>> ^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...

Related article covering feminism in videogames
http://www.gamecritics.com/mike-doolittle/are-game-developers-ethically-responsible-for-gender-roles-in-games

I picked "advancing the rights of women" because the roots of feminism lie in the historical oppression of women in society. Now, certainly the stated goal of feminism has been equal rights for women, but much of the public discussion has centered on the advancement of women's rights as the method for achieving that. I feel this is an important point to consider. With such a goal, how do you know when you've reached it? How do you know when you should stop advancing one group's rights? How do you even define your groups? There is no objective viewpoint to take, subtle oppression is difficult to quantify. The risk of exaggeration is inherent in any attempt to increase the rights of one group of people only.

Now, certainly feminist theory acknowledges, even actively propagates the point that it is not just men who perpetuate restrictive gender roles, and not just women who disavow them. Gender roles, as far as I can tell, are seen in feminist theory as a powerful meme that resides in all our minds, and restricts us all. Men, too, are bound by their roles, although those roles may traditionally grant them more power than the roles of women. I agree with this assessment to a large extent, and that is why I find it disappointing that feminist rhetoric remains so gender-centric.

"Feminism", "patriarchy", "sisterhood", "matriarchy" - these are all terms stuck in an old-fashioned mode of thought. Rhetoric using these terms is likely to be counterproductive now. Like it or not, a lot of people identify with their gender, partly for cultural reason, partly because most of us are hard wired to seek gender roles, whatever they may be in our culture. To say a society is patriarchal may be accurate, but it perpetuates a division that should not exist. A man is likely to take such a claim as an attack on them personally, because it implies that the male sex oppresses the female sex, making anyone identifying with the male sex an oppressor.

There is a paradox here I'm having difficulty putting into words. That gender is not really an either-or thing, but rather a diffuse gradient, or a combination of many gradients, seems to be a fairly widely accepted claim in feminist theory. Humans have a wide variety of attributes, too many to reasonably list, that vary with cultural background and hormonal makeup. Some people are more aggressive, some people better able to empathize with others, both traits likely influenced by nature as well as nurture. Gender affects us; to say that the mind of someone with XX chromosomes is not, on average, influenced by a different set of chemicals than that of someone with XY is foolishness. (For simplicity's sake, let's not get into women with Y chromosomes, men with double-X etc. here.) It is equally foolish to claim that simply based on someone's perceived gender you could tell what their abilities are. Gender matters, but individual variation matters more, so it seems silly to group people into "women" and "men" for purposes of defining what their rights are or should be. Still, this is effectively the division a lot of feminist rhetoric perpetuates by continuing to use gender-specific terms.

If you accept that individual variance trumps gender-based differences, I do not see how you can talk of women's or men's rights. The terms lose meaning. To say anything about women's rights implies that there is, for social purposes, a well-defined group called "women". If your goal is to let people live their lives however they please regardless of their gender, such segregation is counterproductive. There are human rights, and that's all.

In summary, fuck isms. Fuck them hard.

I wonder how much of a feminist this girl would turn into if she knew that guys have been placating her idiotic views her entire life, waiting for her to shut the fuck up, then attempting to screw her.

But that would be "denying gender roles" so I guess not.

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.

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.

^ ah, but that usage DOES relate. it's equating femininity or emasculation with homosexuality. it's a common pejorative usage. a man not conforming to gender roles? let's socially ostracise by calling him gay (and thus 'not a real man'). believe me, sometimes i'd like to be able to detatch emotionally from the issue, but i can't, sorry.

KP, my personal hypothesis is that it's highly rated because it featured a nude teen boy.. you are way more optimistic than i am in any case your justification makes perfect sense, even if i still don't think it fits in the channel. i don't know why i didn't pick up on the obvious sarcasm, i'm usually pretty good at that

If Hillary Clinton voters choose McCain/Palin in the hopes that Palin will become president, then they are voting for a woman and not a cause. If that's true, fuck them and fuck their votes. Sarah Palin is not just a woman, but also a Republican with conservative values. Clinton is a Democrat with centrist to liberal values. Why on earth would someone use their right to vote just to prove a point about gender roles? I know this country moved from ideas to appearances in looking for a leader, but has it gone a step further and simply been placed at gender, race or age? What's next? We may as well vote for someone completely at random. Just walk into the booth with a blindfold on, then grasp for any lever you can find and vote. It's a free-for-all!

Interesting! In a lot of ways, it's done the same way now, except that the printing plates are produced digitally, and all of those different machines they carry things around to are all integrated together.

Also interesting to see the different gender roles they had back then!

Oh my, if ever there was a wall of text it's this thread...

@feminists and the rest
I think this is a bit of a storm in a glass of water. Videos are ranked by popularity; popularity is not inherently sexist. We vote something up because we like it and down because we don't like it. Not because there are "banana and kiwis" in the picture or not. (In fact, I'm pretty sure that a video of banana and kiwis wouldn't go that far.)

The complaints about the top sifts are misguided, I think. They are there because they are good, not because of cock'n'balls. If women did similar acts they would get as many votes, no doubt.

As for Hollywood movies, well, we can't really do much about that. Hollywood is a business and they've got a working formula. Female leads tank at the box office. Sad, but true.

When I make fun of women (and I do, but I make fun of everyone) it's always because I know it's not really true. I can say "What are you doing out of the kitchen?" or ask in a voting booth "Are you allowed in here?", but dudettes: it's not malicious. I'm not trying to spew venom or anything like that. You're welcome to insult me once in a while too ("Gwiz, you manly man, why aren't you out saving the world with your mighty penis and muscles..." things of that nature ) I'm sorry if you're offended by that, but that's that.

I suppose like the "lynchings"-argument that kronos has made earlier ("it should never be uttered, even in jest"), you would have me (us) never use objectification and verbal use of gender roles even in jest? Pff, I honestly don't care. I don't want to kick someone that's down or anything, but if you cannot ever laugh at a "women can't drive" joke or the like, that's your loss.

If women want out of the gender roles, it's their responsibility to stay out of them. Go in the army like we have to, pay for your own damn drinks and cinematickets, stop scheming behind our backs.

@LittleRed
How should the admins make the site more gender friendly? If we start to police comments and moderate any derogatory language, then the site is effectively a dictatorship == is dead. WE, the sifters, have the power to make it more gender friendly, by voting on comments and commenting on other comments. I'm also here mostly for the discussions - the videos are secondary for me - and I think that we do have intelligent discussions. It really doesn't help when you call all of us a "bunch of pigs", because that just exposes you as a, well, not something good.

The site is what it is, we're not going to change ourselves, and if you want change then you'll have to do something about it. I hate to burst your bubble, but from my perspective videosift has a more accepting and tolerant community than I've seen anywhere else on the intarwebs. Sucks to be a feminist on the Internet.

In the same sense you mention above, not all farm animals are treated in a cruel fashion, yet they exist within a context where they are exploited by human industry based on normative demands. Even though cruelty may not always play a factor, the overarching exploitation is constant.

Porn actors/actresses work within an industry that intensifies existing sexual behavior and gender roles, at the same time manufacturing new standards for sexual behavior by virtue of pornography's massive consumption. Being forced to conform to industry prescribed sexual norms in itself could be seen as a degradation and humiliation of sexuality, without porn actors/actresses having to feel any humiliation themselves.

The nature of the problem for me is the industrialization of sexual behavior and the uncertainty and perplexity of how it's going to affect us all in the long run.

take their advice - go out to the barn or more precisely the pasture, and watch as bulls try to mount bulls, and oddly enough, cows try to mount cows, alllll day long.

There's also probably some nice pictures of female spotted hyenas somewhere on the net if you want to be really confused about gender roles and who packs what equipment.

First of all, I'm female.

I believe in equality between men and women just as much as you do. As I see it, equality isn't just about being able to do the same exact things. People are unique. Broadly, men and women, function differently emotionally as well as physically. It's something that I find absolutely fascinating and it always makes me sad when someone can't understand that while men and women can be equal, the complexities of that equality reach far deeper than a list of who what when where why. Both genders are unappreciated by each other. Even more sadly, people are unappreciated for things they do that are either subtle or against gender roles.

Our society might make women objects, but men aren't anything more. A man has to be strong, tall, rugged, handsome, has to support his family with acceptable work, can't be gay - and has to prove his heterosexuality, has to succeed in subjects such as math and science, be caring - despite all the emotional repression, etc etc. Why does this sound so old, so traditional and behind the times? Unfortunately, it isn't.

On the net it's easy to see men as nothing more than the comments they say. 'Oh, he's such a shallow bastard!' How is that, in any way, fair to a man? Women, having had their fight to equality, don't realize that they can stop fighting now. It's gone too far. A man can't bitch at a woman for commenting on the hotness of another man, it'd make him horrible and repressing. A woman can tell a man he's disgusting and shallow for looking at porn, and it makes her strong and independent. Feminism is about equality, not about women. Why should women get more rights than men just because they're supposedly suppressed? If someone is human, then they hurt. They feel pain. Imagine not being able to express your pain, having to be strong, being misunderstood and unloved for your anger that's there because you aren't allowed to express yourself. Can you imagine that? Have you ever had a really bad day where you tore everyone apart, people you cared about, because you were upset but didn't feel it was in your place? Did you know while it was happening, what it was that you were doing - hurting others, but not being able to get passed it? Imagine feeling like that every single time you get upset. Even worse, imagine not being able to express yourself when it comes to beauty. Men are fascinated by women, attracted to them in ways that are far more than sexual. Women are mysterious and beautiful to them. But they get punished for saying such, they're shallow for it.

What can you expect from a guy if he gets the anonymity he needs to be able to say whatever he wants? I bet it's a thrill for them to be able to joke about how hot a chick is, in public and not having to be careful around the women that they'd hurt with such a comment. What can you expect from a man that isn't allowed to cry, is pressured to make the money and keep the woman that doesn't bother to understand him satisfied? I've been around so many little boys that were just.. true gems of humanity, that were punished by their parents for liking things they shouldn't. 'No, don't go picking the flowers. Yes they're pretty, but that's what girls do. Your sister can pick them for mommy. You have to be a big boy now, go play with your trucks.' Little girls get the same treatment, but not to as harsh of a degree. A girl that can count in her head and run just as fast as the boys is rewarded for her behavior. A boy can't be interested in certain colors, but girls can like all of them. Women can have pretty much any job and be considered a strong, working woman. A man can't sew, or make certain types of music, work as a florist. He's seen as gay generally, or in some way less of a man, if he does. Is this right?

When it comes to porn.. I used to have a lot of trouble with my guy watching that. I saw it as him not wanting me, that I wasn't satisfying sexually. But as you said, women in porn are nothing but objects. That's what porn is for. There is nothing in mainstream porn that tries to make a viewer love the people within the video. It's about the raw, instinctual response to sex. There aren't supposed to be any emotions around it. It doesn't make the man want you any less, or see you as an object, unless there are other, REAL problems in the relationship. Porn makes us time between me and my guy more special, and there's nothing keeping me from sharing it with him. We can enjoy our sexuality

I find a lot of beauty in the female body. Added to the unique qualities of every single woman, emotionally and physically, and you've got billions of masterpieces all over the world. While some might be more famous, or more symmetrical and therefore aesthetically attractive, every single woman on the world supports and wields more power than she or anyone, really, will be aware of. When the power is realized it's used for negative things a lot of the time ( seducing to get what she wants, like money, for example ) but it can be used for good just as much. But while women have a lot of power, men have just as much in ways that they won't reach because of their required roles in society.

If you've ever had a problem with a guy over porn, then it's a misunderstanding. If you don't want to be open about a guy's feelings regarding porn, if you're that strongly against it, then it'd be best if you added that to the first date convo. 'I don't accept porn.' Eventually you'll get a guy that agrees with you - yes there are guys out there that don't enjoy porn. Stereotypes are nothing more than a generalization.. Men can be wonderful and women can be horrible and disgusting.

Men and women are equal. Equally surpressed. The best way to get around that is to just love yourself, appreciate you for who YOU are. Not for what you're supposed to be because you're a chick. If you can really and truly do that to yourself, then you should be able to see the true beauty in others, and leave these stereotypes behind. Guys are just as repressed.. And worse yet they're not allowed to talk about it.

I hope something I've said has reached you.. I'm sorry that you have to feel all this anger and that these posts are probably just upsetting you more. Like Obsidianfire said, monkey sphere.

Ever notice that when the gender roles are reversed, it's funny (and unlikely).
If that was a man, no one would be laughing, even if it was meant to be funny.

I work in a office where I am the only male. I constantly get comments about me being only a man and watch as they put up their all-male (almost nude) firefighter calenders..., and this is considered no problem. If the gender roles were reversed, I'm sure lawyers would be introduced.

By the was, I am in no way complaining, my view is live and let live, I don't care what they do or say, I laugh it off. I have noticed though how careful I have to be as a male in an office of 12 other women.

Just my 2¢

Well I can say those things because I was born and raised a Muslim, I have lost my faith personally but can vouch that Islam doesn't preach what you believe it does.

"Islam changed the structure of Arab society and to a large degree unified the people, reforming and standardizing gender roles throughout the region. According to Islamic scholar William Montgomery Watt, Islam improved the status of women by "instituting rights of property ownership, inheritance, education and divorce."

Islam learnt from the Qu'ran is not the same religion as peddled by those in fundamentalist and extremist societies. One criticism I will level personally at Islam is that its followers don't often look at their faith through the Qu'Ran, instead choosing to follow the fundamentalist or not slant offered by their Mullahs in the Mosque. This is especially true in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Taliban ruled Afghanistan, and is seen by the difference of sermons offered between say Indonesian mosques, Turkish Mosques and those in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. With regards to Religious filtration, the same can be said of those who follow the Jewish and Christian faith.

I don't know what you are trying to get at, I mean I know you personally have an atheist slant on religion on general, I agree with that view, I believe religion muddles the argument in the spheres of politics, economics and society in general. But I hardly agree that beating drums and attacking another religion and it's followers is going to bring about the change you seek especially when it comes to monotheistic Abrahamic religions.