babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
So... it's misogynistic because it's imposing tight gender standards on men? Seems primarily misandristic, really. Also not good for women, but this is about making men feel powerless to be anything but perpetuators of a system that serves them poorly.
Go cry somewhere else.
Um... who and what are you hoping to refute with femmephobic language?
Edited to add: Also, thanks for underlining my point and several others I've recently made.
You're correct I used poor langauge. My apologies.
No it is about making men feel entitled to a system where their privilege is not only restored but rightly so. Did you even read the ads all the way through.
We need men to put down the plastic fork, step away from the salad bar and untie the world from the tracks of complacency. It's time to get your hands dirty. It's time to answer the call of manhood. It's time to WEAR THE PANTS.
Yes, I did kropotkin, including:
... men were stripped of their khakis and left stranded on the road between boyhood and androgyny...
So yes, androgenous presentation, healthy food, genteel work, are apparently not allowed because it's the job of the male-assigned to go forth and continue to be the expendable sex. This wasn't about male privilege, it's about gendering physicality, and, as a result, reinforcing the idea of the expendable sex. But hey, surely it's male privilege that has most jobs with exposure to the elements, and 93% of workplace fatalities as male. Society is misogynistic by structure, but it's also misandristic.
Even if men are making themselves expendible through "sacrificing themselves", "wearing the pants" is nevertheless a prescription to dominate and be in control of others, as clearly the world is dysfunctional without male dominance (hence the world crumbling, bad children, etc....).
I never said powerless, I said expendable. But then, since when is spending less, working more, and dying sooner considered dominance?
This is babble and the feminist forum or have I entered some sort of space time continuum?
I fail to see what's anti-feminist about saying that breaking down gender roles materially helps most men too, or that oppression isn't unidirectional.
Yes. I think the argument is that lines about the world crumbling because of a lack of men taking charge are hard to ignore in the analysis. The substantive effects of male dominance have made women expendible as well (objects for the male to assert masculinity on).
I'm not going to argue with your point as I am in agreement with you. But you'll have to note that many babbler's become suspicious when a critical perspective does not acknowledge something as glaring as the power obtained from of masculinity (self included).
1111111111111111, I wasn't saying the post wasn't femmephobic, just that it was misandristic... the two can and often do similtaneously exist.
I don't think there's anything objectionable in what you are saying. My take is that while it helps an argument to highlight some aspect and not another, at the same time that tactic can mislead those who are trying to gauge the politics of the speaker.
Hence the remarks from Kroptokin and myself.
I have to agree with you here, it's taking the premise to the point of stupidity. But I'd add that it's trying to be ironic/cynical, this isn't genuine. It's postmodernism in advertising, which isn't all that new these days...
That being said it's still idiotic.
And Dodge joins the ranks of Dockers witht their new Charger ad...good grief one would think with the trouble car manufacturers are in they would not want to narrow their market share so much....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPmYxLUoZVc
Stupid commercial. The thing is, it provokes a couple of smirks from me, since a lot of us can recognize certain "hot buttons" in the domestic gender war, right?
But ultimately, it pisses me off, especially the end of it. Because what they're saying is that men should a) be in charge of deciding what car to buy, and b) be rewarded WITH A FUCKING CAR for reaching the very barest minimum level of courtesy for other people, especially when living with someone else.
Like, you poor nasty slob, having to rinse out the sink after you shave. For tolerating members of your partner's family - as opposed to, what, being a total asshole towards them? Oh gee, honey, thank you so much for not treating my mother like shit, and not making me wallow in your filth, it's such a huge sacrifice you're making for me - you're absolutely right, you can have any car you demand, and I'll sit by and bat my eyes at you because you're such a tough guy, making your last stand and all. Oh, and P.S. fuck you, I want a divorce, get yourself a maid, asshole.
Yeah, I found this one more offensive than the Dockers ad. I could see some humour but it was also skirting a more sinister edge as well, demonstrated by the breakout into the road rage (instead of beating the gf up?) Sad that some commercials really haven't come very far, and in their retrogression, they hold back those to whom they appeal.
I watched a Seinfeld episode this evening, Jerry and Elaine were mocking Docker's Denim, and that was back in 1995 or '96!