|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 02, @03:18PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I will give Kim Gandy this much, She is right about women on TV often being "Eye candy".
That said, While there is no shortage of scantily-clad women on television, Ms. Gandy fails to recognize the fact that, 8 times out of 10, those scanily-clad women are seen kicking the crap out of men. Did I say; "fails to recognize"? I should say; "ignores".
And with that said, she also ignores the fact that there are nearly if not as many scanily-clad MEN in movies and television. Hasn't she ever seen a soap opera? shirtless men abound on those shows. has she never seen one or more incarnations of TARZAN? the man only wears a loin-cloth. And when's the last time we saw a bare female buttocks, on TV.? I think I've seen one. It was on C.S.I. (a female cadaver) But bare male fannies if not common are seen somewhat freaquently.
And finaly, Anyone else out there remember "The Swedish bikini team"?
They were a bevy of six beautiful swedish girls clad only in baby-blue bikinis. They were used to advertise for several Beer commercials, back in the early 90's, I think it was.
The commercials were cheesey, and rather popular with men.
BUT...! (and you knew THIS was comeing...)The feminists got mad. (what else is new?)
Feminist groups especialy the N.O.W. went nuts!
They said that "The Swedish bikini team" was "sexist demeaning to women and reduced women to "Sex-objects".
Of course the ads were pulled EMEIDIATLY!!
But then, shortly after 'the Swedish bikini team' was "axed", there came on the air a commercial for "DIET COKE", I think it was, This ad featured a shirtless "Hunk" (Lucky Vanous) working on a construction site, while a bunch of 'Buisness women' oggled him from their office windows.
The "Coke hunk" was being viewed as a "sex-object" in the exact same way the girls of 'the Swedish bikini team' were.
Were their complaints? YEP! were the "shirtless Hunk" ads pulled? NOPE!
So as usual the feminists see only one side of the issue. Ms. Gandy is just another in a long line of narrow-sited fembots.
BONUS:
FEMINIST-FUN-FACT.
DID YOU KNOW: that feminists are so narrow-sited, they can look through a key-hole with BOTH eyes?
Just another FEMINIST-FUN-FACT brought to you by;
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not to mention the fact that TV dramas and sitcoms frequently denigrate fathers and men in general. Women and mothers are portrayed in a much more positive light. TV commercials do the same thing. The NOW people are nuts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 03, @12:38AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, Collins.
And notice that they only care about the way WOMEN are portrayed.
If they were truly for EQUALITY of the genders, they would be protesting how BOTH sexes are portrayed, not JUST women. So if THAT doesn't illustrate their hypocricy, I don't know what does.
Oh, Yeah, Something else.
Kimmy Gandy also said someting about TV being only the point of view of "WHITE men and Boys".
Again she shows her narrow-mindedness.
From MY perspective, as an American Indian, TV is from the point of view of White men AND WHITE WOMEN! as well as the point of view of BLACK MEN and BLACK WOMEN!
Some one tell me where ANY (accurate) representation of American Indians can be found in TV and movies. And "NORTHERN EXPOSIER" doesn't count, because that's been nearly 10 years ago.
So, therefore I could EASILY say that Kimmy Gandy sees only from the point of view of a white woman.
And I'd be correct in saying that, because her own comments illustrate that fact.
Aah, Poor Kimmy Gandy. She is exactly what she claims to be against; A narrow minded bigot.
Yup..., typical feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 03, @12:43AM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Oops, I hit the "Submit" instead of the "Preview" button by mistake, and didn't get a chance to sighn my moniker in my above post. I hate when that happens.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Network programming sends a distorted, often offensive image of women, girls and people of color brought to you through the point-of-view of white men and boys," I wonder if these "feminist trained" individuals watched the same television I do. The distortion of men, boys and men of color is rampant on shows. Men are the butt of jokes. Father are NEVER portrayed in a positive light, they always need a woman's hand to show them the right way to do things. Female centered shows like "Buffy, The Vampire Slayer", "Xena", "Sex in the City" and many others are gaining in popularity. In all these shows men are primarily the "evil doers" and responsible for making the mistakes that cause the problems that the plot resolves.
As for women being portrayed as eye candy for men I wonder if these same feminist examiners looked at how men are portrayed on screen. I am sure that actors like Brad Pitt, Sean Connery, George Clooney, etc. are popular only because of their acting ability. I wonder if these same feminist notice their comments about men's butts, or cute smiles and can see the hypocrisy.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 03, @08:40PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think any mens' rights activist should debase himself (
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 03, @08:49PM EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think any men's rights activist should debase himself (or herself) by reading ( let alone responding to )the garbage contained in that NOW article. For 20 years the media has villified, demonised and insulted men of all creed and colour. Reform of the media must be one of the primary goals of the Mens Movement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 04, @02:31AM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, And one more thing...,
Hasn't Gandy ever heared of "LIFETIME" (television for women) on cable.
On "LIFETIME" women can sit on their fannies all day long and watch show after show made (primairily) BY women, FOR women.
And one more thing..., If Gandy and her Fem-squad are so upset about the "portrayal of women" on TV, Why in the Hell doesn't she and her harpies use the absorbinant amount of (tax-payer) money they get all the time and start up their own production studio? Then they can crank out all the Feminazi, propagandist, misandrist TV shows they want.
But, No. It's MUCH easier for them to make someone else do all the work, while they reap the benifits.
Typical for N.O.W.W.W. (National Organization of Wierdos, Whackos and Wet-wipes.)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka-hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday November 04, @10:52AM EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Another example sexism applied to children was seen in the Beijing womans conference some years ago. There, one of the topics was abuse of "girl children ". The abuse of male children was not considered .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 05, @03:57AM EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
...And one more thing...,
Anyone get the idea that feminists have this irrational idea in their (small) minds that they must "punish" Men untill Men learn to stop being Men...?
...Well, I'M not gonna get a sex-change...!
Sorry, Ladies. (actually I'm not sorry, I'm just being polite.)
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kim and her friends at NOW are just doing what they’re paid to do – they’re promoting the feminist industry. They know that the objectified woman line of products became obsolete long ago but think they can squeeze a few more miles out of it.
The market for legitimate feminist products became over-saturated decades ago so Kim’s bigger job is to float some balloons, do some R&D, assemble a few focus groups, judge the response, and try to develop something that people might actually buy. Kim’s got a tough job. But don’t underestimate NOW, they’re masters at selling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we strategize as a group, confer on action, and deploy with 'fairness' in mind, then this movement can avoid that deep 'mind' trap other movements seem to 'stumble' into: Bigotry.
My 2 cents.
Mitchell A. Smith
PS. I promise, one day soon, to post a more thoughtful treatise on how to attack the feminists without appearing 'brutish'.
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would be a useful follow up to send a well thought out reply to the editor on this article. The one thing that NOW has done is politically mobilized to the point that they are heard by the media. Any article, comment, or "research" that they enforse or distribute is instantly grabbed up by the media, and others, as the gospel truth about gender issues. While there are a few people that do have the media's ears when it comes to gender issues the vast majority tend to send inflammatory replys that just serve to prove that men's groups are radicals that want women barefoot and pregnant. I know better than this but my purpose in posting here is two fold. First I try to vent some of the anger about gender issues and second I try to work out thoughtful, logical repsonses to problems and address them to people who might listen. I have found that trying to prove a point is often a lesson in futility but providing information that might have people looking at gender issues in a new light is often more useful in the long run.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Our agenda should be one of facts, not hyperbole. The media will start taking us seriously if we assemble critical thinkers, provide sound data, then lobby, lobby, lobby.
Yes, just as retail has their recipe for success - location, location, location - we need to eat and breathe own a politically viable determinism - lobby, lobby, lobby - to achieve requisite victory, as nothing less will do.
Here, say it with me: Lobby, lobby, lobby. Now, have a sip of pride, and pick an issue within the cause: Lobby, lobby, lobby. Then, write notes on pertinent data: Lobby, lobby, lobby. Next, chew on a bit of wisdom and filter out extraneous debris: Lobby, lobby, lobby. After that, focus emotion on chosen issue, and refine debatable points: Lobby, lobby, lobby. Next, bring everything together into a presentable form and have peer review and approval: Lobby, lobby, lobby. Finally, approach media and provide courtesy, accessibility, accountability, and persistence: Lobby, lobby, lobby.
Repeat until fairness is achieved.
Let's get moving, gentlemen!
Mitchell A. Smith
"An ambiguous perspective is all you can hope for when initially confronted by that which you do not know."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 05, @05:15AM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Like I've said before,
I pull double-duty as an American Indian activist.
And I gotta tell you guys, getting the media to listen to you, let alone take your findings siriously and airing them, is not just an up-hill battle, but an up-shear cliff battle.
The media has a one-track minded social and political agenda. Anything NOT meeting with that agenda is rejected, even ridiculed.
I became a Men's activist because I saw ALOT of paralells between what Indian people go through and what men as a whole are going through now.
Men, like Amer-Indians, are (1) considered sub-human. (2) evil, savage and war-like. (3) stupid. (4)issues and problems are not taken siriously. and (5)the media propagandizes them, mocks them, stereotypes them, and fans bigotry against them.
(Being both a Man and an Indian, I knew I was obligated to fight BOTH battles. If I win one, it will make it easier to win the other.)
When I have contacted ANY media out-let, as a Native activist, I first ask them why the issues faceing Natives is ignored in their reporting. Then I give them the stats on things like the Indian drop-out rate in the education system, (Higher than all ethnic groups in America and Canada.)Aids, cancer and other diseases, Alcohol and drug abuse, Un-employment and the poverty rate (Highest of all minority groups.) and the suicide rate amoung us especialy on resevations. (again the highest amoung any other group in America and Canada.) Again I ask them why this isn't reported.
The response is always glib and condesending. They tell me things like; "We don't have "reporting quotas"." (which is BULL.) and "We always report what is "News-worthy"."
My question then, to them, is of course: "How many Indians have to die, before we become "News-worthy?""
They of course have no ansewer. They either will not responded to a letter or email I send them containing that question, or if I've called them, they just hang up on me.
Now, imagine if all these things pretaining to Indians pretained, instead, to "WOMEN".
...Do you think the media would find it "News-worthy"? You and I all both know damned good-and-well, they would. and would report on it tirelessly.
As a Men's activist, I get the EXACT SAME response from the media.
When I have contacted the media out-lets on things like the un- equal reporting of prostate cancer Vs. breast cancer, the response from the media-elites is always patronizing and condesening. The same has been true when calling them out on their biased reporting of domestic-violence.
The point is, that the media is, I.M.O the single most obstical that the Men's movement must over come. We should be focusing on it like a lazer-beam. It is the medium that WHITH-HOLDS true and vital information about and for Men, And meads out un-truths and lies ABOUT Men. Unless this is stopped, I feel we will not make any substancial progress.
As Indian activists, People like myself and The American-Indian-Movement, have been fighting the media for over 200 years. Fighting them to stop reporting mis-information and stereotypes against us, and report the truth about us.
...You can all see, verry LITTLE progress has been made in that 200 years time.
Take it from a seasoned vet-of-an-activist who comes from a 200 years long line of activists, my freinds, It is the media..., It is the media.
While our primairy foe is of course the FEMINISTS. The feminists primairy weapon is the media. They, in this case, are well armed.
We, in this case are UN-ARMED. Where is that a fair fight?
We must dis-arm them.
If not, where will the Men's movement be after 200 years?
Likely the same place the as the Indian movement, after 200 years.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 06, @10:17PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Misandry is so common on TV that it is considered normal.
The status Quo for TV is: men are stupid, not able, worthy of abuse from women, bad fathers, always the bad guy...
woman are: the problem solvers, physically strong, organized and good mothers...
these themes are part of just about every program
NOW is out of touch. Look what happened this past election!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Network programming sends a distorted, often offensive image of women, girls and people of color brought to you through the point-of-view of white men and boys," said NOW Foundation president Kim Gandy.
Oh my! Oh my!
THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 09, @05:39PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi everyone,
I have a few things to say about the way men are portrayed in ads, and how this links in to the way women in the UK think the sexual humiliation of men is funny.
The discrimination against fathers and the educational etc discrimination against boys angers me, and it makes me desperately want to do something about it. And I can barely imagine the hurt that some men have gone through and are going through. The fact that men in relationships with women can be so easily manipulated by false accusations and not being able to see their children - AND THE LAW HELPS THE WOMAN IN DOING THIS! - is one outcome of a society that is now hostile to men at every level. The very fabric of our culture is now permeated with anti-male messages. And no-where is this more easily spotted than in ads. I think we need to act to stop such ads, because once we as a society accept ads that show it as "funny" to sexually humiliate men, it makes the crimes against fathers and boys much easier to occur. Its like the zero-tolerance policy that dramatically cut crime in New York: you want to stop the drug-crimes, theft etc? First stamp down on the minor crimes like graffitti, littering, smashing windows, that create an atmosphere that makes the serious crimes more likely.
What affronts me and pisses-me off daily is the humiliating tidal-wave of ads which seem designed to humiliate men - and it ALWAYS has no relevance to actually selling the product!!
Now Yvest Saint Laurant has broken one of the last "tabboos" in print advertising, and is running an ad for a man's fragrence that shows a naked man reclining with his penis on full display. The exposed penis is obviously the whole focus of the ad. But *WHY*? As a straight man why should this make me more likely to buy their aftershave??! IT WILL MAKE ME LESS LIKELY.
(The article: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/ 20021018/od_nm/france_nude_dc_3
The ads:
http://www.antville.org/img/saltyt/ysl_bw.jpg )
But what worries me now is how frequent will this become? If i'm flicking through some ordinary magazine I dont want to have to see blokes baring their john thomas on every other page. Will my future sons have to suffer the indignity in the playground of giggling girls holding up the latest copy of Bunty (or whatever crap they read) showing some bloke with his legs spread? Those magazines for young teen girls already have soft-porn style photos of men - and we already have to suffer walking past huge billboard ads dipicting a close-up of a mans underwear, the shape of the buldge of his genitals clearly displayed - at a 20-foot scale! I would argue that part of a civilised society is that men should be able to conduct their business without having their penis on display and therefore without having to see other men's penis's in public.
I can already hear the women screaming: But there are sexualised images of women everywhere. But listen: IT IS NOT THE SAME. Men have an almost compulsive instinctive drive to look at the attractive female form. Men are visual-creatures in a way that women are not. When we do so, its almost always with a silent respectful awe. But women viewing semi-naked men in ads see it as a form of comedy - comedy that humiliates men.
Ever seen men watch a female stripper? They tend to sit there quitely, in polite appreciation. Ever see women watch a male stripper? Asside from the girlish hysteria, laughter and humiliating comments they shout, they now grab the men and even perform oral sex on them.
Just pause a minute to think about that: there are now women - probably many of them wifes and mums - that will grab and suck a stranger's private parts as part of a fun girls night, yet if a man so much as tapped a woman's bottom in the office he'd be treated as the worst thing since Stalin.
But the double standard goes further: In the UK the strip shows for women are *EVERYWHERE* now, you have the different male strip groups that tour, you have clubs for women in the cities for them to watch male strippers, you have shows like "The full monty", "girls now out" etc in theatres: Every season at my local theatre they have male strip shows - and this is a supposedly respectable family venue! And the latest "laughter show" at men is called pupetry of the penis in which the audience watch as two men play with their penises and hold them in different shapes, while a close-up of this is displayed on a large TV screen behind them. Is this what theatres are for? Is this the kind of thing you want teenagers and children to be brought up on? Shouldnt men who play with themselves in public receieve some kind of psychiatric treatment?!
And where are the equivalent strip shows for men? Um, outside of SOHO i have NEVER seen one advertised anywhere. Do you know why this is?? Cos women have us beleive that for them to go see a male strip show is fun, a laugh, sociable, even a *good* thing in a moral sense as they are evening the score with men who for years enjoyed female strippers. God, even mother's proudly go to these shows. But if a man ever had the guts to go to a female strip show (even if he could find one) he'd be seen as sad, pathetic, a raincoat-wearing potential rapist. probably someone for the police to keep an eye on. A social misfit. I'm not against male strippers per se, but I am against this double standard, and I am against public-funded facilities like my local theatre again and again showing these shows with no equilalent for the men. I cant walk around my town at the moment without seeing a poster for one such show everywhere depicting a bare male behind, with a thin g-string just about covering him, a lipstick-kiss mark on him. A soft-core porn image of sexual objectification that beats anything i've seen of women displayed in public.
And the advertising standards agencies never seem to give a toss about complaints against ads like this. I found one case study online relating to an ad in Australia which showed a woman walking along with two dog-leads in her hand, but she wasnt walking dogs, she was walking two naked, collared men. Can you imagine such a billboard with the sexes reversed ever appearing?! of course you cant, cos that would never happen in the world we live in. Despite loads of complaints at this horrendous ad, the australian advertising standards authority disagreed and said it was fine becuase it was "satirical". The dumbness of this organisation would take another email to fully do justice to!
THESE HUMILIATIONS ARE EVERYWHERE!
I dont think women *Get* how embarrassing these things are to a man. Us English men are by and large a tolerant group, we can take a laugh, and we can take the odd bit of discomfort. But to use an analogy: While all of us can put up with a bad smell, that doesnt mean we want it to follow us around everywhere.
There are going to be some nasty consequences to these ads. They are like an acid that is relentlessly eating away at male pride and self-respect. So they are increasing the numbers of young men out there who are growing up with hardly any pride in themselves or self-respect. If they dont respect themselves, they sure arent going to care about others: hence more and more crime, and more and more violent crime.
Theres no excuse for mega-corporations pumping out these ads that degrade men for cheap laughs. The female ad execs no doubt mouth such innanities as "women's expectations have changed", but what helps shape consumers expectations more than advertising itself?
I'm sure plenty of other men agree with me.
All the best
Darren
PS - Here is just a handful of such TV Ads that I can recall OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD!! There are tens of others....
Remember, the message across these ads is not "Buy these products", the message is "As a man you are defective, and you will be punnished with some humiliating - quite often sexual- revenge."
Persil washing powder:
A wife makes her husband strip down to his underpants in front of her female friend while they laugh at him.
McCain Micro-chips:
A young girl asks her sister "Which do you prefer: Daddy or chips?" the girl is unsure, then when her daddy playfully steals one chip off her plate, she tells her sister that she prefers chips to Daddy.
Nationwide building society:
Just because a man doesnt hold the door open for a women as she enters a car showroom we are shown her fantasy of women buying men, like they would buy a car - who are standing prostate and blank - like so many male whores. And this is presented as *Light-hearted* - this is a bit of a copy of an earlier ad for Egg bank which showed a woman shopping to purchase a husband in a poor european country, the men depicted as laughable.
Archers alcoholic drink:
At a music concert a camper van decends from the sky, splatering mud on some men - but not the women - a drag queen emerges with some body-builder men who are naked appart from their underpants. A group of girls, giggling with squeeky hysteria enter the van whose door is held open for them by one of the almost naked men, they condescendingly tap him under the chin as they enter as he giggles compliantly - the implication being that they are off to enjoy these men as their toys - to me this ad is the clearest example yet of the gay-male and feminist-female alliance in the ad industry that could be behind these type of ads.
Fiat Punto, Olivio low-fat spread & Diet Coke:
Entire campaigns of ads whose whole modus operandi is male sexual humiliation. Thinking of diet coke and Olivio i am reminded of the manipulative, unscientific female-driven "Nutritionist" industry ...but thats an email for another day!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
