Did you not also ask the question?Anyone, male or female can commit assholery, as one tiny example: Using a fragmentary quote without indicating the edit, never mind not considering the context it was taken from. Had you followed the thread, you'd have seen it was Frankfooter who asked the question, which the poster I replied to had ignored. I merely repeated it after responding. But at least you got the thread back on track, even if you're mis-directing your answer to me instead of Frank.
But you haven't answered the question either, and the examples you offer which grossly misrepresent the original commercial, and Frank's single sentence précis of it are just more evidence of how often we encounter the objectionable.
What's wrong with calling for better? If that registered was the bad stuff men do, that's worth thinking about. Resentment is futile.
I singled out the question in the quote because that is specifically what I was addressing.
And my examples don't misrepresent anything in regards to the question that was asked.
I simply replaced one identifiable group with another, and one specific characteristic with another.
The structure and wording of the question remained identical.
If by doing this the question can be considered insulting to one of the identifiable groups, then logically the question must be insulting to all identifiable groups.
One can do the same in regards to the ad.
If you can simply replace the identifiable group with another, and the characteristic being associated, yet keep the structure of the ad the same, and the ad is considered offensive to the substituted identifiable group, then logically it must have been offensive to the original identifiable group as well.