Bare with me folks. This gets lengthy, but I will promise you, it is well worth the trip. Well, for some of you anyhow…
Well now, I am not one to point fingers at those that expect everyone else to follow a rigid set of rules, designed by them of course, but practice another…
This time its sexist adverts depicting women in demeaning ways like…. Gawd! Doing… Laundry! Oh, did I mention that it was a retro-commercial? You know back in the day when a woman was in the home and a man was out in the fields/factory/office? Ah, no matter. Here is the ad first, then her comments:
“Unintentionally”? I think not. I am sure that the advertisers knew exactly what they were implying. The poor woman/evil lazy man theme is living strong and well in advertising and marketing la-la-land… trust me.
As a matter of fact, what’s this so called, “Shit work”? Seems to me that if clothes require washing someone needs to do them. Back when women ‘ran the house’ it was the woman’s job. Oh boo hoo. Furthermore just where in the hell does she get this “free” shit from? If she is “running the house” and he is FINANCING the household with his labor, then it is what we in the real world like to call, a partnership. His supporting of her, as in a roof over her head, food on the table, and the oh-so-wonderful MALE invention called a washing machine, are all considered as ‘payment’ for her SHARE of the workload.
Even by today’s standards, if he is working 60 hours and she is working 20 or even 40, just who has the time to be doing said washings? Certainly the person that has more time to burn. If that is the woman, which it is most of the time, Ooo-la-la! Logic!
Back when my children were young, their mother worked. I did also, but from the home. I have always had the comfort of working from the home. Now mind you, I worked just as many hours as she did, and sometimes even more. But you know what? I was here. It just made sense for ME to throw a load or two in during the day… to have dinner on the table, to take care of the soccer practices, recitals, and doctors’ appointments. I was the one that had the luxury of flexibility in my work. You know that thing that many employers afford to most women with children, but not to very many men? Yea, that flexibility. So I guess I am the “once in a while a man” they reference in the commercial eh Jessica?
Now lest I get on a tangent, not uncommon for me, this article is not about the commercials specifically. It is about the hypocrisy of a self proclaimed ‘predominant’ feminist blogger(s). But to do that I have to show where the hypocrisy begins; let’s continue shall we? In another similar entry (aren’t they all?), Jessica goes gaga over yet another advert. This time it is Tom Ford’s perfume for men ad. Here is the advertisement as well as her post on the advertisement:
Tom Ford wants everyone to know about his big, thick, hard...perfume bottle"
Jessica says, “Just in case you didn't get the oh-so-subtle hint the first time around, Tom Ford wants to make sure that you know he has the most cock-like cologne around.”
Admittedly, I kind of agree with ole Jessie as far as the “WTF” factor. I just don’t get the ad. Why is it necessary to put his bottle on the crotch of a woman’s obviously shaven beaver? I really don’t get it. BUT! ….. BUT! All things being equal, advertisers do things like this for shock value - amongst other things. The point is to get you to remember. And it does, does it not? Think of Tag spray for men for starters. Or better yet, have a gander at this!
"It was meant to be a play on the new [fragrance] campaign," Ford says—ads are running in magazines on newsstands now that show a bottle of his juice strategically placed in front of a woman's crotch, barely obscuring the holiest of holies. "But there's a double standard with featuring female nudity and featuring male nudity," Ford adds. "When people say to me, 'Well, you objectify women,' [I say] I'm an equal opportunity objectifier. We had a lot of magazines reject the female version [of the campaign], so the male version is going to get rejected even more."
Interesting how THAT little tidbit (pardon…) of information/imagery never entered her nice little buttoned-up ideology, eh?
“This may be one of the most heinous (and most ridiculous) displays of dismembered women's body parts I've ever seen. The question is, is it more disturbing to dismember with functionality like a sink, or just straight up for display?“
“The fact that this product in particular is being used as a substitute for a dead animal makes it a wee more heinous for me, but it's a toss-up."
Hmmmm… “Dismembered”? And what my dear would you call a ‘dildo’? You know, those “personal care items” you so pleasingly and enthusiastically promote?
“In a campaign to expand the range of their products, Amazon.com has recently started selling sex toys. Awesome.
It’s actually a shitload (around 37,000) of sex products, ranging from condoms and lubricants to dildos and vibrators, located in the Health and Personal Care section. Condoms and lubes have been the top sellers of the products, reaching the top 100 best sellers on the site.
So kudos to Amazon for expanding the personal care of their customers! Click here to check out the products o’ pleasure. After all, who can resist when the vibrators are decorated with daisies.”
Anyhow. Moving on…
Sexist? Sure…I guess you could say that. Poor taste? Most certainly. stupid? Indeed. I also find the singing fish of similar form to be stupid as well. “Heinous”? WOW! I donno. Maybe, but not without admitting that many, many advertisements use men in similar manor if not worse. For instance:
The advert (left) claims, “If you've got some aggression to get out and need a place to store your kitchen knives, this is the product for you. It comes with five stainless steel knives--a paring knife, bread knife, carving knife, and large and small chopping knives. The blades are protected in the rear by a clear plastic sleeve.”
Or how about this image of a TV advert:
And not to be outdone by one-offs (or even two-offs) here is yet another one….
Oh the hilarity! Isn’t that just a hoot? Of course ole Jessie and her cohorts have no issue with this bit of ‘humor’. Narre a peep. After all, “It’s just a joke!” Right?
Now, least I be accused of being one-sided…Here is the ‘female version’ of above said pen holder…
But that is where the similarities end…. Ole’ Jesse is upset about the FEMALE VERSION, but says nothing about the male version. Stating;
“Apparently there's more than one woman-hating pencil product out there. First there was the headless doggie-style sharpener, and now Shakes shows us this: Lusty Linda the pen holder.”
You'll note from the packaging that Lusty Linda can utter "8 lusty sayings," which fall into one of two categories”, "good mood" or "bad mood," controlled by the click of a switch. Says one site (screen cap) that sells Lusty Linda, "too bad all women did not have such a switch." Ho ho ho!
Her "bad mood" sayings include "Ow," "Help, Help!" and "Get out you, you dirty old man." You know, because rape is hilarious. “
Indeed Jesse. Rape is hilarious…But only when it’s a man that is… Or should it just be ignored, like you did/do?
Furthermore, one could say that the male version wasn’t present when she did her ‘article’ about the evil, vile, and misogynistic female version. One would be wrong. You see, they ARE BOTH on the same page of the seller that she got her information and image from! Not only that, the male version IS FIRST ON THE PAGE! So, we can surmise that she did indeed see the male version, but chose, in true feminist fashion, to ignore it. Also note that the URL is: http://www.prankplace.com/penman.htm, whereas the name of the page is…PENMAN…
ahem… But I digress... Yet again.
And to add more hypocrisy to her never-ending level of ridiculousness, she calls out Glenn Sacks on his article on such objects, stating;
“Recently "men's rights activists" scoffed at the idea that we were offended by the pencil sharpener, which blogger Glenn Sacks wrote "depicts a conventional, common sex act which women enjoy." (What woman enjoys fucking without her head, I don't know.) I wonder if they'll find more excuses as to how "Help!" and "Ow!" are actually cries of unabashed pleasure.”
Hmmm, how blind can she be? The male version ALSO says similar things when the pen is inserted into his ass. Well, almost. There are no ‘approving indicators’ or ‘good mood’ categories. Only cries of pain…humorous as they are!
Of course, one of her cohorts just has to add her supporting diatribe. You know, to hit the point home;
“Cara puts it well:
This promotes rape. If you buy one of these things, you are promoting rape. If you laugh at one of these things, you are promoting rape. If you don’t laugh but still think that it’s a harmless joke, you are promoting rape. If one of your friends has one, or thinks it’s funny, and you don’t say anything about it, you are promoting rape. (Note: Bold hers)
How many more times do we have to say it? Rape is not funny.”
How exactly did we get from a tasteless and admittedly stupid pen holder to promoting rape? Only in a feminist mind I guess. But wait! Isn’t the male version promoting rape as well?
Of course not! That’s different! It’s funny! Can’t you take a joke? Gesh TMOTS! Get with the program! When it is perceived as derogatory towards women, it is derogatory towards women, period. When it is perceived as derogatory towards men… we men need to get a sense of humor.
Uhuh, we have heard it all.
Hypocrite; Thy name is Jessica Valenti.
Frankly, using sex to sell is a tried (or is that tired?) and true method of advertisers. Using violence and insults is not…. Well, that is unless the recipient of the violence is male that is. America’s Funniest Home Videos anyone? You cannot watch that show without seeing no less than two males getting it in the nads. Funny effin shit eh?
Now, I have just spent a significant amount of your time showing how Jessica Valenti; the feminist, has a real issue with sexism. Logically, you would guess that the crux of the issue is actually the objectification of women as sex toys, sexual play things, Using their bodies to sell, degrading them, etc…etc… ad nausea.
Please allow me to submit Exhibit A. This is Jessica at a gathering with other ‘like-minded’ individuals. Or so……she would have you believe….
This is what ‘respectable professional feminist type women’ acts like? Better yet, at a quasi-public gathering? Isn’t this ‘sexual harassment”? Isn’t this an example of disgusting sexual behavior? Sexual harassment?
Would she smile so matter-of-factly if it were a male doing the titillating (pardon…)? Is this just one of those ‘girl thangs’? If so, then how can you be against evil vile men using women as sexual toys, sexual harassment, and allow this to happen to yourself… let alone be photographed? Furthermore, allow it to be published publically on the internet?
Oh, I answered my own question… Silly me. It is only when MEN do it or even thinks about it… THEN! It’s actually bad….
Oh! Wait! I got it! Did she ply you with alcohol? That’s it isn’t it? RAPIST!
Oh wait, silly me, yet again. If that is rape, then it must be a ‘good rape’.
Hypocrite; Thy name is Jessica Valenti.
And before any of you claim that I am just a MANster of photo-chopping. This is a real photo. Furthermore, don’t even go to the “well she was drunk and it was this one time….at band camp” crap.
For if it were, just once…at band camp, Exhibit B would not exist right? To whit:
SHIT! Wait a minute! A feminist? At a wedding? The imperial venue of the Patriarchy? The patriarchy’s tool of female oppression!? NO! It cannot be! Something is amiss!
In the ever popular style of Rod Serling; “Imagine if you will.. A man, about to be wed, grabs one of his patron pals in the jewels for a photo-op. The Wife to be…. Happy as a lark, giggling like a child with these interesting and empowering images burned into her and her parents’ heads…”
Hypocrite; Thy name is Jessica Valenti.
You go girllllllllz!
Hypocrite; Thy name is Jessica Valenti.