@KarlKnechtel is it considered acceptable to make the man the butt of the joke in traditionally manly things, or is it just "incompetence in the things that are a woman's job, like cooking and cleaning"? Because I don't watch ads anymore, but I don't remember any where the joke was that the man couldn't drive, or fix the house, or protect his kids, or any other of such "manly things", it was always "haha the poor dear doesn't know how to cook and clean, let me do it for him instead."

@JoeW "Really? You are" - nothing else in your comment even remotely refers to what I wrote. You are clearly not engaging in good faith.

I showed you a search query that any random person could put in a search engine to immediately get decades of news coverage about a known phenomenon in advertising, and you dismiss this as "a single scene that is depicted in a commercial".

@Erik Doesn't matter to my argument, as it doesn't negate the point: the gender-swapped version would be unconscionable in 2023.

@KarlKnechtel I'd say it does matter, because being the butt of a joke when the whole culture is based around "that activity is not manly; have a woman do it" isn't really a case of "women projecting power over men" and feels much more like "women knowing their place and doing the job a man shouldn't be good at". Now if a commericial were to scold a man for not knowing how to cook or clean, that'd be a good example of women actually holding men accountable and having power over them.

Or, alternatively, like I said, if the men were the butt of the joke for an ad about something men are culturally supposed to be good at. But that never happens, because whenever the men are shown to be "the butt of the joke" it's for an activity that's not emasculating to be crappy at, and that women are "supposed" to tackle for them, so they can pretend helplessness and have someone do it for them.

I don't understand. How is "if we reversed the genders and created a gender-analogous situation, it would be unconscionable to make the joke", not clear and obvious evidence of sexist bias to you?

Women aren't allowed to be the butt of the joke, full stop. Men are, in certain circumstances. Quibbling about the nature of those circumstances is just that, quibbling. It doesn't negate the obvious bias.

This bias is against men, because it allows for harmful treatment to be visited upon men.

To be inured from a harm that befalls others, by virtue of status, is privilege.

The power here comes in the form that the advertiser is prevented from contemplating the joke on women.

It is power wielded by feminism qua social force, over content creators.

And it is backed up by implicit threat of "cancellation".

As for "accountability", that's simply irrelevant to anything anyone was saying.

@KarlKnechtel Don't accuse others of bad faith when they are only mentioning what you bring up in your arguments. You are the one who has said multiple times that commercials show women in power and men with none.

@KarlKnechtel "there are any number of works that depict women as wielding power over men - for example, pretty well any television commercial nowadays that depicts a heterosexual household" Here you are starting with the idea that a single scene shown in a commercial is comparable to an entire work of art.

@KarlKnechtel Again you are comparing a single scene in a commercial to an entire work of art.

@KarlKnechtel The fact that you are concerned with a commercial showing a single scene as evidence of power being shown in women's hands is what I call concern about equality.

@KarlKnechtel Again, advertising is a single scene and isn't comparable to media in general

Commercials in general are designed to sell a product and not be a statement.

@JoeW That's just the thing. You aren't "only mentioning what I brought up". You are misrepresenting it, in a way that you reasonably ought to understand is a misrepresentation.

@JoeW no, I am not. I am describing an overall philosophy of what is permissible or impermissible to depict in advertising.

@KarlKnechtel You keep bringing up commercials as evidence of women being shown in power when they are just showing a single scene that has no real meaning

NO, I DO NOT. TRY ACTUALLY READING WHAT I WRITE.

@KarlKnechtel You are also not brining up any examples

@KarlKnechtel I am reading what you are writing, you are trying to suggest that commercials are examples of feminism and men losing power

The entire point of my argument is that it does not rely on individual examples; it relies on a known phenomenon that is documented in journalism stretching back two decades or more.

@KarlKnechtel You have to rely on examples otherwise you are just making things up

@KarlKnechtel Otherwise you could actually point to what was happening instead of just suggesting it is happening

I did point at examples, by pointing at journalism noting a trend of such examples.

You keep saying commercials represent women having power over men yet they are just single scenes out of an entire picture

No, I did not say that they represent that. I said that they depict it.

@KarlKnechtel That is not an example, that is a claim with no evidence to back it up

@KarlKnechtel Again, that is a claim with no evidence to back it up

NEWS OUTLETS REPORTING ON A SOCIAL PHENOMENON IS EVIDENCE OF THAT PHENOMENON. I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO EXPLAIN THIS. YOU ARE NOT ARGUING IN GOOD FAITH. PLEASE STOP REPLYING TO ME.

@KarlKnechtel Again with the statements with nothing to back them up?

This conduct now qualifies as harassment.

Again, please stop replying.

If you are going to make a claim you should have evidence and explanation to back it up

I DID

STOP SAYING OTHERWISE

IT IS VERY OBVIOUS HOW I HAVE DONE SO

I am free to respond to you just as you are free to respond to me

LET ME REPEAT THE LINK FOR YOU AGAIN

duckduckgo.com/?q=commercials+showing+men+as+incompetent

NO, THAT IS NOT HOW IT WORKS. THERE IS A CODE OF CONDUCT AND YOU ARE VIOLATING IT.

All I see are claims of commercials showing women in power over men with no examples/evidence to back it up

@KarlKnechtel I am sorry but you need to show more then just a search page link

@KarlKnechtel Again, if you are free to respond to me, I am free to respond to you

The search link gives links to multiple news articles from reliable sources spanning many years describing a well known phenomenon. You are welcome to read them.

I had left this conversation until you brought me back into it with your claims and pinging me with a notification

@KarlKnechtel Why not point me to those articles instead of making me search on my own? Search results will turn up differently for each user

I have pinged you exactly once, and you keep pinging me despite my explicit request for you to stop replying to me.

The code of conduct forbids this kind of harassment.

I am replying to a comment that you make, I don't have control over it pinging or not. I want to make sure it is clear what I am replying to

Because the entire point is that anyone who searches will immediately find many links that demonstrate the issue, because it is sky-is-blue obvious to anyone who actually watches TV

If it is so easy to find why do you not show that yourself and instead insist that I find it myself

I DID FIND IT FOR YOU

No, you sent me to a search results page which can be different for each user

THAT IS FINDING IT FOR YOU. I AM HIGHLY CONFIDENT THAT THE RESULTS WILL LOOK SIMILAR ENOUGH TO YOU THAT YOU CAN EASILY DISCERN MY POINT.

NO, IT IS NOT ABOUT SINGLE SCENES. YOU KEEP SAYING THINGS ABOUT MY CLAIMS DESPITE MY EXPLICITLY REPEATEDLY TELLING YOU THAT THAT IS NOT WHAT I AM CLAIMING

Again, linking a search page is not finding evidence of your argument

YES, IT IS. QUIT TROLLING ME

@KarlKnechtel That is what a commercial is a single scene to sell a product and nothing more

THE ENTIRE POINT IS THAT THE RESULT WILL BE ADEQUATE EVEN IF IT LOOKS DIFFERENT FOR YOU

Please don't access people of trolling when they are asking you for evidence

THE ARGUMENT IS NOT ABOUT A SINGLE COMMERCIAL. IT IS ABOUT COMMERCIALS IN GNERAL

YOU ARE TROLLING BY "ASKING FOR EVIDENCE" REPEATEDLY WHEN I HAVE ALREADY PROVIDED IT. THIS IS A KNOWN FORM OF TROLLILNG.

If that was true it would be easy for you to point to examples and not just a search result but that doesn't change the fact that they are single scenes designed to sell something

Karl, please stop flagging every other comment of Joe's for spam/abuse

it's abusive

UI'm literally triggeredf

\I'm having difficultly typing properly because I am physically shaking

@KarlKnechtel Pointing out that a link to a search page isn't evidence isn't trolling

to poinjt that out it would have to be tyrue; it isn't

@KarlKnechtel I would suggest closing the page and walking away if you are impacted this much

I can tell you are triggered and I think you and Joe should drop this. It's complicated and neither of you are talking in a way that respects there is some truth in both viewpoints

I had dropped it until I was brought back in again

It doesn't look like continuing this conversation will be healthy for anyone involved. I'd recommend taking a break, finding a sip of water, and doing something offline for a little while; remember, internet discussions are not the most important thing in life.