Men compared to Dogs in today's Sunday Times

BrianD3

In today's Sunday Times Style section, there's an article entitled "Down Boy!" which advises women on how to "train your man exactly like your dog"

Now this article isn't supposed to be serious (I hope) But it's a clumsy attempt at humour. And it's a good illustration of the double standard in modern western society where it's perfectly acceptable to take the piss out of/bash/demean men like this, but if the same were done to women there would be a huge outcry

Imagine if an article appeared in a mainstream newspaper advising men "how to train your wife like a dog" I don't think it would go down too well. In fact, I doubt it would ever even make it into the paper.

I have a good sense of humour but I just don't find this sort of stuff funny, just crass and hypocritical.

Some quotes from it:
"Remember, dogs/men have short attention spans. You may want to discuss your relationship for hours but the poor dog/man simply doesn't have the capacity to concentrate for long. They find training mentally exhausting. So keep such conversations short and to the point and reward them afterwards with a meal, or, in the man's case, sex"

"the truth is that men, like dogs, are ideal companions only when trained.....you need to teach him to sit, stay and come to heel"

"men and dogs like nothing better than running after things"

etc. etc.

I won't be purchasing this newspaper again (it's a rag anyway so it's no loss) I urge all males to do the same.

BrianD3

bizmark

I urge you to send an email / letter and complain to them ....doing so here wont do squat

mike65

I'm tempted to say Get A Life! We should show ourselves to be above this sort of thing by shugging it off.

Remember that Nissan Micra ad which featured men getting domestic abuse from thier wives/girlfriends -

"Ask Before You Borrow It?"

Mike.

BrianD3

I urge you to send an email / letter and complain to them ....doing so here wont do squat

I don't think that would do any good. IME, individual complaints about this sort of thing are generally ignored especially if it's men complaining. For some reason political correctness doesn't apply to portrayal of men in newspapers/TV/advertisng etc. and any men who complain could be told to "shut their whingeing ****ing mouths" (to quote one poster to this forum who spews hysterical misandrist bull**** in most of his posts)

BrianD3

simu

That's a pathetic attempt at humour - stereotypes aren't funny and neither is reversing them. This is more an indicator of the low quality of a lot of Irish journalists than the average woman's viewpoint however.

pro_gnostic_8

A Pig doesn't turn into a Man after a gallon of Guinness.

ixoy

I didn't catch this article, because I don't read the Style section, but it's ironic somewhat considerig they had another article (in the News Review I think) decrying the feminazis, and how more conservative feminism is on the up (whereby feminists don't blame men for every little problem of theirs, and seek proper equality).

Personally, I'm with you on this and this sort of male bashing is just as sickening as it was to put women down. As men had no right to do it of women, women have no right to degrade men too much, even in the attempt of veiled humour. It reminds me of that Boots ad in the cinema which showed mens reactions to the woman wearing the makeup - namely they were bowled over literally. This was to the extent of them receiving a full punch to the face and being hurled brutally down stairs or through a window. Imagine, if you will, a new Lynx ad whereby the affect of the deodorant is to show a woman being smacked across the face and hurled down the stairs of a building. Think we'd ever have seen it aired?

dr_manhattan

"(to quote one poster to this forum who spews hysterical misandrist bull**** in most of his posts)"

brain, sweetheart, why don't you get over that huge chip on your shoulder, hmm? You ignored every other poster on the last thread in your frenzy of accusations: just get over yourself, hmm? that last thread wasn't even ABOUT male stereotyping, it was about the male pill. And because you misinterpreted someone saying that men would be less responsible (OBVIOUSLY) than women in taking it, you made the whole thread about attacks on men.

Yaay for you! Defender of males. I know I'm glad you're protecting us: good to see you have your own thread now, too.

to continue my line of "hysterical misandrist bull****" (also described by BrianD3 as "feminist brainwashing", and misinterpreted as accusations of "misogyny") why don't you just shrug it off to show you're above this bull****: you know, like a MAN? I mean, in that last thread, there were people trying to draw parallels between the propaganda that started ethnic cleansing in Nazi germany, and anti-male sterotypes.

For god's sake, grow up and realise the world has more serious problems than the Sunday ****ing Times and it's tired middle class ****e.

The "plight" of men in advertising is like an STD epidemic in Beverly Hills: sure it's a terrible thing and something needs to be done about it, but I could think of a million bigger injustices and tragedies in ten seconds. Get a life.

The irish times is a worthless rag: I suggest you boycott it, as you claim to boycott any product that advertises using sterotypes of men. And then I suggest you look around you and realise that life isn't so bad for males, and you don't need to go flipping every scenario on its head to assess how it's "PC" to say this or whatever.

But one thing I suggest you don't do is look for any further replies from me to your sad obsessive man-defending. You are in the process of playing yourself.

and ixoy:

"This was to the extent of them receiving a full punch to the face and being hurled brutally down stairs or through a window. Imagine, if you will, a new Lynx ad whereby the affect of the deodorant is to show a woman being smacked across the face and hurled down the stairs of a building. Think we'd ever have seen it aired?"

If it sold products, yes of course. Because it doesn't, it isn't used. I really think you should re-read that post as it comes across as just the most hilariously pompous, poe faced knee-jerk reaction. For god's sake, you're talking about an ADVERTISEMENT.

And not only that, but you seem to assume that every woman somehow benefits from being portrayed as some two dimensional dullard harpy who's happy to look and smell great, because it impresses men?

I tell you something, cheers for bringing up Lynx, cos I'll tell you something, those ads stereotype women as facile vixens who'll spread their legs if you smell right. Kind of knocks you (and Brian's) contention that you cannot type women because some kind of PC brigade will hunt you down and kill you, doesn't it?

But do you think any woman is currently wasting their time discussing them? I doubt it. Because women have been shat on long enough that they've developed a sense of humour about it. Now it's men's turn to develop exactly the same sense of humour: and we can't. Or at least, the two of you can't.

So in short, yeah, right, it's terrible, someone should do something about it: I wish both of you every success in your campaign to stop men being treated in any way unfairly or shown to be deficient in any qualities.




:rolleyes:

bizmark

Dr you really do have this massive guilty trip "im a white man their fore i deserve every thing thrown at me" type of mentality don’t ya ??

Doodee

dr_manhattan


I find it ironic that you are telling him to act like a real man yet your dragging up dirt from another thread and just being plain bitchy.

As i have been informed many a time, if you are going to fight with him, then do so via pm and stop trying to sway the vote.

Doodee

"This was to the extent of them receiving a full punch to the face and being hurled brutally down stairs or through a window. Imagine, if you will, a new Lynx ad whereby the affect of the deodorant is to show a woman being smacked across the face and hurled down the stairs of a building. Think we'd ever have seen it aired?"

If it sold products, yes of course. Because it doesn't, it isn't used. I really think you should re-read that post as it comes across as just the most hilariously pompous, poe faced knee-jerk reaction. For god's sake, you're talking about an ADVERTISEMENT.

That is not a valid arguement at all.
It may well indeed be an ADVERTISEMENT
but as many other forms of media are having to learn (Hollywood,Music industry, Video Games)
The influence of what is portray can directly affect certain individuals.
so by sterotyping in the manner that is suggested in the paper it can cause future generations to establish an anti-men type of vibe.
Now i know not many 3-12Years olds are going to be reading the papers, but you never know. Noone thought kids would shoot up columbine, but hey, **** happens and it's our responcibility to avoid it happening again.

dr_manhattan

bizmark:
"Dr you really do have this massive guilty trip "im a white man their fore i deserve every thing thrown at me" type of mentality don’t ya ??"

Nope.

Does your repsonse make you an "oh poor me I'm a white man and everyone's having a go at me, why won't they stop?"

I just don't find it threatening that some arse writes an article that, by Brian's own admission, isn't even supposed to be taken seriously, in the irish poxy times. I'm not in the LEAST BIT motivated by guilt.

Doodee:
"As i have been informed many a time, if you are going to fight with him, then do so via pm and stop trying to sway the vote."

Of course, you being a moderator here makes this your job to tell me this vital info :rolleyes:

- he mentioned my previous post first, and I was responding to his post: if the vitriol upsets you, then cover your eyes, darling. Why didn't YOU PM me to tell me the above?

There was an amount of sarcasm in my telling him to act like a man: sorry about not making that clear enough.

Anyways, what ****ing vote?

ixoy

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
and ixoy:

If it sold products, yes of course. Because it doesn't, it isn't used. I really think you should re-read that post as it comes across as just the most hilariously pompous, poe faced knee-jerk reaction. For god's sake, you're talking about an ADVERTISEMENT.

And not only that, but you seem to assume that every woman somehow benefits from being portrayed as some two dimensional dullard harpy who's happy to look and smell great, because it impresses men?

No I don't assume such a thing. I'm making a perfectly valid point about the way that marketing is allowed to work. There's a dual standard in what's acceptable in advertising and - like it or not - advertising does work. If advertising did not work, then we would still have cigarette smoking ads on our screen and would not be seeking legislation to reduce ads promoting alcohol. Ads create, even at a subconscious level, not just awareness of a product but also an association with it - which is why we're not allowed show alcohol directly leading to fun. So should we, similarly, be allowed make a subconscious connection that violence against men is humouros and inoffensive?

But do you think any woman is currently wasting their time discussing them? I doubt it. Because women have been shat on long enough that they've developed a sense of humour about it. Now it's men's turn to develop exactly the same sense of humour: and we can't. Or at least, the two of you can't.

So in short, yeah, right, it's terrible, someone should do something about it: I wish both of you every success in your campaign to stop men being treated in any way unfairly or shown to be deficient in any qualities.

Far be it from me to go down your own route, but you've often defended the rights of other groups to be treated equally. Your contention now is that because white males have had it - generally - easier, we should learn to like being repressed or accept it? That we owe others some sort of compensation and should be the punch bag for their own feelings? Two wrong have never made a right. Using someone in a sexual suggestive fashion - as in the Lynx ad - is okay because it's also being done in reverse. The point myself and Brian are making is that there are certain cases where it's okay to abuse and debase the male gender for the crimes of our forefathers (which I never committed). And yes, for what it's worth, I know exactly what it's like to be part of a suppressed minority and that still - in no way - makes me want to, or to condone, tacid acceptance of the same treatment that I've always reviled elsewhere.

BrianD3

he mentioned my previous post first, and I was responding to his post

Yes. And since the original thread, you have brought up "feminist brainwashing" on a number of occasions and in various threads, such as the thread about hitting women and have attempted to use it to attack people and prove your points.

Now let's get this straight. I never actually used the term "feminist brainwashing" I merely speculated that your attitude could possibly be explained by you being brainwashed by the feminist lobby into thinking that bashing men was somehow justified and acceptable due to hundreds of year of oppression by those evil white males etc. etc.

I stand by what I said however I could have phrased it better. I should have said "radical feminist" or "feminazi" instead of "feminist". I have no problem with feminists campaigning for better rights and opportunities for women, however I do have a problem with those who think they will achieve these goals by bashing men.

You may say that I have a chip on my shoulder but seriously, I think you have issues. Every second post I see from you in this forum is some indignant, long-winded rant where you attack anyone who doesn't agree with you. Maybe you're the one who needs to get a life.

BrianD3

dr_manhattan

Doodee again: it would appear that one post isn't enough. Or was that first post an administretor post? Or a PM?

"That is not a valid arguement at all."

I'm afraid it is: it might help if you read the posts involved. I agree completely that stereotyping men is wrong: I just couldn't care less about it, and think that men who do are pathetic and in need of a sense of humour.

When asked why I feel this way, I say because everyone is sterotyped in advertising, get over it. As a white man, there's a million things to compensate you for being so horribly abused on the TV: not so everyone else.

Like the lynx ads: a woman sees those and goes "****, I get sterotyped, and only get 85% the pay of my male peers. I get treated well only when I wear tight clothing, and I have to fight for my opinions to be respected"

All I am saying is, grow up, get over it and get used to it. Advertisements patronise, insult, and stereotype everyone. It's a mad, mad world. Boo Hoo.


"It may well indeed be an ADVERTISEMENT but as many other forms of media are having to learn (Hollywood,Music industry, Video Games) The influence of what is portray can directly affect certain individuals."

..and so they've stopped doing that. No hollywood movie, or mainstream album, or video game does any of that stuff anymore, right? They've stopped making James Bond films cos they're sexist. Action movies with 2D white male protagonists are also never made anymore.


"so by sterotyping in the manner that is suggested in the paper it can cause future generations to establish an anti-men type of vibe."

I'm getting exasperated now: BrianD3 himself says that the article (not an ad, the ad was brought up by Ixoy, please try reading the posts) in the times was NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

So my question is "well why take it seriously then?"

And finally:

"Noone thought kids would shoot up columbine, but hey, **** happens and it's our responcibility to avoid it happening "

I dunno where to start here: you're using a sensational incident to add gravitas to your complaint. Where, why or how could this article ever produce anything comparable to the deaths of 20 teenagers?

This is just like the guy who posted about the holocaust: there is no comparison here. People will NOT EVER dies as a result of this article, so why mention columbine?

but fair enough, you want to mention it.

I saw this film, ya see, and a lot of other people did too, about that massacre. And one of the main points of that film was that columbine was NOT, NOT, NOT media inspired, that it happened because of certain far reaching flaws in america's choices as a society.

Also, those kids did not kill their classmates because advertising or anything else had told them they were inferior: they did it because they wanted to. It has been suggested they had a race agenda but if they did, they killed quite a mix of races.

So would you please explain how columbine is relevant?

dr_manhattan

Ixoy - I think the essential bone of contention is summed up here:

"your contention now is that because white males have had it - generally - easier, we should learn to like being repressed or accept it?"

No it is not: that is a small part of my argument.

My contention is that white males ARE NOT BEING REPRESSED, especially in advertising. These ads are trashy, dumb and facile, and might be described broadly as repressive but so is ALL ADVERTISING. Sterotyping is wrong but it happens to all creeds and colours, all classes and all sexes: my contention is basically, welcome to the real world. And ixoy, if you want to fight every form of stereotyping and repression with equal ferocity, you're gonna have your work cut out.

The only reason I birng the privilege that white males enjoy into the discussion is because I was trying to put the wrongs being done to us in PERSPECTIVE.

Now, BrianD3, I said I wouldn't reply to you but you're neing absurd - so here's a quick one

"Now let's get this straight. I never actually used the term "feminist brainwashing""

yes, you did, Brian. You're completely right, you should have used a different term - but you didn't. You also accused me of calling you a misogynist, and the rest.

Don't make me PM a moderator and get it retrieved, cos this is boring. Either defend your initial contention, that is, that a joke article in the irish times written by some ad copy moron warrants disgust and the idea that men are being repressed, or leave it.

because all I see in thatpost is a bunch of twaddle directed at me and my "issues": you haven't even mentioned the topic.

As a matter of fact, out of the 4 posts I've had back, three have just been personal criticisms. Good thing I'm not sensitive, I might develop some idea I'm being "repressed" ;-)

swiss

Dr you really do have this massive guilty trip "im a white man their fore i deserve every thing thrown at me" type of mentality don’t ya ??

I wouldn't put it quite like this, but I kind of agree with bizmark here. I don't think you're being motivated by guilt, but you certainly seem to be getting up on a pedestal about male abuse/dominance over women. Feel free to become an apologist for male attitudes towards women, but please do not include me or other men in such apologies. I may have said and done injudicious things to women, but rest assured, it was not because they were women. I am an equal opportunities prick.

The article in question compared men to dogs. Call me humorless, but I don't think that's particularly funny. In fact I find it in bad taste and quite offensive. That said, I'm not going to bother firing off an email to the editors because I didn't read the article in question, and because I don't consider it particularly serious. The issue over whether women would object to a female equivalent doesn't matter to me. I find the article objectionable, without respect to concerns about "what women think". However what I can do is boycott the newspaper. This is a bit of a pity, because I do find some of the articles in the Sunday Independent quite informative, but verbal diahorrea like this does slip through occasionally.

If it sold products, yes of course. Because it doesn't, it isn't used. I really think you should re-read that post as it comes across as just the most hilariously pompous, poe faced knee-jerk reaction. For god's sake, you're talking about an ADVERTISEMENT.

I accept that it is just an advertisement, but I also think you're missing the bigger picture. Why do you think that such an advertisement would not be aired? Is it simply because it wouldn't sell products? Or is it because it would provoke an uproar from the female community? Now let's take this double standard and apply it to other issues that affect men and women, such as the domestic abuse issue discussed in another thread. It is no longer about just an advertisement any longer.

I'm not saying the advertisement is particularly serious or worth getting worked up over. I'm simply saying it's symptomatic of a bigger problem, which is the inequality between men and women in how they are portrayed by the media as well as society. I also think that articles such as this are symptomatic of a general perception that men deserve whatever they get because they have been guilty of perpetrating injustices towards women. I also dislike the reference that I'm being exceptionally sensitive and willing to kick up a ruckus just because I see something I don't like. I like to think that I'm as good humored as the next person about good natured slagging about whatever you like. I can see the humor in this article, but I just don't think it's particularly funny, especially when you see the double standard at hand when you appreciate that one would not see a female equivalent to this article.

dr_manhattan

"I also think that articles such as this are symptomatic of a general perception that men deserve whatever they get because they have been guilty of perpetrating injustices towards women"

No, I accept some of your points but I have to draw the line here: if this "article" (because it sounds like giving it that name is lending it dignity it doesn't deserve) is "symptomatic" of anything it's the fact that irish journalists are by and large the most talentless bunch of hacks in the world, who are under the impression that running a lazy ass article about "training men" is somehow worthy of ruining the paper it's printed on.

And trying to say that it's "symptomatic" of repression of men is just plain ****ing ridiculous, okay?

It's more "symptomatic" of certain women being so ****ing stupid that they will readily read anything that slags off men because they think of it as "empowering".

Programmes such as "sex in the city" are dangerous, possibly, in the ways you mention. But get it in perspective: only a maximum of 4 million people will ever read that dumb rag. This is not a conspiracy, it's just retarded hack journalists writing what they know will sell.

Sure you have points about offensive typing of men, but as you say repeatedly, It's not funny, and it's not something to take seriously. I think you have the biggest point when you say "without respect to concerns about "what women think" " - fact is, it's completely not about what would or wouldn't be acceptable by turning the principle on it's head.

I mean, i don't even READ irish newspapers anymore because I'm sick of this pandering crap, dressed as journalism, from the keyboards of ineffectual morons ensconsed in dublin's south side. Jeesus!

Do you guys *really* open the irish times, indo, whatever, and when you see pandering, dumb, poorly written, misspelled garbage that speaks to nobody, get a surprise?

I mean, really. Seriously. We are talking about some of the worst newspapers I have ever read.

As regards the lynx ad,

"Why do you think that such an advertisement would not be aired? Is it simply because it wouldn't sell products? Or is it because it would provoke an uproar from the female community?"

I'm surprised that, with such determination to look at this, you're missing a big point: if something offends someone, it doesn't sell to them, therefore it's never used. So both reasons are the same goddamned thing - we may never know how it breaks down.

Maybe this illustrates that if men are so goddamned upset about this, they should act like women have done in the past and have it removed: where's the supposedly (if you guys are to be belived) justified uproar from the MALE community? We tolerate this ****, after all.

Even using "tolerate" seems dumb to me. I don't think there's actually much to tolerate at all, but there you go.

"Now let's take this double standard and apply it to other issues that affect men and women, such as the domestic abuse issue discussed in another thread. It is no longer about just an advertisement any longer."

??

no, in this thread, it never really *was* about an advertisment: You may believe that there's wider issues being discussed, domestic abuse, whatever, but as I keep saying, I am talking about whether or not a dumb junk article in a dumb junk newspaper can be validly used to illustrate the "repression" of men, or the existence of an active "double standard" that is harmful to men (or indeed, anyone)

I would tell a woman objecting to sexism in lynx ads to grow up and make better use of her time, and I am telling you guys to, as well. Is that so hard to understand?

Every time I go off track and mention that everyone on this planet who isn't a white man has much more to complain about ON TOP OF the same "repression" in advertising, people call me an apologist. But there's no other way to speak about relative repression than by discussing other examples of it.

rubadub

women can't be sexist,
blacks can't be racist,
travellers can't be thugs,

2 wrongs do make a right

BrianD3

Guys, the article was in the Sunday Times, a British newpaper. I just want to point that out - not that it makes any difference it's just that we should be clear about which paper it appeared in.

yes, you did, Brian...Don't make me PM a moderator and get it retrieved

:rolleyes: No, I don't believe I did. No need to PM a moderator - you do realise that it's possible to retrieve posts from other threads don't you. Here's what I wrote in response to your OTT (and OT) rants about evil white male oppressors:
"You may not have a problem with this. Perhaps you've been brainwashed by the feminist lobby into thinking that knocking men is justified because of hundreds of years of oppression of women etc. etc. Actually, from the tone of your post, I would say that this is a pretty good summing up of your attitude"

So, get this straight:
a) I never said "feminist brainwashing"
b) I never tried to blame feminists for the difficulties that men as a group may experience in their lives
c) I merely tried to understand why YOU have this particular attitude.
d) It would have been more appropriate if I had said "feminazi" or "radical feminist" instead of "feminist"

Try to be a little more careful when reading posts. If you're going to drag up stuff from old posts, at least try to quote properly and in context. You have gotten good mileage out of quoting "feminist brainwashing" as you have used it in several threads already. I could just as easily start misquoting stuff from your old rants..sorry posts. But I won't, as it is getting extremely tedious at this stage.

Either defend your initial contention, that is, that a joke article in the irish times written by some ad copy moron warrants disgust and the idea that men are being repressed, or leave it

I have already done that, both in this thread and in the earlier thread. You were too stubborn to listen then, just as you're too stubborn to listen now. I'm going to sit back and watch this thread develop and see what other people's views on the matter are. Will also be interested to see if you can be civil to other posters (at the moment it looks like you're on the verge of exploding into self-righteous rage) Try to calm down.

BrianD3

swiss

No, I accept some of your points but I have to draw the line here: if this "article" (because it sounds like giving it that name is lending it dignity it doesn't deserve) is "symptomatic" of anything it's the fact that irish journalists are by and large the most talentless bunch of hacks in the world, who are under the impression that running a lazy ass article about "training men" is somehow worthy of ruining the paper it's printed on.

If articles such as these are limited to the Sunday Independent, then I would say you have a point. However, evidence of this particular genre of 'male bashing' is quite endemic. You can see it in the printed media as well as television and film. I don't mind the fact that the media is making fun of men, although that article IMO crossed the invisible border of taste. What annoys me somewhat is that it would not be considered 'OK' or tasteful to do the same to women.

And trying to say that it's "symptomatic" of repression of men is just plain fucking ridiculous, okay?

I disagree.

Doubtlessly, men still have the upper hand in many social and economic circumstances. I am all for bringing parity between men and women in these circumstances. However, when I observe a situation in which men are viewed negatively and women favourably, despite no obvious differences aside from the fact that men are male and women are female, then I see this as a de facto repression of the male community. The fact that it is relatively trivial compared to the continued repression of women in other areas is to me irrelevant. And yes, this 'article' and television advertisements are symptomatic of this.

I'm surprised that, with such determination to look at this, you're missing a big point: if something offends someone, it doesn't sell to them, therefore it's never used. So both reasons are the same goddamned thing - we may never know how it breaks down.

Without wanting to get into a whole "You're missing the point" "No you are" routine, I would say that I don't think I'm missing the point here. You are entirely accurate when you say that something offends someone it doesn't sell to them. However if someone were to look at an advertisement to look for reasons why it might have failed, if it was disparaging to a particular demograph, I fail to see how one cannot but take that into consideration.

Maybe this illustrates that if men are so goddamned upset about this, they should act like women have done in the past and have it removed: where's the supposedly (if you guys are to be belived) justified uproar from the MALE community? We tolerate this shit, after all.

Yes we do tolerate this shit, and this is probably why we are subjected to more of it. We can probably only guess at the reasons as to why we are so slow to react to male bashing propoganda negatively. These are a few reasons I thought of off the top of my head.

1) Most of the material that could be considered 'anti male' has a humorous slant, and as such falls under the exemptions of satire and/or humor.

2) Some men might not wish to rail against this material because of a fear of being labelled 'chauvanistic'.

3) Good, old fashioned apathy.

Take your pick.

dr_manhattan

BrianD3, you still have nothing to say about my post on *this* thread, and no, you didn't defend it at all, just attacked me. So get off my dick, okay? You're the one who started this by calling me a misandrist.

And btw:

"feminist brainwashing"
"brainwashed by the feminist lobby"

Of course, you're right, they're completely different things. You're so rational. I'm so angry and flustered. Now get off my dick.

---

Now, swiss - you are being highly inconsistent:

"What annoys me somewhat is that it would not be considered 'OK' or tasteful to do the same to women."

Didn't you just say in your previous post that you don't care how it would be if it was done to women? that that was irrelevant to you?

" You can see it in the printed media as well as television and film. "

where, of COURSE, everyone else gets just perfect treatment: women, non-whites, non-heteros. Just men are singled out and patronised, insulted and "repressed" by the communications media. Of course they are.

"male-bashing", hmm? Last I looked pretty much every minority got rough treatement in the media. And if you're saying "but male bashing is *acceptable* then all I can say is, well hey! It is to me: assuming that what's being discussed on this thread is actually male-bashing.

Funny that though, isn't it? Gay Bashing to me means people actually beating homosexual men to death. yest "male bashing" means making jokes at the expense of men? Funny the way language works, isn't it?

Now basically, your list kinda sums it up for me:

" 1) Most of the material that could be considered 'anti male' has a humorous slant, and as such falls under the exemptions of satire and/or humor "

So laugh. Or don't. Ignore it. Or start your campaign for decency in the media: ring the censor, I dunno... I simply cannot believe that you are actually admitting that these things are at best valueless, tasteless attempts at low-brow humour - and simulataneously saying they should be taken seriously.

"the exemptions of satire and/or humour"... how utterly po-faced a way of putting it.

Jokes. What you are saying is that people aren't complaining cos the insults are disguised as jokes. And this amounts to "repression", does it?

I hope all of you people live long and healthy lives, and that the closest you get to being "repressed" is retarded op-eds in the sunday (toilet)papers.

" 2) Some men might not wish to rail against this material because of a fear of being labelled 'chauvanistic'. "

Or perhaps being labeled "petty"? Or "unable to tolerate the kind of treatment that everyone else has
to put up with"? I mean, you speak as if life is peachy for people who are not men.

" 3) Good, old fashioned apathy "

Or good old-fashioned "better and more worthwhile stuff to do"? Any chance?

Cos last i looked men aren't really the most shy and retiring bunch. And the idea that men, especially white men, who have pulled some pretty low **** on their fellow human beings over the past 2,000 years, are too flustered or bashful to defend themselves against repression makes me laugh.

But there ya go: I'm a mysandrist, apparently.

dr_manhattan

PS: Swiss

" Without wanting to get into a whole "You're missing the point" "No you are" routine, "

...and likewise, here: but i do feel you're missing the point:


" I would say that I don't think I'm missing the point here. You are entirely accurate when you say that something offends someone it doesn't sell to them. However if someone were to look at an advertisement to look for reasons why it might have failed, if it was disparaging to a particular demograph, I fail to see how one cannot but take that into consideration."

Look, we were discussing an ad campaign aimed at women. I said if it offended women it wouldn't be used, for precisely that reason, cos you don't shift units by offending customers.

However, if what you mean is that a similarly patronising ad, that offended women but wasn't selling to them, was run, there'd be outcry, then consider this:

Recent Lynx campaigns, **** and boring as they are, depict women as brainless hapless victims to a deoderant. This is far from complimentary IMHO, and is presumably the equivalent: the man becomes an object of allconquering desire.

So where's the "uproar"? Why are women not offended?

My contention is that the so-called "liberation movement" has given women a sense of humour about patronising adverts that men have yet to develop. Also, the innate, childish way in which men tend to take affronts personally is not there with women in most cases, as women psychologically seem to have less to prove about themselves to the world.

..but it would seem to be that your opinion is that men are being repressed and the reason nobody's doing anything about it is, rather than because it's trivial and not such a serious thing, but because men are afraid to be considered chauvinist?

okay, then.....

Lemming

Originally posted by dr_manhattan
Stuff

Please oh please ohpleaseohpleaseohplease learn to use the 'quote' feature dr. It makes reading soooooooooooooooooooooo much easier on the eyes/brain.

I read that article yesterday. I could most certainly see the humour in it, however it did strike me as being in rather poor taste, and something that would not be seen from the flipside of the coin for EXACTLY the same reasons.

I'm not going to get worked up about it since, to be honest, the article was nothing more than purile, sexist excrement attempting to be funny.

I do, however, think that you're coming across a bit like the "All men are b*stards so come on everyone - take a free shot" brigade in this thread dr, which is unfortunate as I rather enjoy reading your posts more often than not.

The article is sexist. Highly so as the reverse would never be allowed past the editors desk in a thousand years. I suppose that is the bottom line irregardless of whether or not the article is purile excrement or not. Double standards and what not.

Doodee

Doodee:
"As i have been informed many a time, if you are going to fight with him, then do so via pm and stop trying to sway the vote."

Of course, you being a moderator here makes this your job to tell me this vital info

WOW!
Not only are you riddling most of your posts with contradictions, but your also using sarcasm now.
Go you.

I may not be a moderator. But i am a boards.ie user, and i do know that i dont want to see this thread turn into a juvenile pissing contest between yourself and briand3.

- he mentioned my previous post first, and I was responding to his post: if the vitriol upsets you, then cover your eyes, darling. Why didn't YOU PM me to tell me the above?

There was an amount of sarcasm in my telling him to act like a man: sorry about not making that clear enough.

Ouch, That hurt. and tbh, there was no need, if you cant argue your points without having to attack the poster then i suggest you dont bother posting. The arguement is about an article that appeared in a british paper. Not what your ideas on the posters opiniens are.

Doodee again: it would appear that one post isn't enough. Or was that first post an administretor post? Or a PM?

wow, i hit the reply button, if your going to slate me over that then atleast learn to use ****ing quote tags.
here, all you have to do is start with [.QUOTE] copy and paste what they said and finish by using the '/' like this '[./Quote]' (remove the full stops -> . <- before the 'Quote' within the tags)

now, to explain the columbine situation. (even though its off topic)

I saw this film, ya see, and a lot of other people did too, about that massacre. And one of the main points of that film was that columbine was NOT, NOT, NOT media inspired, that it happened because of certain far reaching flaws in america's choices as a society.

Also, those kids did not kill their classmates because advertising or anything else had told them they were inferior: they did it because they wanted to. It has been suggested they had a race agenda but if they did, they killed quite a mix of races.

Ok, for one, It is quite possible that the media did infact have a part to play in it.

I would like to highlight the following findings in a research project done by Paul Lynch at the University of Oklahoma Medical School. Lynch has been studying the physiological reactions of teenagers to video games for ten years. He found that violent video games caused much greater physiological changes than non-violent games. The changes were found for heart rate and blood pressure as well as the aggression-related hormones, adrenaline, noradrenalin and testosterone. A very important finding in lynch’s research is the effect was much greater for males who pre-tested high on measures of anger and hostility. In other words, the violent games do not seem to affect everyone the same. Angry youth react much more strongly to violent video games than do more easy-going kids.

In quite a few of these findings they suggest that it is quite possible that the columbine killers agression may have been fueled by violent video games, Lyrics from German Punk groups etc.

Now this isn't something that can be proven either way. I was simply using the example of a way inwhich the media can effect peoples opiniens/views/actions. It was in relation to your just ADVERTISEMENTS comment.

Look, we were discussing an ad campaign aimed at women. I said if it offended women it wouldn't be used, for precisely that reason, cos you don't shift units by offending customers.

However, if what you mean is that a similarly patronising ad, that offended women but wasn't selling to them, was run, there'd be outcry, then consider this:

Recent Lynx campaigns, **** and boring as they are, depict women as brainless hapless victims to a deoderant. This is far from complimentary IMHO, and is presumably the equivalent: the man becomes an object of allconquering desire.

your lynx add is very very poor.
womens deodourants have also depicted women as being more dominant/men falling for them. This is completely different to a newspaper article (joke or not) suggesting that men are on a par of intelligence to a dog.
there two completely different things.
For one, the article is there to deliberatly slate Men, whereas the lynx add is being used to sell its product. It does not directly slate the female population in any way, its your perception that its being degraiding.
sure only the other night my girlfriend suggested that If lynx had that effect on women it would be cool.

you have a habbit of attacking the poster and baring personal grudges. If you are going to say that my examples are some what irrelevant then i suggest you revise yours.
reguardless of weither or not the article was a joke, it was a bad one that can be seen as insulting. I'm sure a black person (reguardless of how great their sense of humour) would find it bad taste if someone told a racist joke.

dr_manhattan

Doodee, I dunno where to start:

First off, BrianD3 said I was a mysandrist and talked ****: how come no little paternalistic chiding for him?

Second, I am aware you are a boards.ie user, good for you: however, don't chide me about my posting style or especially tell me I "hold grudges" if you're

a) not going to lecture brianD3 about it.
b) not a moderator, whose business it is to do what you are trying to do.

Third, you tell me you object to a "pissing match" between me and BD3, and then spend that much space pissing at my posting style? Riiiiight. i notice that you swearing at me cos I don't use quote tags is, however, legitmiate.

I will post whatever the hell way I want, quote tags, no quote tags, vitriol, whatever. Who the hell do you think you are?

"The arguement is about an article that appeared in a british paper. Not what your ideas on the posters opiniens are."

Well spotted: however, when someone calls me a mysandrist, I will defend myself whatever way I like. Again I ask, why don't you have a go at BrianD3?

"now, to explain the columbine situation. (even though its off topic)"

You brought it up, sweetheart: I know it's off bloody topic.

FYI, video games are not "media", okay? They may be referred to under the blanket of "multimedia", but we are discussing communications media: to wit - ads, TV, cinema, newspapers.

you are quite right that there have been vague connections established between video games and columbine. Of course violence stimulates testosterone.

now would you mind explaining how this connects to newspaper ads, denegration of men in advertising, or anything else being discussed here? Has anyone ever, after reading the sunday papers, gone on a man killing spree? No. Anything even close to that? No. Anything even remotely resembling that? NO.

After you say I'm off topic, you post this garbage? It's completely irelevant: as I originally said.

oh but wait:

"Now this isn't something that can be proven either way. I was simply using the example of a way inwhich the media can effect peoples opiniens/views/actions. It was in relation to your just ADVERTISEMENTS comment"

And how will anti-men (if you can call them that) op-eds lead to incidents comparable to the columbine incident? Are you seriously saying that you're being on-topic here?

The lynx advert ****e is in reply to someone who raised the idea of advertising double standards: why don't you try reading this thread before you start assuming that I brought up the lynx thing? Of course it's not the same as an op-ed. I know that. So did the person who raised ad campaigns as an example of how men are mistreated.

generally speaking, I don't know where I ever said "this article is fine and great and I will defend it" or even that "having a pop at white males is fine"

All I said was get a ****ing life, and realise that advertising degrades EVERYONE, not just men, women, whoever. Stupid people say stupid things and write stupid articles all the time.

But if you think for ONE SECOND I will accept that men are being "oppressed" as a result of some retarded jokey op-ed, then you've gotta be kidding. Men are not being opressed any more than we all are: and when you start whinging about it, the implication is that men are getting the same type of mistreatment as other mistreated minorities. Which is toss: an absolute falsehood.

People talk about how a black man would be offended by this that and the other: well how do you think a black south african would react to us, here in Ireland, claiming that we are being opressed? I think they'd laugh. Or maybe even be indignant about it - but I doubt they'd agree.

Everyone seems to forget here that I am a white man, and very proud of it: and it takes more than some dumb hack journalist to make me feel in the least bit slighted or opressed: and the reason for this is because I have met a lot of people who *are* opressed, and I do not use the term lightly.

When I am denied property, rights, freedoms because I am a male, THEN I will be opressed. When I am unable to earn a wage or forced to work in labour camps. Enslaved. Unable to walk the streets.

The idea that I am somwhow defending this article or the idea of taking pot shots at men is quite simply bollocks.

If you read what I am writing all along, it is simply that men need to get a sense of humour and stop claiming opression at every turn of the corner. It's a waste of time which could be spent addressing *real* oppression, and it's not bloody true.

But there again, dealing with real opression might mean stepping outside yourself and not just thinking about your own, clawing need for attention as a man. It might mean actually ignoring things which are not important, rather than setting out to redress a balance which was never there.

So it's not likely in this country, is it?

swiss

Round 3

Originally posted by Dr_Manhatten:

Didn't you just say in your previous post that you don't care how it would be if it was done to women? that that was irrelevant to you?

Indeed I have. Their reaction doesn't matter to me. What annoys me is the double standards that is perpetrated by saying on one hand that articles debasing women is unacceptable, whereas a male equivalent is kosher. If there is any inconsistency, this is where it lies.

where, of COURSE, everyone else gets just perfect treatment: women, non-whites, non-heteros. Just men are singled out and patronised, insulted and "repressed" by the communications media. Of course they are.

Excellent. I believe you understand the point I have been making (and yes, I am ignoring the sarcasm).

However, where we seem to differ is that you see this whole issue as a non-issue, that it is neither important or pertinent enough for us (men) to waste our time, and that we are perpetuating a double standard by on one hand condemning patronising articles directed at us, whilst conveniently ignoring those that do not concern us.

Firstly, I think you misundertand me. I don't think this is a particularly serious issue. I'm sure you can pick hundreds of issues more important than this one.. hunger, war, famine etc etc. However, this one does affect me, and since, as you correctly hinted, I had nothing better to do , I thought I would post my opinions on the issue.

Secondly, you seem to think that I'm vehemently against all forms of 'anti male' dissemination of material, regardless of it's humor/sarcasm value. I couldn't disagree with this assessment more. I think that the ability to laugh at oneself is a fine trait, and there are plenty of examples of 'white male' satirical stereotypes that I would have a hearty laugh at, but a line has to be drawn somewhere, and being compared to a dog, in my book, just crosses that line (and even then not if it was particularly funny). I'm not seeking to censor these opinions or articles. Nor am I attempting to introduce a PC brigade to montor real or imagined affronts to decency or demographs. I am simply saying that "I found this piece objectionable".

Yes, every minority or stereotype is railed against to a certain extent. I also treat satirical articles directed towards these stereotypes just as I do those directed towards the demographs to which I belong. A good example would be the 'gay' stereotypes. This is one pertinent example that I find hilarious. Again, it's an invisible border of taste. Oh and "gay bashing" to me both means joking at the expense of gays as well as the more literal meaning of the word 'bashing'. I guess it's just the way I look at it.

Jokes. What you are saying is that people aren't complaining cos the insults are disguised as jokes. And this amounts to "repression", does it?

I would say that is a distinct possibility. And yes, I believe it does amount to repression, for the reasons I've already mentioned.

So laugh. Or don't. Ignore it. Or start your campaign for decency in the media: ring the censor, I dunno... I simply cannot believe that you are actually admitting that these things are at best valueless, tasteless attempts at low-brow humour - and simulataneously saying they should be taken seriously.

Or perhaps being labeled "petty"?

Yes, that too. This ties into your point that there are better things to do. Yes, there are indeed. That doesn't mean that this issue isn't worthy of consideration, as I believe you have demonstrated by posting here. After all, if it was so unimportant and trivial, why would you waste your time posting here?
Valueless, yes. Tasteless, yes. My main issue isn't with the ads themselves. I believe I have been through why I think they represent an unfair representation on males, that is indicative of a bigger problem of the representation of men in the media. If your answer is "well every demograph is railed against in some shape or form, get over yourself" then all I can say is fair enough. My own opinion is that just because it happens to other people doesn't make it automatically 'okay' if it happens to you. Just don't complain if you ever see anything that offends any stereotype or race. Time to break out the black man jokes, no?

Oh, and I would recommend you use the quote tags when replying to people as well. It just makes things more readable for other people. But suit yourself.

Doodee

Originally posted by BrianD3
In today's Sunday Times Style section, there's an article entitled "Down Boy!" which advises women on how to "train your man exactly like your dog"

Now this article isn't supposed to be serious (I hope) But it's a clumsy attempt at humour. And it's a good illustration of the double standard in modern western society where it's perfectly acceptable to take the piss out of/bash/demean men like this, but if the same were done to women there would be a huge outcry

Imagine if an article appeared in a mainstream newspaper advising men "how to train your wife like a dog" I don't think it would go down too well. In fact, I doubt it would ever even make it into the paper.

I have a good sense of humour but I just don't find this sort of stuff funny, just crass and hypocritical.

Some quotes from it:
"Remember, dogs/men have short attention spans. You may want to discuss your relationship for hours but the poor dog/man simply doesn't have the capacity to concentrate for long. They find training mentally exhausting. So keep such conversations short and to the point and reward them afterwards with a meal, or, in the man's case, sex"

"the truth is that men, like dogs, are ideal companions only when trained.....you need to teach him to sit, stay and come to heel"

"men and dogs like nothing better than running after things"

etc. etc.

I won't be purchasing this newspaper again (it's a rag anyway so it's no loss) I urge all males to do the same.

BrianD3

right, tell me where in that staement he declares you to be a "mysandrist".

from what i can see he doesn't. so i dont think i am going to have an arguement with BrianD3 as he didn't go bring his own personal little fued with you into this discussion.
From the word go you have attacked him and then anyone who has defended him.

I will post whatever the hell way I want, quote tags, no quote tags, vitriol, whatever. Who the hell do you think you are?

I was simply asking you to make it easier on other posters.
Im not the only one who has asked you if you could use quote tags, but then again, i am not a moderator, so i do not have the authority to force you to use them.
However, you go on to tell me who the **** i am asking you to use quote tags or making suggestions

People talk about how a black man would be offended by this that and the other: well how do you think a black south african would react to us, here in Ireland, claiming that we are being opressed? I think they'd laugh. Or maybe even be indignant about it - but I doubt they'd agree.

---

But there again, dealing with real opression might mean stepping outside yourself and not just thinking about your own, clawing need for attention as a man. It might mean actually ignoring things which are not important, rather than setting out to redress a balance which was never there.

I may not be a ****ing Mod, But since when were you the almighty voice on ****ing opression. Your a ****ing hypocryt.
Your not the only person here who has probably met or even been opressed int heir life time, even gender based opression. But please cut the ****ing crap and dont ever lecture me on stepping out into the big bad ****ing world, you have absaloutely no ****ing idea about me or where i come from so making such a ****ing ignorant or blind judgement as that just goes to show how ****ing stupid you come accross.
All your doing is Shoving your opinien down other peoples throat, you have yet to realise that my original post was asking you not to bring personal battles into this, which you have clearly done, as you were the one who started hurling abuse at BrianD3 on *THIS THREAD*
I dont really care what happened on a previous thread but i do ****ing care that you are dragging it down to the level of a ****ing schoolyard dispute.

If your such a ****ing High and mighty male who doesn't care about opression then why the **** should you care that a fellow male does care about it. If you are really the *Better Man* then you wouldn't have to resort to insults or even reply to this thread.
But no, im afraid your the ****ing attention whore in this situation since your making it clear about your personal history with BD3 and voicing your insults for a wide adience to hear.

ESAD

amp

Hmmm this thread was reported thus causing me to actually try a decipher who's in the wrong etc. etc.

I can't be arsed. It's gone way off topic. Anybody in this thread that attacked the poster and not the argument is on a yellow card which means I will ban them if they do it again in another thread.

This thread is beyond salvage I fear but if people want to take parts of it and discuss it civilly then feel free to start new threads.