Sexism: Can you really have it both ways?

Earlier I was watching a Nation wide insurance commercial. The one with the short Indian chic thinks she's invisible. At the end of skit, she try's to feel up a guy playing basket ball. Who revealed to the audience that she's been visible the whole time. The commercial ends with her telling the guy to gro up " you had an attractive woman touch your body.... Get over it."


In a reverse situation with an invisible male feeling up women. Wouldn't it be considered assault?!?

I assume you mean the superbowl ad? (or a related ad?)



Will really help if you can post a vid of what you are referring to.

a reply to: Entreri06

If you want to go by the letter of the law it could be assault both ways, not sure your point.


Or are you getting at it would be easier for the women to get the charge to stick?
Which I would still disagree with in the context of that commercial.

a reply to: Elton



Here it is

a reply to: Sremmos80

Oh, kinda cute.

I guess I don't see a problem with it.

I imagine Fabio or one of the guys from the Twilight films could have done the same commercial with a bunch of middle aged women and it would be about the same to me...

I have been sexually touched and arrassed in my life by women but at least, me being a man, I could use my strength and say no. It's really not a good feeling and I know that most people in society would say that it's not that bad and just to get over it.

I find it was easy to get over every single time it happened because it never got far but I will never find it acceptable.

Although not my case, a lot of men find themselves in abusive relationships and are afraid to be judged for it because of what society thinks...

I hope for an more egalitarian tomorrow in sex, race and wealth!

Males are typically the aggressors in this type of situation. I think just reversing the roles doesn't paint the whole picture. But I do agree that women today want their cake and want to eat it too (not all of them of course).

The video isn't too bad, I don't feel that the creators of the add think it's ok for a women to touch a man if he is not consent.

I agree totally.

If a man fondled a woman and said "get over it I'm an attractive guy" he'd be in jail.

As pathetic as this might sound, I'm actually cataloging modern adverts with a view to see what the balance is regarding sexism, reverse sexism etc...

A LOT of ads make the male look stupid and the female all powerful so the catergories of my research are:-

Male put down
Female Put down
Male 'wins'
Female 'wins'
Not applicable

Running this for a few months to get an overall picture.

A world where the government screens all advertisements before airing for unapproved content sounds a lot worse to me than the occasional commercial that makes a few men uncomfortable.

a reply to: Elton

Exactly.

a reply to: Mister_Bit

In the context of this commercial, I would have to disagree.

We are talking someone grabbing an arm, context is everything.

Just that phrase she says, if reversed in male version, will be flagged down.

Another thing the "Feminism is equality" cult wont touch.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Elton

Exactly.

a reply to: Mister_Bit

In the context of this commercial, I would have to disagree.

We are talking someone grabbing an arm, context is everything.

Go try it tomorrow... I promise you it wont end well.

She isn't touching his arm to help him across the road, she finds him sexy and is touching him from that respect.

I'm not hysterical about it or anything, I just don't like double standards.

If women find men attractive... cool. If they want to see male strippers... cool, if they want to see half naked men on tv... cool.

Just don't tell us men we can't do when it comes to women.

I would hope that the OP isn't really trying to put this in context of legal commentary. this is just plain and pure social commentary. and they are right in the assertion: that commercial presents a condescending view of men. that they should feel "lucky" that a woman who proclaims herself to be 'attractive" would actually touch him.

i think it also promotes a stereotype, as pointed out by a prior poster. The "rub" in this commercial is that this is a behavior usually seen in men. its a role reversal. But is it something usually seen in men? I can't recall ever groping a woman. Or catcalling. Or doing anything of the sort.

Is it a big deal? No....but it does provide a point for social commentary. on the one hand you will hear, "but she is a strong woman with a strong sense of self and sexulity". The other side of that coin....this assessment is made because she has become the one to objectify and victimize the other gender. This objectifying of men is what is used to declare her a strong woman with a strong sense of sexuality.

It happens and people get away with it because along with the idea of the ism, we've also been ingrained to think that all the problem flows in one direction. That there is a power issue that makes it impossible for the trouble to flow the other way.

That's why you can have this commercial, but the inverse would be unthinkable. There are similar issue peppered all throughout society at every level. If there's an ism or a grievance group, then they are endlessly victimized but can never be guilty of being the aggressors.

originally posted by: theMediator
I have been sexually touched and arrassed in my life by women but at least, me being a man, I could use my strength and say no. It's really not a good feeling and I know that most people in society would say that it's not that bad and just to get over it.

I find it was easy to get over every single time it happened because it never got far but I will never find it acceptable.

Although not my case, a lot of men find themselves in abusive relationships and are afraid to be judged for it because of what society thinks...

I hope for an more egalitarian tomorrow in sex, race and wealth!

What?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (has to give head a shake) (maybe two shakes)...

OMG, you have a problem with women coming onto to you. I'm old now, I miss the frequency LOL. As long as they're not fat, old or ugly (if they are you can still say no), I don't see the problem. Keep a box of condominiums in your car and a couple of spares in your wallet FFS's. Hot wimmin still be needin luvin too ;-)

I will expect the feminazi's to jump onto this post soon, but nobody likes them anyway LOL

(still shaking head)

Cheers - Dave

Am I the only one that sees that the fact that she has to offer an excuse shows that her actions are not seen as OK?

She gets busted.

The commercial is hardly offensive, and she wasn't touching a private part and it was more in relation to her being invisible.

People will always touch one other, casual or with intent. Some people will always go too far where it becomes a crime, (male or female)... but is it too much for men to understand that the double standard only exists because they could stop a potential molester, while the average woman can't?

Perhaps it is also because the average man can't conceive of assaulting a woman, so neither being victim nor perpetrator, it isn't real to them.

And it's common sense for a healthy society to set standards to protect the weakest. (Not saying men don't get stalked, abused or blamed on occasion...crazy is out there which is why laws are in place)

It goes both ways and is all pretty innocent IMO.



Was that commercial exploiting men and showing women to be the sexist pigs that they really are???

Or was it just a commercial. Art imitates reality.

originally posted by: Elton
A world where the government screens all advertisements before airing for unapproved content sounds a lot worse to me than the occasional commercial that makes a few men uncomfortable.

No it should not be illegal to have a commercial like that. It just should not be socially acceptable, is the point I think the op was trying to make.