|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 19, @03:36PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I have always heard that it is a bad idea to warn the defendant about the lawsuit. You have now given them time to prepare a solid free speech defense against you.
Maybe I am a pessimist, but I do not see any possible way that you can win this suit under the First Amendment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When the FCC gets involved, "free speech" ain't so free. Every time someone complains that a radio station or TV didn't bleep a bad word, that station gets fined, usually $10,000.00 US or more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 19, @07:42PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
"When the FCC gets involved, "free speech" ain't so free. Every time someone complains that a radio station or TV didn't bleep a bad word, that station gets fined, usually $10,000.00 US or more."
Yes. As I pointed out in another post. The FCC is functioning illegally under the First Amendment. As well, its rules and regulations only apply to stations that broadcast across public airwaves (not cable). If the FCC is involved, the lawsuit should be against the broadcasters who aired the ad and not the creator of the ad itself.
I think the FCC should be disbanded anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a clear misconception of the meaning of the First Amendment, and what constitutes "free speech." Freedom is not license, and the public airwaves are not private property. FCC guidelines contain strict provisions regarding what is considered "acceptable use" of the public airwaves under license, and likewise the First Amendment contains various provisos and precedents including such exceptions as "Fighting Words" and other prohibitions based on speech taken in a wilful and malicious context. Furthermore, the First Amendment pertains chiefly to speech against public office, not against private individuals or groups. Case law is replete with various findings in favor of offensive speech made against individuals and groups based on obscenity, hatred, prejudice, racism, defamation, anti-semitism etc, and so this case is clearly on-point with regard to subject matter-- particularly in reference to the sentiment established in the original "voodoo doll" ad, which could easily pass for some type of Nazi propadanda made for training of the perpetrators of the Holocaust.
Furthermore, I fail to see why any corporate stockholders would want to risk their bacon in order to risk their corporation being publicized as sick feminist hatemongers; they've tried to cover it up with a less intense version of the same ad, but it's too late, and the principle is the same in any case. It's time for them to pay for their wrongdoing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 23, @11:26AM EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
The actual First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Religion
The First Amendment prohibits government from establishing a religion and protects each person's right to practice (or not practice) any faith without government interference.
The Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center operates several Religious Freedom Programs advancing the understanding of freedom of religion in public schools and other venues.
Free speech
The First Amendment says that people have the right to speak freely without government interference.
The Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center presents several programs addressing aspects of free speech, including Freedom Sings and First Amendment on Campus.
Free press
The First Amendment gives the press the right to publish news, information and opinions without government interference. This also means people have the right to publish their own newspapers, newsletters, magazines, etc.
The Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center provides a program for newspaper editors and other staff through a partnership with the American Press Institute.
Assembly
The First Amendment says that people have the right to gather in public to march, protest, demonstrate, carry signs and otherwise express their views in a nonviolent way. It also means people can join and associate with groups and organizations without interference.
Petition
The First Amendment says that people have the right to appeal to government in favor of or against policies that affect them or that they feel strongly about. This freedom includes the right to gather signatures in support of a cause and to lobby legislative bodies for or against legislation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have you set up a 503(c) for a legal defense fund yet? If so, post the details here. Also, you might arrange to take donations via PayPal. Works for Scott.
Good luck.
As far as a free-speech defense is concerned, there is no "free-speech" protection for anti-semitism (not that I subscribe to that viewpoint). And there are other "protected" groups, and so the free-speech argument may not be that strong. Besides, they might just stop broadcasting the commerical as soon as they realize "Hey, this is going to cost us some MONEY!" You'll have to file for real, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 19, @04:35PM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
"As far as a free-speech defense is concerned, there is no "free-speech" protection for anti-semitism (not that I subscribe to that viewpoint)"
Yes there is. What gives you the idea that anti-semites are not allowed to express their views? They're all over the Internet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
> Yes there is. What gives you the idea that
> anti-semites are not allowed to express their
> views? They're all over the Internet.
The rules for Internet are not the same as the rules for public media.
PUNISHMENT AND CRIME
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The rules for Internet..."
There are NO rules for the Internet, as far as I've been able to tell, unless you use the Internet to facilitate some other sort of crime. But paint and anti semitic slogan on the street in front of a synagogue, and God help you!!
Don't misunderstand. I'm not anti-semitic and I DON'T condone these things. It's just that I've observed a certain sensitivity to such acts in comparison with others. I don't take a position as to whether or not this sensitivity is justified, I just point it out as an example of a situation where the First Amendment is viewed in slightly more narrow terms. The same thing applies to cases where racial sensitivities are raised by the African-American community. There's the same narrow interpretation of the First Amendment.
And I think a precedent has been set in the courts for these cases that can be exploited here by tulkas. Even if you fail at the first tier, there is enough of a case to at least be allowed to appeal to the next higher court. This by itself will get their attention, because now it gets more expensive to defend.
These cases are EXACTLY what needs to happen to make the corporations recognize the issue: it needs to cost them money, either in legal fees or reduced sales.
The thing we need to remember, too, is that in the sixties and seventies, and even later, the feminists had many cases thrown out of court on them, but their persistence eventually paid off. Lawyers watched these cases and eventually embraced the notion that there might be a way to make the case, and thereby make some money on contingency fees. Our situation is not much different. Creative lawyering needs to be applied, and it's only going to happen when lawyers realize that there's enough of a financial incentive to take the cases on contingency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 19, @06:27PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"But paint and anti semitic slogan on the street in front of a synagogue, and God help you!!"
That's vandalism and has nothing to do with free speech. If you publish anti-semitic views in a letter to your local newspaper, you are exercising free speech and cannot be prosecuted for it. There are no groups of people protected FROM the First Amendment, only BY it.
"These cases are EXACTLY what needs to happen to make the corporations recognize the issue: it needs to cost them money, either in legal fees or reduced sales. "
I agree that this is an opportunity to get attention to the cause, but there is no way (even on appeal) it will be won. "Congress Shall Make No Law" literally means "Congress Shall Make No Law" and the judicial branch cannot make laws, only interpret them.
I am sorry, but the right to free speech is dear to me, and if this case attempts to rewrite the First Amendment, I cannot support it. If it merely seeks to make a point corporate America, that's a different kettle of fish.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I gotta agree with ya there. The right to free speech is very important.
I'll take it one step further. Due to my libertarian/semi-objectivist politics, I'm a firm believer in a company operating as they see fit. I've never questioned Progressive's right to produce those types of commercials. What I pointed out to Progressive when I wrote to them was that as a consumer, I have every right to spend my money where I see fit. And if they piss me off, I don't have to do business with them. Nor does the rest of the public.
If they wish to produce man-hating commercials, they need not expect me to help fund them with my hard earned dollars. Same goes for Dish Network. Same goes for American Furniture Warehouse. Same goes for whoever else wishes to portray men in a bad light.
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Due to my libertarian/semi-objectivist politics, I'm a firm believer in a company operating as they see fit. I've never questioned Progressive's right to produce those types of commercials. What I pointed out to Progressive when I wrote to them was that as a consumer, I have every right to spend my money where I see fit.
I'll have to disagree with John Galt on this issue. That is because there is a mechanism that Progressive is intentionally using in these ads. It is the process of creating a conditioned response in the public.
This is a psychological mechanism where marketing firms are able to create an involuntary reactive response in the consumer by associating an event with an image.
With this powerful tool there comes great ethical responsibility. They cannot be permitted to program the public en-mass without being held responsible for the consequences.
In this case, they are promoting a side effect of domestic violence. I believe that they are creating a response in women where after viewing the ad a dozen times, that a female will think it is funny if she assaults the male partner in the groin.
For this simple reason, they should be stopped from airing this ad that has a side-effect of creating a conditioned response that is violent.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It just doesn't work that way; rights are not realized solely by the effectiveness of one's ability to organize a boycott, but are held to protect everyone equally regardless of that person's power or lack thereof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John Galt isn't my name. :o)
He's a character in "Atlas Shrugged".
BTW, you make a good point.
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll have to disagree with John Galt on this issue. That is because there is a mechanism that Progressive is intentionally using in these ads. It is the process of creating a conditioned response in the public.
This is a psychological mechanism where marketing firms are able to create an involuntary reactive response in the consumer by associating an event with an image.
With this powerful tool there comes great ethical responsibility. They cannot be permitted to program the public en-mass without being held responsible for the consequences.
In this case, they are promoting a side effect of domestic violence. I believe that they are creating a response in women where after viewing the ad a dozen times, that a female will think it is funny if she assaults the male partner in the groin.
For this simple reason, they should be stopped from airing this ad that has a side-effect of creating a conditioned response that is violent.
Warble
It's even worse than that; defamation is NOT harmless, not only in that it empowers the perpetrator, but also degrades the victim; also,
in addition to forwarding and conditioning societal acceptance to the notion that abuse of men is funny, it not only conditions men to accept the notion to men and women alike that men's bodies are carte blanche, but it also either deliberately perpetrates, or simply ignores, that men would naturally naturally be very disturbed by such an image via normal identification with the act shown, so as to create mental distress in the process of likewise evoking sadistic pleasure in audience members who conversely identify with the perpetrator of the act in this ad. The blatant image of a man having
genitals crushed (and I believe the indirect manner in which this was portrayed intensifies the effect rather than decreases it due to connection), and furthermore doing so in a comedic fashion, is both insulting by treating such a severe subject with an air of levity, as well as disturbing, to the average person.
This likewise applies conversely with regard to women being conditioned to the notion that men's feelings don't matter as well.
Advertisers like to downplay their influence when it comes to social responsibility, however this is insulting when considering the double-talk in the message they project to sponsors on its effectiveness in selling products.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am torn on this issue as well. I am an ardent supporter of free speech. There is a recent EU proposal that US refused to sign that banned hate speech on the internet. The US basically told them to get stuffed. Some people in France attempted to sue Yahoo(?) for allowing Nazi material to be auctioned by French citizens. [anything supporting Nazism and anti-semitism is outlawed there.] Hate speech is allowed in the US. We allow radical groups such as the KKK to gather and speak in public. The trick here is that speech that attempts to incite people to violence against a group OR whose sole purpose is to create fear in a group , or that will create panic is not allowed. Spray painting on the wall of a religious institution is hate speech but its purpose is to create fear in a group and limit their actions. Speech to persuade is allowed, speech to create fear is not.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but "free speech" is probably the most abused notion in history; it is NOT a license to say, print or broadcast whatever one pleases, just as "freedom" is not the right to do as one pleases; speech may not leally violate the rights of others in the process, but rather is about responsible communication of one's honest opinions within the boundaries of said rights.
This commercial is a clear defamatory message as well as a wilful and malicious (if not thoughtlessly negligent) intent to either gain ruthless profit or sadistic pleasure by deliberately upsetting others and causing mental distress in viewers. Detractors from the case against "offensive speech" are often bullies seeking to bind with words where force will not avail, as a foe often will; however, there ARE boundaries to what is tolerable in the context of free speech, and these apply even more stringently to the use of the public airwaves, which is not a right at all so much as a privelege.
Often, anarchists try to present themselves as defenders of liberty, however this simply proves the point, that "patriotism, is sometimes the last refuge of a scoundrel."
--Brian "don't fuck with me" Armstrong
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 23, @11:31AM EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
"Sorry, but "free speech" is probably the most abused notion in history; it is NOT a license to say, print or broadcast whatever one pleases, just as "freedom" is not the right to do as one pleases; speech may not leally violate the rights of others in the process, but rather is about responsible communication of one's honest opinions within the boundaries of said rights. "
And how does the Progressive commercial violate your rights?
"This commercial is a clear defamatory message as well as a wilful and malicious (if not thoughtlessly negligent) intent to either gain ruthless profit or sadistic pleasure by deliberately upsetting others and causing mental distress in viewers. Detractors from the case against "offensive speech" are often bullies seeking to bind with words where force will not avail, as a foe often will; however, there ARE boundaries to what is tolerable in the context of free speech, and these apply even more stringently to the use of the public airwaves, which is not a right at all so much as a privelege.
Often, anarchists try to present themselves as defenders of liberty, however this simply proves the point, that "patriotism, is sometimes the last refuge of a scoundrel." "
Fascinating. Hear that guys? If you defend your right to speak freely you are a scoundrel!
The Progressive commercial is sick and twisted. I loathe it. But I do not recall there being anything defamatory said about a "Brian Armstrong" in that commercial. Can you show me where it did?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday November 19, @06:41PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
"The rules for Internet are not the same as the rules for public media. "
Congress shall make no law... abridging freedom of the press...
There really aren't any rules for the public media outside of FCC regulations for radio broadcasters, which are barbaric, outdated, and a violation of the First Amendment anyway. If you want to sue using FCC regulations, you need to sue the broadcasters who aired the ad, not the company who created it. Also, the FCC does not regulate cable feeds because they do not use public airwaves.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest you check this out further, because not one thing you said is accurate.
If you disagree, please provide citations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 23, @11:27AM EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
See my response to you in an above thread with link to the Freedom Forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A demand letter is standard legal procedure prior to actual filing, in order to show good-faith attempt to resolve the matter through prior channels. As for a legal defense fund, I intend to handle the matter Pro Se.
As for costing them money, that's the idea; corporations are motivated solely by blind pursuit of profit, and naturally this often involves the corporate juggernaut steamrolling over the rights of anyone in its path, often steered as well by the cruelty of its agents even in violation of their duty to the principle, as clearly occurred in this case; this lawsuit is simply an injunctive method to halt this violation of men's rights in their ruthess pursuit thereof, as well as to provide remedy against further such violation by hitting them back where it hurts THEM the most in return ("tit for tat," you might say), and not showing any mercy in the process. I would do no different in such a situation on the street, and I see no more reason to pull any punches here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 23, @11:46AM EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
" I would do no different in such a situation on the street, and I see no more reason to pull any punches here. "
So you are willing to try to set a precedent that says people should not be allowed to hate or express hatred? The U.S. has already spoken out against such measures as they have been implemented in the UK.
I want to see that commercial gone as much as anyone, but I am not willing to violate the First Amendment rights of another to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regardless of the justice of the law, I don't think that not using the law will make it go away. If both sides are willing to use the law then at least there is some equality - and if the law is used against everybody equally then everyone has at least some incentive to remove it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday November 24, @02:46PM EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
"Regardless of the justice of the law, I don't think that not using the law will make it go away. If both sides are willing to use the law then at least there is some equality - and if the law is used against everybody equally then everyone has at least some incentive to remove it."
I do not understand your comment. What are you saying? That you want to remove the First Amendment?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you an attorney, incredibletulkas, or do you have an attorney, who has worked with you on this, and who will take your case pro bono or with payment contingent upon winning a settlement?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What commercials are you referring to? I think I've seen one of them but I don't recall for sure. Could someone email me what a summary of what the commercials contained?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi silentcries,
Type "progressive insurance" into the search box in the top right side of this page and you'll see several articles about the disturbing TV ad Progressive has been airing, even despite our organized efforts to let the company know the ad is misandrist.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In my area, Memphis Tennessee, Progressive pulled the portion of the ad which promoted castration with plyers and replaced it with the man's head being shrunken. I considered this a great victory for men. Has the old castration ad continued to run elsewhere?
Are you sure you have sufficient basis for a lawsuit? I'm just asking because I have seen so much male-bashing on television that I had thought it was not only legal, but encouraged by our own federal government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In Indianapolis, where I live, Progressive likewise changed the ad to omit the "castration" scene, replaceing it with the "head-shrinking" one.
I do not have Cable or sattlelight TV. So that is what I'm wondering too, Are the "castration" versions being removed from network TV, but still being run in other media venues? I.E. cable TV and/or sattlelight TV.
At this point, though, I'm remembering how Progressive basicaly "thumbed their noses" at us when we origionaly protested the ad. And the fact that I, like many men, am getting sick and tired of anti-male commercials, in general.
So Yeah, Tulkas, If you have a case, and I think you do, GO GET 'EM, BROTHER!!!
This may make other misandrist companies think twice before they try and make the same mistake Progressive has.
TC.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday November 21, @08:54AM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
I do not have Cable or sattlelight TV. So that is what I'm wondering too, Are the "castration" versions being removed from network TV, but still being run in other media venues? I.E. cable TV and/or sattlelight TV.
I watch cable television all the time and have seen the ad only once or twice in the past few months. The castration scene is apparently no longer in it.
Jack Implant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The modification is too late to take back the intensity of misandrist hatred established by the previous commercial; the modification isn't so much a reduction in misandry, as just simple reaction by the public and the FCC to the sick nature of the original.
However, the fact that they're still airing the commercial, let alone with no apology of any sort, simply adds insult to the injury of the first ad, as if persons who saw it either aren't supposed to be reminded of this sentiment, or else simply don't matter.
Again, take the challenge: type the words "misandry" and "misogyny" on your word-processor, and then run spell-check to see which one it recognizes as a legitimate word.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday November 23, @11:50AM EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
" The modification is too late to take back the intensity of misandrist hatred established by the previous commercial; the modification isn't so much a reduction in misandry, as just simple reaction by the public and the FCC to the sick nature of the original."
To my knowledge the FCC has made no public statement about the Progressive commercial.
"However, the fact that they're still airing the commercial, let alone with no apology of any sort, simply adds insult to the injury of the first ad, as if persons who saw it either aren't supposed to be reminded of this sentiment, or else simply don't matter. "
So even if we win we do not win.
"Again, take the challenge: type the words "misandry" and "misogyny" on your word-processor, and then run spell-check to see which one it recognizes as a legitimate word."
And this is Progressive's fault how? Progressive sells insurance, not spell check programs. Let them know how you feel about their commercial and DON'T BUY PROGRESSIVE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Concerned Women for America and NOW have, in a rare moment of agreement, declared CBS' upcoming broadcast of the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show to be nothing more than a soft-core porn infomercial.
And for the first time in my life, I find myself agreeing with NOW.
I think I'm gonna be ill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 20, @03:48PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
The Concerned Women for America and NOW have, in a rare moment of agreement, declared CBS' upcoming broadcast of the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show to be nothing more than a soft-core porn infomercial.
To this I say "so what?" NYPD Blue and other television shows depict soft-core porn for women all the time. So do the movie stations. No offense, frank, but what's wrong with it?
Jack Implant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now, I think I recall correctly that this show is scheduled for 8:00 PM on CBS. NYPD Blue starts at, if I recall correctly, 10:00 PM.
The other small problem I have with this is that the marketing strategy it directed mostly at men; the appeal is purely sex. The goal is to get as many men buying sexy underwear for their SOs as possible for the Christmas season.
So 1) I'm a little annoyed that this is being broadcast as a 'program' when in fact it is an advertisement; 2) I guess I'm a little fed up with the sex-oriented marketing approach that isn't even subtle anymore. Although NOW would tell you that women are being exploited, I think it MEN who are being exploited in this case simply because of our brain biology, our natural tendency to be visually stimulated.
You (meaning CBS, et al) want to put this on? Put it on later in the evening when the kids are less likely to be around, and make damn sure to bill it for what it is: a soft-core porn infomercial.
Finally, Jack, just because everyone does it doesn't make it acceptable. Everyone decries the moral decline in this country, and the trash on American television is a major contributor. But there are all the libertines out there claiming First Amendment privilege. I don't agree with anyone that says that this is what the First Amendment means. It's my position that the free-speech elements of the Constitution were meant to prohibit limits on people's express their positions on issues of the day. This Victoria's Secret thing and many other things like it are nothing of the sort. They are marketing, plain and simple, and I do not agree that Constitutional protections should be afforded to enable the expansion of the use of sex as a marketing tool.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 20, @06:21PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
The other small problem I have with this is that the marketing strategy it directed mostly at men; the appeal is purely sex. The goal is to get as many men buying sexy underwear for their SOs as possible for the Christmas season.
Frank, we live in a capitalistic culture. Most men like sex, so that is what the marketers will appeal to if they want to capture the attention of men. I still do not see what's wrong with that. I do not feel exploited by it. I probably will not even tune in to it because if I want sexuality there are other stations and other shows that are far more sexually explicit and "exploitative of women" (especially on cable).
Also, I think the fact that everyone does it IS what makes it acceptable. That is how a culture is defined, is it not? By what we approve of and what we don't in general terms?
If the majority of Americans do not approve of these tactics, then CBS will feel the heat and so will Victoria's Secret. That's how the market works. NOW went ballistic over the VS "fashion show" last year, but it got the highest ratings in its timeslot. The publicity is helping it, not hurting it because people are sick of the politically correct.
What I find disconcerting is that you are willing to believe that men are gullible enough to fall for the marketing rather than just tuning in to enjoy the scantily clad females (I am certain we won't see any real nudity). I believe we are smarter than that. Maybe I am wrong. I will be the first to admit it if I am, but I am going to watch the Neilsen numbers and Victoria's Secret's Wall Street numbers through Christmas and see if I can find a relationship.
Jack Implant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I find so interesting in all this is the fact that Men are exploited, de-huminized, debased, belittled and humiliated EVERY DAY of the year, and we don't hear one PEEP out of the feminists OR Conserned Women of America.
But let a woman or women be shown a bit off kilter once or twice a year, and they go NUTS over it!
can you say "HYPOCRISY"?
If they were truly for EQUALITY, they would be just as P.O.ed, when MEN are shown "un-fairly" as they are when women are shown as such.
TC.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday November 20, @11:06PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree Warble. I also must say that I did end up watching the Victoria's Secret fashion show, and I saw absolutely nothing to be upset about. It really was not even sexy. Except for Tyra Banks, the women were all skeletal and, as I predicted, hardly any skin showed at all.
If it is the kids we are worried about, I can assure everyone here that they see more sex and nudity at 3 in the afternoon on MTV or any soap opera than they might have seen in that fashion show.
Jack Implant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, since you insist, I'll eat my words. I didn't watch it, so I can't really even comment any further. I watched the West Wing instead.
I guess what I'm growing more and more disgusted with, and it really has little to do with men's rights, it the growing commercialism of prime time television. And it's not so much that medium that I'm upset with, it's the advertising industry in general. Aside from the damage they do to men, they want to paint EVERYTHING with their ads, and I'm getting more than a little sick of it.
In New Jersey, we have a sales tax. Advertising materials and services are exempt, for some reason, and yet this is an AMAZING sum of money. I say all advertising materials and services.
Peace.
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a recent fashion show for fat girls aired, the fat girls were applauded for "not falling into stereotypes" and thought to have very high self-esteem. I heard about it this afternoon on the radio.
So when skinny women dance around in lingerie, it's exploitation, but if they're 50lbs. overweight it's empowerment.
I wish the femmunists would make up their minds...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are they showing the women doing sexual things? Or just modeling the clothing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal papers have already been drawn up, and will be filed as of Monday, November 25 in federal district court in the event of a non-response
You may have already filed (you wrote "as of Monday, November 25"), but in any case you'll file by this Monday at the latest, as you've threatened. Please let us know in what federal circuit court you've filed. You've obviously generated a lot of interest, and I'm probably not alone in wanting to follow this directly.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
