The more I think about that Sexist Trojan ad, the angrier I become. I’m further angered that a bunch of women on its YouTube page are claiming it’s not sexist, just funny. And anyways, men are pigs. So we men are wrong to be offended.
The attitude that they display is extremely offensive.
With a little substitution, I can show that the ad is discriminatory. Let’s substitute the pigs with monkeys, and the young man with a black person. And then tell me that the NAACP, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the Black Panthers wouldn’t be all over the ad agency while I laugh in your face.
Eternal Bachelor is no more. Apparently, Duncan has expatriated out of the U.K. I hope he’s gone to a better place, one that hasn’t gone communist and feminist. (So obviously, that leaves out all the English-speaking countries.) I wish him the best of luck.
Unfortunately, for some reason, Duncan has removed all his most excellent writings from his blog. That’s a terrible shame. Luckily, several guys were on the ball and have taken measures to archive some of it. If you’d like more details about that, leave me a message in the comments.
Women buy 30% of condoms. Seems Trojan is working on trying to expand that market, and make women more comfortable with such a purchase. So they launched a new advertising campaign. Trojan seems to have made a miscalculation though. Seems they didn’t think about actually keeping the male market – who buys 70% of condoms – before insulting, disrespecting, and bashing them in their efforts to market to women.
Just keep pounding on that old feminist “men are pigs” canard, eh, Trojan?
I’ll be buying your competitors’ products from now on. Congratulations on losing several customers!
As an aside, a couple of the networks refused to air this ad because it moved from the realm of preventing disease to the realm of preventing pregnancy.
Today, I was playing around with a political beliefs quiz, and one of the questions was about whether or not I supported legalizing gay marriage. For the purposes of the quiz, I answered “Don’t know/Don’t care.” In reality, I do not support legalizing gay marriage. I also do not support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
What? Is Egghead confused? Is he supporting two opposite sides of the debate? Or opposing them?
Well, yes and no. See, I’ve got an enormous problem with government even being involved with marriage at all.
Look, marriage is basically a religious affair. Why on earth should you have to get a license from the State in order to marry? What business does the State have to involve itself in religious affairs? Marriage licenses, were, after all, created in order to keep white folks and black folks from marrying each other. And now, they’re used to make money for the state, to keep divorce lawyers and family court judges in business, to deny citizens the right to trial by jury, and to support “must arrest” policies against men and for women.
A word of advice to all men: never, never, NEVER sign a marriage license.
If you can get married in the eyes of God, while remaining unmarried in the eyes of the State – well and good. If you’re not religious, why not just cohabitate (in non-common-law states)? Or, if you actually do want to get the state involved, you can sign a legal contract with your intended that accomplishes the same thing as a marriage license, but isn’t quite so draconian. See? I’d rather heterosexual couples move toward “civil unions” than have gays move toward marriage.
See? In this scheme, everyone’s equal before the law, an no one – gay or straight – is deprived of any “rights.” In fact, men regain some rights that the State-controlled Marriage system denied them.
Here it is – a list of the infamous “Gang of 88″ – those 88 members of Duke University’s arts and sciences faculty who signed a document saying “thank you” to campus demonstrators who had distributed a “wanted” poster of the lacrosse players and publicly branded the players “rapists.” The rush-to-judgment denunciation occurred only four days before the DNA evidence that Mike Nifong had promised would “immediately rule out any innocent persons” instead revealed no matches.
Why do I post it? To name and shame the guilty, of course! These people did their best to destroy the lives and reputations of three innocent young men who did nothing wrong.
Abe, Stan (Art, Art History, and Visual Studies)
Albers, Benjamin (University Writing Program)
Allison, Anne (Cultural Anthropology)
Aravamudan, Srinivas (English)
Baker, Houston (English and AAAS)
Baker, Lee (Cultural Anthropology)
Beckwith, Sarah (English)
Berliner, Paul (Music)
Christina Beaule (University Writing Program)
Blackmore, Connie (AAAS)
Jessica Boa (Religion & University Writing Program)
Boatwright, Mary T. (Classical Studies)
Boero, Silvia (Romance Studies)
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo (Sociology)
Brim, Matthew (University Writing Program)
Chafe, William (History)
Ching, Leo (Asian & African Languages and Literatures)
Coles, Rom (Political Science)
Cooke, Miriam (Asian & African Languages and Literatures)
Crichlow, Michaeline (AAAS)
Curtis, Kim (Political Science)
Damasceno, Leslie (Romance Studies)
Davidson, Cathy (English)
Deutsch, Sally (History)
Dorfman, Ariel (Literature & Latin American Stds.)
Edwards, Laura (History)
Farred, Grant (Literature)
Fellini, Luciana (Romance Studies)
Fulkerson, Mary McClintock (Divinity School)
Gabara, Esther (Romance Studies)
Gavins, Raymond (History)
Greer, Meg (Romance Studies)
Glymph, Thavolia (History)
Hardt, Michael (Literature)
Harris, Joseph (University Writing Program)
Holloway, Karla (English)
Holsey, Bayo (AAAS)
Hovsepian, Mary (Sociology)
James, Sherman (Public Policy)
Kaplan, Alice (Literature)
Khalsa, Keval Kaur (Dance Program)
Khanna, Ranjana (English)
King, Ashley (Romance Studies)
Koonz, Claudia (History)
Lasch, Peter (Art, Art History, and Visual Studies & Latino/a Studies)
Lee, Dan A. (Math)
Leighten, Pat (Art, Art History, and Visual Studies)
Lentricchia, Frank (Literature)
Light, Caroline (Inst. for Crit. U.S. Stds.)
Litle, Marcy (Comparative Area Studies)
Litzinger, Ralph (Cultural Anthropology)
Longino, Michele (Romance Studies)
Lubiano, Wahneema (AAAS and Literature)
Maffitt, Kenneth(History)
Mahn, Jason (University Writing Program)
Makhulu, Anne-Maria (AAAS)
Mason, Lisa (Surgical Unit-2100)
McClain, Paula (Political Science)
Meintjes, Louise (Music)
Mignolo, Walter (Literature and Romance Studies)
Moreiras, Alberto (Romance Studies)
Neal, Mark Anthony (AAAS)
Nelson, Diane (Cultural Anthropology)
Olcott, Jolie (History)
Parades, Liliana (Romance Studies)
Payne, Charles (AAAS and History)
Pierce-Baker, Charlotte (Women’s Studies)
Pebles-Wilkins, Wilma
Petters, Arlie (Math)
Plesser, Ronen (Physics)
Radway, Jan (Literature)
Rankin, Tom (Center for Documentary Studies)
Rego, Marcia (University Writing Program)
Reisinger, Deborah S. (Romance Studies)
Rosenberg, Alex (Philosophy)
Rudy, Kathy (Women’s Studies)
Schachter, Marc (English)
Shannon, Laurie (English)
Sigal, Pete (History)
Silverblatt, Irene (Cultural Anthropology)
Somerset, Fiona (English)
Stein, Rebecca (Cultural Anthropology)
Thorne, Susan (History)
Viego, Antonio (Literature)
Vilaros, Teresa (Romance Studies)
Wald, Priscilla (English)
Wallace, Maurice (English and AAAS)
Wong, David (Philosophy)
I changed blog templates last night. It seems, though, that Internet Explorer doesn’t recognize some of the CSS used, causing the third column to display below the posts. I’ll see if I can fix it sometime later. In the meantime, you can either live with it, or trash I.E., and get either Firefox or Safari.
I’m reposting this story here. I’m of the opinion that women should be given the equality they say they want – ALL OF IT. They need to be treated equal to men in every respect, not just when it’s in their favor. They went through all the trouble of changing those laws, why shouldn’t they reap the fruits of them. I’m quite happy these men are using feminist-inspired laws to enrich themselves. You go, guys!
The California Supreme Court gave a green light Thursday for four men to go ahead with a lawsuit against a Los Angeles nightclub for allegedly charging higher admission prices for men than for women.
The four men claimed the Century Supper Club in the Century City district of Los Angeles charged them $20 for admission while charging women $15 or admitting them for free on several occasions in 2002.
The court, in a ruling issued in San Francisco, said the men did not need to have asked for the lower price given to women in order to proceed with their Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit.
Instead, the panel said, the fact that they paid the allegedly higher price was enough to permit the lawsuit based on two California anti-discrimination laws.
Chief Justice Ronald George wrote, “Each plaintiff presented himself for admittance, paid the price of admission and entered the establishment.”
George said for a unanimous court, “It cannot be said that defendant had no duty to refrain from discriminating under these circumstances.”
The ruling allows the lawsuit to go to trial in Superior Court. It overturns a decision in which the Court of Appeal in Los Angeles dismissed the case in 2005, saying the men could sue only if they had actually requested the lower fee and been refused.
The lead plaintiff in the case is Marc Angelucci, a Glendale lawyer who heads the Los Angeles chapter of the National Coalition of Free Men, a group that fights gender discrimination against men. The other plaintiffs are Edgar Pacas, Elton Campbell and Jeff Kent.
The state laws under which the case was filed are the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Gender Tax Repeal Act.
The Unruh law requires business establishments to provide equal accommodations regardless of factors such as sex, race and religion.
George wrote in the court’s decision that a gender-based discount is in itself a denial of equal treatment that triggers the application of the law.
I work in an office with a rather casual atmosphere. We only deal with the general public over the telephone, so there’s no face-to-face contact with them. As such, we dress a bit more casually than “business casual.” Jeans are commonly worn. However, it is still a place of business. I make sure that I wear clean clothing in good shape, including a shirt with a collar every day.
All the men in the office keep to at least this minimum dress code. Who is continually pushing the boundaries of casualness into the lower depths of slovenliness? Women, of course.
I kept my mouth shut about the unprofessionalism displayed when they began wearing jeans with holes in them. I kept my mouth shut about how unprofessional it looked when the flip-flops came out of the closet for the summer, so that they could show off their pedicures and be more “comfortable.” But today was the last straw. I just had to post a rant after I saw a woman going about the office completely barefoot. Where does this woman think she is?!?? Her bedroom? This is not her home, this is an office – a place of business. GAH!
I wonder if I should complain to management about it? Or maybe I should “accidentally” drop a box of thumbtacks or pushpins all over the floor? I wouldn’t do the latter, of course, but you could be sure that if that happened, the shoes would go back on.
A disciplinary committee said Saturday disgraced prosecutor Mike Nifong would be disbarred for his disastrous prosecution of three Duke University lacrosse players falsely accused of rape – a punishment the veteran prosecutor admitted was appropriate.
He admitted it’s appropriate? Of course he’d say that – he got off light! He should be prosecuted, and given a prison sentence. I think a sentence equivalent to three rape sentences would be appropriate.
In any event this means that there is one fewer slimeball out there with the power to destroy innocent mens’ lives. Story here. It’s unfortunate that there are so many that will be quite happy to take his place. But perhaps a little sense of self-preservation will make them think twice.
“This matter has been a fiasco. There’s no doubt about it,” said committee chairman F. Lane Williamson.
No doubt about it at all.
“It wasn’t just one little oversight,” Williamson said later. “This was conduct over an extended period in a very high-profile case.”
