Some of you are being unfair by suggesting a "deep rooted hate". I read it more as frustration - there is a difference.

Also lets not get sidetracked about whether the body is real or a mannequin or a hologram. Irrelevant. We are talking about imagery.

Based on some of the comments here there is an assumption a lot of you are making about those who agree with the author. You think we believe that someone will see this Ad and then proceed to commit a violent act. That is too simplistic if we are looking at this Ad as a stand-alone.

When I make judgements on issues like this I ask does this fit in with the sort of society I would like to be a part of OR does this Ad help us as a society to ensure that all people are treated and respected equally regardless of gender, race, size, colour AND does this Ad highlight yet again the general media malaise (eg. desensitization and issues like the sexualisation of children). I know these issues have been raised before on the violent porn article. Corporates should take some responsibility ie.turning a profit should not come at the expense of more important social issues.

Now I know that you cannot hope to eradicate violence but I think more can be done to prevent its escalation. I strongly believe that humans are capable of being desensitised to violence and behaviour that was once thought 'out there' could be seen as quite acceptable. Why do we continue promulgate these images in the media (film, Ads, TV and video games)?

It is on this premise that I make this judgement about this Ad and not because we don't see the artistic humour in the "I wouldn't be seen dead in these shoes" or that I think we are all fools that are incapable of making our own judgements as some of you might infer.

I've been thinking through this some more. I'd still not like to see a ban but do see the value in voting with our feet.

One bank has a habit of depicting low level violence against men in it's adds as funny. They won't be getting my business.
A diswashing liquid company has used violence against men in an add and I won't be using their product.

It was recently pointed out to me that my health fund uses the idea of a guy getting beaten up (after accidently hitting someones girlfriend while trying to swat a bug). I'm pondering my options on that, again it seems to make light of violence against men. Unlike the other adds it does not seem to portray the violence as acceptable so my feelings about that add are different to the others.

There are risks when violence is treated as acceptable in the media. Rather than giving censors more power I'd rather see the sales of those who want to treat violence that way drying up.

R0bert

JamesH, Whitty, Seeker, Pelican (and to a lesser extent, R0bert)

I haven’t been back to OLO for a week or so and have just checked in again. Although the thread is virtually defunct, I’ll make a reply anyway.

What a pity none of you got the point.

My comments re niceness were made after MANY, MANY instances in which you persistently treated the thoughtful, reasoning comments of feminist posters here with outright rudeness, contempt, patronisation, tedium, insult and bigotry. In fact, this behaviour is your typical modus operandi on all gender threads - along with HRS, runner, ColRouge, Trade215 and several others.

As if the odious contempt we feminists have to regularly absorb from you is not enough, you constantly lump us with this insidious emotional blackmail that any lapse from the excessively high standards of decency and conciliation imposed on us BY YOU will simply deem us worthy of your inbuilt prejudices against all feminists.

In the silly huffiness of your responses, you merely tripped all over your own double standards.

R0bert

‘[SJF] see's some posters inherent decency as weakness rather than strength. SJF reminds of those who think the way to beat radical islam is to villify muslims at every opportunity and deny that any have legitimate grievances.’

How dare you presume to speak for my views on Islam! And to present my supposed views in such a disgusting manner, when you have never even engaged in any form of debate with me on the subject!

As for 'legitimate grievances', the feminist argument that women are still not equal to men is a prime example of a legitimate grievance - which you have consistently treated with disdainful contempt. And your response to my legitmate grievance regarding the double standard which treats the rudeness of male posters as 'normal', while deeming it unacceptable in female posters, was simply to compare me to an Islamaphobe! Just who is the pot and who is the kettle?

SJF, read the line again. I did not claim to represent your views on Islam, I pointed out that your approach on this subject is similar to that used by the anti-muslim brigade.

In regard to women still not being equal - there are places where women still suffer discrimination. My argument has been with the kind of misrepresentation and dodgy stats that you seem to like. If you have to use misrepresentation to show how unequal you are that would suggest that you really don't have much serious inequality to talk about.

I'm of the view that both genders still have some comparitive advantages and disadvantages and the way forward is to work towards removing artificial barriers so that we all have the widest range of choice and opportunity available to us which our talents allow.

Your way of claiming oppression and special disadvantage while ignoring all that does not fit can only lead to protracted gender conflict and more harm.

As for your closing comments you either have not bothered to look back very far in my history with some of the more determined feminsism bashers or it's yet another attempt on your part to misrepresent my position.

R0bert

Ummm...SJF

I never thought I would be lumped in with Whitty, JamesH, HRS, trade215 or Col Rouge - we disagree on just about everything gender related methinks although I respect their right to air their views, just mabye not the way they always go about it.

Have you actually read my posts on this thread and in other similar ones?

My first line in my last post was defending people like you who get accused of a "deep rooted hate" where I more properly described it as frustration.

pelican

You’re right. And I’m so sorry. I actually got you mixed up with Desipis. Negotiating all the pseudonyms around here is like deciphering hieroglyphs!

‘I never thought I would be lumped in with Whitty, JamesH, HRS, trade215 or Col Rouge - we disagree on just about everything gender related methinks although I respect their right to air their views…’

Methinks they should all be sent to a gulag in the desert and chased around all day by whip-wielding robots in Maggie Thatcher drag. Then they’d know how a man-hating woman really behaves.

R0bert

‘SJF, read the line again. I did not claim to represent your views on Islam, I pointed out that your approach on this subject is similar to that used by the anti-muslim brigade.’

I think I read the line in the spirit it was written. And I think your approach is similar to a parent telling his daughter: ‘Be nice to your brother, darling, or he won’t take his foot off your neck.’

‘My argument has been with the kind of misrepresentation and dodgy stats that you seem to like.’

So why do you keep bringing up that mother-of-all-dodgy Conflicts Tactics Scale in every DV thread?

‘Your way of claiming oppression and special disadvantage while ignoring all that does not fit can only lead to protracted gender conflict and more harm.’

I have written enough OLO posts to show that I have sympathy for men’s problems. I just don’t have sympathy for men who treat feminists as the main source of men’s problems. Women will stop claiming oppression and special disadvantage only when they no longer experience it. You can silence some of them some of the time in the interests of keeping the peace, but you can’t silence all of them all of the time.