A Response to Marc Angelucci’s Complaints
Marc Angelucci has complained several times about my recent series analyzing ads which the National Organization for Women complains are unfair to men–to read some of Marc’s comments, click here, here, and here. To see my NOW series, click here.
I thought the reason why I did a series on NOW’s complaints was apparent, but given Marc’s comments, perhaps it isn’t. I will try to explain it fuller:
1) Ads which mock or denigrate men and fathers are ubiquitous. I consider this a problem.
2) We’ve done campaigns or actions against these ads several times–for some examples, click here and here.
3) Every time we’ve done something to protest ads which denigrate men and fathers, the National Organization for Women and feminist groups counter that most advertising really is anti-woman, not anti-male. For example, when we did the protest against Verizon’s anti-father ad “Homework,” the Associated Press article on our protest–which ran in over 300 newspapers–quoted NOW president Kim Gandy as saying that anti-male advertising isn’t a problem, because it’s usually women who are portrayed negatively. Whenever I’ve done radio or TV over the issue, I’m invariably asked, “Haven’t most ads usually been unfair to women? Isn’t it guys’ turn? What are you whining about?”
3) Given that the feminists have had considerable success in pushing their view that ads are usually insulting to women, not to men, I think it’s useful to examine the ads that NOW says really are insulting to women, and to see if NOW is correct or not.
From what I’ve seen so far, NOW’s complaints about ads have some legitimacy, but not a lot. My series on their ads still has two more parts. In general, I will continue to draw attention to the problem of anti-male advertising, and that includes dealing with the feminists’ arguments and claims on the issue.
Marc has also repeatedly complained that I have not yet written about a recently-released Harvard domestic violence study which found, among other things, that “When the violence was one-sided, both women and men said that women were the perpetrators about 70% of the time.” I agree with Marc that this is a worthy topic for me to write about. However, the 70% figure seems high to me, and I don’t want to write about the study until I’ve had time to look into it further and ask a couple of domestic violence experts about it. I have many, many demands on my time, and I haven’t had a chance to take a close look at the study yet. Until I have the time, it will have to wait.
|
| More from Glenn Sacks
Stumble It!
November 4th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
I’ve recently become organized with a community organization, and over the last few months a man hating lesbian has been appointed the new director!!
The agit-prop is starting to appear…(women as victim) on every poster board, and viseable place they can put it!!
I’m starting to realise What others have said around here for years!! These feminists know how to control what the fragile American mind is exposed to, and constant exposure to agit-prop is their main source of power!!
COMBAT FEMINIST KLAN AGIT PROP!!!
November 4th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
A Harvard Study that supports MRA views about DV should be, without hesitation, in the news and pushed on all MRA sites. Most people have read bogus studies, 99% of DV (And child abuse is often tied in) comes from men… Most people will only retain the headlines. To combat feminist sound bites which sway opinions, even if Harvard was off 25% I would repeat it and then later make the corrections … It’s Harvard, people believe it, we have been slaughtered by feminist propaganda and we need to stop being prissy, academic, and slam our fists down on the table for a change. If they say men do it 99% we say women do it 99% and the public can look for the truth and if that’s 50 % that’s fine with me. If we run around trying to say it’s only 50% and they claim 99% they win.
And we do need to tell NOW to kiss off about how advertising demeans women. I went to a work shop “sexual assault awareness” month a few years ago, saw ads that sometimes demeaned women, and others that glorified women cited as demeaning. I saw ads that demeaned men that they thought demeaned women, they had been blinded by feminist views and the feminist “click” points and learned to see through feminists eyes. We fight fair, try to get it perfect, and they don’t care about the truth, they just want to win, propaganda helps them win. Smear campaigns help politicians win. Feminist TV, feminist studies, are smear campaigns.
In Denver a student handbook had a photo on the cover, 70’s, of a male standing in a mucky pond with binoculars staring at a woman on land reading a book, wearing shorts, … feminists screamed that that cover demeaned women and reduced them to sex objects. They couldn’t see that he was reduced to a pathetic dork needing to see her body so badly that he would stand in muck.
We need to combat DV propaganda and Harvard is a good source. AMA also came out a few years ago with an article – I will look for it – suggesting that they might have gotten it wrong and that maybe DV wasn’t a gender issue – but that headline didn’t replace 99% of DV comes from men as pushed by women’s groups. It’s the headlines and photos, movies, that people remember.
I was DISGUSTED with the male bashing I saw when looking for a birthday card for my daughter who just turned 19 today. Card after card, men are pathetic dorks, and card after card glorifying mom, girls, women in general. NOW knows men get bashed, they don’t care. The problem with NOW, often, is that when they read horrible cards, or see ads putting men down, they don’t seee them as demeaning, they see them as factual.
Go Mark A. , Go Glenn S. , you both are having an impact.
SD
November 5th, 2007 at 1:57 am
The TRUTH is what matters.
The truth is, feminists LIE.
November 6th, 2007 at 9:02 am
The posters here are correct. We men typically go around thinking that “If we just get the truth out, people will listen”. We think that people are interested in truth, and that finding factual truth is how people form their beliefs.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
People form their beliefs based on emotional appeals, and then they arrange the facts to fit the beliefs afterwards. We men have it exactly backwards.
While we’re meekly hoping that people will believe us if we just tell our truthful side of the story, feminists are telling bald-faced lies right and left, and appealig to people’s emotions. And the end result is that people generally believe THEM, not us!
I think it’s time to realize that simply telling the truth isn’t enough. We need to inundate the media with emotional appeals which include truth, half-truths, partial truths slanted in our favor, and so on, just as feminists do. Anything that will portray our side of the story in a favorable light. As Steven Deluca says, we can recant later. Maybe. If we feel like it. After the damage is done.
Feminists realized a long time ago that emotionally appeals are the most effective way to get people on your side. We need to do the same.
November 6th, 2007 at 9:46 am
“People form their beliefs based on emotional appeals, and then they arrange the facts to fit the beliefs afterwards. ”
Which is why Hillary can get away with not answering a question and then claim she is being treating unfairly because she is a woman by a guy who tries to get her to answer a straightforward question. I noticed her poll standing with women has not been hurt by her tactics. We will elect a President who will not tell us where she stands on important issues because a large segment of the electorate is determined to put a woman in the White House regardless. American women are destroying America as well as are many feminised men.