The Matrix- illustrated via video!

[puma183]

Nice link Rollo! Two years on, the US Carmaker analogy seems more apt than ever. Also, I love how she uses the following in her personal: "after I become a stay at home mom, he will maintain me to the lifestyle that I am accustomed to". Is she serious? It's like an omen of the times to come for the sucker who decides to date/marry her.

This personal also shows us that women are totally aware of the INs and OUTs of the divorce laws. That innocent cupcake that you are proudly introducing your parents, your "perfect girl", very likely already knows the score and has the future all mapped out. :flowers:

On your first dinner date, when a chick is asking you roundabout questions about your career aspirations and net-worth potential, she is clearly thinking about the plans for the lifestyle that she is accustomed to.

 

[The Bat]

Nice link Rollo! Two years on, the US Carmaker analogy seems more apt than ever. Also, I love how she uses the following in her personal: "after I become a stay at home mom, he will maintain me to the lifestyle that I am accustomed to". Is she serious? It's like an omen of the times to come for the sucker who decides to date/marry her.

This personal also shows us that women are totally aware of the INs and OUTs of the divorce laws. That innocent cupcake that you are proudly introducing your parents, your "perfect girl", very likely already knows the score and has the future all mapped out. :flowers:

On your first dinner date, when a chick is asking you roundabout questions about your career aspirations and net-worth potential, she is clearly thinking about the plans for the lifestyle that she is accustomed to.

Maybe you just didn't clarify enough, but I hope you know that it's not wrong for a woman to find out your potential as a provider. After all, as a Man, you captain the ship of your life, and if she wants to get on board, she needs to know how strong that ship is. I.E. what your earning potential is.

The key thing to do is to ensure that the woman isn't only after your money. This part is extremely difficult and can take years and years of experience with dating different types of women...which, sadly, not a lot of guys are doing these days.

No wonder there are so many divorces happening every year. The guy and the girl just weren't experienced enough with dating and did not take time to figure each other out and themselves.

 

[Mr. Me]

That was a frickin' funny commercial! Well done!

I get that it does dig at the tendency for many guys who are "thoughtless" when it comes to gift-giving. But, ya know, over 50% of marriages end up in divorce, and the woman files 80% of the time. And one of the reasons women want to get out is because the guy neglects her, takes her for granted. So this commercial takes that tendency and has a clear message about it, while keeping it tongue in cheek. Sure, they infer that jewelry is a better gift then a vacuum cleaner, that's what they sell, but it's not overt like the deBeers campaign telling you that you can only show love by buying a diamond worth two to three month's salary.

I think it was done well, and it's not really about any matrix. When you're in a relationship with a woman, there will be the buying of gifts from time to time. It's a way to show love. When the wife in the commercial says, "Wow, I'm married to you", she's realizing that she's in a marriage with a man who does not have a clue how to romance her.

never to give gifts like BB&B, but rather to wear sexy lingerie, learn to pole dance, give good head and make a decent martini to show her appreciation for her man

Maybe they have that in the "Beyond" part of "Bed, Bath & Beyond".

this girl was giving a presentation on feminism and asked us what we thought. A guy gave " I think it's good" answer. I really wanted to say how I felt about feminism but I just held my peace.

That's because you wanted to answer in a serious vein, I'll bet, and doing that you know would start a skirmish. I've found to answer humorously works better, though you can still get labeled as a misogynist if the woman hasn't any sense of humor, but at least that flushes her out as being way too humorless. My answer, I just know it, would've been, "I think it was so cute how you got up in front of the class, looking all pretty, and using all those big words and pointing to the chart."

 

[STR8UP]

I get that it does dig at the tendency for many guys who are "thoughtless" when it comes to gift-giving. But, ya know, over 50% of marriages end up in divorce, and the woman files 80% of the time. And one of the reasons women want to get out is because the guy neglects her, takes her for granted.

That would imply that a man has a responsibility to ensure a woman's happiness, which is WRONG.

The "responsibility" of being the "glue" in a relationship DOES fall squarely on the shoulders of the man, but this is only due to the nature of women being the weaker, more dependent sex. They ATTACH themselves to a man, essentially assuming his identity as hers.

So what it comes down to is that in order to have a successful long term relationship, the MAN must be a MAN. He must assume his role and LEAD. But to say that women leave men due to "neglect" does not tell the story the way it needs to be told. He isn't neglecting her needs, he is neglecting his role as a man.

I think it was done well, and it's not really about any matrix.

I was indeed done well, and I laughed each time I watched it.

The thing that you have to understand is that JCPenny isn't CREATING the problem, they are simply capitalizing on it, the same way SNL would capitalize on the humor that can be found in any number of things that some might take as offensive.

 

[Mr. Me]

That would imply that a man has a responsibility to ensure a woman's happiness, which is WRONG.

So you're saying, in a relationship, if the man becomes negligent to his woman, and if and when he treats her to a gift, if it's actually an appliance for cleaning the house, and she's not feeling love in that, he has no responsibility in that?

It's not wrong to do things that build a loving feeling in your woman. Picking a gift for her enjoyment is being thoughtful.

See, I think, in a relationship, it's about a guy knowing how to do the little things it takes to maintain that relationship. he's got to keep his end up and nurture things along. Make her feel good. Not become a negligent partner. Not turn her off.

So, imagine if you would, if a guy bought his woman a new vacuum cleaner for Christmas. Now imagine he buys her a sheepskin jacket she had her eye on. Which would make her feel like she's loved? It's obvious. But a lot of guys make this mistake. That's why we can laugh at the video, because it has a streak of truth in it. It's not about the matrix mind set of bribing the woman for her affections. It's about being the man in a relationship, a man who has a clue, and knowing how to make her feel good.

Look it at it the other way around: your woman gets fat and nags at you. If you now lose all affection for her, would you say it's your fault for not being happy?

 

[puma183]

Maybe you just didn't clarify enough, but I hope you know that it's not wrong for a woman to find out your potential as a provider. After all, as a Man, you captain the ship of your life, and if she wants to get on board, she needs to know how strong that ship is. I.E. what your earning potential is.

The key thing to do is to ensure that the woman isn't only after your money. This part is extremely difficult and can take years and years of experience with dating different types of women...which, sadly, not a lot of guys are doing these days.

No wonder there are so many divorces happening every year. The guy and the girl just weren't experienced enough with dating and did not take time to figure each other out and themselves.

Hi TheBat -
You are right that there is something primal about flashing your life-sustaining potential (i.e. money/earning potential) to a female. However in the context of where laws/civilization stands today, this is the most risky way to play the mating game. The OP on this thread basically had it right when he said this Ad portrays women controlling the frame of the relationship/life, which is lethal for a man in the long term. Check out this article by Marc Rudov titled "Riding on the Estrogen Express":

http://thenononsenseman.mensnewsdaily.com/2006/10/31/riding-the-estrogen-express/

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

So, imagine if you would, if a guy bought his woman a new vacuum cleaner for Christmas. Now imagine he buys her a sheepskin jacket she had her eye on. Which would make her feel like she's loved? It's obvious. But a lot of guys make this mistake. That's why we can laugh at the video, because it has a streak of truth in it. It's not about the matrix mind set of bribing the woman for her affections. It's about being the man in a relationship, a man who has a clue, and knowing how to make her feel good.

I disagree, not in principle, but rather in practice. You are correct in that the more thoughtful gift would be more appropriate in terms of an anniversary present, however that's not the issue in this commercial. It pokes fun at the 'common idiocy' of men that's been made a popular stereotype. Understand, it's not just a stereotype for a particular race or sub-type of male, but rather men in their entirety. You see we can make blonde jokes, we can make slut jokes, we can make bull-dyke jokes, and even women will laugh along, but to insult women in their entirety is "misogynistic". Not so for stereotyping the entirety of the male gender, in fact it's encouraged.

The idea being that men are common idiots in need of a woman's correction in order to exist appropriately in society. Again, reverse the gender roles. If I make the case (even humorously) that ALL women are idiots because they typically don't know how to live up to men's expectations and are ALL in need of a man's correction in order to function socially, then I'm a misogynist of the worst kind. This commercial is misandry, but you'll never hear that word used. In fact my auto-spellcheck underlines that word in red. It really is a word though. It's the opposite of misogynist. Curious how one is in the dictionary and one is not.

Now, the real irony of this whole thing is that the vast majority of men would be the guy buying the nice sheepskin jacket, the sentimental token, the Jared's diamond ring. Why? Because he's been condition for the past 5 generation to believe that "other guys" are like the men in this commercial, but he's unique. He's NOT "like other guys". He writes the poetry, buys the tennis bracelets, give the thoughtful gifts for silly, contrived holidays as well as anniversaries. Yet for all his flowery sentiment he's still associated with the vacuum giving dog house male.

 

[jafyk]

I disagree, not in principle, but rather in practice. You are correct in that the more thoughtful gift would be more appropriate in terms of an anniversary present, however that's not the issue in this commercial. It pokes fun at the 'common idiocy' of men that's been made a popular stereotype. Understand, it's not just a stereotype for a particular race or sub-type of male, but rather men in their entirety. You see we can make blonde jokes, we can make slut jokes, we can make bull-dyke jokes, and even women will laugh along, but to insult women in their entirety is "misogynistic". Not so for stereotyping the entirety of the male gender, in fact it's encouraged.

The idea being that men are common idiots in need of a woman's correction in order to exist appropriately in society. Again, reverse the gender roles. If I make the case (even humorously) that ALL women are idiots because they typically don't know how to live up to men's expectations and are ALL in need of a man's correction in order to function socially, then I'm a misogynist of the worst kind.

Yeah, I relate to what you are saying and this is what pisses me off about these commercials. Have you seen some of the old Arby's commercial or some commercial that talks about how men freshen up... Anyway, when I think of technology and the production of these commercials I think men are responsible for this negative perspective of viewing men. After most of these companies are owned by men, the productions are probably done by men (maybe a woman writes the scripts)

 

[Mr. Me]

Understand, it's not just a stereotype for a particular race or sub-type of male, but rather men in their entirety. You see we can make blonde jokes, we can make slut jokes, we can make bull-dyke jokes, and even women will laugh along, but to insult women in their entirety is "misogynistic". Not so for stereotyping the entirety of the male gender, in fact it's encouraged....The idea being that men are common idiots

When I watch The Honeymooners, which has been popular around the world since it's inception some 50 years ago, I never get that all men are loud, insecure braggarts who throw tantrums and bellow at their wives and berate them with their tirades, though I can understand and laugh at the show because I know there are those macho guys out there.

When I watch the JC Penney commercial, I see it also as over-the-top tongue-in-cheek, and get that not all men are like that, but they're sure out there. Otherwise we'd look at the commercial and say, "What? I don't get it".

So I say it is poking fun at a sub type.

It's the sub type that doesn't know how to nurture their relationships and keep their women in love. Love is fragile, you know that. It's not unconditional, and it's not a given. It has to be maintained. The sub type that erodes it are the guys this commercial is spoofing. It's the guys that take their women for granted, it's the guys that insult their women (even unknowingly). It's the guys that put their foot in their mouths because they don't think before they speak. It's the guys that say, "Oh, she knows I love her". It's the guys that say, "Well, sure we have our arguments, just like any other married couple". It's the guys that say, "I don't understand! All of a sudden she tells me she doesn't love me anymore and wants a divorce."

 

[jafyk]

You know what doesn't make sense to me is how on SS we say it's all about we us guys; what we want and getting a woman into our frame etc I'm saying that based on Mr. Me's reasoning it seems what we do for the most part is try to do what it takes (including gifts) to make a woman happy, we have to learn all these tricks, as someone said above most of the time women file the divorce. So, then who is really the prize, despite our denials and everything we might say it seems it's the men. Most commercials talk about getting this for your wife or woman so you can make her happy.How many commercials talk of the women making us happy? Yea, and we are the prize right?In this day and age men and women pretty much have equal rights (some women even make more money) So, why is there the double standard for a man to function as in the tradtional role of the provider and yet women don't want to be placed in the traditional role of the home maker and any man reinforcing that is seen as sexist.
On the other hand. I once read a book "The 5 love language" basically the book says we all have 5 ways they makes us feel loved. 1) quality time (2) words of affirmation (3) physical touch (4) acts of services (5)gifts. Basically when we are not loved in our unique way or combination of ways we(men/women) don't feel loved. I think this would explain why a trophy wife who favors # 1 whose husband is away most of the time working and provides her with gifts and the nice things in life is unhappy and may even cheat on him and think he's a bad husband. Well, you may feel this is not relevant to the topic but you can just take it as a food for thought . Yes gifts are important and good but when you look at it closely most women want gifts because it's become the fad like tatyoos and piercings. Everyone wants to get one these days yet when you ask them why they say it's a form of expression. Instead of really realizing they are doing it cos everyone else does it. We are suffering from affluenza but that's another topic for another day.

 

[jophil28]

That would imply that a man has a responsibility to ensure a woman's happiness, which is WRONG.

Well it may be a crappy job but someone has to do it.

Lawd knows they are so addicted to being unhappy about any tiny thing that the least we men can do is sprinkle the odd BMW and a trip to Paris into their sad lives.

 

[STR8UP]

So you're saying, in a relationship, if the man becomes negligent to his woman, and if and when he treats her to a gift, if it's actually an appliance for cleaning the house, and she's not feeling love in that, he has no responsibility in that?

What I am saying is that all too often blame gets assigned to a man for "neglecting" a woman, when it is in fact a man neglecting his Manhood.

A man doesn't have the responsibility of keeping a woman happy with shiny trinkets. A brand new "dual bag" vacuum cleaner is obviously a stupid, insulting POOR choice of a gift, but that's beside the point. The issue rests with a woman's expectation that a man must comply to some arbitrary gift giving protocol, and that if he doesn't he is neglecting her. THAT is wrong.