|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Linking this to DV is far fetched and an exaggeration that does not support credibility. That said, the commercial is of course yet another example of stupid male-bashing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:34 PM November 21st, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
One aspect of DV that is frequently overlooked is the verbally abusive/controlling female.
Have a look at some of Patricia Evans' work (e.g "The Verbally Abusive Raltionship" and "Controlling People"), which is, of course, feminist and part of the self-help industry for "Battered" women (where would this world be without them?), but needs only a sex change (replace "she" with "he" and "he" with "she") to have perfect studies of the controlling, abusive female.
Whenever one sees the "man-demeaning" portrayal of men, one often sees, really, an example of the abusive/controlling female.
Strangely, such advertisements, portrayals etc do more harm to women than to men. No-one that I know takes the "dumb" men seriously. Indeed, both men and women find such portrayals offensive and a real "product turn-off". Most people buy because of "need for" and are little influenced by extraneous advertising images. Rarely does one find a purchaser who's influenced by the "story line" of any advertisement (Yeah, I bought this product, because I really like men getting it in the neck and bugger the product's quality! Who cares about quality, I like the misandric message, that's what counts!).
However, the Intellectual Giants that dominate Madison Avenue and other such advertising districts, firms etc, seem to be oblivious of that. To them offending one half of their potential customer base seems like good policy. I suppose one has to be an advertising genius to see the logic in that.
But if that's the way they want to play it - let them. Who cares? Hardly anybody believes the hype, any way. I'll continue buying what, when and as I need and what and as I can afford. And I'll seek for information regarding products away from the companies and their ads. As doubtless will most people.
Cameron
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's equally far fetched when "verbal abuse" against women is called DV, of course.
Violence is violence, not calling somebody names. We should not copy the nonsense of the self-proclaimed DV experts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:19 PM November 23rd, 2004 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
It's equally far fetched when "verbal abuse" against women is called DV, of course.
Violence is violence, not calling somebody names. We should not copy the nonsense of the self-proclaimed DV experts.
I agree. Doing so gives the DV industry more ammunition with which to attack males. Name calling is just that....name calling. It is not violence. Nor is it DV.
Men's activists are overreacting on this one.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:10 PM November 23rd, 2004 EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
"Name calling is just that....name calling. It is not violence. Nor is it DV."
I have been arguing what is the law, while N.J., Warble, and Cain have been arguing what they ideally would like the law to be. The sad reality is that "name calling" is now not only considered domestic violence in CA, it is considered hate crime (according to CA Senate bill 1234). SB 1234 was authored by state Senator Sheila Kuehl who was just reelected for another 4 years. Curiously white males are not protected by her hate crime law, and yes SB1234 was signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Do we care about all the men who go to jail for domestic violence and now hate crime, while women go scott free for the same thing?
Don't look now, but while you've all been praying for justice at your alters of righteousness the radical/gender feminists have been stealing your rights and denigrating you with a contemptuous vileness.
Dr. Richard T. Hise in his book, The War Against Men says, “How many women’s organizations are there? Who knows? Pages 259 - 390 of the Encylopaedia of Women’s Associations Worldwide lists 1,027 different groups in the United States,”
"...and here’s the real zinger. These organizations receive money from the Federal Government - the taxpayer.”
While the above men are taking the high ground and advocating that we not hold females accountable for petty actions considered domestic violence by law, men are judged harshly by that law and have their lives ruined. Is that fair? Is that just? Is that ethical? What reckoning do the three of you offer to men violated by the evil laws above?
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strangely, such advertisements, portrayals etc do more harm to women than to men. No-one that I know takes the "dumb" men seriously. Indeed, both men and women find such portrayals offensive and a real "product turn-off". Most people buy because of "need for" and are little influenced by extraneous advertising images.
A recent Frontline to catch would be "The Persuaders". It is about the advertising industry. One of the things that intrigued me is that companies know that half of their advertising is ineffective, they just don't know which half!
Rarely does one find a purchaser who's influenced by the "story line" of any advertisement (Yeah, I bought this product, because I really like men getting it in the neck and bugger the product's quality! Who cares about quality, I like the misandric message, that's what counts!).
However, the Intellectual Giants that dominate Madison Avenue and other such advertising districts, firms etc, seem to be oblivious of that. To them offending one half of their potential customer base seems like good policy. I suppose one has to be an advertising genius to see the logic in that.
I'm sure we've all heard the statistic that 79% of all purchasing decisions are made by women. I suspect that this statistic is another feminist lie.
Trying to think like these marketing slime, I'd bet that they figure they'll lock in 79% of their market through male bashing. The remaining 21% of their market (men) don't matter -- where are they going to go when everyone bashes men?
Here's a plan: Target one of the worst ad agencies with a concentrated protest campaign with a simple message -- "Femvertizing Agency is evil for their promotion of hatred against men and boys." If we're able to successfully associate "Femvertizing Agency" with "evil" then we can go after their customers for not just promoting hatred of men but also using a evil advertising agency. If you want to scare a hundred monkeys, kill just one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:18 AM November 23rd, 2004 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Cameron, Good point.
But what about Children, (you know; developing minds)?
I'd be willing to bet that of 20 households you know of, at least half have kids, and of those 20 households 3/4 have more than one TV.
(at least)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:14 PM November 21st, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"Linking this to DV is far fetched and an exaggeration that does not support credibility."
"We should not copy the nonsense of the self-proclaimed DV experts."
Your post reveals a shocking ignorance of the hate war that the domestic violence industry has been waging against men for years. The way I interpreted the commercial is very similar to the classic Duluth Wheel used by batterers reeducation programs on men for years and still available on the LAPD web site. The Duluth Wheel has also been used for years to train police and judges as to what domestic violence is. Go to this page, then click Power and Control: here
Read the various little pie sections. Obviously this is new to you.
The LAPD web site has only recently been remodeled/updated, but the Duluth Wheel and other stupidity that is used to judge what is domestic violence is still there, and has been for years.
To not judge domestic violence against men by the same rules that have been used to judge domestic violence against women is at the least a double standard, and quite possibly just outright bigotry. Men are somewhat used to getting the kind of treatment you displayed here from advocates for the radical/gender feminist domestic violence industry so at this point I am really left wondering where you stand on issues that affect men.
Perhaps in the future, before presumptuously and wrongly disparaging others ("nonsense of self-proclaimed DV experts"), you should ask questions about things you know so little about instead of feigning superiority and looking so foolish in the process.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:19 PM November 21st, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Here's more from the Los Angeles Police Department web site here
"Domestic Violence
Get Informed
Are You Abused?
"If you are uncertain whether you or your children are being abused, take a moment to answer the following questions:
Does the person you love…
* Intimidate you, make you feel isolated or alone
* Frighten you with his/her temper
* Track" all of your time
* Control all the finances and force you to account in detail for what you spend"
and here
"Domestic violence is not an isolated, individual event. One battering episode builds on past episodes and sets the stage for future episodes. All incidents of the pattern interact with each other and have a profound effect on the victim. There is a wide range of consequences, some physically injurious and some not, but all are psychologically damaging.(emphasis theirs)"
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray the problem isnt that these hysetricallly destructive, irrational definitions of abuse are being directed at males only, but that these definitions of abuse are being used at all.
How exactly does adopting these definitions and demanding that they be directed at women as well help us? How does it help society to more firmly entrench this hysteria? How does this help truth to promote its exact opposite?
The only real solution to any of this, is not found in taking feminist irrationality and usuing it against them, but in tearing down their irrationality. The fact that female politics embraces this insanity with open arms, is what we need to fight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:28 PM November 22nd, 2004 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
"How exactly does adopting these definitions and demanding that they be directed at women as well help us? How does it help society to more firmly entrench this hysteria?"
These standards have already been adopted and used on men for about a decade. It is women that are not being held to the same standards, yet again. Of course they are ridiculous, but nobody cares if they are being used on men. Reversing the sex roles makes them care. A typical feminist reaction to a valid male complaint of being arrested for d.v. based on this stuff might be something like, "Oh poor baby. Run to Mamma."
If you want to go on supporting this double standard by doing nothing then the clear message will be that this is o.k. to keep using on men. Again, women are not held to the standard of accoutability that men are. I am using the standard that is used against men, against the woman in this commercial. If women are held to the same ridiculous standards for d.v. that men are things would change. After all we can't abuse women like we can men.
"The only real solution to any of this, is not found in taking feminist irrationality and usuing it against them, but in tearing down their irrationality."
Fighting the female irrationality and stupid domestic violence standards head on with the puny men's movement is using our weakness against their strength. Better to do what we can to redirect their efforts back on them, while not destroying ourselves in the process. However, I'm beginning to find even that a bit overwhelming. Trying to be a part of any effective, organized effort against the multi-billion dollar women's industries by the puny men's movement is like trying to follow along with the direction of a bunch of herded cats. No offense intended.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kudos to Ray for reminding readers of the importance of "The Duluth Model," which has deformed and corrupted public policy and legal processes shaping how society understands and responds to domestic violence.
Duluth is the reason why you almost never see any public ackowledgement of male DV victims or female perpetrators, why men are presumed guilty and targeted by "must-arrest" police policies, and why credible and objectively researched alternatives for understanding DV are deliberately suppressed by the feminist's Orwellian "truth filter."
Also why the soon to be reauthorized Violence Against Women Act ($3.6 BILLION!) forbids that even a single nickle be spent on male victims of domestic violence.
Googling "Duluth Model" will take you to hundreds of sites, most of which simply chant variations of this vile and dishonest ideological screed.
But if you want to read two of the very best debunkings of Duluth, I highly recommend:
Deconstructing Duluth - by Edward Dunning
http://www.familytx.org/research/articles/deconstr uctingduluth.html
Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse: How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State - by Linda Kelly
http://www.papa-help.ch/downloads/kelly.pdf
Both authors are respected scholars who belong to neither the feminist nor the men's rights camps; hence, dangerous and ruthlessly truthful.
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have to ask ourselfs what it is we are fighting. And if in that fight we serve to more deeply entrench the sort of logic that created the hysteria in the first place, then i would submit that we've lost the battle before we began it.
I have no problem with double standards, my problem is with standards that are based on hysteria and lies. The very nature of hysteria is that it is unevenly placed. Remove hysteria from the system and we begin to re-assert balance. And its only then that resonable standards can be applied.
I'm afraid i disagree that things would change if society held women to these same standards. All that would serve to do, in my opinion, is solidify the logic that supports the standards.
What we are dealing with here is levels of moral hysteria that are already out of control. All of it based on perverted notions of justice, rights and value. Women have managed to systematically convince society that they have the right to be free from all forms of discomfort, illustrated perfectly by the report you cited. We've moved from a system of justice based on evidence, fact and logic, in support of addressing real harm. To one that serves manufactured reactions to manufactured notions of harm. This is not a good thing. And its the very thing i think we should be fighting.
The movement as it is, is small and unorganised i agree. But how do we move forward and grow if we adopt the same pc irrationalism that has western culture as a whole ready to burst. People are frustrated as hell by this runaway insanity, because there is nothing left in the world we live in that has not been been twisted to serve this feminised morality. They are already saying " no more" as individuals, and all they need now is a movement to rally around. And guys thats us. If we provide an alternative based on reality, truth and logic.
This is gonna happen Ray. Truth has a way of re-asserting itself, its always there, it has a life of its own. And to continually silence the truth you have to continually ratchet up the lies, which is an approach doomed from the begging. Our only role in the movement is to insure that their doom, is spelt sooner rather that later.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:00 AM November 23rd, 2004 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
"But how do we move forward and grow if we adopt the same pc irrationalism that has western culture as a whole ready to burst."
By applying the same standards to the radical/gender feminists that apply to men, thereby showing the double standards they have been using on us. If you do not learn their language and apply their rules to them at every opportunity, men will go on for another 30 years or more experiencing the same oppression.
It is only when other women rise up at to the tyranny of the radical/gender feminists that we will have change. I don't know if you've noticed, but it is women's needs and complaints that are the most effective at creating change in this area. Men just aren't listened to in this area to the much greater extent that women are so point out the violence, etc., that women commit using the yard stick that is used to measure men.
I want a quick end to men's oppresion by clearly letting the tyrany of radical/gender feminism become more evident for all to see, and I plan to increase activism in that area not be dissuaded. Why? Because it is a lot more effective than sitting around on our hands, and crying, "Those feminists just aren't fair." "When are the rules going to stop being unfair?" When are the rules going to stop being made by them?"
CA just re-elected Barbara Boxer and a large number of other radical/gender feminsts (maybe Sheila Kuehl again) so the answer to that is, "When L.A. freezes over," and that just ain't going to happen - ever. Wake up! News Flash: "Nobody is really doing anything effective about the oppression of men and it is getting worse." Wake up! 2nd Newflash, When the lies are the law they're the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Wake up!
Your trying to stop the runaway freight train barrelling down the track by standing in front of it and holding out your hand. I'm trying to stand out of the way, divert it, or use it's own enegy against it.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If you do not learn their language and apply their rules to them at every opportunity, men will go on for another 30 years or more experiencing the same oppression. "
Ray the point im tryng to make is that the oppression you are talking about and the opprssion we are all under comes directly from their "language" and "their rules". And no effective change will occur until their language their rules and the logic that supports them both is dealt with.
"It is only when other women rise up at to the tyranny of the radical/gender feminists that we will have change. I don't know if you've noticed, but it is women's needs and complaints that are the most effective at creating change in this area"
I have noticed Ray, we have all noticed. And thats an issue central to the whole problem we are all fighting. Women have managed to gain political center stage at the expense of men, through a campaign of hysteria and lies. So we need to mount a campaign based on rational discourse and rooted in truth.
"I want a quick end to men's oppresion by clearly letting the tyrany of radical/gender feminism become more evident for all to see, and I plan to increase activism in that area not be dissuaded. Why? Because it is a lot more effective than sitting around on our hands, and crying, "Those feminists just aren't fair." "When are the rules going to stop being unfair?" When are the rules going to stop being made by them?"
I understand your impatiance for change, i share it. But if we adopt their rules and strategies we dont highlight the tryanny of the rules we legitimize them. We also insure that the rules are stil being made by them since we ourselves have adopted them.
Im not trying to dissuade you of anything Ray, i simply place a lot of value on open debate. And in a movement such as ours that is still defining itself, its even more important. Thats all we are doing here.
" 2nd Newflash, When the lies are the law they're the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Wake up! "
Again if the laws of the land are rooted in lies how do we best attack that problem. By encouraging the mens movement and men in general to utilize and therefore accept and legitimize these lies further? Or by using the mens movement as a vehicle that gives voice to the ever growing frustration over these lies, that is building in the public as a whole.
The logic that flows from female politics affects far more than just men. Its their twisted definitions of "rights" "inclusion" "abuse" and general morality that has led to the villification of everything from legal action over perceived slights, to public displays of christmass, to six year old boys accused of sexual harassment. People are pissed off Ray, and their pissed off because culture as a whole is being directed by this lunacy. I am not arguing for inaction, im arguing for action that will serve to harness the growing public anger over the obvious irrationality of the female approach.
.................................................. ...
Six-year-old accused of harassment
By Darrell Giles
November 21, 2004
THE Queensland Government has ordered an investigation into why a six-year-old boy was suspended from school after being accused of sexual harassment.
The Year 1 student was sent home this week after he poked a female classmate on the bottom.
The one-day suspension sparked outrage with parents angry at what they saw as extremely harsh punishment for the youngster.
Queensland's Parents and Citizens Council said it was political correctness gone mad with school officials exhibiting a "knee-jerk reaction" out of fear the victim's parents might sue.
The boy spent Monday at home following the incident at Kimberley Park State School, in Brisbane's south, the previous Friday. After the six-year-old girl complained to a teacher, the boy confirmed he had touched her on the bottom, on the outside of her clothes.
Principal Annette Murray deemed the boy's behaviour as sexually inappropriate and handed out the suspension.
"Everyone has the right to feel safe at school and the only way that's going to happen is to make sure all children keep their hands and feet to themselves," Ms Murray said.
But the boy's parents - who asked not to be identified - accused the school of over-reacting.
"It's just ridiculous," the boy's shocked mother said yesterday. "It's over the top.
"They are implying my son is some little sex monster. He is nothing of the sort. He is just a normal little boy.
"Sex and six-year-olds do not go together. He has no concept of sex . . . my son knows that you don't touch a girl's or boy's private parts."
The mother said to suggest his actions had sexual connotations was mind-boggling.
The victim's mother agreed. She sent a letter to the other family on Friday saying there had been no physical or mental harm done to her daughter and the touch had been innocuous.
The boy's mother said: "I have been in contact with her every day. She's fine. She said her daughter had forgotten about the matter."
The family had received dozens of calls of support from the school community. They welcomed news that State Education Minister Anna Bligh had intervened in the case.
"I just want my son's name cleared," his father said.
Ms Bligh said principals had a responsibility to "maintain the good order of their school" but she expressed some reservations about the boy's punishment.
"While suspensions are a valid disciplinary measure, I can understand that some parents may have concerns about the value of suspending Year 1 students," she said.
"Therefore, I have asked the department to examine the circumstances surrounding this case."
Ms Bligh had requested the investigation report be filed with her as soon as possible.
The boy's mother said she was first told by a school official that her son had "hurt" another student. Her son was then given the telephone to explain his actions to her.
"I asked him what had happened and he said, 'I don't know, I just poked her on the bum'. He said all the children had been mucking around. My son would never do anything to intentionally hurt another child."
The mother was particularly angry that a school official had drawn a picture of a naked person and asked the boy to point on the diagram where he had touched the girl.
Ms Murray told the Albert and Logan News that the boy's age was irrelevant. She said the suspension gave the family an opportunity to discuss why it was not appropriate to touch girls in personal places.
But P and C state president Wanda Lambert said it was inappropriate to banish a child who probably did not understand what the fuss was about.
"This reflects society today . . . this over-reaction, all for the sake of political correctness," she said. "People are jumping the gun rather than investigating something properly."
Ms Lambert said the school would have been better calling in both children and parents to discuss the incident before handing out the punishment.
"We don't want children as young as that suspended every time they do something wrong," she said.
Education Queensland's annual report, tabled in Parliament this month, revealed there were more than 37,000 cases where students were suspended for between one and 20 days.
Most of the offences were for physical misconduct.
Although no ages were given, department insiders said there would only have been, at most, "a handful" of Year 1 students suspended.
The Sunday Mail (Qld)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:43 PM November 23rd, 2004 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
These standards have already been adopted and used on men for about a decade. It is women that are not being held to the same standards, yet again. Of course they are ridiculous, but nobody cares if they are being used on men. Reversing the sex roles makes them care. A typical feminist reaction to a valid male complaint of being arrested for d.v. based on this stuff might be something like, "Oh poor baby. Run to Mamma."
Ray. Wrong again. There is a major political change that is taking place. Men's activists are having an affect.
For example, N.O.W. is TERRIFIED because the Congress is yet again cutting funding to the VAWA. If anything, our time is better spend explaining to Congress why they should CUT VAWA FUNDING instead of whining about these hilarious DELL commercials.
By contrast, if men's activists give credibility to the silly Duluth model by using it to gauge DV against males then we may encourage Congress to back the VAWA act. That is because they will believe that the feminist definition of violence actually has merit (NOT!).
We need to do the following in encouraging the CUTTING of funding to VAWA:
1) Attack the Duluth model and explain why it bogus.
2) Attack the shelters as family destruction units that are biased against males.
3) Attack the false statistical lies of the feminist groups in the areas of rape, DV, and more.
4) Attack the false overbroad definitions of rape and violence that feminist use.
5) Attack the intrusion of the government, which has the affect of micromanaging our relationships with the police state.
6) Attack the bigoted manuals that are used to train the police, judges, and shelters.
7) Attack the funding as biased against males because men’s issues groups have not been able to obtain $1 in funding.
But if you want to whine to Dell then that is your choice. It’ll only make the Duluth model (which you hate) seem more credible.
Regards,
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:29 PM November 23rd, 2004 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
The way I interpreted the commercial is very similar to the classic Duluth Wheel used by batterers reeducation programs on men for years and still available on the LAPD web site. The Duluth Wheel has also been used for years to train police and judges as to what domestic violence is.
This is where we disagree. The Duluth model is flawed feminist propaganda. It is little more than psychobabble that is pop-psychology. It is not a reliable indicator of DV against women, nor is it reliable when the rolls are reversed.
Men's activists should not be giving the model credibility by applying it's flawed standards to males, and then picking on trivial (even funny) Dell commercials.
By becoming hypersensitive to every little commercial, men’s activist portray themselves as little more than reactionaries.
We need to call DV for what it is and that is violence in the form of battery. It involves physical injury. DV is not being portrayed in these silly commercials that use sarcasm as a sales tool.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen this commercial. The way that I have Interpreted this commercial was the woman was lookin like a goof.
Stay with me for a second why I explain before I get hung and shot........lol.
I pay 99% of my bills on-line. All I have to do is hit my favorites and all the bill addy's are there. It takes me about 5 minutes to pay them. Give or take 3 minutes for my cruddy typing skills....lol.
Now that we have the time issue taken care of, think about it this way. He has them paid say in 10 minutes. The rest of the time he is playing around to stay away from the nagging wife/girlfriend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:38 PM November 21st, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Have you seen the new Subway commercial yet? It starts with a few guys talking about what there getting for lunch...
"I'm getting a why does it looks so much bigger in the picture"
"I'm getting a heartburn sandwhich"
"I'm getting a total happiness"
It goes on to explain that total happiness is the Subway meal. Then to draw in the female audience it continues with the guy eating a sub at his desk, (he appears to be a security guard).
A more professional looking than him woman approaches... "What's that?"
"This is something I like to call total happiness"
"Well you've got total happiness on your shirt" and walks away. Gotta add that male denigration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, I saw this one myself. I was thinking how these advertising jerks don't get it about misandric ads. How stupid.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:54 PM November 30th, 2004 EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
You guys are fags. Get over it.
My best man (in my wedding) is the security guard and he and I both are male chauvinist pigs and neither of us are offended by it. Calm down. You guys are going to have a heart attack and die very young if you get upset by this sort of thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Look, you're attacking the wrong ones. Yes, this commercial was STUPID, horrendously STUPID. But have you seen ANY OTHER DELL COMMERCIALS? This is not their first mascot one would wish to vomit over.
If you focused more on BLATANT, INEXCUSEABLE male-bashing ads like the NyQuil or DayQuil ones (among others)...
-DeepThought
---
Erase the EARTH
to gmail me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:22 PM November 21st, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Focus on all of them. It doesn't take any more effort than posting here all the time.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, there are far worse anti-male commercials on TV. But every day there are more and more ads showing the ridicule and torture of males as something that will sell products. I believe it's a look into the cultural mentality of misandry that is now rampant in the US.
Another Dell commercial from a few weeks ago shows male and female Dell interns touring the assembly plant. There is a room called the "torture chamber" where the computers undergo various quality tests. A male intern is shown being electrocuted and shaken in various ways (as the computers would be), but it turns out to be his imagination. Terrified, the male intern runs off. Of course, a female intern would never be shown undergoing torture for our enjoyment.
Focusing on the worst offenders would be best, but except for Glenn Sacks, we are totally unorganized. There is an "Activism Projects" heading on the main page, but I think it's pretty inactive.
Perhaps we could identify one TV commercial per week, and attack it together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These misandric commercials are created to bloat the ego of Western World Women even more (as if that's even possible) and make them believe that they are superior and treat males in any cruel way they want. Just as Hitler taught German Gentiles that they can treat Jews, Slavs, and Gypsies like shit, the Feminazis are indoctrinating women and girls with this kind of misandric shit. Fell, sorry Feminazis, but you failed in indorctrinating me ;-) I know a 'Hitler' and a Nazi movement when I see one.
*Ms.Thea the Pre-Law Major, Pro-Gender Egalitarian, and Pro-Reproductive Rights Activist*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:32 PM November 22nd, 2004 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
...and then these same women can't figure out why the "marriage market" is so barren...!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A little more focus to our responses would have an enormous effect. Organization is power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:47 PM November 21st, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Dell Computers:
"I keep seeing this really annoying Dell Computer commercial airing on TV stations. I just saw it a few mornings ago on the FOX cable channel in Los Angeles.
In alternating scenes, a young man is sitting at his computer: playing cards, cutting and pasting his head on statues, crying at a scene of a dog running on the beach. He is then shown “rocking out” to music as he is uses drum sticks on the back of his chair to keep rhythm. At this point a woman with blond stringy hair barges in and asks, “How are the bills coming?” Is this woman his wife or his mother? She could be either. The young man says, “okay” or something like that, the woman leaves, and he goes back to what he was doing. Moments later the woman barges back in again, this time hurling the door open with no regard for what, or who, is on the other side, and the young man says, “What?” In the final scene after Dell shows some of it product, the man is shown really rocking out, jumps on a chair and falls on the floor like a “big dufus.” "
"One can only wonder, “Is Dell trying to send a message to half the population (males) that they should buy a Dell Computer and then make payments in an irresponsible manner?”
This commercial portrays the male as an irresponsible bill payer and the female as a physically aggressive, authoritarian figure who has power and control over the male, and who needs to “mother” the male to make sure he is responsibly paying his bills. What would be the public response if the sex roles were reversed and the male was treating the female in this way?
This female’s controlling behavior, when viewed in light of domestic violence industry parameters, clearly qualifies as a form of domestic violence. Imagine the revictimization and trauma that a male victim of domestic violence feels when seeing this commercial.
I presently own one Dell computer, but I will not be buying another in the future although I was considering a new Dell laptop.
Sincerely Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray, have you sent it already? I like the content but the ending sputters a little. Instead of:
I presently own one Dell computer, but I will not be buying another in the future although I was considering a new Dell laptop.
...how about:
"I presently own one Dell computer and had been considering a new Dell laptop. But I'll be rethinking this if I continue to be insulted by Dell commercials."
Kyo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:34 PM November 22nd, 2004 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
They're as stupid as DELL, at Dell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:06 PM November 22nd, 2004 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen this commercial and find it to be funny and light hearted. This isn't the blatent "Boys are Stupid; Throw Rocks at Them" variety of male hate.
I reject the idea that this can be connected to the DV industry or that the male is abused. This interaction could be any typical family interaction between a husband and wife. Further, if the roles were reversed I doubt that we'd see a major negative reaction. This kind of over-reaction is what the Marxist-Feminist want from men’s activist. It makes us look foolish.
Clearly, this is pretty mild stuff.
By contrast, suppose a male gets drunk at a bar. Then for no good reason gets assaulted by a female at the bar. Why? Because the Hispanic female hates the white male and cannot get the other males to attack the man so she attacks him with her purse. Remember. Women will most always use weapons to gain advantage when they are violent.
The male knows not to defend himself for fear of false arrest, and he takes a taxi home. Next, he reports the female attack to the police. However, because the police are male-haters due to the Marxist-Feminist propaganda that is being funded by the VAWA act, the officer attempts to set-up the male for a false arrest.
The officer does this by drawing the male off the private property onto public property. Then the officer starts blaming the male for the unprovoked attack, incites the male to anger, taunts the male for becoming drunk, and the officer orders the male to sit on the sidewalk (public property). Notice that the officer could have ordered the male to get back onto the driveway, which was two feet (steps) backwards.
Then the officer calls for a supervisor because the male is pointing out the officers bias and refusing to talk any further. The male just wants the officer to take the report. So, the officer who refuses to take the report calls a supervisor who notes the male is now on public property.
Now the officer turns on a tape recorder so that he can trap the male for being drunk and disorderly after intentionally angering and provoking the male. He calls in his supervisor for a witness. The male, having been trained in how the police have as their primary goal the false arrest of males goes silent and refuses to talk. Thank GOD! The officer, who is attempting to conduct the false arrest further tries to provoke the male while the supervisor has his back turned.
Next, the supervisor goes to the door of the male’s house and conducts a DV evaluation to determine if the wife has been beaten. Fortunately, the wife did not have any bruises from an accident like a fall, bumping into a wall, tripping over a carpet, or having a child hit her in the face. If there would have been any visible bruise for any reason then that would have permitted the supervisor to allow the other officer to conduct a felony arrest on charges of DV.
The officers get nothing because the male remains silent and is respectful. They get bored because they are busy, release the male, and refuse to arrest the female attacker.
Finally, the officer and supervisor humiliate the male, laugh at him, and lie to him on their way out as they leave. The male is lucky that he shut-up and didn't get arrested by answering the bigoted officers questions and allowing them to set him up for false arrest.
Now you want me to consider this silly commercial by Dell. Absurd! This is too picky! Get real! There are bigger fish to fry!
At least focus on the more serious stuff like the Verison commercial. This stuff is just too petty!
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:43 PM November 22nd, 2004 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
"Now you want me to consider this silly commercial by Dell. Absurd! This is too picky! Get real! There are bigger fish to fry!
At least focus on the more serious stuff like the Verison commercial. This stuff is just too petty!"
I'm really surprised by the overt ignorance of a number of men on this site in regards to what LAPD arrests men for in regards to d.v.
A lot of guys who have been arrested for this stuff, plus nothing more than a woman's false accusation and an old yellowed bruise, just don't agree with your assessment. Perhaps you can present your self righteous, know it all dismisal to some of these men as they are being released from their imprisonment and tell me your reaction then. They, like me, might consider your assessment assinine, especially considering the hell of legal entanglement they would still be facing.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:43 PM November 22nd, 2004 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm really surprised by the overt ignorance of a number of men on this site in regards to what LAPD arrests men for in regards to d.v.
A lot of guys who have been arrested for this stuff, plus nothing more than a woman's false accusation and an old yellowed bruise, just don't agree with your assessment. Perhaps you can present your self righteous, know it all dismissal to some of these men as they are being released from their imprisonment and tell me your reaction then.
I’m not certain what is going on here Ray. Either I either miswrote the story or you're misreading it. I'm not in any way making light of males being arrested on fake DV charges and false allegations. I take this stuff very seriously up to a point. I do not however condone or support the idea of calling every little unpleasant form of behavior DV. That is a trap laid out by feminists.
What was shocking about this account is how the police had a strategy to change the issue. The male was trying to report an unprovoked assault at a bar by a woman that he had never spoken to before. The woman that attacked the male had no relationship with the male. So, this is simply an attack or simple assault. It was not DV. But it is much more serious than some silly commercial where there is no trace of DV.
Also, what is shocking is that the police lured the male off his private property to set-up a false arrest. By tricking the male to leave his private property, now they could arrest him for being drunk in public. Most men do not know that the police have a policy of false arrest, setting up males for arrest, or the mechanisms used by police to trump-up charges against a male. That policy in itself is clearly biased. There was no reason that the officer should have lured the male into such a situation.
Finally, for no good reason, with no evidence, and no probable cause, the supervisor conducted a sneak assessment of the male’s wife. The purpose was to trump-up more serious charges against the male. They were looking for any possible reason to arrest the male on felony charges of DV. Again. They had no reason to even suspect that such an attack by the male had occurred against his against. Most males don’t know that if they call the police to report an incident (any incident) that the police may decide to conduct a sneak search/examination of their wives. That includes expert men’s activists.
What is also missed is the fact that the police blamed the male for being assaulted by the unknown female. If the roles were reversed then they would have most certainly arrested the male for assault against the female. It would not even be considered that the female had been drinking alcohol (let alone drunk). They simply would not care.
As for the Dell commercial I simply view it as SILLY to classify the actions of the woman as DV. In my personal opinion, it is absurd to make such extreme interpretations and men's activists should not fall into that trap. That is what feminists want.
By falling into the trap of interpreting the slightest action as DV, we give credibility to the Marxist-Feminist theory of DV. That is a theory where even a slight push by a male is considered a felony. That theory is crap and should not be given credibility by men's activists.
Police have no business even entering the home in such a case. They shouldn't even be responding to such a call. Yet they do because of Marxist theories that mandate family destruction via the destruction of the male.
In my opinion, there is no battering that has taken place where there is no injury. If the roles are reversed the same still holds true. That includes this crap that men’s activists allow feminists to call psychological battery. There is no such thing. It is absurd.
I flat out do not believe that calling upon the state to solve all family issues is good. It is wrong and needs to be stopped because it invites state powers to regulate the home. That is what the feminist’s desire. Let the couple get counseling. If the woman doesn't like it then she can leave. That doesn’t mean that I support a male pushing or shoving a woman. That is wrong, but where there is no injury the state needs to stay out-of-it. By calling a shove domestic violence it trivializes actual cases of battery and domestic violence.
By contrast, I agree with Glenn Sacks that the Verizon commercial crosses the line. What happens there simply isn't funny. It is not however domestic violence.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:05 PM November 22nd, 2004 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
"This kind of over-reaction is what the Marxist-Feminist want from men’s activist."
I can't believe you said that. Hmmmmmmmm
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:32 PM November 22nd, 2004 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Elected Representative:
I'm just a priveleged male who has power and control, just by being born. I like to be arrested and thrown in jail for any silly reason, any time a woman chooses to lie for reasons of self-aggrandizement. Could you please spend hundred's of millions more to destroy my life for absolutely no valid reason at all, just silly things like controlling finances, or being bigger than a female, and therefore intimidating to her. I'm not really crazy, just a male who's too stupid to notice women get to abuse men for the very same things that men would get arrested for.
Stupid Males Sign Here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:29 PM November 23rd, 2004 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
It appears I have been reduced to an ethical dilemma, where I must now concede to embracing a double standard, or advocate for two wrongs, either one not making a right.
The differing weights and measures applied by judges to domestic violence, because of a persons sex are a detestable abomination. (a different set of rules and judgments are applied, when a man is accused of domestic violence compared to when a woman is accused).
Furthermore, the “petty nonsense” listed on LAPD’s web site as domestic violence is not domestic violence, but is in reality the vilest of sexist and hateful bigotry that they apply only to men (according to their radical/gender feminist training). It is wrong to send a male to jail simply for arguing with his wife so it would be wrong to advocate that we send a woman to jail for the same thing, while working to change the corrupt law. As much as equal treatment would dictate that women be subject to the same measure of domestic violence tyranny that men face, it would not be right to further expand and inflict such asinine judgments based on such horribly unsound law.
As much as my sense of equal justice says we must force the authorities to start judging women on the same petty bullsh_ _ that has been landing men in jail for years, my ethical judgment says to take the higher ground and reject every stinking, vile aspect of domestic violence law that reeks of the evil prejudice and pettiness of radical/gender feminism, lest we contaminate ourselves by using anything that those evil radical/gender feminists have constructed.
I still think the Dell commercial is demeaning to men, and is domestic violence according to the standards set by current radical/gender feminist domestic violence law, but is not domestic violence according to what a reasonable man, or reasonable woman would think.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I sent an email to dell myself Ray, although my critisism took a slightly differant route. I agree its a worthy target.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:02 PM November 23rd, 2004 EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
