|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Progressive,
You have begun running an ad in which an angry ex-girlfriend or ex-wife is depicted as
creating a voo doo doll of her ex and then injuring him in various ways. At the end of
the commercial she uses pliers on his genitals and we are shown him making a horrible
face for the last shot. Unfortunatly, you think sexual abuse of males is a good way
to sell insurance. I disagree. As a man I am greatly offended by the ad. I think
that if this ad continuse, more men will not use your services.
John Knouten
CONTACT THE MEDIA!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good God man! They have no bounds of decency. This ad clearly promotes DV against men. If anybody finds their email address for the marketing dept or public relations department please let us know.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the letters are great and I support all of your efforts. Myself, I'm going to cancel and switch to GEICO. I will be sure that they are informed of the reason why.
For the record, does anyone know if GEICO has run any blatantly anti-male ads?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good for you, Mark. It's great to hear it. Unfortunately, I don't know about GEICO. Best of luck with them, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday July 12, @05:01PM EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
Actually GEICO's radio commercials seem kind of "pro" male. One of them goes like this:
GEICO, not to be confused with "gecko," a small tree lizard. And NO, GEICO doesn't have a sister company named GIRL-CO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NO, GEICO doesn't have a sister company named GIRL-CO.
To me, this in no way insults women. It does, however, seem to say that they are not caving into standard, ridiculous, feminist demands for reconstruction of everything. Maybe I'll switch to them too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GEICO ran a series of ads with the slogan "We all do dumb things once in a while, paying too much for car insurance shouldn't be one of them". Every ad in that series was based on a white male doing something stupid. A few of them were animated(pencil drawings?) showing a white male doing blatantly dumb things. The ad I remember most clearly though is the one where a white male is sitting on a couch watching TV. He has a bowl of popcorn next to him. Instead of eating the popcorn, he eats pieces of the plant that's next to the couch. I know there were other ads in that series, outside of the animated ones, but I can't remember them all. I wrote them and got the usual cookie cutter responses. I would never buy from them after that series.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the additional info, bledso. Does anyone have any idea if there isn't a company propagating anti-male hatred today?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday July 10, @04:38PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
They truly hate men. They make young men pay 1 million % more in car insurance than young women.
Of course the other way around would be "not right".
I hate these companies so much......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isnt their some commision? In the US that you can also complain to about this type of thing. There is one in Canada, Im not sure how effective it is, but there is one. Since I have disconnected my cable Im not up to date on whats on.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday July 10, @10:23PM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Men should begin writing letters to Progressive Insurance over this outrage immediately! Just a friendly word of caution concerning men paying more for car insurance than women. True, the dollar amount of the check that a young man writes for car insurance will probably be larger than the dollar amount a young female will pay. However, the average male drives many more miles than the average female. Mile for mile the average female actually pays more for car insurance than the average male. Insurance agents are reluctant to admit this but if you press them on it they will agree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting point. However, shouldn't we be charged a higher rate based on miles driven and not gender regardless of what the averages pan out to be? If I drive 5,000 miles a year, I'm not likely to exceed what the average male drives per year, yet I pay more simply for being male. I hope I'm stating my point clearly. The bottom line is this: people should be charged based on what they report their yearly mileage to be, accident and ticket history, as well as the smaller factors(off street parking, location, etc.) These are all things that people can control and change if they feel their rate is too high. Basing rates on gender is pure discrimination.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I realize that this is a sideline discussion, but I can't resist because I love this topic.
I live in a (Canadian) province in which there is only one (government) insurer. Everyone pays the same. Any differences in premiums are based upon your years of clean driving, nothing more. You start off close to the bottom of the scale. Every clean driving year lowers your premiums, every accident in which you are guaged to be at fault raises your premiums. Speeding tickets, etc, also raise your premiums. It's perfectly fair, and it works. Of course, if we had private competition this wouldn't work, because all of the companies would do what they do everywhere else: profile customers and try to get the best drivers.
Nobody wants to insure a young male driver because demographically young males get in more accidents than young females. I'm willing to believe this, because I'm willing to believe that actuarial science is accurate. The argument that insurance companies' tactics are mean-spirited rather than coldly logical doesn't wash for the same reason that the "women make 60% of what a man makes" argument doesn't wash: if young men were being overcharged for insurance, then some insurance company would charge a more reasonable price, scoop all of the business, and make a killing.
However, I do object to the discrimination. I am willing to believe (as stated above) that 18-year-old males (as a collective) are more accident-prone that any other group. This does not, however, say anything about a particular 18-year-old male who right now is trying to buy auto insurance. To say that this particular man is a high risk because one of the groups to which he can be assigned (18-year-old males, as opposed to the group of red-haired people, or the group of people with Red Setter dogs) is high risk as a collective, is pure discrimination. If ever you meet an actuary for an insurance company at a party, challenge him or her to prove to you that a particular person standing across the room is high risk / low risk. If they have an once of sense they won't even try. Actuarial science deals in large population groups. It cannot predict the behaviour or capabilities of individuals. So, charging any particular man more because he is a man, or because he is young, is pure discrimination.
Would we allow insurance companies to gather statistics on, and charge premiums based on race? Even if the statistics clearly showed that one race got into more accidents than another? Of course not. Is this because the actuarial numbers don't work out? No, it's because society finds this repugnant, regardless of how the numbers work out. So why, then, do we allow discrimination based on age and sex?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" No, it's because society finds this repugnant, regardless of how the numbers work out. So why, then, do we allow discrimination based on age and sex?"
We have been asking these same questions to 'sex assault centres' and 'DV shelters', who think all men are 'rapists and wife beaters' therefore don't deserve things like fair trials let alone decent car insurance. Both age discrimination and sex discrimination is there sex so long as you're male, age so long as you're still alive. I could be wrong on that still alive thing though, they may be finding ways to accuse dead men of abuse.
However I can't recomend driving with no insurance even though I think its another form of legalized extortion. Clearly by the previous post where insurance companies go for the safe bet, it shows that this company in question is trying to get 'female' customers. That is their target market which is kind of sad that in order to sell products they have to demean ,victimize and entire class of people a 'rightful birth group'. This would not fly if in the reverse as Ray is going to point out when he gets that site up. I wonder where the 'equal-fems' are on this issue, does anyone know their headquarters hot-line? Im sure they will be outraged at this type of discriminiation against men.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I like to see an ad before I write to object to it. Where can I see this one? I didn't notice a link to it on their site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, make sure you (and anyone you tell about this ad) to use a REAL email address and your real name as well.
my message:
I'm not currently a Progressive customer, but I'm not likely to be one after hearing about your disgusting ad where a vindictive woman tortures her ex-boyfriend with a voodoo doll. In what sick pool do your promotion people swim in to consider such an ad humorus? Imagine your brother or sister or mother in the place of the man being tortured and see why I'm not laughing (and sticking with USAA).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Progressive,
Recently two things have happened:
1) I have been sent a letter from Progressive stating that I've "been selected for a great insurance rate...."
2) Progressive has been running a series of ads lately that insult men, the most degrading of which has an ex-girlfriend or ex-wife creating a voodoo doll of her ex and then injuring him in various ways. She finally takes a pair of pliers to the doll's genitals and we see her ex's face of pain in the last shot of the commercial.
Even if Progressive were to PAY me serious money for the priviledge of insuring my car, I wouldn't accept the offer. I do not find sexual mutilation of men to be an effective way to sell insurance, and as a man I am greatly offended by many of Progressive's commercials, but none have disgusted me so much as this one.
The headline of my letter/invitation states: "Being responsible does have its rewards." Well, I think Progressive is being irresponsible in its advertising tactics. It is a hurtful, not a humorous, commercial, and I believe that a great many men AND women will not use your services if this type of advertising continues. I will actively discourage people from using your services, and will keep Progressive's letter as a symbol of the irresponsibility the company shows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just received this standard sort of response from Progressive. Their attitude seems to be "Suffer and die, you worthless Notawoman!"
"Thank you for contacting Progressive directly about our advertising. We take feedback like yours seriously as we develop our advertising plans.
"We are proud of our award winning Web Site, progressive.com, and created this advertisement to promote its superiority in a humorous, entertaining manner. We apologize if our advertising offended you in any way.
"Sincerely,
"Mauricio Duarte
Progressive Internet Service Specialist
webmaster@progressive.com
http://www.progressive.com"
My response was:
"This is an empty response. Your company is utterly disgusting in it's belief, and promotion of the idea, that violence by women against men is humorous. I will NEVER purchase insurance from Progressive. Rest assured that a great many people that I know will hear about your cavalier and vile attitude regarding violence against men."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exact same response.
I guess now they are both sexist and spammers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday July 11, @10:39AM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
My letter:
To whom it may concern,
I am writing with regard to an advertisment of yours depicting a woman using a voodoo doll to take out revenge on her ex-husband. I found this offensive and dehumanizing. Perhaps it was intended in the spirit of humor. Do you consider torture by proxy humor? Do you consider the humor engendered by such a message humorous? I think most people would consider it sadistic. I think this shows your company in a poor light and contributes a mean spirited tone to our culture. Among all the ways you could present yourself to the public, why so nasty and anti-male?
Their reply:
Thank you for contacting Progressive directly about or advertising. We take feedback like yours seriously as we develop our advertising plans.
We are proud of our award winning Web Site, progressive.com, and created this advertisement to promote its superiority in a humorous, entertaining manner. We apologize if our advertising offended you in any way.
Sincerely,
Mauricio Durarte
Progressive Internet Service Specialist
My further reply:
Mr. Duarte,
I recieved your response to my concerns about your Voodoo advertising. In my email I asked several questions and you replied with a non sequitir about your Web Site, and a statement about your desire to promote your "superiority". The problem, Mr. Durate, with a sense of "pride" and "superiority" is that such inflation can cause one to make mistakes. I wonder if the sadistic tone of aforemention advertisement wasn't a mistake. I say this in light of the fact that a movement has of late developed that seeks to hold business interests accountable for the impact they have on the community. For example, I think many people might find that such a commercial as yours could encourage children to think that the sensibility of such humor as appears in your ad is socially acceptable. I think the greater public would consider this a negative impact on young viewers. Sir, is Progressive a publicly held entity, responsible to shareholders? I wonder if they would share your notions of "superiority" and "humor"? Perhaps your company's next ad slogan could be "Progressive, Uber Alles"--presented in a humorous way it might be a more direct expression of your sense of superiority. I will look forward to sharing your self defined sense of inflated worth with my many friends on the internet.
Thank you for your timely, telling and instructive response.
Sincerely,*********
p.s. congradulations on your award, I won a blue ribbon once in third grade, and I felt very special too.
(And now I feel better:-])
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just called Progressive at (800) 776-4737. I spoke with an agent and told her why I found this ad offensive. I then said that I will never purchase insurance from Progressive. She listened, was polite, and, when I asked her to pass on the information, she said she would. She also seemed to know what I was talking about as soon as I started to mention the ad.
If you decide to call them, be forewarned, they may decide to falsely claim that you threatened them. I've had this done to me, when I've called a company in the past to object to anti-male hate-mongering.
Be very careful. People like this think that their ugliness and hatefulness is, at the very least, a great deal of fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You could record the phone calls, or have a three way calling team, to make sure there is something of your side of the story.
There are recording devices for the phone reletively cheap, if one is going to be an activist in this way on a regular basis. Im not sure what the fine tuning of american law is on it, but certainly if you have it on tape, showing that you were being cool things should be a bit in your favour. I never recomend giving this evidence over to the police, but I would make a copy of it etc.. if anything should come down. Remember some of these people are just average workers and they themselves are not entirely responsible for the advertising, but by you raising the issue to them directly and explaining it well they may think you're a kook, but at least they heard it, and maybe they will see it in the future a little bit more. Which means one down millions and millions to go.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel the best thing we can do is pass on the information to all. Also, educate everyone about this site in particular. I feel that the more people get to know and see this great site, the more our voice will be heard down the road..grass roots efforts here guys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" the more our voice will be heard down the road..grass roots efforts here guys."
I know this is going to sound stupid, but what exactly does 'grass roots' mean?
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are recording devices for the phone reletively cheap, if one is going to be an activist in this way on a regular basis. Im not sure what the fine tuning of american law is on it, but certainly if you have it on tape, showing that you were being cool things should be a bit in your favour.
If anybody does choose to record their phone call, be certain to inform the person on the other side that the call is recorded while the tape is running. Failure to do so can result in felony charges in many U.S. States.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People. I have been noticing that letters are being sent en mass to the wrong people. Some of them are going to webmasters and insurance agents. This is a waste of time. I would strongly suggest resending your letters and phone calls to the proper sources.
To make a difference the proper source must be contacted. Possible sources include a public relations office and investor relations. Here is a URL to investor relations:
Investor Relations
Here is another URL:
Customer Satisfaction
Do not send letters to feedback links. Those just go to some nimrod idiotic marketing person that only cares about their web presence. You're wasting time with that one.
For phone numbers use the following:
Consumer Media Relations
David Hale - 440-395-3033
Courtney Neville - 440-395-3032
Shannon Radigan - 440-392-3031
OR
Consumer/Trade Media Contact
Leslie Kolleda 386-947-5158
All other contacts with the company are pretty much a waste of time. When calling the company be certain to be polite and not voice any anger. If you even have a hint of anger they will ignore your points.
And Remember, we are making a difference!
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People. I spoke to Courtney Neville of progressive insurance and informed her that the National Coalition of Free Men will be posting Progressive in the hall of shame. I also explained that mensactivism.org is reporting information about the ad.
I found Courtney to be very receptive and understanding. I explained to her how we believe such ads create a conditioned response of encouraging female on male violence. She said she would pass on the information to marketing.
If you choose to contact these people please be polite and express your reasons on why you find the ad offensive.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a commentary on the exact problem that we've been writing about. Bonnie Ewen, the essay's author and an editor at guelphmercury.com, states "There's nothing funny nor acceptable about women being assaulted, as our society and courts have worked so hard to make clear.
"If this commercial were about adults slapping kids around or about people kicking animals, the same and rightful outcries would be ringing through the air.
"But this commercial is about women slapping men. And for some reason no one seems to care...
"Is it that men are supposed to be tough enough to withstand abuse? Tough people don't stand for abuse."
Good for her. I'm writing to thank her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's what I wrote to Bonnie Ewen at ewen@guelphmercury.com
"Dear Ms. Ewen:
"I would like to thank you for your essay on the depiction of anti-male violence in advertising,
http://www.guelphmercury.com/news/ewen/news_ewen_0 207068410.html.
"As you point out, if any other group, human or otherwise, were depicted as the target, the ad would not be tolerated. There is, in fact, a discussion of this matter at mensactivism.org,
http://mensactivism.org/article.pl?sid=02/07/10/19 49225&mode=flat&threshold=-1.
That discussion was prompted by a Progressive (sic) Insurance ad depicting a woman crushing the genitals of a voodoo doll and causing her ex- a great deal of pain in his groin.
"I'm sure that seeing this type of portrayal of men, as appropriate victims of violence, has a terrible influence on boys growing up in America today. For that matter, I'm sure it has a very twisted influence on girls as well.
"For what it's worth, I see this as one of the results of the deranged sickness into which mainstream feminism has degenerated. The outrage by men, at such hatefulness, is growing quickly. I'm glad to see women like you also speaking out against at least one of the manifestations of anti-male hate.
"Thank you again."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good article by Bonnie Ewan. She makes good points in a no-nonsense, "so, do we belive in equality and respect or not" manner. Good on ya, Bonnie!
I'm pretty excited about this; not just for what is being said, but where it's being said. The audience that this article will reach is a very important one.
Guelph is a big College and University town, so a significant percentage of its population of about 70,000 is students.
The educational institutions include: University of Guelph, Ontario Veterinary College, Ontario Agricultural College, The Sudbury Neutrino Observatory, The MacDonald Institute for Women, and (gag) an Intitute for Women's Studies.
I went to the University of Guelph, myself, in the mid-70s. Studied Astronomy. (Like most Astronomy students, I, [1] never got a job in my field and, [2] now work as a computer programmer. But that's another story... ) :-)
Saw the beginnings of the current feminist insanity. Encounted the term 'politically correct' for the first time, when it was defined as "a girl who'd really prefer to shave her legs, but didn't, because she could further the 'cause' by being 'politically correct.'"
So, even from the beginning, 'political correctness' has been about lying, professing beliefs you don't hold, and having your freedom of choice denied and your behaviour dictated to you in order to promote the feminist agenda. (Hmmm, that's also a pretty good definition of Stalinist social engineering.)
Bonnie's article is going to be *very* controversial in PC Guelph, and she's gonna catch a big ol' can o' flak over it from the resident gender bigots. Be sure to send her an encoraging thank you!
Ragtime
The Truth will set us free!
The opinions expressed in this posting are my own, but you're welcome to adopt them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"But this commercial is about women slapping men. And for some reason no one seems to care... "
Im assuming the beer comercial in question is the budweiser one. I personally think that beer comercial is actually pointing out "women's movies" such as pride and prejuduce etc.. and what ever Jane Austin etc... In fact I would hazard to guess, that budweiser is not promoting that women should hit men, but rather that how hypocritical it all is and that 'men know it' is hypocritical. I think we should be calling budweizer and thanking them. Because all their comercials point out the abuse and hypocracy that men have to put up with. Even though its in a funny way, the slant does us good. Of course there is no excuse for abuse, (rolleyes) . I went to guelph university and they are still promoting that biased research of all violence is done by men , in their family mediation course. My instructor was was a tried and true fembot although subtle and sneaky I called her on everything. In the beginning I gave her the benifit of the doubt, now I know better. She is a feminist and an anti-family promoter. I recomend to everyone to be very cautous of the Family mediators as the feminist indoctrination is very apparent at guelph and york university. My family mediator instructor was named Susan something I can't remember for sure right now. I'd be weary of her, and others like her. I'd spread the word on mediation. Not only that they the same people were associated with 'Women and abuse' studies. Basically what that means is, people pay a couple of hundred dollars to become "experts" in deciding whether or not a man is going to be a violent perpetrator if released. Talk about biased perspectives. So these idiots who recite that men are responsible for 95% of the abuse in families are the ones deciding whether or not a man should be realeased from prison. Hypocrates galor if these same people claim to be unbiased family mediators. We should look into this more.
.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Progressive,
> Dear Mr. Knouten,
>
> Thank you for contacting Progressive directly about
> our advertising. We take feedback like yours
> seriously as we develop our advertising plans.
>
> We are proud of our award winning Web Site,
> progressive.com, and created this advertisement
> to promote its superiority in a humorous,
> entertaining manner.
In my humble opinion violence against anyone is not humorous. I truly believe that the ad will drive away many men from your services.
> We apologize if our advertising offended you in any way.
Not just me but any self-respecting man. A recent study suggests that 10 times as many men are offended by male-bashing now as in 1991. I truly believe you should take it into consideration for your advertizing strategy.
> Sincerely,
>
> Mauricio Duarte
> Progressive Internet Service Specialist
> webmaster@progressive.com
> http://www.progressive.com
Thank You
John Knouten
> Name:John Knouten
> EmailAddress:knouten@yahoo.com
> Message:Dear Progressive,
> You have begun running an ad in which an angry
> ex-girlfriend or ex-wife is depicted as creating a
> voo doo doll of her ex and then injuring him in
> various ways. At the end of the commercial she uses
> pliers on his genitals and we are shown him
> making a horrible face for the last shot.
> Unfortunatly, you think sexual abuse of males
> is a good way to sell insurance. I disagree. As a
> man I am greatly offended by the ad. I think
> that if this ad continuse, more men will not use
> your services.
> John Knouten
CONTACT THE MEDIA!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel compelled to offer a comment in general on advertising that appears to be anti-male, especially considering the discussions of switching companies by folks posting here and the indication of one poster who cites anti-male ads used by the new company.
We ought to recognize that many, maybe even most companies will, at one time or another, use an ad that appears to be anti-male. But many other of thier ads may not be and in fact, some of their ads may be perceived by others as anti-woman. Random "slap-shots" as I call them ought to be ignored. We ought to focus our ire on companies that have a continued bias against men, because we can focus our efforts better and avoid being regarded as reactionaries. Companies that have a historical "balance" in their derision based on gender ought to be recognized for same, even if that recognition just means ignoring them.
I make no comments on Progressive, or GEICO, or Allstate, or any others. I just think getting our knickers in a knot over every single ad is not going to help us much.
For what it's worth...
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GEICO ran an entire campaign that directly referenced doing "dumb things". EVERY ad in that campaign illustrated how "dumb" men are without including women even once. I think that constitutes a pattern. A pattern mirrored by many many other companies. Companies that haven't made an effort to achieve balance. Companies like Wendy's, Circuit City, JCPenney, and A&W just to name a few. Every ad they produce might not bash men, but that does not constitute balance....some are just neutral. Correct me if I'm wrong, but not too many companies come to mind when I think of legitimate "balance". The only campaign I can think of that has shown women in a mentally diminished light is the recent Killian's campaign. Although I don't like to see anyone made to look stupid, it's almost tempting to congratulate them for being so brave.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We ought to focus our ire on companies that have a continued bias against men
If you know which companies have a continued bias against men, please share the information. In the meantime, when we encounter something particularly offensive, let's continue to inform the offenders that we won't tolerate the abuse any longer. Whether or not anyone wants to go so far as to change companies, that's up to that individual, but if someone does this, please let the offenders know that you have dropped them and why.
I agree that it would be best to focus on those who have been the worst offenders over time, but I don't know who they are. For instance, which insurance company has, over time, been the most anti-male? I'll avoid them like the plague. Just let me know who they are, and supply the supporting evidence, of course.
Let's keep up the MensActivism!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
