Hooray! I sent Ann an email a while ago suggesting this campaign be included in the weekly feminist reader. I LOVE these posters.

Please don't get me wrong - I like the idea. In fact, I absolutely love it.

But I have to be honest ...often times, when I hear the general, non-feminist public teach young boys to "respect" women, I get the impression that a lot of what they're teaching also involves "chivalry," to to see women as somehow being "different," that they're nimble and weak and need to young boys and men to serve as the "protectors."

This is a good idea - but I can't help but think these boys are also being indoctrinated into gender roles that so much of the world is buying into.

Am I sounding a little pessimistic?

Well, PFM, if you read their points, I'm pretty sure chivalry isn't something they intend to focus on:

http://www.opdv.state.ny.us/public_awareness/2007dvmonth/10things.html

But I know what you mean, about how some men could bring it up.

Yeah, PFM, I think you are. I'd be with you if it said Protect Women or something along those lines, but I think "respect" is exactly what boys need to be taught. It's not like the campaign is teaching buys about respecting females' virtues, but respecting them as whole people. It's pretty rad.

I love this. The poster brings up the subject for adults to beging talking to boys about what respecting women entails.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I needed some good news today.

This campaign is just the sort of thing that should be happening all over the world. Change the problem (i.e. the perps) not the victims.

Hooray

ProFeministMale, you beat me to it!

My first thought about the ad displayed above was exactly that: the people I hear throwing "respect women" around are those who construe "respect" to mean guys always paying for dinner, or opening doors, etc. They're thinking of respecting women-as-women, in a stereotype of femininity way, rather than respecting women as fellow human beings.

Like you, I don't have any problem with the sentiment of "respect" when it means the sort of respect I believe in--ideals of equality, mutuality, and really listening to and seeing the people whom you encounter in the world. But that's not what all people think of when they exhort young men to "respect women."

What other language could we use, though?

The word respect can be interpreted in several different ways. And I think in this case it does encourage men to view women as "different" as you say. Women are very different from men, and I think one of the main issues young men have is they don't respect the differences that men and women have. Men need to embrace and appreciate the differences.
So yes, boys need to appreciate and respect women as something very different from themselves. As opposed to not wanting to, and in many cases fearing the things that make them different.
As for men seeing women as "weak," I think that as time goes on, and as feminism gains more and more influence, that stereotype will be a thing of the past.

So yes, boys need to appreciate and respect women as something very different from themselves.

Actually, I view this as pretty problematic. It's exactly this interpretation that I was trying to talk about above.

To me, inculcating boys with the idea that women are categorically different from then ("other"), regardless of whether or not we expect them to value those differences, causes a problem. Instead, we should be teaching boys and girls alike values like respect for human life, for other people's perspectives; we should be teaching them the skills of empathy. These values should not be gender-coded.

There's a campaign like this in Madison, WI. On buses around town and billboards etc, there are ads saying something to the effect of "don't use your strength to hurt women."

It gets the point across, but it still shows the stereotypical buff/masculine male, which I think avoids the main part of the problem. These boys need to stop focusing on masculinity and start focusing on being human. With the gender lines blurring these days because of the lack of antiquated roles for both women and men, it makes sense people react by becoming hyper-masculine. Just be yourself!

Oh and another little tidbit, the other day in class my Linguistics professor was talking about how male/female are no longer opposites, but more of a scale. Yah acknowledging transgenderedness!

Awesome. That's it, really. I love seeing things like this, because I think children (and particularly boys) need to be taught about these things.

Also, from my personal experience going into high schools and teaching the students about feminism and women's issues, they're pretty receptive to the ideas once you get over the initial bump or so.

I have mixed feeling about this. I agree that the language used does play into gender role stereotypes, i.e. respect women is likely read as protect women. But at the same time, I think this is the aspect that allows it to be accepted into the mainstream. I think the mainstream isn't exactly apt or ready to question gender. So I think this ad campaign is great, use whatever it takes at this point to get the message out that perpetrators of violence are to blame and we need to raise a society of non-perpetrators.

Perhaps it is a process. Perhaps once these types of messages are really accepted in the mainstream, maybe then we can change the language to one that does not further "Other" women. Maybe then is when we can ask people to reavaluate masculinities.

I was trying to think of a simple fix to make it sound like more of an equal relationship, but I could not. The phrase "women and men are equals" does not actively tell boys to act a certain way. "Treat women like your equal" also emphasizes women's "Otherness" and has a patronizing tone in terms of women's status. I guess I think the way it is is great for now, and hopefully it is backed by more progressive plans for the future.

"Instead, we should be teaching boys and girls alike values like respect for human life, for other people's perspectives; we should be teaching them the skills of empathy. These values should not be gender-coded."

I don't believe that this campaign is extolling gender difference whatsoever in statements such as:

"Teach young men that they have the power to change themselves and their world in positive ways - through kindness, acceptance, and appreciation of everyone."

This campaign is using terms like "respect" instead of "protect". It is encouraging young boys to "challenge jokes, media images, comments, and behaviors that seem abusive or violent toward women," and for fathers and parents to "Tell young men that they can be strong and sensitive, masculine and emotional, without using violence."

These are incredibly feminist and revolutionary notions in themselves. Challenging the construct of masculinity from a feminist and humane perspective is absolutely brilliant.

Totally agreed, annajcook. I don't know whether there are fundamental differences between all men and all women and I don't really care, and since I don't think anyone else has any conclusive way of knowing either, it's not something I choose to argue about too often.

But what kills me is when people (not necessarily you, chefmatt) insist on going forward in what are usually parenting/educating/childrearing discussions with the condition that boys are boys and girls are girls and never the twain shall meet, as if that's even close to being the most relevant bit of information to keep in mind. Can't your daughter just like the sparkly headband? Is your whole consciousness really going to disintegrate if you don't have it in your head that it's because she's a girl? And when you tell her little brother not to make fun of the sparkly headband, is your point really that girls like sparkly things and he should be tolerant of that because it's information he's going to need someday? Shouldn't you be telling him instead that different people like all kinds of different things and he should embrace that because too many people don't?

And besides -- or not really besides, because they're connected all too closely -- if you drill it into children that girls and boys are different, you're going to have to tell them how, and they'll grow up and encounter boys and girls and men and women who, shock of shocks, don't fall neat as can be into the roles that have been presented to them as the norm, and how do they react then? I think we know, don't we? It's bad. It sucks. I speak from firsthand experience. Don't do that. It isn't nice.

You can't just teach kids that girls act girly and boys act boyish and they should each respect the other side. It doesn't work that way. The world isn't dichotomic like that. What you have to teach them is that sometimes there is no "normal," and that different isn't bad, and that any way anyone wants to act is fine as long as it doesn't hurt anybody. That way nobody gets beat up on the playground for liking hopscotch better than kickball; and twenty-odd years later, nobody gets beat up for asking her husband to feed the baby.

Enforcing gender roles never helped anybody. Ever.

ANNAJCOOK "So yes, boys need to appreciate and respect women as something very different from themselves.

Actually, I view this as pretty problematic. It's exactly this interpretation that I was trying to talk about above.

To me, inculcating boys with the idea that women are categorically different from then ("other"), regardless of whether or not we expect them to value those differences, causes a problem. Instead, we should be teaching boys and girls alike values like respect for human life, for other people's perspectives; we should be teaching them the skills of empathy. These values should not be gender-coded."

It strikes me that people involved with ethnicity/diversity training must have developed a language for dealing with this type of issue that could be applied to gender.

On the one hand, you DO want to acknowledge ethnic/racial differences. Minority individual do have different experiences, on average, that are qualitatively different from the experiences of Whites and it's important to acknowledge and respect those differences.

On the other hand, there is similarities in the sense that by and large we're all the same in many ways.

It reminds me a bit of the "Diversity Day Training" episode of the "The Office".

I am NOT a fan of the add posted above. It compares respecting women to eating your vegetables or doing your homework--Unfun, uncool things some mean person who hates fun used to make you do as a kid. It makes feminists sound like your mom or meanest teacher at her most annoying.

But respecting women shouldn't be a chore, and, in real life, it can even have tons of really cool, fun benefits. Why make it sound like something gross and obligatory? Is that really going to make men MORE inclined to respect women?

I think this campaign is great!
One thing that did strike me about the specific ad in this post is that respect women is listed along with eating vegetables and finishing homework, things that are generally seen as odious chores and I certainly don't think that respecting women is a chore or something that must be done grudgingly. It just seeemd a bit odd, but I guess you could argue that these are all these that will benefit and better young men as well. Overall, I think the concept is wonderful and the message they are sending is positive.

Sara, we clearly had the same thought!
But while kids might complain about being told to eat their vegetables or not play with matches (something I did extensively as a child), it's all certainly good advice in the long run right?

ULCAbodyimage--

Thank you! I agree with what you're saying. While in a perfect world, men and women should be treated equal, that's ignoring the fact that there are plenty of cultural issues that are relevant. If we had an ad stating "Respect Men" it would certainly have a different connotation from what this "Respect Women" ad conveys.

I actually rather like the ad-- I guess I don't see the other items listed as awful chores, but things that you need to do to grow into a responsible adult. While I recognize that this may be misconstrued as a "chivalry" message, I'm pretty excited that something like this is getting out there... especially with all the negative, anti-women news this week!

"It compares respecting women to eating your vegetables or doing your homework--Unfun, uncool things some mean person who hates fun used to make you do as a kid."

But this campaign isn't speaking to the children themselves, but to the parents, telling them they need to teach equal respect as much as they need to teach study habits and healthy eating. I mean I see your point, but I don't think signs telling parents to teach their children to eat well translates into "because eating well is uncool."

I don't think it's a problem that it is associated twith "chores". My mom told me to eat my vegetables and now I'm vegan, so it worked.

it doesn't matter if it is a Chore to respect women for young boys, it is a value to instill in the youth, just like eating vegetables (staying healthy) or doing homework (being responsible).

even if it isn't "fun" they will still come away with the improtant message.

Also, while i have reservations about what they mean by "respect women" I think it's ok and a great step in the right direction. Saying it's not ok to beat women within the confines of the patriarchy is a lot better than saying it is ok. This add does not take on dismantling the patriarchy, But I don't think it necessarily should. It is trying to fix a problem within the social framework available, and it it is not targeting the victim like so many anti-violence against women strategies do.

I hope they have contacted or are at least referencing Jackson Katz. He's so wonderful when it comes to redefining masculinity.

Point taken Marissa.
And nakedthoughts, I absolutely agree that it is important regardless of whether or not it's a chore. I just think that respecting women does not have to be unpleasant or chore-like at all, so I didn't agree with the tone that I felt was being struck. But as Marissa pointed out, it is not really being directed at the children, more at their mentors and elders so my criticism is less relevant.

Some people seem to be missing the target of this ad: it's not kids, it's parents. As parents, you teach your kids to do things they may not like or do of their own choosing (like their homework), but that are in the long run essential for them to be educated, responsible adults.

Unfortunately, young men do NOT get the message to respect women, and so it is something that can reasonably be lumped in with those essentials a parent must teach a child.

And while I'm all about egalitarianism, as people define and discover who they are, gender plays a huge role in it. Just as all of us women in this forum have struggled with our gender as we create our identity (should I wear make-up? But what if I really don't LIKE math that much? Etc.), so do men.

Feminism has challenged and changed what it means to feminine; we HAVE to start challenging and changing what it means to be masculine. However, we're not going to, nor do I think we should, destroy either concept. We just need to enlarge them and make them more flexible.

Misspelled: YES. Thank you! I hate it when people pipe up with, well, but women and men *are* very different, even though I know they need to be treated with the same dignity. For one thing, if you believe they should be treated equally, then how are their differences relevant? For another, women are different from men in the same way the women are different than other women. Yes many of our experiences are different. And we have the whole innie/outie thing (most of the time; some women have penises and some men have vaginas!), but plenty of other people have different experiences, ways of expressing themselves, color/clothing preferences, etc., etc. I am the way I am not because I am female, but b/c of the experiences I've had and the parents I have. None of my personhood originates between my legs.

"I actually rather like the ad-- I guess I don't see the other items listed as awful chores, but things that you need to do to grow into a responsible adult."

I agree. Your analogy was perfect. Not chores. Responsible adulthood.

Personally, what first struck me about the ad was that it was perfectly fine to assume that the young man required "instructions" on these or any "further" issues. Indeed, I agree that males in particular need to learn the last, and a number of other lessons just for males, like, I am being perfectly serious - "put the seat back down" or "clean up any drops on the sides and rim," or "even where there is no public restroom available, don't stand around peeing outside where other people can see you," because women probably don't have those issues among just women, but a lot of men need that.

Hijack:

It is accepted that men or young men need "instruction." It is demonstrably true. I also seem to meet no resistance with me "instructing" my children, as part of responsible parenting. So seriously, what is against this "instructing" my wife about things (like not buying/dressing my daughter in "skank" child clothes) that she does not understand about culture in the US, and different in her home country? The reasonable message "Trust Women" does not apply 100% (maybe around 95% - she is a good mother) to a resident alien non-native speaker who arrived two years ago, who grew up without a mother as a role model, in fact had an extremely physically abusive step-mother.

Yes, my wife needed "instruction" in motherhood. In fact it was I who stopped my wife from striking our toddler aged children when I learned she was doing it, as she did not know how else to express her frustration at new motherhood or assert her authority as a mother (recall she did not have a good role model as a child to know different). She has not hit the children since, but still has those issues today. Anyone open to the idea she might benefit from an evaluation by a psychiatrist or family therapist? Is anyone open to the possibility that my wife then was in more danger of losing the children to the authorities had it been reported, than me losing my wife and children for my "creepy" domestic management? My wife has learned better and continues to learn modern parenthood from the many mothers and others around us. And she is not the only one learning.

I've gone through a lot of anti-violence, pro-feminist training, and I've offered my share of workshops to young men in church/community settings.

I talk about respect regularly. And in a humorous way, I play "word association" with "respect", getting all of the various assumptions out on the table. Then I break it down by its Latin root: re-spectare, which means literally "to look back at" but in regular Latin means "to regard" and "to consider". For me, it means "to see the other as she (he) really is". And it's this last option for respect that I base a lot of my work with young men on.

Hell, this needs to be a post.

Derek: "Also, from my personal experience going into high schools and teaching the students about feminism and women's issues, they're pretty receptive to the ideas once you get over the initial bump or so."
I'm glad to hear that, Derek. I do the same thing and I have come up against some of the most venomous pro-rape nastiness this last week than in the last 4 years of doing the work. It's been a rough week. I think it's a lot harder for females to be "heard" by high school guys on issues of gender violence than another dude. (I'm assuming you're male.)

About time our culture got around to recasting typical masculinity as something less...toxic.

As for this campaign being a waypoint on the way to dismantling the patriarchy, I agree totally. Destroy the supports of a thing, and it will fall of its own.

"None of my personhood originates between my legs."

kmp, can we just get that printed on a bumper sticker or something?

I really like this campaign, because it cuts off reaction from the typical suspects (MRAs) right at the start. Because what criticism can anyone mount that wouldn't come off as "don't respect women"? It puts the message out there, starkly. Either you do respect women, or you don't. I understand the discussion going on here about the implication of "otherness" of women, but you're all talking on a plane much further down the line of advanced feminist theory than the average person in society. For the general public, this is a strong, good message to start with.

We need more programs like this, but different...

The focus on women reinforces the codification of gender based roles and ignores the larger issue that allow men to treat women with disrespect. Respect others should be the value we're working on. It's not okay to treat women with respect but disrespect gays, Muslims, nerds, Christians, rednecks or any other group for which you can find a label. Conversely, if we respect others we can't disrespect any group as a whole, including women.

Here's an example of what "respecting women" means to the public at large:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JvltzwkUEEA

ProFeministRedneck:

It would be really nice if people could work like that; start with a unified principle (respect everyone) and then work out all of its consequences by themselves. But history has shown us that isn't the case.

Some very bright people in 1776 wrote down "All men are created equal." Then we had to figure out that meant that blacks were equal. We had to figure out that Irish are equal. Then we had to figure out that Chinese are equal. We had to figure out that Japanese are equal. We're STILL in that process for women, and we're still trying to get started on the homosexuals. :(

MrMorden,

Agreed, it's been a long slow process for us.

I disagree, however, that "history has shown us that isn't the case." In fact the opposite is true.

The revolutionary enlightenment ideal of equality is certainly taking time to work itself out in practical application. But the advances that we've seen thus far have been due to that very realization.

Certainly, we should vocalize and demonstrate the practical applications -eg. treating women with respect, treating gays with respect. But instilling the guiding principle of respect in them at a young age will have a far greater impact over their lifetime than simply teaching him that certaing groups are to be respected.

Beyond all this is the danger, IMHO, of playing into the stereotype that women as a group need to be treated in a manner that sets them apart and insulates them from harmful elements to which men are immune.

But, PFR, there are harmful elements directed at girls/women about which men don't have to worry: we call them misogyny. In theory, I like your idea, but in practice, "everybody" almost never translates to "people who are not members of dominant groups." Sexism is a particular problem, and it deserves a particular solution.

EG:

I agree. Particulars have to be spelled out.

My main argument is simply that the principle behind it gives it weight and set's the individual on a life journey that hopefully sees a broadening of its practical implications.

On a separate note, I think that the most important aspect of the campaign is overlooked. That is just spending time with the kids. We've abdicated the role of mentor to rock stars, rap stars, movie stars and sports stars who model the traditional gender-specific roles to such an caracaturized extreme that it threatens much of the progress made in the last 40 years. We as parents, friends, teachers, etc., need to take that back.

A multiplicity of diverse, real-life role models allows kids, teens and even adults to see the possibilites that exist for ourselves, without forcing them into a mold that doesn't fit them.

I definitely understand the thinking about universal values, and the gender normativity of this and so many other campaigns is challenging. That said, EG is right: I wish we could send messages that solely emphasise equality, commonality, and humanity, but the challenges we face force us to do otherwise. We have to confront misogyny as a reality. I suppose there's always this tension between opening children to new ways of thinking and dealing with reality.

Father figures are so key in this.

If fathers communicate to their sons that women are just morons who need to be pacified with fake listening and sympathy, they aren't going to see us as equals.

I've got two boys and hope to raise them to (1) question the status quo definition of manhood and (2) believe firmly in the fact that women are human rather than toys, conquests, sex bots, hotties, chicks, etc. etc. I want them to learn to be fair to everyone and anyone.

Thanks for all the information you provide guys like me that are new to the Movement.

This is an excellent campaign. I agree with some of the posters above about chivalry coming up and all that but it begins a dialogue. The discussion with some will probably begin with chivalry and "protection" but it will move past that as people are really able to embrace the idea.

To really get rid of the chivalry idea, if that is the goal, one would need to start even younger. When your 5 year old son hits his 6 year old sister, most parents respond with either "don't hit your sister" or "don't hit girls", where the emphasis should really be "don't hit anyone".

For those of you who see some or all aspects of "manhood" as toxic, I wouldn't agree with you on the whole but the term should definitely be redefined. There are some good parts to it and I'm still a believer, wavering but its still there, in instilling some of the traditional manhood virtues in boys. We just need to, again, shift the emphasis.

Codification by gender is a huge problem but I do not think it will ever be possible to totally eradicate it. This kind of ad campaign is one step of many in the process though.

"To really get rid of the chivalry idea, if that is the goal . . . "

I tell my children to talk nice and play nice, or use good table manners, period. There's nothing "bad" just because they are male or female, with a few limitations on dress (we aren't ready for topless beaches or my son in a dress). If they can't, then they can't play together, or use those toys, or they they lose some privilege like watching TV. No difference in what they are expected to do around the house either, though only my daughter actually says "I wanna wash the dishes!" Both like cooking, and my son is the one who wants to be the baker. He has long forgotten his goal of being a helicopter pilot.

My big problem with my children is trying to teach them to apologize out of genuine regret, not out of obligation or fear of retribution or punishment. Believe me, I can see the difference, like when I hear my son yell, then my daughter suddenly laugh, "Sorry, sorry, sorry!" The haven't learned the reason to have good manners yet, and can be quite self centered. If we leave my daughter with four pieces of cake, she might leave only one or two for the rest of us; or I should say, she couldn't eat them all herself.

About this chivalry being akin to looking upon women as weak(er), I don't see chivalry as that at all. Within reason (i.e., it is "safe"), people should offer assistance to whoever needs assistance, like a man on the side of the road with a flat, or carrying a stack of heavy books. I'll casually ask if they are ok, or need help. (Recall I am not strong myself.) I'll open the door for anybody, so it doesn't swing back in their face. I have had the good fortune not to offend anyone yet.

The only difference I can think of offhand is the old lifeboat dilemma where a limited number can be saved in a crisis situation. The women and children might be given priority, like I would send my wife and kids. But who would really want it any different? Should I go, "My income is most important for my family!" or "I'm a nurse!" and elbow people aside? [In the health care field, there are different criteria, and they require time for consideration. One won't get a kidney just for being a man or woman.]

"Enforcing gender roles never helped anybody. Ever."

I completely agree with that. But this is where groups such as Family Violence Prevention consistently drop the ball. They only wish to advise boys and men and tell them not to hurt girls and women. Many girls and women, unfortunately, have been raised with the idea that their violence towards boys and men is "different," that it's completely acceptable and not a crime. This, of course, is false, and it's as condescending to women ("bah...it's only a woman hitting you...") as it is unfair to men.

Why not teach the boys and the girls the same thing: to respect both people of your own gender and people of the opposite gender? Would that be such a harmful message?

I'm new to feministing and I've been reading a lot of the comments above with a certain amount of confusion (apart from those by hungerheadache and sara...).

My first reactions to the ad were:
- how is implicitly comparing respect for women to doing your homework etc. supposed to encourage young men to do it?
- how is being portrayed as 'awaiting instructions' supposed to make young men/boys feel?

I take the point, I suppose, that these ads are aimed at parents, but do we really think that young men/boys are blind and stupid? (And if we do, we have a problem). If the ads are in the public domain and not just being secretly sent to parents, then boys/men will see them. And if I were a boy I would certainly react strongly against them - I would feel patronised and it's possible I would therefore reject the message behind the patronage.

This is quite apart from the respect issue - on which subject, however, what about GIRLS? Why should only women be respected? There is no way that a 14-year-old boy is going to see a 14-year-old girl as a woman...

bmmg39

Thank you for touching on something I was unwilling to mention in present company, because MRAs simply eat this shit up: I do not agree that girls or women are being taught it is acceptable to hurt men or boys. However, even from a public health standpoint, we need to recognize men can also be victims of violence. As a matter of fact, a 2001 CDC study of 14,322 subjects aged between 18 and 28 ("a time period when interpersonal-violence rates are at their highest,") found

"Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women."

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a

More surprisingly, "in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men who were injured more often (25 percent of the time) than were women (20 percent of the time)." Weird.

This caused researchers and others like myself some surprise. Causes/reasons need to be studied as well. IF my wife, who is larger than I, ever became physically aggressive, I would take myself or the kids for a time out. And threat of unresolved continued violence is the only conceivable reason for which I would divorce my wife. I would sooner have her in the psych ward on Haldol, however.

Now this is precisely the same study and data cited by MRAs when they complain. They can't stop talking about it. I tolerate the focus of partner violence/DV to be on the needs of the women and children, because of their vulnerable position in society, and economic vulnerability should they escape the relationship or household. It is not my intention to further shame male victims into silence.

"And if I were a boy I would certainly react strongly against them - I would feel patronised and it's possible I would therefore reject the message behind the patronage."

Thank you, Nina. And I'm sure plenty of boys in this demographic, indeed, feel insulted by the condescending tone of these PSAs (as well as their one-sided approach).

"I do not agree that girls or women are being taught it is acceptable to hurt men or boys."

Not in PSAs, of course, and hopefully the majority of parents raise their children with an egalitarian approach, but there are too many who will enforce the rule about their son not hitting their daughter, but willfully neglect telling her not to hit him. And I could easily rattle off more than a hundred examples from the television shows, films, and advertisements that suggest that female violence against a male is acceptable, humorous, cute, romantic, sexy, et cetera...

"Now this is precisely the same study and data cited by MRAs when they complain. They can't stop talking about it."

Why should they, though? If the roles were reversed, and society seemed to care about abuse only when women were doing it to men, and were ignoring battered women, feminists wouldn't drop the subject -- and rightfully so. As long as these men and boys are being discriminated against on the basis of gender, people have every right to complain.

"And I could easily rattle off more than a hundred examples from the television shows, films, and advertisements that suggest that female violence against a male is acceptable, humorous, cute, romantic, sexy, et cetera..."

In the context that supposedly aggressors can be evenly divided between male and female, it is not humorous, but within reason, I still love recent weak/stupid/incompetent male in addition to strong/smart/helpful female commercials. e.g., depiction of woman hitting man with large cartoon hammer, in obviously unrealistic commercial, ok. Clotheslining a man at a bar to take his/the last bottle of lite beer, not ok.

"'Now this is precisely the same study and data cited by MRAs when they complain. They can't stop talking about it.'"

"Why should they, though?"

Because any MRA I have seen so far uses such data as a weapon against females and feminists in particular, in the "I told you so," "look at these ebil, ebil wymmyn" sense. I mean they really can't stop talking about it, while brushing off concerns that women and feminists have, about lack of (women and children's) victim services, rape culture, etc. If MRAs were really about equality, they would allow discussion of both sides, and be concerned with both sides. They have entire forums devoted to "female pedophiles," "false allegations," "feminist/misandry," etc., where they accept input from female posters, but gather to bash females in general. They rail against "radical feminists," but behave the way they claim their opponents do.

Supposedly taken off airwaves, but I love it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7KNkS0mfgg

So use some better judgement and don't piss women off.
Next one: Um . . . no-no?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNVOl5_3_Zo&feature=related

"I still love recent weak/stupid/incompetent male in addition to strong/smart/helpful female commercials."

That's the problem: advertisers believe that the only way they can attract female viewers is by showing men as stupid and weak. We're getting mighty sick and tired of insulting depictions like that, and so are many women. I proudly boycott any company that approves such advertising.

"depiction of woman hitting man with large cartoon hammer, in obviously unrealistic commercial, ok."

No, it isn't okay. Here's the really easy criterion: if you switch the genders, is it okay? A man hitting a woman with an unrealistic cartoon hammer: funny or not? If not, and I say it isn't, then we must come down just as hard on the reverse.

"Because any MRA I have seen so far uses such data as a weapon against females and feminists in particular, in the 'I told you so,' 'look at these ebil, ebil wymmyn' sense."

Well, you've now met ME, and I don't use the data that way. I'm both a men's rights activist and a women's rights activist, and I'm merely sick of the truth of domestic violence being swept under the rug by people with a misandrist agenda. That doesn't mean I'm disparaging women or feminists as an entire group, though...

"Supposedly taken off airwaves, but I love it...So use some better judgement and don't piss women off."

Both of these commercials should have been banned (as well as about a hundred more that HAVEN'T been banned). Let's do the switch: a German beer named "Bierdick" is popular, and customers are asking the male bartender for one. Then a clueless woman gets his attention, and says, "Gimme a scotch-and-soda...dick." And it gets really quiet in the bar until the guy smacks her one across the face, to the point at which she has a big hand-print on her face (as another female patron does).

Are you going to defend that one, too, by talking about "judgment"?

"I still love recent weak/stupid/incompetent male in addition to strong/smart/helpful female commercials."

That's the problem: advertisers believe that the only way they can attract female viewers is by showing men as stupid and weak. We're getting mighty sick and tired of insulting depictions like that, and so are many women. I proudly boycott any company that approves such advertising.

"depiction of woman hitting man with large cartoon hammer, in obviously unrealistic commercial, ok."

No, it isn't okay. Here's the really easy criterion: if you switch the genders, is it okay? A man hitting a woman with an unrealistic cartoon hammer: funny or not? If not, and I say it isn't, then we must come down just as hard on the reverse.

"Because any MRA I have seen so far uses such data as a weapon against females and feminists in particular, in the 'I told you so,' 'look at these ebil, ebil wymmyn' sense."

Well, you've now met ME, and I don't use the data that way. I'm both a men's rights activist and a women's rights activist, and I'm merely sick of the truth of domestic violence being swept under the rug by people with a misandrist agenda. That doesn't mean I'm disparaging women or feminists as an entire group, though...

"Supposedly taken off airwaves, but I love it...So use some better judgement and don't piss women off."

Both of these commercials should have been banned (as well as about a hundred more that HAVEN'T been banned). Let's do the switch: a German beer named "Bierdick" is popular, and customers are asking the male bartender for one. Then a clueless woman gets his attention, and says, "Gimme a scotch-and-soda...dick." And it gets really quiet in the bar until the guy smacks her one across the face, to the point at which she has a big hand-print on her face (as another female patron does).

Are you going to defend that one, too, by talking about "judgment"?

bmmg39, while MRAs have a point about female on male violence being ignored, they wrongly blame feminists, who are not the ones they need to focus on. Everything is "the feminists" fault. Even when it's something feminists themselves complain about! The MRAs get no sympathy from me because they deny the existance of patriarcy, and in turn fail to place the blame where it belongs (patriarchy, of course).

Sarah, I don't blame feminists for female-on-male violence; I blame misandry. There are some feminists who act in misandrist ways, and there are some "traditionalist" women who act in misandrist ways. And there are women of both groups who ARE fair and compassionate towards men.

Is there a patriarchy? Is there a matriarchy? In my experience, when men complain about the ways in which they're treated unfairly, it's explained away that the "patriarchy" sometimes victimizes men, too. Fine, then it (the status quo) shouldn't have a male name like "patriarchy." MRAs of both genders aren't going to be receptive to an idea if it's assigning a male name to everything bad, and a female name (like "feminism") to everything fair and good.

Based on most of the comments I have read here, chivalry is generally frowned upon. I'm wondering if the desire for gender equality translates to all aspects of life to include frowning upon the current act of men both lifting the toilet seat and putting it back down when they are done.