"Voted one of TBS's funniest commercials of 2006"

Is this what the State of Nevada considers the height of communication in our culture? Is this the way to inform people to cut back potable water use?

Who-in-the-hell is in charge and why-in-the-hell was it not spiked the minute some brain-dead moron suggested it?

Some broad pulls this (whacking a guy in the testicules who is guilty of nothing more than politely answering her knock on his door—sending him withering on the ground), he decks her, then sues the State of Nevada for $10,000,000 for promoting this as acceptable behavior. (The State of Nevada, you are Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!)

The fact that they can put this crap on TV and smirk about it speaks volumes.

It is, however, a clear and unmistakable indication of the anti-men/husband/father hysteria that has swept this land.

Please write these fine folks and express your view of their ad promoting the belief that old women have police powers and it is appropriate for them to spontaneously initiate a serious sexual assault .

They need to show up for work Monday morning and find 5,000 e-mails and voice mails awaiting them.
http://www.snwa.com/html/forms/about_contact_form.html
Conservation and Customer Services Media Inquiries: J.C. Davis 702 258-7117
Water Quality and Water Resources Media Inquiries: Bronson Mack 702 258-7117
General Media Inquiries Scott Huntley 702 258-7258
General Questions Public Information 702 258-3930
Hispanic Media Inquiries Angelica Maralason 702 258-3838

Please use your real name and an e-mail.

I don't live in the US, but I registered my complaint anyway - I HATE this crap:

SNWA, I just saw your ad for water consumption awareness, entitled Mrs Nuttington.

Just what, exactly, do you feel is funny about a man being sexually assaulted and battered? Just why, exactly, do you think this will appeal to us? Do you think women will laugh at the vicious and horrendous crime visited on this poor guy? Do you think other guys will smirk and giggle and join in the fun?

What's the message you're trying to portray here? "Conserve water or some woman will come and beat the crap out of you?" Or maybe "You're ONLY a guy, your sexual organs are pretty worthless - but if ya wanna keep em, turn off the hose". Sounds hillarious.

I know, I know - the ad was meant in jest, it was meant as a 'tongue in cheek' attempt to raise awareness of the issue. Right? Of course, nobody REALLY thinks that sexual assualt and battery are funny - right? I mean, you'd never DREAM of showing the opposite ad, where an old man walks up and then kicks a young lady in the groin. That would just be barbarous, sick, a horrendous glorification of a voilent sexual assault. Or is it your position that because it's a 'man' being assaulted, we just don't count..?

You need to face the fact that you are living in a world where women DO assault men, where women DO kill and maim men. It is NOT acceptable to show this on television as a joke, just as it is not acceptable to show voilence to women. Not only is it not acceptable, you are alienating 50% of your usage base - mightily.

I demand this ad be pulled, immediately.

It actually is rather important that we present an organized cohesive front, so that our letters are not received in the context of "wow, so we upset a couple hundred guys" but rather in the context of "ruh roh tralfaz, we seem to have pissed off an organized community of men whom would protest further if we antagonize them" (or Marc Angelucci might send them a letter iviting them to discuss it in court as part of a libel/slander/defamation or perhaps even a discrimnination suit filed on behalf of those several hundred organized men we've offended?).
Anyway, here's the letter revamped to include even further illustration of the bias presented in the PSA:

SNWA, I just saw your ad for water consumption awareness, entitled Mrs Nuttington.
Just what, exactly, do you feel is funny about a man being sexually assaulted and battered? Just why, exactly, do you think this will appeal to us? Do you think women will laugh at the vicious and horrendous crime visited on this poor guy? Do you think other guys will smirk and giggle and join in the fun?
What's the message you're trying to portray here? "Conserve water or some woman will come and beat the crap out of you and leave you writhing in agony on your front porch?" Or maybe "You're ONLY a guy, your sexual organs are pretty worthless - but if ya wanna keep em, turn off the hose".
I know, I know - the ad was meant in jest, it was meant as a 'tongue in cheek' attempt to raise awareness of the issue. Right? Of course, nobody REALLY thinks that sexual assault and battery are funny - right? I mean, you'd never DREAM of showing the opposite ad, where an old man walks up and then kicks a young lady in the groin. That would just be barbarous, sick, a horrendous glorification of a violent sexual assault.
Or is it your position that because it's a 'man' being assaulted, we just don't count..?
You need to face the fact that you are living in a world where women DO in fact assault men, where women DO in fact kill and maim men. Permit me please, to direct your attention to Dr Martin S Fieberts bibliography of studies discussing women abusing and battering men: www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm .
Further, Harvard Medical School just announced a nationwide survey that found half of domestic violence in heterosexual relationships is reciprocal and that women initiate most of the reciprocal and 71% of the non-reciprocal violence, while both sexes suffered significant injuries: http://www.patienteducationcenter.org/aspx/HealthELibrary/HealthETopic.aspx?cid=M0907d
Women are the leading abusers and murderers of children in American homes (Discussed in detail in the US DoH&HS ACF CMRs): http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/figure4_2.htm
Results from a study by researchers with the Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Ga. Tadesse Haileyesus is with the Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control indicate almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]=2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.9, 2.8), but not men (AOR=1.26; 95% CI=0.9, 1.7).
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941
It’s sad enough that our Federal Gov’t does not recognize the severity of female perpetrated violence against men, even sadder that California ‘Health and Safety Code’ (Section 134250~124251) does not legally consider female perpetrated Domestic Violence against male victims “124250. (a) The following definitions shall apply for purposes of this section: (1) "Domestic violence" means the infliction or threat of physical harm against past or present adult or adolescent female intimate partners, and shall include physical, sexual, and psychological abuse against the woman, and is a part of a pattern of assaultive, coercive, and controlling behaviors directed at achieving compliance from or control over, that woman.” an offense under their Domestic Violence laws and are denied access to state and VAWA mandated federally funded DV/IPV victims resources “ (2) "Shelter-based" means an established system of services where battered women and their children may be provided safe or confidential emergency housing on a 24-hour basis, including, but not limited to, hotel or motel arrangements, haven, and safe houses. (3) "Emergency shelter" means a confidential or safe location that provides emergency housing on a 24-hour basis for battered women and their children.”. and “124251. (a) The Maternal and Child Health Branch of the State Department of Health Services shall fund, through a competitive selection process determined by the director, at least one agency to provide expert technical assistance and training on domestic violence issues and building agency capacity in order to obtain other funding for services for battered women and their children, including, but not limited to, grant writing and building coalitions.”
Are men not entitled to equal protection under the law? Even though the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitutions says they are?
Were you aware that per the U.S. CDC that male victms of DV/IPV are far more likely to evolve into abusers themselves: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5519a3.htm ?
Just as it is absolutely NOT acceptable to show this violence against women on television ‘as a joke’, it is NOT acceptable to show such violence against men.
Not only is it NOT acceptable, it is highly insulting to men that you would deem it humorous to so casually display violence against males as a lesson is the consequences of irresponsible water consumption.
I request, lo I demand that this ad be pulled from national network media broadcasting… immediately; and an apology issued to men in America.
The slogan “No Excuse For Domestic Abuse!” applies to male victims of Domestic Violence and Abuse also… or did you miss that lesson in Civility 101?
Allow me please to also educate you on the reality of violence that Misandrist (anti-male gender bias) rehetoric alleges permits such violence against to be justified, ie the reality of the purported violence against women:
For example: the leading causes of injury to women between the ages of 15 and 44 in the United States in 1996 (not the 'high year' nor the 'low year', just the year I pulled the data on):
Event type / Number / Percentile
Motor Vehicle Accidents / 1,504,119 / 21.2%
Accidental Falls / 1,243,538 / 17.5%
Other and unspecified environmental and accidental causes / 1,162,272 / 16.4%
Accidents caused by cutting and piercing instruments or objects / 515,986 / 7.3%
Sports injuries / 483,223 / 6.8%
Injuries purposefully inflicted by other than spouse or intimate / 399,240 / 5.6%
Overexertion and strenuous movements / 339,014 / 4.8%
Drugs, medicinal and biological substances, in therapeutic use / 166,687 / 2.3%
Injuries purposefully inflicted by spouse or other intimate / 153,555 / 2.2%
Injuries caused by animals / 137,639 / 1.9%
Accidental poisoning by drugs / 131,928 / 1.9%
Misadventures during surgical and medical care / 124,230 / 1.7%
Suicide and self-inflicted injuries / 102,392 / 1.4%
Struck accidentally by falling object / 87,485 / 1.2%
Caught accidentally in or between objects / 74,995 / 1.1%
Foreign body accidentally entering orifice other than eye / 69,590 / 1.0%
Accidental poisoning by other solid and liquid substances, gases, and vapors / 57,846 / 0.8%
Non-transport machinery accidents / 56,455 / 0.8%
Venomous animals and plants / 50,111 / 0.7%
Accident caused by hot substance or object / 49,766 / 0.7%
Foreign body accidentally entering eye and adnexa / 47,788 / 0.7%
Other / 147,889 / 2.0%
This data is taken from the 1996 National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey Data File, which can be downloaded via ftp from the National Center for Health Statistics. Domestic violence, referred to in the table as "Injury purposefully inflicted by spouse or other intimate", accounts for 2.2% of injuries to women in this age group.
Rather than being a larger cause of injury than "car accidents and other things combined", domestic violence causes only one-tenth as many injuries as motor vehicle accidents alone (and 0.1% ahead of injuries by 'Non-Transport Machinery Accidents', 'Venomous Animals and Plants' and 'Accident Caused by Hot Substance or Object'... combined!!!).
Per the US CDC (United States Centers for Disease Control) NVSR (National Vital Statistics Report), Vol. 56, No. 5, November 20, 2007 Table 1. (Deaths, percentage of total deaths, and death rates per 100,000 for the 10 leading causes of death in selected age groups, by race and sex) for the year 2004 (not the high year, nor the low year… merely the year I pulled the data from):
Age Group # Deaths A/H % Deaths A/H Causative ranking A/H ( A = Accidental Deaths, H = Homicide )
White Females
1 to 4 508 / 88 34.2 / 5.9 1 / 4
5 to 9 318 / 38 36.8 / 4.4 1 / 4
10 to 14 412 / 37 36/5 / 3.3 1 / 6
15 to 19 1,805 / 162 56.7 / 5.4 1 / 4
20 to 24 1,599 / 237 45.4 / 6.7 1 / 4
25 to 34 2,607 / 419 30.0 / 4.8 1 / 5
35 to 44 3,976 / 462 17.4 / 2.0 2 / 8
45 to 54 4,097 / Na 8.3 / Na 3 / Na
55 to 64 2,640 / Na 3.1 / Na 6 / Na
65 to 74 2,679 / Na 1.8 / Na 6 / Na
75 to 84 5,871 / Na 1.9 / Na 8 / Na
85 and over 7,808 / Na 1.9 / Na 8 / Na
Black Females
1 to 4 136 / 80 26.0 / 15.3 1 / 2
5 to 9 101 / 22 32.3 / 7.0 1 / 4
10 to 14 118 / 27 30.8 / 7.0 1 / 3
15 to 19 192 / 127 29.0 / 19.2 1 / 2
20 to 24 241 / 154 22.9 / 14.6 1 / 2
25 to 34 407 / 282 13.5 / 8.7 2 / 5
35 to 44 647 / 275 8.3 / 3.5 4 / 6
45 to 54 708 / Na 4.7 / Na 5 / Na
55 to 64 356 / Na 2.0 / Na 8 / Na
65 to 74 303 / Na 1.3 / Na 10 / Na
75 to 84 Na / Na Na / Na Na / Na
85 and over Na / Na Na / Na Na / Na
American Indian or Alaska Native Females
1 to 4 16 / 2 34.0 / 4.3 1 / 4#
5 to 9 11 / Na 44.0 / Na 1 / Na
10 to 14 17 / 2 53.1 / 6.3 1 / 4
15 to 19 44 / 7 49.4 / 7.9 1 / 3
20 to 24 48 / 7 50.5 / 7.4 1 / 3
25 to 34 78 / 7 33.3 / 3.0 1 / 6
35 to 44 99 / 8 22.1 / 1.8 1 / 8
45 to 54 65 / Na 9.4 / Na 4 / Na
55 to 64 23 / Na 2.7 / Na 7 / Na
65 to 74 43 / Na 3.9 / Na 6 / Na
75 to 84 38 / Na 3.1 / Na 7 / Na
85 and over 18 / Na 1.8 / Na 9 / Na
# Tied with ‘diseases of the heart’
Asian or Pacific Islander Females
1 to 4 17 / 3 21.0 / 3.7 1 / 5
5 to 9 14 / Na 35.0 / Na 1 / Na
10 to 14 14 / 3 29.8 / 8.4 1 / 3
15 to 19 40 / 5 42.1 / 5.3 1 / 4#
20 to 24 57 / 6 42.2 / 4.4 1 / 5@
25 to 34 69 / 23 20.1 / 6.7 2 / 4
35 to 44 78 / 15 12.2 / 2.3 2 / 6
45 to 54 84 / 21 5.9 / 1.5 4 / 7
55 to 64 70 / Na 3.4 / Na 5 / Na
65 to 74 99 / Na 2.9 / Na 5 / Na
75 to 84 126 / Na 2.4 / Na 7 / Na
85 and over 86 / Na 1.6 / Na 10 / Na
# Tied with Congenital malformations, deformations and chromosomal abnormalities
@ Tied with Cerebrovascular diseases
Hispanic Females
1 to 4 127 / 35 30.8 / 8.5 1 / 4
5 to 9 76 / 15 35.5 / 7.0 1 / 3
10 to 14 74 / 12 31.5 / 5.1 1 / 4
15 to 19 216 / 47 45.1 / 9.8 1 / 2
20 to 24 230 / 63 40.1 / 11.0 1 / 2
25 to 34 353 / 118 25.0 / 8.4 1 / 3
35 to 44 369 / 93 14.3 / 3.6 2 / 5
45 to 54 281 / Na 6.7 / Na 3 / Na
55 to 64 204 / Na 3.4 / Na 6 / Na
65 to 74 179 / Na 2.0 / Na 9 / Na
75 to 84 230 / Na 1.7 / Na 10 / Na
85 and over 200 / Na 1.6 / Na 10 / Na
Note: In EVERY nationality and in EVERY age group, ‘Death by Accidents’ (ie unintentional injuries) exceed ‘Deaths by Assault’ (ie homicide) and in fact ‘Deaths by Assault’ (ie homicide) fail to even rank in the ten leading causes of death from age 44 onward.
Nowhere, on ANY part of Table 1, does it indicate that more women are killed by violence (domestic or otherwise) than die in accidents!!!
Further, per the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families Child Maltreatment Perpetrators IAW Annual Child Maltreatment Report (not exactly supermarket tabloid journalism here, wouldn’t you say?):
1995- Table D-5 (Maltreatment)
*Male Perpetrators of maltreatment upon children: 45,583
*Female Perpetrators of Maltreatment upon children: 74,187 (over 50% more)
1996- Table 2-7 (Maltreatment)
*Male Perpetrators of maltreatment upon children: 55,006
*Female Perpetrators of Maltreatment upon children: 85,751 (over 50% more)
1997- Table 7-1 (Maltreatment)
*Male Perpetrators of maltreatment upon children: 111,473
*Female Perpetrators of Maltreatment upon children: 184,152 (over 50% more)
Table 7-3 (Fatalities)
*Male perpetrator 129
*Female perpetrator 218 (over 50% more)
1999- Table 6-3 (Maltreatment)
*Mother 44.7% (almost 300% more)
*Father 16.1%
Mother and Father 17.0%
*Mother and other 8.2% (over 700% more)
*Father and other 1.1%
Non-parental 10%
Other 3%
Table G7-2 (Fatalities)
*Male perpetrator 238
*Female Perpetrator 361 (over 50% more)
2002- Table 5-1 (Maltreatment)
*Male Perpetrators of maltreatment upon children: 330,780
*Female Perpetrators of Maltreatment upon children: 463,358 (almost 50% more)
Table 4-2 (Fatalities)
*Mother 32.6% (294) (almost twice as many)
*Father 16.6% (150)
*Mother and Father 19.2% (173)
*Mother and other 9.1% (82) (almost 600% more)
Father and other 1.4% (13)
Non-parental 15.9% (143)
Other 5.1% (46)
2003- Table 3-16 (Maltreatment)
*Male Perpetrators of maltreatment upon children: 169,430
*Female Perpetrators of Maltreatment upon children: 285,196 (over 50% more)
Table 3-5 (Fatalities)
*Mother 40.4% (over twice as many)
*Father 18.3%
Mother and Father 17.3%
*Mother and other 6.2% (almost 600% more)
*Father and other 1.1%
Non-parental 10.7%
Other 6.0%
2004- Table 5-1 (Maltreatment)
*Male Perpetrators of maltreatment upon children: 303,604
*Female Perpetrators of Maltreatment upon children: 415,344 (almost 50% more)
Table 4-2 (Fatalities)
*Mother 31.3% (307) (over 200% more)
*Father 14.4% (141)
Mother and Father 22.7% (223)
*Mother and other 9.3% (91) (almost 800% more)
*Father and other 1.2% (12)
Non-parental 10.7%
Other 10.4%
2005- Table 3-16 (Maltreatment)
*Male Perpetrators of maltreatment upon children: 169,430
*Female Perpetrators of Maltreatment upon children: 285,196 (over 50% more)
In virtually EVERY classification of maltreatment of children, the mother was far and away the > MOST < likely perpetrator of maltreatment of children, with the father being the > LEAST < likely perpetrator of maltreatment of children.
Gunner Retired

manonthestreet

I have seen many similar images like these. I can not get worked up about them and continue to do what all men should do and Go My Own Way,

Gary B, I agree with you wholeheartedly. I really found this commercial totally unacceptable, especially for family t.v. viewing. There is no connection between water consumption and kicking a man in the testicles, other than to raise "laughter" from an immature, juvenile audience. Last year, in May of 2007, I was in Los Angeles, California, and on television a commercial with similar "humor" was being broadcast during family hours. It was a commercial by SoCal Honda, and at the beginning showed two men calmly discussing about getting good deals when it came to buying things. One man was telling the other how he hates how some people tell him that they got a better deal than he did----the other man nodded his head, but started telling his friend the great deal he got. "Just trying to be helpful," the man said to his friend. At that point, a young boy, about nine-years old or so, overhears the two men as he walks into the room. "Helpful?", he asked the man trying to give advice to his friend. "Yes, helpful," the man replied to the boy. We then are taken outside to the yard of the friend's house, where the young boy is trying to show his dad's friend a karate move. As the man stands in front of the boy with a punching pad in his hand, the boy swiftly kicks the man in the balls. The man doubles over in excruciating pain and groans. "You were supposed to wear a cup!", the boy crassly tells the poor man. In the background, the boy's father asks "How's it going?" , to which the boy snidely replies "Fine!"

What does kicking a man in the groin have to do with getting a good deal on buying a car? The man might have slighted the boy's father a bit, but does that give the makers of this stupid commercial a good reason to give payback in the form of an impromptu kick in the balls? Just another cheap laugh at the expense of men. And what made it especially deplorable was that the perpetrator was a young child. My goodness, children are now assaulting men on television, and it's deemed acceptable by the larger community. That is immoral and terrible, don't you think Gary?

I remember they had another commercial a few years ago in which a dog bites a man who is a mime in the groin. I don't know what kind of mental defective finds that kind of thing to be funny. It's so dumb.. and sadly.. cliche.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!