Sunday, July 24, 2011

Feminist Foot Soldiers Fire on Rogers Cup Ad

An Ad agency for Rogers came up with the slogan "Come for the Ladies.  Stay for the Legends."  to promote the fact that there was a Legends game with four retired legends of men's tennis after the women's tournament.  I'm sure that they went over this a million times before they released the ads.  I can imagine the conversation in the executive meetings:
"Are you sure that this is making it clear that the women's game is the focus?" 
"Of course!  It's clear that we want people to come to see the ladies, but they get to see a friendly legends game as a bonus."

It should have come as no surprise that the legions of the feminism industry would jump up at any misconceptions they might have and cause an uproar.  It is clear that they are simply looking for something to be angry about instead of giving serious thought to the issue.  But, like any standing army, they are constantly looking for a battle to test there mettle. 

The Rogers Cup quickly backed down from the clearly unwinnable war.  I would have been impressed if a corporation as big and important, at least in Canada, stood behind its campaign, but the trigger-happy feminist army is not one to trifle with.  Rogers has plenty of female clients whose money it truly cares for.

The company, apparently has no qualms about offending its male clientele - nobody does.  OneSTDV has a post about male-bashing commercials with plenty of examples to choose from.  Rogers has run similar adds for its wireless division that depict women as know-it-all-leading-edge-tech-savvy while their male counterparts are bumbling juvenile morons.  One ad that sticks out in my mind, shows a girl on a bus-trip sharing videos with her friends on her wireless devices.  "The guys laughed at me for bringing my devices on the trip,"  she explains.  It depicts the guys on the trip as goof-balls, laughing hysterical at the mundane movie on the bus's video screen, while the clever girls lap up the latest entertainment on her Ipad.  I can't find a video link but here are a couple of mentions I've found, so you don't think I'm making it up.

So, on one hand, you have blatantly bad images of men ubiquitously strewn about the world of advertising, and barely a peep.  On the other hand, one message that can be deliberately misinterpreted and spun into something marginally sexist causes an uproar. 

Recently, I posited that one reason that it is ok to blame parents for awful crimes perpetrated against their children is the lack of a "childrenism" movement.  Obviously, children do not have the ability to speak up for themselves, so, they rely on child advocates who basically shame parents into becoming helicopter parents.  Feminism has legions of soldiers ready to shame society into behaving in whatever manner feminism suggests is acceptable and believing that their mantras are gospel.  Corporate advertisers are constantly attacked for any slight that may be perceived (real or imagined).  But, the Men's Rights Movement(MRM) has been slow to recruit members, so, there are no campaigns waged and no fearful advertisers.

I, for one, have been slow to identify myself with the MRM because it seems to devolve into women bashing a little too much for my tastes.  When I discovered, it was a revelation.  But, after awhile, I realized that some of the notions were as biased against women as gender-feminism is against men.  I value the opinions expressed and the free exchange of ideas that the site and its founders enable and I fully support the many good opinions expressed.  However, things are just not bad enough for men to create a group of MRA's large enough to cause a stir in the media.  I hope the pendulum doesn't swing that far.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

My New Schtick - "Woman Hating Creep"

I just checked out my stats, in the wake of my post comparing the reactions toward child abduction and rape being tweeted by Lenore Skenazy (thank you very much), and found that I was getting a lot of hits from a post by Rebecca Odes at  Rebecca does a great job of expanding on my point being careful to avoid the implications toward the issue of rape.
Ultimately, the reason I think we hold parents responsible when something awful happens is that it gives us a sense of control. When we look to the details surrounding a tragedy, what we really want to do is find out how to differentiate ourselves: I’m different. I’m smarter. This happened because the child’s mother made a bad choice, because he lives in a big city, because he wasn’t educated properly. Anything but the truth, which is that we are all vulnerable.

Yes, we are all vulnerable - women, more so than men, children even more so than women.

Looking at the comments, we see why I decided not to submit the post on FreeRangeKids.  When I typed the post, I realized that most people will spot the hot-button issue and become angered that I wasn't making it abundantly clear that I absolutely tow the PC feminists line. 

Commenter BunnyTwenty attacks me outright and twists my words around completely.  (The ability of some people to twist others' words around to paint them as straw-villains of cliched rhetoric is the primary deterrent for honest debate).  Don't worry citizens.  The culdesachero, with his skin of incredible thickness, is able to fend off such hateful, childish insults and dirty fighting tricks.  He has even foreseen such an attack.  Although, "woman-hating creep" came as a big surprise.  Don't tell Mrs. Culdesachero or I'm sure she'll ... well, she'll roll her eyes and say "Geeze, what has he said now?"

So, on to battle.  What does the ever so thoughtful BunnyTwenty say about our hero?
FYI: cul-de-sac hero isn’t the best guy to be linking to on this. His point, at least judging by other posts of his that I’ve read, isn’t that parents aren’t responsible for their kids getting murdered (not my opinion! his! his!), but that women ARE responsible for getting raped because of what they wear or how much they drink. I skimmed through his blog and he’s kind of a woman-hating creep.
Here we see the typical knee-jerk response that has been programed into most people these days from feminist (gender-feminist) indoctrination.  One inkling of the thought that women can do anything to raise or lower their risk of rape by their behaviour is seen as tantamount to excusing the rapist and  BLAMING THE VICTIM. 

My point was that it is completely hypocritical to blame the parents 100% for their choices that may have contributed in any way to something that happens to their child, even if it is the result of a deranged psychopath, or stand by while people make such claims, while you are not even allowed to discuss the choices that women make that may increase or decrease their risk of rape. 

Women are adults, and as such, are responsible for their own decisions about safety.  I have said this, and I will say it again, that a woman can walk around the street without clothes and it does not provide an excuse rape.  She can stand in a crowded room without clothes and it does not excuse rape.  There is no excuse for rape.  However, the behaviour she chooses sends signals to those around her.  She can draw attention from the wrong man and put herself at risk.  There are plenty of high risk activities that increase the risk of rape.  To deny this fact and prevent it from being heard, is to put young women at greater risk.  They must learn that it is not a good idea for a young woman to become so intoxicated that she blacks out in a male dorm.  They must learn and understand that some streets are not as safe to walk as others.  They must understand that dressing in a certain way attracts attention to themselves, which, although not dangerous under most circumstances, can lead some off-balance individuals to draw the wrong conclusion.

If we compare the rhetoric regarding rape safety to the comments and reaction about of child abduction, it becomes clear that there is a disconnect.  If you say that it is safe and reasonable to let a responsible, street-educated child walk 2 familiar blocks in a safe neighbourhood from his house to a pre-arranged destination in broad day-light, it does not follow that it is safe to let a child walk alone for two blocks if he has to pass a half-way house with known child molesters flanked by taverns, licquor stores and porn shops riddled with loitering drunks, prostitutes and pimps.  But if we applied the same mindset that is applied to rape, we'd say that the child should be able to walk anywhere and to say otherwise is to excuse the child abductor and blame the parents.  But, in the child abduction case, it is OK to blame the parents even if the child was doing something considered "safe" and reasonable.

There are some interesting  parallels between the nature of these two crimes, although, they are not identical. They both involve living victims (the parents are living victims in child abductions), they usually involve violence and they involve sex as the motive (although child abductions sometimes have other motives, such as ransom).  The last point is the heart of the matter for the rape issue.  Gender Feminists have sold the idea that rape is not about sex, but power.  Certainly, the victim feels a loss of power.  The power to choose a sex partner is central to the identity of a woman which is what makes the act so horrifying.  But, for the perpetrator, the motive is to gain sex.  It is a theft of sex.  Another similarity is that both crimes can be random.  This is the case of the relatively safe behaviour still resulting in victimization as in the sad case of Leiby Kletzky.  I'll reiterate Rebecca's point that we are all vulnerable.

Now, I'm still trying to figure out why Bunny thinks I'm a woman-hating creep.  Is it the last post where I pointed out how insulting it is to women to imagine that they are mindless slaves to advertising?  Or, is it the one about the Slut March in which I said I'd never carry a sign that might imply that dressing slutty invites rape.  Or maybe my anti-sexual harassment post.  I sometimes feel like most of my posts are about feminism, but reviewing, it only appears that roughly 1 in 3 have feminism as a topic, although it is my most used label.  Please keep in mind, that I love women.  I just don't agree with a group of intellectuals known as gender-feminists.

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Women are Mindless - You heard it From a Feminist

I was bouncing around YouTube and sure enough, I started clicking on links with the F-Word in it.  I clicked on a clip  on the history of panty hose and shaving legs.  Now listen carefully, at 4:30.  She asks, "So, why do women shave their underarms and shave their legs? Advertising.  Advertising plays such an important role in influencing our society."  Well, ther you have it.  Women spend countless hours and dollars getting those smooth legs and underarms because they do exactly what to people on the idiot box or some magazine article tells them.

Interesting.  Now, I just realized that I drag expensive razors across my stubbly face every day for no other reason than to do what I'm told.  When a Gillette ad comes on to tell me that I absolutely need their new 5 blade razor to get that smooth face that I need, I march mindlessly to my car and drive to the mall to get it.  Never mind the 3 packs of old razors sitting in my bathroom cupboard, I'm off.  Once the credit card transaction goes through, I wake up out of my haze.  Amazed, I ask the cashier what I'm doing there and she points down at my pack of new razors.  The glazed look goes over my face again as I staight in monotone. I. Must. Get. The. Smoothest. Shave. To. Be. A. Real. Man.

NOTE:  I do not know the woman in the video or when it was produced.  I only assume that she's a feminist because of her condescending attitude, anti-corporate tone and denial of reality. 
It feels mean to pick on feminists, but they are really insidious.

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Round-up: Children and Nonsense

From Marginal Revolution:  It turns out that toddlers can spot nonsense and decide not to learn from you if you're full of it.
"These results add to a growing body of literature that suggests that infants are adept at generalising their knowledge about the reliability of other people across varying contexts," the researchers said. "The unique contribution of the present study shows that, similar to older children, infants are able to keep track of an individual's history of being accurate or inaccurate and use this information to guide their subsequent learning."

Cathy Young ( owns the DSK issue.  Why is it when I read an incredibly well reasoned article, critical of the current legal system and it's unfair treatment of men, it usually turns out to be a woman writer.  (Sorry, I'd provide more links for examples but it's bedtime.)

Speaking of nonsense:

The point of gender-diverse parenting, and the goal we can keep in mind when evaluating each choice before us, is not our children’s coercion into uniform unisex-ness, but freedom to figure out gender for themselves: what gender they are, what being that gender means to their society, and how, and to what extent, to perform it.
Sorry (no I'm not), it is the job of the parent to teach a child what is expected of members of its society and how to live in the world into which they are born.  Don't let children "figure out gender for themselves". Children want to learn from us how to live and relate our society and gender is a big part of that. From there they'll figure out their identities.  Take the positive aspects of gender identities and teach them to your children.  There are as many opinions of what makes a man and a woman as there are men and women.  If they don't seem to conform, then so be it; accept it and help them adapt their own identity.  But don't set your child up as a pariah (with their own ideas) and then blame society for not accepting them.  Thankfully, it's now proven that most children know nonsense when they see it.

From the same author, with a dubious website name and an even dubiouser neologism - kyriarchy.  Well written, but sooooo not in touch with basic human realities.

Here is my own neolgism in response:
Luniarchy - a system whereby hierarchy is established based on the lunacy of an idea or holder of ideas. In a Luniarchy, the most ridiculous ideas are given the highest ranking and the lunatics who can best write or orate said ideas with a straight face is given highest position within the luniarchy. Members of the luniarchy are then subjected to the lunacies of the lunatics who are higher on the scale and use their talent for delusion and refusal to accept reality to oppress the lower classes. The only hope for a member of the luniarchy is to delve further into the delusions (drink the Kool-Aid) so that they can oppress others with their ridiculous beliefs or take the red pill**  and wake up from the matrix of delusions.
**NOTE:  I'm not endorsing all statements, but Hawaiian Libertarian introduced me to the concept and helped me see some of the commonly accepted truths I'd always suspected were myths.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

Child Abduction and Rape - Similar Crime, Different Reaction

I was going to post this OT comment over at Free Range Kids, but, I couldn't hit submit out of respect for Lenore's blog and her readers.  She is doing important work in combating the war on childhood, so I can't bring up such a contentious issue as rape of women that could derail the conversation and hurt her campaign.

The differences between the crimes of childhood abductions and rape of women are many and complex as are the reasons for different public response.  One reason is that there is no childrenism movement or such counterpart to feminism.  There are only child advocates who do not necessarilly have the interest of children in mind as much as they do the interest of their own agenda.  I won't go into the others here as there is not enough time.

The comment I couldn't post:
Lenore, good post about a terrible event.

What astounds me, is that any suggestions to women that they should moderate their behaviour to help them reduce the risk of becoming victims of rape - such as dressing appropriately for the situation, avoiding dark alleys and not drinking too much at parties - is called "victim blaming" and hateful and results in marches and protests.

However, telling parents that their behaviour is the only reason for childhood abductions and murders is perfectly ok. Why do some victims completely bear responsibility for the criminal acts performed against them, while others are completely free of it?
Lenore, I'm sorry to bring up a separate, even more contentious issue on your site, but I can't help but see the similarity between the two crimes and the disparity between the reactions.
UPDATE:  for a full discussion of my opinions on this issue and a response to some misguided comments at another blog, please see this post .  Suffice to say, I'm not a creep and I don't hate women.