Collected by Oral Adams
Since the 50’s, a lot has changed in way of women’s rights and their duties in and out of the house. I highly doubt any company could get away with phrases like “The Chef [mixer] does everything but cook – that’s what wives are for!” nowadays. Or how about an ad agency pitching a company an idea of a wife bent over her husband’s knee as he prepares to spank her.
I must admit, although these are sexist and not very appropriate (but still funny nonetheless), which would you prefer…these or the horribly racy ads that are prevalent currently?
Bonus: How LOST should’ve ended
Really worth a laugh!
I agree! This is hilarious. The funniest one was “Blow in her face and she’ll follow you anywhere.” WTF! lol
It’s not funny. It’s disgusting, and so is anyone warped enough to find humor it these images.
“1950’s household” is now a popular category of BDSM fetish.
Hi,
You have a point in that this stuff is not funny, but i am a woman of 28 years old, and i laughed when i saw it because what else can one do? it is funny, and thankfully most of the men i know laugh at this too, because these friends, brothers, family members would never treat me or anyother women like a second class citizen and the people that you ought to be mad at and accusing of being warped are the advertising companies and various religions for making it ok for women to be dipicted the way they are in these ads. you should learn to control your temper and wonder what exaclty people are laughing at, becuase it is the people who are not laughing i most fear, because they do not see a problem with this type of thing.
I agree with dendritic. (Nice name, are you a doctor or a biologist or something? 🙂 )
Getting back to the topic, it’s horrible 🙁 Really horrible and stupid. It’s not funny you know. I’m glad the world is a little less sexist now. Change needs to happen for our society to progress and I’m counting on it.
Shut up… its complaining like this that confined you to the household in the first place. No one here is suggesting this was a morally correct way to live. No, instead they are pointing out the ridiculousness of the past so as not to repeat it.
ew.
the good ole days
What's the problem?
What is wrong with you?
Warm and fuzzy liberals like Dr. Phil and Oprah have destroyed our civilization and sense of humor. No one is funny or interesting anymore. Everyone is a washed out clone of their neighbor trying so hard not to give offense they have no personality left. All that is left are “Stepford” robots.
Personality, or pride?
I just threw up in my mouth a little bit…I'm just thankful to not have been around during that time.
Douche with LYSOL?? wtf?
You're kidding, right? Although these ads can be considered funny now, and yes, today's “racy” ads are disgusting sometimes, I would never trade those old ads for today's. Those of us who are old enough to remember the old days, are very grateful that “we've come a long way, baby!” But that last, more recent ad, shows we still have a long way to go.
Ah, the glory days.
oh to have a time machine…
Go. Go now. And take all of your sexist, loser ‘bros’ with you. Good riddance.
Funny, I like those ads a lot better than today's, where men are always portrayed as buffoons. The feminist movement has completely ruined the dynamics of male/female relations. I guess I'm old-fashioned, but I think the 50s were a better time than today's insanity. If only women were content with fulfilling their duties in the home, instead of competing with men in offices.
geezer:
Would you be content fulfilling the duties in the home? Then why would you expect us to be? Companies who hire more women in the upper echelons of their offices are more profitable and efficient- so why wouldn’t they? The Feminist movement hasn’t ruined men/ women relations- they have merely changed them. Not all women like to work in the home, much like not all men like to go to work everyday and support a family. No one fits into a perfect stereotype, and it is ridiculous that you would expect us to.
Jobs exist to make money to support the higher vocation of parenthood. Liars have convinced young women that making money is more important than motherhood.
If only you would drop dead…
GO TO HELL YOU STUPID IDIOT. GO BACK IN TIME AND BE A CAVEMAN.
Hahaha. Dude wtf. You’re totally insecure of women being better than you… Well, they’re better, you know.
the good 'ol days…
make me a sammach woman 🙂
A ‘sammach’? Learn to spell, and then get it yourself, prick. 🙂
As Geezer pointed out, all we've done is trade one kind of sexism for another.
I completely agree. The only good thing about the ’50’s is the economy…post-war tranquility. The only thing that has mostly changed about sexism today is that women aren’t perceived to be as stupid as they once were. Regardless of time, men will always see and treat women with an air of objectivity Times haven’t really changed for the better, but in a different way.
Thanks. An amazing collection. The good ol' days weren't. Not for women. Not for anyone.
you sexist pigs are disgusting. how dare you think these ads are ok and want to go back to these disgusting sexist times? just because you have a penis, you are automatically superior???? FUCK YOU.
you know that comment was TOTALLY futile on this particular page, right? I don’t support these ads, but I sure do find them funny, get it?
You call us sexist pigs for laughing at a few ads, when you’re the one ACTING like a pig with a filthy mouth. Wow, telling us to fuck ourselves really showed us huh? And I don’t see anywhere on this page where it says “we have penises, therefor, we are automatically superior to women.”
And if you REALLY don’t support posts like this, DON’T READ POSTS LIKE THIS. It’s that simple.
All 3 of my friends and I laughed much more harder at YOUR comment about this post than the post itself. With that being said, there are probably MANY sexist pigs out there laughing their heads off at your comment. Get it? Screaming at us is literally like screaming at a bunch of actual farm pigs for them being their dirty filthy selves.
Men think differently than women, and back then, they didn’t have many laws and regulations to hold them back from integrating that into magazine and tv ads. But even though they have those laws and regulations now, NOTHING can take away our free speech. NOTHING. So I guess that left you free to leave us a comment that made this whole post much more hilarious than it already was. 🙂
Open your eyes child. You must be the change you want to see in the world.
Well said. Thank you.
Motherhood and raising children was always regarded as a superior vocation to putting food on the table. There is more mistreatment of women now than you imagine existed in the past. Women have brought themselves down to the level of men. What a waste and a shame.
You are wasting MY oxygen typing your inane bullshit. And, it seems the only shame here is for yourself (and ALL men, it seems) for being such an ignorant turd, and for hating women. Please die alone under a huge pile of newspapers soon.
I am a well educated 24 year old woman with a very good career thanks to a lot of hard work. I however am currently pregnant with our first child and am more than willing to let my husband be the primary bread winner and stay home and be a mother and raise my child instead of letting a baby sitter do my job. I gladly cook and clean because I love my family and my husband takes care of the vehicles and lawn, much more physically demanding those less needed so I feel it balances out. One of the hardest jobs a woman can have is dealing with a child and her home and it has always been respected though over the last few years it has been dying off as an acceptable occupation for a lady to have. Women should be proud of their homes and how they keep them and what they do for their families.
These adds are funny today. It is somewhat of an ‘are you serious, oh wow’ type of feeling and it seems the only people making a bad name for themselves is the women on this forum. Please stop with your hateful comments towards men and grow a funny bone please. You are being intolerant and unaccepting of our history and instead of having any pride in what we did then and where we are today. Quit being (insert offensive female term) and lighten up. Wishing someone to die, someone you have never met, on a public forum, attached to an page you weren’t forced to read nor was intended to offend you is in bad taste and does only to make women look bad and make men wish these were the days once again. A time when women were sweet and caring. So Doctress Julia, please mind your manners and your language and forget the liberal propaganda that is constantly fed to us and smile a little and leave the hate behind.
I agree. Just a well…raising children is more stressful and energy demanding than many believe.
This nation has come a loooooonnnngggg way. I must admit, I chuckled when I viewed these ads. But keep in mind, that was the norm back then.
Because they're sick of living in THESE disgusting sexist times, where having a penis is the Mark of Cain?
Oh, there was plenty of male buffoons in the advertising of the past. They just aren't in this blog post.
political correctness has deprived us of such clever ads, ah, the old times, when vampires sucked blood and not c0ck
I heard this guy, Peter Fusco on his show say, “Women wanted equality…they got it. Now they're off the pedestal and down here in the gutter with us men. Nice going, girls!” It was on http://www.windowstoliberty.com, but you can hear the archive at http://www.pjfusco.com. Hilarious.
Really? Really? I don't mean to be all….”what the fuck?” about this….But WHAT THE FUCK?
LMAO. Hey….you laugh or you cry, right? That's what Elizabeth taught me. WOW~~ how far we've come, how far we've come…. How far we have yet to come….
The best part of this is all the white dudes posting comments and crying into their beers about how hard it is to be them. It's people like that that are so scared of women that they have to live off internet porn. Wake up and get a backbone, boys. We used to be more sexist. It's no big deal.
How does “calling hypocrites out on their hypocrisy” equal “scared of women and living off of internet porn”? How does reminding people who say “those times were so sexist back then” that “these times are just as sexist now” equal “crying into beer?”
I thought “geezer” was joking. Feminism is not about man-hating. Men still have all the economic and social power. You can call us hypocrites when YOU get paid less, when YOU are told repeatedly that your only worth is sexual, that YOU loooove shoes and consumerism, when YOU account for over 90% of rapes, when YOU have eating disorders and hate yourselves letting doctors cut you and paste you into what you are strongly encouraged to look like, only to be ridiculed, when YOU disappear after 35, and so on and so on, ad infinitum, all because people like “geezer” and “alphalackey” have turned feminism into a dirty word, pretending that empowerment for women somehow castrates men. It doesn't. I love many men in my life, men that respect me as a person first and foremost, as I regard them.
If you don't know, you might start by becoming familiar with history. Real history, not the la-de-dah whitewash put out by, let's say, the Texas Board of Education. Though the good old boys would love to have us believe differently, today's sexism, like today's racism and almost every other ugly form of prejudice and discrimination in our culture is not equivalent to what the daily reality was decades ago. They were worse back then. Much worse.
The thing that has changed without a doubt, I'm happy to say, is that white males have lost quite a bit of unearned dominance and privilege. There is now a more equal playing field, and that's good for all of us. I'm happy to give up my “advantage” in exchange for more real relationships with people who are judged on their character and merit instead of their skin color or bits.
………….
(note: This is AlphaLackey, in case you hadn't figured; I started using my Twitter account to log in instead of going anon + email address).
Feminism is about achieving equality solely by elevating the status of women. That methodology is accurate if and only if only women are ever at a gender-based disadvantage in society. That was definitely the case in centuries gone past. That certainly is the case in many countries in the world. It is certainly NOT the case in today's North America. If you're going to say that “only sexism against women needs correcting”, then you are a hypocrite, because you claim to be opposed to sexism, but are actually in favor of pro-woman sexism.
Which explains how you can cite horrible science like the “Gender Gap” as if it was anything but a completely manufactured statistic. You do realize the UN doesn't even normalize by JOB, much less by hours worked, experience, education and so forth? You do realize that the US Department of Labor commissioned a study just last year that analyzed the ACTUAL gender gap and found that it was at MOST 5%, and may not even exist at all? You do realize it doesn't even consider fields like athletics, where segregation by gender enables female athletes to earn BILLIONS more than they would otherwise earn in the gender-blind meritocracy they claim to love?
When you account for the vast majority of murder victims, when you do 98% of the dying in wars, when you have no reproductive rights, when you can commit the exact same crime as a woman in the exact same circumstances but get a far, FAR harsher penalty, etc. etc., then you can tell me that men are never the victim of gender-based discrimination.
If men have all the power in society, then please explain how affirmative action only corrects situations where women are statistically underrepresented in a *positive* setting. How can you say that explicit pro-woman gender discrimination is anything BUT power in society?
I believe in equality between men and women. Equal protection under the law, equal recognition in the value they have as human beings, equal rights to open doors and choices to make.
I am the change I want to see in the world. I have never thought less of a female colleague's competence because of her gender, I have never treated a female competitor as anything less than an equal in any game (/sport, if you count poker as one) that I've played against them. I have never ascribed to the stud/slut dichotomy of human sexuality, because it's a load of crap.
I agree great strides have been taken, and I'm glad for it.
You've typed a torrent, but you're missing the forest from the trees. It's only been by interventions that we, and Western Europe, have progressed to the level of equality that we enjoy today. So it's not perfect. It's contributed to a world which is loads better than just decades ago. Even women in poor, developing countries have better lives because of the power of the idea of feminism. Even women imprisoned in cultures dominated by misogynisitic medeival Islam could thank feminism for some relief, if they knew it existed as an idea.
One of the interventions made was Title 9. Yes, there have been some bumps, sometimes really stupid ones with splitting athletic monies. But Title 9 has overall made for a better, stronger, and more equal nation.
98% of *combatants* may die in war. (Hmm, could that be because war is kind of — 98%? — a man thing?) Certainly not 98% of all *people* who have died in wars have been male. You don't have to dig too far to see that women and children bear the brunt of war more than men do.
One can hammer away in away at various dubious stats, but really, feminism, despite the failure of some of its variants, has been a huge success worldwide for me and for you. One can hammer away, in a libertarian way, at all the imperfections which have resulted by a zealous over-application of “gender-based equality”. But take a step back. We live in the context of history. History has made us. It's pretty silly to take a snapshot of today's inequalities which generally affect men and blame them on a mitigation to exponentially worse inequalities which existed in past generations. Not just centuries ago. A generation ago. Even today.
In short, you can quibble about details, and I agree that there do exist boneheaded laws which over-favor women, or non-whites over me. But I still like what has changed, and I want more. And like you, I'm a white male. Just think how the women feel. Or non-whites. Maybe ask them?
Glad to hear it. Now you're talking sense. 😉
Laws are put into place to ensure equality aren't concocted and enacted to protect against people like you. There are people with ugly, tribal, misogynist intent out there, and regulation is about holding them accountable to a standard that is as high as your own personal one. Imperfect? — yes. Necessary? — that's the question, and I vote yes.
With all due respect, we're going to have to drop the war issue, because I don't know which is worse — the convenient lumping of “children” (who are of both sexes) with women (which is completely disingenuous when comparing the fates of adults of specific sexes), or your opinion that being a widow is worse than being dead.
Actually, I'm going to add the third point. Yes, war is a man thing. And women vote for governments that send men to war. And women in that government directly vote to go to war. And women enjoy the rights and freedoms that are almost entirely paid for in the blood of men. And women stay home and label the men who don't go to fight as cowards.
As for Title IX, I agree that it has been important in establishing women's athletics, but you're missing the overall point I'm making, as I'm referring to the billions of dollars women athletes earn, and the only reason they can earn that is because there is a sexist institution that gives them something BETTER than the equality of a gender-blind meritocracy. Is it a necessary evil? Well yes, if you want to see any female athletes out there. Doesn't change the fact that it's an advantage women enjoy, and it's one of the weights on the scale as to how good men have it and how women have it.
I'm not going to debate historical perspectives as I think we both agree that up until very recently, focusing on elevating the status of women was the runaway surest path to achieving equality — although I WILL suggest that there probably weren't too many feminists on board the Titanic at 3 in the morning.. — but I will say that in the here and now, women have had their overall status elevated to the point that they enjoy many gender-based advantages; certainly enough of them that a philosophy of only caring about ending “(blank) against women” is an anachronism.
And although I mildly resent the implication that I don't have discussions on this topic with women and non-whites. Nevertheless, it's a red herring because our problems affect us in different ways. Women are fighting to have their disadvantages rectified; men are fighting to have theirs recognized. And getting people to even HEAR “yeah, portraying men as status-obsessed, perpetually horny, incompetent buffoons is pretty much as sexist and bigoted as portraying women as these quite anachronistic ads have done” without getting violent reactions and invented statistics is a challenge still a long way from being fixed.
But why are these laws only in place to protect against these anachronistic attitudes that are detrimental to women? Why are there not equivalent laws in place to protect against these anachronistic attitudes that work in favor of women? For instance, such attitudes as they relate to human sexuality are what account for the vast differences in sentencing for statutory rape — to the point where judges go on record saying “yeah, I let her off, and if the genders were reversed, I'd have given jail time”.
Where is the affirmative action to over-compensate in sentencing female statutory rapists until the historical imbalance is corrected? Where is the affirmative action to sent nothing but women soldiers to the front line until women are in Flanders' Fields in exact proportion that they are in the military? It's nowhere, because affirmative action is not about establishing equality, it's just a machination of an outdated methodology that believes the only path to equality is by focusing on how bad one group has it.
The sexism inherent in portions of feminism has to be addressed. Charles is correct, it became more about trying to gain advantage/concessions at any price, instead of about actual fairness. and since the movement based much of its dogma on the idea of the mind as a blank slate, many of its ideas were and conclusions were wrong. The old feminists denied gender differences, which only led to them mindlessly blaming every inequality on sexism. You still see it to this day, the stories of why there are not equal numbers of women in this or that field are endless. Personal choice is never acknowledge as a factor. The warren farrel book “why men earn more” is a good book explaining the actual reasons behind any wage gap, he was a founding member of NOW. btw. Things like the WNBA have failed because of the faulty assumptions of feminists. Its a great idea that they think other women would like to watch women playing basketball, but it turns out they really don't in practice lol.
The things like the gender wage gap were about easy answers, or ideologically acceptable answers. Most every issue brought up is that way, there is a lot of selective evidence to do this, but as long as you can claim anyone against you is sexist to quell debate, it works fine. That has corrupted the discussion and the movement. A knee jerk assessment of the prison population by gender where probably about 90% of the inmate population is male by old feminist explanations would be evidence that society/government is horrifically sexist against men. and that would be the only acceptable explanation.
Children are not men or women, they are male or female. They are bigger victims than men, who have more or less choice whether or not to fight.
And women vote for governments that send men to war. — No, women vote against things of war much more than men. When they'e had a vote.
And women in that government directly vote to go to war. — Since women have been voting (thank you, feminism) they've have had a dampening affect on warmongers. Golda, Indira, and Maggie were ballsy exceptions to the rule.
And women enjoy the rights and freedoms that are almost entirely paid for in the blood of men. — that seems a myopic, backwards way of looking at things. Do wars bring freedom? Have women been allowed in combat? Who profits from wars?
And women stay home and label the men who don't go to fight as cowards. — Oh, is that right. Women more than men have been more likely to label non-fighting men as cowards? I don't think so.
I don't know what to say on your Title IX argument. Are you being litealist and legalistic? Do you really, really feel that men should compete against women in collegiate sports? What is the point of college sports — to produce the absolute best w/o regard to the differences of gender? We are physically different.
There's always a danger of being overly-legalistic instead of using common sense and compassion. You can throw up arguments and exceptions to “prove” anything you want; that's why we have pundits on cable as well as ambulance-chasing litigators.
Your Titanic example is also not useful. The codes that governed who got on the lifeboats were ugly, and set. Women and children of the upper classes, who were First Class passengers, got fist dibs. There was no way to protest that, and it has no relevance for today. Those below deck included lots and lots of women — they didn't count like their “betters” because of that ugly thing called class. Why are class divisions a fraction of what they were? Because people fought, and died, fighting for progress.
There's no anachronism about caring about ending all kinds of blanks against women. Equality is now geographically and socioeconomically uneven in the U.S., and even more thoughout the world. Violence, for ex., against women is epidemic. That's violence from your typically bigger, more aggressive male of the species. What proffessional women have won in corporate or academic settings has not translated to every corner of society, as it should. Excepting, of course, the silly, over-zealous, idiotic edge-case examples, which should be named and dealt with.
Stereotyping men, yeah, it gets old. Often men act to type, as do women, but it is unfair. Is it “pretty much as sexist” as the ads in this blog post? It's a questin of scale and impact. It's one thing for you or I to have our feelings hurt a bit by being cast as Homers, but it's another to have your life options decreed by a deluded, self-serving, patriarchial culturlal mindset that tells you, for example, what to put up you canal so it smells nice for you man, as it largely was until recent decades. And still does, in the dark corners of our society and around the world.
The reality is, we're still on top, man. You and me, white men. We still have it made by almost any metric. And we don't automatically deserve it, we get handed it.
What are the stats on women raping men vs. men raping women? How big of a problem, relatively, is this? How many judges have said that? I think it is tiny–you can always locate a gotcha moment–and there are very few cases. How does this example truly negate the societal fight for gender equality? I don't think it does.
Not allowing women in combat somehow proves that society favors women? Equality doesn't mean that men and women have exactly the same capabilities, physical or otherwise. Flanders Fields was the mess of men. If women were in charge, there never would have been a battle. Do you doubt that?
Again, there are many ridiculous abuses in trying to make right historical wrongs, and they ought to be shot down, but they in no way invalidate the impulse toward making egalitarian as possible an historically very unfair world. It'll never be fair, but it's worth fighting for.
Women are a mafia with a monopoly on vitamin P, excel in manipulating others, are treated more favorably in the courts, and have fooled everyone else into believing they are less powerful than men. I am the only one who sees.
Now that was funny!!!!!
You're missing the point with my criticism of including children in the figures. Of COURSE children don't get to go to war. My criticism is that you are including them in your assessment of “who got hit harder by war”. Women are about 35% of the population, men are about 35% of the population, and children are about 30%. “Women and children” outnumber “men” 2-to-1. If something happened that had a 50% chance of affecting each living human on earth, 65% of the victims would be “women and children”.
Men have paid a far heavier price for war than women. Males have paid a far heavier price for war than females. Unless you're going to redefine “widowed” and “fatherless” to be worse than “dead”, nothing will change that.
Secondly, you are dead wrong about your analysis of the Titanic statistically. The survival rate for third class women was almost higher than the survival rate of first class men. There is absolutely no question that “women and children first” lead to women getting preferential treatment. http://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm if you want a full analysis. Women got preferential treatment in a life and death situation. Yet when the opposite happened at Ecole Polytech, it was cited in and of itself as damning proof of the latent misogyny in every Canadian man.
If you don't think fighting with the Allies in World War II brought freedom, I don't know what to tell you. If you don't thinking fighting in the US Civil War brought emancipation (the ultimate form of freedom), I don't know what to tell you.
The whole point of the Title IX argument:
* Athletics is a multi-billion dollar industry.
* If it were a gender blind meritocracy, women athletes would collectively earn billions less than they presently earn.
* Therefore, the implementation of a pro-woman sexist institution, giving them “separate but equal” arenas to compete in, is a substantial advantage.
I do like how you eliminate the key word “only” from virtually every sentence where it is important, but I'll put it back in and spell it out again. The anachronism is in ending ONLY the troubles that affect women.
Finally, I will once again point out that it is completely irrelevant even if the cases where men are disadvantaged are the minority, as it does not justify the tyranny of the majority. Yeah, we're still on top, unless we're going to a custody hearing, unless we're being charged with a crime, unless we're equally qualified with a female candidate in a government job that has female statistically underrepresented, unless we're collectively paying more into pensions than we get out of it, unless.. and so forth.
First of all, please stop deleting words at your convenience to remove my words from context, such as deleting the word “statutory” when talking about “stautory rape”. It is vastly different from “rape” as you know full well you are using the term.
What are the offense rates for statutory rape? I have no idea. How many judges have gone on record? Does it matter when an exhaustive analysis shows that gender is a bigger predictor in sentencing bias than race?
Does it matter if men are physically stronger soldiers? Did it matter that men were physically stronger firefighters? No, they still lowered entrance requirements so more women could be fire fighters.
And this is what you are glossing over:
None of this reasoning matters in the least when it comes to affirmative action. Affirmative action is justified entirely by a statistical disparity. Where women are statistically underrepresented, it is due to sexism, therefore the requirements are to be lowered in order to compensate for “obvious” sexism.
Your so forth doesn't add up to a lot. That is my point. We are on top in almost every way. I don't mind mitigation, as long as it's not over the top. When it is, it needs to be stopped.
I think your exasperation comes from getting lost in realatively minor arguments — minor compared to the much larger pattern. I believe you are missing the big picture for the exeptions and boneheaded applications of legislation. I think it's good to zoom out the binoculars for a wider view and see that, as I said, you and I generally have it made. Maybe less than the bad old days, but compared to others, we were born on third base. Can you accept that?
I beleive you are missing my point on women and children and war. Women and the children don't choose war. They don't get to choose. Historically it's they who get wiped out by war and its companions disease, rape, poverty. And by and large, with some small exceptions, it's male leaders who choose wars. Hopefully that will change as we get mothers in the leadership picture more.
And don't get lost in the numbers, I'm not referring to meaningless percentages which have no context. Yes, men die in war in greater #'s than children or women *as combatants*. Yep — women and children rarely fight in war, so how can they die in equal #'s *as combatants*. And by the way, it's a good thing they don't fight. Maybe if that catches on the jerks who start the wars will have a harder time making cannon fodder of ordinary people. The real question should be why are there so many useless wars, and the answer historically had largely had to do with plans of rich *men* to get richer. That includes the Southern planters in the Civil War. And while the Civil War freed the slaves, all historians will point to Lincoln's own writings and a whole lot of evidence to show that this was only a side-effect of that war, not its cause or necessary conclusion. WWII also had a very big economic component — do you disagree? I agree that in big picture we had to fight that war, of course. But the lead-up was very avoidable. And again, pretty much all-male thing in the making.
My partner is a heathcare provider who is feels equal with her male collegues in almost every way. Treated according to her abilty, she's thriving in her occupation. The older guys sometimes have a problem with people like her, but no one else does. A generation ago this would have been impossible. A generation or two ago there wasn't a huge percentage of white men demanding that their unearned privilege and status be shared with others, or complaing about the tyranny of the majority, which benefitted them.
Now women make up 54% of med school students, last I heard. Is this another “fact” for you to say that “The Woman” is keeping you down, or is this because of a combination of pent-up desire and demand, plus an evolving, more mature society which accepts more than Dr. Welby when they think of doctors, plus, yes, increased opportunity and advantages for this segment of the population, among others, that has been under-represented, indeed *discriminated against* in so many way for as long as medicine has been around.
This attitude change has happened in fits and starts from the work of lots of people. The results have been mostly fantastic, but there are problems, which you are very aware of. You seem to be completely focused on the problems without recognizing that the innate, pervasive sexism of the ages was hugely more damaging to women than the examples of sexism towards men that you are angry about could ever be. Where's the proportionality? Give it a generation, it'll iron itself out. We got a black guy as Prez, and a woman as runner-up. Good times.
Re: the “facts” of the Titanic, you missed my argument completely. 60% of First Class passengers survived, only 24% of Third Class did, according to my pal Wiki. That's the biggest takeaway from the Titanic, not the fact that more First Class women survived. The “Women and Children First” mentality among the British stuffocracy in Edwardian times may have benefited women and children on a sinking boat, but that was about the only time it was advantageous to have ovaries in that period. Are you saying that in the good old days women had it better? The warped Chivalric code that expressed itself to the benefit of upper class women on that cold night in the Atlantic was a rare tangible benefit from the mindset that epitomized the virgin/whore dichotomy that you reject. The lesson of the lifeboats is that wacked-out social conventions produced wacky results under stress. Under-utilized and unused boats. The orchestra playing, and “Being British” as the ship nosedived. Just the fact of a big long metal tube thrusting through icebergs and all that. Kind of the major example of arrogance of the era.
I don't know about your Ecole story. We only get 'Merican news down heah. What is the major societal pattern you believe it illustrates? Some especially-wigged feminist blowhards claimed it was “damning proof of the latent misogyny in every Canadian man”? Yes, that obviously a reach. Let them cite and vent, it doesn't mean you are being persecuted in a big way for being a man.
Your Title IX arguement is academic, and reductionist. It misses the point.
What I'm saying is that you can find stats, bits of data, or anecdotes that will tell you anything you're ready to hear. But if you think for a moment that women in this world have now, or have ever had in the past more advantages, a cushier existence, or overall preferential treatment, then I would say you need to get out more. You can find plenty of exceptions, but the reality is overwhelmingly we both have really got it made in the shade by showing up white with nuts. What do your women friends and your non-white friends actually think?
The world could use more women in all proffessions. Making that happen shouldn't be blatantly discriminatory to men. But if you over-focus on the problems and generalize them to the whole enterprise you'll miss that the beautiful thing that is happenning now — that girls for the first time are getting a chance to choose, a chance to have some advantages, a chance they've never in history have had. I hope it spreads to the House of Saud. I'm sure Abdullah will be pissed as well.
No, whether its rape or statuatory rape doesn't matter–the question remains, how big an issue is it? The fact that analysis shows sometimes men are gettting screwed is of itself insufficent to prove the larger thesis you're putting forward. It's a “gotcha”, not the prevalent societal norm. There are many stories of people, usually white men, getting screwed by affirmative action programs. I've got a couple about myself. There are some tough situations, and *some* decisions that really aren't fair. And men often get the short end in child custody court decisions — I have a couple of acquaintaces with really bad stories, and I've heard and read of others. It's not good that in the past 30 years *some* excesses and stupidities have led to *some* crazy-ass situations which have hurt white males. The way, way bigger fact is that throughout human history women have gotten screwed much worse in every kind of way. Ginger Rogers had it right.
Re: sentencing, I haven't seen or heard of your study–how sophisticated is it? Does it factor in severity, violence, attitude, motherhood, repeat offences. Or is it simple and simplified? I don't know, but I'm interested.
Nope, doesn't matter that males are stronger for soldiering. Except when it does, and that's just a percentage of units. You don't see many females in special forces, for good reason. Supply clerks and medics, submarine crew and helicopter pilots don't need to be males. Common sense, I think.
If there's a basic level above which anyone can do the job, then it makes sense to adapt standards. I don't know what people in the field think that level should be. I'm vaguely aware that there have been some boneheaded decisions about firefighter re: lowering standards. I don't agree with that.
Like I say, affirmative action can often be wrong-headed. It served a purpose. Even Clarence Thomas wouldn't have gotten where he is today without it. Come to think, he's the best argument against it.
http://tinyurl.com/2uyyjt6 is a good place to start, refers to a few studies done fairly recently. The most recent one I have seen is by Katherine Beckett and Alexis Harris. I do not have a cite handy and it's getting late, but I can tell you the methodology was the same as others referred to above — normalize by crime, normalize by upbringing, normalize by other demographic factors, and measure the variance.
It sounds like we agree on two points:
* Historically, up until very recently in North America, women have been extremely marginalized.
* Currently, women are close enough in status that there exist a number of meaningful ways in which men are at a gender-based disadvantage.
I think it's agreed that men are better at being front-line soldiers, just like men are better at being firefighters. So why does affirmative action make it easier for a woman to be a firefighter but does not make it easier for a woman to be a front-line soldier?
.. and actually, I think the best argument against affirmative action is that scholastic admission programs actually affect minorities far more than they affect whites. Asians bear over four times as much the “cost” of race-based scholastic affirmative action — that is, for every one white displaced by a less qualified minority, four Asians are displaced by less qualified minorities. Yet, because it is “elevating the status of minorities”, it is considered valid. No one seems to care that it's not doing the job it was sent out to do.
Too bad there are still 'sexists' running loose, more than we know of. It's sad ….
But, at least the uses for of the product was true…. the 'Lysol' was red…… !
My biggest issue with the “feminist” movement is its divergence from its intent. The goal was to give women a choice in how they lived thier lives. Today, so many people forget that and women who chose a domestic path catch flack for it. But then again, that may be fair, because I'm more than willing to hand a dose of disrespect to any “man” that choses to be a housemouse.
Aaaah the vintage days. I wish we were still back to these days. (For the record as well… I am a 26 y/o female. Not a male or even old enough to remember these days. But I do think they were better.)
Then you are obviously delusional. Nostalgia for a time when you didn’t exist, and therefore have no idea what the reality was? Idiot.
How can that possibly work? The total number of jobs in the market is a fixed sum at any given time. By definition, approving of women in the workforce requires approving of men as homemakers.
you people are rediculous xD arguing with each other over something that happened so long ago XDD get a fucking life. this was posted for humor, not debate. take a breath, relax, and learn to laugh a little!
Sad and insulting to men and women.
This comment is in response to Charles Mousseau's second response to Golda Matthias. (But for some reason wouldn't attach as a reply, so here you go.)
Before I comment, I would like to thank you for trying to be fair and balanced, but you say that you are the change that you would like to see in the world (which is a rather…big…statement to make), and while I think you've got a lot of very positive ideas, I don't think that you're taking any responsibility for your part in making, and keeping, the inequality between the sexes. I'm not saying that women don't play a role in perpetuating their own inequality too, but that's a completely different idea. This one is about men.
I don't think the point that men never suffer as a result of sexism (which does NOT just apply to women) is going to be argued by anyone. Of course men do come up on the negative side of some gender-centric issues.
But it seems like our definitions of feminism are different. Feminism, as I understand it, is NOT about achieving equality solely by elevting the status of the woman. On the contrary, feminism is about redistributing the balance of power (yes, that means men will have to give up some of their power), to make both sexes equal. That's why many men find is so uncomfortable. Feminism insists that women have been oppressed by a flawed system that places one gender over the other based solely on biologic characteristics and incorrect assumptions based on those characteristics. I think we can agree on that. I realize that most men do not wake up in the morning and think “I'm going to oppress women today,” but the point is that they don't have to. Men participate in a system that gives them special privileges just for being male. A male friend went to the grocery store with his kids on his day off and a woman remarked “Oh, is this daddy's day out with the girls? It's so great that you're spending time with them.” Would ANYONE have congratulated his wife for spending time with her daughters by taking them to the supermarket, or call it a day out? It's doubtful–she is expected to spend time with her daughters, and when you get right down to it, it looks like he's not. He's rewarded for it, as if he's doing them some kind of special favor by shopping and being with his kids. …Because that's women's work? These idea still exist. No one says them out loud, of course, but they're still there. We're made progress with women's rights as a society, but we haven't come as far as most people would like to think.
Now, to address your examples of male gender-based discrimination: yes, many men are effected by gender-based discrimination, but in most situations they have become victims of their own system and ideas regarding women. Court appointed custody of kids after divorce is a great example. I don't understand why I'm expected to mourn that men have less right in ocurt to their children because the system created by those in power (who were, for the record, usually and often exclusively, men) heaped all responsibility for children on women and mothers. Men expected women to care for their kids and so engrained that idea into public opinion that now they are denied a (I think) rightful equal claim. A man can take care of a child just as well as a woman can, and vice versa. Men are the victims, but can you really blame women for that?
The point of all this is that “women's work” and “men's work” should not exist, which I think you would agree with. Right now, men are given privileges just for being men in much the same way that a member of the dominant race in an area is given special privileges for being from that race. I'm not saying that it's easy to find ways around these–it's hard. You can't just say to an interviewer in a largely caucasian area: “Hey, don't view me as a white male, okay?” But the point is that you don't have to. Because other people can't say “Hey, don't view me as ______ and apply to me all the stereotypes and assumptions you've accumulated from our culture about people of my sex/ethnic group, okay?”
Men just have more power in this society, and to have true equality, men are going to have to give up some of those automatic privileges for a shift in public opinion to happen. Because those privileges shouldn't exist in the first place. The problem all this is, people (men AND women) cling to power like mad and try to discredit, subordinate, or otherwise crush anyone who would try to take it away from them. And so we end up threads like this.
These were appropriate for the era in which they were written. How does that equate to sexist, since this was the norm at that time?
Hello Barbara,
I stand by my claim that I am the change I want to see in the world. Every time I assess a woman or a man in a professional setting, I do so in a gender-blind, merit-centered way. I have no tolerant for sexist attitudes or double standards, and employ none myself, save those that are required for biology. If they must be separate, I would insist on separate but equal as best as possible. For instance, I believe I can live with the notion of “gender segregated bathrooms” 🙂 as long as they both meet the needs of their respective genders.
I agree that virtually everyone has at least some notion that men also suffer from sexism. The challenge is in convincing people that A) it's serious and B) it needs attention and fixing too.
The reason why you are supposed to “mourn” (not really the right word) the advantages women have in custody hearings is precisely the one you stated — they are the result of archaic, sexist attitudes. If you were truly opposed to overthrowing these sexist attitudes, you would be just as willing to overthrow the ones that are to your advantage as you are to overthrow the ones that are to your detriment. Yet ever more than being apathetic towards them, NOW is virulently fighting AGAINST efforts to overthrow this particular sexist attitude. If feminism is about equality, why would NOW be so up in arms against shared parenting legislation, something as simple and as egalitarian as saying “if both parents are fit parents, the default is joint custody”
This is why I brought up the Titanic example. Even in a FAR more misogynistic and sexist time, there was a specific circumstance where the sexist attitudes of the time just so happened to work in favor of women. And how did they react? “Votes for women” changed to “boats for women!” in a big hurry.
We've gone a long way since a century ago. Back then, women had so few privileges as a result of the sexist culture, focusing entirely on elevating the status of women at any cost and by any means was surely the best way to work towards equality.
Today, in North America, in the here and now, women have enough power that focusing only on striking down the sexist attitudes that are to their detriment is inefficient, as women are more than happy to not just cling to the existing sexist attitudes that are to their advantage, but to further exploit them.
For example:
There was a time where poker was a gender neutral game; in fact, no competitor is at a biological disadvantage due to gender. There is no upper body strength element, only intellect, cunning, guile and nerves. Women can compete as equals on a level playing field. The very picture postcard of a gender-blind meritocracy.
Yet, in recent years, there has been a strong drive to segregate it by gender.
Who was behind that drive? Women.
Why? Because there's lots and lots of money to be made exploiting sexist attitudes, money that they couldn't make simply playing poker.
Of course, tournament promoters were all too happy to play along and share in the rewards, so everybody wins, right? Yeah, everybody except unattractive but talented middle-aged female poker players who want to be judged on their talent instead of on their appearance, and men who treat female poker players as equals and only ask in return to have the same opportunities as them. And what do they matter, right?
Well, I'm guessing that if they were appropriate for a much more sexist era, they would certainly be considered sexist by the modern zeitgeist. Of course, taking things out of historical context is dangerous; after all, the USA has a slave owner on the $2 bill.
these ads are great, way better then a bunch of hussies selling useless garbage.
how about you go shave your legs and make me a chicken pot pie woman, get over yourselves, get your panties untied and the sand out of your vagina, we let you learn to read, vote, drive, and work, what more do you want? i suppose you still want men to open the door for you, well you can get your own door with an attitude like that. Btw, we don't think we are superior, we know we are superior, theres a huge difference, hell, we let the black guy be president over a woman, so whats that show you?
how about you go shave your legs and make me a chicken pot pie woman, get over yourselves, get your panties untied and the sand out of your vagina, we let you learn to read, vote, drive, and work, what more do you want? i suppose you still want men to open the door for you, well you can get your own door with an attitude like that. Btw, we don't think we are superior, we know we are superior, theres a huge difference, hell, we let the black guy be president over a woman, so whats that show you?
I'd take a fair wage and equal rights over a pedestal one hundred percent of the time.
Of course you thought the 50s were better. It was easier for you if women were subservient. Turn the tables, would you like that role? Stay at home and let society treat you like a delicate simpleton whose life role is procreation, child rearing, cooking, cleaning, and pleasing your spouse?
Fact is, most married women today still do those things AND have a job or career.
And remember, advertising today is still run by men. If you don't like the ads, you have your own gender to blame.
Right, it's not the political pressure from women who make it nigh unto a felony to portray women in a negative light, it's men who respect those hyper-sensitive standards that are to blame.
Hilarious. Loved it. Everyone offended should quit being so sensitive. Laugh at the past. Its over.
What man would buy pants called “Mr. Leggs”?????????
A fabulous one?
You didn't burn the beer! Hahaha!
Really funny, but I feel bad for any woman in that era. 🙁
Some women would still like to live where they tend to the needs of a man who provides for them, but the key point is, that should be a CHOICE, not a role forced on them.
There was a popular notion that dilute Lysol worked as a spermicide.
Too awesome and funny!!
Reading just half of the comments below shows me we have NOT come a long way. Women are not equal, not yet, not by any means and we should be. When one part of humanity is held back, insulted, denigrated, despised, it hurts us all. We should all be ashamed these ads were ever run, ever used. And we should be even more ashamed there was even one chuckle, one giggle, even one longing for the good old days, one shred of a feeling of sentimentality. These ads were and are hideous, disgusting, hateful and so very sad.
Shelly,
first of all, let me applaud you for having the courage to speak in the very same gender-neutral tone that is both expected of, and produced by, enlightened members of the avant-garde edge of today's society.
I couldn't agree more — in the modern light of today's zeitgeist, these ads were (and are) hideous, disgusitng, hateful, and so very sad.
On the other hand, I couldn't disagree more with your claim that we have NOT come a long way since the 50s.
Off the top of my head, in the 50s, it was believed that men were SO superior to women that a male senior citizen could beat the #1 women's tennis player. In modern times, we would look at Bobby Riggs' 6-4, 6-4, 6-3 loss to Billy Jean King as the shattering of that myth. Of course, we would have to consider that BJK was in the prime of her career in her early 30s, and Bobby Riggs was 55 years old, and in the prior year, Riggs (at the sprightly age of 54, I suppose) beat that year's #1 women's tennis player (Margaret Court) 6-2, 6-1, and that a male senior citizen had a lifetime 23-21 games won record against the best female player at the time..
.. but none of that mattered in the 50s, when the fact that ANY woman could beat ANY man at a physical sport was a newsworthy event that dominated Time and Sports Illustrated for two straight years.
Yet today, we live in a world where all but the most.. “activist”.. among men and women are prepared to accept their opposite numbers at face value and NOT as gender stereotypes. The grand struggle of feminism in the Ike-to-Carter years has been a struggle for choice, but how do you, Shelly, perceive your sisters who voluntarily choose (of the panoply of choices afforded to them) to eschew a career in return for rearing the children of the man who works long hours to provide for their family?
Just think — within 60 years, or about three generations, of those ads, we now live in a time where government organizations are legally ALLOWED to discriminate in favor of women, under the guise of eqaulity. Will our mutual grandkids ever wonder how ANY sort of discrimination ever could have led to equality? I hope they'll wonder thusly. But today, in the here and now, many first world nations have gone from “women should be assumed to be child rearers” to “if we discriminate in favor of women, who claim to merely want equality and not preferential treatment, that should be considered acceptable by a society furtively (but not ACTUALLY) seeking to be gender blind”.
Ahhhh, the good old days. 🙂
Oh brother.
Hey!!! the pants, they fit fine. And me woman is still under foot.
I thought these old ads were very funny sorry if some women got angry over them but we have all grown up (hopefully) since then. It was like looking at old pictures and wondering how in the hell did we ever make it this far….LOL
Lysol for feminine hygiene is a little scary! I think the total one is offensive but not actually sexist … more fatphobic.
These ads were horrendous! But the flip side to that is that men in the 50's actually DID provide for their families– instead of wasting their time on Playstation and weed. And women in the 50's had more pride in their appearance, which is NOT a bad thing. Today's man is weak and useless, by comparison, and a trip to Walmart will tell you what has happened to the ladies!
Go on, hate my opinion. You know you want to. 🙂
Obviously you are not in a relationship (except with your hand) and you have a female boss.
Charles,
I'm not going to get into all the details of various examples as you did in your debate; rather, I'd prefer to stick to a specific point which seems to be a serious bone of contention for you: the custody of children after a divorce. Perhaps this is personal for you (either in a direct or indirect way).
For me, as a teacher, I have seen many types of child custody over the years, including a model example of joint custody between equally loving parents with new partners, who consistently put their children's interests and needs above their own. In a perfect world, of course, this would be the norm (or perhaps in a perfect world there would be no divorce at all). We don't live in a perfect world, however, and the fact remains that as human beings with irrational wants and needs, people often are self-centered and think in terms of short-term consequences rather than long-term. How their choices affect their own emotional state right now is usually more important to them than the long-term effects on their children's well-being.
I believe that what judges tend to look at is whether ALL a child's needs will be met, and this goes beyond food and shelter. For example, many of my students who are in joint-custody situations have difficulty getting homework and projects completed when they are with their fathers. It's generally not that their fathers don't care, or that their fathers can't help them. Their fathers just don't follow through with it. A recent (not uncommon) example is the difficulty I had getting a quiz back, signed, from a boy's parent. When I finally contacted his mom about the issue, I found out that the boy had been staying with his dad, who wasn't helping him with homework or following through with study time – and the boy didn't want to show him the quiz due to a very real fear of physical punishment, which has been a problem. The quiz did eventually get signed by the mom when she got the boy back, and she worked with him on the following lessons to pull his grade back up.
You may argue that this is an atypical example; I can assure you that it is not. Although I would agree with you that judges need to look at each case on an individual basis, and if a father can prove that he meets the emotional needs that need to be nurtured as well as the physical ones of food and shelter, then he should share custody. I can see, however, why, in the absence of proof that this would be provided, judges give the mothers primary custody. As someone pointed out in an earlier post (and this, to me, is the most compelling evidence that there is still gender inequality in this country), in today's society of working couples, it is still overwhelmingly the women who come home after a full day's work to cook, clean, bathe the children, check the homework, go through the graded papers, etc. Yes, I am sure you can find exceptions to this, and as I said earlier, in a perfect world…. But judges are realists, and they better than anyone see how imperfect our world is.
My hopes rest with the upcoming generations, whom I see being offended (both boys and girls) by stereotypes from the past. I'm tempted to show them some of these ads to see their reactions. Based on similar demonstrations I have already done, however, I can make a prediction: all of the girls will be offended, and most of the boys. There will be one or two boys, however, who, for whatever reason, will think the ads are funny and say, “That's how it should be.” And if they said the same thing about African Americans, people would be shocked. Since it's about women, though, people wouldn't be completely surprised. They wouldn't say it was OK, but they wouldn't be shocked and disappointed in their attitude, either. And again, that's how we know that gender inequality still exists in our society.
But we are working on it. 🙂
To allllllll the people that like these ads you are sick woman deserve the same power as men who cleans and cooks and cares for YOU thats right Y-O-U when you are sick hmm mister thats right your wife and what do you return with hmm Rape and prostutoion im not saying woman deserve more than men we are = to you and you dont think we are better you dont even be thankfull to have a wife you treat your wife like a servent if you did that to me i would have took the children and left at least show some thanks SHESH GOD
Hello Browsing,
I have no issues with custody. I and my two children and their mother are living together and getting along just fine. It's been a rocky road, of course, but all things require work.
Custody is my banner case in my argument for a number of reasons.
* It's by and away the biggest problem.
* The inherent prejudices are clear, to the point where even a number of feminists will admit they exist (though swiftly blaming it on men, but at least that's a start).
* It affects a wider cross of people, in a way that (say) the issue of jail sentence disparity does not.
* It's the issue with the biggest chance of significant change being seen before my son is an adult.
I find it interesting that my examples of overall discrimination in a narrow range are irrelevant but one personal anecdote on your side is all that's needed, but no matter. You mention (quite correctly) that the burden of proof in custody cases is on the father's side. And THAT'S the problem. The burden is on the father but not the mother, and not on both equally. The default custody setting in the judges mind is “mother gets the child”, and it's up to the father to prove otherwise. It doesn't matter to nearly as large a degree if the mother is unfit.
And that is why the solution is something as simple as legally enforcing the default to be “equal, shared custody” (instead of “joint custody”.. joint custody can easily mean “child lives full time with the mother except the father gets him every other weekend”, which is far from equal and shared custody). Note that this means the DEFAULT. If either parent is unfit, degenerate, abusive or sociopathic, of course they shouldn't be guaranteed such levels of access!
And when the answer being pushed forth is something as simple as “legislated equality”, it makes me wonder why the NOW, feminists allegedly interested in nothing more than equality between men and women, are so virulently opposed to it.
On a side note: with regards to your demonstrations, you should do a demonstration where you are talking and one of your female co-workers calmly walks in the room and starts slapping, shoving and pushing you around, and see how your kids react. I'm going to guess that 100% of the girls in your class will start cheering. And if a similar show done by 20/20
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlFAd4YdQks)
is any indication, like you said — this is how we know that we have gender inequality in our society. Only difference is, I'm opposed to all kinds of it, not just select parts of it.
Dear lord, dude, get off your creepy men's rights wagon already. All of your arguments are straight from their crusade, and all of them are for things that are niche problems. Most people recognize that these double standards re: things like statutory rape exist and agree they're wrong, nothing in feminism argues that women should get off lighter in statutory rape sentencing, in fact I'm sure you'll find that many agree that it's BS. That's all the judges and their out-dated notions making them go 'easy' on women, so look at your fellow men for someone to blame on that one.
The truth is the white males are so under-repressed they don't know the difference between true repression and simple social annoyances, and are feeling the first longing pangs of power they did not earn being taken away and more fairly distributed. They're mistaking no longer having the default position of power as some sort of invasion of their rights.
There is a huge difference between “recognizing that these problems exist” and “admitting that the road to equality between the genders means these problems must also be rectified”. I cite these issues not as proof of how “repressed” white males are in North America, but that their existence is proof that the road to equality no longer involves only elevating the status of women. Not in North America, not today.
And there's no need for personal invective here.
Let me ask you a question: Why is it you say “men need to look at fellow men” to find someone to blame for these problems, but when men look to their fellow men to change the problems, all of a sudden I'm crusading on a creepy wagon?
Women have a long way to go alright, with a bit more work they can completely ignore the kids for “careers” and have a penis attached, that way they will have achieved nothing.
um, is English your first or secondary language?
Read a bit more about the women's movement before you comment. It didn't start because women wanted to compete with men, but because men could not continue to support a family on one income.
Easy to talk trash behind a computer, huh? How about you say that to your girlfriend or wife and see what kind of response you get.
Easy to talk violent when society gives you a blank check to hit men knowing they can't hit you back, huh?
Oh, but they CAN hit back. And they do. That’s why I knock them out with the first punch. And, I no longer date misogynist, physically abusive men.
“And that is why the solution is something as simple as legally enforcing the default to be “equal, shared custody” (instead of “joint custody”.. joint custody can easily mean “child lives full time with the mother except the father gets him every other weekend”, which is far from equal and shared custody). Note that this means the DEFAULT. If either parent is unfit, degenerate, abusive or sociopathic, of course they shouldn't be guaranteed such levels of access!
And when the answer being pushed forth is something as simple as “legislated equality”, it makes me wonder why the NOW, feminists allegedly interested in nothing more than equality between men and women, are so virulently opposed to it.”
Who is fighting this? Where are your facts? What legislation is pending and who exactly is fighting it? I ask because no one I know would argue against what is in the best interest of the child should prevail.
Additionally in some states like Virginia if the woman is found to be a lesbian by the court she loses all custody forever period and may even lose visitation. The man will get sole custody in all cases period and may even be allowed to deny visitation. Where is the gender inequality in those cases?
“This is why I brought up the Titanic example. Even in a FAR more misogynistic and sexist time, there was a specific circumstance where the sexist attitudes of the time just so happened to work in favor of women. And how did they react? “Votes for women” changed to “boats for women!” in a big hurry.”
You keep bringing up this example, but 76 women in 3rd class survived compared to 75 men out of 3rd class survived. It seems that there was gender equality in 3rd class!
Of course all of the children in both 1st and 2nd class survived compared to only about a 1/3 of the children in 3rd class.
I make this point because your analogy seems to have less to do with gender than with class.
http://www.anesi.com/titanic.htm
Yes, 76 women in third class survived and 75 men in third class survived.. Did you notice that there were 462 men in third class and 165 women in third class? That's a survival rate of 16.23% for third class men and 46.04% for third class women. If it's more about class than about gender, can you explain how third class women (at 46.04%) outsurvived first class men (57/115, or 32.57%)?
Who = The National Organizaniot of Women (as already mentioned above)
The legislation is Michigan House Bill 5267.
Here is the NOW's original complaint about the bill:
http://www.now.org/nnt/03-97/father.html
As you can see, your statement of “no one would argue against what is in the best interests of the child” doesn't mitigate NOW's stated opinion that joint parental custody is not in the best interests of the child.
Here is the Michigan chapter of NOW (as mentioned in the first cite) still opposing the bill:
http://www.michnow.org/files/jointmandatorycust…
Notice the date is Februrary 26, 2010; this file is linked to the front page as of today at:
http://michnow.org/index.htm
It is the bottom entry in the rightmost bar.
Any further questions?
And for that matter, I welcome one citation of a court case in Virginia of the matter you described.
Provided the woman strikes first, you would have to be a misogynist not to hit her back.
FFS it's 2010!
Treat her just like you would a man hitting you!
Anything else is not equality, it's chauvinism!
I don't know what you're talking about. You seem to be reading something in my response that isn't there. I never said anything about hitting a man. You have issues.
Well, I was hoping you'd see that my virtual mimicry of your sentence structure implied there was some rhetorical element behind what I said, but I guess not.
So, let me spell it out:
* You're alluding to his lack of bravery by hiding behind the internet.
* You're implying that he will get a violent response if he says this in front of his wife or girlfriend.
* I'm alluding to the lack of bravery that would be exhibited by his wife or girlfriend in responding as you suggested they might.
If there was no implication of violence, why does your statement predicate that he needs to say it to their face, which suggests there would be some retribution that could not be levied across the internet?
Dear Charles,
Sigh. I am going to give this one more try and not look back. I don't think I care to see your stubborn refusal to look at the overall picture anymore.
A few times you have mentioned that people were ignoring what you had said. In your reply to me you stated, “…my examples of overall discrimination in a narrow range are irrelevant but one personal anecdote on your side is all that's needed, but no matter.” I do not recall saying that your examples were irrelevant, nor do I appreciate what equates to words being put into my mouth. I did say, purposefully, that this was a TYPICAL example from personal experience (which, by the way, is twenty years' worth of observations). You may choose not to regard that as empirical data since you do not know the source (me). I would encourage you, however, to speak to any teacher acquaintances you may have and see if they disagree with my findings.
For my part, I find it interesting that YOU ignored the crux of my argument, which is that women are overwhelmingly STILL the primary caregivers in most modern relationships, even those in which BOTH parents work. I think the better solution to the custody issue (and gender inequality) in this country would be if both parents took an equally active role in the day-to-day care for their children BEFORE they got divorced, and then divorce courts would be more likely to see a favorable outcome to awarding “equal, shared custody,” since there would have been an equal, shared custody BEFORE the divorce.
You also ignored that I had already stated that judges should look at things on a case-by-case basis. You are preaching to the choir when you say that unfit mothers should not be allowed to take custody over a fit father. I seriously doubt that anyone (except an unfit mother) would argue that point.
I think the problem with your reasoning may be, as someone stated earlier, that you are looking at the issue from the viewpoint of the group in power (white men). You are unable to see the viewpoint of the other side, which is understandable. It is a very difficult thing to truly see things from the opposite point of view. For you, it is an intellectual exercise. A point of debate, of politics. It almost seems as if you have somehow made yourself believe that men are the underdogs here. They are not. That is the reason that people in those 20/20 studies came to the aid of women who were being physically abused, but not men. It doesn't mean that it was right that a woman was being abusive. The people walked by and did not get involved because it is generally distasteful to see a public display of “dirty laundry.” People assume that the man would have the physical ability to protect himself (or at least walk away), whereas a woman may very likely not. It is also much more likely that the woman would feel submissive to the man and just take the abuse. It's in the bible, after all, right? And every fairy tale she grew up with taught her that men fight her battles for her. So who fights her battles with the man who is supposed to be her protector? And if she is in an abusive relationship, especially with children, and her husband has the position of financial power, where does she go for help? That is why our society still has to have special organizations to help these women. Because women are much more likely to need help. Are there also men out there who may be in abusive relationships? Yes. Should they be able to get help, too? Absolutely.
Thank God attitudes are changing, as I said, with the new generations that are coming along. Girls today have fairy tales where women slay the dragons and save themselves and others from harm. The twenty- and -thirty somethings have grown up with heroes like Zena, Warrior Princess and Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. This is not to say that I advocate violence being perpetrated by women, but I think that today's young women would feel comfortable giving an outright refusal if their husband tried to make them have eight children and two miscarriages (as happened to my mother, and others, who are still LIVING reminders of the need for gender equality in this country).
And I can assure you that, in my school, if a female came into a classroom, slapping and hitting and verbally abusing a male teacher that the kids KNEW, the overwhelming majority of them would not be clapping and cheering. They would be horrified, confused, and probably frightened. They would not make an assumption that he somehow deserved it. Of course, there might be a couple of boys who would cheer. These are the same boys who would get excited over a fight on the playground and call, “Fight! Fight!” to get their friends to come over and watch.
I don't know you, so I don't know whether your arguments throughout this string are simply debating a point, or whether you really believe what you are saying. I think it is the latter. For the record, I don't think you are completely wrong. There does need to be true equality in this country for people of every class, ethnicity, religion, and gender. But I'm not sure, in looking through your arguments in each of your replies throughout the string, that that is what you are really seeking. I hope, for your (and your children's) sakes, that I am mistaken.
Browsing,
first of all, I do apologize for confusing you with the person who did say those words. I have answered many people, and due to similarities in writing style, confused you with the individual who did say those words. Mea culpa, as they say.
Did you watch the 20/20 clip I posted? Did you see the part where one woman walks by, smiles happily and excitedly chucks her fists in a shadow-boxer motion, and she (along with several others) admitted for the camera that they thought she had it coming? This is more than them thinking “oh, he can defend himself” — when in fact, he can't, because if he raises one finger in self-defense, he'll catch a beating. You say “it doesn't mean that it was right..” yet that is exactly what a number of bystanders concluded, for no other reason than he was a man and she was a woman.
Incidentally, I agree completely with the notion of women having a harder time escaping an abusive relationship due to socio-economic factors. The kind of help men need to escape abusive relationships is primarily psychological (“what she's doing to you isn't acceptable”) and legal (“she said that if I left her she'd sue for custody, and I don't want to lose my kids”), as opposed to the strict safe-house kind of help women in abusive relationships need.
With regards to the custody issue, it isn't a case of “unfit mothers should get custody over fit fathers”, as that is pretty much the only way a father will win a custody fight. It's a case of “fit mothers should always get custody over fit fathers”, which is exactly the status quo that the NOW is fighting to maintain, and which is pretty clearly a case of explicit sexual discrimination that affects a large number of people. It's not right. Why are they fighting to maintain it?
I'm sorry you don't see that this is what I'm really seeking. The vast majority of my replies have been focused on negating things that just aren't true, rather than focusing on my goals, although I have explicitly stated the latter on numerous occasions. If you can find one statement I've made where I've explicitly said (or even suggested) that I'm in favor of maintaining any of the sexist institutions in today's society, I'm all ears to hear it.
I'm not opposed to equality, I'm in favor of equality; I'm opposed to hypocrisy.
I was saying he was a coward for posting something he wouldn't have the guts to say in person. It's as simple as that. I wasn't implying that he was afraid of getting hit. Although, if he did say those things he can certainly expect a strong verbal assault.
Fair enough – my apologies for misinterpreting what you meant.
It brings it all back. It's a wonder we didn't all kill ourselves, and then the rest of you wouldn't be here.
How can that lady with Sears oven complain about breaking 14 fingernails? She's only got 10 fingers. !!
hey what about the old geritol ads. “My wife I think I'll keep her”? or the old whisk, “ring around the collar”? lol classics
What's wrong with these ads?
What's wrong with these ads?
the thing is…although these ads arent “politically correct”, the ideals presented in them are still present today, and personally, i dont see the problem. gender roles arent a bad thing, really. besides, i cant count all of the “stupid men” jokes on commercials, tv, on the internet..everywhere. feminists want to have their cake and eat it too, unfortunately.
WTF are you babbling about?
Getting tired of hearing always women saying, we're got a long way to go. Someone said : in their unconscious, women miss one part, a part that symbolize power, so the only way to get equal will be to cut it from people who have it. Remove power from man to get equality. Unfortunately, getting power doesn't make them satisfied. They are satisfied only by the process, not the end. That's why today, more than ever, young generation are letting those feminated man down and are getting back to prehistoric guys.
I dunno, it's nice to be cared for!
That was seriously horrible
Piatt v. Piatt, 1998 the Virginia Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s ruling to award primary physical custody going to the father because the mother was a lesbian.
Then there is Doe v. Doe, 1981 a father was awarded custody of the child with the mother being allowed visitation. But when the father wanted his new wife to adopt the child, the court actually severed all parental rights of the mother because she was a lesbian.
Thank you for the references. We seem to be reading the same material and reaching different conclusions. The way I read it, NOW fully supports equal and shared custody being the default custody order when both spouses are reasonable and can agree on most issues regarding the children.
They only object to mandating joint parental custody. IMHO it is NOW’s position that the judge should retain discretion and recognize that where divorce is acrimonious and the couple have chosen to use custody as a battleground it would not be in the best interest of the children to force a joint parental custody agreement on the couple.
This is a different standard than forcing the judge to find a parent to be parent unfit, degenerate, abusive or sociopathic.
Simply put NOW says that equal and shared custody won’t work if both parents are not willing to make it work, So what is a judge to do?
You also conveniently failed to mention that not only NOW objects to this piece of legislation, but so do the Michigan bar association, child psychologists, social workers, family law experts, judges, lawyers, and even the Family Forum (a right-wing, “traditional family values” group). IMHO this seems to give some credibility to NOW’s position.
Just for giggles how would you force equal and shared custody in these two cases?
POLEMENI V. POLEMENI, 2007 Va. App. 37 (UO)
Evidence supported trial court’s award of primary physical custody of parties’ children to Husband. Wife made visitation difficult for Husband, seemed unable to discipline the children, made an injudicious connection with a boyfriend, failed to investigate the school system before moving in with boyfriend, listed boyfriend and not Husband as the emergency contact, and seemed “weary and detached.” In contrast, Husband would be the more vigorous parent and provide firmer discipline.
CHORBAJI V. SIMPSON, Va. Ct. of Appeals, Rec. No. 2910-08-4 (UO)
Where evidence indicated husband’s lack of involvement in child’s life prior to the separation from wife, husband’s verbal and emotional abuse of wife and child, that husband had shaved the child’s head, had attempted to damage the child’s relationship with the child’s doctor, had given the child prescription medication which he did not need, and had ignored the trial court’s pendente lite orders by allowing his girlfriend to be present at visitation exchanges and during overnight visitation, the trial court did not err in awarding sole custody to wife and supervised visitation to husband until husband ceased living with his girlfriend and denigrating wife in front of child.
The way I read, right now the judges are free to find the way they did in these two cases. But if the new bills take effect, they will have to enforce a joint parental custody order and that just does not seem to be in the best interest of these children in particular.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Men made the rule that 'women and children first', men enforced the rule and when women complied, they are somehow taking advantage?
And you are not taking into account the number of women that were literally picked up and placed into the boats by these men. Did they turn their 'Women for Votes' into 'Women for Boats' too? Or were they simply the beneficiaries of a sexist notion that was out of their control?
BTW – when you wrote, “And when the answer being pushed forth is something as simple as “legislated equality”, it makes me wonder why the NOW, feminists allegedly interested in nothing more than equality between men and women, are so virulently opposed to it.”
That is not entirely true. In New Mexico and New Hampshire, courts are required to award joint custody, except where the children's best interests — or a parent's health or safety — would be compromised. And while I understand Michigan's chapter of NOW's position, apparently many other states expressly allow courts to order joint custody, even if one parent objects to such an arrangement. So it seems many people already agree with you.
BTW – when you wrote, “And when the answer being pushed forth is something as simple as “legislated equality”, it makes me wonder why the NOW, feminists allegedly interested in nothing more than equality between men and women, are so virulently opposed to it.”
That is not entirely true. In New Mexico and New Hampshire, courts are required to award joint custody, except where the children's best interests — or a parent's health or safety — would be compromised. And while I understand Michigan's chapter of NOW's position, apparently many other states expressly allow courts to order joint custody, even if one parent objects to such an arrangement. So it seems many people already agree with you.
From Piatt vs Piatt:
The trial court referred to wife's post-separation sexual relationships and her “experimentation” not as having a direct negative impact on the child, but as manifestations of wife's inner “turmoil” and “lack of control.” These characteristics have a direct bearing on wife's ability to provide a stable home environment and to “meet the emotional, intellectual and physical needs of the child.”
.. and ..
The evidence supports the trial court's conclusion that wife's home environment was less stable than husband's. The record demonstrates that wife often left the child in the care of others while she pursued recreational trips and activities. She occasionally took the child with her without regard to the child's bedtime or evening routine. Wife was unsure whether she would remain in her condo after the one-year lease ended. She dated several individuals and admitted to two sexual relationships. Furthermore, wife's family relationships were strained.
The court contrasted the stability of wife's home environment with that provided by husband. The evidence shows that husband developed a routine for the child. He maintained his residence in the marital home, where the child had lived her entire life. He was involved in a long-term relationship with another woman and was planning for marriage. He had the full support of his parents and his brother and sister-in-law. His relatives provided day care for the child and her young cousin.
.. in other words, it wasn't because she was a lesbian, it was because she had a much less stable life to provide.
http://www.danpinello.com/Piatt.htm
PS can you provide a link to the Doe vs Doe you have in mind.. the only one I can find online is this, apparently from 1983:
http://www.hgoldstein.com/cases/Doe-v-Doe.htm
.. but that talks about how a lower court awarded joint legal and physical custody, and this ruling only dealt with the financial issues, specifically stating that the (ex) wife's lesbianhood was in no way a detriment to the child.
Well, several states, as well as Australia and England already do have shared custody legislation. And feminists in those places are certainly railing against it as we speak.
First of all, I didn't conveniently fail to mention anything, because those positions are not germane to my point. Not to get all “illuminati” on you or anything, but which special interest groups publicly support whom is nothing more than sock puppetry of the first order. I'm sure I could find interest groups who support shared custody legislation in short order, but that wouldn't prove the point either.
“They only object to mandating joint parental custody. IMHO it is NOW’s position that the judge should retain discretion and recognize that where divorce is acrimonious and the couple have chosen to use custody as a battleground it would not be in the best interest of the children to force a joint parental custody agreement on the couple.”
I fail to see how making sure the child has access to two loving and caring parents instead of one is in any way not in their best interest, even if the parents are acrimonious among themselves. Perhaps there would be much less acrimony if both sides realized they had nothing to gain from being so belligerent?
“This is a different standard than forcing the judge to find a parent to be parent unfit, degenerate, abusive or sociopathic.”
.. which means the parent deserves the right to be in the child's life, which shared parenting legislation would grant and the status quo would not.
“Simply put NOW says that equal and shared custody won’t work if both parents are not willing to make it work, So what is a judge to do?”
Well, right now, they're to award custody to the mother, but I'm hoping legislation changes that.
.. and in regard to your court cases, I probably would have ruled as the judges did, but would comment that in both cases, the actions of the non-custodial parent certainly would (in my understanding) disqualify them from the default consideration of being fit and not a sociopath.
When did these pick-up-and-placings occur? Undoubtedly near the beginning, as by the end, men were being shot to death for the crime of trying to save their own life.
Does it matter when 'these pick-up-and-placings' occurred? Your point was that women took advantage of sexist notions when it benefited them and cried about them when they didn't. My point is that women ulitmately had no real say in the matter either way, even when it benefited them.
Yes, but the court's reasoning was circular. While being a lesbian was supposed not to have any direct effect on custody. She lost custody because her life was in turmoil, her life was in turmoil because she was a lesbian and so it goes. Additionally your analysis just proved my point, that gender bias isn't always against the man in child custody cases. In this case in particular legislated joint parental custody would have harmed the man's position and helped the woman's, which if I am correct was not your goal when you advocated legislated joint custody..
Really? Because I have only been able to find opponents in Michigan, where it is being considered. Overall, it seems that mandated joint shared custody is the wave of the future and that most states have already embraced it.
.. and in regard to your court cases, I probably would have ruled as the judges did, but would comment that in both cases, the actions of the non-custodial parent certainly would (in my understanding) disqualify them from the default consideration of being fit and not a sociopath.
And that is the central question, isn't it? Will this piece of legislation allow these judges to rule the way they did? Or will their hands be tied and have to order joint custody? Merely being a pain the but and uncooperative may not raise to your level of disqualification by being unfit and a sociopath, it could make joint physical custody unworkable.
you wrote, “I fail to see how making sure the child has access to two loving and caring parents instead of one is in any way not in their best interest, even if the parents are acrimonious among themselves”
I wonder if you would be opposed to outlawing divorce? Afterall forcing people to stay married would be one way to make sure that the child has access to two loving parents instead of one, wouldn't it? Just wondering what your thoughts were . . .
The society is still sexist and biased, although many do not. Look at how most people react to it, what can I do for a living. I mean all the Asian women with male delinquency. Hell, I even met the man, telling me that I am not a woman, because what I do. The fact is, however, thatch choose this and refuse to give up, because society thinks he should. I am pretty sure to tell him that I did not let the door hit him **. History is history, but I remember that it is difficult to change the stereotypes, even 50 years later.
Okay, this thread was written a while ago so there's probably no point in posting a reply, and it sounds like most elements of the debate have been covered already…but this is a pet peeve of mine so I'm going to reply to this one bit anyway:
In the question of who bears the higher cost of war–women or men–you are assuming that the worst thing that happens to women in war is being widowed. Which is, no offense, B.S. Until very recently in human history, the story of war was, the men get killed, and the women get raped and enslaved or, at best, burned out of their houses and left to die of exposure or starvation. I'd take a bullet over that any day.
There is NO WAY you can claim that women, who are not just physically smaller but are also of necessity the primary caretakers of young children–and the younger and therefore more helpless the child, the more the mother shoulders the burden for taking care of him/her–aren't going to suffer more in any kind of physical conflict. And yes, in the past couple hundred years the distinction between combatants and non-combatants has offered women some unusual levels of protection–but even then, those ideals were often ignored. Watch “Sharpe's Rifles” sometime to see how women were treated in the supposedly civilized era of the Napoleonic Wars. Or look at the history of the American West–it was Apache women and children getting slaughtered, for instance, while the men were away, but white men who supposedly believed in protecting non-combatants.
The social contract which places women under the authority of men, and second to men in most aspects of life, presumes that women are getting something in exchange–protection and security. Whether or not it's worth trading your freedom for security, and to what degree, is one debate that this spawns–but it's also a largely irrelevant debate, since in reality when you sacrifice freedom for security you invariably end up losing both.
Kind of off-topic to the general topic, I know, but I had to say something.
The ideals in these ads are _not_ present today, thank God. There's a world of difference between the mild gender roles of today and those represented by these ads which basically imply that women are nothing but household servants and sex objects to their men. There are plenty of “stupid men” jokes but there are still plenty of jokes about women as well–except that these are much more tasteful than they used to be. I'm female and I enjoy a good blond joke as much as anyone–but there's a difference between joking about a woman who can't tell her compact from her ID, and joking about a woman getting spanked by her husband. A HUGE difference.
They're getting back to “prehistoric,” macho guys, perhaps, but they're _not_ getting back to supposedly (and inaccurately) prehistoric fragile, servile women. Both halves of which are just fine by me.
What we really need is to get over the false dichotomies between sensitive vs. masculine men and strong vs. feminine women. The current young generation's progress on _this_ point is probably their greatest triumph, well above any strides made in other sexism-related areas.
You sound a bit angry…. Perhaps some Mydol and a squirt of Lysol would make you feel better…. 🙂
yea, haven't you read blondie, or any of those comics they still run in the papers? flintstones, etc., men were morons, women kept everything together. it's just now we're allowed to make money to buy our own pretty stoves.
yes
AHAHHHAHHHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA………AAAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHHAHHAHAHAHAH!
Charles, I just have to say that I love your reply to Laura. Absolutely made reading the comments section worthwhile.
Damn well written, so thanks again.
Well, thank you.
Hey, Lysol makes a lot of things even nowadays. I have Lysol hand soap in my house at this very moment and it's quite comfortable on the skin.. I hadn't heard of it, but Lysol douche isn't that far out of a thought.
Actually these ads simply demonstrate a time when we lived the way we are genetically preprogrammed to be. Men are (generally) larger, stronger, faster, harder. Why? To be the hunter; the gatherer; the provider; the *Dominant One*. Conversely, women are (again, generally) smaller, softer, curvier, gentler. Why? To be the nurturer; the home care provider; the *submissive one*. Look at *nearly* every great society in history. (I said nearly!) Men made decisions and women were for sex, procreation and home maintenance. In the grand scheme of things we really only stopped this a short time ago. It was also about the same time of a noticeable decline in society as a whole. Coincidence? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Even in the animal kingdom, with a few exceptions the Male takes sex from the female; he doesn't ask for it. Of course in those instances that is the only way to guarantee the future of the species, but it's just one more example of gender roles. No matter how progressive you are, in every relationship there must be one person more in charge than the other. One person who will make executive decisions or step up and lead during crisis. In our society as a whole that person is *much* more likely to be the Male. I'm not saying womens suffrage was a bad idea or a good one; just that some things are in our genes. (and before you ask, yes i am married with a daughter and my wife agrees with these basic tenants and prefers the life she is meant for.)
(behind the blur: One person who will make executive decisions or step up and lead during crisis. In our society as a whole that person is *much* more likely to be the Male.
Agreed. Affirmative action, in regards to *any* societal minority, is not unlike Communism- in that it *sounds* great but can not possibly work in any real world practical application.
As an addendum to your sports/athletics reference, being Military (more specifically US Army) I would like to mention how female Soldiers want “equality” but only selectively; if our Army Physical Fitness Test had equal standards for push-ups, sit-ups and the 2-mile run many females would quite simply fail. The same goes for our height and weight standards. The funny thing is there are females within our ranks who scream for equality in combat arms jobs- even though nearly none of them specifically actually want to *do* those jobs. Welcome to the gutters, indeed.
I was under the impression that the requirements were equal, but that they had just lowered them across the board to get more women into the military. In fact, a number of feminists I have argued with seem to be under the impression that men and women have the same requirements. Is there any public citation of these different requirements, like on the US Army website, you could link me to? I'd love to have that information handy. Thanks!
“The reality is, we're still on top, man. You and me, white men. We still have it made by almost any metric. And we don't automatically deserve it, we get handed it.”
I disagree. Today in 2010 the most statistically “disadvantaged” group is the 18-24 year old white male. Just as one of many, many examples let's look at college scholarships. There are grants and scholarships for virtually every single minority in the world- women, blacks, hispanics, native americans, heavily-tattooed-midget-transsexual-nazi-eskimo-amputees who want to adopt, you get my point. But if you're an 18-24 year old caucasian male your grades had better be higher than your entire state if you want a snowballs chance in hell of any aid. (and seriously, don't get me started on racial equality. I stand firm that affirmative action is one of the worst concepts in society today.)
Tom, the very concept of douching is ignorant. The vagina, like the eye, is a self-cleaning organ. Using chemicals there is damaging.
Finally!
A person with common sense. Congratulations sir / madam for bringing a breath of fresh air into this “discussion” (more like an exchange between deaf people).
The ads shown were just a selection out of an undoubtably larger collection available FROM THAT PERIOD. I am amazed by the number of politically correct people who think this type of ad would still be published today.
It was 25 years ago fercrissake! Get a life.
Ah!
Another sensible person. So seldom found in this discussion.
And you want to say what ….?
Exactly!
Why?
What is it that you want to say?
Wonder what will be said of today's advertising.
the reason why women did all the work back then was because men couldn't figure out how to work a vacuum or a stove so they left all that work to the women so they could go out and sit in an office doing nothing.
98% of men die in war cuz women don't have the RIGHT to go into war!!
The people walked by and did not get involved because it is generally distasteful to see a public display of “dirty laundry.” People assume that the man would have the physical ability to protect himself, whereas a woman may very likely not. It is also much more likely that the woman would feel submissive to the man and just take the abuse.
You have successfully summarized the bigoted double standards that surround any case of domestic violence in the eyes of the populace. The irony is, a man canNOT defend himself, because if he raises one finger to stop a woman from hitting him, he will get the living shit beaten out of him by any male bystanders, whereas if the woman slaps, hits, beats, punches and kicks the male, people will just be busy laughing at him and cheering him on. Look at the 20/20 report on male victims of domestic abuse for more insight. It's sick.
pardon me, “laughing at him and cheering *her* on”. Late night typing is not my friend 🙁
I find it interesting that my examples of overall discrimination in a narrow range are irrelevant but one personal anecdote on your side is all that's needed, but no matter.
Uh, this is your first post on the subject, oh spam-tacular one.
With all due respect, we’re going to have to drop the war issue, because I don’t know which is worse — the convenient lumping of “children” with women, or your opinion that being a widow is worse than being dead.
The people walked by and did not get involved because it is generally distasteful to see a public display of “dirty laundry.” People assume that the man would have the physical ability to protect himself, whereas a woman may very likely not.
It’s not the political pressure from women who make it nigh unto a felony to portray women in a negative light, it’s men who respect those hyper-sensitive standards that are to blame.
When I was in the Army I ran into a fun little concept know as “Gender Norming”.
I was in Jump School and had drummed into my head from before I went that the reson for the physical fitness level demanded was safety and surviveability of the unit.
That this was why there are a set number of chin-ups and push-ups, a set time to be able to run 2 miles required for EVERY student to to pass the course. For example, when you steer a military parachute you do it by pulling the risers (straps that attach the body harness to the parachute) down to your chest in order to reduce the ammout of air a part of the ‘chute holds causing you to go in that direction. The reality of this manuver is that you are not pulling anything down, you are lifting your entire body (and all equipment) UP.
Then I got there and saw that women have a longer time limit for the runs, and when women do “chin-ups” they kept their heels on the ground and held their bodies at a 45 degree angle. They were not required to lift their entire body weight and hold it up (as the men were) until an instructor decided it was long enough and then left to hang free until told to lift again. And BTW if men even kicked their feet while attempting a chin-up it did not count.
While I was in jump school I saw three women get seriously hurt because they could not properly steer the ‘chute. In a combat environment they (and their equipment) would have had to be carried by someone else until the completion of the mission, there-by efftively lowering the units capability to protect its self and function as a whole.
I felt then as I do now: If you want to do the same job, school, sport, etc… either do it to the same standard as men or don’t do it.
If you want true equality here is an idea: no more mens and womens gymnastic teams. Everyone competes in the same events to the same standards, no more women only gyms, etc…
The thing that has changed without a doubt, I’m happy to say, is that white males have lost quite a bit of unearned dominance and privilege. There is now a more equal playing field, and that’s good for all of us.
It’s not the political pressure from women who make it nigh unto a felony to portray women in a negative light, it’s men who respect those hyper-sensitive standards that are to blame.
There’s no anachronism about caring about ending all kinds of blanks against women. Equality is now geographically and socioeconomically uneven in the U.S., and even more throughout the world.
Incidentally, I agree completely with the notion of women having a harder time escaping an abusive relationship due to socio-economic factors.
dear lord, charles, get a life. do you realize that half the comments consist of you shouting your opinions? jesus, if you are so passionate about this, take it up with someone of power, don’t post on a site that is seen by a limited amount of people. you may feel good about yourself and your arguments, which include points i agree with by the way, but at the end of the day you really are making no impact here.
HUH, interesting advertisements.
Guess no wonder why, EXTREME FEMINIST GROUPS are so much up in arms.
Which by the way, best for man to stay away from EXTREME FEMINIST GROUPS, cuz they are detrimental to MEN’S health,
In fact, better to stay a SINGLE MAN, and not get married or be in a relationship with a woman.
Cuz, the laws of the courts will help the woman take everything that you had earned, and then some, and limit your visiting rights to ANY children that you had with the woman.
Stay SINGLE, and YOU will NEVER regret it, and your pocket book, health, finances, and everything you own will stay safe and sound with it’s original owner, YOU.
Yes- PLEASE stay single. STAY OUT OF THE DATING POOL. Thanks.
Love, feminists everywhere
Drastically, your blog publish is definitely the greatest with this worthy topic. My partner and i come to an agreement along with your options and can thirstily look forward to call at your approaching updates. Indicating appreciate it will not just be adequate, with the extraordinary lucidity as part of your creating. Let me simultaneously pick up your own nourishes to stay informed involving almost any improvements. Delightful function and much achievements within your business dealings! Employ a wonderful time
I was sent an email this morning with different ads than are here, so I was curious and went looking for more.
I’ve spent as much time laughing at some of the comments as I have looking at the ads. Must we turn everything into a serious ‘to-do’?
These ads are a part of American advertising history, like it or not. I find them funny (as we have come a long way since then), and quite an eye opener actually (Lysol??? Omg!!).
Yes, these ads seem awful to (most of) us today, yes, they were sexist, yes, they were degrading to women. However, that was the way advertising was. No one thought a thing about it.
Now step back and look at today’s ads. You think we’ve moved away from sexist advertising? Hello. Woman are still used in ads to sell product (as are men). In earlier times, advertising may have made the little woman look dumb and well, like the little woman, but they didn’t use ‘sex’ to sell product. Today’s ads make women (and in some cases men) look like nothing more than sex objects (big boobs and all) to sell everything, from waffles to beer.
How is that better? lol
These are from the days when women had the ability to laugh at themselves.
Feminism sure did change all that.
It is now hard to meet a woman who isn’t a complete b*tch.
I have to say, that as a man, I have the ability to still laugh at myself.
Good thing there is nothing like feminism for men – oh – except for that MRM thing.
It? actually a great and useful piece of info. I am glad that you shared this helpful info with us. Please keep us informed like this. Thanks for sharing.
good work.. Thanks!
omg realy, Nice times!
Sure.
This is the funniest website ever. Women have a right to be mad at it, but those ads are telling the truth. Women should cook, clean, never drive (unless the husband is drunk and cannot) and raise kids. And douche a lot.