The "Khakis" commercial by Cadillac/GM made the rounds recently - this is the commercial with the woman walking through the office, making all the men cower and piss their pants. To see this gem, go here and select "CTS" in the "SORT BY" drop-down box. Then click the third one in the first row (entitled "KHAKIS"), with the picture of the man and woman looking out from the elevator.
I was reading MANN and saw this great comment on why misandry is so rampant in the media, whether they be ads or the programs that come between the ads.
Submitted by Male Rights Network on Sat, 2007-05-05 01:54.
The reality is - and the entire retail and consumer industry knows it - today's crop of women are the ones with the money, they are the big earners and the high-flyers. This is through pro-female education especially at third-level, "affirmative action" and through Systematic Wealth Transfer, also know as Marriage-and-Divorce. (Marriage is a feminist institution.)
Furthermore, when women have this money, they spend it much more liberally than men would, and they spend it on goods and services which allow businesses to make a high profit.
We should all know by now that hatred of the male gender is something indelibly inscribed in the female psyche, and it's just a matter of encouraging it. Advertisers work on the basis of what sort of images and messages match our common psychology. We like to be told something is "new", we like to associate with "success", and often we like to be shocked. Whatever makes that all-important psycho-emotional link in our brain; that's what makes the impact.
So it is entirely natural that advertisers and businesses which use advertising will want to tap into any exploitable female psychological sensitive-spot. I have no doubt that, at least to a certain extent, presenting women with "superiority" images over men gives them an ego boost, thus making an emotional connection, and thus help sell the product.
Men are nothing to the consumer/retail industry. I cannot say what decade exactly they gave up on us, but today, we are 0 to them. We represent people who do not need a massive quantity variety of cheaply-produced goods such as clothes, shoes, perfumes, necklaces, facial creams etc. Our spending habits are conservative, and, I would say less predictable and less spontaneous than women's. The male psyche, being less emotional and more objective and logic in nature (by and large), is not influenced so easily by targeted marketing.
So not only do we not need their wares in many cases, what we do need, we just don't buy them, or do so in an unpredictable manner. We are unpredictable consumers. Advertisers could pump billions into an ad that will be effective on 95% of men, but it just won't happen. Conceiving an advertisement that will work on 95% of women, however, is probably easily achieveable, and in advanced marketing and psychological circles, it is probably proven.
If misandry is one of those primordial triggers of the female psyche, you can be sure it will be used.
That is not to say that we should not complain, both online and in wider society, about these anti-male, denigratory advertisements. That is not to say that there is not an element of social engineering and propaganda behind these ads. That is not to say that there are at least some women and feminists in the industry that are using the mass media to alter the collective conscience to the disadvantage of men.
However, we should consider that the economic case for (i) ensuring women have the bulk of wealth in society and (ii) ensuring they spend and much as possible, which is easily achievable, makes huge commercial sense. Indeed, female dominance in education and the workplace is music to Corporation's ears: they know it means more profit and a bigger consumer economy.
Economics are not on our side, men. Any Men's Rights Activist is inclined to believe that "Feminism = Marxism, Full Stop" should consider just how closely Feminism and Capitalism are intertwined.
Would these highly offensive, targeted attacks being accepted if they had a huge commercial benefits if Jews were the scapegoat, or women were the scapegoat? That is an interesting one, especially in the case of women being portrayed in almost entirely negative lights; their very integrity as people attacked. Would the laws of economics make a concession in that case?
Lacking a powerful, perceivable "men's lobby" - consisting of Government officials and bodies, corporate interests as well as individuals - the misandric advertising will continue, as it is effective on the female psyche and thus, helps to sell products.