Tireless commenter typhonblue suggested someone do a post on this ad for the Summer’s Eve line of vaginal cleansers:
Shit, how can I resist a big, slow-moving target like that?
In keeping with my policy of accentuating the positive first, let me say that this is a visually charming commercial with excellent production values. And hell, I’m always a sucker for a martial arts sequence. Welp, so much for the positive.
This is one of those wonderful commercials that’s misogynist and misandrist at once. Damn, we seem to be getting a lot of those, don’t we?
Women, the most important thing you have to offer the world is your genitalia. You’re not a warrior or a hero or a fighter, those are men’s roles. You’re the transport mechanism by which your pussy gets through its daily errands. The most powerful thing in the universe isn’t your mind, or anyone’s mind. It’s not technology or philosophy or the march of human progress. It’s your cooch. Despite being so magical and powerful and perfect, however, your pussy isn’t good enough. You need this fine line of products to fix your pussy and bring it up to an acceptable standard.
Men, you are incapable of love. You don’t want companionship or intellectual stimulation or emotional fulfillment from a woman. You only want one thing, ha-ha, amirite? Furthermore, that isn’t just the only thing you want from a woman, it’s the only thing you want in the universe. All human accomplishment has been entirely hoo-ha based. Sorry if you thought you had any sense of ambition, any higher ideals or principles, but it turns out everything you do is entirely about crotches.
Note, too, that this ad is based entirely on the idea that women exist as objects of desire. Women don’t desire men, don’t do things in pursuit of men. They just stand there being desirable as human civilization revolves around their vag. It’s that same old ugly transactional notion, that women are selling sex and men are bidding for it, wrapped up some bullshit fake empowerment and decent CGI.
aliarasthedaydreamer
Ami Angelwings
Hershele Ostropoler
Cheradenine
jlandrith
kaija24
2020
noahbrand
Cliff Pervocracy
ozymandias
Shora
sirgabe
figleaf
John Hawkins
No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz? 
I laughed for a moment in the theater, mostly at about how inappropriate it was in a theater full of kids.. the rest of time I thought how stupid can they be? Playing it during Harry Potter!
My first thought was thinking back to a piece of graffiti found on a bathhouse wall in Pompeii:
“Weep, you girls. My penis has given you up. Now it penetrates men’s behinds. Goodbye, wondrous femininity!”
I thought it was the phallus that’s worshiped in our society… 😛
I thought the same TB. Can’t count how many times people have gone on and on about it being all about the phallus. Oh well.
This is one of those wonderful commercials that’s misogynist and misandrist at once. Damn, we seem to be getting a lot of those, don’t we?
Its amazing how many ads are doing that these days. I can only guess they are hoping that one side (the side that’s the target audience) doesn’t notice.
@Danny: Honestly, I think it’s because it’s very hard to be misogynist without also being misandrist, and vice versa. As Holly Pervocracy recently said, if you want to see misandry, watch misogynists talk about men. Nobody seems to have an essentialist, prescriptivist notion of gender that lays a lot of restrictions and rules on one gender while leaving everyone else totally free to express themselves. Or, to quote Iain M. Banks, a guilty system recognizes no innocents.
@Noahbrand
You’re linking us out to a web-site that contains a lot of hatred and misandry, when you link us to Pandagon.
Also if you read Marcottes dating advice for men, she actually stereotypes the male and female roles in the same tradition that the advertisement does – Men must work in order to be chosen by women.
What scares me is that the video “coming up” after this is the new song by 14 year old Rebecca Black. It doesn’t mean that a 14 year old girl is singing a song about about vaginal hygiene, does it? Please tell me it doesn’t …
@RFA, I don’t like some of the linkouts that various people post here either (and that includes comments), but a variety of opinions and examples is good for discussion. If we only allowed posting of links that everyone agreed on, there would be zero links 😉
Back on the topic of the ad, wow…yeah that one really doesn’t say much of anything positive about either gender. Pretty awful, but then Summer’s Eve has had a history of really awful commercials and ads, such as this one: http://suicidegirlsblog.com/blog/hey-ladies-heres-some-douchey-job-advice-from-summers-eve/
Then again, they are trying to create a “problem” to sell a product that a) is not only not necessary (a healthy vagina is a self-cleaning organ), but b) can actually cause problems instead of solving them, according to physicians: “Most doctors and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) recommend that women don’t douche. Douching can change the delicate balance of vaginal flora (organisms that live in the vagina) and acidity in a healthy vagina. One way to look at it is in a healthy vagina there are both good and bad bacteria. The balance of the good and bad bacteria help maintain an acidic environment. Any changes can cause an over growth of bad bacteria which can lead to a yeast infection or bacterial vaginosis. Plus, if you have a vaginal infection, douching can push the bacteria causing the infection up into the uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries.” (Source: The US Dept of Health and Human Services).
@NoahBrand
You linked us to an abuse apologist. http://i.imgur.com/aob5k.jpg . And someone that denies the bulk of false allegations and frames those raising awareness as potential rapists.
“I concede that a tiny, inconsequential fraction of rape accusations are false. But I also won’t be alone in a room with a man that goes on and on about false rape accusations. Said obsession indicates ulterior motives.” – Amanda Marcotte – 06/08/2010, 13:08:43
Is this what your take on masculism is, a masculism that promotes and condones misandry and hate and legal discrimination?
OOPS,
Above post to Kaija24, not NoahBrand
@RFA: Again, someone can disagree with you without being “an abuse apologist”.
There’s plenty of research that says men and women don’t abuse each other equally, along with the research that does. For example, this (page 7).
@Brain
More lies about domestic violence research hey Brian ? Marcotte was clearing enguaging in abuse apology/denial, as are you.
There is not ” plenty of research that says men and women don’t abuse each other equally”, there are only a few feminist designed advocacy studies such as the one you are citing verses 100s of independent non ideological studies that show symmetry.
The NVAWS used a feminist modified CTS.
Straus on the NVCAWS (your source)
“Straus responded:
“I tried to do that. I haven’t tried for a number of years because the people I tried to do it with insisted on my using a biased instrument.”
Interviewer: “What do you mean by that?”
Straus:
“Well, I’m the developer of the Conflict Tactics Scales. This instrument lists things that might happen when there’s a conflict or when people are just plain feeling out of sorts, or lousy, or angry for whatever reason. The instrument asks, ‘Did these things happen?’
“It includes various acts that the partner can do, and that the respondent – the person being interviewed – might do. They refused to ask the questions about what the respondent did. When they were interviewing women respondents, they insisted on asking only questions about what the partner did.
“That same procedure was carried over into the National Institute of Justice National Violence Against Women study. They asked what they call a ‘feminist version’ of the Conflict Tactics Scale, that asks only about victimization and leaves out the questions about perpetration. And of course if you do that, you will have to find that only men are violent.
“It was only after much pressure from people like myself that they then added a second sample, of men, to find this out. As a result of this, even though this study is biased in a number of ways, some of them unintentional, some of them intentional, they found that 40% of the past year assaults were perpetrated by women. This is a national sample of 16,000, so it’s huge and very dependable.”
http://breakingthescience.org/StrausSaysTjadenThoennesBiased.php
Its always the same for male victims of abuse around feminists, lies about CTS and biased research are produced to minimize them. This is why there are are no feminist “safe spaces” for male victims of abuse.
@RFA: Please stay on topic per the comment policy, which is the Summer’s Eve ad. You are now slinging insults at people who don’t agree with your personal opinions and that is unacceptable.
@RFA: I will give you the Straus quote, and then I’ll refuse to talk to you because you keep calling me a “liar” and an “abuse apologist”.
I don’t know why I haven’t kept that promise the last five or so times I made it; you never actually stop insulting people who disagree with you so I’m not sure why I keep expecting you to every time you make a coherent argument.
BUT back to the ad.
Don’t usually like Shakesville much, but they have a point here:
“I will, however, just quickly note that the ad is, ironically, the best argument against the product: Millennia before there were products designed to make women feel ashamed about the smell of our vulvas and/or vaginas, they were still pretty popular.”
@Kaija
“@RFA: Please stay on topic per the comment policy, which is the Summer’s Eve ad. You are now slinging insults at people who don’t agree with your personal opinions and that is unacceptable.”
That’s a misscharacterization. Its not my personal opinion that the Brians positions on cts are lies and that the NVCAWS is biased. That’s the opinion of the credible domestic violence research community as is evidenced by the links posted to Brian, who is arguing based on myth, opinion, the misandrist view that abuse is gendered and biased research.
I see feel abuse apology and bigotry so long as its directed at men, is getting a pass here, eg. (Marcotte, Brian), and I am supposed to stay quiet about it and pretend that these double standards and that sort of misandry and abuse denial isn’t exactly what masculism stands against.
It would be more in line with the stated goals of the blog to ask people not to link out to anti-male bigots and unfounded lies about CTS and biased research designed to minimize male abuse victims than it is to silence those that object to these things.
Straus and Gelles and some other researchers might think I’m wrong (though as far as I can tell I believe something very similar to what they believe, so probably not), but nobody would think I’m actually lying. Or bigoted, or being an “abuse apologist”, or misandrist.
I could turn it back on you and say that you’re sexist for “minimizing violence against women” but we both know that’s silly. They’re both variations on “your-argument-is-morally-wrong-so-we-can’t-even-consider-it”, which is always bullshit.
Per the comment policy: “Commenters…who repeat the same point over and over again, who abuse contributors or other commenters, or who massively derail the thread from the post topic will be first warned, and then have their comments deleted.”
@RFA: You objected to a link that noahbrand, the OP, used in his piece. Noted, but that’s noah’s call. You accused me of linking to some .jpg that I did not. You are derailing from the topic, an offensive product advertisement, to argue about domestic violence or abuse and studies and statistics thereof. You have made it clear that you oppose the results of certain studies and do not like certain bloggers and do not need to repeat it. No one is silencing you–there are countless other places on the internet where you are free to say what you wish, and you can post whatever links you approve of on your blog.
@Brian: Please stay on topic as well.
Sorry for the derail (and this post), but I should point out here he didn’t accuse you of linking to the .jpg, he used the .jpg as proof that Amanda Marcotte is “an abuse apologist”. Which it isn’t, although it is definitely proof that she disagrees with him.
@Kaija
Please don’t miss-characterize my position. I made it clear that I objected to certain bloggers on the basis that the publish lies, abuse apology and bigotry (see jpeg) and questioned how appropriate it is to feature them in a positive light on a masculist/egalitarian blog. I didn’t simply object to certain bloggers.
I’ve also made it clear that what I oppose about Brian’s position is the use of biased research and statements about the CTS that aren’t true, both are tactics that are regularly used in feminist circles, to minimize abuse victims. I’m not simply objecting to the results of certain studies.
I think that men here should be given as much protection from misandry and abuse apology as women have from misogyny and abuse apology.
Ok, thats all that.
Perhaps we should have a thread about the use of research that’s designed minimize abuse victims and the myths about CTS that are designed to deny abuse, so we don’t have the same old arguments and derailing every time we try and have a conversion about rates of male victimization and female perpetration.
@RFA: You are stating your opinions and objections as if they are authoritative and widely agreed upon and somehow people here are mistaken or misguided; that is not the case…other people simply have other opinions and have come to conclusions that are not in line with yours. You have a strong opinion, which is fine, but seem to be upset that you can’t get everyone to agree with you, which is why I am reluctant to start another thread for this topic…I don’t have much confidence that it will be a civil or constructive. You are not going to change your mind and neither is Brian.
I’d like to say here that my current position is already a change* from “women universally hit men more than the reverse”. So it’s not true that I wouldn’t change my mind if he gave sufficient evidence; it’s just that as far as I can tell the evidence doesn’t support him.
*: I don’t want to go into more detail here for risk of derailing the thread, sorry.
@Kaija
Please stop miss characterizing my position. I am not simply stating my “opinions and objections as if they are authoritative and widely agreed upon and somehow people here are mistaken or misguided; that is not the case…”
I am stating the opinions of the domestic violence research community, not my personal opinions. I am backed up by 100s of studies and in the case of Brians NVCAWS, I used the researchers comments and description of how the feminists that ran the study requested a biased instrument and so produced a biased result, as you can see above in the thread. In the case of the ridiculous lies about CTS (that 100s of studies are conflating play, with intimate terrorism), I posted numerous sources which refute them, the domestic violence community refutes the unfounded calims about CTS that Brian has been repeating in order to derail and minimize conversations about abuse victims, as you can see from other threads.
Its not about opinions, or what people feel is true, its about what the research is saying v’s abuse myths, biased research lies about what theindependent biased research is saying.
And given that this blog is egalitarian, masculist and pro-equality for male abuse victims, there should be awareness about the tactics that are used to maintain gender apartheid in abuse victims services and the illusion that abuse is mainly gendered, its masculism 101.
This would be a very good source were you do a thread about the suppression of abuse stats.
Click to access V70%20version%20N3.pdf
I’m happy to leave this, at that. I’d like you to not come back and misscharacterise my position as simply advancing a personal opinion, as I have linked to numerous credible sources to back up my position.
On a happy note /s now they’re using totally racist tropes too! http://consumerist.com/2011/07/summers-eve-promotes-wash-with-talking-vertical-hands.html
Can you imagine a product sold to men that told them it would make their penis more attractive in some say (other than, of course, Steve Martin’s Penis Beauty Cream) but in fact, aggravated the problem they were “solving” and were actually dangerous to the user’s health?
@Brian 10:11 & 10:50:
I agree with you, I dislike Shakesville for several reasons, but they’re coverage of this ad was pretty good. Your last sentence in the 10:50 post sounds an awful lot like their position a lot of the time, which is part of the reason I don’t like them.
The more I read blogs, the more I’ve come to identify the phrase “advanced $position/movement/ideology space/place/forum/blog/whatever” as being explicitly indicative of that kind of reasoning, unfortunately.
@RFA: What exactly constitutues “the entire research community” is vague; is that the academic research community, all independent think tanks both feminist, masculinist, and nondenominational? All government agencies? All governments? All political and social justice groups? Nevertheless, a “research community” rarely agrees 100% on anything, especially a topic that is so qualitative and subject to interpretation and methodology artifacts as sociological research. Furthermore, I highly doubt that the research community in question has appointed you as their spokesperson. YOU ARE ARGUING FROM AN AUTHORITY THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE in order to give the appearance of your opinions and conclusions having more weight than they do. I cannot say it more clearly than that. You are entitled to hold an opinion, but you are not entitled to insist that yours, or whomever you think you are speaking for, is more valid simply because you say it is.
No one has proved any particular hypothesis about rates of domestic violence and abuse to the extent that you seem to think because we’re still trying to get a handle of the extent of and the complexities of the problem. It is an area of active and often contradictory and contentious debate because so many factors and biases and methodology constraints can affect the results and what is”credible” varies among groups of researchers and readers. You are mischaracterizing and minimizing an entire area of inquiry out of some mistaken belief that this is a settled issue and that we should all agree with your position as a result–that is the problem with your comments and this is the last warning.
@ Kita
“Can you imagine a product sold to men that told them it would make their penis more attractive in some say (other than, of course, Steve Martin’s Penis Beauty Cream) but in fact, aggravated the problem they were “solving” and were actually dangerous to the user’s health?”
Um… I imagine a great deal of the ‘enlarge your cock’ snake oil spam spinning around the web at this very moment does exactly that.
Plus you could easily argue that circumcision–being pretty much a cosmetic procedure–is often defended by mothers doing it to their sons as something that makes their sons penis attractive and acceptable to women. And cutting off genital tissue isn’t generally something beneficial to genitals.
@Kita
Skincare for men’s private parts exists. To be fair, I was surprised too when I found it. Though, I don’t think it has any negative side effects apart from the steep price.
http://www.frenchtruckers.com/ayurmen-intimity-skincare-for-men/
Apparently, the cream smells like lavender and has some anti-aging effect. It’s available in France, in case anyone is interested 😉 .
I once saw a mock ad in the Whole Earth Catalog featuring Ken Kesey and the slogan “I’ve been using cornstarch on my balls for years!” (Evidently cornstarch stops your nutsack sticking to your leg on hot, humid days. Me, I just keep the equipment stowed for transport, if you know what I mean.)
Wowww…..
those are TERRIBLE commercials -_-;;;
it’s funny that they play into the v dynamic me (and so many other female bloggers I know in the comics comm) are against (women as being the “prize” to be won instead and that this is our role, not just historically but now too..) xD The Wushu part rly hit home w/ me b/c I grew up on those movies… and they’re such a big part of the way I think in terms of fantasy and how I relate to fantasy fiction as an Asian person, etc.. and all I can think of is “fuck that noise, I want to be the one w/ the sword!” >:O
I thought it was the phallus that’s worshiped in our society… 😛
The vag is more like Satan; evil, but with a huge and sinister ability to warp good-thinking people into doing bad things.
I thought it was the phallus that’s worshiped in our society… 😛
The vag is more like Satan; evil, but with a huge and sinister ability to warp good-thinking people into doing bad things.
re circumcision, I could ‘easily argue’ anything at all, but my anecdotal experience with new parents is that Dad is the one calling the shots about Baby Junior’s penis. I’m sure there *are* marriages where Dad is fiercely anti-circ and Mom insists on it for her son’s future sexitudinousness, but I’ve yet to meet a “Oh, I want my son to look like his dad” / “Wait, what? I don’t care if he looks like me, what are you talking about?” set of parents.
@Thomas:
Gaaah! Testicle cream containing lavender oil? Don’t these folks know that lavender oil is an endrocrine disruptor with feminizing effects?
http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/jan2007/niehs-31.htm
Admittedly I don’t know if there’ve been studies about what effects there are in grown men, but still, this seems like the LAST thing a man would want to rub on his balls, srsly. Talk about a hormonal own goal.
Although that does make the stuff somewhat more equivalent to the women’s douching products in that it adds a bit of possible harm in along with the creation of an unnecessary problem that needs solving via a particular product. Yey, equality . . . ?
“The vag is more like Satan; evil, but with a huge and sinister ability to warp good-thinking people into doing bad things.”
Hm. I guess that’s why Saint Augustine called the penis the ‘demon rod’ and made no mention of the vagina.
kaija24: There is still a need for douches. Just not in the vagina, or at least, not in healthy vaginas. There is, after all, another orifice down there. 😉
noah:As Holly Pervocracy recently said, if you want to see misandry, watch misogynists talk about men.
True if for no other reason I’ve seen it happen in reverse.
Mythago:
“The vag is more like Satan; evil, but with a huge and sinister ability to warp good-thinking people into doing bad things.”
TB:
Hm. I guess that’s why Saint Augustine called the penis the ‘demon rod’ and made no mention of the vagina.
Or when it comes to sex a woman is considered “clean, pure, and virtuous” until she has sex with a man and all of a sudden she’s “unclear, dirty, and without virtue”. Or where a girl who has sex before marriage is like a used lollipop.
Sadly though the things you point out are also true mythago. I guess we’re all dirty and immoral…
@typhonblue on July 22, 2011 at 2:23 am:
In English speaking countries, the vagina is still probably the more sacred of genitalia – hence the greater shock value behind the female “C” word than the male.
Sigh.
These commercials have always pissed me off when I see them.