I did read the article, including the reference to other cases, and remained unconvinced. These seem few and far between, and again, unconvincing to the very people making lots of money while ignoring these results. Science always comes down to numbers. Prove it, prove it, test it and prove it again.
You keep repeating that, but when you actually look at the numbers provided it appears that oversexualized women have 4x more ads than men in sector we talk about. I am not saying that there are or will not be ads with men. I am saying they most likely won't be anywhere near 50/50 and there are reasons for that. It's up to
you (and others) to prove that this dynamic will shift. Drastically. Or that my proof is wrong. You don't want to? Fine, but then again you can't prove me wrong that way. You don't find my proof convicting? Fine, but that does not prove me wrong either.
I don't feel any need to produce evidence because I'm not the person making sweeping statements about someone else's (or even my own) gender. And I recommend anyone doing so find evidence when they do these things because that way, if someone OF that gender or age group or whatever takes offense, at least there will be some kind of evidence to stand on. Which...might...reduce the trouble? Maybe?
Not really. When it comes to convictions many people have tendency to defend their established world of view, often inspite the truth.
It's like people in my country who want to ban some movies or spectacles. Because they find them offensive. Funny thing is they didn't even watch them. Or group in another, where they try to "police" stuff that's not following their own beliefs, although they themselves are immigrants and should respect laws and culture of a country they are in. Coming in and saying that something might be found offensive is silly, because anything can be found offensive, even if it's objectively not.
As for my logic, let me be clear - you are not allowed to say lots of things on these boards. You can check my sig for the forum rules, but if what you say comes across as racist, sexist, discriminatory, or offensive, it's not allowed. Whether the mods - me, in this case - do something about it is up to us, but those are the ground rules.
Who is to say that what I say is racist, sexist, discriminatory, or offensive? You? Because if that's the case then it's purely about you and not about my arguments.
I had the conversation with one guy a few years ago. We were doing fine. Then, out of the blue, another person (a moderator, to make this even more funny) said that my co-discutant has been insulted although
he himself said, clearly, that he didn't feel insulted by me (and I wasn't insulting him, from my perspective). It's insane. What you do here is not that much different. I can understand protecting people from racist, sexist, discriminatory, or offensive stuff, but not when arguments are actually followed by evidence and are not even racist, sexist, discriminatory, or offensive to begin with.
