I wanna knock the bottom out of this advertisement

Carz says:

06:37am | 17/02/12

Because it’s ALL ABOUT THE MEN…....

Emma says:

06:37am | 17/02/12

I think one reason though is that men “seemingly” enjoy violence more. They create and are major clients for violent movies and games and sports. Far more men that go boxing and play rugby.

We should though in all cases always distinguish this from obviously unwanted domestic violence, which is equally wrong for both sexes.

I think using violence for ads to get attention is questionable in any case, whatever kind of living being is involved. Just imagine the outrage if it was a puppy!

BJ says:

07:04am | 17/02/12

We have a perfect example here. Rhianna attacked Chris Brown with the point of a stilleto first, but no-one seems to care.

Erick says:

07:14am | 17/02/12

@Carz - Actually it’s all about the women. Issues like this are always raised when it’s women who are the victims of violence. But when it’s men who are the victims, it gets ignored, as in my examples above.

@Emma - Men may enjoy depictions of some violence more than women, but only when men are portrayed as the victims.

The vast majority of men are repulsed by the idea of domestic violence against women - though domestic violence against men is often treated as a joke.

Gregg says:

07:25am | 17/02/12

@ Erick
Come on now Erick, you know that unless your woman decided to take a sledge hammer or something to you while you slept, the chances of a woman beating up her fella are very remote, most guys able to fend them off or control them with a grasp, or just walk away, it only being those of violent temperament that might lash out.
It is just a physical fact of strength that a fella can much more easily do real harm to a woman than the other way around.

James In Footscray says:

07:28am | 17/02/12

Ho hum erick. We got your point a while ago - and there’s something to it,, for sure. But haranguing us, I suspect, makes non-converts switch off.. Is there something lateral you could do? Like give an anecdote, cite some evidence, tell a joke?

Erick says:

08:09am | 17/02/12

@Gregg - “you know that unless your woman decided to take a sledge hammer or something to you while you slept…”

Interesting you should mention that. In fact, some reports say this was exactly what Tiger Woods’ wife did to him, except with a golf club.

Of course, that incident was ignored, like all the rest.

The fact that a smaller person attacks a larger person doesn’t somehow make the violence acceptable. Indeed, women have an advantage, because if the man defends himself, he’s the one likely to be arrested.

@James In Footscray - When the media stop publishing articles about violence against women, I’ll stop writing comments about violence against men. Fair enough?

iansand says:

08:23am | 17/02/12

I agree, James in Footscray.  The anecdote I want is what Erick’s ex did.  That should be a doozy.  That woman must have balls (unlike the Head Whiner).

SimonFromLakemba says:

08:35am | 17/02/12

@Erick

Sigh, going to have to agree with you actually. Valid points raised.

@Gregg

I’m from the same mindset as you, whilst any violence is bad, unless you are asleep a women wanting to have a crack shouldn’t be to hard to defend unless she some Islander girl

Not Chongie. says:

08:48am | 17/02/12

Yes Eric , but———————————      Have you ever noticed how men with a ‘bad boy’ ambivalence are a damned magnet to women ?

I saw too many times to count , playing in pub rock bands how the biff artist would always be the one to take the chick home . The ‘Nice’ guy would be left sitting there staring into the empty glasses wondering where they went wrong .

I am not saying women deserve it , but their choice is a large factor .

borg says:

08:57am | 17/02/12

@ Gregg & James

I’ve had 2 mates go thru really nasty divorces, one where his 150cm wife beat the crap out of him, black eye chipped tooth, the works.  The police are only interested if he responded, no he hadn’t she was just angry.
The second had restraining orders and false allegations of abuse levelled against them.  When proven in open court of law that no such abuse ever occurred, and that she outright lied, again no action was taken

So yes I see where he is coming from

Trev says:

09:03am | 17/02/12

@Erick

I couldn’t find the quote in the article where it stated that violence against men is right. Please cite it.

Bev says:

09:15am | 17/02/12

Gregg says:08:25am | 17/02/12
“the chances of a woman beating up her fella are very remote”

Wrong two studies Monash and Curtin universities produced similar results.  Men suffer about 1/3 of the injuries that women do however their injuries are far worse than women on average.  They are stabbed, have hot or boiling liquid (including fat) thrown over them or hit with heavy objects causing fractures.

most guys able to fend them off or control them with a grasp, or just walk away

If a woman has any bruising due to the man fending her off she will be told to claim self defence and in any case he will be arrested as the"primary aggressor”.  I suggest you read the police DV proceedures, policies and protocols.

Borderer says:

09:16am | 17/02/12

Erick’s point is about equal treatment regardless of gender.

Example I had to give evidence on, girl slaps bouncer in the face, bouncer slaps girl in the face back. Girl contacts police to lodge an assault claim. Police view the footage and point out that the bouncer actually has the right to charge her with assault, not the other way round.
The issue here is not a point of law but rather the attitude involved. The girl believed her gender gave her certain rights to be violent and that the male in the situation did not. She also believed the law was both a shield for her and a weapon to be used on the male, that is the double standard he refers to.
Erick can bore you to tears with examples of where the law is indeed both a shield and a weapon to be used by a woman against a man but this tends to be in situations that are oustide of simple criminal issues such as an assault in the street between previously two unknown parties. If you want to hear his examples again, please feel free to troll away.

AdamC says:

09:17am | 17/02/12

Erick haters amuse me.

Simon, I agree with you on both counts.

At Work says:

09:42am | 17/02/12

“When the media stop publishing articles about violence against women, I’ll stop writing comments about violence against men. Fair enough?”

Actually, I’d rather they publish *more* about violence against men, and continue writing about violence against women. You want equality Erick? Aim for actual equality, where both get equal treatment, not trying to re-prioritise one over another.

Bev says:

09:51am | 17/02/12

Trev says:10:03am | 17/02/12
Nobody said it was right.  Society has a different attitude to violence against men (indifference mostly) than women.  Question: Ever seen an ad or literature addressing violence against men in a DV situation?
You havent its never mentioned.

Hamish says:

10:04am | 17/02/12

Tory, this ad’s not offensive so asking Erick to link to a similarly offensive ad is pointless, just turn on the TV. The fact that you and many other Punchers have imagined into existence a domestic violence angle simply goes to Erick’s point about the hysterical nature of the men-are-inherently-violent and all-women-are-victims narrative.

I mean I don’t like PETA, but there’s nothing in this ad to complain about.

Richard says:

10:06am | 17/02/12

Tory, don’t be obtuse. Erick’s link had direct links to ads showing women committing violence against men. Open your eyes.

wearestardust says:

10:19am | 17/02/12

Oh FFS.  This is getting somewhat tiresome.  As soon as I read the first line of the article I knew what the response would be: men are the real victims.

First, having concerns about violence against women doesn’t mean we’re not allowed to be concerned about violence against men.  There is nothing in this article that says that men are not subject to violence, even gender-based violence.

Secondly, no amount of playing with data or naming isolated cases changes the fact that women are overwhelmingly the victims of serious violence in society - particularly sexualised violence, and are also overwhelmingly portrayed in the media as victims in portrayals of gender-based violence(*).  That’s precisely why these anecdotes have such resonance; they’re unusual.  This constant hammering of the implication that this or that particular event where a man was the victim, or even making the point that in relationships men and women commit acts of less serious violence towards each other at about the same rate, somehow undermines the facts of the social imbalance in violence against men and women is just dishonest or ignorant (or both) spin.

(*) the reason for the formulation of this sentence is that, of course, trivially, men do worse than women as victims in portrayals of non-gender based violence in the media eg war films and gangster movies (just pre-empting there the inevitable response that we should be cool with violence against women, not to mention lower pay for women, etc, because men go to war, down mines, etc); and, more seriously, the group at most risk of violence in society today are young men, with the perpetrators being other young men.  See?  It is possible to hold in one’s head at the same time concerns about violence against both men and women.

Adrian says:

10:48am | 17/02/12

@wearestardust,

Spot on. The problem with Erick and many of the other MRA types commenting here is they are trapped in an intellectual black hole from which it is very difficult to escape. The Men’s Rights Movement is a self-referential ideology wherein every counter-argument and every bit of counter-evidence is rationalised away from within the system itself. That’s why Erick only ever supports his MRA arguments by linking to MRA propaganda. He has no “link” to reality.

Erick says:

10:52am | 17/02/12

@Tory Shepherd - Here’s how to find out about the incident involving Mary J Blige. Feel free to ask me if you need more instructions about how to find stuff on the Internet!

Also, Richard has some good advice. See those blue words with blue underlines? Click on them!

Knowing these things will make using the Internet much easier for you. I’m glad to help!

Sam says:

11:02am | 17/02/12

The difference between violence against women and violence against men in this sort of situation can be summarised in The Queen of the Couch’s blog ‘Views from the couch’ with her statement

‘I am sure every girl can recall, at least once as a child,  coming home and telling their parents, uncle, aunt or grandparent about a boy who had pulled her hair, hit her, teased her, pushed her or committed some other playground crime.  I will bet money that most of those, if not all, will tell you that they were told “Oh, that just means he likes you”.

Hurting someone you love is no sign of affection, it’s abuse. Both Men and Women need to realise this.

Tim says:

11:02am | 17/02/12

Adrian
Spot on. The problem with many of the feminist types commenting here is they are trapped in an intellectual black hole from which it is very difficult to escape. The Feminist movement is a self-referential ideology wherein every counter-argument and every bit of counter-evidence is rationalised away from within the system itself. That’s why Feminists only ever support their Feminist arguments by linking to Feminist propaganda. They have no “link” to reality.

There, I fixed that for you.

Trev says:

11:23am | 17/02/12

@Bev

Bev says:10:51am | 17/02/12   “Nobody said it was right.”

Correct. I couldn’t find the quote in the article where it stated that violence against men is right either, so why is Erick telling us it’s wrong? We’re still waiting for him to cite it.

Cynicised says:

11:23am | 17/02/12

Well said, wearestardust and I’l put it even more bluntly. Erick stop hijacking every f*ing thread about the very real problem of domestic violence against women with your own agenda. You do your cause more harm than good by your one-eyed denialist tactics. Most people just bloody groan at your rants and turn off. Learn to stay on topic and relevant and you might have a ghost of chance of people actually listening to you occasionally.

Dan says:

11:31am | 17/02/12

I’m pretty sure everyone has missed the point with this ad. Look I hate PETA because frankly they’re stupid and militant. But it irks me when someone calls everyone to arms over something pointless.

The reason why the ad is tongue in cheek is that this guy is obviously a softie nerd looking guy asking ‘are you feeling better?...’ and what happened to her was obviously UNEXPECTED happening in the moment as a result of their *cough* lovemaking.

Everyone is getting in a tiz treating like she’s walked into her buff footballer lover who’s looked at her and said ‘how’s ya neck love’ *wink* like he’s pushed her head through a wall for fun.

See the difference? Massive difference in messages that are communicated. I don’t believe they are legitimately trying sell rough sex or a value system that objectifies women either as a means to peddle vegan eating. The over the top ridiculous nature of the ad is meant to get a cheap laugh from men and women alike.

To the author of the article - there are a plethora of better mainstream media examples that do a better job of dehumanizing and objectifying women than this which deserve more focus.

Can we please stop navel gazing and focus on real issues here…?

D says:

11:34am | 17/02/12

@ Erick

“When the media stop publishing articles about violence against women, I’ll stop writing comments about violence against men. Fair enough?”

So you want all stories about violence against women suppressed do you?  If you wanted equality, you’d be promoting equality of coverage and reporting, of attention and support for the victims.  Instead you jsut don’t want to hear about women getting beaten up.  When it happens,  don’t print it.  Or is it that you don’t believe that violence against women is real?

I’m not disputing domestic violence affects men, both physical and mental abuse.  But silence on violence only helps the perpetrators, not the victims.  That’s what your stance appears to support - silencing the victims so you dont’ have to hear about it.

dw says:

11:52am | 17/02/12

lol. Cynicised is not on topic.

Erick says:

11:57am | 17/02/12

@Trev - “I couldn’t find the quote in the article where it stated that violence against men is right. Please cite it.’

I couldn’t find the quote in my comment where I claimed that the article “stated that violence against men is right”. Please cite it.

Trev says:

12:19pm | 17/02/12

@Erick

I couldn’t find the quote in the article where it stated that violence against men is right, so why are you telling us it’s wrong? We’re still waiting for you to cite it.

Erick says:

12:20pm | 17/02/12

@D - “So you want all stories about violence against women suppressed do you?”

No, I don’t. Nor did I ever say or imply that.

You just made that up - a typical feminist tactic.

Feminism would be nothing without lies and fictions.

Adrian says:

12:46pm | 17/02/12

@Tim,

There, I fixed that for you.

Errm… no you didn’t. You ignored the fact that when feminists make claims, they are able to support their claims using outside sources. For example, when feminists claim that 76.9 % of intimate partner homicides involve a male perpetrator and a female victim, they can cite the Australian Bureau of Statistics figures:
http://www.adfvc.unsw.edu.au/PDF files/Statistics_final.pdf

What evidence have you provided to support your claims? Absolutely none. But evidence isn’t important to you, is it Tim? If anything I suspect it’s an unwelcome intrusion into the bizarre little fantasy world you’ve woven about yourself. You’re a perfect example of the “intellectual black hole” I was talking about before.

So, thank you for illustrating my point.

Cynicised says:

12:48pm | 17/02/12

Lol, see what Erick does,CW? It’s not called hijacking for nothing!

GeoffOfOz says:

12:55pm | 17/02/12

snore….

RyaN says:

01:32pm | 17/02/12

@Gregg: ” you know that unless your woman decided to take a sledge hammer or something to you while “

You mean like this woman who is scott free today after brutally murdering her husband by setting him on fire?

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/husband-killer-rajini-narayan-to-remain-free-court-of-criminal-appeal-rules/story-e6frea83-1226085503026

Adrian says:

01:34pm | 17/02/12

@Erick
@Tory Shepherd - Here’s how to find out about the incident involving Mary J Blige. Feel free to ask me if you need more instructions about how to find stuff on the Internet!

Knowing these things will make using the Internet much easier for you. I’m glad to help!

Way to go Erick. A lot of patronising hot air without actually addressing the question. Pretty much what we’ve all come to expect of you.

Feminism would be nothing without lies and fictions.

That’s a serious accusation. Got any evidence to support it that doesn’t come from MRA propaganda websites? Anything at all?

You’ve been challenged to provide credible evidence to support your claims before - we’re all still waiting. If you can’t or won’t support your claims perhaps you should reconsider making them in the first place.

St. Michael says:

02:23pm | 17/02/12

@ wearestardust: “See?  It is possible to hold in one’s head at the same time concerns about violence against both men and women.”

Pity that doesn’t translate to equal funding, awareness, or action to stamp out both forms of violence.  Which is the whole point.

Erick says:

02:37pm | 17/02/12

All I’ve been saying here is, that violence against men should be treated the same way as violence against women.

So why all the hatred and nastiness? I can only put it down to sexism.

Adrian says:

04:04pm | 17/02/12

All I’ve been saying here is, that violence against men should be treated the same way as violence against women.

That’s a lie. You’ve said many other things besides, and you haven’t supported any of them despite being repeatedly asked to do so.

As for treating violence by women against men the same way as violence by men against women, that would be appropriate if the violence, and the outcomes of the violence, were the same. But they’re not, as any honest appraisal of the facts will reveal.

So why all the hatred and nastiness?

It says a lot about you that you regard demands to support your claims as “hatred and nastiness”.

I can only put it down to sexism.

Yes, we know. That seems to be your default explanation for anything that disagrees with your warped view of reality.

Ben says:

07:03pm | 17/02/12

I think it is funny that a disagreement came out of all this.

Yes, Erick is a one-trick-pony and sounds like a broken record with his bleating.  But I think it is a fair point.  Comments like Gregg’s demonstrate why - people dismiss domestic violence against men on the basis of “physically women aren’t as strong”, overlooking the fact that domestic violence is just as much about the power/control aspect and emotional damage that it does - both when against women and against men.

The correct response to Erick’s off-topic post would have been “You’re right, it is an issue, but we are focusing on a different point for the moment”.

Calling for him to produce examples which are “equally offensive” is pretty much missing the point.  Because the bar shouldn’t be set by how offensive an ad is, it should be set by right or wrong.

With regards to the actual article, perhaps we could use a similarly aggressive approach to get rid of it - request PETA backs up it’s depiction with facts.  Where is the research to show that men are actually more virile as vegans?

Trev says:

07:03pm | 17/02/12

@ Adrian

Exactly. Yet another copybook piece of trolling from Erick.

1. Troll thread with self-pitying MRE nonsense
2. When asked to back up said nonsense, patronise people, call people names, play the victim, assert more MRE nonsense.
3. Wimp out
4. Repeat

Erick truly is the Captain Paul Watson of the Men’s Rights movement.

Leah says:

11:32pm | 17/02/12

Erick, did you miss out on the comprehension & understanding bit of reading lessons in primary school? Or do your eyes just latch on to a few particular words in a whole entire article and then make up your own message?

This article is not about men committing violence against women. It’s about PETA making a really stupid ad that trivialises a serious matter, and about their hypocrisy in wanting to “protect” animals but having a laugh at a woman being essentially abused. PETA is the baddy, not men. Learn to read.

Erick says:

04:03am | 18/02/12

@Tory Shepherd - “Which ad, specifically, do you think is as degrading to men as this was to women?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y59VUQxX3Dk

It’s even got a smile, so it must be okay! Actually, this yoghurt ad is more degrading, since it actually contains violence - unlike the PETA ad.

“And please outline how the Blige affair is analogous to the Brown affair.”

A famous singer beats up their spouse. Except in Browns case, he was punished, and it was widely publicised, Blige’s violence, while witnessed by dozens of people, carried no consequences.

Just two examples of the way women’s violence against men is considered acceptable by society at large.

Erick says:

04:16am | 18/02/12

@wearestardust - As soon as I read the first line of the article I knew what the response would be: men are the real victims.”

I originally said the following: “Violence against women is wrong, but so is violence against men. Unlike the former, the latter is considered far more socially acceptable.”

Where does that say “men are the real victims”? It doesn’t. You just made that up.

As for the rates of domestic violence in general, all the credible research shows they are roughly equal between the sexes.

“SUMMARY:  This bibliography examines 282 scholarly investigations: 218 empirical studies and 64 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.  The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 369,800.”

Naturally, feminists have worked very hard to systematically deny, bury and distort these facts.

But the Internet makes it difficult for awkward truths to remain hidden indefinitely. And that, I suspect, is the reason for the rage whenever the reality is mentioned.

Erick says:

07:43am | 18/02/12

@Leah I did in fact read the article, but it seems you didn’t read my first comment. The article was not only about PETA, but about portrayals of domestic violence in advertising, and the treatment of celebrities who have committed acts of domestic violence.

Accordingly, my reply included both advertising and celebrities, on the same topic, but with the sexes reversed. The angry and abusive comments I’ve received in response, simply for suggesting that violence is equally serious regardless of the genders of the people involved, are telling.

The hatred in this thread shows just how deep the problem is.

Rhubarb says:

08:14am | 18/02/12

Well Eric, you have done it again. My OH was a victim of abuse (often with witnesses) from his now ex wife. She hospitalized him a few times, he was taught never to hit a woman. 22 years before he finally left.
The Police in those days thought a man could defend himself, not when she out weighed him by at least 12 STONE!
He stayed ‘for the children’ now they tell me all they wanted was for him to leave and take them with him as she also used them for a punching bag.
The one time he slapped her to make her stop biting him, she charged him and it stuck, they wouldn’t wear self defence.
So I for one do know of violence towards men and having had an abusive ex husband, I know that one first hand.
Haven’t seen this ad but it would probably give me nightmares again, took me long enough to stop having them. Always knew PETA was a waste of space with absolutely no integrity.

Peter Wickham says:

08:52am | 18/02/12

1. There is zero suggestion here that domestic violence is involved. Heavy sex is all. The girl was a willing partner, and is shown coming back for more. The injuries are unfortunate, as is this ad.
2. Real research (not the stereotyping that goes on in the name of anti-stereotyping feminist rants) clearly shows that women shell out at least as much DV as do men. Not all women are 90 pound weaklings and not all men are freakazoid muscle - er - men.

Let’s cut out the “girls can do anything” and “men are bastards” hype in the press. It is SO 1980. Let’s move on.

Adrian says:

01:01pm | 18/02/12

@Eric,

As for the rates of domestic violence in general, all the credible research shows they are roughly equal between the sexes.

Nope.

The article you cite isn’t credible at all. Martin Fieberts’ annotated bibliography has been seized upon by MRA’s to support their claims but they conveniently ignore the severe methodological flaws in the gathering of information for this study.

You can read an excellent dissection of it here:

http://manboobz.blogspot.com.au/p/not-so-great-debate-on-domestic.html

Try again, Erick.

Adrian says:

06:09pm | 18/02/12

@Erick,

Oh, and I forget to mention: the studies you cite do not constitute “all the credible evidence”.

You have conveniently ignored the several thousand other, far more credible, studies that completely contradict your claims.

Typical MRA tactic.

Erick says:

05:29am | 19/02/12

@Adrian - You’re citing Manboobz? Seriously - Manboobz?

That nonsense has been thoroughly debunked.

As for those “several thousand” other studies, where are they? I think you just made that up. Typical feminist tactics.

Erick says:

05:37am | 19/02/12

@Rhubarb - Thank you for sharing your experience.

Domestic violence is wrong, regardless of who is the victim or perpetrator. It’s sad that some people try to ignore, or even condone, spousal violence when it is committed by certain groups.

The arrest of the male victim by police is a frequent occurrence. Such arrests, apart from their inherent injustice, also distort the statistics. In these cases, a male is recorded as being the offender when he is actually the victim - further entrenching the erroneous stereotype.

wearestardust says:

11:21am | 19/02/12

Erick, I interpret your comments in the light of all the things you say.  The ‘get out of jail free card’ comments along the lines of “I just want equality” don’t stack up against the totality of your views.  I put those comments in the same corner as Margaret Court insisting that she “loves” homosexuals.

Adrian says:

11:37am | 19/02/12

@Erick,

Adrian - You’re citing Manboobz? Seriously - Manboobz?

Yes. Do you have a problem with my source? If so, you should be able to state specifically what the problem is. But I notice you make no attempt to do so. Why is that?

That nonsense has been thoroughly debunked.

Not by the article you cite. It is full of worthless unsupported claims; of the references provided, most of the ones I looked at come from… yep, you guessed it, Martin Fieberts Annotated Bibliography. Imagine my surprise!

Remember what I said earlier about the Men’s Rights Movement being a “self-referential ideology wherein every counter-argument and every bit of counter-evidence is rationalised away from within the system itself”?

Well, there’s the evidence. It’s sad, really, that you place so much stock on such weak and easily debunked arguments.

As for those “several thousand” other studies, where are they?

You want me to list them all here? Don’t be absurd. A quick google revealed this site:
http://www.adfvc.unsw.edu.au/PDF files/Statistics_final.pdf
which lists 40 studies, almost all of them Australian. Do you honestly expect us to believe that a worldwide search wouldn’t turn up studies numbering in the thousands?

In any case, it gives the lie to the claim that “for decades, the feminist lobby has relied exclusively on a small number of unscientific reports (police statistics and figures from domestic violence shelters), and a single crime survey (the U.S. crime survey).” which appears in the article you cited.

Trev says:

11:41am | 19/02/12

I still can’t find the quote in the article where it stated that violence against men is right, so why are you still telling us it’s wrong? We’re still waiting for you to cite it.

Erick says:

12:54pm | 19/02/12

@Adrian - I stand by the links I’ve provided. You have not produced anything that puts them into question.

@Trev - You’re just spinning your wheels, mate.

@wearestardust - I call bullshit. I’ve always stood for equal rights for both men and women. If you can find evidence to the contrary, please post a quote and a link.

P.S. A ‘get out of jail free’ card for only one gender isn’t equal rights.

Trev says:

01:58pm | 19/02/12

@Erick

So you’ve still got nothing to say? We’re still waiting for you to tell us why you’re still telling us that violence against men is wrong when the article didn’t state that it was right.

I’m not your mate. Don’t try to patronise me again.

Dean says:

02:22pm | 19/02/12

Just one thing I’ve noticed looking at both sides of the MRM / Feminist coin is that articles on the MRM side are usually better written, referenced and annotated. You may choose to disagree with the sources, but at least you always know what the source is.

I also find it telling that while Tory refused to link to avoiceformen because she considers it a hate site (I disagree but everyone is entitled to an opinion); she had no problem linking to radfem hub, which is most definitely a hate site.

By the way, I don’t consider myself either a MRA or a feminist, if anything I’d lean towards considering myself egalitarian. I do agree with the MRA’s on one thing, the current path our culture is on is unsustainable.

Adrian says:

08:18pm | 19/02/12

@Erick,

Adrian - I stand by the links I’ve provided. You have not produced anything that puts them into question

The article you cited relies on Fiebert’s Annotated Bibliography to support the conclusions it draws from Fiebert’s Annotated Bibliography.

Do you know what a circular argument is, and why it is fallacious?

rod sexton says:

06:56am | 17/02/12

Tell us one ad that a female ‘created’.

acotrel says:

07:36am | 17/02/12

I cannot believe that someone with experience could get it so wrong. The ad was probably created by a gay guy similar to the ones who try to make women look sexy on the stage, in TV shows, and in the fashion industry.  Their knowledge about what attracts a man about a woman is all speculation !

MarkS says:

07:47am | 17/02/12

PETA has always seemed to have for females then men involved in it’s activities. We know that the president for PETA is female. We have no idea if the advertising people involved where male or female.

So calling the advertising meeting “A bunch of circle-jerkers” is nothing more then anti-male sexism at work.

In fact what this ad looks like to me is the sort of thing that a group of feminist left wing females might create if they were to attempt to reach out to their twisted concept of the average male.

TChong says:

08:28am | 17/02/12

rod
several years ago the fudge ( shampoo ? ) ad featured an obvuiosly young teenage girl ? adjusting her undies .
Big news in Sydney, at the time ( aprox 10ya)
outrage !, dirty old men, ! violence against women !! etc etc etc
only problem was the ad WAS created , and approved ( as in company spokesperson ) by women.

Nicole says:

09:56am | 17/02/12

@BJ says Rhianna attacked Chris Brown with the point of a stilleto first, but no-one seems to care.

Ummm no….I didn’t read that in the police report.

I did read, however, that he punched her repeatedly in the face. Put her in a headlock and attempted to kill her by suffocation, bit her in the face and slammed her head into a passenger window all the while screaming “I’m going to beat the s**t out of you when we get home”.

Yea….nowhere in that was there any mention of her with a stiletto. All ti says is that she tried ti cover her face with her arms and bent forward in her seat to protect herself. His response was to put one inch gashes in her arms and shoulders whilst continually punching her.

Chris Brown…what a guy hey.

You can read it for yourself here http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/03/05/brown.warrant.pdf

asdf says:

10:57am | 17/02/12

Good point Nicole.
I can’t believe that radio stations are playing Chris Brown. I refuse to listen to the angry little shart and have walked out of stores mid purchase for playing his music in the shop and informed the manager why. I wish more people would. Ideals are useless if they aren’t backed up. As a young woman, it’s my duty to stand up against this crap whenever possible.

Erick says:

11:07am | 17/02/12

@asdf & Nicole - Do you have the same attitude toward Mary J Blige? Or is it one standard for men, and a different standard for women?

Tim says:

11:10am | 17/02/12

Nicole,
you do realise that the report you linked is the warrant made from Rihanna’s story to the police.
She’s not exactly going to tell them that she attacked Chris Brown with a shoe is she?

You probably think Tiger Wood’s wife was really trying to help him out of the car he’d just crashed by using a golf club to smash the window right?

Sarahh says:

11:59am | 17/02/12

Tim doesn’t that sound at all ridiculous to you?  She hit him with a shoe so he beat the absolute crap out of her.  He was far stronger than she was and she couldn’t physically protect herself.  Yeah, wow, she had that coming.  I’m not excusing her behaviour at all, she shouldn’t have been violent to start with, but I’m guessing he could have held her arm back and taken the shoe out of her hand easily without having to punch her in the face.

Tim says:

12:57pm | 17/02/12

Sarah,
I don’t actually know much about the case and don’t really care that much about either of them. Chris Brown is obviously a massive knob.

I was just pointing out that the link Nicole provided doesn’t actually mean anything.
Only those two people know the real truth.

Nicole says:

02:17pm | 17/02/12

@Tim… Nicole,
you do realise that the report you linked is the warrant made from Rihanna’s story to the police.

Actually, Tim…that’s not correct. It is the affidavit of Detective De Shon Williams who investigated the incident. So, this is how the officer believes it went down after his investigations. It’s not ‘just the story she told the police’...it’s the Detective’s version of events- even after interviewing Brown.

But as Sarah says…even if she did attack him with a shoe…he had no right to beat the living crap out of her…that is hardly a defensive action!

Now…Tim…you reflect every criticism of men with the response “oh but it’s ok for women to behave like that”...Ummm NO! It’s not ok for anyone to behave like that! Please link a working Mary J Blige affidavit (or even witness testimony in a media story) and I’ll be happy to bad mouth her too. But DO NOT just wave aside misbehaviour in a man because the report comes from a women…that’s kinda sexist.

p.s @asdf you rawk!

Nicole says:

02:38pm | 17/02/12

I did see that Mary J Bilge video. So as I see the argument Tim & Erick are putting forward as this.

Mary J Bilge- a SINGULAR up-handed punch towards her husband (you can’t see where it lands in the video).

Tiger Woods wife - HIT HIS CAR multiple times while he was driving away from her.

Chris Brown- sustained physical assault & attempted murder of Rhianna.

Oh yea…they’re totally the same!!

Tim says:

03:02pm | 17/02/12

Nicole,
do you enjoy making stuff up? Getting all hysterical over nothing?
Can you point to where I said that any incident was comparable? No?

My point was that you have no idea what happened, and neither does the policeman. The only people who do were the ones who were there.

I’ll repeat:
“Chris Brown is obviously a massive knob.”

olicana says:

06:45am | 17/02/12

no no dont get too worked Erick up vegans have tofu for brains and get confused very easily.

Mahhrat says:

06:48am | 17/02/12

Too slow, wannabe.

Erick says:

06:54am | 17/02/12

Hmmm, another fake Erick. Though at least this one isn’t saying anything too wacky, the real me would of course say that the principle should apply equally to both sexes - see my comment at 6:09 above.

SimpleSimon says:

07:27am | 17/02/12

@Erick (the real one) - they reckon immitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Even if not done particularly well.

gobsmack says:

11:53am | 17/02/12

Obviously not the real Erick.
No predictable and irrelevant whinge complaining of double standards.
No misleadingly labelled links that lands one at some mens site.
No preposterous one-liner at the end.

Kika says:

02:58pm | 17/02/12

Hey Olicana… not really. Would you like a list of famous vegetarians/vegans? Here’s a list of famous vegetarians and vegans who can show you that a tofu brain isn’t a necessarily a bad thing:-

Albert Schweitzer
Charles Darwin
Charlotte Bronte
George Bernard Shaw
H.G. Wells
Jean Jacques Rousseau
Leonardo Da Vinci
Mark Twain
Nikola Tesla
Plato
Sir Isaac Newton
Socrates
Steven Jobs
Thomas Edison
Tolstoy
William Blake
William Wordsworth
... list goes on.

Not bad for tofu brains.

And didn’t that report come out today that East Asians are doing better than Aussie kids at school? See. Tofu brain is a good thing.

Ben C says:

03:43pm | 17/02/12

@ Kika

As an East Asian myself, I would put school results down to application and not food.

Tracker says:

08:21am | 18/02/12

@Kika, interesting thing about that list is most of them are dead.

Dave says:

08:42am | 18/02/12

Ummm.  Kika:  That list is VERY debatable.

In fact the very list you got that from has over half the people listed as “Disputed”.  Meaning NO PROOF!

gobsmack says:

06:43am | 17/02/12

I agree.
I don’t like the ad, particularly the suggestion that every woman likes “the bottom knocked out of her”.
However, there is a difference between consensual rough sex and domestic violence.

Super D says:

07:03am | 17/02/12

So you’d be ok if the ad was for VB then?

What this ad is indicative of is the morass of moral relativism into which the progressive elite has sunk. 

It’s ok to make light of a woman being injured by her partner if it’s to promote something considered inherently such as veganism.

It’s ok to taunt aboriginals if it will score points against your inherently evil political opponent.

It’s ok to encourage the collapse of the Greek state and the end of democracy if its to preserve something as inherently good as the euro.

damien says:

08:15am | 17/02/12

confused message, yes. But I don’t think it glorifies violence against women. the juxtaposition is intended to get your attention, then hit you with the punchline that the injury was an accident in a moment of passion.

The bigger outrage is that the advertisement purports that vegans have the energy to do such things

TChong says:

08:40am | 17/02/12

yeah soupy
the greek debt?
WTF ?
If someone likes VB , you equate that to domestic violence?
Wow!!!
Use Kooris to score political points ?
Youre getting more hilarios , ( or is that hysterical)
i think you prove my point about faux outrage from xtreme Righters.
Dont forget to check for Reds under your bed, tonite.
Have a good day, and keep fighting the good fight,  Soup.

Geoff says:

09:31am | 17/02/12

TChong
So you are ok with say VB making a similar ad?
Instead of a bag of vegies it was a case of VB?
And instead of “knock your bottom off” its something like “VB for those long nights”
I can guarantee there would be a huge outcry from every Women’s group and feminist this side of Timbuktu.

TChong says:

10:15am | 17/02/12

geoff
first of all, its obviosly a provocative ad - in order to stir up comment
( has worked well)
the ad is satirical.
the punch line is that the rough play is consensual , and NOT violence.
The deliberate misreading of this ad, by many, is because the ad is from PETA - ie “commies”
agree , if ad by VB ,” for long nights"there would be outrage, but that doesnt mean this ad is as bad as the faux outraged many are claiming.
Tory -“The Brown link”
Women and men in approval, and or support for Brown is entirely different story.
Using this logic, (  6 degrees of separation)  any one , anytime can be linked to whatever you ( or I ) chose.
Who decides boundaries in the age of the ‘net ?
( rhetorical, of course) and could do with an article or ten, and still not arrive at any answer.
You can just as easily google plenty of sites that condemn Brown (Huff Post articles and The Daily Beast ) as but two examples.
Plenty more condeming Brown than supporting him (751) .

Andy of Sydney says:

11:47am | 17/02/12

Don’t be stupid, TChong. PETA are not commies. They are just plain deranged, stupid and fanatical sociopaths. There is a difference between the two, no matter how slight.

Nilbog says:

09:17am | 17/02/12

I thought the main problem was that the male actor was, as Tory put it, a “anaemic, pale weakling”.

Given that any guy can give a woman a good, hard smashing in the bedroom if she really turns him on, being vegan has nothing to do with it.

It’s almost as if the ad is saying “hey, even though we are vegan we can still cut it sexually with the guys who eat meat, just give us a chance baby!!”... lol

Andy J says:

10:23am | 17/02/12

Some radical vegans I know think that animals deserve to be treated better than humans full stop!

Pickles... The Drummer says:

01:45pm | 17/02/12

“We should treat animals better than we treat women?” - I thought that was the entire PETA tag line, animals are better than humans.

I’ve never met a vegan with the energy to knock the back out of a girl.

stevem says:

09:54am | 17/02/12

Yep, they thrive on the shock value and people mocking them. I’m not entirely sure how they think this advances their cause though. Just last week they were took SeaWorld to court claiming their dolphins and whales were slaves!

Emma says:

06:42am | 17/02/12

Love the sausage sizzle! I so want to see that! I would be your first client.

For me, every organisation looses respect for going to that level and will never have my support, even if I generally support the case.

I am sorry to hear about your person experience. But you seem to have been able to pull yourself out and have a voice. Good on you!

Your name:Engi says:

07:03am | 17/02/12

Make sure to wear your furs and finest leather boots.

PETA, have proven before how morally devoid they are, this is just them pushing the boundary further. Not surprising in an increasingly Godless and humanist society, where morals and ethics are personal preferences and therefore arbitrary. This demonstrates that they rate the rights of animals higher than the rights of humans which is an extension of their court cases where they tried to provide whales the same rights as humans.

Markus says:

07:48am | 17/02/12

“I was thinking we could run a sausage sizzle out the front to raise some money for sensitivity training”
I’d be happy to provide my services. The real trick is choosing an assortment where even the strictest vegan could pick exactly which animal the parts you are cooking up came from.
So rather than sausages, go some Texas BBQ racks of ribs, chicken wings, T-bones, lamb chops, roo steaks.
And if you really want to up the ante, a rare offensive delicacy such as shark fin.

Crap, now I’m hungry…

Tim says:

08:24am | 17/02/12

Carz,
so you were injured in passionate consensual sex?

This isn’t sexual violence or domestic violence, its rough sex.

The fact that you and Tory see something different isn’t because of reality, its because of your own biased perceptions and projections

The Ad isn’t the issue, you are.

Erick says:

08:56am | 17/02/12

@Tim - Women’s rights extremists see misogyny everywhere.

Emma says:

09:36am | 17/02/12

Tim

I actually cant see the ad at the moment so I have to go by what you say. Rough sex is fine - but maybe not in a TV ad. I think no matter if the violence is welcome or not, its bad taste of PETA and has nothing to do with their cause.

MarkF says:

09:39am | 17/02/12

Many years ago the old girl and I talked about domestic violence and she said that I have to sleep sometime.  Now we talk about dementia and she says if I get any sillier she’ll tie me to a chair and feed me with a long spoon.

Anybody who bullies or beats up on someone weaker than themselves if a gutless wanker that needs to grow a set (male or female).

As far as peta goes, well what can you really say about morons.  Bring on the bbq these peta morons could do with a good bit of meat in their diet.

Tim says:

10:18am | 17/02/12

Emma,
I was ready to be offended at this Ad. I had already opened up my template complaint form and warmed up my writing hand because I loathe PETA.
And then I watched the Ad.

The only people who could see this as promoting violence against women are idiots.
Is it a funny ad? No.
Will it make people go Vegan? No.
Is it showing domestic violence or unconsensual sexual violence? No.

Amie says:

11:14am | 17/02/12

Completely agree with Tim!

iMitchy says:

10:35am | 17/02/12

You will have to follow the links. It’s all there. It comes directly from PETA.

And consider this—Who is the target audience?

Is it men who want to injure their partner in bed? (Better become a Vegan!)
Or is it trying to get women to convince their men to become vegan and if so should they now believe that it’s okay to be injured by your partner as long as it’s during deliberately rough sex.

Make your man a vegan and forego the right to say no!

Emma says:

07:07am | 17/02/12

No its because of all the hair on their legs that they move so slowly. Its weighing them down.

ronny jonny says:

09:53am | 17/02/12

Have to assume he’s not giving her a hot beef injection. Hot tofu injection? hmmm

AdamC says:

09:22am | 17/02/12

Good points, Bec. Ultimately, any advertising is about making sales, not about merely getting attention. PETA is alienating potential customers/members/converts for no real gain. Dare I say it suggests that red meat really is brain food, and the PETA vegans are lacking in smarts for a lack of dead animal consumption?

Richard says:

10:17am | 17/02/12

Well, I think you’re wrong on one point, bec. Veganism has become very trendy these days, very very trendy, and I think its actually a menace to public health. Cheers~

libertarian vegetarian says:

10:59am | 17/02/12

PETA does a lot more harm than good for the vegetarian cause. Some of the things they do are so fricken stupid I wonder if they are really an undercover operation of the Meat & Livestock industries.

Kika says:

03:19pm | 17/02/12

Yeah but Bec - Peta isn’t only about promoting vegetarianism. They are also about promoting awareness for animals rights and welfare. See my other comment about their achievements. I would think that investigating (which lead to a successful prosecution against) a piggery for skinning pigs alive would constitute a major breach in animal welfare laws…. and the furrier for electrocuting chinchillas by strapping the electrodes to their genitals only so the poor things would slowly die of a long painful heart attack…. list goes on.

Martin says:

10:24am | 17/02/12

@Tim the Toolman

Tory writes “I wrote last week that depictions of sexual and physical violence against women have a place in films and theatre”

There is a time and place for ‘black humour’ and pulling it off requires great skill, perception and context. Handled badly, it slides into nasty and offensive and the ‘gag’ is lost.

Although I wouldn’t rate The Three Stooges style of vaudeville slapstick as ‘black comedy’ (the Marx Brothers did subversive humour so much better), Monty Python and the Farrelly Brothers have both (generally) mastered dark humour with an underlying message.

This ad was crudely simplistic, appallingly executed and clearly aimed at a the loutish ‘lad’ demographic. Nowhere near the ‘black humour’ ballpark.

Markus says:

10:54am | 17/02/12

@Martin, the problem there is you have now you have moved from a discussion as to what is socially and morally acceptable to joke about, to a discussion of execution and personal taste.

Tim the Toolman says:

11:26am | 17/02/12

Thanks Markus, that was the point I was about to continue on to. 

Tory, it would seem to be hypocritical, yes.  I don’t seek to ban people from criticising things, I would rather they do so from a rational perspective that takes into account the actual consequences and the harm/benefits they cause, rather than just shooting from the simplest neurons and demanding people cease and desist at once whenever something agitates them (not saying you did this…it’s an apparent trend though, probably driven by dozens of things).

Perhaps a more accurate comment in your article would have been to ask if they would approve of a similar ad which excused violence against an animal with a wry smile…but then you run into all kinds of consent issues that are too long winded for this small window.

iMitchy says:

01:11pm | 17/02/12

@Tim the Toolman,

In movies and theater the product being sold is the show itself, once you are engaged in the show you have already become the customer.

Advertising is trying to change the way you think - buy this product, switch to this service, live by these ideals etc., by showing you the benefit of the product / service / ideal. It is action and consequence and the idea is to get you to take action and become a customer. Sometimes companies try to create controversy with their advertising in the hopes that the ad will go viral, spark debate and ultimately attract more people to to see their ad and liten to their message for free.

In this case however, the ad does not tell us anything about PETA or what they do. It only states that if you take the action to become a vegan, these are the consequences: Injury and pain and a lack of remorse from the perpetrator. The consequences are negative, not positive.

On top of that, the machanism used is making light of a situation in which severe injury is caused to a woman by a man. It finishes up by suggesting that this is acceptable behaviour and that women should not only tolerate it, but be happy about it. This goes against our goals as a society and as such shows the ideal demonstrated in a bad light - which will hurt the brand / organisation.

This is, through-and-through, a bad ad. If PETAs ultimate goal is to stamp out cruelty to animals, then errors in judgement like this will affect their ability to do so.

Bev says:

09:44am | 17/02/12

most women should feel safe in their home environment, right? However,  as most researches prove “it happens to be one of the least safe places for women”.

What research (not a statement by some feminist)?  This belongs with the statement “DV is the leading cause of injury for women”.  A little bit of study shows that DV does not even appear in the top 10 illnesses women suffer.  Since DV affects about 5% of women puts paid to the “unsafe at home” notion.  Home is the safest place for any member of the family in an absolute majority of cases. The rest is feminist fairytales and distorions.

Gymmer says:

12:11pm | 17/02/12

There is a difference between illnesses and injuries Bev. I don’t think DV would be put in the same catergory as cancer etc when it comes to stats.

libertarian vegetarian says:

02:03pm | 17/02/12

Actually Bev, the stats were published some years ago, they were compiled from murders, assaults etc.  The results showed that the most dangerous place for a woman to be (ie the time and place she is most likely to be assaulted or killed) is in her own home between 6pm Friday and 6pm Sunday.

NESLIHAN KUROSAWA says:

07:11am | 18/02/12

Hi Bev,

Thanks for your enlightening comments about domestic violence!  I am very happy that you think that it happens to be just another illness & nothing else.  That is very comforting for us all women & equally!  Can we also say that a woman’s injuries sustained during domestic violence cases, could also be self inflicted & imaginary?

I truly am sorry that you feel this way!  What is actually wrong with the idea of protecting women suffering from gender based violence?  You seem to be in a total denial about certain issues regarding women. 

I also just wanted to say that as always ignorance is bliss for some! Most women don’t ask for that kind of treatment in their personal lives, like you might have thought all along.  I truly hope that you don’t make such narrow minded & uneducated comments in the future.  Kind regards.

MikeS says:

12:47pm | 17/02/12

What work would that be?

The attempt to rename fish sea kittens?

The call to stop serving seafood at Seaworld restaurants because it offends the fish?

Or is it the killing of thousands of animals every year in the U.S?

Kika says:

03:40pm | 17/02/12

Like you.

Kika says:

03:12pm | 17/02/12

Yeah you would because you eat dogs.

subotic says:

08:09am | 20/02/12

And they taste great too, Kika…. mmmhmmmmm

TChong says:

09:01am | 17/02/12

sub
dont you know women arent capable of thinking , or choosing anything, ( including amorous preferences) for themselves?
Your gal cant really chose so, because you , and the rest of the patriarchal society are brainwashing , and forcing her to meet your desires.
Just ask the Conservative gals and guys getting so outraged in their responses to this article - women are not capable of anything but lying back and thinking of the coalition ( or whatever Costello told them to do)
You should be ashamed , ( or worse).
( posted with obvios ( i hope )  sarcasm)

Dave M says:

09:02am | 17/02/12

I was discussing this topic with my wife the other night and she’s been reading up on the subject all week. In her research she stumbled across a couple of articles about women with rape fantasies. She said there were some women who would hire a man to grab them off the street, tie them up with rope, throw them in the boot of a car, drive around for 45mins or so then rape them is some old abandoned warehouse.

Of course this is only simulated rape as the woman has agreed to it. Of the women partaking in these acts, they all stated they would obviously not want to be raped for real but were so excited about simulated rape. Clearly not everyones taste, but it does give an insight into the twisted sexual psychology of some women out there.

Sad Sad Reality says:

09:51am | 17/02/12

“but were so excited about simulated rape.”

30% of women admit to having rape fantasies. One would guess the actual number is much higher. It’s a throwback to our preconscious past where almost all sex was rape. Women had to become turned on by rape to lubricate and avoid being unnecessarily injured.

As explained here.

“One of the most intriguing research nuggets to emerge: While male sexuality is fairly predictable—they tend to be aroused by naked women and naked women hooking up with other naked women—female sexuality is stimulated by a surprisingly wide array of turn-ons. Meredith Chivers, Ph. D., an assistant professor of psychology at Queens University in Kingston, Ontario, calls this “the nonspecificity of women’s sexual arousal.” Chivers created a buzz with a study in which she showed both men and women a variety of sexually explicit images—nude male and female bodies, heterosexual and homosexual sex, and sex between bonobos (a particularly frisky species of ape)—while measuring physiological signs of genital arousal as well as their subjective feelings of desire.

“The women in the study… reported feeling aroused in the ways you might expect (straight women were turned on by men, lesbians by women), measurements of their vaginal blood flow showed that they were physically aroused by all the forms of coupling they saw—even the bonobos. Still, when asked after viewing them to report which images they found titillating, most of them chose only those which matched up with their sexual orientation. Were they lying?”

They weren’t lying. Their vaginas were on autopilot, preparing them for possible rape. Such is our savage history.

Nyx says:

06:48pm | 17/02/12

@ Tory - I’ve been injured during rough sex (the best kind IMO). It doesn’t make it domestic violence. It doesn’t make my partner some kind of horrible woman-beating POS.
For me, it meant a good night.

I really think you’re reaching with your interpretation of this ad. I’m not a fan of PETA, mostly because they have directly funded acts of terrorism (sorry ‘violent animal liberation’) and they euthanise far more animals per year than they save, and far more than the animal shelters and rescues they hurl abuse at. But rough sex is NOT domestic violence unless the woman doesn’t give consent. The woman’s reaction suggests that not only does she give consent, but her throwing more veggies at her boyfriend suggests she’s happy for it to happen again.

Fact is some women like it a bit rough. But that doesn’t make their partners woman hating violent apemen…It makes them lucky…

Meljaye says:

08:30am | 17/02/12

Agreed. Mountain made out of molehill.

MarkF says:

10:01am | 17/02/12

Ooh I don’t know about revoltingly tasteless.  That girl has a seriously fine arse on her.  I wouldn’t call that revolting at all.

MarkF says:

09:57am | 17/02/12

All the RSPCA cares about nowadays is money.  If you can’t pay their fees then you have to try and find some other way of getting rid of an animal.  And if you get caught then they get their money anyway from the fines.

Sad when a once proud institution doing good work just turns into another money making scam.

Kika says:

03:49pm | 17/02/12

What? The RSPCA is a scam? BS!! They need cash to operate!!. If you can’t afford to pay cash no matter the reason for having an animal, even if you can’t have it anymore you are a deadbeat and should reconsider ever having one in the first place. Try your Vet. Or non-kill animal adoption agencies. Deadbeat!!!

Chris says:

11:55am | 17/02/12

I dunno, Louie seems to be copping a potential hiding in his latest ads, Jan. Have you voted?

And Julia rolled the Milky Bar Kid in 2010. And he’s still pissed.

TChong says:

09:09am | 17/02/12

Mike
There just might be something to Vegieism
The billion plus hindus might tell us something.
Numbers alone, indicate vegans manage to make it , often enough.

Markus says:

11:28am | 17/02/12

Are you referring to the India where 42% of the population live below the poverty line, and is 139th in the world for life expectancy?
THAT India?

Testfest says:

10:03am | 17/02/12

Sigh.

Your link between PETA’s advertisement and Chris Brown’s performance at the Grammy’s, which then caused that Facebook page to be created was the most tenuous thing since some Aztec priests looked at the sunrise and thought:

“Hmm, that sun coming up each morning is pretty handy. Better make sure that keeps happening. I know, let’s cut the hearts out of people’s chests! That should do it!”

PsychoHyena says:

10:16am | 17/02/12

@justanormaljoe and in case you didn’t realise it, you just agreed with Erick’s core message.

Bev says:

10:59am | 17/02/12

Violence, in any form, towards any sex; is reprehensible and should never be portrayed in general media or society as light-hearted.

A TV audienceof women thought it was funny and laughed when told of a women cutting off her husbands penis because he asked for a divorce.  Eriks point would not you say?

Kaz says:

04:02pm | 20/02/12

I agree Mark.

Kaz says:

04:02pm | 20/02/12

I agree Mark.

Al says:

10:20am | 17/02/12

“PETA have lost the plot. “

Nope, they never had the plot to begin with. They are either misguided individuals who don’t understand what the objectives of PETA are, or nutcases. (Not to mention their hypocricy!)

Nyx says:

06:55pm | 17/02/12

-1 internets for comparing Alien (which was awesome) to Stephanie Meyer’s ridiculously bad mental fantasy set to paper (or film)

But other than that I agree. This article is deceitful in trying to claim that consentual rough sex that in this case has led to an injury is domestic violence, and that the ad is anti-woman and making violence against women something humerous. The article speaks far more about the writer’s hangups than the ad itself.

subotic says:

10:24am | 17/02/12

Perfectly not true in every situation either….

Kika says:

03:47pm | 17/02/12

Not true. Talk to your doctor. Veganism IS healthy and very good for you if you do it properly. People think that going vegan will make them lose weight. Yeah it will. But a balanced Vegan diet is just as healthy as a lacto-ovo vegetarian diet.

lauren says:

11:34am | 17/02/12

You are 100% spot on with this analysis.

As jealous of her behind as I am (I’d kill for my butt to look that good!) it’s stupid and confusing as to why she’d leave the house sans clothing.

Richard says:

01:20pm | 17/02/12

Well indeed, sean, and there is a scientific reason for it: testosterone is derived from saturated and mono unsaturated fat molecules, it actually a very similar structure to cholesterol. Now, testosterone is what generates 100% of the male sex drive, and when consumption of red meat is ceased, the body finds it very very hard to acquire those types of fat molecules from other sources. In fact, it can’t. Men need meat to be healthy, and without it, invariably, lubido declines, erections grow softer, and the likelihood of impotence increases.

Kika says:

03:45pm | 17/02/12

I’ve never heard more BS ever.

It hits the brain the same way - fat. Fat releases endorphins which makes everybody feel happy and relaxed. It was a way our ancestors survived in the Savannah. Fat = HIGH ENERGY FOOD.

In case you were wondering check these healthy, strong Vegan men:-

http://www.veganfitness.net/viewtopic.php?t=723

None of these guys seem to be lacking in the testosterone department (not withstanding the possible steroid abusing bodybuilders!)

Ben C says:

12:00pm | 17/02/12

Come on scumbag, it’s PETA, they worship animals like gods. Why would they go fishing?

Scummo says:

01:40pm | 17/02/12

@ Ben C, well if they worship animals like gods, only ones I can think of are the Sphynx in Egypt, the horse/bloke with a bow and arrow, and others wot I can’t think of.

Ben C says:

02:56pm | 17/02/12

@ Scummo

PETA seem to treat animals with more respect than they do to humans. I’ve always been of the opinion that PETA are akin to an extreme religious cult, preaching their message to all and sundry and demanding that people follow their lead, and if anyone disagrees they will be condemned to hell.

Seriously, if humans started eating krill, PETA will be up in arms about it. They’ll be saying things like, “They’re too miniscule, why not pick on something your own size?”, or maybe even, “If we eat all the krill (impossible as it is), what are whales going to eat?” In fact, I can picture their soft-porn-disguised-as-advertising campaign against eating krill - a hot naked chick, with her arms stategically placed, with the following statement next to her head: “Humans are not whales.”

Weary says:

11:59am | 17/02/12

Um, no.  Mainly because eating meat is not a race you moron.

ibast says:

12:58pm | 17/02/12

But you can probably sue him ^ for libel.

James1 says:

04:10pm | 17/02/12

Only if what he says is not true, ibast.  If Weary can prove Badwolf is a moron, its all legit.

LuthienNienna says:

02:18pm | 17/02/12

My thoughts exactly. I give my money to RSPCA and WSPCA because they actually DO something to better animal welfare. PETA are too busy sitting in their glass houses throwing stones at people. See if I give a damn PETA, you have no credibility at all…

Sean says:

01:29pm | 17/02/12

I don’t think you’re doing BDSM right. I’ve never put a woman in a neck brace.

Nyx says:

06:58pm | 17/02/12

Love Bulls**t…have all 3 seasons on DVD…

Kika says:

03:29pm | 17/02/12

You have to admit, keeping a killer whale in a small tank is wrong. Not only for the animal, but the handlers. Every few years one of those whales decides to take a bite out of their handlers… and we wonder why???

Kika says:

03:07pm | 17/02/12

I think you’d find most of them actually do care about ALL suffering across all living senient beings. It’s just animals are often the last ones thought about.

MikeS says:

02:21pm | 17/02/12

What have PETA acheived?

This is not a troll, but a genuine question. I really would like to know.

Kika says:

03:03pm | 17/02/12

Mike S - well only recently they stopped Air France from sending wild caught monkeys to be sent to the US for animal testing purposes.

They have also:-
- Completed undercover investigations of pig-breeding factory farms in North Carolina and Oklahoma revealed horrific conditions and daily abuse of pigs, including the fact that one pig was skinned alive, leading to the first-ever felony indictments of farm workers.
- PETA’s undercover investigation of a Florida exotic-animal “training school,” which revealed that big cats were being beaten with ax handles, encouraged the U.S. Department of Agriculture to develop new regulations governing animal-training methods.

- PETA persuaded Mobil, Texaco, Pennzoil, Shell, and other oil companies to cover their exhaust stacks after showing how millions of birds and bats had become trapped in the shafts and been burned to death

- A California furrier was charged with cruelty to animals after a PETA investigator filmed him electrocuting chinchillas by clipping wires to the animals’ genitals, which caused the animals to experience the pain of a heart attack while they were still conscious. In another undercover exposé, PETA caught a fur rancher on videotape causing minks to die in agony by injecting them with weedkiller. Both farms agreed to stop these cruel killing methods.
- After two years of negotiations with—and more than 400 demonstrations against—the company worldwide, McDonald’s became the first fast-food chain to agree to make basic welfare improvements for farmed animals. Burger King and Wendy’s followed suit within a year’s time, and within two years, Safeway, Kroger, and Albertsons had also agreed to adopt stricter guidelines in order to improve the lives of billions of animals who are slaughtered for food.

And etc etc.

MikeS says:

03:51pm | 17/02/12

Great, thanks Kika.

Always good to see the positives aswell as the negatives.

TJ says:

02:34pm | 17/02/12

Exactly right Tanya, many times my partner and I have been indulging in rough sex and whoops I fall off the bed and either hit my head on the damn bedside table (neither of us have thought about moving it) or I bruise a body part and don’t even get me started on door handle imprints that last for days because my man had against the wrong part of the wall

Sean says:

04:51pm | 17/02/12

You would seriously save an animal over a person? Jesus Christ. Remind me not to save YOU should the occasion ever arise

prando says:

05:52pm | 17/02/12

Exactly right!

shaun says:

10:00pm | 19/02/12

I tired to say that.. too bad the comment was moderated out of existence

marley says:

12:52pm | 19/02/12

“Violence against any living being is not okay.”  Fine, just bear in mind that PETA has the highest kill rate of any animal shelter in the US.  That’s violence, isn’t it?  So why do they get a free ride, while people who kill animals for food, get pilloried for it?