With today being Mother's Day, I figured I would comment on something that happens around specific holidays, with today being one of them. Usually around Mother's Day, Valentine's Day, and Christmas, you'd be hard pressed to flip through the channels on your television and not come across one of those insidious commercials for Kay Jewelers, whose infamous slogan, "Every kiss begins with Kay," has put unnecessary pressure on men to shell out hundreds of dollars on a fancy necklace. Probably more offensive, though, is the implication that women need some kind of financial incentive to have any kind of physical contact with their husband or boyfriend.
The commercials usually start out with the dipshit, no-brain husband stumbling over his words while his wife looks at him disdainfully. It's meant to be funny, but it's too condescending to be so. Eventually, the husband pulls out an aforementioned piece of jewelry and suddenly, the female's eyes light up and she leans in for that perfect Hollywood kiss.
Aside from being really cheesy and sappy, this is really patronizing to both sexes. It plays off of that old sitcom cliché of a woman wondering why she married her allegedly dumb husband until he pulls out something shiny.
So let's summarize: men have no idea what women want, but Kay does. Women want something expensive and pretty or else they have no reason to ever kiss, touch, or love the man in their life. Maybe I'm overthinking this, but this has bothered me for years now. Relationships are built on everything but the size of the man's wallet, but Kay seems to believe women think otherwise. And if Kay Jewelers is narrow-minded enough to use this as their main selling point, then I don't see any reason why I should buy from them. I'll stick to overpriced lawn chairs from Linens 'N' Things, thank you very much.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
54 comments:
Ugh-I hate these commercials too! To add another wrinkle to the Kay advertising campaign, my boyfriend pointed out that when the couple in the commerical are people of color, they almost never get to complete the kiss; you see them lean in, but they never actually kiss.
There's an ad campaign for a local jewelers that consists of a closeup of a woman's face with her mouth open wide. I think the advertisers would say the woman is expressing surprise at the fabulous bauble she just recieved but to me it looks more like, "Give me diamonds and gold and you totally get a BJ!"
You know what I just realized? Those commercials have been bothering me for years, too.
A lot of advertising bothers me for the reason you mentioned: stereotypes. Stupid men, shallow women who want things from stupid men. I hate it.
Yeah yeah, Kay's has a catchy slogan, but excuse me? I hate the idea that someone working for them might actually believe that women turn into mushy kiss-monsters at the sight of a diamond. Sure, that may be true for some people, but I'm pretty sure that most women who are in a relationship that is at the stage where diamonds/other shiny things might be in the man's head are not only in it for the goods. And they most likely aren't holding out on the kissing for them, either.
I love your last line, by the way.
Jewelry commercials boil down stereotypical relationship consumerism into a neat 30 second package - "Buy this and she'll love you." It's conditioned upon the man buying and the girl owing her love upon receiving the gift.
There's an ad campaign for a local jewelers that consists of a closeup of a woman's face with her mouth open wide. I think the advertisers would say the woman is expressing surprise at the fabulous bauble she just recieved but to me it looks more like, "Give me diamonds and gold and you totally get a BJ!"
I'm sure the advertisers noticed it at some point and consciously chose to keep it that way. There's that Family Guy fake jewelry commercial that says the same thing, only much more explicitly: http://youtube.com/watch?v=5Ur2er-STls
First off, the commericals condition people to want those things. I don't know if people would really want diamond rings if they weren't advertised so much. I know it's not as simple as that, but advertising does play some role in bringing in business, otherwise companies wouldn't advertise.
Second, there's an implicit bartering going on - the man buys the jewelry and the woman has to love him, has to have sex, etc. To push this line of thinking to its logical extreme, it's kind of like prostitution. The man shells out and the woman puts out.
I assume no one has seen the parody by Family Guy, it spoofs Zales (the shadow commericals)...
The man's shadow gives the woman's shadow some diamonds which is met with surprise and joy and then the woman's shadow begins to move "south" and it cuts to the advert part that instead of saying "diamonds are forever", says "diamonds, she'll pretty much have to" Thought it was a pretty good analysis of the message of most jewelry ads.
IMO I think most commercial advertisements focus on stereotypes to reach a bigger audience. Also ads are designed to make us feel unhappy with what we have; they drive needless consumerism, that's why products are redesigned in new colors, new shapes, and new sizes, even when they do the same job, if any...
My assessment is that the jewelry industry is far worse than the fur industry when it comes to bending ethics for profit.
Great, just what I always wanted! A blood diamond marked down by a big-box retailer that markets sexism and thrives on predatory business practices and war profiteering. Did I also mention that I absolutely adore having the exact same piece of heart-shaped jewelery that every single one of my friends does?
Relationships are built on everything but the size of the man's wallet, but Kay seems to believe women think otherwise.
Uhhh...statistically...as far as most women are concerned, the size of his wallet is one of the most important factors in building said relationship.
Kay is right.
Maybe you haven't talked to a lot of women, or something. Almost every single one I know places worth of a man on his income. They also expect and demand expensive trinkets and engagement rings to even consider him for a future mate.
Kay and many others sell to what the public wants. Women want expensive trinkets. You might be one of a very small minority that doesn't, but anecdotal evidence doesn't mean much. It also doesn't change the attitude of entitlement most women have towards money and gifts.
I do love how you take something that negatively affects men, and manage to say that it's worse for women.
! A blood diamond marked down by a big-box retailer that markets sexism and thrives on predatory business practices and war profiteering.
Congratulations on perpetuating really old, no longer true stereotypes! I thought feminists hated stereotypes?
You can act above this all you want, but face facts: The majority of your gender has the depth of a rain puddle, and wants lots of terribly expensive gifts.
Go browse a livejournal community about engagement rings, look at all the trash women brag about how big theirs are.
I'd also like to point out that, though rings have been used as a symbol of betrothal for a very long time, until the middle of the 20th century it was not expected that the ring would also contain a diamond. That "tradition" was created by a successful marketing campaign by the De Beers company.
For that reason alone I'd rather not buy a diamond ring for a future spouse; add that to all of the other absurd, offensive and socially irresponsible qualities of this particular tradition and there's no way in hell any diamond company is ever getting "a month's paycheck" out of me.
^^
You mean "two months".
C'mon, you can't get off easily with just one month.
"How else can two month's salary last forever?", we've all heard that tagline.
If by "forever", they mean "Until your golddigger gets tired of you, moves on, and pawns the ring", then yes, forever.
You can act above this all you want, but face facts: The majority of your gender has the depth of a rain puddle, and wants lots of terribly expensive gifts.
That's not a fact; that's an opinion.
Maybe you haven't talked to a lot of women, or something. Almost every single one I know places worth of a man on his income.
Have you been talking to my grandmother? She's pretty much the only one I know who asks me if my boyfriend is going to make a lot of money, enough money to pay off my grad school debt. Because, you know, I can't do it myself.
How many women who aren't concerned with shiny baubles will it take for you to change your opinion? How many are necessary to break your stereotype? For you, there will probably never be enough.
"You might be one of a very small minority that doesn't, but anecdotal evidence doesn't mean much."..."Almost every single one I know places worth of a man on his income."..."Go browse a livejournal community about engagement rings"
Um. I'd say that is ancedotal evidence that you used to back up your points.
That's not a fact; that's an opinion.
It's a fact. Ask around. The majority of women, at least in the US, assume that having a vag = gimme presents, I "deserve" them.
How many women who aren't concerned with shiny baubles will it take for you to change your opinion? How many are necessary to break your stereotype? For you, there will probably never be enough.
An inverse of what we have now. As in, a vast majority that doesn't place the worth of a man on his income. Which will never happen.
Go browse every single "singles" or dating site online. Go look through various personals. Women will, in large amounts, place an income requirement on the men they have relationships with, and will dismiss out of hand, any that don't meet that amount.
You can deny it, you can act like it's just some small sect of women making the larger whole look bad, but that's just not the case.
These commercials wouldn't exist if the majority of women weren't golddiggers interested in multi-thousand dollar engagement rings and gifts.
Also, funny thing about stereotypes: They come from somewhere. If a great deal of women didn't fit this, the stereotype wouldn't exist.
Notice, I don't say "all", I just say "majority" or "most".
So, in other words, no, I'll never drop the "stereotype". There's no need for me to do so. It fits, and if the shoe fits most women, I'll just assume most women wear it, and be correct most of the time.
I'm not hurt much if one or two random women online don't actually do this, and I'm wrong in assuming they do.
I'm not the kind of person who feels the need to buy women presents anyway. If you want something, buy it yourself.
Um. I'd say that is ancedotal evidence that you used to back up your points.
Not really. Women typically use "We're not ALL like that! I'm not!" and use that to signify that they're a representative of all women.
Saying almost every single woman I've known for my entire life is like this, almost every woman I encounter is like this, almost every woman everyone I know encounters, almost every woman I've seen when doing research of the phenomena on personals sites and other places is like this, almost every woman every man online mentions is like this, almost every woman online in various communities is like this, etcetera.
It was also meant to say "Know of". I was about to go to bed, and was tired. I don't harp you for typos.
These commercials wouldn't exist if the majority of women weren't golddiggers interested in multi-thousand dollar engagement rings and gifts.
Yeah they would. They would exist in order to assure men that they don't know what their women want (but Kay does - as Ryan put it), and that they should buy them shiny jewelry because Kay says so.
I think these commercials are just as detrimental to men as they are to women because they are trying to convince men of how to make their women happy - and that way happens to be expensive...which is good for Kay.
Yeah they would. They would exist in order to assure men that they don't know what their women want (but Kay does - as Ryan put it), and that they should buy them shiny jewelry because Kay says so.
If most women didn't want shiny jewelry, commercials wouldn't exist to tell men that women want it.
Are there commercials saying men want shiny jewelry? No. Why? Because the majority of men don't give a shit either way about personal adornments like jewelry.
I think these commercials are just as detrimental to men as they are to women because they are trying to convince men of how to make their women happy - and that way happens to be expensive...which is good for Kay.
They aren't detrimental to women. Women get what they want from these: Expensive gifts.
Actually, Ennui, just because there are commercials for something does not mean that the people targeted in those commercials necessarily want that thing.
As Andrew said, very well: until the middle of the 20th century it was not expected that the ring would also contain a diamond. That "tradition" was created by a successful marketing campaign by the De Beers company.
Diamonds, which are now a staple of engagements/weddings/anniversaries, etc. were not deemed necessarily fashionable until De Beers decided that they would be. And who did they decide to target? Women. That happened because of the marketing minds of men. Not because women decided one day, "Yes! I want diamonds! De Beers, make men buy me diamonds!"
No. It was De Beers, having diamonds, deciding that trying to entice women with them would be a good marketing strategy. And it worked, but that in no way signifies that women inherently want diamonds and jewelry. Perhaps women have just been conditioned to think that they want such things.
Sorry, too many typos in that last comment. Here goes again:
Okay, I just realized a problem with my last comment.
Yes, there are women out there who expect/want diamonds/expensive jewelry. But why?
I think they have been conditioned for it by companies such as De Beers, and that is a major problem in itself.
But that does not make it right to assume that even the majority of women expect things like jewelry, or to say that even the majority of women will only like a guy who makes enough money to buy her fancy things.
That's just a generalization, any way you spin it. Even if you say, "most women," it still doesn't make it acceptable. It would be acceptable to say that "the majority of women I know in my life want expensive things from men all the time," but to then say that that must be the case for all/most/nearly all women in all of our society is incorrect.
Diamonds, which are now a staple of engagements/weddings/anniversaries, etc. were not deemed necessarily fashionable until De Beers decided that they would be. And who did they decide to target? Women. That happened because of the marketing minds of men. Not because women decided one day, "Yes! I want diamonds! De Beers, make men buy me diamonds!"
Women have traditionally fancied gems and precious metals anyway.
It's not as though no woman ever wanted diamonds before De Beers. De Beers just invented the diamond engagement ring, not the diamond ring period.
No. It was De Beers, having diamonds, deciding that trying to entice women with them would be a good marketing strategy. And it worked, but that in no way signifies that women inherently want diamonds and jewelry. Perhaps women have just been conditioned to think that they want such things.
I don't buy that for a moment.
If you were to say women are inherently greedy, sure, I'd buy that, or that women inherently place the value of a man on the value of his bank account, then yes, I'd buy that too.
I'd like to see some hard numbers about the number of women who expect/reward expensive gifts. And I don't mean from Cosmo or other women's magazines that presume that all women are the same and we need to spend spend spend to be real women. I want to know if anyone has actually done any sort of study beyond presumption.
The media has convinced women just as much as men that engagment means a big ring. Just like they convinced us that weddings require big poofy dresses they'll never wear again, and that high heeled shoes that wreak havok on the feet are awesome and that women love to wear them. These Kay commercials make emotional appeals. People want love, and they promise it if you buy shiny things. Likewise, if you receive shiny things, then that must be love too. Same thing with appearance--would anyone buy lady razors if shaving wasn't associated with beauty which was then associated with attracting a mate? Please. The belief that any of these things aren't indoctrinated creations is bull. Maybe if it wasn't possible to give an exact point at which these "standards" became so, it would be easier to believe that this stuff is organic.
That's just a generalization, any way you spin it. Even if you say, "most women," it still doesn't make it acceptable. It would be acceptable to say that "the majority of women I know in my life want expensive things from men all the time," but to then say that that must be the case for all/most/nearly all women in all of our society is incorrect.
Except it's not, though.
If most women weren't golddiggers, the phrase wouldn't even exist in that context. You wouldn't see tons of men complaining about it. You wouldn't see women refusing proposals over the size of the ring.
Women like that would be few and far between, and these companies wouldn't be able to advertise this way, because there wouldn't be enough foolish men buying these things for their stupid greedy girlfriends.
I think it's pretty damn safe to say almost every single woman in the US expects an engagement ring.
I just wish more men would wake up, and stop buying things for their girlfriends. If she expects compensation, presents, etecetera to stick around, well, they need to grow a pair and tell her to get out.
That's part of the problem. Women demand these things, and men think they have to keep buying them to keep the women around, and for the most part, they're right.
If you were to say women are inherently greedy, sure, I'd buy that, or that women inherently place the value of a man on the value of his bank account, then yes, I'd buy that too.
Don't come here and say that women are inherently greedy and that women inherently judge men by his bank account. First off, it's insulting; second, it's very heteronormative; third, it's a vast generalization based on your experiences. My experiences with different women in my life have indicated that the statement you made is false.
Quit coming here and insulting the writers of this blog, and women in general. Offer constructive comments or get out.
Same thing with appearance--would anyone buy lady razors if shaving wasn't associated with beauty which was then associated with attracting a mate? Please.
I'm curious why feminists always bring up the "shaving legs" thing, but never the fact that daily, we're expected to drag a blade across our face.
I always see that treated as "meh, it's just men, shaving is fine for them, but how DARE society expect me to shave my legs!"
Maybe if it wasn't possible to give an exact point at which these "standards" became so, it would be easier to believe that this stuff is organic.
It falls under women wanting providers. Buying lots of stuff shows that you can be a provider.
I'm curious why feminists always bring up the "shaving legs" thing, but never the fact that daily, we're expected to drag a blade across our face.
That's funny, because my boyfriend doesn't shave. I understand that people apparently have an issue with "trustworthiness" of the unshaven but it comes down to custom. I've noticed that men's shaving commercials act like women go loopy over a shaven face--so they're telling you the same shit they're telling us. To be shaved is to be loved by the opposite sex. It's bunk. They've got something to sell and they're making an emotional appeal. Same thing for the men's haircoloring I've been seeing lately. Oh no, the ladies won't love you if you look like you might be older! Sounds a lot like what they've been telling women for years, making formulations specifically to hide the gray.I could also offer the fact that men aren't expected to shave anything besides their faces--women too are expected to have little facial hair besides their eyebrows which much be carefully groomed.
"It falls under women wanting providers. Buying lots of stuff shows that you can be a provider."
That presumes that all women think they need one. There was a time when it was a foregone conclusion that when a woman married, her husband would care for her and she would care for the house and children. In that case, it was important that a man have a demonstrated ability to provide (especially to the woman's parents who faced the prospect of a divorce and a mooching daughter). But it's a pretty difficult position to maintain that all women expect a provider. They expect partners who can carry their own weight, and not necessarily that of both of them.
Don't come here and say that women are inherently greedy and that women inherently judge men by his bank account.
They do. When the majority stops, I'll stop saying it.
First off, it's insulting;
Then devote some of your feminist time to telling women to stop expecting gifts from men, and to stop trying to "date up", or date men that make more than them, or to stop trying to marry money.
second, it's very heteronormative;
Here's a tiny violin for you. Heteronormative is a ridiculous neologism. Also, hetero IS normal. In a binary gender species that reproduces sexually, male/female relationships are the norm. Also, the vast, vast majority of the population is heterosexual. I'm not about to add "and same sex too, blah blah blah" to every statement, just to satisfy your desire for PC-ness.
third, it's a vast generalization based on your experiences.
Not so. It's based on the experiences of almost every man in the US. If every single adult male of dating age has dated at least one golddigger, (which is untrue, most have dated more than one), then it would be safe to assume it's not just some "generalization".
Again, if you don't like it, devote your efforts to stopping your gender from being like that. :)
After all, if you can order men to talk to men that rape, to stop men from raping, I can tell you to talk to shallow golddigging women to stop them from that.
Shouldn't be hard for you to find one, they're everywhere.
My experiences with different women in my life have indicated that the statement you made is false.
Again, knowing one or two women that say otherwise doesn't change the majority. Secondly, of course women will SAY in some cases, that they don't care about that. It's how they act that shows otherwise. Also, you aren't dating them, that I know of, as you've previously mentioned a boyfriend. So, doesn't really work the same in your experience.
Quit coming here and insulting the writers of this blog, and women in general. Offer constructive comments or get out.
Don't give me orders, hmm? It's not your place to do so. No woman has that right in my life, especially not you.
I'm fully within my rights to "insult women in general". Though, it's not really insulting someone to point out the obvious. If you do something reprehensible, I'm going to call you out on it.
If every single adult male of dating age has dated at least one golddigger, (which is untrue, most have dated more than one), then it would be safe to assume it's not just some "generalization".
Again, knowing one or two women that say otherwise doesn't change the majority.
Does not compute. You can't say that anecdotes prove the rule but then say that someone else's experience doesn't count. Make up your mind. Do anecdotes make the rule or don't they? If they do, then I'd have to offer that the only women I've known who were concerned about engagement rings were the same ones who wanted to be soccer moms/trophy wives. Not every woman I've ever met has had these aspirations, so I can't rightly say that they represent the whole of American women.
Alright, because this seems to be getting a little aggravating for some, I strongly suggest that the commenters here ignore those among us who refuse to be productive. Feel free to continue the conversation, just be wary of who you engage with.
wow you guys really will complain about everything, won't you.
I love diamonds :)
Does not compute. You can't say that anecdotes prove the rule but then say that someone else's experience doesn't count. Make up your mind. Do anecdotes make the rule or don't they? If they do, then I'd have to offer that the only women I've known who were concerned about engagement rings were the same ones who wanted to be soccer moms/trophy wives. Not every woman I've ever met has had these aspirations, so I can't rightly say that they represent the whole of American women.
How is "every male of dating age in the US" an anecdote? Anecdote would be "My friend Bob dated a golddigger once".
Not anecdote would be "Millions of men complain about having dated golddiggers.
Also, I never said they represent the whole of American women. Just the vast majority of them.
One of many reasons I stopped giving your gender the time of day.
That, and dating them has no real value, unless you want to reproduce.
Alright, because this seems to be getting a little aggravating for some, I strongly suggest that the commenters here ignore those among us who refuse to be productive. Feel free to continue the conversation, just be wary of who you engage with.
I guess the truth hurts, huh?
Oh, I couldn't resist: What really hurts is trying to engage with someone who is blind to the faults of their own arguments.
You're pretty obviously basing your determinations on anecdotes--unless you've talked to every man in the U.S. If you have, I apologize in advance for doubting your statistical sample.
One of many reasons I stopped giving your gender the time of day.
That, and dating them has no real value, unless you want to reproduce.
Yeah, those stupid dames! Rarrr listen to my impotent anger at these golddiggers! Watch as I derail conversations with my hardon for feminist blogs! I hate women rarrrr!!!
You're pretty obviously basing your determinations on anecdotes--unless you've talked to every man in the U.S. If you have, I apologize in advance for doubting your statistical sample.
Having read the accounts of more than a few people, more than a thousand people, etcetera, shows that it's more than an anecdote.
Also, the very commerical being complained about here, shows that the majority of women believe they "deserve" such things.
Yeah, those stupid dames! Rarrr listen to my impotent anger at these golddiggers! Watch as I derail conversations with my hardon for feminist blogs! I hate women rarrrr!!!
Hahahahaha.
So, wait, what?
According to you, realizing that in my life, unless I wanted to have kids, women have no value means I hate women?
So, then, is it safe to assume that all women that don't engage in relationships with men, all hate men?
I love how whenever you're cornered, the immediate feminist argument is "You hate women!".
Get over yourself, really.
I could easily say about this site: "listen to my impotent anger about rapists rarrr!", or anything else you want to fit in that spot.
Considering the article was about a jewelry store, and advertising to women that want jewelry, I fail to see how it's "derailing" the conversation.
Again, if you don't like it, devote your efforts to stopping your gender from being like that. :)
After all, if you can order men to talk to men that rape, to stop men from raping, I can tell you to talk to shallow golddigging women to stop them from that.
Because "golddiggers" and rapists are soooo the same. Dating someone for money and violating the bodily rights of another are so similar, I can't believe I didn't see it before!
I think the rape culture is far more damaging than the vast consumerism is - not that they both aren't problems, but again, one trespasses against a person's safety, rights and causes emotional and physical harm.
Don't give me orders, hmm? It's not your place to do so. No woman has that right in my life, especially not you.
I'm fully within my rights to "insult women in general". Though, it's not really insulting someone to point out the obvious.
You must have misunderstood me. I was just strongly suggesting that you take your biased hate-speech somewhere else.
Because "golddiggers" and rapists are soooo the same. Dating someone for money and violating the bodily rights of another are so similar, I can't believe I didn't see it before!
It doesn't matter if they're the same or different. The point is, when you see a problem in things a minority of males do, this site said "men should talk to men that do that to stop them from doing it".
Ergo, it's perfectly fair to say that when I see a problem in something a majority of females do, to say that it's up to you to talk to them to stop them from doing it.
I think the rape culture is far more damaging than the vast consumerism is - not that they both aren't problems, but again, one trespasses against a person's safety, rights and causes emotional and physical harm.
There's no such thing as a "rape culture". A rape culture would be a culture of people that go around raping, all the time.
Secondly, that's something that happens to a minority of women, not something that happens to every woman, all the time. Most men grow up, and go through their entire lives feeling inadequate because they don't make enough money. It causes a vast amount of stress, causes them to overwork themselves, and statistically, die sooner than women, and be far more prone to heart attacks. I'd say that's some serious emotional harm.
You're comparing something that amounts to an individual experience, to something that affects the majority of the gender as a whole.
That's not to say rape isn't a terrible thing, mind. It's just a different level and hard to really compare in terms of "damage", because one damages individuals, the other damages the whole group.
In other words, if a woman in Spokane is raped, does your life suffer in quality? However, the whole "man's value is his income" affects almost all men.
You must have misunderstood me. I was just strongly suggesting that you take your biased hate-speech somewhere else.
I could easily say anything negative you say about men is "biased hate speech".
Feminists resort to the tired "You hate women!!11oneone" too much. If someone disagrees, or holds a different opinion than you, it doesn't mean they hate you. Quit making everything so personal. It's a sign of weakness.
Divorce your emotions from a debate and you'll enjoy it a lot more.
I will not disagree with you that there are problems with advertising like this for men. I've stated before that I don't think men get off free from this sort of thing.
I just got an idea: Why don't you start a blog, Ennui, where you can write about those issues that effect you [a male]. Kind of like what we did here. It's free, and you can say whatever you want.
www.blogger.com/start
I just got an idea: Why don't you start a blog, Ennui, where you can write about those issues that effect you [a male]. Kind of like what we did here. It's free, and you can say whatever you want.
Because they don't affect me personally.
As I said in my last post, one should divorce their emotions from a debate.
I wouldn't debate about something that affect me personally.
That is kind of what you are doing, Ennui. And just so you know, I think that your belief that an issue must effect one personally for that person to be able to write about it is not fair.
For example, I have never been raped. None of my friends have ever been raped. But I still write about rape because the problem does not lie within individual experiences, but with a society that makes rape possible, and makes its prosecution troublesome.
It is unfair for you to tell us what to blog about (and the things you want us to write about don't effect us personally, either!) when you do not write about anything in a blog, which takes a lot more effort than commenting.
That is kind of what you are doing, Ennui. And just so you know, I think that your belief that an issue must effect one personally for that person to be able to write about it is not fair.
How so? I wouldn't sit down and write a personal blog about, say, agriculture, because I'm not a farmer.
However, writing a blog entry about the ludicrous price of gasoline, sure, because I purchase gasoline and am affected directly by the cost thereof.
For example, I have never been raped. None of my friends have ever been raped. But I still write about rape because the problem does not lie within individual experiences, but with a society that makes rape possible, and makes its prosecution troublesome.
It's not society that makes rape possible, it's humanity. The only way to prevent rape, and every other crime is to remove the free will of society as a whole, and constantly monitor and oversee all aspects of it.
Which is highly contrary to the ideals of the US.
It's human nature that makes such things possible. You can argue that, but it's true. The very nature of being a free-willed creature causes it. You cannot end it without removing that, and no one finds that option acceptable.
Same thing with any crime, be it rape, murder, robbery, or anything else.
It is unfair for you to tell us what to blog about (and the things you want us to write about don't effect us personally, either!) when you do not write about anything in a blog, which takes a lot more effort than commenting.
I'm not telling you what to blog about, I'm saying my opinion. I don't see a point in running a blog, which is by nature, a personal thing, about stuff that doesn't affect you personally.
If one wants to write about things that affect the world in a larger way, one becomes a professional journalist, not a blogger.
A blog to me is akin to a journal or diary, only with comments. Not a newspaper.
I don't write a blog because I would find it wasted effort. I don't need to keep a journal of my thoughts or whatnot.
Most men are not so emotional as to require such an outlet, myself included.
Just so you know, I have journalistic experience, and plan to go on to professional journalism, starting this summer.
I do agree that blogging and journalism are different, but I disagree with the idea that If one wants to write about things that affect the world in a larger way, one becomes a professional journalist, not a blogger.
Blogs are a great way to bring ideas to people's attentions, and is a great way to reach people.
But this is off topic, so I'm done with it.
I do agree that blogging and journalism are different, but I disagree with the idea that If one wants to write about things that affect the world in a larger way, one becomes a professional journalist, not a blogger.
Well, I'm just saying. You want to report on things, you become a journalist, you want to blog, write diaries/personal journals, you start a blog.
One is more personal than the other.
Blogs are a great way to bring ideas to people's attentions, and is a great way to reach people.
After a fashion. They're also taken less seriously because the person writing them often has no credentials besides "I have an internet connection".
Their very nature as "anyone who can type in blogspot.com can have one" makes them less meaningful to people. Not everyone can write for the NY Times, or whatever. Anyone can have a blog.
Let me crop this for you "women have no value means I hate women?"
Although I don't really had to. You claimed that women are only good for reproduction and are otherwise worthless. No it's not the same as saying that not engaging in relationships with women means you hate them. You said yourself that they have no purpose besides pushing out babies--so I guess women aren't people. Misogynists think this way and frankly I don't give a flying flip if you're offended to be called out on your bullshit.
Deleted so I could edit:
Let me just add, I don't give a damn if you hate women. I'm not personally offended, but be considerate. It makes it much easier to avoid you if you just call it like it is. "I hate women" it's easy to say but people like to talk around it. I say be a straight shooter. Straight talk express: I Hate Women. Say it--it's freeing.
Let me crop this for you "women have no value means I hate women?"
Cropping a statement in order to PURPOSELY take it out of context? Yeah, that doesn't work at all.
I could easily cherry pick words out of your argument to make it appear as though you were saying something you didn't say.
Either address the statement as a whole, or don't. Don't remove various words in order to make it say what you want it to.
You claimed that women are only good for reproduction and are otherwise worthless.
No, I didn't. I said dating them has no value unless you want to reproduce.
I also even offered a qualifier in a later statement, restricting that view specifically to dating as it pertains to my own life.
No it's not the same as saying that not engaging in relationships with women means you hate them.
Yes, it is. I said dating them has no value unless you want to reproduce, and you claimed I hate women.
See? When you take my statement as a whole, instead of cherry picking words you want, it makes you appear completely wrong. Which you are. Completely wrong.
Maybe you should work on replying to entire statements, instead of randomly assembled pieces next time, hmm?
You said yourself that they have no purpose besides pushing out babies--so I guess women aren't people. Misogynists think this way and frankly I don't give a flying flip if you're offended to be called out on your bullshit.
I fail to see how taking sections of my statement, and reassmebling them out of the order I put them in, to make it appear as though I said something other than what I said, is "being called out on my bullshit".
Sorry, you've failed miserably.
Again, feminists are so bad at debate, that any time they're faced with something they can't understand, or can't argue against, they fall back on "But but but YOU HATE WOMEN!".
It just doesn't work, especially when you have to rearrange an entire statement to make it even slightly stick.
Just for the record, here's my entire statement:
That, and dating them has no real value, unless you want to reproduce.
Now, please tell me where in there I said any of the following:
"they have no purpose besides pushing out babies"
"women are only good for reproduction and are otherwise worthless.".
What's that? You mean I didn't say any of those? You mean I was actually talking about dating, thus the fact that I said "dating"? Wow. So, I guess without your "crop", I didn't say anything like what you thought I said?
Fancy that.
Again, feel free to actually address what I said, but this time, actually address what I said instead of making up a statement and claiming I said it.
Thanks.
Hey ennui, I am a man. I blog. I pride myself on operating based on rational thought, expressly stifling my emotion. You make disgusting generalizations and I see not point to your presence if you don't like it here.
Understanding the implication of statements is totally misinterpretation. When you stop being so afraid to call your ideology what it is, lemme know.
Additionally, A+ on taking any and all issues you've ever had with individual women and using them to paint the entire group with the same brush. Misogynists do that too.
Understanding the implication of statements is totally misinterpretation.
And taking things out of context, and desperately wanting someone to have said what you want them to have said in order to paint them with the "misogynist" brush is perfectly alright in your book?
The implication of the statement was that "(in my life) dating women has no value, because I don't want to reproduce".
That's the implication. It's not really up to you to tell me what I said, when I already damn well know EXACTLY what I said. If you attempt to assign some other meaning to my statement, that's your own problem, and you need to address the mental issues involved in thinking everyone is saying things other than what they are actually saying.
In other words, I repeat: If you want to address the entire statement, go ahead. If you want to cherry pick, rearrange, or claim I said something other than what I actually said, or that I "implied" something other than the exact literal meaning of my statement, then don't bother.
Additionally, A+ on taking any and all issues you've ever had with individual women and using them to paint the entire group with the same brush. Misogynists do that too.
Where did I say I did that? Oh, right, didn't.
Additionally, A+ on such feminist winning thoughts as assuming that if one individual was raped by one male, that the entire group has the potential to be rapists. Misandrists do that, too.
I'm sorry, no matter how hard you try, you can't stick me with your label.
The fact that you have to rearrange my words, or claim I "implied" something other than what I said, proves that.
My original statement contains no "woman hate", ergo, you had to mix it all up and pretend it was something different, in order to get your label to stick.
Ennui, I was following this conversation, and I have a simple solution for you: Say what you mean.
Saying That, and dating them has no real value, unless you want to reproduce is absolutely not the same as meaning (in my life) dating women has no value, because I don't want to reproduce.
So if the latter was what you meant, then say that. It's not hard, and it makes your statements look a lot more credible.
Ennui, I was following this conversation, and I have a simple solution for you: Say what you mean.
I did. I said dating women has no value unless you want to reproduce.
Then, later, I added the qualifier linking it specifically to my life.
Neither statement is misogynist.
What outcrazyophelia was doing was literally carving up my statements and serving them out of order, so as to make it appear that I was saying something that I was not.
Regardless, I stand by both statements. I believe dating women is without purpose unless you want to reproduce, because it's the only thing a man actually *needs* a woman for, and the only thing she can offer him that he can't get elsewhere.
I am through with you, Ennui, and I hope everyone else is, too.
I am through with you, Ennui, and I hope everyone else is, too.
Oh, why is that?
I made a clear statement, outcrazyophelia purposely took it out of context in order to use it against me, and then you took her side for some reason, despite my statement being clear.
I then defended myself, and you say this?
Exactly what have I done wrong?
Or are you THAT offended by me saying that about women and dating?
No, Ennui, your last statement (I believe dating women is without purpose unless you want to reproduce, because it's the only thing a man actually *needs* a woman for, and the only thing she can offer him that he can't get elsewhere) is what makes me throw in the towel.
I don't care what you do in your personal life. No one asked you about that, anyway. But that statement really makes me wonder why you bother with this blog that has four female bloggers. I mean, you don't need us for anything but reproduction, and I can assure you, none of us are looking to reproduce with you.
So why you spend so much time here is beyond me. But your contributions to this conversation have not been friendly.
No, Ennui, your last statement (I believe dating women is without purpose unless you want to reproduce, because it's the only thing a man actually *needs* a woman for, and the only thing she can offer him that he can't get elsewhere) is what makes me throw in the towel.
Why? It's perfectly logically true.
In the sense of dating, women offer nothing that can't be gotten elsewhere, except for reproduction. Be it companionship, entertainment, orgasms, whatever. All can be gotten without one.
It's just simple logic, really.
I fail to see why you have a problem with such a statement.
I don't care what you do in your personal life. No one asked you about that, anyway. But that statement really makes me wonder why you bother with this blog that has four female bloggers. I mean, you don't need us for anything but reproduction, and I can assure you, none of us are looking to reproduce with you.
Again, you're making the same mistake outcrazyophelia did. Where did I say the only purpose, period, of women is reproduction? I didn't. I said that's the only purpose in DATING them. As in, forming a romantic relationship with.
This whole bruhaha has continued because of outcrazyophelia purposely taking my statements out of context. Don't attack me with such underhanded tactics, and I won't feel the need to defend myself against them.
So why you spend so much time here is beyond me. But your contributions to this conversation have not been friendly.
Just because you don't like my truths, doesn't make them delivered in an unfriendly manner.
I've been quite civil. It's not my fault if you don't like what I say, but there's been nothing wrong with the manner in which I say it.
Hee.
@ennui,
-"Kay and many others sell to what the public wants. Women want expensive trinkets. You might be one of a very small minority that doesn't, but anecdotal evidence doesn't mean much. It also doesn't change the attitude of entitlement most women have towards money and gifts."-
Would you be kind enough to please post a link to relevant data? What percentage of women want shiny trinkets? Could you please post a recent survey? Can you tell us where you were able to find such data? Also, can you tell us what methodology you used in determining "the attitude of entitlement most women have towards money and gifts"? And what might your sample size be?
Science has little use for anecdotal evidence either.
-"'! A blood diamond marked down by a big-box retailer that markets sexism and thrives on predatory business practices and war profiteering.'
Congratulations on perpetuating really old, no longer true stereotypes! I thought feminists hated stereotypes?"-
While the number of blood diamonds has fallen, it's by no means insignificant. Certainly doesn't qualify as an untrue stereotype.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6353402
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N05341166.htm
-"Go browse every single "singles" or dating site online. Go look through various personals. Women will, in large amounts, place an income requirement on the men they have relationships with, and will dismiss out of hand, any that don't meet that amount."-
I'm intrigued; have you conducted studies on the percentage of women who place income requirements? If so, would you mind allowing the rest of us to mine the hard data?
Oh, and congrats on searching "every" singles site; that must have taken a great deal of time. I believe many social scientists would be very interested in whatever data you have to share.
"You can deny it, you can act like it's just some small sect of women making the larger whole look bad, but that's just not the case.
These commercials wouldn't exist if the majority of women weren't golddiggers interested in multi-thousand dollar engagement rings and gifts."
I hate to come back to the question, but what published data do you have to back up your statement that most women are gold diggers? Have you conducted surveys yourself, or can you link us to any?
-"Also, funny thing about stereotypes: They come from somewhere. If a great deal of women didn't fit this, the stereotype wouldn't exist."-
I myself couldn't withhold a chuckle. In living up to many a stereotype, I've taken up scratching myself in public, farting and belching with little restraint, as well as viewing pornography 21-hours of each day.
-cheers
aOC
http://anoptimisticcynic.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment