Feminism ruins everything: Underarmor edition

[RavenSky]

Well, their video didn't help their case at all. Not a single dude in his knickers there either. But the cross-dressing fairy was amusing.

The video also had a man doing the dishes and another man singing along To Bridget Jones. And in another current 'must haves that make christmas' video, a man and a woman snuggling up on a sofa in matching pj's.

In other locations, they currently have 'christmas must have' window displays for women's outfits:

View attachment 18955

They also currently promote men's underwear.

View attachment 18954

View attachment 18956

That's David Gandy, in M & S underwear, the same model used to promote the suits in the 'controversial' window display in Nottingham and the guy doing the dishes in the video.

So I'm not convinced there's really a whole lot of need for this:

View attachment 18957

My guess is that M & S, like any other high street retailer struggling to survive these days, put in their various adverts, whether in a window in Nottingham or somewhere else, or in a video that gets much wider exposure, combinations of whatever items they hope to sell most of or at most profit to the punters of both sexes likely to be viewing the particular advertising in particular places at this or that time of year, and they probably change the window displays regularly to reflect what is or isn't selling. They are one of the UK's leading women's underwear retailers. Another staple is men's suits.

So what are the lessons to be learned? Who, if anybody, shot themselves in the foot?

Possibly, the sales boffins at M & S HQ are saying 'Maybe we should have had a pair of our men's knickers in that window and maybe a woman's coat', or maybe they are saying, 'Hey, at least look how much more free publicity we got for our men's suits and women's underwear'. And maybe away from advertising and sales executive meetings, members of the general public of both sexes are thinking, 'UK Feminists. It's little wonder so few women and even fewer men want to be one.' As for the newshounds, they got to fill column inches and airtime discussing an important Human Rights issue.

I stand corrected... they have the dudes in their knickers, too.

 

[bilby]

Well, their video didn't help their case at all. Not a single dude in his knickers there either. But the cross-dressing fairy was amusing.

The video also had a man doing the dishes and another man singing along To Bridget Jones. And in another current 'must haves that make christmas' video, a man and a woman snuggling up on a sofa in matching pj's.

In other locations, they currently have 'christmas must have' window displays for women's outfits:

View attachment 18955

They also currently promote men's underwear.

View attachment 18954

View attachment 18956

That's David Gandy, in M & S underwear, the same model used to promote the suits in the 'controversial' window display in Nottingham and the guy doing the dishes in the video.

So I'm not convinced there's really a whole lot of need for this:

View attachment 18957

My guess is that M & S, like any other high street retailer struggling to survive these days, put in their various adverts, whether in a window in Nottingham or somewhere else, or in a video that gets much wider exposure, combinations of whatever items they hope to sell most of or at most profit to the punters of both sexes likely to be viewing the particular advertising in particular places at this or that time of year, and they probably change the window displays regularly to reflect what is or isn't selling. They are one of the UK's leading women's underwear retailers. Another staple is men's suits.

So what are the lessons to be learned? Who, if anybody, shot themselves in the foot?

Possibly, the sales boffins at M & S HQ are saying 'Maybe we should have had a pair of our men's knickers in that window and maybe a woman's coat', or maybe they are saying, 'Hey, at least look how much more free publicity we got for our men's suits and women's underwear'. And maybe away from advertising and sales executive meetings, members of the general public of both sexes are thinking, 'UK Feminists. It's little wonder so few women and even fewer men want to be one.' As for the newshounds, they got to fill column inches and airtime discussing an important Human Rights issue.

I stand corrected... they have the dudes in their knickers, too.

To be fair, it does seem reasonable to have models in underwear when your core business is selling underwear. It's not like they are using women in lacy undergarments to sell cars.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well most sex work is already banned everywhere in the US except Nevada.

it's never been legal in the US, and it's now only legal in two counties in Nevada, so it's not like this is something new.

Actually, it was legal indoors for some years somewhere in New England, I forget the state at the moment. This wasn't intentional, just a lawmaker goof.

Also, Wikipedia lists 7 counties here with active brothels.

- - - Updated - - -

I stand corrected... they have the dudes in their knickers, too.

To be fair, it does seem reasonable to have models in underwear when your core business is selling underwear. It's not like they are using women in lacy undergarments to sell cars.

The issue was the different clothes that were being presented on men and women. It looks like the original images were cherry picked, though.

 

[ruby sparks]

I stand corrected... they have the dudes in their knickers, too.

Maybe in this case it's just been a storm in a C cup.

Way back when I first met my now wife, I spoofed her that men's underpants came in 'gourd' sizes, and she believed me! Though looking at that 2nd pic of David Gandy I'm wondering if it's still untrue.

View attachment 18956

 

[southernhybrid]

Also, Wikipedia lists 7 counties here with active brothels.

That could be. I read an article that said that sex work was legal in only two counties. Either way, it's only legal in very few places.

 

[ruby sparks]

Knowing my luck though, I'll be fortunate to even get a pair of these for christmas:

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I notice the moderators have not removed this post. Really says all that needs to be said about how low the moderating in this forum has sunk.

Did you report it?

He did, even though it wasn't aimed at him. Which is endlessly ironic. And just after Derec lamented how "prudish" the world had become no less.

It was in response to what Trausti had written, so in context it would be:

Contemporary feminism is really just about unattractive women getting vengeance on the pretty. How dare men not desire the unattractive as they do the pretty.

Thank god no one will fuck you.

 

[Trausti]

He did, even though it wasn't aimed at him. Which is endlessly ironic. And just after Derec lamented how "prudish" the world had become no less.

It was in response to what Trausti had written, so in context it would be:

Contemporary feminism is really just about unattractive women getting vengeance on the pretty. How dare men not desire the unattractive as they do the pretty.

Thank god no one will fuck you.

This is an example where the strength of a comment to cause offense is weighted by the truth of the comment. The more offend a person is, the greater likelihood there is truth to the comment. I'm married with two children. So for me, response to Koy's comment be like

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I'm married with two children.

Sure you are.

 

[Trausti]

I'm married with two children.

Sure you are.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Yeah, those aren't making your case any stronger.

 

[Derec]

Actually, it was legal indoors for some years somewhere in New England, I forget the state at the moment. This wasn't intentional, just a lawmaker goof.

It was Rhode Island, and research shows the lack of an anti-sex law improved matters. Didn't stop a bipartisan coalition to close the loophole in 2009. Ds and Rs are very good at going bipartisan when it comes to illiberal legislation.

 

[Derec]

it's never been legal in the US, and it's now only legal in two counties in Nevada, so it's not like this is something new.

It was (largely) legal in the US until the 20th century. The coalition that fought for banning of sex work was similar to the one pushing for Prohibition of alcohol by the way.
Also, even when sex work is illegal, it can be under "benign neglect" by local governments. There is big difference between government ignoring places like backpage and passing a wide ranging law in order to shut it down.

And, as a woman who grew up in the 50s and 60s, I find it amusing that you think the country is "prudish" now. Do you have any idea how "prudish" the country used to be?

I understand 50s were pretty prudish, but we are sadly moving in the same direction. Things have certainly gotten worse since the 90s.

Unmarried women were rarely sexually active and when they were, they were stigmatized and judged harshly. That was wrong, but sometimes I almost think that was better than what we have now. Young women today often feel pressured into having sex, even when they don't really want to.

Things are very different these days and other than perhaps some fundamentalist religionists, it's crazy to say that we're becoming more prudish. Maybe women are just tired of being taken for granted and being objectified. But, that doesn't equate with prudishness.

I think it does. "Trying to protect the womenfolk" has always been an excuse for prudishness and puritanism. And how do you even define "objectification". Because it can be defined in a way that nothing sexual can be displayed as it makes an "object" out of it. And that leads tight to prudishness/puritanism.

I don't think you can say that most feminists are against sex work. How would you even know that?

Certainly the politically active feminists tend to be very anti. Just look at women like Kamala Harris.

There are some feminist celebrities who are against it, but that doesn't mean that most even care about this issue. A lot of sex workers consider themselves feminists too. All I'm trying to say to you is that you shouldn't make generalizations about any group of people based on a few that you may know about. So, if you want to have a discussion about this topic, it would be best if you stopped blaming things that you don't like on feminists. Feminists really don't have that much power, believe it or not.

I think they do. They have already banned strip clubs in Iceland and sex work in Sweden. They are actively trying to ban strip clubs in Scottland. The anti-sex work feminists are very politically influential.

And, most women don't even like or use the term feminist anymore because it is often misunderstood. All feminism means is that women should have the same social, economic and political opportunities as men currently do. That's pretty much it. From your posts, I don't think you understand that, but maybe I've given you a little food for thought. One can hope.

Anything with -ism means putting the thing before -ism ahead of alternatives. Nationalism that arose in 19th century means putting nation above both petty sub-national states (Italy/Germany) and multinational empires like Austria-Hungary. Socialism means putting society ahead of the individual.
Feminism is a bad word to go with that definition.

 

[laughing dog]

He did, even though it wasn't aimed at him. Which is endlessly ironic. And just after Derec lamented how "prudish" the world had become no less.

It was in response to what Trausti had written, so in context it would be:

This is an example where the strength of a comment to cause offense is weighted by the truth of the comment. The more offend a person is, the greater likelihood there is truth to the comment. I'm married with two children. So for me, response to Koy's comment be like

Being married and having children is not evidence that no one WILL fuck you. It is evidence that someone did fuck you.

 

[ronburgundy]

Strip clubs are a pretty terrible establishment for women. This is a basic fact about strip clubs.

Strippers make a lot of money.

Not according to this site https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Stripper%2FExotic_Dancer/Salary. Some strippers do, but it is not clear that lots of strippers make a lot of money (I don't consider $48K or so, "a lot of money").

That link also states that they are making $48k with zero years experience, which includes the uneducated 18-25 year olds that comprise a large % of strippers. That is well above the median entry level pay for other jobs that require no experience and no education. Most strippers would be making minimum wage

This doesn't mean that strip joints are not terrible places to work or that most strippers don't find their job highly unpleasant. In fact, just the opposite. The relatively high pay is why they put up with the other miserable aspects of the profession. They choose it over other less unpleasant options for unskilled, uneducated workers b/c it pays double or more what most those options pay.

 

[Elixir]

One would have to assume that Derec would be delighted to be dragged out to a male stripper show in order to please a female client.
Isn't that so, Derec?

FWIW... I wouldn't. But Derec might have different preferences - not that there's anything wrong with that of course.

 

[ronburgundy]

The company does not agree to reimburse for it

My company will not reimburse more than $75 per day per person for meals. Even if everyone in the group agrees it would be a fabulous idea to eat dinner at Naoe - and it would definitely be impressive for our potential clients - it is against company policy.

Clearly my company is not being fair not letting us eat at Naoe on the company dime

And it’s fine for companies to have those types of rules. I’m not arguing against it in any way. If they want to set limits that’s a perfectly fine corporate policy.

Similarly, it’s a perfectly fine policy for a company to say “Partying at strip clubs does not with our corporate values, so it’s not permitted to take clients there and the company will not reimburse you for any expenses at such establishments”. It’s also fine for a company to say “Supporting the genocide of our animal brothers does not align with our corporate values, so it’s not permitted to take clients to restaurants which serve meat dishes and the company will not reimburse expenses at such establishments”. They can set their own corporate culture and have their employees align their business activities to conform to that culture.

My point is simply that the first company there is not more moral or better than the second company, nor would it be superior to a company which had neither policy and allowed for expense accounts to be used at both types of establishments if that would help client engagement and nobody is forced or pressured to go somewhere that they’re not comfortable going.

I agree with you that the arguments presented thus far to suggest that this policy is not merely fine but morally neccessary are unsound.
However, I do think that a case can be made that this policy is more morally sound than a "no meat eating" policy. The moment you walk into a strip club, you are "consuming" the product, because it is mostly a visual product. Unlike an restaurant where a person can not consume any meat themselves either by getting something meatless or not eating at all. To do the equivalent at a strip club would require literally wearing a blindfold. Thus, by allowing some employees or clients to choose a stripclub for a business meeting, coercively pressures other employees or clients to consume something they have a strong objection to.

Also, one policy being "more moral or better" than the other is purely a matter of subjective taste, because all morality is a matter of subjective taste. If fostering and promoting the sexual objectification of women is felt to be worse than fostering and promoting the killing of animals for food, then the OP policy is "better" and "more moral" than a policy against meat eating. If you feel there is no subjective difference between the acts, then there is no difference between the policies. But that is in turn not objectively different than feeling there is no difference between a policy of "No expensing KKK membership" vs. "No expensing athletic club membership". In all cases, 100% of the moral difference lies in your personal subjective tastes and feelings about the actions.

 

[Elixir]

But that is in turn not objectively different than feeling there is no difference between a policy of "No expensing KKK membership" vs. "No expensing athletic club membership". In all cases, 100% of the moral difference lies in your personal subjective tastes and feelings about the actions.

Once again proving that Corporations ARE people!

Oh, wait...
never mind.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

He did, even though it wasn't aimed at him.

It was aimed at a fellow forum poster. And it was a clear violation of the forum rules.

How? I was thanking an imaginary being that no one will have sex with Trausti; an assumption based entirely on his insulting comments:

Contemporary feminism is really just about unattractive women getting vengeance on the pretty. How dare men not desire the unattractive as they do the pretty.

It had nothing to do with insulting Trausti personally.

How is it ironic?

The irony is that you (a) clearly thought I had directed that comment at you when I had not and (b) that you thought it was an insult based on the person and not as it was (based on the comments).

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The company does not agree to reimburse for it

My company will not reimburse more than $75 per day per person for meals. Even if everyone in the group agrees it would be a fabulous idea to eat dinner at Naoe - and it would definitely be impressive for our potential clients - it is against company policy.

Clearly my company is not being fair not letting us eat at Naoe on the company dime

And it’s fine for companies to have those types of rules. I’m not arguing against it in any way. If they want to set limits that’s a perfectly fine corporate policy.

Similarly, it’s a perfectly fine policy for a company to say “Partying at strip clubs does not with our corporate values, so it’s not permitted to take clients there and the company will not reimburse you for any expenses at such establishments”. It’s also fine for a company to say “Supporting the genocide of our animal brothers does not align with our corporate values, so it’s not permitted to take clients to restaurants which serve meat dishes and the company will not reimburse expenses at such establishments”. They can set their own corporate culture and have their employees align their business activities to conform to that culture.

My point is simply that the first company there is not more moral or better than the second company, nor would it be superior to a company which had neither policy and allowed for expense accounts to be used at both types of establishments if that would help client engagement and nobody is forced or pressured to go somewhere that they’re not comfortable going.

I agree with you that the arguments presented thus far to suggest that this policy is not merely fine but morally neccessary are unsound.
However, I do think that a case can be made that this policy is more morally sound than a "no meat eating" policy. The moment you walk into a strip club, you are "consuming" the product, because it is mostly a visual product. Unlike an restaurant where a person can not consume any meat themselves either by getting something meatless or not eating at all. To do the equivalent at a strip club would require literally wearing a blindfold. Thus, by allowing some employees or clients to choose a stripclub for a business meeting, coercively pressures other employees or clients to consume something they have a strong objection to.

Also, one policy being "more moral or better" than the other is purely a matter of subjective taste, because all morality is a matter of subjective taste. If fostering and promoting the sexual objectification of women is felt to be worse than fostering and promoting the killing of animals for food, then the OP policy is "better" and "more moral" than a policy against meat eating. If you feel there is no subjective difference between the acts, then there is no difference between the policies. But that is in turn not objectively different than feeling there is no difference between a policy of "No expensing KKK membership" vs. "No expensing athletic club membership". In all cases, 100% of the moral difference lies in your personal subjective tastes and feelings about the actions.

Right, and that was the point I was making. I see no inherent immortality in strip clubs. If an adult wants to take their clothes off for money, I see no issue with that. If other adults want to pay to see people take their clothes off for money, I see no issue with that either. Now, obviously there are some people working at companies who would disagree with me about that, so a standard policy of taking clients to strip clubs would be a bad thing. However, not everybody always has to do the same thing, so the fact that there would be people who would not want to go isn't relevant, just whether or not the people in the specific group involved would want to go.

If you have a group of employees and customers who are all fine with going to a strip club, then I don't see why expensing that would be less viable than taking the clients to a football game. There may be other employees elsewhere in the company who hate football because they feel it contributes to a violent society and finds their lack of action on concussion related injuries to the players deplorable, but if those people aren't in the group which is taking the clients to the game, then it should still be an acceptable client appreciation expense because the people who are anti-football aren't involved.