Quick Options

NSFW Content:
Listing Mode:
Coloring Style:
Animations:

◀ Quick Options    Login    Register
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)

dumb,ass,misogynistic,shit,mayflower,moving company,bubble wrapped bride Assvertising

Assvertising

posted by berticus 6 months 1 week ago • 269 views
tags: 
embed
email
bookmarks (0)
playlists (0)

via http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/04/assvertising_29.html

GREAT DESIGNS FROM VIDEOSIFT'S T-SHIRT STORE
Support VideoSift - Buy a Shirt! Use coupon code SIFTFALL09 at checkout to save an additional 20% now!
Let Your Finger Do The Talking T-Shirt
Let Your Finger Do The Talking
Video Game Killing Machine T-Shirt
Video Game Killing Machine
VILF T-Shirt
VILF

Comments subscribe to this feed
aside from wedding traditions, how is this misogynistic?

oh i see, it's just a bunch of ill thought out reactionary garbage.

from provided link:
"Finally, it simply doesn't matter that the ad is not "meant to be sexist". Intent is irrelevant. the ad promotes retrogressive gender roles. If one has thoroughly internalized retrogressive ideas of gender roles, one doesn't have to "intend" to express sexist behavior--it just comes naturally."

the only retrogressive gender roles that the ad is showing are purely those from the marriage archetype (which is def. sexist), but those archetypes are also a long fucking way off from being viewed as the archaic exchange of ownership of property, er, woman contract it really is. so i think it's expecting way too much to demand a moving company to say to an advertising firm "we think the ad is cute'n'all, but we acknowledge the sexism inherent in our western wedding traditions and we don't want to convey our acceptance, passive or otherwise, in our ads."

also, the ad emphasizes "precious" as being the common link, not property. what they handle is irrelevant to the concept of the ad.

also, THIS IS A FUCKING AD. if you're looking for progressive commentary of gender issues, THIS IS THE LAST PLACE YOU SHOULD LOOK. and in response to the first comment in the blog, the ad would STILL make sense if the genders were reversed.

it's shit-headed thinking like this that holds back the progress toward real gender equality. this reaction honestly reminds me of getting stuck in an argument with some drunk fuck looking for a fight and starts putting words in your mouth like "YOU CALLING ME A LIER?" or "ARE YOU LOOKIN' AT MY GIRL?" and proceeds to push you around while you're wondering what the fuck is going on.


written by kir_mokum  | 6 months 1 week ago | CH
 -1  | flag spam (0)
creepy beyond belief, your response typifies exactly what's mentioned in the article, and i quote "The fact that so many reflexively move to defend these light-hearted ads, comic strips, and so forth is just more proof of how insidious our ideas of gender relations are".

are you HONESTLY asking how this is misogynistic? did you watch the ad? did you read the thread? it's pretty fucking cut and dry, the guy treats his wife as though she is furniture.

i should have known better to post something like this to the sift, though. this place is a shithole when it comes to feminist issues.


written by berticus  | 6 months 1 week ago | CH
 0  | flag spam (0)
I liked the part where the man protected the weak woman from the world around her.


written by gwiz665  | 6 months 1 week ago | CH
 1  | flag spam (0)
no, he's protecting what's "precious" to him in the only way he knows how. it could be his kid, it could be a pet, it could be his parents, it could be the wife doing it to him. i think that would have made a funnier ad because it reverses the traditional gender roles but that would still be construed as sexist because it passively acknowledges those gender roles. the reason the husband is doing to the wife is because of wedding traditions, not because he doesn't respect his wife or doesn't view her as an equal.

i read the article and i read the thread. both are saturated with people looking for a fight in the wrong place. the arguments are moronic and i find this is encapsulated best with the first post:

"Who was it that proprosed the "reverse gender" test? I.e, if you don't think an ad's sexist, then try reversing the genders and see if it makes the same sense. Would Mayflower have a female mover tenderly wrapping up a handsome young groom dressed in black tie?

No?

Then it's sexist."

this is not true and is also indicative of the mindset of a person looking for a fight where there isn't one. like i said, it would have worked either way and it would have worked with anything. the only reason they went straight to the husband carrying the wife is because of wedding traditions, not sexism. like i said, there is misogyny in the ad, but only because it portrays patriarchal wedding traditions.

also, the author of the blog asserts that intent doesn't matter, which is factually incorrect especially with the english language as statements can be taken in a multitude of ways and the use of common colloquialisms. i would understand this sentiment if the underlying statement of the ad could only be taken one way, but that is not the case here. at all. the correlation you're railing against is incidental and a leap in logic.

gender roles and relations are insidious, but there are much better and more poignant examples of it that this. your feminist blog completely missed the mark on this. i'm not defending the ad. it's dumb and it does reference a very common sexist and patriarchal notion, just not the one you're crying foul about. what i'm criticizing is the bad logic.

ps. sexism does not mean that genders are viewed as different because that's stupid. it means discrimination against a gender or that one gender is viewed as being better than another and that clearly is not what's going on here.


written by kir_mokum  | 6 months 1 week ago | CH
 -1  | flag spam (0)
*sigh*


written by berticus  | 6 months 1 week ago | CH
 0  | flag spam (0)
maybe try forming your own opinion. that way you'll have a chance to extrapolate on it instead of relying on someone else.


written by kir_mokum  | 6 months 1 week ago | CH
 -1  | flag spam (0)
ok i will try. thankyou for the advice!


written by berticus  | 6 months 1 week ago | CH
 0  | flag spam (0)
Moving this video to berticus's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.


written by siftbot  | 6 months 1 week ago | CH
 0  | flag spam (0)
>> ^kir_mokum:
aside from wedding traditions, how is this misogynistic?

oh i see, it's just a bunch of ill thought out reactionary garbage.

from provided link:
"Finally, it simply doesn't matter that the ad is not "meant to be sexist". Intent is irrelevant. the ad promotes retrogressive gender roles. If one has thoroughly internalized retrogressive ideas of gender roles, one doesn't have to "intend" to express sexist behavior--it just comes naturally."

the only retrogressive gender roles that the ad is showing are purely those from the marriage archetype (which is def. sexist), but those archetypes are also a long fucking way off from being viewed as the archaic exchange of ownership of property, er, woman contract it really is. so i think it's expecting way too much to demand a moving company to say to an advertising firm "we think the ad is cute'n'all, but we acknowledge the sexism inherent in our western wedding traditions and we don't want to convey our acceptance, passive or otherwise, in our ads."

also, the ad emphasizes "precious" as being the common link, not property. what they handle is irrelevant to the concept of the ad.

also, THIS IS A FUCKING AD. if you're looking for progressive commentary of gender issues, THIS IS THE LAST PLACE YOU SHOULD LOOK. and in response to the first comment in the blog, the ad would STILL make sense if the genders were reversed.

it's shit-headed thinking like this that holds back the progress toward real gender equality. this reaction honestly reminds me of getting stuck in an argument with some drunk fuck looking for a fight and starts putting words in your mouth like "YOU CALLING ME A LIER?" or "ARE YOU LOOKIN' AT MY GIRL?" and proceeds to push you around while you're wondering what the fuck is going on.


JEEZ... Calm the fucking fuck down, fucker. It's clear that you don't agree with berti's viewpoint, but there was absolutely no reason to get all flaming nasty with your commenting. And you accuse the poster of trying to pick a fight and being reactionary? Um...


written by Issykitty  | 1 month 2 weeks ago | CH
 0  | flag spam (0)
Tags for this video have been changed from 'dumb, ass, misogynistic, shit' to 'dumb, ass, misogynistic, shit, mayflower, moving company, bubble wrapped bride' - edited by Issykitty


written by siftbot  | 1 month 2 weeks ago | CH
 0  | flag spam (0)
Submit Comment

Connect with Facebook
          - OR -
log in or register to submit new comment


who voted for this video
berticus  - EDD  - gwiz665  - Issykitty

who voted against this video
EndAll

Assvertising Related Videos

Dumb-ass of the day, nature edition

Mother & Son Moving Company

Peter Schiff on Faux News arguing WITH TWO DUMB ASSES

Watch this Video Next

Friends O' the Sift
Top 15 Sifters of All Time
1. Zifnab  (54610 votes)
2. arvana  (44882 votes)
3. dystopianfuturetoday  (43385 votes)
4. kronosposeidon  (40255 votes)
5. NetRunner  (39530 votes)
6. blankfist  (37270 votes)
7. ant  (34852 votes)
8. mintbbb  (31842 votes)
9. Farhad2000  (31715 votes)
10. eric3579  (30510 votes)
11. rasch187  (30051 votes)
12. Issykitty  (27185 votes)
13. mlx  (21697 votes)
14. deputydog  (21070 votes)
15. Fedquip  (20892 votes)
Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week
1. Sagemind  (404 votes)
2. Ornthoron  (387 votes)
3. demon_ix  (355 votes)
4. EndAll  (337 votes)
5. arvana  (334 votes)
6. brycewi19  (324 votes)
7. MikesHL13  (303 votes)
8. Issykitty  (281 votes)
9. gwiz665  (242 votes)
10. ant  (224 votes)
11. NetRunner  (220 votes)
12. rasch187  (207 votes)
13. Zifnab  (205 votes)
14. Duckman33  (186 votes)
15. wingnut  (182 votes)