Call Email Join Donate
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors


March 26, 2021

Dear Readers:

Younger readers might only remember Parkinson’s disease suffer Michael J Fox as he appears now. At one time he was quite an agile performer, as seen from his “Back to the Future” movies. Also, the hockey short he directed and starred in, “The Iceman Hummeth”. After viewing it, Steven Spielberg made an offer for Fox to direct a movie. Which brings us to this month recommended viewing. His Diet Pepsi commercial, linked later in this article.

Remember that study of thousands of advertisements done by Men’s Rights Inc., which found that if one sex was portrayed as incompetent, it was always the man. The research, also discovered that in these advertisements’ men were the “objects of rejection, anger and violence 100% of the time.”

This was true even in the prestigious diet soda industry. For example, in his book “Women Can’t Hear What Men Don’t Say, Warren Farrell cites a Diet Coke commercial that: “features a woman knocking out three men, then drinking a Diet Coke.”

Fortunately, at least one Diet Coke commercial received a fair amount of condemnation in its portrayal of men. In their “Sexy Gardener” commercial, a bunch of women ogle a shirtless man drinking a diet coke. The guy is getting good money for taking off his shirt. Why does he put up with such exploitation? It’s not liked the advertisements with all the one-way violence and such. I mean the guy had to take off his shirt! All by himself!

You might observe that pre-feminism, the exploited group in advertising was supposed to be the consumer. After all, isn’t the purpose of this commercial to get women to buy the drink? Certainly though, the virulence of the ad takes precedence here.

While men endured this horrid advertisement, women have not been free from diet soda abuse. Which brings us to Michael J Fox and Diet Pepsi (see Michael J Fox Diet Pepsi In the commercial, a pretty woman wants to “borrow” a Diet Pepsi. Michael jubilantly heads to the kitchen to his refrigerator, where all us men keep our super-sized bottle of the beloved soda. But the giant bottle turns out to be empty. Michael, why do you keep an empty bottle of soda in your fridge?

He knows nothing about the women, not even if she is there to rob his apartment. But she has a problem. She’s thirsty. So, he does the right thing, which is whatever it takes to quench her thirst. While she is inside reading, he starts his quest. He climbs out the window into the dark, arriving in the middle of a rain storm. Who could miss the sexism? I mean, do you think he would demean himself in such a way for an average looking woman? Michael you sexist pig!

men to blame

Mr. Manners

Dodging traffic, a vicious dog and a motor cycle gang, he procures the beverage. Michael, if the soda is so great, why not also buy one for yourself? He climbs back up to his apartment with the beverage. Good news. But then the ending. The first women’s roommate, another pretty woman, also desires a soda. And what do you know, her beverage of choice, Diet Pepsi. Meaning Michael is going to need to do the whole thing again. As novelist Tom Robbins once observed, “Uh oh spaghetti O.”

To create balance, I typed in the words “Commercial degrading to women” to find an ant-female commercial. Here was the top choice that came up. Is the Jared commercial degrading to women? | Yahoo Answers.. (I’m not making this up. It was back a couple of years though and I could not find it again. Do the search yourself, see what you come up with).

nat;ional coalition for menThe Yahoo question about the ad is stated as this: “the wife totally mistreats her husband another man proposed to her friend with a ring from Jared…. Now, my question is this: Do you (women) think that this degrades women, in that it makes women look like a bunch of gold-diggers.” The man asking the question voted no. The women who responded to the question did find it offensive to women. Who wouldn’t?

Face it men. This ad is just another example of male exploitation. Feminist have pointed out that men have been raping the earth for centuries. In this instance, men tear up the earth for a stone. Some men may die in its extraction from the earth, others in the battle for ownership of it. But at least for a noble cause. It provides women all over the world something they can wear on their finger.

Plus, the ring is paired with a number of other traditions. A man goes to the store and with two months’ worth of income and buys a piece of this stone. Next, he places it on the women’s finger. Following that, he gets down on his knees, the universal gesture of inferiority, and asks her to marry him. What better way to start an egalitarian marriage? But what prey-tell will happen if things don’t work out and he wants the ring back. To coin a phrase, “uh oh spaghetti oh.”

But aren’t we forgetting about the gender pay gap among “educated” single people, the group “Jared” is no doubt targeting? Men in that demographic earn 85 cents for each dollar earned by women (Why Men Earn More”, Warren Farrell, page xxii 2005). In conclusion, “uh oh spaghetti oh.”


As all parents know, nothing entertains young children more than discussing ambiguous phrases made by mainstream journalists. For example, Sarah Jeong, now a “New York Times” writer, tweeted among other controversial things, “Kill All Men”. Granted, it’s not like a Dr. Suess, book from over seventy years ago. Still. Fortunately, journalist Ezra Klein was able to explain what her ambiguous phrase Kill All Men actually meant. That being, “it would be nice if the world sucked less for women.” Pretty clear when you think of it. Contrast that with Senator Tom Cotton’s column in that same New York Times about quelling riots with military people. What is that other than a direct threat to Times’s writers? No wonder some of their writers pointed out that Cotton’s words put them in danger.

But as for happiness, one might contend that perhaps life is not all that sucker for a lot of women. For instance, “The World-Wide Gender Study” done by the “Brookings Institute found that overall, women were happier than men. They also postulated that marriage would lead to more happiness for men than women. Instead, they found the opposite (Gender and Well-Being around the World – Brookings Institution).

This is why feminists in their devotion to the well-being of women, are such strong advocates for heterosexual marriage and the benefits men bring to women. Also, with Brookings being a liberal think tank, obviously such data has been mentioned ad-nauseum, by the mainstream press. Although, I cannot remember hearing it a single time.

Certainly, though some men are misunderstood too. So below are examples of a game with that premise. Play it with the whole family. A couple of examples below.


Eminent Astrophysicist Matt Taylor, wore a shirt picked out by a female friend, which showed scantily clad women. The logical inference could only be, he hates women. Isn’t that true of men who wear Hawaiian shirts in general? If you wear such a shirt, what else could it mean than that you hate women and didn’t his tearful apology prove it? Of course, when women wear provocative clothing it is always to keep up with the latest fashion. But should Taylor really be mentioned in the same article as Jeong?  After all,  Taylor wore a shirt that unintentionally offended some people. All Jeong (misinterpreted) words said, was to violently remove half the adults living on the planet

But could it be that the message on Taylor’s shirt was misunderstood? I am inclined to think his female friend who suggested he wear it, was merely expressing her pride in the fact that Hawaii become the fifteenth state in the union and the exciting fact that they are the only state that grows coffee commercially.


New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has been charged with multiple cases of sexual harassment. Also, with actions both leading to unnecessary deaths, and covering up deaths resulting from the pandemic. Based on the attention given by the media, the harassment charges are by far the most important issue, as of course they should be.

As an aside, it has It has been pointed out that Cuomo has directed abuse specifically to men. For instance, “he would mock male aides for not being tough enough (Cuomo “hostile” workplace culture, March 7, “The Washington Post).” In fact, treating one sex worse than the other is the definition of sexual harassment, but this is men, who cares?

Also, we need to ignore similar charges against another Governor when discussing Cuomo’s behavior. Feminists pointed out that even if it turned out to be true, that as Governor then President Bill Clinton had taken off his pants and asked for oral sex from a state employee, the behavior did not reach the standard of sexual harassment. Never mind that these same women were silent during Harvey Weinstein etc., feminist’s such as Katha Pollitt, Susan Estrich, Gloria Steinem, Ellen Goodman and many more. It couldn’t be that if they spoke on the issue, it would risk their being charged with hypocrisy.

Also, irrelevant, is all the women who were so attracted to Cuomo that there was a saying “Cuomo Crush”. Certainly, he would have had many women who welcomed his attention. However, the law is unwanted sexual attention. A law making such behavior illegal whether it was welcome or not, would no doubt lower unwanted sexual behavior. By the laws design, clearly it is more important to punish the traditional sexual initiators, a group called men, than combating harassment. So why bother altering the law?

Many are asking Cuomo to resign rather than have the impartial sexual harassment investigation he is requesting. Obviously, the just thing to do is for him to resign without a hearing, then be scorned for the rest of his life. And let’s not let that silly stuff about the people dying and him covering it up, get in the way of the real issue.
Still, people want to bring irrelevant matters into this story. For instance, Cuomo passed a law for New York colleges that included unwanted kissing on the lips qualifying as sexual assault,, something Cuomo has been charged with doing (Cuomo Asks Americans To Hold Off on Believing Women This Time, “Reason” magazine).

Does a kiss on the hand or cheek qualify as sexual assault at these colleges? I am not sure whether it does or not. Regardless, Cuomo has pointed out that he kisses and hugs employees as a greeting. Why should an adult and Governor of a state be held liable for a law he created for college kids? There is a difference. Governor Cuomo was charged by employees. College students are subject to this law even without having any authority over the kissed victims behavior. Surely, a governor who passes a law cannot be expected to abide by a standard meant for college students?

But what of asking for a kiss, something Cuomo was alleged to have done, at a non-work-related wedding? What could be a more ambiguous question that? Who knows what he really meant? Kissing is sometimes called sucking face. Maybe Cuomo was really saying, it would be nice if the world sucked less for women. Thus, expressing the feminist revered idea of women as victims of men, while they talk about how strong women are. Good job Andrew Cuomo.


Tags: , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.