A couple days ago, I drove by the following billboard ad and took a picture:




Personally, I can't stand it. The billboard assumes that women are atop some lofty perch, able to bestow their approval or scorn on any man bearing gifts. A woman who receives a diamond should be grateful, not disgusted or embarassed (as the ad implies). This billboard really bugs me!

Anybody think this is an example of misandry?


John Dias
Founder, DontMakeHerMad.com
Stopping False Allegations with Technology

I hate jewellery adverts more than most ads, as they are invariably pretentious and frankly, shite.
Almost as bad as bloody perfume ads.
And shampoo ads.
And tampon ads!

"Because I'm worth it! LOL!"
:headbang:


I am of the opinion that if I give someone a gift and they don't like it they can p!ss off. It just seems kind of rude to me that a person could get a gift for someone else and then that person says that it wasn't the gift they wanted.
They should be thankful they got anything at all.
Similarly, I always thought it was pretty lame when a bride creates a list of wedding presents, and someone gets her, say a toaster, and she then says something to the tune of
"Oh I already have a toaster, but you can get me another gift instead."
NO!
Since when is buying wedding presents necessary anyway? Aren't the guests meant to be there for the marriage, supposedly a special occasion and not the gift-giving?
Be thankful for what you have already and that they even got you a gift you scrubber! >


Rant over. Lol.


Anyway, it is clear that this advert is for diamond rings that men would buy for a marriage proposal to women.
Now, I don't think that the advert is misandrist, but I do think that it could put pressure on some men and it tells them that if they do not buy this certain type of ring (doubtless a more expensive ring) than it will not be good enough (and consequently the men will not be good enough). It may also encourage women to pressure (nag) their boyfriend to get them this ring and believe that if he does not do it he is not good enough.
On the upshot, if the MGTOW guys' plans of the marriage strike become widespread, these jewellers that thrive on this kind of trade would probably go out of business.:dance:
Which is a good thing, I say. Most jewellers adverts are all about pressuring men to get something more expensive anyway.

And its a crap ad. Lol.

--
BTW, Welcome to the forums, mate.

A similar one in America reads:

Two things struck me, and my wife's backhand wasn't one of them. 1) They compared real emergencies with proposal. 2) 911 for men sounds about right, as if a man calls 911 when being attacked by his wife, he can forget 911 being any use.

Well...... as I was expecting it to be my pet hate Diamond Car insurance, I was actually relived! So perhaps not in the best position to judge....

No really, Ive seen far worse and it actually doesn't bother me much, it just implies if you do want to buy a prezzie, getter a better response by going to 'Rogers'..

Of course anyne should be grateful for a gift, but how many times have you cringed at a shitty tie or whatever?

True comparison there, Glitz, regarding the cringing at the tie from Aunty Dot.

On the other hand, how many ads do 'promote' ungratefulness for bad sweaters or ties?

having said that, I do actually recall an advert from years ago that showed some unfortunate soul wearing a brightly diamond sweater from some long-lost relative who would naturally pop around on Christmas day to ensure he was wearing it.

LOL I cant believe I was allowed to post 'shitty'. Did you turn of the filter?!

No, the filter is extremely limited - as memory serves, it only moderates two words. 'shitty' isn't exactly a profanity in my books, it's more of a description of something, especially in the context you wrote it in.
If it were being used so as to attack someone, then that may call for manual editing/moderation, but in it's generic context I'm not offended by it and I doubt the majority of folks/readers are.

It folows the usual; theme of "Men have to buy gifts for women " .
What is so special about women / Why should we keep buying them things ?
As well as the "marriage strike" , how about a "gift strike" ? Let's turn the tables :funny:

It seems I am one of the naturally tightest 'gift givers' alive. I've never been into giving unwarrented gifts. This really annoys some people.

The billboard ad is sexist not misandric.

For me the ad implies the two wrongs depicted, are undoubtedly rings presented which aren't expensive enough, hence the repellence and distaste shown. The third joyful facial expression with a "right" declaration is for a sufficiently expensive ring presented to her ladyship - preferably purchased from the company advertised.

It's sexist because not only does she expect the man to adhere to the gender (marital) stereotype of him purchasing a wedding ring (2 if you include the engagement ring) but it also has to be an expensive ring. None of this has to be reciprocated of course.

Some womens magazines greedily and hypocritically proclaim that a woman shouldn't except a wedding ring that doesn't equate to 6 months - 2 years of a mans salary. Many women assimilate the gynocentric spew as indispensable gospel for a productive future (well, for her at least), and with sheep like predictability pander religiously to one-upmanship amongst fellow consumerist xx chromosome automatons to securing a bigger and more expensive ring - whatever the accumulated human/financial cost incurred (by him!).

The cost of a wedding ring also directly correlates to modern womans intrinsic and insatiable ego, just as women will brag incessantly amongst one another how their man spent xxx on them. It's all about perceived financial worth with many women (telling isn't it?). More so, any woman who has this unrealistic expectation of a man should be disregarded as worthy of marriage/girlfriend material by any sane man. Because, "she's not worth it."

Acceptance of this extreme materialism by any prospective groom only forges a template of unsustainable expectations she will have of him throughout their 'doomed' one-sided marriage.

Sexism is essentially "expectations" one gender has of another. Whilst much of sexism against women is imagined, insidiously contrived or redefined according specifically to gender. Much of womens sexism is masked by socially proscribed expectations such as the gynocentric/ideological hijacking of what defines chivalry for example. Treating one group preferably (women) at the deference of men has given way (in part) to women assuming a "fashionable" chauvinistic and supremacist stance that they so beneficially adhere to.

"Common civility" amongst the general population historically has always adequately sufficed without affording one group an elevated status at the detriment of another. Whilst some women have humbly appreciated men's chivalry, most have abused it, and therefore I call upon all men to repeal something to which aids in sustaining their entrenched position.

Given the endless selfish 'consumerist induced and driven' expectations women have of men (as opposed to the few men have of women), just read any womens magazine or view any female orientated tv programme (the majority! Right?) littered with entitlement princesses pompously demanding the expectations they require of a man, you quickly ascertain as with chauvinism and gender hatred (misandry) women who are equally subject to the same stringent draconian definitions as men - are the greatest perpetrators of all.

Also, I recall another jewellery (UK spelling) advert which was misandric. It depicted a man with a black eye stating this wouldn't have happened had he bought his girlfriend/wife some jewellery for valentines day.