1a Zach's Reasons Why Smart Men Hate Women Reply
Rating: PG-13
Quality: (Quality: Unrated)
-A 'man-hater'? And great, I'm a dedicated Feminist.
Alright let's list 9 things, I got from some of my guy friends that I should share with you bimbos
-Okay mimbo, tell us.
1. Your single unhappy friends don't know what's best in your
relationship. If they're trying to warn you about us, its probably cause they're jealous.
-Or because my single friends know from expierience. And single doesn't equal unhappy. I'm usually more happy when I'm single than when I'm in a relationship.
2. If you have ANY doubt in your mind about a man's character, leave him alone, don't talk about him to others
-So if you think the person you trust most is betraying you, you shouldn't ask your friends on their opinions and and comfort?
3. Give him his space...let him go out with his boys, don't pressure him to spend time with you, You cant force a man to hang out with you.
- It's alright if he likes going out on occasion, but if it's all of the time, then he's probably cheating on you.
4. If a guy doesn't want you, nothing can make him stay.
- I agree.
5. Don't force an attraction.
-I agree.
6. Never become your man's "therapist".
- If your boyfriend is having problems, you should try to console him. Relationships are about taking care of each other.
7. Honorable men take care of their business and
aren't involved in a whole lot of mess.
- Talk like Yoda, you need not do.
8. The only person you can control in a relationship
is you.
-Unfortunately, that's not true. It should be though.
9. There's only one 'reason' a man dumps you; he
doesn't want you.
-There are a few others, but for the most part, this statement's true.
Here are 19 things that make you women seem as ASSholes -Amazingly Stupid and Selfish;
-That sentence made you sound amazingly stupid and selfish.
1. Women want equal rights, but you rarely hear them clamoring to be let into the draft to cover the responsibilities that go with those rights. All women seek equality with men until it comes to sharing the closet, taking out the trash, and
picking up the check.
-I don't mind sharing the closet, taking out the trash, or picking up the check. However, I don't think any men I know have been drafted for war.
2. Women love to talk on the phone. A woman can visit her girlfriend for two weeks, and upon returning home, she will call the same friend and they will talk for three hours.
-I don't like talking on the phone really. And so what if I like talking with my friends? We most likely have a lot to talk about.
3. A woman will dress up to go shopping, water the plants, empty the garbage, answer the phone, read a book, or get the mail.
-I dress up to answer the phone? I don't remember ever doing that.
4. Women will drive miles out of their way to avoid the possibility of getting lost using a shortcut.
-Isn't a shortcut something that's out of the way but gets you there quicker? If they take the normal route, they're not going out of their way.
5. Women do NOT want an honest answer to the question, 'How do I look?'
- Beautiful women do.
6. PMS stands for: Permissible Man-Slaughter. (Or at least men think it means that. PMS also stands for Preposterous Mood Swings and Punish My Spouse.
- Try Pre-Menstral Syndrome.
7. The first naked man a woman sees is 'Ken'. Women are insecure about their weight, butt, and breast sizes.
- What does Ken have to do with women being brainwashed by the media?
8. Women will make three right-hand turns to avoid making one left-hand turn.
-No, I'd rather take the most pratical path.
9. 'Oh, nothing,' has an entirely different meaning in woman-language than it does in man-language.
-This is because of 'The Emo Theory' my friend Hannaah made. The theory states that people with problems don't want people to worry about their problems. Therefore people who complain constantly don't have problems.
10. Lewis Carroll's Caterpillar had nothing on women.
-So talkative....
11. Women cannot use a map without turning the map to correspond to the direction that they are heading.
-Maybe that's because if we do that, we're not as likely to get lost.
12. All women are overweight by definition; don't agree with them about it. Women always have 5 pounds to lose, but don't bring this up unless they really have 5 pounds to gain.
-That's because women have been led to believe that what they're given isn't good enough.
13. If it is not Valentines day and you see a man in a flower shop, you can probably start up a conversation by asking, 'What did you do?'
-Do you realize that that was a shot at men?
14. If a man ticks off a woman she will often respond by getting a fuzzy toilet cover which warms their rear, but makes it impossible for the lid to stay up thus it constantly gets peed on by the guys. (which gets them in more trouble)
-Yet again, I don't remember ever doing this.
15. Women never check to see if the lid is up. They seem to prefer taking a flying butt leap towards the bowl and then chewing men out because they 'left the seat up' instead of taking two seconds and lowering it themselves.
-Maybe you don't realize this, but when I have to pee, I'm trying to hurry and not pee myself. I'm having faith that the guy that used the bathroom before me, was smart enough to lift up his arm and push the lid down.
16. Women can get out of speeding tickets by pouting. This will get men arrested.
- I have never gotten out of a speeding ticket by pouting, nor have any of my 'hot' friends. And there are such things as female police officers.
17. It's okay for women to dance with each other, but they can’t acknowledge seeing men dancing together.
-I think it's fine for men to dance together. It actually shows a good sense of humor and confidence
18. Women will spend hours dressing up to go out, and then they'll go out and spend more time checking out other women. Men can never catch women checking out other men; women will always catch men checking out other women.
- I don't think I've ever went on a date only to check out other women. And men who check out other women on a date, are pigs.
19. The most embarrassing thing for women is to find another woman wearing the same dress at a formal party. You don't hear men say, 'Oh-my GOD, there's another man wearing a black tux, get me outta here'
-I never found wearing the same outfit as someone else embarrasing, I usually think it's cool that we have the same taste. But this is extremely unlikely as I wear strange clothes.
Here are 17 things WOMEN MUST KNOW ABOUT MEN:
1. Department stores and malls were designed so that when you want to look at bed linen, shower curtains or handbags, there are always some speakers, tires, power tools or sporting equipment nearby.
- Bed linen and shower curtains? How boring is that?
2. It's an evolutionary thing. Men hunt and fix things. Women gather. Men just want to go out, kill it, or fix it, and bring it back. Why spend hours and hours looking at things they have no intention of killing? er... Buying? Let him look at the power tools or whatever, both of you will be a lot happier.
-Women hunt too. And I don't see the point of looking something I can't have for hours either.
3. Don't make him hold your purse in the mall. Besides, men know nothing of accessorizing, and it would clash with whatever they are wearing.
-I never make men hold my purse. Ever.
4. Learn to move the toilet seat yourself ladies.
- Or, you can learn to clean up for yourself so I don't have to.
5. He heard you the first time. Don't nag or repeat yourself incessantly.
-If I only say it once, no one will listen.
Looking at other women isn't a bad thing. If he doesn't look at an attractive female, something is wrong with him or he's dead. That's when you need to worry. It isn't like we don't look at attractive men, we're just better at being subtle about it.
-Or if he looks at an attractive female, and we get offended, it may be because he comes off as a perverted jerk. And what part of 'Give me your full attention and I'll do the same.' do you not get?
6. Men offer solutions to problems in an effort to help. They do this so that they can frustrate us. They enjoy it. Kind of a retaliatory thing because they don't understand a woman's need for talking.
7. Making love on a weeknight is a good thing, but NOT preceded by 3 hours of analyzing your relationship.
-Communication is good.
8. Ask a man out. Spread the rejection evenly.
- Okay, I will.
9. There is nothing wrong with being a strong, intelligent, independent, free thinking woman, but allow a man to treat you like a lady with respect, spoil you and open doors for you. It doesn't make you less of a woman.
-Yet again, okay I will
10. Lingerie as a gift is NOT a bad thing. It's his way of letting you know he still finds you beautiful and sexy.
-I'd rather have a video game for my birthday, thanks. How would you feel if your girl gave you a pack of condoms instead of those awesome new rims you found earlier?
11. Never tell a man you love him unless you really do. They have hearts too, and even if they don't show it, their hearts can be broken so very easily.
-I agree.
12. Men withdraw to think when they have problems, this is not ignoring you. They like to "hide" in a cave and think things through. He'll come out when he's ready to talk, or not talk, respect that.
-I usually do.
13. The arms and heart of a man who deeply,and passionately loves you is the best place to be.
- Okay.
14. A man's eyes can melt your heart.
-Hasn't happened yet.
15. Appreciate men. They need to be needed and admired.
-Admired? And guys get on women about wanting to be treated like royalty...
16. Men can be truly artistic and show great passion and depth of emotion in art. Think about it, many of the great masters in art are MALE, composers of classical music as well. This is not slighting the many women artists there are, but too many times women complain men aren't passionate or creative or show emotion.
-Just because Francine Georgia was a great artist doesn't mean I am. That's like saying a monkey is of equal intelligence to a human it's still stupid because it's a monkey.
They have this wonderful place on their shoulder and neck just made for your head to rest on.
-There are these things called pillows as well.
17. Men are the most wonderful, charming, loving, romantic, passionate, giving people on earth if treated right, respected, needed, admired and handled with care. They provide a lifetime of happiness.
-Okay.
Here are the top 10 Rejection Lines Given By Men (and what we know they actually mean...)
10. I think of you as a sister. (You're ugly.)
-I've never heard that line.
9. There's a slight difference in our ages. (You're ugly.)
-Nope, not that one either.
8. I'm not attracted to you in 'that' way. (You're ugly.)
-Still no.
7. My life is too complicated right now. (You're ugly.)
-Still nothing.
6. I've got a girlfriend. (You're ugly.)
-I've heard that one.
5. I don't date women where I work. (You're ugly.)
-I've heard of that line.
4. It's not you, it's me. (You're ugly.)
-That's in every movie there is.
3. I'm concentrating on my career. (You're ugly.)
-Nada.
2. I'm celibate. (You're ugly.)
-If I heard that one, I'd laugh.
.....and the number 1 rejection line given by men (and what it actually means)
1. Let's be friends. (You're the ugliest person that has ever existed on this planet.)
-Nope.
Let's take a sneek peek into a WOMAN'S WORLD
1. Women love to shop. It is the one area of the world where they feel like they're actually in control.
-I hate shopping.
2. Women especially love a bargain. The question of "need" is irrelevant, so don't bother pointing it out. Anything on sale is fair game.
-I only shop when it's necessary. I like making my own clothes.
3. Women never have anything to wear. Don't question the racks of clothes in the closet; you "just don't understand".
- Women lose and gain weight rapidly. and once you own the clothes they're not as cute. It's a psycological thing.
4. Women need to cry. And they won't do it alone unless they know you can hear them.
-I don't like crying in front of people, see 'The Emo Theory' for details.
5. Women will always ask questions that have no right answer, in an effort to trap you into feeling guilty.
-Yes, because I am a sadistic person that wants nothing more than to see you in pain.
6. Women love to talk. Silence intimidates them and they feel a need to fill it, even if they have nothing to say.
-Silence intimidates me? Actually, I like silence sometimes. I like having time to think.
7. Women need to feel like there are people worse off than they are. That's why soap operas and Oprah Winfrey-type shows are so successful.
-I don't like hearing about people in pain. I like helping people in pain, but I don't like watching them suffer.
9. Women hate bugs. Even the strong-willed ones need a man around when there's a spider or a wasp involved.
-I love bugs, I'd like to be an entomologist actually. Bugs are great. I've been known to put up to 6 locusts in my mouth at once.
10. Women can't keep secrets. They eat away at them from the inside. And they don't view it as being untrustworthy, providing they only tell two or three people.
-Yet again, I'll say it. My friends and I are some of the best secret keepers you'll ever meet. Also, did you ever notice that many magicians are female? All magicians are sworn to secrecy.
11. Women always go to public restrooms in groups. It gives them a chance to gossip.
-I always go to the restroom with friends so we can goof around and tell me if I have toilet paper stuck to my shoe.
12. Women can't refuse to answer a ringing phone, no matter what she's doing. It might be the lottery calling.
-I always answer the phone because the ringing annoys me.
13. Women never understand why men love toys. Men understand that they wouldn't need toys if women had an "on/off" switch.
-I love toys. And I wouldn't need them if men had an on/off switch.
14. Women think all beer is the same.
-I'm not old enough to drink. But my older female friends have been able to distinguish Bud Lite from Miller Lite.
15. Women keep three different shampoos and two different conditioners in the shower.
-Because some days my hair is dry and on others it's oily.
16. After a woman showers, the bathroom will smell like a tropical rain forest.
- Yes, it does.
17. Women don't understand the appeal of sports. Men seek entertainment that allows them to escape reality. Women seek entertainment that reminds them of how horrible things could be.
-I like entertainment that allows me to escape reality. But watching men run up and down a field with a ball doesn't do the trick.
18. If a man goes on a seven-day trip, he'll pack five days worth of clothes and will wear some things twice; if a woman goes on a seven-day trip she'll pack 21 outfits because she doesn't know what she'll feel like wearing each day.
-My mood changes day to day. I like my clothes to reflect my emotions.
19. Women brush their hair before bed.
-That way it's not as bad in the morning.
21. Women are paid less than men, except for Modeling.
-True.
22. Women are never wrong. Apologizing is the mans responsibility, "It's there in the bible". hmmm who was it that gave Adam the apple?
- And who was dumb enough to eat the apple?
23. Women do not know anything about cars. "Oil-stick, oil doesn't stick?"
-I don't know anything about cars because I find cars and planes boring.
24. Women have better restrooms. They get the nice chairs and red carpet.
- No we don't. And how would you know anyway?
25. The average number of items in a typical woman's bathroom is 437. A man would not be able to identify most of these items.
-I don't have 437 items in my bathroom. I have a few types of lotion, some perfume, and a little makeup. That's it.
26. Women love cats. Men say they love cats, but when women aren't looking, men kick cats.
- If you said that me in person, the cat wouldn't be the only thing getting kicked.
Some definitions of words that males and females seem to think differently about:
THINGY (thing-ee) n.
female: Any part under a car's hood.
male: The strap fastener on a woman's bra.
-Some women know about cars.
COMMUNICATION (ko-myoo-ni-kay-shon)n.
female: The open sharing of thoughts and feelings with one's partner.
male: Scratching out a note before suddenly taking off for a weekend with the guys.
-True.
BUTT (but) n.
female: The body part that every item of clothing manufactured makes "look bigger."
male: The organ used for mooning and farting.
-Why do all clothes make your butt look huge?
COMMITMENT (ko-mit-ment) n.
female: A desire to get married and raise a family.
male: Not trying to pick up other women while out with one's girlfriend.
-Yeah.
TASTE (tayst) v.
female: Something you do frequently to whatever you're cooking, to make sure it's good.
male: Something you must do to anything you think has gone bad, prior to tossing it out.
-Sounds like my dad.
REMOTE CONTROL (ri-moht kon-trohl) n.
female: A device for changing from one TV channel to another.
male: A device for scanning through all 75 channels every 2 minutes
HERE'S A JOKE: WHAT'S COMMON BETWEEN MEN AND MICE?
ANS:- BOTH LOOK FOR HOLES
-True
Here's a script I would like you people to read, especially the FEMINISTS.
SEX LESSONS
Paul Craig Roberts
March 24, 1998
It was a powerful image: the human figure with a world globe for a head laughing at a bra-draped President Clinton on TV. Cartoonists are doing a better job of holding Bill Clinton accountable than the Republican Congress or Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr. But the White House and the United States government are not the only reputations that Clinton is ruining.
He is ruining the reputation of men. The National Organization of Women would say that men have already ruined their reputation and that Bill Clinton is just illustrating the point.
- I agree.
The reason that NOW hasn't lambasted our president is that he is a useful tool for their anti-man propaganda. Clinton is the kind of guy who just can't prove enough how sexist and beastly men are. He has confirmed every suspicion that every woman has ever had about a man and, no doubt, raised suspicions where none previously existed.
-Anti-man propaganda? I want for equality, not special treatment.
Men are in for trouble in a big way. Clinton has made believable any sexual charge by a woman against any heterosexual man. Many civic-minded Americans still think that a man gets to be president by being more decent and honest than his competitors. A president, in other words, doesn't come from the bottom of the barrel -- so, looking at Clinton, just imagine how bad the men are who haven't made it to the top.
-Actually, politicians are usually not honest.
Men have been forced by civil-rights regulations to bring women into their workplaces, the executive suite and the barracks, and they must make business trips with women and ride around with them in patrol cars. Any stymied promotion, any imagined slight, any misinterpretation of word or gesture can result in a sexual-harassment charge that will be believable by definition. As a gender with equal rights, heterosexual man is finished.
-So giving someone a blowjob isn't sexual? And I wouldn't report anyone for sexual harrasment unless I was sure that it was sexual harrasment.
If truth be known, men are caught in a fatal pincers movement. Feminists are coming at them on one flank with harassment charges and on the other flank with their bodies. The feminist who put up 10,000 for Monica Lewinsky's defense fund said that Lewinsky was just doing what a woman is supposed to do -- using sex to advance her career. Harassing a woman is bad judgment, but rejecting her advances has its own pitfalls. A female who doesn't get the promotion and is scorned sexually, too, is doubly vengeful.
-I don't think that women should use sex to advance in the world. I don't think that's feminism, it's the exact opposite really.
Thanks to feminists, an unfaithful wife can now claim career reasons, but a husband who cheats is just a cheater. I have long been mystified by polls that find twice as many men as women cheat on a relationship. Either one gender is lying or some women are working overtime.
-Let's see, all of my boyfriends have cheated on me, but I've never cheated. I think men are more likely to cheat than women from personal experience.
This inconsistency in poll results passes unnoticed, because the female holds victimized status even as women's magazines reveal her as predator. I remember when Woman's Own magazine was where housewives found recipes and dress patterns, but no more. One recent issue carried cover stories on how to "Drive Men Wild," "What Makes A Woman Hot," "50 Ways To Get Him Addicted To You" and how to cheat on your husband. Wives, apparently, crave "to be admired by new eyes," "get high on the drama of the deception" and can't get their clothes off quickly enough.
- I don't think anyone should cheat, man or woman. It's wrong for both genders.
The current issue of Glamour magazine reports the answer to its poll, "How Many Men Have You Slept With?" The numbers are surprisingly high. Cora, 21 years old, has had 23 partners. Maria, 28, has had 45 partners. Andrea, 27, 38 partners. Liz, 30, 38 partners. Nancy, 31, says she "honestly can't remember them all. I tried to count with a girlfriend once, got to about 45 and then kept remembering more as I ran into them on the street."
-Just because some women do doesn't mean all do. And I doubt that Glamour reported all of the results they got. If they did, then don't you think it would have taken the entire magazine.
Unless Glamour magazine is putting us on, or the young women are putting Glamour on, there are females out there who are half the age of President Clinton and who can match and even exceed his number of sex partners. Not even a radical feminist would claim that Maria had had 45 male bosses that she had to accommodate by the time she reached the age of 28.
-I don't mind that Clinton had sex with Monica Lewinsky. Monica knew what she was doing and is no way a victim. I'm annoyed that he lied about it.
To the extent that women still have a reputation after women's magazines, Clinton is ruining what is left of it. Think what it means that only two women -- Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones -- were turned off by Bill Clinton's very crude approach to seduction. That Clinton would risk such an abrupt and crude approach to a married woman and to a woman he did not know indicates that he has had a high success rate in the past by dropping his trousers and groping women's bodies.
-He's the President, he's rich and powerful. Who doesn't like rich and powerful?
It doesn't appear to be all that unusual for women to forsake their husbands and their own integrity for bragging rights that they slept with political power. The genders might engage in illicit sex for different reasons, but both are partners in the act.
-I agree. Men and women are equal.
Here's something an Indian friend of mine has to say about FEMINISTS:
Dear Maharajas and Prabhus,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
I would like to compile a short paper with a tentative title "The Absurdity
of Feminism." This would require knowing the main points of the feminist
position and then showing how they are absurd. For example:
-This is going to be stupid, I can tell.
1) Women should be given equal rights with men because men and women are equal. Women should be protected. This is absurd because if women are equal with men why should one person who was equal to another required to be protected by the other party. One only requires protection if they are in a subordinate position. That is, a subordinate is protected by a superior.
Therefore women are not equal to men.
-I never asked to be protected. And police protect us, does that mean that they are above us?
2) Women are equal to men but because of social pressure over the ages the men have suppressed and oppressed to women into an inferior position. If women are equal to men how is it that one equal party was able to suppress and oppress another equal party? This is absurd. Oppression can only take place if a superior force overcomes an inferior force. Therefore women are not equal to men. If they had been they would not be suppressed or oppressed.
-Women are equal to men, but have been 'ganged' up on. In Bible times, men were said to be more powerful, this is because a few men said that they had visions from God and claimed that God told them women were inferior. This idea followed humanity for ages.
Anyway, these are two examples of common feminist doctrine which are at their heart totally absurd. If somebody has coallated or compiled in a concise form the essence of feminist doctrine, could you please send it to me. Also if you have your own examples of absurdities in feminist doctrine please forward it to me.
- Did you even go through this?
Your humble servant
Shyamasundara Dasa
--------------------Well, according to me Feminists are fuking bi/hom0 sexual women who are jealous of men and hate them so much that they can't stand a successful man. feminists are frustrated females who live in misery.--------------------
- Many feminists are straight, believe it or not. And I'm not jealous of men, feminists want equality genius. And I'm not in misery, I'm usually a cheerful person.
Here's an article on the Media Assult on Men by Feminist by Christopher Shackleton - A well known British Journalist
The Media Assault on Men - Part IV
Christopher Shackleton
Advertising
Nowhere in the media has the attack on men been more intense than in advertising and marketing. This has built up over four decades of feminist ascendancy into a tidal wave of feminist propaganda. We see it on television, magazines and newspapers, and we hear it on the radio. Two main types of adverts are used to insult and denigrate men: "girls on top"; and "useless men" adverts - although the "Full Monty" seems to have encouraged a third category, the "naked man" advert. The general tenor is that women are getting their own back for decades of being put down, and advertisers insist this is just a bit of fun. The fact is that this "fun" was not acceptable when it was directed at women; it is yet another example of the new sexism of feminist double standards.
-I don't think it's acceptable when directed towards men. I'm against sexism of any kind.
There have been so many examples of the "New Sexism" in adverts that it would be impossible to comprehensively list them. The point is made by the overwhelming nature of the onslaught. Some prominent early examples included the obnoxious female Kenco Coffee boss, the sexist Diet Coke office girls, the violence directed at men in the Lee Jeans and Nissan Micra adverts, and the peis insults of the Impulse and Renault Clio adverts. Popular culture is now dominated by female supremicism, and men are regularly portrayed as "peis" objects and inferior ciphers at the mercy of our "testosterone" levels.
- Which is why women are still paid less than men.
Perhaps the greatest exposure to anti-male adverts is on television, but people are also exposed to adverts in printed media, on radio and in the cinema. A good example of a particularly distasteful cinema advert was shown in the summer of 1998. It was an advert for the Mini car, in which Helen, a contestant in a fictitious game show called "Grin and Bare It", has to match four naked men with the cars they drive using the size of their peises as the only clue. Big flashy car equals small peis, in case you don't get it. Helen guesses correctly that the first three men drive big flashy cars, and the studio audience is stunned by the size of the fourth man's peis - he drives the Mini The juxtaposition of the two key components to this advert are commonplace: drawing attention to male genitalia and women humiliating men.
-Ew, that's disgusting. And men have contributed to that myth as well.
For many, the very worst expression in recent times of officially sanctioned feminist hatred towards men is evident in the decision of the British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) to release the Film "Baise- Moi" ("Rape Me", "Screw Me", or "Get It Inside Me Big Boy" - depending on translation). This film was reported on by Chris Tookey, the Daily Mail Film Critic ("Is Nothing Taboo?", 23rd February 2002) in terms that cannot be improved upon.
- Ew.
"It is a French film about two bored [female] nihilists who, because they feel alive and sexually excited only when they murder people, go on a killing spree. And needless to say, there's no attempt to condemn the killer heroines [this film] invites the audience to be turned on by sexual violence. [In one scene] An innocent man is anally raped with a gun. The trigger is pulled while the gun is in his rectum. He dies. His killer and her accomplice enjoy a quasi-sexual thrill from this. But consider this: would the BBFC have let that sequence through if this anal rape and murder had been perpetrated by a man on a woman? According to its published guidelines, [the BBFC] draws the line at any association of sex with non-consensual restraint, pain or humiliation. Yet because the anal rape and killing is portrayed as empowering for the murdering woman, it has been allowed. There could hardly be a more revealing example of the BBFC's double standards - seeking to make a virtue out of discriminating against men Depressingly, the BBFC seems to have fallen victim to that idiotic form of political correctness which regards violence by men upon women as evil sadism, while violence by women upon men represents a justifiable retaliation to centuries of sexist oppression. As further evidence of its own hypocrisy, the BBFC has shortened an earlier male-on-female double rape scene. "The offending shots, which I understand are of a female victim enjoying her rape, were judged unacceptable because they eroticise sexual assault and have an explicitly pornographic dimension." So there you have it. The BBFC considers pornography to be more offensive than anal rape and murder - if the anal rape and murder victim is a man The prevailing public service ethos is that "women must be protected, men are fair game". Here we see the attitude of the state-funded regulator to sexual equality - not for men
-The idea of the feminist movement is that women are equal to men. Unfortunately, many women who claim to be feminists ahave strayed from this idea. These imposters have given true feminists a bad name.
Some of the "Feminist Remove" were appalled by this double standard. Mary Ann Sieghart of The Times was wrong with her headline, "Only Men Will Be Shocked (3rd May 2002). Many women were disgusted, actually. But she was correct when she referred to the scene "when a man is forced to pull his pants down, squat on all fours and grunt like a pig before a gun is poked up his bum and he is shot." She says, "For the male casualties, it was horribly degrading. They appeared passive and powerless. They never fought back. The "pig" scene was grossly humiliating, and had the sex roles been reversed I would have been doubly horrified." That's right Mary Ann Whatever-Your-Name-Is, women are twice as important as men these days.
-Women shouldn't be twice as important as men. Society today believes that women should be protected from humiliation and and sexual abuse but still aren't worthy of being given equal pay or being treated as equals. Our society is a walking contradiction.
In passing this film for viewing, the British Board of Film Classification is implementing a violent and sadistic feminist double standard to empower women, and punish men. This selective inversion of values to deny basic standards of decency for men is particularly shocking, because this gross institutional sexism is both intentional and self-satisfied. It is being imposed on men by a regulatory authority appointed by our elected government to act on behalf of the whole of society - and of course, half of the electorate is men. One cannot imagine a more vicious betrayal of so many people within an apparently representative democracy - but that's feminism for you.
- Again I'll say it, TRUE FEMINISTS DO NOT WANT SUPREMACY WE WANT EQUALITY
A hard-core of men-hating feminists has captured the media and is using it to destroy civilised values. One wonders with a sense of disbelief at the way in which this would be presented in an honest political manifesto by the labour Party: "Men Vote for us. We will discriminate against you. We will punish you for the unspecified sins of previous generations, and we will not tell you how long you will have to do penance. We might let you know." Clearly, a political party that honestly stated its intention to do this would cease to exist. So why does the Labour Government allow the media and its regulators to treat men in such a despicable and fundamentally undemocratic way?
- True feminists have no intentions of treating men like dirt. We simply want to be treated as equals in society.
In another neck of the media woods, there is the cerebral approach of the Radio Times to consider. You would expect a mundane service like programme listings to be immune from the feminist assault, but not so. The Radio Times is produced under BBC licence, and is therefore subject to public service standards, including the equal, balanced and fair representation of the interests of both men and women. Not a complex concept, but one which the editors of this publication find difficult to grasp. Take this example of a Radio Times advert placed in a number of newspapers (Daily Telegraph, 3rd October 1996): "Men think they can change the world. They can't even change the loo roll." "The role of men and women. Will it ever change? In this week's Radio Times we speak up for Britain's women." "Radio Times - it's not what you expect." On the contrary, it is precisely what we have come to expect from this smug suburban radfem outpost.
-And what's wrong with sticking up for women?
In answer to a complaint about this advert, Nicholas Brett, Publishing Director of the Radio Times said he found this "joke" amusing and "I hope that men these days are tough enough to take a joke at their own expense. He went on to state that the magazine was celebrating 50 years of Woman's Hour and among the many articles were contributions from Polly Toynbee and Janet Street Porter, and the "Loo Roll" quote summed up their feelings and "not this magazine's."
- The "Loo Roll' comment was witty, but offensive.
So there we have it, the sexist double standard in action. Men can take it If they don't like it - too bad. They were talking about Woman's Hour, a feminist shibboleth, so naturally, they allowed some man-hating feminists to take editorial control. That's OK then Nicholas, feel free to use a public service brand name to insult men. What did the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) think about it? "We have considered your complaint and the advertisement in question. In our view it [contains] nothing that is likely to cause serious or widespread offence." "In arriving at this decision we have posed three questions: will the advert offend the majority of people who see it; will it so deeply offend a minority that it is reasonable for their interests to prevail against free expression; [and] should the unoffended majority be prevented from hearing what the advertiser wishes to say?"
-Why would a man read WOMAN'S Hour?
These are quite permissive "tests", so the interesting question is how have feminist pressure groups been so successful in forcing action by the ASA against sexist adverts directed at women? The obvious answer is that the ASA and the Independent Television Commission (ITC) take the view that sexism is unacceptable, only if it is directed at women. It's that institutional sexism again.
- Again, Feminism has been confused for sexism.
This is a full-page advert in the 2002 edition of "Drive On - The Magazine for New Drivers" issued by the Driving Standards Agency (DSA) to everyone who has just passed their driving test.
"Girls Save on your car insurance. Just passed your driving test? You should call Diamond - a car insurance company created just for women, because at Diamond they recognise that women are better drivers. So why not give us a call on 0800 36 24 36 to see how much you can save."
-Women statistically may be better drivers.
Perhaps "Right On" would be a more appropriate name for the magazine. It is issued free of charge, but at a cost to the taxpayer of course. So here we have a public service agency running a sexist advert in a publication funded at taxpayers' expense as a vehicle to attack men - Institutionalised sexism again. Or to put it another way, men pay tax and the revenue is used by our own Government to insult us
- Yet again. Sexism is not accaptable.
In response to complaints, about Diamond Insurance and their sexist advert, this is what Christopher Graham, Director General of the ASA said. "When interpreting the claim: women are better drivers than men, in the context of an advert for car insurance, readers would be likely to interpret the claim to mean that women have fewer accidents and make fewer claims." The ASA Council concluded that, "the advertisers had substantiated the claim in the context of the advertisement."
-Sexism is bad.
Clauses 3.1 and 7.1 of the Advertising Standard Authority's Codes apply. Clause 3.1 states that "before submitting an advert for publication, advertisers must hold documentary evidence to prove all claims are capable of objective substantiation". Clause 7.1 states that "No advert should mislead by inaccuracy, ambiguity, exaggeration, omission or otherwise." See the full story on http://. Open-minded readers are invited to compare the sexism of Diamond's advert with ASA's finding, and the requirements of Clauses 3.1 and 7.1.
-Many ads ignore those codes.
Do the words: "better drivers" stated without qualification simply mean better in strict actuarial terms? No, of course they do not. They can be taken to mean anything from better overall to better in every respect. This is the sensible interpretation of these words in our everyday use of the English language. As a complainant said to Mr Graham, "The claim that women are "better" drivers than men is, in my view, not only unsubstantiated, but is also gratuitously disparaging of men. Does it mean that every woman is a better driver than all men, or only some women? Does it mean that there are no men who are better drivers than some women?" The fact is that women are not better drivers than men, either in overall terms or in every respect. You only have to stand in a supermarket aisle to know that they can't even control a trolley What's wrong girls, can't you take a joke? So Diamond's claim is not capable of objective substantiation, as required by Clause 3.1.
- Why are you writing 3 paragraphs about a car insurance commercial?
Is "better drivers" an accurate choice of words if the statement is intended to be limited to actuarial terms? Of course it is not. These words have been intentionally selected to exploit ambiguity over what is meant by "Better", to exaggerate female driving skills, and to omit evidence that mile for mile, men are safer drivers. This goes against the requirement of Clause 7.1. In reality, context (in this case an advert for insurance) is no excuse for Diamond Insurance to cynically do men down, entirely for commercial gain. Furthermore, it is completely unacceptable that this advert should be run in a magazine provided at taxpayers' expense to all new drivers by the government sponsored Driving Standards Agency.
-This is getting boring.
One should note the remarkable glibness of this, from Mr Graham in his reply to a complainant: "Please note that the ASA cannot take responsibility for the interpretation put on it's very clear adjudication by the media." Mr Graham is wrong, for two reasons. The first is that the only clear thing about the ASA's adjudication is the obvious bias against men. The advertising industry has picked up on this regulatory and institutional bias and is merely exploiting the lead given by the ASA in allowing Diamond Insurance to get away with a sexist lie. Secondly, the ASA has a responsibility to report on and faithfully represent its decisions in the media, and to correct any misrepresentations. It really is disgraceful for a public service regulator of the media to walk away from its responsibilities towards men in this way. The ASA would fall over itself to defend women if the genders were reversed.
Finally, Mr Graham talks about the ASA's "very clear adjudication", but the adjudication contains the following words: "readers would be likely to interpret the claim to mean that women have fewer accidents and make fewer claims." "Likely" sounds a bit subjective for a "very clear adjudication."
It is interesting, however, that newspapers have begun to report on a grudging shift in the ASA's attitude towards sexism directed at men. John Arlidge "Men Fight Back Over Sexist TV Adverts" (The Observer, 9th December 2001), quotes figures released by the ASA that show double the number of complaints by men during the last year, with a tenfold increase over the last 6 years. Claire Forbes of the ASA is quoted as saying "Public sensitivities have changed. What men may have regarded as funny or inoffensive a decade ago can cause serious or widespread offence today." She should have a word with Mr Graham. Men seem to be crossing the "serious/widespread offence" threshold as far as the ASA is concerned. The Director General will not admit as much in response to a direct challenge on a specific example, but as an institution, the ASA is gradually being turned. Actually, the ASA is receiving so many complaints from men that they are being forced (against their will) to treat men equally. Men's rights activists please note.
But what about the ITC? An advert for Pot Noodles was shown in the autumn of 1998. Remarkably (for what is nothing more than a highly processed starch product), it showed a young man in a prison being ritually humiliated by a woman. He was lying naked on the floor, and she was shown standing over him and whipping him. The lack of any connection with the product is typical of "sophisticated" marketing, in case you were wondering, but in this case, the whole point of the advert was to show a naked, vulnerable and pathetic man under the control of a dominant woman. The sadistic sexual violence of the image was gratuitous and extremely insulting towards men, given that the similar treatment of women is completely taboo
-Women are more likely to be raped than men.
In response to complaints, Simon Lane, Advertising Complaints Officer for the ITC (letter dated 8th October 1998) said: "Generally speaking, we have no evidence that viewers object to the use of sexual themes in television advertising. Also, where such scenes are played with the kind of light-hearted tone used here, acts directed at a man by a woman do not, rightly or wrongly, appear to arouse strong feelings on a more widespread basis." The ITC is thus describing a very violent scene (where a woman is standing on a naked man and whipping him) as "light- hearted". That's OK then. The ITC also completely ignores the point that advertisers would never show a woman being abused by a man in this way. The ITC is blind to the sexist double standard it applies to the treatment of men and women. Note the reference to the arousal of strong feelings on a more widespread basis, however. Are we playing the numbers game here?
In July 2000, an information technology company calling itself KelKoo.com ran an advert showing two men at a urinal, one apparently mocking the peis size of another man during an essentially private act. Why a company should seek to market its services in such a distasteful way is beyond comprehension outside of the parallel universe inhabited by the advertising agencies. Surely this would be the subject of a valid complaint. After all, the advertising agencies would never come up with an advert mocking the genitalia of a woman, would they? The response (letter dated 25th August 2000) of Ian Parkes, Advertising Complaints Officer for the ITC to one of one hundred and nine complaints about the KelKoo advert gives a remarkable insight into the politically correct values of the public services, again, in a regulatory authority funded largely by men.
"I am sorry that you found this material objectionable. We did receive a number of complaints about this commercial, but having investigated we do not believe we have grounds to take action. We are aware that some viewers, including yourself, object to or are concerned about advertising in which men are the butt of jokes. However, the campaigns we have seen seem to us less likely to undermine males' confidence in their place in society than if the joke was about a less well- established group." So the ITC thinks men should take it on the chin, because we are not one of the protected groups. Thus the ITC has a policy of discrimination against men. Has the ITC never heard of the Sex Discrimination Act requiring equal treatment for men and women? One would have thought (according to Mr Parke's laughably simple-minded logic) that women as a group were as well-established and robust as men, particularly in view of the Women's Movement and all of the legal advantages they now enjoy as a result of four decades of feminist law- making. There is no reason why women should be given special treatment by the ITC, but the evidence is that as a matter of policy the ITC protects women from sexism, but not men.
As for the offensive advert for Ariel Essential soap tablets (described below), Elfed Owens, Advertising Complaints Officer for the ITC (letter dated 21st May, 2001) stated: "We have received very few complaints about this advert and we could not justify intervention." If it is a question of numbers, then why didn't the one hundred and nine complaints about the KelKoo advert get a result from the ITC? After all, this seems to be a lot of complaints. But no. To paraphrase Mr Parkes: "Men can take it", and this is how equality is currently understood in the ITC, the PUBLIC service media regulator.
Colin Wills (Daily Mirror, 31st August 1997), contrasted the ITC's different treatment of sexism targeted at men and women. "It's the men who are sex objects now." Two decisions by the ITC, both triggered by viewers' complaints, make this abundantly plain. Forty viewers complained to the ITC about a TV advert for the "Impulse" body spray. This advert dwelt on the embarrassment of a naked male model having an involuntary erection in front of a mocking female art class. ITC verdict: acceptable innuendo. On the other hand, there was the Lucozade advert starring the Fat Slags from Viz. More than 300 viewers complained that the words "Fat Slags" would cause people to despise overweight women." ITC Verdict: complaint upheld. They are now just "Sandra and Tracy." In both cases, the ITC was concerned only with propriety: sexual in the case of the "Impulse" advert, and language in the case of the Lucozade advert. In its handling of these two cases, it was not at all concerned with applying equal standards in the treatment of men and women.
We can see that mockery of overweight women is considered by the ITC to be a more serious offence than mockery of male sexuality. Most normal people (ie the ones who don't work for the ITC) would consider the peis to be a more sensitive subject than body weight, but this just goes to show the strength of gender bias against men in the ITC. As Colin Mills put it: "Mollycoddling of women's sensibilities, while it's open season as far as cashing in on male sexuality is concerned." In an amusing criticism of the emerging "Full Monty" or "naked man" class of man- bashing advert, he goes on to say that on "some evenings the screen looks like it's been taken over by male strippers on a hen night."
It is tempting to ask just how many complaints trigger action. Forty? No. One hundred and nine? No. Over 300? Yes So for the ITC, the threshold must be somewhere between 109 and 300 - for men that is. Because the ITC's decision against the Pot Noodle "Slag of all snacks" advert, was based on "More than 30 viewer complaints, according to a report in the Daily Telegraph (19th August 2002). So 30 complaints will do it for the girls.
But where is it for men? What qualifies for the arousal of strong feelings on a more widespread basis - among men? Where do we cross the "serious/widespread offence" threshold as far as the ITC is concerned.
Apparently it's not as simple as that. How could it be in the PC Wonderland of media regulation? This is from an article in the Daily Telegraph, "It Takes Only One": (28th January 2002). "Only three of the cases during the past three months in which the ASA ruled against the advertisers had more than four complaints and most had just one. This maintains the pattern of recent years that in almost every case, it is enough for one person to find fault or to be offended to stop an expensive campaign."
Does this mean that the ASA and ITC have different policies in respect of numbers of complaints required before they are considered to be a true reflection of public opinion (ie. arousing strong feelings on a more widespread basis). If so, who is setting the standards that public service regulators apply on behalf of society (or not, in the case of men), why are they applied inconsistently, AND WHAT ARE THEY? Why the secrecy?
Well, it is because individuals within the regulatory authorities know they should act to enforce equality for men, but they are dominated by institutional sexism, and they are afraid to side with men. They refuse to publish the rules because they are stalling for time, but this will not stop the men's rights activists.
By the way, in response to a query about the ITC's policy on equal opportunities and staff recruitment, Frank Willis, Director of Advertising and Sponsorship stated (in a letter dated 6th October 1997) that the ITC's "gender balance" at that time was 68 (37) men and 118 (63) women. On the basis of a 50:50 ratio, therefore, men are under- represented by about 13. More seriously, there is a 26 differential in the presence of men and women. This under-representation determines the culture of the ITC and skews the values of the organisation, resulting in a systematic bias against men. In a statement published at that time, the ITC's Policy on Equal Opportunities stated that "It is the ITC's policy to monitor the effectiveness of its equal opportunities policy and constantly review it."
Well, what had the ITC done about the under-representation of men on its staff? In response to an enquiry, Rob Barnard, Director of Human Resources and Services stated (letter dated 13th March 2002) "The ITC remains committed to its policies on equal opportunities and diversity to ensure both equality of treatment and balanced representation." He goes on to say, "With regard to your specific inquiry on the gender balance [of staff], the ITC employs 178 employees of whom 103 (58) are female and 75 (42) are male." So, after four and a half years of constant review, men were still under-represented by about 8, and the 16 male/female differential continues to support a feminist culture within this public service regulator. Plenty of scope for the recruitment of more men by ITC, Mr Barnard.
Those familiar with public service regulation of the media will recognise the intellectual arrogance directed at those who make politically incorrect complaints about feminist bias in the BBC. Here is Fraser Steel, Head of Programme Complaints at the BBC, reacting badly to just such a complaint. "I have now examined several detailed complaints from you which were intended to substantiate your evident belief that the BBC has an inherently pro-feminist bias, and concluded that they do not. I note your intention to complain further, but it seems to me that any such complaints will be formulated on the basis of your own very firm opinions on this particular matter. In fairness to those who have bona fide grievances about specific programmes - whose concerns my unit was set up to address - this must, I think, be my last reply to you." (Letter dated 23rd December 1997). Then subsequently, " you are convinced that the BBC has an inherently pro-feminist bias, and see your letters as in effect a campaign against it. I believe my previous replies have shown there is no such bias in the cases you have cited, and I am afraid my Unit is neither equipped nor constituted to respond to campaigns." (Letter dated 19th March 1998).
If you make a complaint to the BBC, you had better get it right first time Politically incorrect complaints, particularly about feminist bias in the BBC are tolerated, but only for so long. You can make carefully argued, specific and well-focused complaints about different programmes, but if they are anti-feminist and they exceed a certain (unspecified) number you are accused of mounting a campaign and excommunicated. So much for open minds, enlightened debate and the public service ethos of the BBC. It has been banished by the feministas - or at least by the career-minded stooges who do their dirty work. Can you imagine Fraser Steel talking to representatives of feminist pressure groups in this way? Like hell By the way, how does the BBC respond to feminist campaigns? And why shouldn't an individual pursue a campaign if he wants to? It's those double standards again Fraser. The fact is that the Complaints Unit of the BBC merely asserts the cultural values of a correctoid metropolitan elite, far removed from its viewers and listeners in mainstream society.
In response to Sue MacGregor's interminable and self-regarding departure from the Today programme, here are some of the comments received from the public as displayed on the Guardian's Website (25th February 2002). "Far from setting the tone of the national political debate, it [Today] only really informs a small circle of London-based commentators." (from Tony Mills). "I listen to the Today programme rarely because it is so obsessed with its own self-importance. The programme needs a kick up the backside to communicate with a wider range of people than the chattering classes." (from Mr M Dempsey). Volunteers to do the kicking will have to join the back of a very long queue.
You have to do a double-take at the spectacle of media chiefs criticising the BBC for being "horribly white", and criticising the middle classes for "hijacking" the BBC. These are the bizzare self- hating phobias of two white, middle-class, multi-millionaire Alpha-Males Greg Dyke, Director-General of the BBC and Gavyn Davies, Chairman of the BBC. Here we catch a glimpse of the confused and hypocritical values that motivate controllers of the media. After all, they have taken full advantage of the opportunities available to them as a result of our cultural values. Having personally benefited from these values they now seek to deny them to everybody else. The Dyke/Davis cultural cringe was incomplete, however. No doubt Janet Street Porker will remind them to have a go at men in suits as well, next time. The Dyke/Davis cultural cringe certainly applies to men. No doubt about it, the BBC is a feminist domain, and hostile territory for men.
The institutional blindness of the ITC to the sexist double standard it applies to the treatment of men and women is also evident at the BBC and the Broadcasting Standards Commission. On 28th April 1999, the BBC Nine O' Clock News ran an item by Jeremy Vine from Johannesburg. This showed a group of naked young men being bound and beaten by a group of vigilantes in reprisal for the alleged rape of a girl. The news item lingered on this violent act and denied the young men of any vestige of dignity.
Not only did this transmission violate the basic human rights of these young men, but also it was symptomatic of sex discrimination on television, because the portrayal of the physical abuse of naked young women under similar circumstances would never (under any circumstances) be permitted on the grounds of indecency. Again, women are protected and men can go to hell. Compared with the icy lecture against anti- feminist campaigns in his letter dated 19th March 1998, Fraser Steel was much more comfortable talking about politically correct controls over TV violence (letter dated 1st June 1999). He defended the transmission, however, saying, "I do not feel able to uphold your complaint. Nevertheless, I am grateful to you for taking the trouble to write. Critical feedback is important in keeping programme-makers in touch with the concerns of their audience over matters such as violence in news reporting." He completely ignored the accusation of sex discrimination against men. So you can complain about violence, but don't criticise feminism or you will be in trouble Fraser has spoken.
Unfortunately for Fraser, three other individuals objected to the transmission, and the Broadcasting Standards Commission investigated the case. The complaints about the violence were given serious (if brief) consideration, but not upheld. Guess what? The complaint of gender bias was completely ignored. The institutional blindness towards men's rights extends across the ITC, the ASA, the BBC and the Broadcasting Standards Commission. So what exactly are the priorities of the television regulators and the BBC? What are the values they assert on behalf of society? Simple. There is swift and uncompromising action on behalf of women, and men can get lost That's the state of public service broadcasting and media regulation. Straightforward institutionalised sexism.
It is notable (in an overwhelmingly hostile popular culture) that the sheer nastiness of the relentless abuse of men is beginning to stir up some sympathy for men in the press. Advertisers are alienating men, and their clients are beginning to question this self-defeating approach to marketing their products. As increasing numbers of men complain about the way they are depicted by advertisers, it has been instructive to note the responses of advertising agencies, their clients and the regulatory authorities.
Here is Robin Young of The Times reporting on Tesco's attempt at feminist marketing: "Women Take Charge of the Wine at Tesco" (The Times, August 28th 2000). The big news is that Tesco has appointed an [illegal] all-female wine development team charged with making wine "more women-friendly", whatever that means. Perhaps they are referring to the introduction of screw caps (with instructions). Come on girls, you can take a joke
According to Helen McGinn, "pointless technical detail has been used by the wine industry to pander to men's love of complex subjects. It flatters them [men] into thinking they know a lot about wine production." Whereas, "women want wine which tastes good, irrespective of where it comes from." Having made men appear to be stupid, Ms McGinn goes on to stick the boot in. "Women park husbands in the wine aisle while they shop because they know that choosing a single bottle will keep them [men] occupied for at least an hour." Well done Helen, a true New Sexist.
Some idea of the sophistication and sensitivity of the co-ordinated media assault on men is gained from a subsequent article in the sister newspaper to The Times. Wine correspondent Joanna Simon, writing under the heading of "Girl Power" had also set up an interview with the mouthy Ms McGinn, obviously hoping to do her bit for the sisterhood on the wine battlefront (The Sunday Times, 24th September 2000). Unfortunately for the rather sad Ms Simon, what she got was the rather plodding explanation that whereas most of Tesco's wine product developers were women, most of the buyers were men - "So Tesco didn't appoint an all women team to buy women-friendly wines after all" says Ms McGinn. "We're certainly not binning CV's from men - we recruit according to skills." So the feminist crowing about an all-women wine team was just a lie. That's OK then.
One detects in this retraction the grinding of gears as a large retail corporation gets back on message after a public relations blunder. Tesco's inept attempt to jump on the "men are crap" bandwaggon had gone down like a lead balloon. Men's Rights groups had organised a campaign of complaints and some members even boycotted the store. Perhaps on this occasion, The Times had gone too far with its manhating "humour", because Tesco were certainly rattled by the response from irate men. Anyone would think that Tesco did not want the custom of men. Perhaps they were mistakenly relying on the good-natured ability of men to laugh at themselves (ie. outdated chivalry), but there comes a time when enough is enough and Tesco lost a lot of customers as a result of this bit of "fun".
This attempt at feminist marketing by Tesco was evaporating without trace, and Joanna Simon could barely suppress her anger at this lost- opportunity. She had set men up for another prat-fall, and here she was having to facilitate a bloody climb-down. In the end, she simply could not resist this parting kick at men: "And poncey is the last thing women are about wine. They leave that to the unreconstructed male." The bitterness of the "Islington Gender Warrior" in defeat is not a pretty sight. And judging by her photograph, neither is Joanna Simon. Sorry Joanna, but if you live by the sword you die by the sword What was that, Joanna? Oh, fuk off then
Another example of direct action on retailers shows the way forward. In March 2001, Procter and Gamble ran adverts for Ariel Essential soap tablets on two of the advertising industry's favourite themes: "men are useless" and "peis size". The first advert demonstrated a man's incompetence with a washing machine. In the second, a man walks into a kitchen wearing dirty gardening clothes. Two women are present. One, his wife or "partner" tells him to take his clothes off and put them in the washing machine. In the presence of his wife's friend he is reluctant, but she orders him to do so (sexual harassment), after all the other woman "has seen it all before". The man is then shown apparently naked (his midriff being hidden by a package on the kitchen table). He asks what measure of soap is required, and the women laugh at him, saying "only a small load". The final shot shows that the man is in fact still wearing his briefs, but the "joke" was the earlier clear implication that he was naked and the women were making a sneering judgement about the size of his peis.
This particular advert was quite simply an attempt by a major corporation to sell more of its product by pandering to women and insulting men. This from a company that boasts on its website: "we develop close mutually productive relationships with our customersa€¦ " "We always try to do the right thing." "Procter and Gamble people are committed to serving consumers and achieving leadership results through principle-based decisions and actionsa€¦".
They must be joking They seem to have lost the plot or they don't even believe in their own high-minded guff. Their initial response to complainants was to send out e3 vouchers for their products. That must have been what they meant by principle-based action When Men's Rights groups subsequently launched a letter-writing campaign against them, they recognised the need to get back in touch with the masculine side of their nature. February 2002 saw the airing, not just of freshly laundered sheets, but also a new advert for Ariel Essential soap tablets. You guessed it, a sympathetic and friendly portrayal of the man, who formed the central character in the whole advert. By the way, the notorious sado-masochistic Pot Noodles advert was also resolved without the help of the ITC, when the retailers cut the offending scenes from our screens.
Unlike the media regulators, retailers do respond to complaints about adverts that insult men. The targets for action are the advertising agencies who continue to produce adverts with a sexist theme and the media regulators who permit them to do so.
It is interesting to note that regional news broadcasts by independent television companies also send out strongly on-message feminist propaganda. Gender-based news items are frequently selected and presented in such a way as to favour women and secure feminist outcomes. In a top-down process, producers and editors who are likely to be "graduates" of useless women's studies courses use this process to force their feminist agendas on ordinary and unsuspecting people in local communities. Frequently, this involves advocacy to secure more resources for women (and fewer for men) when decisions are being made about the provision of public services and welfare payments. Breast cancer, single mothers and domestic violence are prominent examples of the issues used as feminist vehicles for the diversion of limited resources away from men. The perspectives of men are frequently ignored or downplayed, and there has been a marked trend towards the replacement of male presenters by females.
Perhaps this should not come as a surprise. The products of the academic reaches of the Gulag (women's studies courses) have to find their outlet somewhere, and they can't all work for national television companies. Remarkably, however, the bottom-up assertion of traditional values by ordinary people can sometimes be heard on local commercial radio stations. This tends to happen in the form of contributions to 'phone-in programmes, when the process is largely free of editorial control.
This is in sharp contrast to the carefully rigged public participation stage-managed by the control freaks who produce national television and radio programmes. The "Any Answers" 'phone-ins on Radio 4 are characterised by the politically correct editorial control of callers, and Jonathan Dimbleby's attempts to put prejudical words into the mouths of right-of-center contributors. One recalls with relish, Jonathan Dimbleby's obvious discomfort and annoyance when he received a call from someone with an opinion that he had not expected and disapproved of. Someone had slipped past his feminist gatekeeper By the way, can anyone think of a more self-opinionated, politically correct and censorious "facilitator" of a discussion programme? The quality of the debate improves by leaps and bounds when Michael Beurk and Robin Lustig run it.
It is clear from the foregoing that public service media regulators are hostile to the concept of men's rights. As things stand, they are trying to say that the number of complaints by men does not demonstrate the "arousal of strong feelings amongst men on a widespread basis". They also refuse to say what the significance threshold is, and whether a lower threshold is applied to complaints made by women. So it's over to the Men's Movement to mobilise the word-processors and to target the media regulators. Given the serious effects of the media assault on masculinity and men's self-image, peaceful demonstrations outside the homes of senior media regulators are on the cards. Remember the once regal family court judges, as soon as the smug comfort of their own lives was disturbed they rapidly proved amenable to reason. Over to you
Equality of opportunity is about equal rights, which most people believe in. Affirmative action is about equal results - a load of bollocks
In the next instalment of "The Media Assault on Men", Christopher Shakleton takes a long hard look at the way in which feminsits are using quota- driven affirmative action to gain privileges for women, and to undermine men's basic human rights. The chosen battlefield is in the sphere of public services, where institutionalised sexism is stacking the odds against men.
It could be a good read
Chris
IMP
Well all said and done, if you share my views there's a website you could visit which is hosted by a well known friend of mine, for MEN'S ACTIVATION RIGHTS' NEWS AND CURRENT AFFAIRS which is:
1) triple w dot mensactivism dot org
Another useful site, my friend adviced me about is by a group of New Zealand fathers which is
2) triple w dot menz dot org dot nz
or you can visit:
3) triple w dot fathers dot ca
or
4)triple w dot fathersforlife dot org
or
5)triple w dot cooltools4men dot com
Good bye and thanks for reading
- Shouldn't this be in the Battle of the Sexes category? And do you have any knowledge of the English language at all?
email Zach at: icezach at hotmail dot com
Submitted by EmoVeggi@AOL.com 60
Print this forward
Bored.com - Tons of fun stuff to do when you are bored. MakeWebsites.com - Free tools for creating your own website. LifeBets.com - Win a $100 prize by correctly predicting real life events. Free Stuff For Teens - Teen Freebies: video games, cd's, magazines, contests, beauty products, posters, and more. Only lists free offers that don't have minimum age requirements. SearchCactus.com - A search engine where you get money for each search that you do. Must be at least 13 years old and a U.S. resident. Adoptme.com - Adopt a virtual pet. Digitalfilms.com - Make your own movie online for free CheapFlowers.com - Buy flowers online for $29.95 with no extra delivery charge or other fees. |
 |