sapphrikah:

oklacoma:

Ladies put the “sex” in uni-sex

Well this is some fuckery.

fuckyeahsexpositivity:

damegreywulf:

And how the stereotype flipped.

This article in general does a good breakdown about the myth of women and men having unequal sexualities, and about how sexual appetite and how it is treated is greatly influenced by sociological factors rather than instinct and drive.

Another article about this that has a lot of chain articles you should also read is The No-Sex Class Paradigm.

Or, in other words, why the idea that women are sexless little angels and men are slavering sex beasts is complete bullshit.

—BB

neutralangel:

Every male scriptwriter and author ever writing about women.

everythingbutharleyquinn:

desliz:

everythingbutharleyquinn:

a woman wrote this.

the most remarkable thing about this is not that it relies so heavily on misogynistic stereotypes, but that it so completely avoids saying “girls don’t like it because of graphic scenes of rape and torture”, presumably because articulating that might make the targeted male reader upset.

I really wondered about that. I posted it late at night when I didn’t feel like making any commentary but it had been linked on twitter as a sexist article and I had clicked through 100% expecting it to be written by a man. Realising a woman wrote it, I was so baffled because I was just… this is so beyond what upsets me about the show as a woman. This is actually just laughable next to what the real problems I have with the show are.

And I remember thinking when I read it, when she referenced all the nude women, if there wasn’t somehow a subtle hint in that about all the rape.

And I felt really conflicted about posting it as I did because I didn’t want the message to be ‘stupid dumb women slaves to the patriarchy’ (so NOT engaging with the ‘bet she writes for Cosmo’ comment, esp as a long time Cosmo reader :P); but it really was just so staggering but you know, I made the almighty mistake of centering myself, a mere woman, as the reader when of course I should’ve realised this is really for men men men men men and I should probably not even be overheating my brain by doing all this reading anyway. It makes much more sense now.

anthonygherkins:

If you can’t concentrate in school because the mere sight of a girl’s bare leg is too much of a distraction, you are probably a danger to society tbh

vintage-royalty:

I think it’s a little sexist that Camilla is so much lower than Charles. They did the same bad thing and are disliked for the same reason. I understand he might be a little higher because his profile is higher but there’s no reason for Camilla to be that much lower.

just-smith:

tinydragongina:

aeedee:

I would like to take this opportunity to point out one thing.  This is an example of a male-targeted, vaguely ‘sexist’ commercial campaign that is genuinely funny, and clever enough for women to “get the joke”.  These commercials, despite claiming Old Spice was a product for “men” and not ladies, were met with mutual appreciation from men and women, because it is:

A: Not stupid or flat in its humor or message

B: Not degrading to women

C: Genuinely funny

On top of that, these commercials featured a man that was trying to, above all else, make women happy.  He wasn’t trying to be a man because “ew being girly is dumb lol,” he was trying to be a man because “oh ladies I would love to impress you.”  And even though both of those messages are somewhat traditional ways of viewing and reinforcing gender standards and expectations, that fine line between them makes a world of difference.  Many of these pro-men campaigns are too insulting, or too small-minded, or simply not clever enough to make us “get the joke”.  But this campaign has humor that appeals to both men and women at the same time, by neither degrading nor bashing either of them.  Men can want to be like this man, and woman get to appreciate a man that is like this man. But at the same time, this campaign is too light-hearted and whimsical to hurt anyone’s feelings, so you can easily take it for the hilarious joke it is.

This campaign is not only funny, it’s clever, highly creative, intentionally over the top, and entertaining.  Everything that Dr. Pepper’s agonizing “Why don’t women get the joke about our manly soda?” campaign is not.

You’ve just judged whether an advert is sexist based on two criteria: whether it aimed to make women happy, and whether you subjectively found it funny. The latter point, as well as being relative to your own sense of humour, isn’t really relevant because you would still oppose a ‘sexist’ advertisement even if it was incredibly witty or laugh-out-loud funny for its target audience. We are constantly told that sexist jokes are not okay, no matter how funny they are, so two of your points (that the humour isn’t stupid and that it is genuinely funny) are irrelevant.

The other one is incredibly narrow-minded. This advertisement shows a topless man throwing money and gifts at women. That’s not only physically objectifying men, but it’s using the more classic objectification of men as providers and objects of wealth. In showing a man having to provide for women, throwing diamonds at her and suggesting this is an intrinsic part of manliness, it’s also perpetuating ideas of chivalry. He’s even riding a white horse. Finally, he outright says that men should “smell like a man”, as if that’s a thing, and not a like “a lady”. It’s saying that ‘real men do this’, and that men can’t either smell or act feminine.

You’re applauding it because it ‘isn’t degrading to women’ and because it ‘aims to make women happy’. Even if that were true, that alone does not make an advertisement okay. It is possible to be degrading to men. 

Picture an advertisement showing a woman in her underwear offering to give a man everything he dreamed of, sacrificing her own interests to offer herself up to him, and suggesting that this was how ‘real women’ behaved. It’s slogan is “act like a real lady” because women should tailor their behaviour to what pleases men, and if they don’t then they aren’t proper women.

Now, imagine that some men find that advertisement funny. Does that make it okay? Does that mean that we should hold it up as an example of the perfect, non-sexist advert?

No. ‘Sexist’ does not mean ‘not flattering to women’, or ‘not funny’, and if you believe that then you really shouldn’t be lecturing others. The picture is so much bigger than the fraction you’re looking at.

More information here.

oldziekill:

afternoonsnoozebutton:

joshuanguyen:

Are we really living in 2013? The Lego ads from the 1980s seem more modern to me.

If you want to find out more about the advent of Lego’s sexist advertising, I’d suggest this video by Feminist Frequency.

New Lego makes me so sad.