Welcome Guest, Please Read This.

Oh my. How could they even for half a second *consider* rescinding that legislation?!? What on earth is the logic of it -- "we don't want to occasionally help illegal immigrants or lesbians who are being violently beaten, so let's remove an assistance framework for 1/4 of all the women in our nation?"

...that's wrong on so many levels.

^ from this article --> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/v..._n_1348711.html

I guess illegal/non-straight women don't count and can get beaten up to death, eh?
/sarcasm

You see, women who aren't white deserve their beatings, and women who are gay aren't real women.

/sarcasm

Besides, it's a part of their culture, right? We all know that men who aren't white beat up their wives because they're culturally told to! So how can we expect anything more from them? And honestly, if you're gay and your woman partner beats you up, you should be able to defend yourself-after all, she's just a girl. She can't be that good a fighter!

/sarcasm

Let's not forget the bit they want to add about reservation police being able to arrest non-tribe members who are abusing First Nations women. God forbid a white person actually stand trial for beating their 'indian wife'!

I got something to say to that: WTF?! D:<

So they're trying to exclude illegal immigrants, lesbians and transgenders?! COME ON!!! That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. They're humans just like them for crying out loud! Just how screwed up can some people be?

Sorry for the rant people, I got emotional there. I hope I didn't make myself look like a jerk.

This post has been edited by Red Dragonette on Apr 6 2012, 02:20 PM

Not at all! The people who want to overturn this legislation are the jerks, for saying that it's totally FINE if illegal immigrants and gender-queers get brutally beaten and have no recourse! I mean... I mean... AAAAAUGH!

Yes, they're human.

But they're CLEARLY not REAL women--especially those lesbians and those transgenders! And if they're illegal they don't count.


Ugh. Seriously, moving to Canada is getting more and more appealing every day... At least I could do something helpful there. >_>

Is it not possible to add new stuff in separate legislation, instead of adding it onto something that is already universally accepted? It's important to advance, but I am uncertain why it is important to also risk the entire front in order to advance a flank.

The people who want to overturn it are jerks; the people who are risking it all instead of keeping one fortification and making more, stronger outposts are insidiously stupid. Or worse--they are playing politics.

This post has been edited by Princess Artemis on Apr 6 2012, 03:11 PM

You know, being a female in america sucks as a first world county. Compare to the other 1st world countries.

Playing politics... dangerous ground.

I can see how they might need to institute separate legislation for something like illegal immigrants, however, I really don't see why they'd need a separate act for lesbians or transgenders who are legal citizens. What's the alternative? Are people supposed to copy the "Violence Against Women" act word for word, except make it a version that is solely about anyone gender-queer, and then submit it? I have a feeling people would start saying "don't re-invent the wheel" and wondering why the writers didn't just modify the original act.

It depends on how it's written. Is it written so as to obviously only apply to straight cisgendered women? If not, then passing an amendment somewhere or another small act that says, "HEY! That act? It applies to ALL women, stupid!" ought to be possible without putting the entire thing in danger.

That's what was done with the Constitution. Two Amendments were added that amounted to saying, "When it says People, it doesn't mean white male people, stupid!"

This post has been edited by Princess Artemis on Apr 7 2012, 10:48 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTlmho_RovY...=endscreen&NR=1

Good video for stating clearly and succinctly what the big deal is with the hyper-sexualized portrayal of women in advertising.

Other cases: I see this most often in "family" ads, where the female is portrayed as much more attractive and sometimes even younger than the male. Granted, this is not something that happens all the time, but I've never seen a case where the reverse happened, so..

Family picture 1
Not the old people at the front, obviously. The woman at the back is way more attractive, at least by normal standards in my country.

Family picture 2
You can't really see the guy's face, but the woman is much better known and is much more famous as an actress.
Same ad series, using the same people: Family picture 3

Another example: this one's a couple photo shoot less than a family oriented one, but these examples of the woman being a super pretty person and the man just average is abundant and I thought I should include this.


Married couples:
Married couple 1

Married couple 2

Married couple 3

ETA:
Ads that focus on raising children-not only is the woman pregnant or having a baby in her arms, she's also hot and she raises that child by herself w/o the help of her husband while having a job.

Example one, which is part of a bigger example here. The man's shown to be busy and only shows the back of his head; however the woman's working too. Shouldn't they be dividing child care equally?


Another example Also no dad.

Example 3 Another case where the working mom's looking at a photo of her sick child- only the mom, mind you- and she doesn't get to go home until she shows an actual picture of the kid. The gaggle of workers showing their own children being sick (implied through their body language and the speech bubbles) show that the company doesn't usually let them do this.

Example 4
Another case: The ones on the left are about raising children and family- no dad. Only the mom does all the childrearing.

This post has been edited by ylangylang on Apr 26 2012, 06:54 AM

Yeah, its horrible how guys are portrayed in commercials, I feel sick

Are those pigs.. yup like all men

Your father is easily confused with an ass

guys are super smart

breakup

dominos pizza... when man is not man enough

you're ugly and fat but at least you can smell nice for your girl...

taking out the trash.. ohh I meant the man...

Actually laughed at most... but yeah, do discuss how sexism is horrible towards men in commercials and how we're all supposed to look like captain America, work out be athletic, successful or we'll be called scrubs and get thrown out like a common trash.... Ohh wait, my bad... its not one of those threads, carry on

This post has been edited by The Evil Doer on Apr 26 2012, 08:09 AM

I've been kinda peeking at the thread, almost commented, but didn't.

I suddenly got reminded of a movie we watched as a class in a history/culture related class. It was one of the many movies based off the events of 9/11 in New York. I can't remember the title of the movie since so many people decided the event was a cash cow and wanted money out of it. That in itself was offensive enough, but as I'm watching the movie I noticed that we are not show the story of females on the plane, only males. There may have been one female, but the bulk of the "stories" in the movie were of males. What were those males doing? Phoning their wives who all had children and most of them had a fresh baby in arms. After the movie, I did mention this to some of the people in class and no one really noticed, not even the females. If fact the majority of the class thought it was a great movie. The movie itself, aside from the content and obvious pathetic attempt to pull at the heartstrings, was crap also. They used the idea of a mother alone, caring for her children and trading last words with her husband to shove propaganda into the faces of the audience. I knew the movie was going to be about propaganda but they hit really low with the "this mother has to care for her children ALONE" scenario.

EDIT: Going to look at the above links because I know sexism goes both ways. Also I want to move to Canada too, but you know...no money...

This post has been edited by Wookieinmashoo on Apr 26 2012, 08:13 AM

I would have agreed with that point: patriarchy is very much a strong issue that hurts men as well, at least here. For example- men are graded on how much they earn, and women are graded on how they look. So men are pressured to really work and work and work and not get any quality time with their family.

Thing is, that aspect is slowly changing, and the dialogue concerning fatherhood is changing here...but women and beauty? Nope. Nada. Zilch. Then again, we don't have maternity leave for women, why would you think they would have it for men? (We do have maternity leave, according to the law, only it's not enforced. However I still find it hypocritic that there are steps taken to ensure that fathers get quality time with their children, such as the "father's day" that lots of companies are apparently having, but almost none with the mom.)

Look, men are almost never, ever portrayed that way here like how in your examples...but we've got plenty of ads that show women and imply that looking pretty is basically the only thing that you should strive for.

Oh and those underachieving guys who can't really find a "mate"? Well, they get mail order brides, which is causing more harm to these women who are mostly from very poor third-world countries. They also found that in a survey that most of these men vent their steam online, usually by harassing female bloggers and such. (It's in my native tongue, very few of you can read it and I can't find it at the moment, sorry about that) Whereas ugly women are told to stuff it.

I would also add that this "women strive for beauty" pressure is put on girls from a very early age, which is worrying. This trend can be seen here-the boys, who are as young as 11, state that "Orcs(a derogatory name for ugly women) shouldn't wear short shorts". They also say that"if you wear short shorts you look like a " but that's another point altogether.
Also, many, many ads like this one here that's basically geared towards young girls and tells them they need that oval shaped face.

Compared to this, boys don't really get the pressure to be "manly" until they're 15 or so, based on anecdotal and personal experience. Besides, our culture doesn't really celebrate macho figures any more. Yes, they tell boys to stop crying if they start to cry or whatever, but that also applies to girls...

Don't we all....*sob*

This post has been edited by ylangylang on Apr 26 2012, 08:34 AM

Well, as to the first part: in the immortal words of Alistair Leslie Graham, that is so that people with think [the attractive women in the ads] will do you even if you is a minger. Which probably means that many advertisers think that presenting men with fantasy situations where they get super-hot wives will sell stuff. We have that too. For some products designed for women, we get ads the other way round--Fabio, a famous male sex symbol (who is now quite old), used to hawk fat-free margarine. The women in those ads were usually pretty unrealistically attractive too though, so there's definitely a double-standard.

As to showing mostly women in ads regarding child-rearing, I imagine that the actual intent is innocuous--advertisers probably just say to themselves 'Who is buying children's cough syrup? Moms, mostly.' And then they make a commercial that they feel appeals to moms... But it does seem kind of suspicious. After enough ads like that it becomes a lot easier to think that the trend stopped being about appealing to moms and instead became a reminder to women that child-rearing is what we're supposed to be doing and we shouldn't even be watching ads for any other products.

When I point it out like that it sounds pretty insane, unfortunately, but when certain messages are extremely overplayed, people start to think strange things... :/


This post has been edited by Sadako on Apr 26 2012, 08:32 AM

Is it sexism if that's what happened? The portrayal may have been a bit one sided, but the simple fact that they displayed the reality of a soon-to-be single mother with a child to care for is not sexism.

I post 7 sexist videos towards guys and your response to it is... well girls girls girls girls... thanks for proving the point, this thread might be called sexism but its not really that is it.... like I said god job, carry on....