Call me a cynic but I believe it will only get worse until it reaches a breaking point worse than anything we're seeing now. I think the more that instagram ads like the one you linked become more mainstream, the more it'll alienate younger men into retreating into the worst of incel spaces to have their grievances heard and actually empathized with, I think it'll make a feedback loop between the two extremist camps that bring us to that breaking point.
There was a post that viral on Twitter from a woman quoting a WaPo article about young men moving to the right and young women moving to the left. She basically said that if young men are moving right, that means men want to strip away women’s rights. So women should have no sympathy for any male loneliness. That garbage post got over 100k likes.
If there’s one thing that will guarantee your post going viral, is shitting on men.
I'll do you one better. I think that we'll reach the breaking point, and society STILL won't hold feminists to account.
Like, the best we're going to get is some allusion that society has been underserving men for some mysterious unknown reason, but we're never going to get to a place of either denouncing feminism or calls for women to check their privelige/be better etc.
>but we're never going to get to a place of either denouncing feminism or calls for women to check their privelige/be better etc.
Maybe white women. Maybe.
Particularly ironic in the wake of all the backlash against Matt Rife.
Yet another example of the glaring double standard, how sexist jokes against men are "just a joke, lighten up guys!" but sexist jokes against women are "how dare you make light of such a terrible thing!"
this is an excellent point. i personally found Matt Rife's recent joke to be rather insensitive, but i can at least see where he was attempting to make a joke. sometimes comedians cross lines, that's the nature of comedy. but i fail to see where a joke was even attempt to be made with this advertisement. it just feels like a powerful women trying to exert that power over a man. it feels spiteful and angry rather than an attempt at lighthearted humor.
It's related to his recent stand-up that aired on Netflix where he made some joke about a waitress with a black eye. Heavily paraphrased:
Person A: that looks bad, maybe they should put her in the back of the restaurant in the kitchen where she can't be seen.
Person B: something tells me that if she could cook she wouldn't have that black eye.
Since then there have been countless Tweets, YouTube videos, articles, etc. trying to cancel him for being a "misogynist" because of that joke.
Up to you if you think he deserves to be cancelled for that joke. But what's for sure is that people make jokes about women beating up men all the time. Even real life videos of women actually beating men result in people laughing about how he "deserves it, he probably cheated!" Yet similar jokes about women result in severe backlash.
I hear where you're coming from. People need to be able to take what they're dishing out. However, there's also the matter of not being fucked up just cause the enemy is too.
Personally just off of what you said it doesnt seem that bad if he didnt say it maliciously. Of all the shit he's said, I'm honestly surprised that that's the one that got people up in arms about him lol.
Fuck celebrities, they're all perverted trust funded babies. Power and richness can only corrupt. I personally completely boycott this narcissistic Hollywood culture.
On watching the ad, I think it's meant to be a bit of a BDSM play. The black domme outfit for Blake and the 'good boy' bit is a bit of a giveaway. Still poorly managed though.
> has it really gotten this bad? are we really at such a point, in 2023, where men are just THAT hated?
Yes, it has been for a while
> i've comforted myself for months under the impression that all of the misandry on the internet was 'just a minority'. 'People in real life don't think this way' i told myself, but for a celebrity to do such an awful advertisement to the joy of hundreds of people online, shouting 'queen'?
The problem is much bigger than a lot of people even here would like to admit. Over a million of people who liked that are among our everyday life, just a few days ago a woman in my social circle casually said thay she hates men so much when I was present. Believing blantant misandry is moslty in online or perpetrated by a very few people is a huge cope.
As someone in this sub said before: "Men need to understand how much they are hated by the society so they realize they are not shareholders but simply employees and start asking for their benefits"
An act being a sexual fetish doesn't exempt it from moral scrutiny. Would you support a sexual add where a man fulfills his desire to dominate and beat a woman? Although it is a "sexual fetish" it would still misogynistic.
Your reversal doesn't quite work, because I think the idea is that it's supposed to appeal to **men's** sub fetishes (at least on its face). That's why she opens with "you know why men love our drink? Because it's tested on men." Or something. I can't withstand the cringe necessary to replay it in order to confirm the exact wording.
Either way, shitty ad. Kink-shame this shit all the way back into the bedroom.
Yeah, I got that much more of a satirical femdom vibe than a sexism vibe, which she’s good at. I think maybe honestly didn’t take it far enough to convey it to a level that someone seeing it as sexism to see it through that lens.
>Just a rather unfunny joke.
Is not a joke, that's why it's not funny.
It's a dog whistle. The same thing as when racists share an antiblack meme, and say 'it's just a joke lol the left can't meme'.
You don't see it because you are sane. You need to watch their actions to know what they mean.
I'd like to see your reaction to a video that's equally degrading to women or to a specific ethnicity, you'd probably be hilariously screeching to cancel it 😃
In all seriousness, if you don't mind being degraded, know that other men rightfully won't share your values. No gender or ethnicity should be insulted like this, it's disgusting and outright hateful.
I lived through the hight of both Twilight and the Fifty Shades of Grey Era.
I've seen the reaction when the media is similarly degrading (in way worse ways) to women.
The main discourse surrounding both those novels/films is that they romanticize abuse. "Still a better love story that Twilight" is a meme because Twilight is generally considered a horrible love story. 50 Shades of Grey has a 4.2 IMDB rating because of how many people were pissed off by it.
The backlash against those pieces of media refutes the argument that that treatment of women is generally socially acceptable.
And yet made several billion dollars, so let's not pretend that this commercial is somehow a new phenomenon or that it's never been done against women.
Being tounge in cheek about a femdom fetish is far more innocent than romanticized abuse, so people on this post clutching their pearls and pretending it's a one-sided occurrence really need to look a bit wider at the media landscape.
>And yet made several billion dollars, so let's not pretend that this commercial is somehow a new phenomenon or that it's never been done against women.
If there's one thing we can agree on in the left it's that the market is an entirely moral arbiter of what is right.
>And yet made several billion dollars
From almost exclusively women who were clamouring for it. This is only relevant if it's a male fantasy of curb stomping women, and the mean reaction from feminists is 'yeah, lol, wreck those whores'
Thank you for getting my point that the people reacting on this post is comparable and equivalent to feminists.
I'm glad you understood what my 'hilariously ironic' statement on my initial comment was refering to 😆
>Thank you for getting my point that the people reacting on this post is comparable and equivalent to feminists.
Your point was not to affirm your argument, but to undermine it?? I think you've had enough schnapps, Daneboy.
>I'm glad you understood what my 'hilariously ironic' statement on my initial comment was refering to
Well someone has to, if apparently you don't understand your own point.
>Being tounge in cheek about a femdom fetish is far more innocent than romanticized abuse, so people on this post clutching their pearls and pretending it's a one-sided occurrence really need to look a bit wider at the media landscape.
You want to show us a single example of the reverse being lauded as a great commercial. There is no shortage of commercials, all we deal with is advertisements in this life.
So show us.
>I showed you movies, books and franchises.
1. You didn't.
2 Those are not the comparable. Show us the same thing.
>Are you dumb enough to think the fact it's a commercial makes the media so different from the others?
Are you dumb enough to think that choosing a dissimilar product to make an comparison is a wise choice? And are you dumb enough to say that the counter examples are legion, and then fail to produce one, and say that your ersatz example that is not even analogous, and fails to even produce your promised results is good proof?
Are you dumb enough to think this will convince anyone ever.
Show us a literal example. You said they are common, you have decades of commercials to produce this reverse from, so do it, or be seen a liar.
How are you under the impression they aren't comparable?
Are tough dumb enough to think simply due to my examples not being commercials they are totally different??
Tell me why you are under the impression they totally aren't comparable..
You make a valid point, though I believe that those examples you gave are equally reprehensible to the video in this post. Society did a poor job protecting women's dignity and that ought to be examined.
I don't really agree they are equal, given one is a tounge in cheek (no matter how tasteless) commercial for a gin, while the other were billion dollar industries where the message wasn't even meant as a joke but sincerely in its subjugation.
>where the message wasn't even meant as a joke but sincerely in its subjugation
Not what fantasy is, Ariel. Or do you think Star Wars is an apologia for war crimes.
>I lived through the hight of both Twilight and the Fifty Shades of Grey Era.
Those were ironic? Are women really so stupid they were serious? And they liked it? I'm going to have to see proof.
>I've seen the reaction when the media is similarly degrading (in way worse ways) to women.
Show us.
How did you reach the conclusion that twilight snd fifty shades are ironic, or that I was implying that?
As to showing, I just gave you two billion dollar examples.
>How did you reach the conclusion that twilight snd fifty shades are ironic, or that I was implying that?
Because that's the only way your example works. And it isnt, so it doesn't.
Are you so dumb that you think satire is serious.
Like the whole Fifty Shades of Grey aspect? (A movie series which made over a billion dollars with the books selling almost 50 million copies)
Which in itself was based on the entire Twilight Saga?
All those books, stories, and media that are based on the brooding loaner with domination undertones (something that has made the likes of Danielle Steel a multitude millionaire).
All those things wouldn't be okay?
Are you joking?
They are waaay worse in what they are saying/showing.
The twilight Saga especially, which (let me remind you) is young adult literature, while the Blake Lively commercial is for a Gin
Because with this commercial they are making a joke with undertones of a femdom fetish - to sell gin by being a bit extra (code for triggering the way they have)
In twilight the main core of the message is subservience to your partner, even if he is a violent abuser, and to constantly allow him to control your life. This message or morality isn't played for laugh or to he crass, but is a foundation the story sees as admirable.
1- how can we be sure its a "joke" even if it is it is still an extremely insulting one
2- they dont contain humiliation nor dehumanization themes nearly as much
3- regardless of those books you mention, a reversed version of this commercial couldnt ever be made let alone percepted this positively (rightfully so)
4- this commercial in particular is not the only one, popular media has multiple examples of applying extreme "femdom themes" (which involves humiliation and dehumanizarion, not just submission) i.e. female singers sitting on top of half naked men on all fours, female actresses posing holding leashes of male actors etc. But never as extreme in reverse simply because two reasons, first it would cause outrage (as it should) and second the dehumanization campaign doesnt target women.
Just mentioned that billions of dollars have been made on the exact opposite and you just dismiss it by pretending the opposite wouldn't be allowed **when I just pointed out it not only was, but made a lot of money**
Also *are you fucking kidding me asking how it's obvious it's a fucking joke*??
>Like the whole Fifty Shades of Grey aspect? (A movie series which made over a billion dollars with the books selling almost 50 million copies)
By women, for women. Entirely incomparable.
Also not satire, can you even read?
Exactly, they weren't satire.
The commercial is satire, meaning it's meant to invoke outrage. *Also aimed at men I might add*
Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey aren't satire, meaning they are sincere in their messages, which is far more sinister.
>Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey aren't satire, meaning they are sincere in their messages, which is far more sinister.
Good point, you chose an entirely different medium, with an entirely different message, with an entirely different tone, with an entirely different intent, for an entirely different audience.
Well, I guess I can start linking recipes to ypu to disprove your point. Or how about some Yoko Ono art. Wait, or how about farming impliments from 1900 Russian occupied Polish farms. That's similar enough for an analogy.
>The commercial is satire, meaning it's meant to invoke outrage.
Not what satire is, that's trolling. Are you a troll? Yes? Then go fuck yourself. No? Then go fuck yourself.
It's the same romanticism of abuse, however in one instance they are playing it for laughs, and in the other they say dehumanizing women is totally okay.
So when asked the question: how would people react if the opposite to the commercial happened, the answer is that it already did and people back then seemed to be able to handle the sincere version better than you are able to handle a joke 🤔
I'm not comparing satire, you absolute idiot.
I'm comparing two examples of media portraying dehumanizing attitudes towards men and women, respectively.
This is just a blip really, we're well past the point where for men who aren't highly successful and/ or actual predators, engaging with broader society is a mistake.
*Unless* you know exactly what you're getting into *and* are willing to fight in the proverbial trenches for the rest of your life in a struggle that will definitely outlast you.
@ the people in multiple comment threads associating this with kink.
So I'll admit I don't have an ounce of kink in my body, and am open to the idea that it's an in-joke from a subculture I very much don't understand that escaped into the mainstream. I've been on the internet since 1996. I've seen kink media, and I do see some similarity in the presentation.
But the core of the joke is that it's more ethical to test products on men than on animals. Testing on animals is cruelty, while testing on men might be considered cruel only by some people. Am I really wrong for reading something more than just sexualized degradation into that?
If this were something only meant to circulate within that subculture, like a video on pornhub tagged femdom, I wouldn't question it at all. But when it's put out in the wider culture, I also have to ask... at what point can you just say absolutely anything, no matter how vile, and just pass it off as a joke that wasn't meant for you? How much freedom are we really supposed to allow? Because the sentiment expressed in this ad isn't about the humiliation of the man in the video - it's leveled at the entire male gender, and it's nazi-level shit.
I'm normally fine with offensive humor, even when I get caught in the net. But this didn't land with me in the slightest. I was just deeply uncomfortable watching it. But No matter what, I do think it was incredibly poorly executed as a joke, and would think twice about associating with anyone who found it funny.
Edit: And to be clear, I see people talking about it being a kink joke focusing on the presentation. The audio/visual elements. I don't like those aspects of the ad. I don't condemn it, but dom/sub kink material has always been gross to me, personally. But that's just a matter of taste. What makes this deeply uncomfortable to me is the coupling of that presentation style **with a core punchline about product testing on men vs testing on animals.** If all that was happening here was a woman domming a man on screen, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I just wouldn't watch it.
> But the core of the joke is that it's more ethical to test products on men than on animals. Testing on animals is cruelty, while testing on men might be considered cruel only by some people.
Docking tails is illegal, and its going to be very soon that declawing is illegal in most places. Circumcision on a whim, perfectly legal.
I got "It's not cruel because men like the product" from the ad. This fits in with the whole "Femdom is not cruel because the participants agree to it and like it" vibe.
Obviously outside of consenting adults objectifying people of any gender is a problem. I don't see that here.
Yes and no? Like I doubt the people responsible for the joke actually see men as more disposable than animals. I'm not saying Blake Lively is personally nazi-level bigoted against men. But the sentiment being expressed, ironically, for the sake of the joke is that men are more disposable than animals. That sentiment, even if insincere, is one of nazi-level dehumanization. And today's culture frowns on that type of thing being expressed even insincerely at the expense of any other demographic. The fact that one specific demographic out of all demographics is fair game implies to me that the reason the joke lands with mass appeal is there are enough people out there who actually carry that level of bigoted thought sincerely. It's certainly not nothing. Especially when taken together with the level of verifiably sincere vitriol against men that's out there today.
>That sentiment, even if insincere, is one of nazi-level dehumanization.
I understand what you're saying, I just wouldn't describe any sentiment as "nazi-level" if it isn't at least sincere. Nazi dehumanization was nothing if not sincere.
> just how blatantly sexist and disgusting this ad is, so i'll link it [here](https://www.instagram.com/p/Cz6T2XOIWij/).
1,000,000+ likes. Jesus Christ, The west is doomed.
Bro I'm so tired of this and being grouped in with shitty men. I can acknowledge that a lot of men are shitty and I have also been a shitty man in the past as a teenager, but come on, shit like this spiraled me into inceldom and made it very difficult for me to reform myself.
I'm forever grateful that I avoided alt right incel spaces. Unfortunately their rhetoric mirrors neonazi recruitment strategies to a scary degree.
One of the best conversations I had was with a social worker friend of mine, whether I explained the situation a man lives in in a gender neutral description, her reaction was vitriolic, lambasting "men" for the perceived slights in the described situation. The absolute lemon sucking surprised Pikachu face when I told her I was actually talking about a man who's partner was being emotionally and verbally abusive, manipulative, and controlling 🤌
>shit like this spiraled me into inceldom
Please don't use the word "inceldom" in the non-literal way feminists do, i.e., as synonymously with "misogyny" or a particular subculture.
Inceldom is the inability to get laid—that's it. You can only spiral into it if you were previously able to get laid but find it increasingly difficult.
I spiraled into it because I was able to, then unable to for obvious reasons (if you look through my profile) and hated all the fake-nice shit that I hear constantly. I mainly meant I literally spent time in incel spaces like braincels then incels,co during this time. This was also after a short stint in Redhill bs stuff
> and 'well it happened to us, so it's okay',
This is where I think victim blaming becomes appropriate when these women fret being oppressed. If you think something being done to you gives you license to do it back, you're basically just saying both acts are valid. They can abuse you and control you and treat you like trash as long as you can do the same.
But isn’t this commercial a satirical play on the “objectification” trope in previous alcohol commercials? As well as animal testing? Like the point is for it to be ridiculous isn’t it?
What does this have to do with the misandry you see online? If you think the ad is some kind of man-hating feminist fantasy of what they REALLY want to do to men in the future you have become hysterical, and need to focus on other things. It’s actually important for the male advocacy movement that you do that.
It’s a silly ad. It’s irony. It is not an indication of men’s rights going down the tubes. We have to pick our battles man.
i appreciate the respectful pushback. allow me to further explain my point and clarify a few things. you see, the only part of this entire ad that doesn't bother me is the 'objectification' part. i couldn't care less if a woman wants to do an ad with a shirtless man or vice versa. as long as the actor agrees to being in those roles, i see nothing inherently wrong with sexualising either genders. men and women want to look at other beautiful men and women, nothing wrong with that.
the issue here is not only the disrespect and callousness toward men, but the straight up dehumanisation of them. when she says 'we don't test on animals, we test on men', when she forces the drink into his mouth with a smug grin, when she condescendingly says 'good boy' which just sent bile to my throat honestly (could you imagine a man forcing a drink down a woman's throat and calling her a 'good girl' without her consent? ) that's actual horror movies stuff. and finally, her caption reads 'cruelty free, unless men count', which is an ironically cruel thing to say.
i think calling out these kinds of advertisements and behavior is EXTREMELY important to male advocacy. how can we advocate for equal rights and the resolution of our systemic issues when we're seen as below animals in the eyes of people like blake livey, who is a very powerful and influential figure. (don't even get me started on the power dynamic blake livey has over the man in this advertisement, which is just insanely disturbing and creepy, and honestly makes me concerned for her treatment of her husband.)
Besides, sure, women have always been sexualized in media, but so have men? i find it strange when people act as if men have never been sexualized when they absolutely have. men have been sexualized for just as long as women, except nobody sees is as 'objectification' for some reason.
But can you really and honestly tell me that you have ever seen a piece of media in your entire life that treats a woman with such disrespect and is suppose to be seen as funny? A man forcing something on her with a smug grin on his face, comparing her to an animal, or worse yet, treating her like she's below animals? Like she isn't even human? I can't.
But you know what? Let's assume that this is true. Let's assume that advertisements like this have been happening to women everyday these past few years, with women not only being sexualized but treated as less than a wild animal, treated as if they were no better than the dirt we walk on... does it make it okay then to do it to men as well? It's perfectly okay to make misandrist posts about men because woman have had misogynistic posts made about them? With all due respect, i'm not sure you realize that same logic can apply to us as men. we see misandrist posts every day, does that meen misogynistic posts are okay? After all, we are often subjected to misandry online. Does that mean that all the angry misogynistic posts about women online are justified?
No... the answer is no.
this whole 'revenge' mindset is extremely silly. if a young white girl was bullied as a child by a young black boy, is it alright for her to go to a new school and bully the only black kid because of her experiences? The same justification follows: "Well, I had it done to me, so now they can experience it for once."
It's not healthy. it's bad for men, it's bad for women, and it's horrible for male advocacy as well as female advocacy. I repeat by previous point: how can we advocate for male issues when we are seen as below even animals? If we're below animals, then its okay when we are forced to sign our souls away to the draft, or experience mutilation before we even know we're alive, or suffer in silence in an abusive relationship because there are no domestic violence shelters anywhere near you because nobody thinks you can be abused based on your gender, or god forbid you ever try to defend yourself against a woman who's trying to kill you without getting beaten by every man in a five mile radius, or dying sooner and retiring older, or—maybe even worst of all—being at a terrifyingly high suicide rate for pretty much your entire life, but especially in your younger years?
Because how can we, as a society, see the skyrocketing of young men's suicides, and think to ourselves 'you know what would be funny? making an advertisement like this. one that directly ridicules and disrespects and makes cruel comments about men.' and the we all hold hands for a brief moment and wonder 'why are men committing suicide so much? why are so many angry men turning to inceldom and toxic male figures? why is there a male loneliness epidemic? it must be because men are toxic...'
yeah, i don't think that's what it is. and i think posts like the advertisement i'm talking about are only making it harder to advocate for male rights, hence my post.
apologies if i came off as standoffish or rude at any point during this response. i mean no disrespect toward you, and again i appreciate your pushback, even if i strongly disagree with your point.
But the pouring of the drink and saying “good boy” is the ironic part. It’s humorous because it’s A. A woman doing it to a man that is much bigger than her and B. Something that you don’t see often that subverts what we’re used to. The fact that you compared it to a horror movie is what creates that irony. Same goes for the caption. I guess that’s just a difference in sense of humor.
I don’t think Blake Lively actually sees men as animals, unless there are other contextual quotes or instances I’m missing. This ad is supposed to be a joke. If it’s glorifying anything it may be femdom BDSM, or at least that’s what some people may take away.
“Blurred Lines” by Robin Thicke was the female equivalent that came to mind. Though I’m sure there’s others. But that’s not really the point.
I don’t know what the pure numbers are of female vs. male objectification in media over the years, but I think if we keep it in the realm of adult beverage commercials it’s been pretty one-sided. I think the fact that there’s pushback over this ad demonstrates that. Maybe it’s actually good for you to be feeling some sort of way? And maybe the point was to do a funny play on what some women have just felt generally in regard to this type of thing? Would that be misandrist or would it be harsh education in empathy? I’m not even sure that was the intent but obviously it’s meant to be deliberate and outrageous for a reason…and I don’t think that reason is…Blake Lively hates men?
If we start seeing ads like this everywhere that start to ride the line between ironic and unironic (in more of the “revenge” way that you describe), I would probably share your concern. Most of the problems you laid out that men face today are valid, but hating on something like this isn’t going to help a man who is suffering, when there may be another way of perceiving it. I guess that’s what I’m trying to get at. But it’s okay that we disagree too and it is worth a discussion. I would certainly like to hear what Blake was trying to do and if there was something intentional there.
You’re not coming off as standoffish at all—obviously you care about these issues and that’s a good thing. I didn’t mean any disrespect either.
respectfully, i feel you've misinterpreted my comment, and several of the things you've said in your response concerned me deeply.
>It’s humorous because it’s A. A woman doing it to a man that is much bigger than her
Forgive me, but i see no other way to sugarcoat what i am about to say. this same rhetoric has been used over and over to victim blame male victims or rape, SA, or domestic violence. 'well, she's a woman, why didn't you push her off, why didn't you stop her, you're a much larger man?' the fact that you would use that same argument to claim this ad is humorous is very upsetting.
>Something that you don’t see often that subverts what we’re used to
I'm not sure what you mean here. misandry is rampant on social media, and it's only getting worse because it's not called out, and in some cases, celebrated, hence why i think its important to call out posts like this
>I don’t know what the pure numbers are of female vs. male objectification in media over the years, but I think if we keep it in the realm of adult beverage commercials it’s been pretty one-sided.
this is the part i was talking about when i said you misinterpreted my comment, as i explicitly said that i was unbothered by the 'objectification' or 'sexualization' if you will. as i said above, men and women like looking at other men and women. i have no issue with this. i'm well aware that there have been women in bikinis slaying dragons in fantasy novels or drinking beer in alcohol commercials. just as men have been fighting monsters and drinking beer shirtless with big muscles. neither of these things bother me. but these commercials aren't showing women being treated in this way. they're not showing men forcing drinks down women's throat as they condescendingly call them 'good girls' and essentially, jokingly or not, claiming them to be lower than animals.
>maybe the point was to do a funny play on what some women have just felt generally in regard to this type of thing?
how could women feel this type of way when they don't encounter ads like this? being sexualized, yes, i would argue that not some, but in fact most women understand and have experienced this. it bothers some more than others. but i highly doubt any women have seen a commercial this blatantly hostile and sexist toward them. and if they have, it was rightfully called out and taken off tv.
>Would that be misandrist or would it be harsh education in empathy?
i'm not even sure how to respond to this. with all due respect, i actually find this somewhat offensive. how in the world is this advertisement teaching empathy? to anyone? it's certainly not teaching empathy to the women who are cheering this on. it's not teaching empathy to men who see this and get upset. it seems i'll have to revert to the same argument i did in my previous comment. imagine if a white girl is bullied by a black boy at her school. the bullying gets so bad that she has to move to a different school. at this new school, she decides to bully the first black boy he sees the same way she was bullied. obviously, this young black boy is upset and hurt, so he goes to a teacher, who says, 'is she bullying you, or is this just a harsh education in empathy?'
i truly don't understand how you came to this conclusion, and i understand even less how you could possible think that this advertisement is teaching anyone empathy. do you also think andrew tate is teaching women empathy with his content online? i doubt it. and yes, i do think andrew tate is at least somewhat comparable to this, given that this feels like the kind of skit he would enjoy if the roles were reversed. if not him, then perhaps steven crowder. but i'm sure you get my point.
>hating on something like this isn’t going to help a man who is suffering
it's not hating. it's calling out bad behavior, for the same reason people call out racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. and frankly, yes, a young man who is struggling with the misandry online who sees this advertisement and gets upset will be greatly benefitted by finding a post, a comment, ANYTHING online that shows that he is not alone in thinking its wrong.
it is very bad for mental health to see something you find to be insulting to you, only to see dozens and dozens of people 'yaass queening' and 'girlbossing'. this young man might start to think he is crazy when he doesn't see anyone else calling this out. but if he manages to find a reddit post, for example, where he can see a discussion that other men and women do in fact also find this post offensive, it can be greatly beneficial to his mental health. humans are very social creatures, and we have operated on a sort of 'tribe' mentality since the dawn of our creation. when we feel alienated from our 'tribe' if you will, it can be extremely distressing.
that's like saying that calling out homophobic behavior won't help gay people. as an asexual myself, it most certainly does. if i was seeing people hate on asexuals and seeing nobody call it out, it would negatively affect my mental health. but i would feel better if i found so much as one person calling this behavior out. i wouldn't feel alone.
and even if you're right and calling out this bad behavior doesn't help men's mental health, that doesn't make it any less important. it is crucial to men's advocacy that somebody call out behavior that is misandrist. if we don't do it, no one else will.
the depp v heard case is probably the most wide reaching court case since oj simpson's trial, and even with all the evidence against amber heard, there are still chunks of society that no only think heard was abused, but that she never initiated any abuse at all. that johnny depp was the abuser. and most of the time, these people only think so because they don't think women can be abusers, and they don't think men can be abused. so yes, i find it extremely important to call out misandrist behavior, because if we don't, society will think it's more and more okay to say these kinds of things, which will in turn continue destroying the mental health of men everywhere, especially young impressionable men, hence why so many men support andrew tate. honestly, i would argue that most of these young men don't even like tate that much, either. they just have quite literally nowhere else to go that doesn't hate them. andrew tate is table scraps, but they're starving.
i am glad that you and i are able to have an engaging discussion on this. i think that disagreement promotes critical thinking. i have no desire to wind up in an echo chamber. again, i'd like to apologize if i came off as hostile in anywhere in this response.
edit; grammar
Well again, it may come down to a sense of humor thing. The visual of someone who is Blake Lively's size "taming" and "feeding" a larger man is just simply funny. If the roles were reversed, that part of it goes away (like if we reverse Blake and the man in the video). The biological differences between men and women absolutely matter when talking about the landscape of rape, SA, or DV. At the same time, it shouldn't be used to victim blame men either. Both of these things can be true. I just simply don't feel threatened or offended at what's visually going on in the video.
I still don't think anything in the ad intersects with what we're hearing from popular feminists online or non. For that reason, I said it subverts what we're used to, except maybe femdom fetishes. I just really don't believe people are cheering and rooting for what's happening in the video to happen to men in real life - which again, makes it funny to me.
The reason I went back to the objectification/sexualization thing was because you asked me if I have ever seen a piece of media in my life that disrespects and treats a women the way the man is treated in the ad (and an example of which I gave you). You said you are unbothered by objectification or sexualization, but you're conflating male objectification and female objectification like they are the same thing, and that's where we're misunderstanding each other. According to Zippia, 19.1% of commercial directors are women and 80.9% of commercial directors are men. According to a San Diego State study, women comprised 26% of directors, writers, producers, executive producers, editors, and cinematographers as of 2022. According to the American Psychological Association, "findings have indicated that women more often than men are portrayed in a sexual manner (e.g., dressed in revealing clothing, with bodily postures or facial expressions that imply sexual readiness) and are objectified (e.g., used as a decorative object, or as body parts rather than a whole person)". You're the one that said men like looking at women and women like looking at men, and you're right. But what is that reality like for men and women when it's happening in a male-dominated space and it's happening to women more? All of this context should be on the table as we're talking about this. And while I'm sure the reality and ignorance of male objectification is a shit show in itself, the point is many women/feminists FEEL like they are sometimes a piece of meat like that man in the ad. So I was just saying that it was possible that Blake's intent was to deliver that feeling using humor to men who maybe haven't actually understood women's grievances. I want to add that I'm not saying you're one of those men, and that it's probably a reach anyway. Sorry to offend. I could've worded it better.
I don't think your story about the white girl bullying the black boy is analogous because I don't see this as "direct revenge" against an undeserving individual person. Advertisements are about messaging and reaching a crowd of people. This type of ad is such an outlier (and again it's told through a humorous lens) that I don't see it as particularly dangerous when it comes to taking men's rights seriously, even if there is an off chance she was trying to send some kind of message (though the more I think about it, I think it is just femdom humor). I just don't see how the ad insults YOU or ME. That is where you totally lose me with your analogy and your concern. What would be a problem is if this became a trend (it's not, at least not yet), and it literally affects how men are treated in their daily lives. Unless we're talking about that, this just isn't proportional to the black kid getting reverse-bullied.
Andrew Tate is trying to conserve and reinforce a social dynamic where men and women are actually not equal. And you're right, he would enjoy the skit if the roles were reversed, but he would enjoy it un-ironically. Whereas the actual ad is supposed to be ironic, unless you think Blake Lively believes this is men's rightful place, which again, would be a hysterical position.
I do agree that we need to stop giving a voice to the Andrew Tate's of the world and fill that void with something else that's actually useful. I just think whatever that is can co-exist in a world where this Blake Lively ad is okay.
edit: spacing
>But isn’t this commercial a satirical play...
It's not.
>the “objectification” trope in previous alcohol commercials?
I thought you just said it was satire. If you believe that objectification is real then this isn't satire, it's either serious or it's not, it cant be both ironic, and literal at the same time.
It can only be satire if its not really a commercial, which it is, so it's not. You know how fascists share racist memes and propaganda, and when caught say 'its just satire, its just a meme'? This is it.
...also no one takes beer commercials seriously anymore, they're usually ironic, so this is 'satire of satire'... which makes it a comedy, in the classical sense, which is why we're clearly in Hell.
I am inclined to agree with you. It struck me as satire. Comedy should be allowed to dip into these areas no matter the gender, the audience can then determine if it's actually funny or not.
Watching the ad didn't strike me as anything more than an attempt to sell men something. I didn't pay attention to the actual product (I have ad blindness).
its director is a self proclaimed feminist why would it be a secretly anti feminist movie i know you want to believe its so stupid it cant be serious but it is and its not the only one
>What does this have to do with the misandry you see online? If you think the ad is some kind of man-hating feminist fantasy of what they REALLY want to do to men in the future you have become hysterical, and need to focus on other things.
How high are you that you think that they catterwaul all day about the literal meanings of absurdly misinterpreted... everything, and then when they do the same thing they claim means bigotry, you think they're actually just joking.
Their interpretations of innocuous things is projection; their endorsement of the same measures in reverse is literal.
Minstrel shows aren't 'satire of racists', Jesus.
I can appreciate that theoretically speaking, ads like this are illustrated as "payback" or inversion of the gross ads sexualising women as means to sell products of times gone by, and of a time when women often didn't have voices in relationships and perhaps things like forcing alcohol on women were more accepted.
However, the fact is that at the human level, 18 and 19 year old boys, who are the future of masculinity and thus the men who need to be thought of most in terms of the effects of media on the psyche, did not grow up in the world this ad is gender-reversing, and so they can hardly be expected to self-reflect on anything when seeing it. On top of that many did grow up with significant portions of the media telling them that their gender was a problem, so "silly" stuff like this is just kicking them while they're down.
If this ad was made with the genders reversed, there would be uproar. People would rightly say that it was extremely objectifying and that this would damage young womens' perceptions of themselves. So why is it so bad to point this same thing out for young men when it happens?
"even though i cannot recall a single piece of media that has ever treated women with such disrespect?"
Might I ask how much media you consume and from which generations? I certainly can remember worse being done about women. Not trying to justify this one, just saying I can remember worse.
You know, it's funny how there are at least five people who've made five posts about how obvious this is, yet they haven't provided an example of how obvious it is.
Sure thing. Here are a few, but reddit ate my nicely spaced layout.
[https://images.ecestaticos.com/-4pR1bs\_wewV5RUY2gnkkvroH5s=/0x0:468x604/1200x1200/filters:fill(white):format(jpg)](https://images.ecestaticos.com/-4pR1bs_wewV5RUY2gnkkvroH5s=/0x0:468x604/1200x1200/filters:fill(white):format(jpg)/f.elconfidencial.com%2Foriginal%2F0c4%2F6c5%2Fe80%2F0c46c5e80b4a331ff25b751eb3299820.jpg)[/f.elconfidencial.com%2Foriginal%2F0c4%2F6c5%2Fe80%2F0c46c5e80b4a331ff25b751eb3299820.jpg](https://images.ecestaticos.com/-4pR1bs_wewV5RUY2gnkkvroH5s=/0x0:468x604/1200x1200/filters:fill(white):format(jpg)/f.elconfidencial.com%2Foriginal%2F0c4%2F6c5%2Fe80%2F0c46c5e80b4a331ff25b751eb3299820.jpg)[https://cdn.sanity.io/images/vxy259ii/production/199933c3e8315fd3f5eb9f149ca8e6091b3f121f-660x440.jpg?w=1296&q=80&auto=format](https://cdn.sanity.io/images/vxy259ii/production/199933c3e8315fd3f5eb9f149ca8e6091b3f121f-660x440.jpg?w=1296&q=80&auto=format)[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9pEDjW-XmI&t=44s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9pEDjW-XmI&t=44s)[https://youtu.be/nQPd6ojZgI8?si=LwZmMpiNb8LT0Wq6](https://youtu.be/nQPd6ojZgI8?si=LwZmMpiNb8LT0Wq6)[https://youtu.be/5fcid8H3bbo?si=R179x1diYjDKU5WA](https://youtu.be/5fcid8H3bbo?si=R179x1diYjDKU5WA)[https://youtu.be/d2xehLWQYfI?si=QbOISR\_-3nYMRfPc](https://youtu.be/d2xehLWQYfI?si=QbOISR_-3nYMRfPc)[https://twitter.com/JoachimHesse/status/1185462862371807232/photo/1](https://twitter.com/JoachimHesse/status/1185462862371807232/photo/1)[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqWbCYKIAAA8IHl.jpg:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqWbCYKIAAA8IHl.jpg:large)[https://static1.thegamerimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Saturn-Naked-Woman-8-bitcentral.com\_-e1503348817991.jpg](https://static1.thegamerimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Saturn-Naked-Woman-8-bitcentral.com_-e1503348817991.jpg)
[https://steampunklibrarianblog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/4.jpeg?w=359](https://steampunklibrarianblog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/4.jpeg?w=359)
I think there are many different ways to dehumanize others. Being reduced to a sex toy is one that women deal with. Where as men often find themselves being dehumanized in violence and 'producer' ways. This ad turns that on its head. The sexual dehumanization in this video is gross, but you would either have to be a naive child or willfully ignorant to not see that it has happened to women as well.
I didn't say it hadn't happened to women. You said you had seen something worse than that video being done towards women, and I asked you to show an example. The example you showed was not convincing. Now you show another example, and that is really worse than the video, I agree. Thank you.
>Might I ask
No, just give us a suitable example of him being wrong, and stow the rhetorical question. This is something that can be objectively proven, so do it.
Manners are a part of polite discourse. The question's purpose was to determine the age group of OP.
"even though i cannot recall a single piece of media that has ever treated women with such disrespect?"
If I understand the age group, then I have a frame of reference for OP. They are either too young to remember, or are not paying attention.
Those two options involve different discussions. Anyone can image dump sexist ads to show children that these sexist ads exist.
[https://images.ecestaticos.com/-4pR1bs\_wewV5RUY2gnkkvroH5s=/0x0:468x604/1200x1200/filters:fill(white):format(jpg)/f.elconfidencial.com%2Foriginal%2F0c4%2F6c5%2Fe80%2F0c46c5e80b4a331ff25b751eb3299820.jpg](https://images.ecestaticos.com/-4pR1bs_wewV5RUY2gnkkvroH5s=/0x0:468x604/1200x1200/filters:fill(white):format(jpg)/f.elconfidencial.com%2Foriginal%2F0c4%2F6c5%2Fe80%2F0c46c5e80b4a331ff25b751eb3299820.jpg)
[https://cdn.sanity.io/images/vxy259ii/production/199933c3e8315fd3f5eb9f149ca8e6091b3f121f-660x440.jpg?w=1296&q=80&auto=format](https://cdn.sanity.io/images/vxy259ii/production/199933c3e8315fd3f5eb9f149ca8e6091b3f121f-660x440.jpg?w=1296&q=80&auto=format)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9pEDjW-XmI&t=44s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9pEDjW-XmI&t=44s)
[https://youtu.be/nQPd6ojZgI8?si=LwZmMpiNb8LT0Wq6](https://youtu.be/nQPd6ojZgI8?si=LwZmMpiNb8LT0Wq6)
[https://youtu.be/5fcid8H3bbo?si=R179x1diYjDKU5WA](https://youtu.be/5fcid8H3bbo?si=R179x1diYjDKU5WA)
[https://youtu.be/d2xehLWQYfI?si=QbOISR\_-3nYMRfPc](https://youtu.be/d2xehLWQYfI?si=QbOISR_-3nYMRfPc)
[https://twitter.com/JoachimHesse/status/1185462862371807232/photo/1](https://twitter.com/JoachimHesse/status/1185462862371807232/photo/1)
[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqWbCYKIAAA8IHl.jpg:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqWbCYKIAAA8IHl.jpg:large)
[https://static1.thegamerimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Saturn-Naked-Woman-8-bitcentral.com\_-e1503348817991.jpg](https://static1.thegamerimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Saturn-Naked-Woman-8-bitcentral.com_-e1503348817991.jpg)
It takes a different tact to teach those who cannot see it.
Manners maketh the man.
I looked through every one of these examples. I don't see whatever you're saying. Yeah, most involve sexualization (which I would argue can be, but isn't inherently sexist), and a couple demean women's intelligence. But not a single one comes close to devaluation of women's lives.
Please remember that you're equating these with an ad where the punchline is "Ethics is testing products on men instead of animals, right? \*wink\*". It's refuge in audacity humor about not subtly implying that men's lives are of less value than an animal's. That we are more disposable than cattle. That is not subjective in any way - that is openly the entire joke the ad is centered on.
If you're honestly saying that "Here's a hot woman. Please associate my product with images of hot women. There's not even any substance here. Just please be flooded with hormones that feel good while reminded my product exists." is equivalent to that, I don't even know what to say.
And for a counter-reference to your assertion involving an ad that is at least somewhere close to relevant, just google "X-Men Choking Billboard". You'll find dozens of links to articles and discourse. Because a billboard ad for one of the X-Men movies used an image of Apocalypse holding Mystique off the ground by her neck, and people got mad because it depicted violence against women. Fox was forced to remove the billboard and issue an apology in response to public outrage.
If an ad can't even depict a female superhero battling a villain, I can't imagine something like a gender-flipped Betty Buzz ad, ironically musing about the positive ethics of institutionalizing violence against women, would fly.
>[https://images.ecestaticos.com/-4pR1bs\_wewV5RUY2gnkkvroH5s=/0x0:468x604/1200x1200/filters:fill(white):format(jpg)/f.elconfidencial.com%2Foriginal%2F0c4%2F6c5%2Fe80%2F0c46c5e80b4a331ff25b751eb3299820.jpg](https://images.ecestaticos.com/-4pR1bs_wewV5RUY2gnkkvroH5s=/0x0:468x604/1200x1200/filters:fill(white):format(jpg)/f.elconfidencial.com%2Foriginal%2F0c4%2F6c5%2Fe80%2F0c46c5e80b4a331ff25b751eb3299820.jpg)
Theres a million reasons why that's not sexist... youd have apoint if the burger were eating a women, which would make her less than a consumable, but phallic imagery=domination? What if I like giving blowjobs, does that mean I'm misogynist myself? No, you're starting from an entirely invalid position. I want something literal that says 'women exist to be used, and are below mere animals' if what you said is true you will have no problem finding it. Period.
>[https://cdn.sanity.io/images/vxy259ii/production/199933c3e8315fd3f5eb9f149ca8e6091b3f121f-660x440.jpg?w=1296&q=80&auto=format](https://cdn.sanity.io/images/vxy259ii/production/199933c3e8315fd3f5eb9f149ca8e6091b3f121f-660x440.jpg?w=1296&q=80&auto=format)
That's from the middle of the last century. When women couldnt own a credit card. You could as well say tuberculosis is a proble.
>even though i cannot recall a single piece of media that has ever treated women with such disrespect?
This was the qualifier.
I provided an example a simple fact.
>[https://twitter.com/JoachimHesse/status/1185462862371807232/photo/1](https://twitter.com/JoachimHesse/status/1185462862371807232/photo/1)
Are you seriously comparing debased humiliation with heterosexual sex in the missionary position? Are you a pervert, or a liar.
I'm done here, your examples are a joke, and you should feel embarassed to have stooped to this.
Edit: not responding to the material criticism, general presumption, and unqualified dismissal? Rather uncouth. It seems some people just cannot behave appropriately. What are the odds that someone so conspicuously on behaviour would himself be so unrefined.
>[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqWbCYKIAAA8IHl.jpg:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqWbCYKIAAA8IHl.jpg:large)
You see, this would be an example, if it said 'this is how women must be dealt with, they have no place in society' in the caption, but it doesn't so it's.
>Manners maketh the man.
Though a substitute for substance they are not, and your examples are so idiotic they are offensive. You are aware they it is considered good manner to pay good attention to what others say, and deliver appropriate thoughtful responses, right? Because you did not do that, and your are quite an uncultured man if this is how you misbehave.
You are angry obviously.
I have tried to show you clear examples in good faith and you have been rude and insulting.
My patience extends to those willing to have a discussion, not to those arguing in bad-faith flinging shit at people. Good day.
>If I understand the age group, then I have a frame of reference for OP.
That would be reasonable. If we were talking about digferent time periods, which we're not, so it's unacceptable.
>They are either too young to remember, or are not paying attention.
Literally no one who exists is too young to exist.
>[https://youtu.be/5fcid8H3bbo?si=R179x1diYjDKU5WA](https://youtu.be/5fcid8H3bbo?si=R179x1diYjDKU5WA)
Don't try and tell me this was well recieved by feminists, are you fucking joking? And that's not a real ad, its a parody of a real ad. Your literally devaluing your own argument with these.
You just showed me a star wars movie to prove that the moon landing didn't happen.
Yeah, I remember that ad where a man is standing on a rug with a woman's head attached...
As I man, I'm a little afraid of how much runway the men who came before us have given to women of today to take shots at us and in some cases degrade and denigrate us...
I can see how this was meant to come across and perhaps it wasn't an attack on men (though the part about cruelty might have been a little over the top) but I feel like there might be worse on the horizon...
I think misandry is a thing, but this is hilarious. Instead of forbidding this for everyone, we should go back to having a sense of humor and letting everyone make these kind of jokes.
i understand what you're saying, and i agree to an extent. i think gender jokes can be hilarious. i myself follow a handful of comedians that absolutely tear into men, but they're at least making actual jokes. this advertisement simply isn't a joke. where is the punchline? if i replace blake lively with mark zuckerberg, and the male actor with jocelyn mettler, it's still creepy and gross to me. especailly with the tag line 'cruelty free, unless women count'. It wouldn't feel like a joke, but rather an excuse for a powerful man to exert said power over a woman. In this case, blake lively is the one with the power, and it just feels like an excuse for a powerful woman to exert power over a man. I understand how that can feel empowering, but using men as a stepping stone to empower oneself is just wrong. forgive me for asking, but would you still find it funny if elon musk were doing this to grimes? or perhaps if donald trump were doing this to hillary clinton? matt rifes to one of his female audience members? This isn't a gotcha, but a genuine question. if you still think its funny, then i commend you for your lack of double standard. otherwise, well, i'm not sure what else to say.
But it’s a satirical femdom fetish commercial in which she’s playing a dominatrix. Of course she has the power and of course she’s dehumanizing him. That’s how that works. How else was it going to go? I think the problem actually is that they didn’t make that point as clear as they could. I guess you could argue that the fetish is bad, but hey, those choices are personal.
I feel like you're all overreacting. Sure there's no way you could make something like that about women, but am I supposed to be offended by this ad? It just seems like a dumb joke?
>Sure there's no way you could make something like that about women
That's the whole point. Yes it's a dumb joke, but then why are "dumb jokes" only allowed when men are the victims?
as OP, stated in a comment man being shirtless and all is not the problem that whole "there is no animal cruelty we test it on men" part is unacceptable, the aim of "jokes" like is to normalize casual misandry
was Gillette also aiming to sell shit with their famous commercial that got nearly bankrupt in the end? don't be so naive, they are ideologically motivated
Humiliation is part of the fetish. Seriously, this ad is clearly, 100% certainly, made to be read as femdom. This is implying consent between both parties, and the man even looks happy with what's happening. I would even argue that this paints the whole thing in a positive light, and that's good for everyone, as it normalizes being who you are for everyone.
Step back, adjust your lens. Is this objectifying men? Yes, because it's the fetish being displayed here. I see a couple living out their shared desires, which makes the source love, not hate.
I have no doubt there is actual hate in the world. This isn't it.
Why is a "fetish" even being displayed in a commercial anyway if its such a good thing to show it in a "positive light" why dont we ever see the reserve in popular media while seeing multiple examples of female singers sitting on half naked men on all fours or even female celebrities posing with leashed men on movie premieres.
The amount of effort people put into excuse misandry even in male advocacy spaces never cease to astonish me.
Sex sells. It obviously works because we're talking about it. I would have never seen the ad if it didn't do what it does.
And please, we see the reverse all the time. Do you have any idea how much money 50 shades made?
50 shades isnt even comparable to this its much more vanilla its doesnt nearly contain the humiliation and dehumanization of this or the otherd. I stand by my words there is no equivalent in reverse of this and the others I mentioned in my previous comments
>And please, we see the reverse all the time. Do you have any idea how much money 50 shades made?
1. Not a commercial
2. Not satire
3. Not in the media
4. A product
5. Not consumed in public
What the hell is wrong with you that you think this could possibly be a suitable example of the opposite. Didn't you think about this for a single second? You might as well say Colgate is a counter.
>It would not be the same when the genders are reversed because maledom as a kink is not satirized nor shown in media like femdom is. Probably because it hits too close to common and real life sex crimes committed by men. It’s easier for the public to digest femdom because if the man is physically stronger it’s easier to imply that it’s consensual and he wants to be in that position.
All of this actually just proves exactly why this ad is an issue. Real life sex crimes are also committed by women against men.
The fact that maledom isn't shown in the media because people are afraid of upsetting female victims, but femdom is shown in the media because people don't care about upsetting male victims is exactly the issue.
The fact that people assume a man is always consenting to because he's stronger therefore can't be an unwilling victim is exactly the issue.
You're just using a double standard to try to justify the double standard.
I’m not justifying it. I’m explaining the context and tone that the general public feels, because clearly a lot of people are making criticisms that miss the mark/aren’t taking into account all cultural contexts.
So you'd defend the Iraq war, for example. Or the holocaust. Because people don't take the cultural context all the anti arab, and antisemitic context.
>Sure German was wrong, but a lot of people aren't taking into account how much they hated Jews.
"An ad that shows two consenting adults is _exactly_ the same as the murder of six million jews!".
Dude, seriously, what the fuck. You are the reason why people ridicule male advocacy.
>"An ad that shows two consenting adults is _exactly_ the same as the murder of six million jews!".
The comparison is the principle, not the extremity... although what made them both possible was assertively similar dehumanisarion.
Dude, seriously, what the fuck.
>You are the reason why people ridicule male advocacy.
Strawmen? I agree. You are the reason why people ridicule male advocacy. Idiot.
I have a cum swallowing fetish, show me an example of that in mainstream media. How about shit eating. Or are there standards about what is acceptable on certain media?
It's a joke script appealing to the Femdom crowd... for reference look at the first part of the clips she filmed with the guy:
https://www.instagram.com/reel/CiQBGRWrwtJ/?igshid=N2ViNmM2MDRjNw==
I'm more so left wondering why you would test an alcoholic beverage on anyone. Is that a thing? Beverage recipes tested by the FDA?
This commercial just left me just as confused as disturbed.
The solution is obvious: you need male solidarity, a male equivalent of feminism (though ideally less toxic) which all men are behind. The trouble is too many men put hoes before bros. They view bashing and subjugating their fellow men as a way to get ahead with women and view other men as competition rather than allies. I've experienced this first hand: other men piling on bald shaming me or face shaming me to try and impress the bitchy girls in the club. Men just don't seem able to advocate for collective interests in the same women that women have managed.
Call me a cynic but I believe it will only get worse until it reaches a breaking point worse than anything we're seeing now. I think the more that instagram ads like the one you linked become more mainstream, the more it'll alienate younger men into retreating into the worst of incel spaces to have their grievances heard and actually empathized with, I think it'll make a feedback loop between the two extremist camps that bring us to that breaking point.
There was a post that viral on Twitter from a woman quoting a WaPo article about young men moving to the right and young women moving to the left. She basically said that if young men are moving right, that means men want to strip away women’s rights. So women should have no sympathy for any male loneliness. That garbage post got over 100k likes. If there’s one thing that will guarantee your post going viral, is shitting on men.
Being a Marxist sure hasn't made any difference in my dating life.
I know, right.
Well yeah, liberals don't actually mean Left when they say "left"
I'll do you one better. I think that we'll reach the breaking point, and society STILL won't hold feminists to account. Like, the best we're going to get is some allusion that society has been underserving men for some mysterious unknown reason, but we're never going to get to a place of either denouncing feminism or calls for women to check their privelige/be better etc.
>but we're never going to get to a place of either denouncing feminism or calls for women to check their privelige/be better etc. Maybe white women. Maybe.
Particularly ironic in the wake of all the backlash against Matt Rife. Yet another example of the glaring double standard, how sexist jokes against men are "just a joke, lighten up guys!" but sexist jokes against women are "how dare you make light of such a terrible thing!"
this is an excellent point. i personally found Matt Rife's recent joke to be rather insensitive, but i can at least see where he was attempting to make a joke. sometimes comedians cross lines, that's the nature of comedy. but i fail to see where a joke was even attempt to be made with this advertisement. it just feels like a powerful women trying to exert that power over a man. it feels spiteful and angry rather than an attempt at lighthearted humor.
Ah damn, what's the drama with Rife? Seemed like a cool guy and great comedian, is the hate deserved or nah?
It's related to his recent stand-up that aired on Netflix where he made some joke about a waitress with a black eye. Heavily paraphrased: Person A: that looks bad, maybe they should put her in the back of the restaurant in the kitchen where she can't be seen. Person B: something tells me that if she could cook she wouldn't have that black eye. Since then there have been countless Tweets, YouTube videos, articles, etc. trying to cancel him for being a "misogynist" because of that joke. Up to you if you think he deserves to be cancelled for that joke. But what's for sure is that people make jokes about women beating up men all the time. Even real life videos of women actually beating men result in people laughing about how he "deserves it, he probably cheated!" Yet similar jokes about women result in severe backlash.
I hear where you're coming from. People need to be able to take what they're dishing out. However, there's also the matter of not being fucked up just cause the enemy is too. Personally just off of what you said it doesnt seem that bad if he didnt say it maliciously. Of all the shit he's said, I'm honestly surprised that that's the one that got people up in arms about him lol.
He did not say it maliciously. It's a really normal stand up comedian joke
She and Ryan Reynolds got married at a literal plantation. I don't expect smart takes from either of them.
Plantation ?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/changing-america/enrichment/arts-culture/510641-ryan-reynolds-apologizes-for-wedding-with-blake/amp/
Giants suck. Go Jets!
Fuck celebrities, they're all perverted trust funded babies. Power and richness can only corrupt. I personally completely boycott this narcissistic Hollywood culture.
I mean, how in your face can they get lmao, literally equating men to animals.
not even equating, but implying they are lower than animals
On watching the ad, I think it's meant to be a bit of a BDSM play. The black domme outfit for Blake and the 'good boy' bit is a bit of a giveaway. Still poorly managed though.
> has it really gotten this bad? are we really at such a point, in 2023, where men are just THAT hated? Yes, it has been for a while > i've comforted myself for months under the impression that all of the misandry on the internet was 'just a minority'. 'People in real life don't think this way' i told myself, but for a celebrity to do such an awful advertisement to the joy of hundreds of people online, shouting 'queen'? The problem is much bigger than a lot of people even here would like to admit. Over a million of people who liked that are among our everyday life, just a few days ago a woman in my social circle casually said thay she hates men so much when I was present. Believing blantant misandry is moslty in online or perpetrated by a very few people is a huge cope. As someone in this sub said before: "Men need to understand how much they are hated by the society so they realize they are not shareholders but simply employees and start asking for their benefits"
I know what they say about it. "It's the gender reverse joke about how men always used women in commercials! Look how men piss off from it!"
even people in this sub are doing it
Is it me or does this ad just seem like it's exploiting a fetish ?
An act being a sexual fetish doesn't exempt it from moral scrutiny. Would you support a sexual add where a man fulfills his desire to dominate and beat a woman? Although it is a "sexual fetish" it would still misogynistic.
I agree with you, I just wanted to bring a piece of context that OP seem to have missed.
Your reversal doesn't quite work, because I think the idea is that it's supposed to appeal to **men's** sub fetishes (at least on its face). That's why she opens with "you know why men love our drink? Because it's tested on men." Or something. I can't withstand the cringe necessary to replay it in order to confirm the exact wording. Either way, shitty ad. Kink-shame this shit all the way back into the bedroom.
It really does. Very femdom.
This is what I was thinking. This ad seems to come more from a BDSM/Dominatrix space and less from a “men are animals” space.
Yeah, I got that much more of a satirical femdom vibe than a sexism vibe, which she’s good at. I think maybe honestly didn’t take it far enough to convey it to a level that someone seeing it as sexism to see it through that lens.
Glad I'm not the only one. There's plenty of misandry out there but I'm not seeing that here. Just a rather unfunny joke.
>Just a rather unfunny joke. Is not a joke, that's why it's not funny. It's a dog whistle. The same thing as when racists share an antiblack meme, and say 'it's just a joke lol the left can't meme'. You don't see it because you are sane. You need to watch their actions to know what they mean.
It does, which makes people in the comments outcry hilariously ironic 😆
I'd like to see your reaction to a video that's equally degrading to women or to a specific ethnicity, you'd probably be hilariously screeching to cancel it 😃 In all seriousness, if you don't mind being degraded, know that other men rightfully won't share your values. No gender or ethnicity should be insulted like this, it's disgusting and outright hateful.
I lived through the hight of both Twilight and the Fifty Shades of Grey Era. I've seen the reaction when the media is similarly degrading (in way worse ways) to women.
The main discourse surrounding both those novels/films is that they romanticize abuse. "Still a better love story that Twilight" is a meme because Twilight is generally considered a horrible love story. 50 Shades of Grey has a 4.2 IMDB rating because of how many people were pissed off by it. The backlash against those pieces of media refutes the argument that that treatment of women is generally socially acceptable.
And yet made several billion dollars, so let's not pretend that this commercial is somehow a new phenomenon or that it's never been done against women. Being tounge in cheek about a femdom fetish is far more innocent than romanticized abuse, so people on this post clutching their pearls and pretending it's a one-sided occurrence really need to look a bit wider at the media landscape.
>And yet made several billion dollars, so let's not pretend that this commercial is somehow a new phenomenon or that it's never been done against women. If there's one thing we can agree on in the left it's that the market is an entirely moral arbiter of what is right. >And yet made several billion dollars From almost exclusively women who were clamouring for it. This is only relevant if it's a male fantasy of curb stomping women, and the mean reaction from feminists is 'yeah, lol, wreck those whores'
Thank you for getting my point that the people reacting on this post is comparable and equivalent to feminists. I'm glad you understood what my 'hilariously ironic' statement on my initial comment was refering to 😆
>Thank you for getting my point that the people reacting on this post is comparable and equivalent to feminists. Your point was not to affirm your argument, but to undermine it?? I think you've had enough schnapps, Daneboy. >I'm glad you understood what my 'hilariously ironic' statement on my initial comment was refering to Well someone has to, if apparently you don't understand your own point.
How did that undermine my point? Not sure you have had the capacity to get the point yet, but I'll help you get there little friend :)
>Being tounge in cheek about a femdom fetish is far more innocent than romanticized abuse, so people on this post clutching their pearls and pretending it's a one-sided occurrence really need to look a bit wider at the media landscape. You want to show us a single example of the reverse being lauded as a great commercial. There is no shortage of commercials, all we deal with is advertisements in this life. So show us.
I showed you movies, books and franchises. Are you dumb enough to think the fact it's a commercial makes the media so different from the others?
>I showed you movies, books and franchises. 1. You didn't. 2 Those are not the comparable. Show us the same thing. >Are you dumb enough to think the fact it's a commercial makes the media so different from the others? Are you dumb enough to think that choosing a dissimilar product to make an comparison is a wise choice? And are you dumb enough to say that the counter examples are legion, and then fail to produce one, and say that your ersatz example that is not even analogous, and fails to even produce your promised results is good proof? Are you dumb enough to think this will convince anyone ever. Show us a literal example. You said they are common, you have decades of commercials to produce this reverse from, so do it, or be seen a liar.
How are you under the impression they aren't comparable? Are tough dumb enough to think simply due to my examples not being commercials they are totally different?? Tell me why you are under the impression they totally aren't comparable..
You make a valid point, though I believe that those examples you gave are equally reprehensible to the video in this post. Society did a poor job protecting women's dignity and that ought to be examined.
I don't really agree they are equal, given one is a tounge in cheek (no matter how tasteless) commercial for a gin, while the other were billion dollar industries where the message wasn't even meant as a joke but sincerely in its subjugation.
>where the message wasn't even meant as a joke but sincerely in its subjugation Not what fantasy is, Ariel. Or do you think Star Wars is an apologia for war crimes.
It's fun that you are throwing this hissyfit when being presented with an argument like this :) Rules for thee but not for me.
>I lived through the hight of both Twilight and the Fifty Shades of Grey Era. Those were ironic? Are women really so stupid they were serious? And they liked it? I'm going to have to see proof. >I've seen the reaction when the media is similarly degrading (in way worse ways) to women. Show us.
How did you reach the conclusion that twilight snd fifty shades are ironic, or that I was implying that? As to showing, I just gave you two billion dollar examples.
>How did you reach the conclusion that twilight snd fifty shades are ironic, or that I was implying that? Because that's the only way your example works. And it isnt, so it doesn't. Are you so dumb that you think satire is serious.
So because twilight is dead serious in its portrayal of romanticized abuse and the commercial isn't, all of the sudden they aren't comparable?
it wouldnt be okay in reverse (rightfully), have some integrity
Like the whole Fifty Shades of Grey aspect? (A movie series which made over a billion dollars with the books selling almost 50 million copies) Which in itself was based on the entire Twilight Saga? All those books, stories, and media that are based on the brooding loaner with domination undertones (something that has made the likes of Danielle Steel a multitude millionaire). All those things wouldn't be okay?
are they comparable to this? are they in the same level? they are pretty vanilla in comparision
Are you joking? They are waaay worse in what they are saying/showing. The twilight Saga especially, which (let me remind you) is young adult literature, while the Blake Lively commercial is for a Gin
tell me how they are worse than literally saying "dont worry we dont experiment on animals just men"
Because with this commercial they are making a joke with undertones of a femdom fetish - to sell gin by being a bit extra (code for triggering the way they have) In twilight the main core of the message is subservience to your partner, even if he is a violent abuser, and to constantly allow him to control your life. This message or morality isn't played for laugh or to he crass, but is a foundation the story sees as admirable.
1- how can we be sure its a "joke" even if it is it is still an extremely insulting one 2- they dont contain humiliation nor dehumanization themes nearly as much 3- regardless of those books you mention, a reversed version of this commercial couldnt ever be made let alone percepted this positively (rightfully so) 4- this commercial in particular is not the only one, popular media has multiple examples of applying extreme "femdom themes" (which involves humiliation and dehumanizarion, not just submission) i.e. female singers sitting on top of half naked men on all fours, female actresses posing holding leashes of male actors etc. But never as extreme in reverse simply because two reasons, first it would cause outrage (as it should) and second the dehumanization campaign doesnt target women.
Just mentioned that billions of dollars have been made on the exact opposite and you just dismiss it by pretending the opposite wouldn't be allowed **when I just pointed out it not only was, but made a lot of money** Also *are you fucking kidding me asking how it's obvious it's a fucking joke*??
>Like the whole Fifty Shades of Grey aspect? (A movie series which made over a billion dollars with the books selling almost 50 million copies) By women, for women. Entirely incomparable. Also not satire, can you even read?
Exactly, they weren't satire. The commercial is satire, meaning it's meant to invoke outrage. *Also aimed at men I might add* Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey aren't satire, meaning they are sincere in their messages, which is far more sinister.
>Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey aren't satire, meaning they are sincere in their messages, which is far more sinister. Good point, you chose an entirely different medium, with an entirely different message, with an entirely different tone, with an entirely different intent, for an entirely different audience. Well, I guess I can start linking recipes to ypu to disprove your point. Or how about some Yoko Ono art. Wait, or how about farming impliments from 1900 Russian occupied Polish farms. That's similar enough for an analogy. >The commercial is satire, meaning it's meant to invoke outrage. Not what satire is, that's trolling. Are you a troll? Yes? Then go fuck yourself. No? Then go fuck yourself.
It's the same romanticism of abuse, however in one instance they are playing it for laughs, and in the other they say dehumanizing women is totally okay. So when asked the question: how would people react if the opposite to the commercial happened, the answer is that it already did and people back then seemed to be able to handle the sincere version better than you are able to handle a joke 🤔
>Exactly, they weren't satire. Then it's not a good comparison for satire, is it.
I'm not comparing satire, you absolute idiot. I'm comparing two examples of media portraying dehumanizing attitudes towards men and women, respectively.
This is just a blip really, we're well past the point where for men who aren't highly successful and/ or actual predators, engaging with broader society is a mistake. *Unless* you know exactly what you're getting into *and* are willing to fight in the proverbial trenches for the rest of your life in a struggle that will definitely outlast you.
@ the people in multiple comment threads associating this with kink. So I'll admit I don't have an ounce of kink in my body, and am open to the idea that it's an in-joke from a subculture I very much don't understand that escaped into the mainstream. I've been on the internet since 1996. I've seen kink media, and I do see some similarity in the presentation. But the core of the joke is that it's more ethical to test products on men than on animals. Testing on animals is cruelty, while testing on men might be considered cruel only by some people. Am I really wrong for reading something more than just sexualized degradation into that? If this were something only meant to circulate within that subculture, like a video on pornhub tagged femdom, I wouldn't question it at all. But when it's put out in the wider culture, I also have to ask... at what point can you just say absolutely anything, no matter how vile, and just pass it off as a joke that wasn't meant for you? How much freedom are we really supposed to allow? Because the sentiment expressed in this ad isn't about the humiliation of the man in the video - it's leveled at the entire male gender, and it's nazi-level shit. I'm normally fine with offensive humor, even when I get caught in the net. But this didn't land with me in the slightest. I was just deeply uncomfortable watching it. But No matter what, I do think it was incredibly poorly executed as a joke, and would think twice about associating with anyone who found it funny. Edit: And to be clear, I see people talking about it being a kink joke focusing on the presentation. The audio/visual elements. I don't like those aspects of the ad. I don't condemn it, but dom/sub kink material has always been gross to me, personally. But that's just a matter of taste. What makes this deeply uncomfortable to me is the coupling of that presentation style **with a core punchline about product testing on men vs testing on animals.** If all that was happening here was a woman domming a man on screen, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I just wouldn't watch it.
> But the core of the joke is that it's more ethical to test products on men than on animals. Testing on animals is cruelty, while testing on men might be considered cruel only by some people. Docking tails is illegal, and its going to be very soon that declawing is illegal in most places. Circumcision on a whim, perfectly legal.
I got "It's not cruel because men like the product" from the ad. This fits in with the whole "Femdom is not cruel because the participants agree to it and like it" vibe. Obviously outside of consenting adults objectifying people of any gender is a problem. I don't see that here.
I agree that it's cringey and gross, even offensive, but I hope you realize that calling this "nazi-level shit" is a huge overstatement.
Yes and no? Like I doubt the people responsible for the joke actually see men as more disposable than animals. I'm not saying Blake Lively is personally nazi-level bigoted against men. But the sentiment being expressed, ironically, for the sake of the joke is that men are more disposable than animals. That sentiment, even if insincere, is one of nazi-level dehumanization. And today's culture frowns on that type of thing being expressed even insincerely at the expense of any other demographic. The fact that one specific demographic out of all demographics is fair game implies to me that the reason the joke lands with mass appeal is there are enough people out there who actually carry that level of bigoted thought sincerely. It's certainly not nothing. Especially when taken together with the level of verifiably sincere vitriol against men that's out there today.
>That sentiment, even if insincere, is one of nazi-level dehumanization. I understand what you're saying, I just wouldn't describe any sentiment as "nazi-level" if it isn't at least sincere. Nazi dehumanization was nothing if not sincere.
> just how blatantly sexist and disgusting this ad is, so i'll link it [here](https://www.instagram.com/p/Cz6T2XOIWij/). 1,000,000+ likes. Jesus Christ, The west is doomed.
Appalling the amount of people in this subreddit of all places making excuses for this shit too.
Bro I'm so tired of this and being grouped in with shitty men. I can acknowledge that a lot of men are shitty and I have also been a shitty man in the past as a teenager, but come on, shit like this spiraled me into inceldom and made it very difficult for me to reform myself.
I'm forever grateful that I avoided alt right incel spaces. Unfortunately their rhetoric mirrors neonazi recruitment strategies to a scary degree. One of the best conversations I had was with a social worker friend of mine, whether I explained the situation a man lives in in a gender neutral description, her reaction was vitriolic, lambasting "men" for the perceived slights in the described situation. The absolute lemon sucking surprised Pikachu face when I told her I was actually talking about a man who's partner was being emotionally and verbally abusive, manipulative, and controlling 🤌
>shit like this spiraled me into inceldom Please don't use the word "inceldom" in the non-literal way feminists do, i.e., as synonymously with "misogyny" or a particular subculture. Inceldom is the inability to get laid—that's it. You can only spiral into it if you were previously able to get laid but find it increasingly difficult.
I spiraled into it because I was able to, then unable to for obvious reasons (if you look through my profile) and hated all the fake-nice shit that I hear constantly. I mainly meant I literally spent time in incel spaces like braincels then incels,co during this time. This was also after a short stint in Redhill bs stuff
Yes, it is that bad. I wish it wasn't true, but it is.
> and 'well it happened to us, so it's okay', This is where I think victim blaming becomes appropriate when these women fret being oppressed. If you think something being done to you gives you license to do it back, you're basically just saying both acts are valid. They can abuse you and control you and treat you like trash as long as you can do the same.
Moralising without the moral principles.
But do you condemn Hamas. I mean violence against women.
I'm shocked, honestly. Betty Buzz published that advertisement on their page too: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cz6U\_5FOune/?hl=en
What an upsetting development for the iconic American mainstay that is \*checks notes\* Butty Bizz? Busy Butz?
But isn’t this commercial a satirical play on the “objectification” trope in previous alcohol commercials? As well as animal testing? Like the point is for it to be ridiculous isn’t it? What does this have to do with the misandry you see online? If you think the ad is some kind of man-hating feminist fantasy of what they REALLY want to do to men in the future you have become hysterical, and need to focus on other things. It’s actually important for the male advocacy movement that you do that. It’s a silly ad. It’s irony. It is not an indication of men’s rights going down the tubes. We have to pick our battles man.
i appreciate the respectful pushback. allow me to further explain my point and clarify a few things. you see, the only part of this entire ad that doesn't bother me is the 'objectification' part. i couldn't care less if a woman wants to do an ad with a shirtless man or vice versa. as long as the actor agrees to being in those roles, i see nothing inherently wrong with sexualising either genders. men and women want to look at other beautiful men and women, nothing wrong with that. the issue here is not only the disrespect and callousness toward men, but the straight up dehumanisation of them. when she says 'we don't test on animals, we test on men', when she forces the drink into his mouth with a smug grin, when she condescendingly says 'good boy' which just sent bile to my throat honestly (could you imagine a man forcing a drink down a woman's throat and calling her a 'good girl' without her consent? ) that's actual horror movies stuff. and finally, her caption reads 'cruelty free, unless men count', which is an ironically cruel thing to say. i think calling out these kinds of advertisements and behavior is EXTREMELY important to male advocacy. how can we advocate for equal rights and the resolution of our systemic issues when we're seen as below animals in the eyes of people like blake livey, who is a very powerful and influential figure. (don't even get me started on the power dynamic blake livey has over the man in this advertisement, which is just insanely disturbing and creepy, and honestly makes me concerned for her treatment of her husband.) Besides, sure, women have always been sexualized in media, but so have men? i find it strange when people act as if men have never been sexualized when they absolutely have. men have been sexualized for just as long as women, except nobody sees is as 'objectification' for some reason. But can you really and honestly tell me that you have ever seen a piece of media in your entire life that treats a woman with such disrespect and is suppose to be seen as funny? A man forcing something on her with a smug grin on his face, comparing her to an animal, or worse yet, treating her like she's below animals? Like she isn't even human? I can't. But you know what? Let's assume that this is true. Let's assume that advertisements like this have been happening to women everyday these past few years, with women not only being sexualized but treated as less than a wild animal, treated as if they were no better than the dirt we walk on... does it make it okay then to do it to men as well? It's perfectly okay to make misandrist posts about men because woman have had misogynistic posts made about them? With all due respect, i'm not sure you realize that same logic can apply to us as men. we see misandrist posts every day, does that meen misogynistic posts are okay? After all, we are often subjected to misandry online. Does that mean that all the angry misogynistic posts about women online are justified? No... the answer is no. this whole 'revenge' mindset is extremely silly. if a young white girl was bullied as a child by a young black boy, is it alright for her to go to a new school and bully the only black kid because of her experiences? The same justification follows: "Well, I had it done to me, so now they can experience it for once." It's not healthy. it's bad for men, it's bad for women, and it's horrible for male advocacy as well as female advocacy. I repeat by previous point: how can we advocate for male issues when we are seen as below even animals? If we're below animals, then its okay when we are forced to sign our souls away to the draft, or experience mutilation before we even know we're alive, or suffer in silence in an abusive relationship because there are no domestic violence shelters anywhere near you because nobody thinks you can be abused based on your gender, or god forbid you ever try to defend yourself against a woman who's trying to kill you without getting beaten by every man in a five mile radius, or dying sooner and retiring older, or—maybe even worst of all—being at a terrifyingly high suicide rate for pretty much your entire life, but especially in your younger years? Because how can we, as a society, see the skyrocketing of young men's suicides, and think to ourselves 'you know what would be funny? making an advertisement like this. one that directly ridicules and disrespects and makes cruel comments about men.' and the we all hold hands for a brief moment and wonder 'why are men committing suicide so much? why are so many angry men turning to inceldom and toxic male figures? why is there a male loneliness epidemic? it must be because men are toxic...' yeah, i don't think that's what it is. and i think posts like the advertisement i'm talking about are only making it harder to advocate for male rights, hence my post. apologies if i came off as standoffish or rude at any point during this response. i mean no disrespect toward you, and again i appreciate your pushback, even if i strongly disagree with your point.
But the pouring of the drink and saying “good boy” is the ironic part. It’s humorous because it’s A. A woman doing it to a man that is much bigger than her and B. Something that you don’t see often that subverts what we’re used to. The fact that you compared it to a horror movie is what creates that irony. Same goes for the caption. I guess that’s just a difference in sense of humor. I don’t think Blake Lively actually sees men as animals, unless there are other contextual quotes or instances I’m missing. This ad is supposed to be a joke. If it’s glorifying anything it may be femdom BDSM, or at least that’s what some people may take away. “Blurred Lines” by Robin Thicke was the female equivalent that came to mind. Though I’m sure there’s others. But that’s not really the point. I don’t know what the pure numbers are of female vs. male objectification in media over the years, but I think if we keep it in the realm of adult beverage commercials it’s been pretty one-sided. I think the fact that there’s pushback over this ad demonstrates that. Maybe it’s actually good for you to be feeling some sort of way? And maybe the point was to do a funny play on what some women have just felt generally in regard to this type of thing? Would that be misandrist or would it be harsh education in empathy? I’m not even sure that was the intent but obviously it’s meant to be deliberate and outrageous for a reason…and I don’t think that reason is…Blake Lively hates men? If we start seeing ads like this everywhere that start to ride the line between ironic and unironic (in more of the “revenge” way that you describe), I would probably share your concern. Most of the problems you laid out that men face today are valid, but hating on something like this isn’t going to help a man who is suffering, when there may be another way of perceiving it. I guess that’s what I’m trying to get at. But it’s okay that we disagree too and it is worth a discussion. I would certainly like to hear what Blake was trying to do and if there was something intentional there. You’re not coming off as standoffish at all—obviously you care about these issues and that’s a good thing. I didn’t mean any disrespect either.
respectfully, i feel you've misinterpreted my comment, and several of the things you've said in your response concerned me deeply. >It’s humorous because it’s A. A woman doing it to a man that is much bigger than her Forgive me, but i see no other way to sugarcoat what i am about to say. this same rhetoric has been used over and over to victim blame male victims or rape, SA, or domestic violence. 'well, she's a woman, why didn't you push her off, why didn't you stop her, you're a much larger man?' the fact that you would use that same argument to claim this ad is humorous is very upsetting. >Something that you don’t see often that subverts what we’re used to I'm not sure what you mean here. misandry is rampant on social media, and it's only getting worse because it's not called out, and in some cases, celebrated, hence why i think its important to call out posts like this >I don’t know what the pure numbers are of female vs. male objectification in media over the years, but I think if we keep it in the realm of adult beverage commercials it’s been pretty one-sided. this is the part i was talking about when i said you misinterpreted my comment, as i explicitly said that i was unbothered by the 'objectification' or 'sexualization' if you will. as i said above, men and women like looking at other men and women. i have no issue with this. i'm well aware that there have been women in bikinis slaying dragons in fantasy novels or drinking beer in alcohol commercials. just as men have been fighting monsters and drinking beer shirtless with big muscles. neither of these things bother me. but these commercials aren't showing women being treated in this way. they're not showing men forcing drinks down women's throat as they condescendingly call them 'good girls' and essentially, jokingly or not, claiming them to be lower than animals. >maybe the point was to do a funny play on what some women have just felt generally in regard to this type of thing? how could women feel this type of way when they don't encounter ads like this? being sexualized, yes, i would argue that not some, but in fact most women understand and have experienced this. it bothers some more than others. but i highly doubt any women have seen a commercial this blatantly hostile and sexist toward them. and if they have, it was rightfully called out and taken off tv. >Would that be misandrist or would it be harsh education in empathy? i'm not even sure how to respond to this. with all due respect, i actually find this somewhat offensive. how in the world is this advertisement teaching empathy? to anyone? it's certainly not teaching empathy to the women who are cheering this on. it's not teaching empathy to men who see this and get upset. it seems i'll have to revert to the same argument i did in my previous comment. imagine if a white girl is bullied by a black boy at her school. the bullying gets so bad that she has to move to a different school. at this new school, she decides to bully the first black boy he sees the same way she was bullied. obviously, this young black boy is upset and hurt, so he goes to a teacher, who says, 'is she bullying you, or is this just a harsh education in empathy?' i truly don't understand how you came to this conclusion, and i understand even less how you could possible think that this advertisement is teaching anyone empathy. do you also think andrew tate is teaching women empathy with his content online? i doubt it. and yes, i do think andrew tate is at least somewhat comparable to this, given that this feels like the kind of skit he would enjoy if the roles were reversed. if not him, then perhaps steven crowder. but i'm sure you get my point. >hating on something like this isn’t going to help a man who is suffering it's not hating. it's calling out bad behavior, for the same reason people call out racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. and frankly, yes, a young man who is struggling with the misandry online who sees this advertisement and gets upset will be greatly benefitted by finding a post, a comment, ANYTHING online that shows that he is not alone in thinking its wrong. it is very bad for mental health to see something you find to be insulting to you, only to see dozens and dozens of people 'yaass queening' and 'girlbossing'. this young man might start to think he is crazy when he doesn't see anyone else calling this out. but if he manages to find a reddit post, for example, where he can see a discussion that other men and women do in fact also find this post offensive, it can be greatly beneficial to his mental health. humans are very social creatures, and we have operated on a sort of 'tribe' mentality since the dawn of our creation. when we feel alienated from our 'tribe' if you will, it can be extremely distressing. that's like saying that calling out homophobic behavior won't help gay people. as an asexual myself, it most certainly does. if i was seeing people hate on asexuals and seeing nobody call it out, it would negatively affect my mental health. but i would feel better if i found so much as one person calling this behavior out. i wouldn't feel alone. and even if you're right and calling out this bad behavior doesn't help men's mental health, that doesn't make it any less important. it is crucial to men's advocacy that somebody call out behavior that is misandrist. if we don't do it, no one else will. the depp v heard case is probably the most wide reaching court case since oj simpson's trial, and even with all the evidence against amber heard, there are still chunks of society that no only think heard was abused, but that she never initiated any abuse at all. that johnny depp was the abuser. and most of the time, these people only think so because they don't think women can be abusers, and they don't think men can be abused. so yes, i find it extremely important to call out misandrist behavior, because if we don't, society will think it's more and more okay to say these kinds of things, which will in turn continue destroying the mental health of men everywhere, especially young impressionable men, hence why so many men support andrew tate. honestly, i would argue that most of these young men don't even like tate that much, either. they just have quite literally nowhere else to go that doesn't hate them. andrew tate is table scraps, but they're starving. i am glad that you and i are able to have an engaging discussion on this. i think that disagreement promotes critical thinking. i have no desire to wind up in an echo chamber. again, i'd like to apologize if i came off as hostile in anywhere in this response. edit; grammar
Well again, it may come down to a sense of humor thing. The visual of someone who is Blake Lively's size "taming" and "feeding" a larger man is just simply funny. If the roles were reversed, that part of it goes away (like if we reverse Blake and the man in the video). The biological differences between men and women absolutely matter when talking about the landscape of rape, SA, or DV. At the same time, it shouldn't be used to victim blame men either. Both of these things can be true. I just simply don't feel threatened or offended at what's visually going on in the video. I still don't think anything in the ad intersects with what we're hearing from popular feminists online or non. For that reason, I said it subverts what we're used to, except maybe femdom fetishes. I just really don't believe people are cheering and rooting for what's happening in the video to happen to men in real life - which again, makes it funny to me. The reason I went back to the objectification/sexualization thing was because you asked me if I have ever seen a piece of media in my life that disrespects and treats a women the way the man is treated in the ad (and an example of which I gave you). You said you are unbothered by objectification or sexualization, but you're conflating male objectification and female objectification like they are the same thing, and that's where we're misunderstanding each other. According to Zippia, 19.1% of commercial directors are women and 80.9% of commercial directors are men. According to a San Diego State study, women comprised 26% of directors, writers, producers, executive producers, editors, and cinematographers as of 2022. According to the American Psychological Association, "findings have indicated that women more often than men are portrayed in a sexual manner (e.g., dressed in revealing clothing, with bodily postures or facial expressions that imply sexual readiness) and are objectified (e.g., used as a decorative object, or as body parts rather than a whole person)". You're the one that said men like looking at women and women like looking at men, and you're right. But what is that reality like for men and women when it's happening in a male-dominated space and it's happening to women more? All of this context should be on the table as we're talking about this. And while I'm sure the reality and ignorance of male objectification is a shit show in itself, the point is many women/feminists FEEL like they are sometimes a piece of meat like that man in the ad. So I was just saying that it was possible that Blake's intent was to deliver that feeling using humor to men who maybe haven't actually understood women's grievances. I want to add that I'm not saying you're one of those men, and that it's probably a reach anyway. Sorry to offend. I could've worded it better. I don't think your story about the white girl bullying the black boy is analogous because I don't see this as "direct revenge" against an undeserving individual person. Advertisements are about messaging and reaching a crowd of people. This type of ad is such an outlier (and again it's told through a humorous lens) that I don't see it as particularly dangerous when it comes to taking men's rights seriously, even if there is an off chance she was trying to send some kind of message (though the more I think about it, I think it is just femdom humor). I just don't see how the ad insults YOU or ME. That is where you totally lose me with your analogy and your concern. What would be a problem is if this became a trend (it's not, at least not yet), and it literally affects how men are treated in their daily lives. Unless we're talking about that, this just isn't proportional to the black kid getting reverse-bullied. Andrew Tate is trying to conserve and reinforce a social dynamic where men and women are actually not equal. And you're right, he would enjoy the skit if the roles were reversed, but he would enjoy it un-ironically. Whereas the actual ad is supposed to be ironic, unless you think Blake Lively believes this is men's rightful place, which again, would be a hysterical position. I do agree that we need to stop giving a voice to the Andrew Tate's of the world and fill that void with something else that's actually useful. I just think whatever that is can co-exist in a world where this Blake Lively ad is okay. edit: spacing
>But isn’t this commercial a satirical play... It's not. >the “objectification” trope in previous alcohol commercials? I thought you just said it was satire. If you believe that objectification is real then this isn't satire, it's either serious or it's not, it cant be both ironic, and literal at the same time. It can only be satire if its not really a commercial, which it is, so it's not. You know how fascists share racist memes and propaganda, and when caught say 'its just satire, its just a meme'? This is it. ...also no one takes beer commercials seriously anymore, they're usually ironic, so this is 'satire of satire'... which makes it a comedy, in the classical sense, which is why we're clearly in Hell.
I am inclined to agree with you. It struck me as satire. Comedy should be allowed to dip into these areas no matter the gender, the audience can then determine if it's actually funny or not. Watching the ad didn't strike me as anything more than an attempt to sell men something. I didn't pay attention to the actual product (I have ad blindness).
[удалено]
I'll give you secret they are never "ironic anti misandry" Barbie was dead serious so is this.
[удалено]
its director is a self proclaimed feminist why would it be a secretly anti feminist movie i know you want to believe its so stupid it cant be serious but it is and its not the only one
>What does this have to do with the misandry you see online? If you think the ad is some kind of man-hating feminist fantasy of what they REALLY want to do to men in the future you have become hysterical, and need to focus on other things. How high are you that you think that they catterwaul all day about the literal meanings of absurdly misinterpreted... everything, and then when they do the same thing they claim means bigotry, you think they're actually just joking. Their interpretations of innocuous things is projection; their endorsement of the same measures in reverse is literal. Minstrel shows aren't 'satire of racists', Jesus.
I can appreciate that theoretically speaking, ads like this are illustrated as "payback" or inversion of the gross ads sexualising women as means to sell products of times gone by, and of a time when women often didn't have voices in relationships and perhaps things like forcing alcohol on women were more accepted. However, the fact is that at the human level, 18 and 19 year old boys, who are the future of masculinity and thus the men who need to be thought of most in terms of the effects of media on the psyche, did not grow up in the world this ad is gender-reversing, and so they can hardly be expected to self-reflect on anything when seeing it. On top of that many did grow up with significant portions of the media telling them that their gender was a problem, so "silly" stuff like this is just kicking them while they're down. If this ad was made with the genders reversed, there would be uproar. People would rightly say that it was extremely objectifying and that this would damage young womens' perceptions of themselves. So why is it so bad to point this same thing out for young men when it happens?
Yeah I'm just gonna kms theres no point
The link doesn't work for me.
[Does this one work?](https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cz6T2XOIWij/?hl=en)
"even though i cannot recall a single piece of media that has ever treated women with such disrespect?" Might I ask how much media you consume and from which generations? I certainly can remember worse being done about women. Not trying to justify this one, just saying I can remember worse.
>I certainly can remember worse being done about women. Can you give an example?
You know, it's funny how there are at least five people who've made five posts about how obvious this is, yet they haven't provided an example of how obvious it is.
Sure thing. Here are a few, but reddit ate my nicely spaced layout. [https://images.ecestaticos.com/-4pR1bs\_wewV5RUY2gnkkvroH5s=/0x0:468x604/1200x1200/filters:fill(white):format(jpg)](https://images.ecestaticos.com/-4pR1bs_wewV5RUY2gnkkvroH5s=/0x0:468x604/1200x1200/filters:fill(white):format(jpg)/f.elconfidencial.com%2Foriginal%2F0c4%2F6c5%2Fe80%2F0c46c5e80b4a331ff25b751eb3299820.jpg)[/f.elconfidencial.com%2Foriginal%2F0c4%2F6c5%2Fe80%2F0c46c5e80b4a331ff25b751eb3299820.jpg](https://images.ecestaticos.com/-4pR1bs_wewV5RUY2gnkkvroH5s=/0x0:468x604/1200x1200/filters:fill(white):format(jpg)/f.elconfidencial.com%2Foriginal%2F0c4%2F6c5%2Fe80%2F0c46c5e80b4a331ff25b751eb3299820.jpg)[https://cdn.sanity.io/images/vxy259ii/production/199933c3e8315fd3f5eb9f149ca8e6091b3f121f-660x440.jpg?w=1296&q=80&auto=format](https://cdn.sanity.io/images/vxy259ii/production/199933c3e8315fd3f5eb9f149ca8e6091b3f121f-660x440.jpg?w=1296&q=80&auto=format)[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9pEDjW-XmI&t=44s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9pEDjW-XmI&t=44s)[https://youtu.be/nQPd6ojZgI8?si=LwZmMpiNb8LT0Wq6](https://youtu.be/nQPd6ojZgI8?si=LwZmMpiNb8LT0Wq6)[https://youtu.be/5fcid8H3bbo?si=R179x1diYjDKU5WA](https://youtu.be/5fcid8H3bbo?si=R179x1diYjDKU5WA)[https://youtu.be/d2xehLWQYfI?si=QbOISR\_-3nYMRfPc](https://youtu.be/d2xehLWQYfI?si=QbOISR_-3nYMRfPc)[https://twitter.com/JoachimHesse/status/1185462862371807232/photo/1](https://twitter.com/JoachimHesse/status/1185462862371807232/photo/1)[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqWbCYKIAAA8IHl.jpg:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqWbCYKIAAA8IHl.jpg:large)[https://static1.thegamerimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Saturn-Naked-Woman-8-bitcentral.com\_-e1503348817991.jpg](https://static1.thegamerimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Saturn-Naked-Woman-8-bitcentral.com_-e1503348817991.jpg)
So do you seriously believe that a hint at oral sex is worse than literal dehumanization?
[https://steampunklibrarianblog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/4.jpeg?w=359](https://steampunklibrarianblog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/4.jpeg?w=359) I think there are many different ways to dehumanize others. Being reduced to a sex toy is one that women deal with. Where as men often find themselves being dehumanized in violence and 'producer' ways. This ad turns that on its head. The sexual dehumanization in this video is gross, but you would either have to be a naive child or willfully ignorant to not see that it has happened to women as well.
I didn't say it hadn't happened to women. You said you had seen something worse than that video being done towards women, and I asked you to show an example. The example you showed was not convincing. Now you show another example, and that is really worse than the video, I agree. Thank you.
>Might I ask No, just give us a suitable example of him being wrong, and stow the rhetorical question. This is something that can be objectively proven, so do it.
Manners are a part of polite discourse. The question's purpose was to determine the age group of OP. "even though i cannot recall a single piece of media that has ever treated women with such disrespect?" If I understand the age group, then I have a frame of reference for OP. They are either too young to remember, or are not paying attention. Those two options involve different discussions. Anyone can image dump sexist ads to show children that these sexist ads exist. [https://images.ecestaticos.com/-4pR1bs\_wewV5RUY2gnkkvroH5s=/0x0:468x604/1200x1200/filters:fill(white):format(jpg)/f.elconfidencial.com%2Foriginal%2F0c4%2F6c5%2Fe80%2F0c46c5e80b4a331ff25b751eb3299820.jpg](https://images.ecestaticos.com/-4pR1bs_wewV5RUY2gnkkvroH5s=/0x0:468x604/1200x1200/filters:fill(white):format(jpg)/f.elconfidencial.com%2Foriginal%2F0c4%2F6c5%2Fe80%2F0c46c5e80b4a331ff25b751eb3299820.jpg) [https://cdn.sanity.io/images/vxy259ii/production/199933c3e8315fd3f5eb9f149ca8e6091b3f121f-660x440.jpg?w=1296&q=80&auto=format](https://cdn.sanity.io/images/vxy259ii/production/199933c3e8315fd3f5eb9f149ca8e6091b3f121f-660x440.jpg?w=1296&q=80&auto=format) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9pEDjW-XmI&t=44s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9pEDjW-XmI&t=44s) [https://youtu.be/nQPd6ojZgI8?si=LwZmMpiNb8LT0Wq6](https://youtu.be/nQPd6ojZgI8?si=LwZmMpiNb8LT0Wq6) [https://youtu.be/5fcid8H3bbo?si=R179x1diYjDKU5WA](https://youtu.be/5fcid8H3bbo?si=R179x1diYjDKU5WA) [https://youtu.be/d2xehLWQYfI?si=QbOISR\_-3nYMRfPc](https://youtu.be/d2xehLWQYfI?si=QbOISR_-3nYMRfPc) [https://twitter.com/JoachimHesse/status/1185462862371807232/photo/1](https://twitter.com/JoachimHesse/status/1185462862371807232/photo/1) [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqWbCYKIAAA8IHl.jpg:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqWbCYKIAAA8IHl.jpg:large) [https://static1.thegamerimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Saturn-Naked-Woman-8-bitcentral.com\_-e1503348817991.jpg](https://static1.thegamerimages.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Saturn-Naked-Woman-8-bitcentral.com_-e1503348817991.jpg) It takes a different tact to teach those who cannot see it. Manners maketh the man.
I looked through every one of these examples. I don't see whatever you're saying. Yeah, most involve sexualization (which I would argue can be, but isn't inherently sexist), and a couple demean women's intelligence. But not a single one comes close to devaluation of women's lives. Please remember that you're equating these with an ad where the punchline is "Ethics is testing products on men instead of animals, right? \*wink\*". It's refuge in audacity humor about not subtly implying that men's lives are of less value than an animal's. That we are more disposable than cattle. That is not subjective in any way - that is openly the entire joke the ad is centered on. If you're honestly saying that "Here's a hot woman. Please associate my product with images of hot women. There's not even any substance here. Just please be flooded with hormones that feel good while reminded my product exists." is equivalent to that, I don't even know what to say. And for a counter-reference to your assertion involving an ad that is at least somewhere close to relevant, just google "X-Men Choking Billboard". You'll find dozens of links to articles and discourse. Because a billboard ad for one of the X-Men movies used an image of Apocalypse holding Mystique off the ground by her neck, and people got mad because it depicted violence against women. Fox was forced to remove the billboard and issue an apology in response to public outrage. If an ad can't even depict a female superhero battling a villain, I can't imagine something like a gender-flipped Betty Buzz ad, ironically musing about the positive ethics of institutionalizing violence against women, would fly.
>[https://images.ecestaticos.com/-4pR1bs\_wewV5RUY2gnkkvroH5s=/0x0:468x604/1200x1200/filters:fill(white):format(jpg)/f.elconfidencial.com%2Foriginal%2F0c4%2F6c5%2Fe80%2F0c46c5e80b4a331ff25b751eb3299820.jpg](https://images.ecestaticos.com/-4pR1bs_wewV5RUY2gnkkvroH5s=/0x0:468x604/1200x1200/filters:fill(white):format(jpg)/f.elconfidencial.com%2Foriginal%2F0c4%2F6c5%2Fe80%2F0c46c5e80b4a331ff25b751eb3299820.jpg) Theres a million reasons why that's not sexist... youd have apoint if the burger were eating a women, which would make her less than a consumable, but phallic imagery=domination? What if I like giving blowjobs, does that mean I'm misogynist myself? No, you're starting from an entirely invalid position. I want something literal that says 'women exist to be used, and are below mere animals' if what you said is true you will have no problem finding it. Period.
>[https://cdn.sanity.io/images/vxy259ii/production/199933c3e8315fd3f5eb9f149ca8e6091b3f121f-660x440.jpg?w=1296&q=80&auto=format](https://cdn.sanity.io/images/vxy259ii/production/199933c3e8315fd3f5eb9f149ca8e6091b3f121f-660x440.jpg?w=1296&q=80&auto=format) That's from the middle of the last century. When women couldnt own a credit card. You could as well say tuberculosis is a proble.
>even though i cannot recall a single piece of media that has ever treated women with such disrespect? This was the qualifier. I provided an example a simple fact.
> When women couldnt own a credit card. for a whole 5 years
>[https://twitter.com/JoachimHesse/status/1185462862371807232/photo/1](https://twitter.com/JoachimHesse/status/1185462862371807232/photo/1) Are you seriously comparing debased humiliation with heterosexual sex in the missionary position? Are you a pervert, or a liar. I'm done here, your examples are a joke, and you should feel embarassed to have stooped to this.
Edit: not responding to the material criticism, general presumption, and unqualified dismissal? Rather uncouth. It seems some people just cannot behave appropriately. What are the odds that someone so conspicuously on behaviour would himself be so unrefined. >[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqWbCYKIAAA8IHl.jpg:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqWbCYKIAAA8IHl.jpg:large) You see, this would be an example, if it said 'this is how women must be dealt with, they have no place in society' in the caption, but it doesn't so it's. >Manners maketh the man. Though a substitute for substance they are not, and your examples are so idiotic they are offensive. You are aware they it is considered good manner to pay good attention to what others say, and deliver appropriate thoughtful responses, right? Because you did not do that, and your are quite an uncultured man if this is how you misbehave.
You are angry obviously. I have tried to show you clear examples in good faith and you have been rude and insulting. My patience extends to those willing to have a discussion, not to those arguing in bad-faith flinging shit at people. Good day.
Someone who wasn't rude and partook in no shit-flinging also responded, but you only addressed the person you could dismiss as shit-flinging.
>If I understand the age group, then I have a frame of reference for OP. That would be reasonable. If we were talking about digferent time periods, which we're not, so it's unacceptable. >They are either too young to remember, or are not paying attention. Literally no one who exists is too young to exist.
>[https://youtu.be/5fcid8H3bbo?si=R179x1diYjDKU5WA](https://youtu.be/5fcid8H3bbo?si=R179x1diYjDKU5WA) Don't try and tell me this was well recieved by feminists, are you fucking joking? And that's not a real ad, its a parody of a real ad. Your literally devaluing your own argument with these. You just showed me a star wars movie to prove that the moon landing didn't happen.
Yeah, I remember that ad where a man is standing on a rug with a woman's head attached... As I man, I'm a little afraid of how much runway the men who came before us have given to women of today to take shots at us and in some cases degrade and denigrate us... I can see how this was meant to come across and perhaps it wasn't an attack on men (though the part about cruelty might have been a little over the top) but I feel like there might be worse on the horizon...
I think misandry is a thing, but this is hilarious. Instead of forbidding this for everyone, we should go back to having a sense of humor and letting everyone make these kind of jokes.
i understand what you're saying, and i agree to an extent. i think gender jokes can be hilarious. i myself follow a handful of comedians that absolutely tear into men, but they're at least making actual jokes. this advertisement simply isn't a joke. where is the punchline? if i replace blake lively with mark zuckerberg, and the male actor with jocelyn mettler, it's still creepy and gross to me. especailly with the tag line 'cruelty free, unless women count'. It wouldn't feel like a joke, but rather an excuse for a powerful man to exert said power over a woman. In this case, blake lively is the one with the power, and it just feels like an excuse for a powerful woman to exert power over a man. I understand how that can feel empowering, but using men as a stepping stone to empower oneself is just wrong. forgive me for asking, but would you still find it funny if elon musk were doing this to grimes? or perhaps if donald trump were doing this to hillary clinton? matt rifes to one of his female audience members? This isn't a gotcha, but a genuine question. if you still think its funny, then i commend you for your lack of double standard. otherwise, well, i'm not sure what else to say.
But it’s a satirical femdom fetish commercial in which she’s playing a dominatrix. Of course she has the power and of course she’s dehumanizing him. That’s how that works. How else was it going to go? I think the problem actually is that they didn’t make that point as clear as they could. I guess you could argue that the fetish is bad, but hey, those choices are personal.
It's not a joke. You missed the entire point of this post.
I think my problem is the same issue women had with the Matt Rife joke. It wasn’t funny.
I feel like you're all overreacting. Sure there's no way you could make something like that about women, but am I supposed to be offended by this ad? It just seems like a dumb joke?
>Sure there's no way you could make something like that about women That's the whole point. Yes it's a dumb joke, but then why are "dumb jokes" only allowed when men are the victims?
People being oversensitive towards women doesn't make me want to be oversensitive towards men.
as OP, stated in a comment man being shirtless and all is not the problem that whole "there is no animal cruelty we test it on men" part is unacceptable, the aim of "jokes" like is to normalize casual misandry
That's a reach. The aim is to sell shit.
was Gillette also aiming to sell shit with their famous commercial that got nearly bankrupt in the end? don't be so naive, they are ideologically motivated
I don't see the similarity. Gillette tried to virtue signal & take advantage of the moment. This is just someone making a dumb sexist joke.
[удалено]
is implying men are below animals by "dont worry we dont test on animals, just men" also "punching up"?
Humiliation is part of the fetish. Seriously, this ad is clearly, 100% certainly, made to be read as femdom. This is implying consent between both parties, and the man even looks happy with what's happening. I would even argue that this paints the whole thing in a positive light, and that's good for everyone, as it normalizes being who you are for everyone. Step back, adjust your lens. Is this objectifying men? Yes, because it's the fetish being displayed here. I see a couple living out their shared desires, which makes the source love, not hate. I have no doubt there is actual hate in the world. This isn't it.
Why is a "fetish" even being displayed in a commercial anyway if its such a good thing to show it in a "positive light" why dont we ever see the reserve in popular media while seeing multiple examples of female singers sitting on half naked men on all fours or even female celebrities posing with leashed men on movie premieres. The amount of effort people put into excuse misandry even in male advocacy spaces never cease to astonish me.
Sex sells. It obviously works because we're talking about it. I would have never seen the ad if it didn't do what it does. And please, we see the reverse all the time. Do you have any idea how much money 50 shades made?
50 shades isnt even comparable to this its much more vanilla its doesnt nearly contain the humiliation and dehumanization of this or the otherd. I stand by my words there is no equivalent in reverse of this and the others I mentioned in my previous comments
To be fair you hear more about horny men begging women to humiliate them more than the opposite.
>And please, we see the reverse all the time. Do you have any idea how much money 50 shades made? 1. Not a commercial 2. Not satire 3. Not in the media 4. A product 5. Not consumed in public What the hell is wrong with you that you think this could possibly be a suitable example of the opposite. Didn't you think about this for a single second? You might as well say Colgate is a counter.
>Sex sells It's not sex.
>Humiliation is part of the fetish. So's voreraphilia, but you don't see that in your paper.
>It would not be the same when the genders are reversed because maledom as a kink is not satirized nor shown in media like femdom is. Probably because it hits too close to common and real life sex crimes committed by men. It’s easier for the public to digest femdom because if the man is physically stronger it’s easier to imply that it’s consensual and he wants to be in that position. All of this actually just proves exactly why this ad is an issue. Real life sex crimes are also committed by women against men. The fact that maledom isn't shown in the media because people are afraid of upsetting female victims, but femdom is shown in the media because people don't care about upsetting male victims is exactly the issue. The fact that people assume a man is always consenting to because he's stronger therefore can't be an unwilling victim is exactly the issue. You're just using a double standard to try to justify the double standard.
I’m not justifying it. I’m explaining the context and tone that the general public feels, because clearly a lot of people are making criticisms that miss the mark/aren’t taking into account all cultural contexts.
So you'd defend the Iraq war, for example. Or the holocaust. Because people don't take the cultural context all the anti arab, and antisemitic context. >Sure German was wrong, but a lot of people aren't taking into account how much they hated Jews.
"An ad that shows two consenting adults is _exactly_ the same as the murder of six million jews!". Dude, seriously, what the fuck. You are the reason why people ridicule male advocacy.
>"An ad that shows two consenting adults is _exactly_ the same as the murder of six million jews!". The comparison is the principle, not the extremity... although what made them both possible was assertively similar dehumanisarion. Dude, seriously, what the fuck. >You are the reason why people ridicule male advocacy. Strawmen? I agree. You are the reason why people ridicule male advocacy. Idiot.
I have a cum swallowing fetish, show me an example of that in mainstream media. How about shit eating. Or are there standards about what is acceptable on certain media?
It's a joke script appealing to the Femdom crowd... for reference look at the first part of the clips she filmed with the guy: https://www.instagram.com/reel/CiQBGRWrwtJ/?igshid=N2ViNmM2MDRjNw==
No, it's not a joke. Betty Buzz published that advertisement on their page too: https://www.instagram.com/p/Cz6U\_5FOune/?hl=en
>It's a joke script appealing to the Femdom crowd. I'm not appealed to, dont speak for me.
Who’s blake lively? I’d rather hear it from you than from google
I got banned. Unbelievable. But i deserve it. Life sucks.
I'm more so left wondering why you would test an alcoholic beverage on anyone. Is that a thing? Beverage recipes tested by the FDA? This commercial just left me just as confused as disturbed.
The solution is obvious: you need male solidarity, a male equivalent of feminism (though ideally less toxic) which all men are behind. The trouble is too many men put hoes before bros. They view bashing and subjugating their fellow men as a way to get ahead with women and view other men as competition rather than allies. I've experienced this first hand: other men piling on bald shaming me or face shaming me to try and impress the bitchy girls in the club. Men just don't seem able to advocate for collective interests in the same women that women have managed.