UK: Traditional Depictions of Mothers to be Banned in Adverts From Next Year Amid Ongoing War On ‘Gender Stereotypes’

Article here. Excerpt:

'Cooking, cleaning mums will be banned in advertisements across the UK from next year, following a study which claimed traditional gender roles are “harmful and outdated”.

The decision to tighten regulation was announced by the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) this week, after a report published in summer identified gender stereotypes in adverts as a driver of inequality between men and women.
“Wherever they appear or are reinforced, gender stereotypes can lead to mental, physical and social harm which can limit the potential of groups and individuals,” the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) alleged in its study.

Depictions deemed problematic include “family members creating a mess while a woman has sole responsibility for cleaning it up”, and adverts which “[suggest that] a specific activity is inappropriate for boys because it is stereotypically associated with girls, or vice-versa.”'

Like0 Dislike0


I'm thinking of something along the lines of banning men entirely from ads of all kinds because images of men (and boys, too) as well as deep voices may in fact be triggering to certain women.

Along with it though, to avoid sexualizing/exploiting female models, all depictions of women must show them covered at least over 90% of their bodies and no suggestive poses are to be allowed, with all naughty bits of course being covered. No a$$-crack in any amount is to be permitted also.

The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice along with the Ministry of Women's Affairs shall enforce this edict.

Like0 Dislike0

The burqa. The religious police. Or the feminist police.

Hard to tell the difference.

Like0 Dislike0

My mother, a '70s feminist who lived off my father most of her adult life, once was railing about hookers and men who fuck them, condemning both parties. I was in my early 20s at the time. After she was done I simply said, "Mom, in case you haven't noticed, you've been a hooker most of your life and arguably still are despite that fact you now work. Admittedly your client list is very short and you married your top john but that is about all. Do you deny that if dad chose not to work anymore and make money that you would soon leave him? Yet you insist that being a housewife is an option women should have without judgment but not men. So all I can say is, people who live in glass houses."

She tried to respond but couldn't because she knew I was right. Never heard her rail on about hookers and johns again.

Like0 Dislike0

I'll repeat some of my frequent sayings as they tie in perfectly to this.

*nature created women to have reproduction value and men to have utilitarian (work) value.

*the nature of all romantic heterosexual male/female relationships is women trading their reproductive value for the man's utilitarian value.  This trade creates efficient families when the two people are in agreement and compatible.  So they need to have compatible lifestyle, goals and personalities, which is why they should date and get to know each other before committing to be a family.  

* When you have different motivations and consequences, you get different behavior. Men have stronger sex drives and can't get pregnant, while women have lower sex drives and have risk of pregnancy every time they have sex.  It is only logical and based on biology that men and women behave differently when it comes to sex.

* When it comes to sex, men are like keys, and women are like locks.  A key that can open many locks is good, and is called a master key.  A lock that can be opened by any key is a shitty lock.

* healthy families make for a healthy society.  Healthy societies are ones that value offspring by taking care of the children within the society, and they create a next generation.

So how is a housewife different from a hooker/john relationship?

Hooker/john relationships do not create healthy families.  If no pregnancy occurs, then it goes OK as they both get what they need, but if all sexual relationships were conducted like this, then no families would be created, there would be no healthy offspring.  As the society ages. there would be no next generation and society would die out.  As far as generations it would be "one and done!" and unable to sustain itself. 

In husband/housewife situation....the basic trade still occurs.  Husbands and wives have typically made sure they are compatible which is necessary when you intend to spend long periods of time with someone.  This creates a healthy environment for children, and as I stated healthy families make a healthy society which can sustain itself and go from generation to generation.

...and hookers don't clean your house and take your kids to the doctor.

Like0 Dislike0

I've had this thought on occasion that women who indeed embrace their traditional role--and largely reject all the feminist nonsense--could find themselves being much sought after by men. This would assume, of course, that men can look for something other than looks in a woman. Too often that's what men fall for, only to discover lookers rarely make good partners in life.

That said, I still believe that women of decent character, who aren't out to screw a man over for everything she can get, will find themselves being pursued, because men are learning that in the current world, character matters.

Like0 Dislike0

I do like the foregoing in terms of its in-touchness of reality.

But... and tbh Kris, I am very sorry to have to say this myself because I *really* wish the world were as you describe it in terms of it being a reliable model. IF it were a reliable model (ie, if we all could indeed count on it being implemented consistently), then I'd say fine. But alas, it is not reliable.

Married couples are not by and large staying together. Hypergamy rules the day. Today's women seem focused mostly on what they can get from men and will trade up the minute they think they can. Studies show that women are about as likely to be unfaithful as men, which makes sense given the gender ratio and sexual preferences of most people. Men cannot count on female fidelity nor consistency/reliabiliy as mates. Today's women seem to be gleefully implementing a new kind of hookering that dispenses with street-walking but nonetheless has all the hallmarks of good old-fashioned prostitution.

I do see the difference between how my mom pursued her trading sex for stuff vs. the classic quid pro quo hooker model and I readily admit that the net result of my parents' strategy for life/reproduction is quite superior in its outcomes as opposed to single motherhood. But the downsides were still there: monogamy is painfully dull/confining and even people who love each other a great deal still feel an overwhelming desire to screw others. Some societies had marriage as a thing and marriages can and did last a long time, while at the same time no actual expectation of fidelity for either party was present. Ancient Roman civilization as well as pre-Christian Britain are good examples wherein marriage/hand-fasting existed but in practice neither party was expected to be exclusive to the other -- though a woman making sure her children were in fact the spawn of her husband was considered the appropriate and admirable thing for her to do. Sometimes things went that way, other times, not. But at the same time people cared a lot less about who the actual father of a child was and were just glad to have a healthy child/children with them, as children were their social security.

The model is also very unstable due to the speed and ease of divorce and the fact that most are started by the wife makes it pretty clear which party on aggregate is more or less committed to staying married.

In all my posts discussing the whore/john nature of primate heterosexual relationships, perhaps I have failed to do so, but I have hoped to stress the basic fundamental nature of relations between the sexes and how that nature is unavoidable, at least until humanity abandons sexual reproduction, which, evolutionarily-speaking, is quite a ways off.

Kris -- find me a good, reliable, decent woman like yourself who will not turn 2-bit hooker on me and I'll settle down and be the upstanding, pious, church-going, God-fearing, decent, honest, dedicated family man you and I both know you would LOVE me to be. Just one catch: she has to be OK with swinging. Now, I have no double-standards, here. She can enjoy herself too. I am consistent in my convictions. I have yet to be accused of sexual hypocrisy and I'll create no such opportunities now.

Just... if you were thinking of fixing me up with your cousin Emma... I think you should probably go over that whole swinging bit with her first... you know, just in case it'd be a sticking point for her.

Like0 Dislike0

I would set you up in a heartbeat Matt! but I have very few single friends.

I will tell you that I have no strong feelings about anyone's dating practices unless it requires welfare as people often expect others to fund their lifestyle.  You may have noticed by the tone of all my posts, that I do value relationships that form healthy families over those that don't - this has nothing to do with religion, but it is fact that healthy families are self sufficient, they don't need welfare.
 I do believe in biology and survival of the fittest.  So I do have some concern about people dating in their teens and  twenties who will eventually want to have children....but people over 40 who have no desire for children (or additional children).  I say do whatever you want, I have no desire to stop you....just be honest with people and be in charge of your own birth control (all men who don't want children should have a vasectomy or only date women over 50).  

And about being "poly".... I assume it is poly you are referencing when you say "nature is unavoidable".  I believe natural poly relationships have occurred since the beginning of time and children conceived within them have been cared for, but it is ONLY poly alpha males I am speaking of as that is the only type that occurs naturally.  I think where you and I disagree is anytime you reference the book "Sex at Dawn"  and it's teachings which indicates that in ancient times beta men were also poly, and so were all women and that it would be natural and healthy to revert back to this.

The authors of the book SaD are very alone in their assertions as they go against the teachings of all experts in the field.   If women freely give away sex and every male gets the same amount of sex and low ranking beta men reproduce at the same rate as high ranking alpha men, then there is no motivation for men to succeed.  The whole notion of "survival of the fittest [genes]" , which all of biology is based on, goes out the window!!

This is all explained in a book written by experts to counter "Sex at Dawn" called "Sex at Dusk"

So, in today's world, if a non-alpha male is having sex for free with multiple female partners who are "poly", this is a rare fluke, social construct (for the females roles), or a lie, because naturally this just doesn't happen.

Like usual Matt, I doubt we will change each other's minds, and I thank you for letting me slip away from my kids to have some intellectual discussion.

Like0 Dislike0