Take a look at the following Bayer Beyond Birth Control advertisement:
Note how the women can choose males from a shelf in a department store like different brands of perfume. Advertisements inevitably reflect the values of a culture (or at least a specific target audience) and this one shows clearly how Anglo-American women view men: as disposable commodities to be traded and discarded. Each male on display is a stooge expressing some inane 'lifestyle-choice' for the female to approve (or not, as the case may be).
The whole theme of birth-control is presented as an entirely female enterprise. The fact that a male has fathered the child is conveniently dismissed, along with any influence he might have on the woman's decision. In fact, the process in presented in rather Brave New World terms, except that female 'choice' has replaced the technocratic state.
Ultimately, what we observe here is the ultimate feminist idyll: a matriarchy resembling that of the social insects where the male - any male - is a brief-lived sperm-giver, a necessary evil, a ghost at the banquet. In fact, no living male is necessary to perpetuate such a nightmare scenario; his sperm can be frozen and utilized whenever necessary. The man-hating feminist Jodie Foster of course chose this method of conception, and no doubt we will see ever more middle-class females adopt her spine-chilling approach in the years to come. The complete elimination of living men is already scientifically possible. Like the mythical Amazons, feminist technocrats could simply kill all male infants and their misandrist utopia would still continue indefinitely. Seldom have all the terrible themes of Anglo-American feminism been presented so artfully: misandry, homosociality, gendercide, puritanism and totalitarian matriarchy. What I have attempted to describe in three years, Bayer have successfully expressed in three minutes... no small achievement.
White Knights like Fleming or Futrelle should study this cultural artifact hard and often. At heart, Anglo-American women simply don't like men very much. That goes for Fleming, Futrelle and any other male (whether White Knight or not). The ultimate end of Anglo-American feminism is not some peaceful wonder-world of sexual freedom but the gendercidal elimination of all men - and, of course, matriarchal fascism.
Posts
Further evidence that Anglo-American women are hopelessly unfit for any kind of rational relationships with men.
ReplyDeleteIf abortion really was about 'reproductive rights' as the Anglobitches claim; wouldn't it logically follow that men would the same legal entitlement to terminate an 'unwanted pregnancy'? After all, if a woman can have an abortion without a man's consent, suppose a man doesn't want to pay child support? Doesn't it logically follow that he should have the same 'right' to compel an abortion without a woman's consent?
Of course, 'reproductive rights' never seem to include anything that might actually presume a relationship with a male, either. Do you ever hear these women demanding funding for fertility clinics, or better pre & post natal care?
But then again, it's no surprise that Bayer and other financially interested parties favor abortion. What does anyone think is done with all those aborted fetuses? Quite a tidy profit for the fetal tissue cultures they sell to medical cartels, to be sure!
"The ultimate end of Anglo-American feminism is not some peaceful wonder-world of sexual freedom but the gendercidal elimination of all men - and, of course, matriarchal fascism."
ReplyDeleteThat is some scary stuff! I have always felt that women in America have a deep seated subconscious hatred towards men. My friends have felt the same way.
I think it's time for men to get the hell out of all "anglo" countries and move to more man friendly countries.
Wait a minute, Rookh...
ReplyDeleteI thought that misandry and hatred of men tended to select itself out of the wider population. I mean, Steinem, Dworkin, Greer et al do not have very many children between them.
Even with these (potentially reprehensible) scientific breakthroughs, I suspect that all feminists (but particularly the vicious Anglo feminists) would die out, but perhaps more slowly. It is a little harder to create any sort of dominant society when you are dying out. Granted, the minority of deranged Anglo feminists did get their way once, but I doubt that they will again...not if the older men in Anglo society have unilaterally suffered at their hands the way that their more naive ancestors did not. The only thing that could derail my argument is observing how young Anglo males still tend to defer to Anglo girls - though many do learn by the time they can make a serious political impact.
Remember that Foster is an actress of world renown. As such, she is privileged in the way that few are (even amongst fellow American females). How many females could afford to go her way?
Society will also become irredeemably dysfunctional before the feminists can even begin to enact their odious dreams...they will be overwhelmed by feral males (the Anglosphere is becoming swamped by stupidity as we speak).
Rick
ReplyDeleteYour excellent observations may be true in practical terms. However, the advert (by its very nature) is not aimed at a small minority of feminist oddballs like Greer, Foster or Dworkin, but simply the average American woman.
In sum, these are not obscure values but rather the 'mainstream'. Clearly, large numbers of American women see men as (at best) fashion accessories and sperm-givers. Another thing the advert reveals is the castrating sense of entitlement that characterizes American women. Note how their car is overloaded by a model of the Eiffel Tower (an obvious phallic symbol) at the end. This symbolizes their ability to obviate the male in any preferred process of child-production via technology and 'choice'.
So, while the chances of such a feminist dystopia being realized are slight (for the reasons you outlined), the advert is still extremely revealing. Because they cannot DO such a thing does not mean they don't WANT to.
Besides, in Britain the large and growing underclass is largely the creation of single mothers of low education and intelligence. While this feral, Welfare-dependent mob is not the creation of sperm-bank technology, their sub-culture is still undoubtedly matriarchal (quasi-Amazonian) and strongly reminiscent of the social insects. In addition, stressed, underclass mothers are somewhat more likely to bear girls (a trend augmented by the effects of environmental damage), further emphasizing the gynocratic principle in those burgeoning communities:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/pollution-where-have-all-the-baby-boys-gone-472477.html
And the result is all-female families, often three generations deep:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1255288/Three-generations---single-mothers-Growth-extended-man-free-families-rely-state-handouts.html
Thus, it will be seen that an Amazonian subculture has already taken strong root in parts of the Anglosphere.
It's a dreadful ad; I (but then I am not female) got totally lost in the voice over - what exactly is the message? At best I thought it makes females look very shallow and silly. Behind their casual 'have it all' middle-classness I observe its converse: Insecurity about themselves and their lives - the use of the word 'choice' is the giveaway there. They do not know what they want and the ad did not help - other than to go to Bayaz.
ReplyDeleteRookh,
ReplyDeleteExcellent rebuttal which I find hard to disagree with generally (actually, all of your rebuttals are like that).
That being said, if the average American woman shares the values of those prolific feminists, then it is simply a reflection of oddball values made mainstream. Whilst I doubt that the average American women is as unilaterally feminist as those types (they are 'traditional' when it serves their interests), they are still at substantial risk of dying out.
The one disagreement I have about the underclass is that the single mothers didn't necessarily become that way because of 'choice' in the way that Foster did. Whilst I don't doubt that they are quite misandrist, their idiotic choice of partners and their expectations that these troglodytes would somehow transform into responsible fathers suggests that Anglo feminist values are not as evident 'down there' - probably because Anglo feminism (like Anglo leftism) tends to be the preserve of the wealthy first and foremost.
Even they, however, are at risk of dying out if what you say about coming gender-imbalance is true. Look at Russia's population problems.
*The one disagreement I have about the underclass is that the single mothers didn't necessarily become that way because of 'choice' in the way that Foster did. Whilst I don't doubt that they are quite misandrist, their idiotic choice of partners and their expectations that these troglodytes would somehow transform into responsible fathers suggests that Anglo feminist values are not as evident 'down there' - probably because Anglo feminism (like Anglo leftism) tends to be the preserve of the wealthy first and foremost.*
ReplyDeleteBut misandry is ubiquitous in the Anglosphere, at all social levels. True, 'organized' feminism is overwhelmingly an elite phenomenon but Murdoch's trash media are just as infected, albeit at a low-brow, 'instinctive' level. Social actors do not necessarily need to be 'conscious' to enact the prevailing themes of their culture - unconscious will do just fine, as long as the results are the same.
Also, due to the self-protecting nature of complex social systems, feminism will spontaneously generate new, 'populist' forms with the waning of academic feminism. The Amazonian underclass family clearly represents this process at work.
*Even they, however, are at risk of dying out if what you say about coming gender-imbalance is true. Look at Russia's population problems.*
There is an argument in evolutionary psychology that suggests underclass culture tends naturally towards misandry, in that low-status females are 'guaranteed' children in a way low-status males are not (hence the preferential treatment afforded low-status girls over boys, for example more frequent breast-feeding). Underclass women may produce more girls for this reason - it simply makes biological 'sense' to have offspring with reproductive potential and may well have been selected for in human populations. I guess we are in Jimmy Giro/Angry Harry territory, now. Was the underclass 'planned' or was it merely an accidental by-product of naive social mismanagement (principally, the White Knight assumption that women would not prefer shiftless troglodytes as mates)? Or is it some strange combination of the two - with the various Anglo-American States trying to 'make the best' of a catastrophic error...? I favor the last interpretation but welcome all suggestions.
Even if the present feminist malaise is not a coordinated conspiracy, we can still analyse the situation by accounting for all the organizations which benefit financially, that is to say, follow the money.
ReplyDeleteSo if we put the mechanisms like 'puritanism', Marxist-Feminism, etc., temporarily into a black-box, then speculate on the outcomes of misandric propaganda, we can still come up with some interesting hypotheses.
Angry Harry came up with a good theory explaining why there were so many adverts that celebrated the splitting up of romantic partnerships, especially in car adverts. The idea was based on the fact that if relationships are broken, then ultimately society must have more households. This in turn leads to more sales of merchandise, because there will be less sharing in the community; more couples equals less sales.
The reason women are targeted is probably because sales and advert correlations show a greater gain when selling to women. I suspect that this advert by Bayaz conforms to some advertising wide formula, such as the consensus of the herd. Men on the other hand, are more independently minded, less likely to change brands due to fads.
Consider the type of Apple MacIntosh user prior to the i-Mac. He was usually male, fighting a rearguard action in the face of Wintel machines. When the Bondi-Blue wonder came along, over night the average Mac user became a woman.
And what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander, as advertisers change sales by targeting women, so do political agents. Each organisation uses women's credulity towards fashion, as a vehicle for change: herds of Trojan Mares.
*If abortion really was about 'reproductive rights' as the Anglobitches claim; wouldn't it logically follow that men would the same legal entitlement to terminate an 'unwanted pregnancy'? After all, if a woman can have an abortion without a man's consent, suppose a man doesn't want to pay child support? Doesn't it logically follow that he should have the same 'right' to compel an abortion without a woman's consent? Of course, 'reproductive rights' never seem to include anything that might actually presume a relationship with a male, either. Do you ever hear these women demanding funding for fertility clinics, or better pre & post natal care?*
ReplyDeleteBrilliant observations, and that's what always strikes me about Anglo-American feminism. In theory it claims to be about 'equality' between the sexes (a not ignoble aim, though probably unachievable). In practice, it never advances female 'choice' without a corresponding attack on male 'choice' or influence. Reproductive issues are a perfect example of this, where the male now has little say in the fate of his own offspring yet is expected to pay Child Support.
Anglo-American feminism means women have acquired a vast trove of 'rights', leaving men with nothing but responsibilities.
The ultimate double-standard in modern feminism revolves around the concept of 'objectification'. Pornography is always decried as the 'objectification of women' - yet an advert like this where men are mere stooge-boxes women can select from a shelf is not 'objectification' at all (of course)... how balanced and fair.
ReplyDeleteHow dare Anglo-American women stand and preach morality to us or to anyone.
JamesBond:
ReplyDeleteI agree totally with your conclusions. I only date foreign women now; but when I was still involved with Amerobitches, I always felt there was an undercurrent of anti-male hostility beneath everything they said or did. When I was dating them, I always felt they were probing me for faults, shortcomings, or deficiencies rather than seeking positive qualities.
With their inherent misandry, it's no longer a mystery to me why Anglo women prefer louts and lowlifes to decent men. What real man could look at something like the Bayer advertisement and think that women who approved of it are worth pursuing?
As an aside, and in regard to female deception and histrionics; the girls in the advert don't exactly look...oppressed, now do they?
ReplyDelete*As an aside, and in regard to female deception and histrionics; the girls in the advert don't exactly look...oppressed, now do they?*
ReplyDeleteTry telling Tommy that... those poor, oppressed damsels!
I have a feeling these commercials are more so placed out there to make women feel empowered and agitate men indirectly. It seems to be working. I'm not so worried. You see, knowing men as I do, after awhile even a dog will turn on its master after being kicked in the face too many times. Men are physically stronger and I venture to say smarter. If there by chance is an attempt to minimize the male population I'm sure we'll pick up on it before the numbers are such where we're powerless to do anything. Brute force has it advantages. Our commercials can show men playing around rough and tumbling and come across cages with women behind bars, chained...all pregnant.
ReplyDeleteWomen should have never been given rights and freedom of anykind. They belong in chains.
DeleteThis is somewhat off-topic, but the article reminded me of a study I'd read when I was in high school. It seems that it was written sometime in the late 1960s or early 1970s by a team of scientists; it was debunking the myths of population/birth-control. The authors stated somewhere that limiting the birthrate to 2.5 children per couple would bring about human extinction within a few generations.
ReplyDeleteThe declining birthrate in Europe and America are bearing out this thesis. The birthrates in many Western countries are well below this average and the populations are aging and in decline.
The question I had for anybody here: Does anybody know of this study or its title? I have long forgotten it and, of course, it hardly contains conclusions that Academia is interested in promoting!
More men have to participate in telephone canvasses and Focus Groups. Advertising agencies like BBDO are only getting input from the feministas. Small wonder they produce estrogen-filled fantasies designed for women. It's all they know and all they have to measure.
ReplyDeleteThe failure of feminists is that they can't comprehend that matriarchies, like all which existed in the distant past, cannot compete with patriarchy or any other form of society where men can thrive, and thus make great contributions to society, which a stagnant matriarchy cannot keep up with, for men are the engine of human advancement and civilization.
ReplyDeleteIndeed Anonymous; and the corollary is the oldest 'computer model', which is the total history of mankind.
ReplyDeleteWith so many civilisations around the world, both present and past, natural evolution has 'computed' via the total absence of a stable female controlled state, that men are essential to success and stability.
Unless of course, feminists think they can do better than natural evolution, and free, diverse, interaction? And if so, in respect of all known history, wouldn't it by morally irresponsible to experiment on 7 billion souls by instigating the baseless utopian delusion of gender equality, against the natural differences between natural men and natural women?
Good to see the consensus on abortion here: I have previously written an article on it and demonstrate the other half of equality for men as we begin to implement it.
ReplyDeletehttp://rebukingfeminism.blogspot.com/2011/03/unplanned-pregnancy-is-not-mans-problem.html
OMG I hate these types of adverts, but unfortunately it's not just relegated to the realm of advertising...think of all the bumbling male representatives on TV for ages...males without a clue and without a choice who were just happy to be there.
ReplyDeleteI also hate the representation of women as such shallow uncaring...I'll stop there before I get foul with my language. This is a false representation of an absurd ideal - I am all for choices for ALL people (this includes the reproductive rights of men), but not to the detriment of another. Obviously feminism is out of control and out of sync with the ideal that was sold to our mothers and grandmothers (much like many "ideals" sold to the public).
To love a man is to understand that we (women) were sold a bad bill of goods via the disinformation on the part of the regime-like feminist movement in erasing the individual in favor of a corrupted ideal.
@Roxanne
ReplyDeleteI love your name...
'Already scientifically possible'
ReplyDeleteThat is so wrong
Logically, if women were to wage a war against men, they would lose.
Anyone arguing against that will have to forget almost every weapon was invented by a man, along with the freezing of sperm and many other things.
heres what we need to do:
ReplyDeleteyes, women have more population than men, but men possess the wits and physical strength. we could easily just over run all of them, take away there rights, and just reestablish some order. women will hopefully, once and for all, realize that they will NEVER destroy man, and just lie back and accept it.