Violence Against Men, Hah, Hah, Hah...
I can laugh at a hell of a lot, but I find this chillingly, nauseatingly awful. In fact, I don't think I've ever felt so sick seeing a commercial, and (of course) I'm not talking about the sexy part, but the ending. Here it is, a commercial for Agent Provocateur lingerie:
Imagine the outcry if they'd showed it from the other side -- say, a man punching a woman because she burned dinner. Violence against one's partner needs to be unacceptable no matter what sex your partner is.
Here's a quick story in the Times of London. And here's a column I wrote about violence against men:
If your husband tossed an ashtray at your head, do you think he'd be describing himself as "Still So Angry Inside" or "Still In Court Trying To Get The Charges Reduced"?It doesn't take much for domestic violence against men to be taken seriously...usually, just a chalk outline where a man's body used to be. The rest of the time, people tend to shrug it off or even find it cute: "Well, well, well, she's quite the firecracker!" Granted, male abusers can do much more damage with their fists, but put a heavy object in a woman's hands, and good morning brain damage! (Just wondering...has your husband gotten the ashtray out of his skull, or does he have to hang around smoking areas with his head bent down so people have someplace to flick their ash?)
Oh, and ladies, should you be in the mood to burn a bra, please make it Agent Provocateur.
Commercialization meets misandry. And it was done by a so-called man. Oh dear...
Porky at January 24, 2009 12:54 AM
I noticed that the man in the commercial is pretty average and that she's incredibly hot. I'd like to suggest that she's able to get away with hitting her man because she's got all of the power.
Tyler at January 24, 2009 4:33 AM
I don't know who said it first, but it's gotta be true.
"I don't care how hot she is, somewhere there's a man who's sick of [her shit|fucking her]"
brian at January 24, 2009 5:08 AM
Ok, now that I've watched it, all I gotta say is:
"Bitches, it's on!"
Consider today to be the start of the campaign to officially eliminate Valentine's Day. This fucking bullshit materialistic misandric Hallmark Holiday shit has GOT to stop.
brian at January 24, 2009 5:12 AM
Lord what an annoying commercial on SO MANY levels. You know, I actually feel really sorry for most men on Valentine's Day. As a male friend says "It's a chance to get yourself in trouble, no matter what you do!" Word.
Monica at January 24, 2009 5:49 AM
Men choose to date psycho women, just like women choose to date bad boys. They confuse the fear with sexual excitement.
Besides, if she was all dressed up and he wasn't available to enjoy it, she could have just found another guy who had the time for her. It's her boyfriend's loss. There's no need to punch him, violence is never called for.
I'd agree that he'd put up with anything because she is way too hot for him and he knows it.
Chrissy at January 24, 2009 6:56 AM
So ... many ... things ... wrong.
First, the trout pout: how much did it cost to put the bicycle pump to those lips?
Second, I've never bought any but I'm going to assume the AP is expensive ligerie.
Third, the 'heavy breathing' is one of the worst special effects I've *ever* heard.
Fourth, and fatally in my estimation, he didn't FORGET Valentine's Day! He said he needed to do the work that pays for things like expensive frillies, cosmetic surgery and luxury apartments.
Finally, if that woman thinks her response was appriopriate, one day she's going to be with a man who's not going to take it and then she's really screwed.
BlogDog at January 24, 2009 7:11 AM
Nothing says "I love you" like plates and a frying pan thrown at you.
Chalk that on the list of things I won't miss.
DuWayne at January 24, 2009 7:14 AM
Disgusting. My first thought - so he had to work late, it happens! If they wanted to make the guy out to be an asshole it didn't work. Maybe if he didn't even call her and left her waiting while he was at the office. Second, this could have been a funny commercial without the violence. She could have just walked out and left him tied up to "teach him a lesson." And I'm confused: was this ad supposed to be aimed at men or women? All the sexiness seemed to be aimed at male viewers, who I'm sure were revolted by the end. If it was aimed at women, it would only appeal to man-hating feminists, who I'm sure to not buy lingerie.
Karen at January 24, 2009 7:25 AM
I found it boring. It's a lame attempt to capitalize on the whole femdom thing. It's supposed to be cute and silly, but really it is just dumb.
I also think you all are overreacting. But maybe you can make a nice "Killing Him Softly" documentary about it.
NicoleK at January 24, 2009 7:29 AM
Nicole -
"dumb" is no way to sell a product.
Agent Provocateur might get that shit to fly in the UK, but here in the US people are getting sick of the organized misandry and the appeal to idiocy in commercials.
I know I'm not the only one who sees a commercial for a product where either everyone involved is an utter and complete moron, or men are being degraded at the expense of their "superior" wives, and decides to do business elsewhere.
This commercial appeals to a small-minded bunch who haven't yet realized that they've lost.
Backlash is a bitch.
brian at January 24, 2009 7:37 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/24/violence_agains_1.html#comment-1622906">comment from NicoleKNicole, would you find it "cute and silly" if the reverse were shown? Part of the problem with domestic violence against men is this sort of thinking. But, read what I wrote. Women can and do batter men, and maim or kill them in the process.
There's a really, really wide range of stuff I laugh at, but this isn't within that scope. In fact, part of the reason violence against men is ignore is because of the way people (men and women) laugh at it. Violence, period, should be taken seriously. And there were plenty of funnier ways to end that commercial, like by leaving him tied up with a big boner and sexually frustrated for the cleaning people to discover. (When I worked at a big company in New York, one of my co-workers had Vera the cleaning lady walk in on him late at night while he was masturbating. Pretty funny.)
Amy Alkon at January 24, 2009 7:51 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/24/violence_agains_1.html#comment-1622907">comment from Amy AlkonAlso, if you have a partner who works late often, and is very tied to their job, you have a choice: you can leave.
I work a great deal, and am basically unavailable for anything on Monday or Tuesday, day through night, and during my writing day on many other days. If this was a problem for Gregg, he'd have to find another girlfriend. Likewise for the way he travels to Detroit every few weeks or so to work with Elmore (if that were a problem for me, I know where the door is).
This is a consistent problem in questions I get, and especially from women, who want men to change, conform, be compliant. If it doesn't work for you - leave.
Amy Alkon at January 24, 2009 7:54 AM
I liked it, a lot, but that's just me.
Eric at January 24, 2009 8:09 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/24/violence_agains_1.html#comment-1622912">comment from EricWould you feel the same if a woman got slugged in the end?
Amy Alkon at January 24, 2009 8:26 AM
Okay, what can we learn for this? The morale of this little tale seems to be "If you hurt my feelings, I will hit you". Not only this attitude is crass, but it's also a reflexion of a trend we are living now. It is my strong belief that women are given a "Get out of Jail free" card every time their feelings are "Hurt".
As far s I am concerned, this remembers me only one thing: Valentine Day is pure hogwash. That video celebrating the right of a woman to own a kept men by use of seduction or violence. Where's the needs of the men in this? They are nowhere to be found. The woman says "Mine! Your time, your cash and your efforts, all MINE!". The man answers "Yes dear." and put the money on the table.
I have a little theory about this video; it's a new form of romance tainted by feminism. For eons, women were kept in the house by social pressure. They were not to seek employment outside and they were expected to live from their husband's wagers. Feminism and a long overdue sexual revolution changed this for the better.
Now, men have no incentives to support a woman. Not only she can get herself a career, but men have learned how to cook, clean themselves and how to have consensual sex for free. This, I believe leave some women baffled. I believe there's a sizable number of women out there who wish to be "Kept" so they wouldn't have to deal with the stress of a job or the worries of dealing with the bills.
So this video is nothing but a romance for those ladies; A man dared refuse a whim from his kept woman so she get back to him with sexual deprivation and physical violence. What it doesn't address is the insecurity that woman must feel to push her to act this way. Do she got any bankable skills? Do she got anything else to offer in the relationship but her body? What did she tries to get back from him? Nothing is explained but the twisted idealism that men should be selfless beings driven by their libido to obey a woman's whim like a lapdog.
Toubrouk at January 24, 2009 8:38 AM
But it isn't the same thing. C'mon, can you imagine Ernest Hemingway having a problem with this? I'd rather get a lap dance and a swing to the jaw than have to listen to why I hurt her feelings by working overtime on Valentines day.
But again, that's just me. And it is make believe.
Did you read the thing the other day about the male Marine who got raped by a woman (he woke up drunk and she was riding his pony) and was traumatized for 17 years? It was on the Dr Helen link. Yeah, whatever.
Eric at January 24, 2009 8:45 AM
>> Where's the needs of the men in this?
Orange juice up the nose.
Eric at January 24, 2009 8:46 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/24/violence_agains_1.html#comment-1622919">comment from EricBut it isn't the same thing. C'mon, can you imagine Ernest Hemingway having a problem with this?
This prevailing attitude, even in men, is the problem.
A woman can hit you in the right place and blind you or cause other serious damage.
Amy Alkon at January 24, 2009 8:54 AM
Eric - I'll consider it acceptable for a woman to hit a man in anger when she's willing to take a punch in return.
Toubrouk - Since the second feminist "revolution", the easy availability of divorce, and the general "easiness" of women, women pretty much HAVE to have a bankable skill, or a very good divorce attorney. MacKinnon et. al. have accomplished exactly the opposite of what they set out to achieve. They wanted women to be precisely equal to men professionally AND socially. Now, any attractive woman with no other bankable skills is seen as a depreciating asset. There was a time when women could get by on their looks in their youth because social pressures would keep their husbands around. This is no longer true. Women forget this at their peril.
brian at January 24, 2009 8:56 AM
A woman can hit you in the right place and blind you or cause other serious damage and be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Obviously first instincts are to believe the woman, but in this day and age I would believe that the police and judiciary have seen their share and more of crazy women.
Damn- Gotta go. have fun today!
Eric at January 24, 2009 9:00 AM
Eric, I can deal with the nagging. I have a hard time dealing with the punch across the face. Physical violence only shows me that she's desperate or with a serious mental issue. Unless there's something else. Do this means that, in their couple, a slap in the face and a punch in the jaw is a common way to share concerns? If so, why it is not explained in the video?
Sorry for the orange juice but this video is clearly a "It's all about ME!" synopsis when the men can't say no, not even to his sexuality. I see nothing for the man here; no respect, no self control and no love. As if there's wasn't enough, the "Lady" use physical violence (a trait mostly reserved to men) to mark him as her propriety. Disgusting on all accounts.
I dint saw the video about the Marine but I can safely imagine what it is all about; the belief that men is ready to have sex with anything including a hole through the fence. When this perception of things will vanish, we will be able to really discuss male sexuality
Toubrouk at January 24, 2009 9:09 AM
I agree with Karen and Amy, it would have been much better if she had just walked away.
"For eons, women were kept in the house by social pressure." More like decades, but you still have a valid point.
My mother was much more violent than my dad. I had a belt taken to me once by my dad, but my impression was that he did what he thought was right. He never appeared angry. My mom on the other hand knocked me across the room when I closed a drawer on her hand. Not my fault - I was already closing the drawer when she stuck her hand in it. She used to get pissed at my dad and start throwing things at him. He would grab her arms till she was ready to quit. He never hit her and didn't use any more force than was needed to keep her from destroying things and hurting the rest of the family. A few days later, she would be bitching about him doing that, as if she had the right to trash the place and hurt him, and in general have a temper tantrum, and he didn't have the right to protect himself and the things he had worked for. One of my earliest memories is of my brother showing me this little hole in the wall, where our mom had shot her gun. He claims she was shooting at him.
I agree with Amy, this kind of attitude towards women's violence against me needs to change.
William (wbhicks@hotmail.com) at January 24, 2009 9:30 AM
--------------
Did you read the thing the other day about the male Marine who got raped by a woman (he woke up drunk and she was riding his pony) and was traumatized for 17 years? It was on the Dr Helen link. Yeah, whatever.
Posted by: Eric at January 24, 2009 8:45 AM
--------------
I read that a few months ago and yeah it seemed odd that it took him so long "get over it", but how would you like to wake up from a bender to being ridden by Rosie O'Donnel? How about Cindy Crawford but afterwards you find out she's preggers, hits you up for support but you never get to see the kid (and hints to everyone, in court and in public that you were the one who took advantage of her!).
There was a case in Alabama (iirc) where a guy was "sexually assaulted" as he was passed out drunk at a party. Long story short, the woman admitted to witnesses she rode him while he was out cold (no consent) yet she ends up with no jail time and the rape victim is paying child support for 18 years to his rapist, because you know its in the "best interests of the child" to have that financial support. Flip that one around sex wise and you'll see why some guys just might be a bit cheesed off at all the misandry going on these days.
As for the ad, if there had been no punch thrown and a plot laid down that he was a chronic workaholic... it'd be a silly, amusing way to sell overpriced frilly knickers. Instead its some silly female grrl power/femdom S/M fantasy deal. Where's my BVD/Fruit of the Loom ad showing some guy pimp slapping his woman for coming home late from the mall having spent two grand on new shoes and not having his dinner ready? Check out that JC Penny "doghouse" ad thats been floating around on the net lately.
Sio at January 24, 2009 9:46 AM
Check out that JC Penny "doghouse" ad thats been floating around on the net lately.
Oh yeah, that one too. Thank you for remembering this one, Slo.
once again, it's the whole "It's all about ME!" misandry theme song for a publicity advocating the right of women to own a man. Sick and twisted fantasy that will never see the roles reversed.
Brian,
You made a valid point in your last post. Yes, we are now living in an age when the attractiveness of a woman can be a hindrance in the current social mindset but we need to remember that human sexuality is a powerful drive. Regardless how deep social norms are implemented, sexuality will find a way to the surface in one way or another. This also leaks in the work environment. Laws about sexual harassment and the very abuse of those laws are a proof that sexual desire as a form of control do exist in our society.
The misandry card is played in publicity for a good reason: it sells. Why? Because some women out there still dint grew-up passed their teenagers years and see their PMS are a god-given right to be a complete bitch once a month.
Toubrouk at January 24, 2009 10:32 AM
I knew a very sweet guy who told me that a woman had once attempted to rape him. I was really young then and my disbelief must have shown. I feel bad about it now. I had certainly bought into the idea that women just didn't do that, weren't even physically capable of such a thing. His description of her smashing a bottle on his leg and leaving a huge scar helped convince me otherwise. Still, back then I thought his attacker must have been a freak of nature. Now I know better. The double standard is outrageous!
Debra at January 24, 2009 10:42 AM
Great ass on that chick.
The only problem I had with that ad was the faux blood on the guys face after he spit out her panties. Come on. That skinny chick couldn't hurt a fly with her own hand.
She didn't hit him with a frying pan or an ash tray so no, I don't see what the big deal is.
A guy hitting a woman with his own hand can do serious damage. It's not the same thing.
I can think back to a lifetime of lap dances and say that I'd gladly take a smack in the face from each dancer if that's what she wanted to do. (No doubt a few of them did)
Maybe in exchange for a 10% discount or a buy one get 1 free and a smack in the mouth promo.
It's just a dopy lingerie commercial. No need to blow it up into an international incident.
sean at January 24, 2009 11:05 AM
it's ......an.......ad. They're all dumb. The "Oh no mom, you only have 15 mins to get dinner on the table, what are you going to do?" hamburger helper ads are dumb, this is dumb, so what? That's why I have DVR.
momof3 at January 24, 2009 11:40 AM
Lame attempt to one-up J.C. Penny's.
Also, quoting chris rock, "I could never hit a woman. But I could sure shake the shit outa her."
The misandry is getting old. But consider who is A) creating these ads and B) who the ads are geared to. I 'get' the point of the ad, but the face punch was completely unecessary to stick the point; she could have simply said, "you could have had this". Maybe the point was to inspire men to get their work done ahead of time??? Likely not. (There should be a response to which the guy says, "sorry, i have to work late to afford your absurdly expensive lingerie...and now your meal ticket is revoked".)
This won't change. Men are not known for wasting rediculous amounts of cash on absurd trinkets, unimportant goods, and bullshit services. So as long as men continue to spend a great amount less than women do, the ads will stay the same.
That said, i would totally start a men's only cable TV channel. Spike TV doesn't really cut it. It appeals to the beta males and kids who live in their mom's basements. If WE/Lifetime/etc... can do it, why not have an XYTv?
farker at January 24, 2009 11:49 AM
it's ......an.......ad. They're all dumb.
Of course, Momof3, it's just an ad. This being said, if it was a woman getting punched, there would be calls for the boycott of the underwear brand across the U.S. at the second that ad hit the airwaves.
This is quite important for me; Mens can be punched galore but showing a women being bounced of the walls will generate a thunderstorm of indignation. Yup, it's just an ad that taught us how expendable is men in the eyes of mass media.
Toubrouk at January 24, 2009 12:47 PM
So what happened to the Smith report?
Paul Hrissikopoulos at January 24, 2009 1:25 PM
I agree, Momof3, most ads are stupid. But you have to admit, some topics are simply taboo: violence against women, racism, sexual exploitation of children, just to name a few. It's just sad that domestic violence against men does not fall into this category.
Karen at January 24, 2009 2:04 PM
See, this ad here is probably some young ad exec's idea of "edgy" and "hip". Which it isn't. It's merely a thinly-veiled attack on men.
You want edgy? Here's edgy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHcQkFADkv0
That represents the very first time I ever saw a 30 second spot for something and declared "I must possess it!"
Don't have one yet though.
brian at January 24, 2009 3:01 PM
What is this? The society of the perpetually outraged?
If you want to get mad about violence against men being portrayed in commercials take a look at this one. It's outrageous. Just be glad the lingerie babe didn't think of this.
(I put a link to a youtube video and my post got automatically bounced as spam. I'll try again without the www youtube com first part of the address)
/watch?v=ahYgLP3RNug
sean at January 24, 2009 3:50 PM
I didn't say I found it "cute and silly", I said it is supposed to be "cute and silly". I said I found it lame and boring.
Female on male violence is always going to be considered funny, because it is a biological fact that men as a group are stronger than women as a group, so there is an absurdist element to it. It's the reason why "Tom and Jerry" is funny. It's funny to see a mouse beating up a cat. It isn't funny to see a cat beating up a mouse because, well, cats ought to be able to beat up a mouse. And there are plenty of example of women getting killed in art. David Lynch made his career out of sexy women getting murdered, for example. Women getting murdered isn't usually portrayed as "funny", usually it is portrayed as "erotic"
Yes, of course, in real life it is sad and horrible when men get beaten up by women. In real life, men have social constraints that keep them from fighting back. These are terrible things, no one is denying that.
What IS funny is to hear you screeching like grandmas about this ad. It is tasteless, stupid, and boring. No need to get your panties in a bunch over it.
And to answer your question about role reversals, I find necrobabes.com pretty hilarious.
NicoleK at January 25, 2009 7:02 AM
SKREEEEEEEEEEEE!!! MY PANTIES ARE IN A BUNCH!!!!!!
That was to illustrate that I find it just as absurd to whine about what other people talk about on their blogs. If you don't like the topic under discussion, I hear Blogger AND Wordpress are free to start your own.
Melissa G at January 25, 2009 7:26 AM
Nicole,
This isn't about getting panties in a bunch. It's about normalizing that which oughtn't be normalized.
People complain about media influences. Commercials do impact the way people think. There is a large subset of people who look at commercials as reflections of reality, and not as the flights of fantasy they really are.
Thanks to gender feminism, there's already a strong undercurrent of misandry flowing through academia. Children are bathed in it from the time they start learning to read. Seeing supporting images of it in commercials that appeal directly to sex drive are going to have an impact.
Everyone giggles at the teenage girl with the t-shirt that says "I hate my boyfriend", or "Throw rocks at boys, they're dumb". Nobody giggles at the "iron my shirt" signs at Hillary rallies.
One of the many problems that result from this is a poisoning of expectations. How many young men will avoid relationships altogether because of the pervasive idea that they will be treated poorly, and they ought to just accept it? How many young women who don't subscribe to this poisoned view are going to be left standing alone into middle age because the men have just opted out?
This organized misandry has real consequences and real victims. And the pain won't be felt for at least a generation. And by then, it will be too late to fix it.
brian at January 25, 2009 7:58 AM
"....because it is a biological fact that men as a group are stronger than women as a group,..'
Takes the prize for cluless remark of the day. It is a biological fact that wooly mammoths were stronger than men. Clue for oyu, Nicole, humans use weapons na dhave been for several hundred thousand years. Bring yourself up to date.
As for that witless comment upthread about James Landrith, that man that was raped when he was 19 - that will begin to have some merit when we take the same attitude to women being raped. That'll be when we stop ruining innocent men's lives over false rape accusations and similar hysterics. Don't hold your breath
Jim at January 25, 2009 11:05 AM
I was thinking that if the dude paid for that house and those clothes she was wearing, she needed to sit her ass down, wait for him to come home, and thank him for all his hard work to make her life so damn plush.
Of course, maybe he likes things the way she did them, in which case, carry on!
Spartee at January 25, 2009 7:28 PM
I agree with NicoleK:
> Female on male violence is
> always going to be considered
> funny, because it is a
> biological fact that men as a
> group are stronger than women
> as a group, so there is an
> absurdist element to it.
That's a big part of it. Have you ever noticed that advertising, for all its desperate scrambling, is an essentially static form? There's nothing new under the sun. You can do a testimonial, you can do a pat little dramatic piece, or you can do a hard sell, and that's just about it. So advertisers take their (slender) insights about the wrinkles in our culture, and they work them to death.
But I also agree with Mel G:
> I find it just as absurd to whine
> about what other people talk
> about on their blogs. If you
> don't like the topic under
> discussion...
Exactly, exactly, exactly.
So this is kind of circuitous and meta. It's why I didn't watch the video or comment earlier.
Of course TV ads are mundane. Of course they are.
In the divorce 20 years ago, the ex got the nice TV. I got a small set that never got used because I was always working or chasing tail. When the riots happened I turned it on in the hopes that there'd be some useful information about what was going on out there. But there wasn't, so I unplugged it and set it out on the curb.
It's not like I started reading great works of literature, but your mind changes when you don't watch TV. You stop dreaming in 30-second increments, like a commercial. All the things people talk about at work (Seinfeld, Friends, Lost, 24, whatever) just seem hackneyed and dim. You realize how the shared experience of typical street conversation isn't all that you want it to be.
Nowadays I only see TV when staying in hotels. One pattern goes like this: I'll watch for a few minutes, and then there'll be a commercial, and the commercial will be truly funny and charming! It'll be like when you find a standup comedian that you like. Y'know, you'll say geez, someone ELSE sees that little slice of life, it's not just me. Maybe it's time to get a new TV.
And then the commercial will come on five more times in the next hour. And suddenly it's all offensive again.
No one in the world can avoid advertising. Not the richest guy in the world, not the smartest guy, nobody. But you alone are responsible for what it does to your own mind.
That's a big responsibility. It dwarfs your duty to be concerned for the impact advertising has on the Little People, the weak-willed zombies who are getting the wrong message.....
We had a discussion about this on Seipp's a few years ago. Young women who read women's magazines and get weird ideas about themselves or their bodies or men or working life have no one to blame but themselves. They brought that shit into their lives because they enjoyed being pandered to. Same with young men who are offended that the women in their lives aren't all playmates.
Yes; mass media come-ons are stupid. But no fair taking offense, and certainly not on behalf of others... If your time and attention are so valuable, why were you giving them away like that?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 26, 2009 12:04 AM
I guess I expected people at a blog that regularly tells people to have thicker skins, to have thicker skins.
Yeah, television is trashy. It goes overboard on sex and violence, and sex WITH violence. That's why I don't own one.
She didn't HAVE a weapon in the commercial. Just her underwear and her fist. And I agree that it was tasteless.
If that commercial upset you, never EVER watch a Passolini film. (Of course, the violence in those is co-ed).
Feminist bitching hasn't stopped violence against women in the media or pedophilic Calvin Klein ads. I'm not sure that there's much to be done against anti-male commercials, either.
NicoleK at January 26, 2009 4:46 AM
Beat me! Beat me!
Roger at January 26, 2009 6:00 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/24/violence_agains_1.html#comment-1623192">comment from NicoleKI guess I expected people at a blog that regularly tells people to have thicker skins, to have thicker skins.
I will laugh at just about anything, but violence against men is no funnier than violence against women. The notion is very cat and mouse that it is, but that notion is wrong. Women can and do serious damage against men, especially against a tied-up man. So while our natural tendency is, perhaps, to pooh-pooh the violence, I think it's not borne out by the reality of what happens to men.
This sort of thinking, that women don't really do damage, is especially untrue when there's a weapon involved, like when Mary Winkler murdered her sleeping husband in cold blood and got out of jail and got her children back. But, going along with the propensity to laugh at it instead of giving it more thought -- which is why it makes me so sick -- is what perpetuates lesser (if any) punishments for women for violence against (even murder of) men. This is real and very serious inequality, and if feminists actually cared about getting equal treatment for all, well, they'd be protesting outside the courthouse that Mary Winkler be jailed for life like a man would have been.
Get my point now?
Amy Alkon at January 26, 2009 6:35 AM
"Now, men have no incentives to support a woman. Not only she can get herself a career, but men have learned how to cook, clean themselves and how to have consensual sex for free."
From which reality do you hale Ms. Alkon? Allow me to point out a charming dichotomy: “motherhood” has been sanctified to the point where ostensible fathers have been relegated to sperm-donors & part-time caretakers at best and ambulatory wallets at worst. Ironically, modern society blithely also allows the same individuals to unilaterally exercise their "reproductive rights" 1.4M times (30% of all children conceived) annually (w/o considering the corresponding responsibilities) by aborting, committing infanticide, & outright abandoning their children for purely capricious & arbitrary reasons. This is perfectly “normal” behavior for the virtuous gender. Additionally, American women bring about 70% of divorce actions (the “No-Fault” Divorce legal movement was started by the National Association of Women Lawyers in 1960), have children out of wedlock at least 37% of the time, and are invariably “entitled” to subsidized housing, welfare, food stamps, child custody, child support, alimony, etc. Women are the biggest sexual/financial exploiters of multiple partners. Their near monopoly with respect to child custody results in women are twice as likely to commit child abuse & neglect. Then there’s the matter of abuse committed by non-biological parents/partners. It would seem, in the absence of evidence of abuse, that default shared custody would be in the best interest of the nation’s children. Unfortunately, in this current state of institutionalized misandry, when all things female are sacrosanct and beyond reproach, maintaining the consequence-free, responsibility-optional lifestyles of irresponsible women children trumps the interests of this nation’s children. They are their mother’s “property” after all. Isn’t gender-feminism wonderful?
caved1ver at January 26, 2009 10:12 AM
In the book “Death of Right & Wrong”, author Tammy Bruce exposes a pro-feminist paternal society in general & a legal system in particular that coddles dysfunctional women by rationalizing & enabling their misbehavior, e.g. Mary Winkler murdering her husband in cold blood and playing the “DV” card. In this current state on institutionalized Misandry (Men=bad & Women=good), irresponsible men are accorded financial penalties at best and prison at worst, whereas irresponsible women are coddled by American Society. Men do bad things because they are inherently evil whereas women do bad things because of exterior/interior “forces beyond their control”, e.g., CAPT Lisa Nowak, Mary Winkler, Andrea Yates, Debra LaFave, etc.
caved1ver at January 26, 2009 10:15 AM
Nicole: "She didn't HAVE a weapon in the commercial. Just her underwear and her fist"
A fist *is* a weapon, and a deadly one at that - yes, a woman's fist too - do you have any concept of how easy it is to actually kill someone with a fist if you want to? You don't even need to be strong or big - some of the deadliest fighters I've met are little guys. Your main advantage in hand-to-hand conflict comes not from your strength but from what is essentially the element of surprise - i.e. get your punches in first, and quickly. In any domestic situation, this is easy.
I think it's absurd to tell people not to get their panties in a bunch over advocating attempted murder and so on, but maybe you just backed yourself into a corner and now don't want to admit you were wrong.
Eric: "I'd rather get a lap dance and a swing to the jaw"
Yeah, easy to say now; speak to me again when you (or a buddy or family member) lost your/their eyesight or hearing or are hospitalised in a coma from a 'swing to the jaw' from a woman. You or Nicole will, I'm sure, think it's quite funny or "boring" when they tell you your best friend or your brother is on life support with brain damage caused by domestic violence. Right. When will people grow up.
DavidJ at January 26, 2009 1:06 PM
Spartee: "I was thinking that if the dude paid for that house and those clothes she was wearing, she needed to sit her ass down, wait for him to come home, and thank him for all his hard work to make her life so damn plush."
Problem is, there's a line of similar sex-starved chumps waiting at the door for her - that's the joy of what modern feminism promises: when you're done chewing up one guy, move on to the next. And the very act of eroding old values of commitment and partnership *results* in more men getting the short end of the stick, which in turn helps perpetuate the situation of the 'line of chumps at the door', in turn increasing the ability of women to get away with abusive selfish behaviour.
DavidJ at January 26, 2009 2:51 PM
Some guys like the smacking. Fighting and fucking are pretty close, emotionally. It can be great foreplay, for some guys. And girls.
Ex BF and I were fighting one night, I was smacking him on his arm. Cop (or rentacop, can't remember) saw and asked him if he wanted to press charges. He just laughed at the guy. Great sex later.
momof3 at January 26, 2009 5:48 PM
Good grid, Brian. Some company (which, according to Wikipedia, is half male-owned) tries to sell a product with an anti-male commercial, and your response is to take this as a battle cry against anything with XX chromosomes?
The really sad thing about this commercial is, who the hell is it aimed at? Self-hating men? (Men buy most expensive lingerie--that's why Victoria's Secret has those soft-core shows, gents; your girlfriend goes there for on-sale underwear, so they don't give a shit about her money). Or are they just hoping the notoriety and resulting publicity boosts sales?
mythago at January 28, 2009 4:10 PM
Contraceptives should be used on every conceivable occasion
British Swingers at March 17, 2011 2:46 PM
Leave a comment