke’s Connections and The Day the Universe Changed). It hasn’t been The Learning Channel for a long time.

By: pmsrhino

pmsrhino — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:27:59 +0000

Sweet, I guess this just means I have man eyes! :D Since, you know, I spent most of last night with my man eyes glued to Ghost Lab and my man eyes can’t wait to see the new episode of Dirty Jobs and Mythbusters. Dude, my man eyes RAWK!!!!11!!eleventy!!! :D Thanks, Douchecovery for letting me into this bit of knowledge! Is there nothing you CAN’T help me douchecover?! And damn douchecover looks weird. Maybe dickcover? Asscover? I just can’t win in this game! Toolcover?! Argh! D:

By: Harman Smith

Harman Smith — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:14:46 +0000

No, it wouldn’t look like a negative statement about men, because such things are rarely said in such a way, it must be sarcasm. I think such statements are trying to get your attention, and then when you look closer you would see that it’s sarcasm.

I can understand what Discovery Channel was trying to do. I’ve seen it before on internet forums. If you post a link somewhere and the link simply says ‘Link’ and you exasperatingly tell people “DO NOT CLICK THE LINK I POSTED. DON’T DO IT!”, it will make people curious & they’ll click the link. I guess an analogy to this ad would be “DON’T CLICK THE LINK IF YOU’RE A GIRL, GUYS ONLY!”