You Are Encouraged To Turn Your Brain Off While The Feminist is Speaking

I invite you to click on the following link and listen to this flimflam of a wma file: http://www.getouthervote.org/media/crowe.wma (after a few months, this link might no longer be working.)

This commercial has played repeatedly on AirAmerica Radio and perhaps on other radio stations as well. Not only is it deeply misleading, but I suspect that the individuals who wrote the script did so with the full and conscious knowledge that they were cynically distorting things.

Even though women could vote nationwide 84 years ago (some states allowed women to vote before 1920, but we will overlook that for brevity's sake), a number of the 'empowered' women of today seem to have stopped doing it for some fool reason. This ad is hoped to turn the situation around by registering plenty of the sisterhood.

This commercial uses a tried and true propaganda technique: using emotion to overwhelm rationality so you won't think too much about its message. Indeed, when you apply a bit of critical thought to this ad, the main points become immediately dubious.

The meme running throughout is the unquestionable, sacrosanct canard of oppressed women. Therefore it will immediately impress the audience of American females for whose ears it was intended. It also prevents them from spotting the shoddy analogies and distorted versions of reality contained therein.

And if I can spot them, literally anyone can.

Transcript:

The background music is Sheryl Crow's If It Makes You Happy. The ad opens with a softly cheering crowd and the first few strings of the song. The melody serves a dual purpose. Not only does it help identify who the speaker is, it also might recall whatever emotions the listener might associate with the song. And of course, Sheryl Crow has seen more than her fair share of love and pain and struggles or however the hell she presents herself when she's not hawking stuff in magazine ads.

And then, the words hit you...

Did you know that on average a woman with a college degree makes less than a man who drops-out of high school?

Hi, this is Sheryl Crow and I'm a feminist because I believe in radical concepts like Ekwal pay for Ekwal work. And Ekwalitee in general.

So why is it that women are 51% of the population yet only 14% of Congress?

(We give up. Oppression? --NG)

Why do most health plans cover Viagra but not birth control?

(We give up. Oppression? --NG)

And more importantly, how do we fix that?

Well first, you register to vote. Go to feminist.org to register online. That's 'feminist.org'. Then forward the link to all of your girlfriends and be sure to vote November 2nd.

Remember, women are 51% of the population. So when we vote, we have the power to change the world.

(Now for those of you readers who are from outside the U.S. and unfamiliar with that country's political dynamics, this commercial is obviously intended to rally and register voters to support the Democratic Party against Bush. The Democratic Party is the more pro-female party of the two.)

There seems to be a wee puzzle within the ad. Women are 'the majority' and they 'have the power to change the world', yet there are certain features of society that would seem to be objectionable to women. So if women are in the majority and if they have the power to change the world, then why haven't they done it yet? Have they been slacking-off or something? Can't we blame women for their failure to put things right? Well, no. We can't blame women, they don't have enough power. Aha!

A conundrum big enough to disorient a rinpoche!

Well we need to get women off the hook somehow, they're blameless. Fortunately, there's a handy escape route: women are powerful, but have never been able to use their power because of 'Them'.

'They' (who are in the minority) are sinister and powerful beyond their numbers. 'They' have rigged the game so you'll get a losing hand every time. 'They' are hopped-up on Viagra and are always frustrating women through satanic means. And who are 'They'? Well feminists are very happy and capable of naming the usual culprits if you ask for specifics. The best thing about being a feminist is that you always know who to blame. And it's not really important to name names anyway, we all know who 'They' are. And because of 'Them', the ad's conundrum is no conundrum at all.

Because of 'Them': when it suits a feminist to say that women are powerful, women are powerful. And when it suits a feminist to say that women are weak, they are weak. 'They' guarantee that although women have almost achieved Ekwalitee, the poor darlings will always have a long way to go.

And if you believe all of that, then you and I are flying to Mars tomorrow! Wheeee!

Going Line By Line

A big part of understanding commercials involves trying to ascertain how the intended audience is supposed to feel and how the makers of the commercial expect to manipulate their targets. And emotionally-laden messages help to bypass your brain and head straight to the gut. So, let us analyze the simplifying emotional messages therein and the more complex truths lying underneath...

Line 1: Did you know that on average a woman with a college degree makes less than a man who drops-out of high school?

Here is how the listener is supposed to react:

Holy shit!

Those lucky men! They get everything they want! Those bastards!

If you're born male you're guaranteed success! Boy am I jealous!

Why are women so oppressed in this male-dominated world?! How can a woman possibly be expected to survive?

And furthermore, if male high-school dropouts earn more than college-educated women, then college-educated men must be sitting on enormous sums!

So why didn't Mike buy me those cute earrings last week?! No more sex for him!

Analysis:

This sentence is meant to shock you into attention. It's meant to make you freak-out.

It sounds SHOCKING, doesn't it? In fact, she says so with a tone of voice which suggests appalled astonishment.

Wow! A male high school dropout will 'on average' earn more than a woman with a college degree?

Them high-school dropouts must be rakin' in the dough!

I wonder why their poverty rate is so much higher than that of a college-educated woman, then?

Note: she says on average and doesn't cite any actual figures (but asking her to do in a commercial so is expecting too much). I've looked-over the web site which hosts the commercial and I can't find any income figures listed there either. Is it per week? Per year? 'On average', how much less does a college-educated woman make than a man who drops out of high school? A lot less or a little less? Since feminist statistics usually get tortured until they scream 'oppression', I don't buy this.

But let us swallow a few grains of salt and give FemStats the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume for a second that it's totally true and this claim is on the level. What does it mean?

Gee, it's a wonder that more high school dropouts aren't living in fine houses right alongside all the Volvo-driving college-educated women, then.

Why the hell should a woman even get a college education if she's going to be so screwed-over anyway? It sounds like a real waste of time.

And what the hell have those feminists been doing all these years if women are still so pathetically behind? It's not like women in the 1960s were at a Stone-Age level before the feminists came-in and raised them to their present pathetically oppressed state, after all.

Of course, this factoid is stated in such an incredibly twisted and misleading way, it's farcical. The only way it could possibly be correct is if it were referring to a lifetime of work.

Over a lifetime, women will clock fewer years of work experience, they are less likely to work a full-time schedule, and they leave the labor force for longer periods of time than men do. Many college-educated women (indeed, most women), opt-out of full-time work in mid-life to spend a decade or two raising a family. This isn't oppression or discrimination: a woman who decides to raise a family chooses to do so. And it's not exactly a secret that raising kids often reduces how much paid work you are free to do. Consequently, this blows a big chunk out of a woman's ability to earn as much as a man over the same lifetime. Duh.

And why isn't the poverty rate of college-educated women worse than male high-school dropouts if women are so underpaid by comparison?

Well a woman doesn't have to work very hard to get a comfortable standard of living because she can spread her legs and wed some sucker to support her. A woman can get a roof put over her head and health insurance provided for her and so on without needing to earn her own money to get it. Duh.

Male high-school dropouts (indeed, most men) can't plan their lives with the knowledge that they'll marry someone who can financially support them. They must work full-time all their working-age lives or starve to death. The lack of a third option would force men to focus on earning money, wouldn't it? And anyway, a man will probably be spending that money supporting some thankless bitch who spread her legs for him enough times so that she wouldn't have to work. Duh.

Or to use a simpler metaphor: let's say you're at a big party with lots of men and women and there's a big buffet in the center. It has things like salad, pasta, shrimp, sweet potatoes, cake and so on.

So then you say: ladies go ahead and take any combination of things that you want. But guys: you can only choose cake. In fact, you can't NOT choose cake. Even if you don't like cake, you have to take some or you eat nothing. (And on top of this, the women signal quite clearly that they will be more likely to have sex with whoever has the most cake.)

So what's going to happen in this situation? On average, the men are going to have bigger helpings of cake. But at this point, feminists scream: 'Look! They're hogging all the cake!' without ever acknowledging that the men can't make the full range of selections that women can and that most of the women are having sex with whoever has the most cake.

Now this kind of thing isn't too hard to figure out. It's not hard for anyone to figure-out, unless you like casting men as oppressors. Whoever wrote this commercial was a real cynic.

So what would help this situation? What would even things-out?

Isn't it kind of self-defeating that women want 'equal pay' while simultaneously wanting to marry rich men? Well, here's a possibility that might change things a bit: what if college-educated women were to marry and financially-support male high school dropouts? Maybe financially support a spouse much in the same way that men have been doing for centuries? In short: have women stop trading sex for cake and maybe be willing to provide a little cake themselves.

Oh, no! That's far too strange an idea! Too radical! Too weird!

Because the women of today have such advanced sensibilities, they must retain the traditional prerogative of only wedding upwards, just like grandma did. Or they won't marry at all. Which not only continues the traditional pressures on men to earn more, but also helps to perpetuate the income disparity that women claim to resent. Well done.

Yes, the women of today are that evolved.

Line 2: Hi, this is Sheryl Crow and I'm a feminist because I believe in radical concepts like Ekwal pay for Ekwal work. And Ekwalitee in general.

Here is how the listener is supposed to react:

Hah hah! Ho ho! 'Radical ideas'!

Why, Ekwal pay for Ekwal work isn't a radical idea at all!

If that so-called 'radical idea' is what makes one a feminist, then I must be a feminist too!

In fact, only some stupid maaaaayaaaaan could ever say that Ekwal pay for Ekwal work is a radical idea because men are illogical and sexist!

And since Mike didn't get me those earrings, he is illogical and sexist, too.

Analysis:

Ekwalitee is such a wonderful term because sounds great and it means whatever the speaker wants it to mean and it means whatever the listener wants it to mean. Near-infinite malleability.

This line in particular appears to be intended to appeal to the types of women out there who don't call themselves 'feminist' but nonetheless agree with certain selected principles that feminists profess to cherish. This type of marketing speaks to a bigger truth: many feminists are baffled/frustrated by the fact that quite a lot of women do not describe themselves with the 'f' word, and feminists simply can't guess the reason why.

It couldn't have to do with the sanctimonious, in-your-face sexism and hypocritical preachiness of the more gleefully obnoxious self-described feminists. That couldn't be it. (Of course, more sober heads know that this particular wound is a self-inflicted one. Tee-hee!)

Anyway, I believe in the concept of equal pay for equal work, too. Much of this is covered by the Line 1 analysis. So many women opt-out of doing equal work over their lifetime. But not only that, there are other factors at work as well.

When you consider that 95% of work-related accidents are suffered by men, you start to wonder whether women are actually doing equal work in the types of jobs that they choose. And on average, men also work more overtime, have longer commutes and have lower absentee rates. Would those things affect pay disparities perchance? I would say 'yes'.

(Of course, a feminist would say 'no'. Because they are far more intelligent than I am.)

So truly, it would be a fantastic idea if women were paid the same for doing the same work.

But it would also be a fantastic idea if women would, you know, roll-up their sleeves and actually do the same types and amounts of work that they presently refuse to dirty their hands with.

Also, it also seems as if a lot of women enter into no-brainer jobs with the expectation that they will eventually find a rich fellow who will financially take care of them. And do their male coworkers have that kind of choice? No. This also goes back to Line 1.

Why... it's almost as if a man doesn't have an equal opportunity to leave the workplace!

Wow, equal opportunity to leave the workplace! That IS a radical idea!

So radical, it's nonsensical to an American chick's ears!

Again, perhaps it would be a good idea if more women were willing to marry and financially support a husband who is poorer than they are, thus giving men an ability to leave the workplace and free-up more high-paying positions for women?

Whoa! No way! Unheard-of!

And "Oh! Oh! But NiceGuy! Even if we do that, men aren't doing equal housework! Unfair! Wahh!"

If you were willing to stop demanding that your husband be rich and financially support while you work a less-demanding job, perhaps the reduced burden on him would allow your hubby to take-on a bigger slice of the housework?

Didn't think of that did you, honeychile?

Did you really think this whole 'equality' thing would be all gain, no pain, princess? Of course you did! You're an American chick! You believe that 'equality' means getting half of everything while giving-up nothing but a few token chivalrous gestures!

But I'm just talking the crazy-talk, aren't I? How silly I am! What would be the point of actual equality when selective Ekwalitee is so much more convenient?

Line 3: So why is it that women are 51% of the population and only 14% of Congress?

Here is how the listener is supposed to react:

Those evil men are keeping us from our place in the sun!

Those self-serving bastards are hoarding all the power to themselves and shutting us poor women out of public affairs!

And if I don't have those earrings by next weekend, Mike and I are through!

Analysis:

This could be a fairly valid question. But to it, I would also add that no democratic system has a parliament that is more than 35% female (some of the Scandinavian countries might come close to that). So it's oppression, then? Well not necessarily.

This could be taken as proof of oppression, but it's far too convenient to blame this particular bundle on evil men. After all, don't female voters often help to elect men into office?

Part of this situation might be a result of the fact that women are allowed to pursue the option of not working a stress-filled career. So many women choose a life which would place themselves out of situations where they would have opportunities to run for political office (i.e.: she'll lack the opportunities and filthy cronies who are necessary to mount and sustain an election bid).

Another fallacious underlying assumption here is that men have all the power because men in Congress are going to serve men. But the men in Congress don't cynically serve men, they usually serve whatever monied interests which have sponsored their campaign. (And they will do the chivalrous thing, which is to serve women.) If the Congress was 51% women, they would do the exact same thing because this is how a corrupted political system functions. (And they will do the feminist thing, which is to serve women.)

Anyone who can raise $15 million of someone else's money is not going to be representing rank and file voters. And certainly not favoring rank and file men in general. After all, it is these same politicians who enact ever-tougher laws which wind-up jailing and executing mostly men. It is these same politicians who think that men ought to be drafted and thrown into combat in order to protect women. Is that how male politicians do what's best for men?

But it's useless to discuss this kind of thing coherently with a dedicated feminist. She'd still claim women were oppressed even if Congress were 90% female. After all: since all the presidents have been men, all the men must have been presidents.

Additionally, there's a rather disturbing mentality underlying Crow's question...

She wonders: if women are 51% of the population, why are they only 14% of Congress?

According to Crow, it's unacceptable that men are 86% of Congress. But it's peachy-keen if men are 49% of the population. After all, that is a rock-solid and immutable fact of life which shouldn't be thought about in any way.

But why are men only 49% of the population?

Simple. They die earlier.

86% of Congress represents a few hundred people. 1% of the population represents about 2.6 million people.

It's totally unacceptable that there aren't a few extra women sitting in high-profile elected positions. That's bad.

But if a couple million men end-up dying prematurely, well tough noogies. Let's not think about what that might mean.

The reality can't possibly be that men work themselves to an early grave so that women are free to live-off the surpluses that men have spent their lives creating. That can't possibly bear any relation to the truth. No way. It's 'bad genes', you know. Or it's poetic justice.

For in the mind of a feminist, the wonderfully shorter male life expectancy is not (directly) a woman's problem and is therefore not a problem at all. True, it might occasionally bereave millions of wives, sisters, mothers and daughters if their loved ones die-off. But that's more of a nuisance than a serious public health problem, for it deprives those women of someone whom they can blame stuff on and badger into cleaning-out the garage.

No, the really big problem here is that despite their superior genes, women aren't 51% of Congress. That is the real tragedy.

Odd, though-- if men in power were truly hoarding all the goodies so that men could lord it over women... wouldn't women be dying earlier, regardless of their superior genes? Well, let's not think about it.

And in addition to proudly boasting (twice) that women are 51% of the population, our songstress might also ask the question: why do men represent less than 49% of the eligible electorate?

Simple: because the vast majority of adults who have been stripped of their voting eligibility are men and they couldn't vote if they wanted to.

Ho hum. More bad genes perhaps?

And the number of disenfranchised men has grown over the last few years as well. In 2000, Massachusetts and New Hampshire disenfranchised their inmates. In 1999, Oregon disenfranchised its federal inmates, in 1997 Colorado disenfranchised federal inmates and parolees and in 1998 Utah disenfranchised all inmates. (And all we hear about is how male politicians are out to oppress women.)

And interestingly, most of these disenfranchised men would probably support the Democrats owing to their ethnic and income demographics. But oh well. They're not women, so it's not a problem.

And do the commercial's makers particularly care if there are more male Democratic voters around? Nahh. Only the vagina-having Democrats are worth thinking about.

Line 4: Why do most health plans cover Viagra but not birth control?

Here is how the listener is supposed to react:

Oh, those lucky lucky men!

They get everything they want!

They gorge themselves on trainloads of Viagra, while us poor women are left with nothing! Not even those gorgeous platinum earrings!

Those selfish selfish bastards!

Analysis:

This is a fine example of how a commercial makes you stop thinking. And this was such a nonsensical analogy, it was kind of a surprise to hear it.

So, why is Viagra covered by health plans but not birth control?

Oh, gee. What a puzzler. Let me think about that for about three seconds.

Um... uh... because Viagra and birth control don't do the same thing? Could that be it?

Viagra is used to treat erectile dysfunction. A birth control pill is a contraceptive.

It's not fair that certain men can get a good deal on a certain pill while certain women can't get a good deal on a totally unrelated pill. What an injustice!

Yeah, they're both pills. And pills are all the same, aren't they? And yeah, they both deal with sex so perhaps very superficially they do seem to have something to do with each other but functionally, they belong in totally different categories.

If Crow had asked 'Why do most health plans cover condoms but not birth control?' Yes, that would make fairly good sense if it were true.

A strong-acting variant of a birth control pill can be used to help regulate menstrual cycles for women who have irregular periods and that is certainly a therapeutic thing. So if she'd said 'Why do most health plans cover Viagra but not strong-acting variants of birth control pills which help regulate menstrual cycles?' that would be a valid complaint indeed if it were a true statement. (Perhaps it is, I don't really know.) But that's not what she said and it's not even what she meant, obviously.

The ad is trying to conflate Viagra with contraceptives in order to make the suggestion that lucky lucky men always get everything they want while poor pitiful women get nothing.

You know, if men truly had all the power and used it to oppress women-- condoms would be covered by health plans, and female forms of birth control would be heavily restricted. Or unobtainable. And come to think of it, Viagra hit the market a few years ago while birth control pills have been around for decades. I wonder why women's reproductive systems seem to enjoy top priority if men have all the power? You'd think that female birth control would be in a primitive state if that were the case. Oh, but lay that aside.

And while we're on the topic, Crow might also ask: why do women have multiple forms of modern, reliable birth control while men only have a centuries-old method (condoms) and an invasive, surgical method (vasectomies)?

Nope, don't even think about it. Men have everything. Women have nothing. Even when the options for women are more numerous, they still have nothing.

You are supposed to believe that Viagra and birth control are equivalent things. This is the baloney-universe that feminists want you to live within.

Line 5 and 6: Well first, you register to vote. Go to feminist.org to register online. That's 'feminist.org'. Then forward the link to all of your girlfriends and be sure to vote November 2nd. Remember, women are 51% of the population. So when we vote, we have the power to change the world.

Here is how the listener is supposed to react:

My belief in my oppression has been reinforced anew!

Now I'm free! Free to do what the feminists tell me!

I guess I'll stop painting my toenails and go tell the sisterhood... and that cheap bastard Mike is going to get one hell of a bitching-out session the next time he doesn't buy me something. Or maybe I could get revenge by screwing his best friend again?

Analysis:

This bugged me a lot: 'forward the link to all of your girlfriends'.

Not 'forward the link to all of your friends'.

Not 'forward the link to all of your contacts' or anything like that. No. That message would be too inclusive.

Girlfriends.

The use of this word in this context is somewhat creepy, I think. And it was no accident that it was used. First of all, the female listeners are presumably able enough to send the message to those people whom they think would be receptive to it, who would presumably be women anyway. Second of all, if the commercial were to have said 'forward the link to all your friends', the context of the message would serve to mean 'female friends' in the minds of those women listeners who have already accepted the message that men are oppressors who can't be trusted. But saying 'girlfriends' hardens the sexist and exclusivist aspects of the ad even further.

'You're in a secret club of the oppressed, pass it on to the other club members.'

I would guess that this was done specifically to help buttress the paranoid siege mentality that feminists like to inculcate in women under the guise of sisterhood.

Because the male friends of a woman can't possibly be relied-upon to register and vote in the correct 'female' way. No no no.

And is the male friend of a feminist not trustworthy enough to perhaps forward the message along to his female contacts and thusly get the message-out to even more female voters? Well shoot, that could never happen. Why encourage it?

This sort of identity politics is not only incredibly selfish, it's also rather unsettlingly exclusionary.

It's not too big a leap to speculate that feminists secretly hope that women will only vote for other women. Girlfriends voting for girlfriends ought to be an end in of itself. And it's sort of in the same spirit as: 'Forward the link to all of your white friends and help register more white people to vote in hopes that society can do more things that benefit white people!'

'If you're not like us, then we don't want to think about you.'

That kind of ad would be openly rotten. This ad is only less brazenly so.

The Commercial a Nutshell:

Owing to some lucky accident which is not worth exploring, 'women are 51% of the population' and have the (presumably latent and heretofore untapped) 'power to change the world'. And yet, they don't seem to have exercised these mysterious caged energies for some reason. And their inaction over the last 84 years could not possibly be due to free will or nonaction or simply apathy. Trust Sheryl Crow: you and your girlfriends are good but 'They' are out there, lording it over us through tricks and dark sorcery. 'They' are unfairly hogging all the seats in Congress while gulping-down heaping handfuls of cheap erection-pills while you are given nothing. Vote with your sisters and we shall cleanse the world of filth.

Meanwhile, feminists complain that many sympathetic women still don't call themselves feminists. And they can't figure out the reasons.

With commercials like this, I wonder why?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I can state for a scientific fact that the funnier a joke is, the more likely a woman is to react by saying: 'That's disgusting!' As if that's a BAD thing." -- Dave Barry.

Back to Home