They're probably desperate because they've been losing profits because people have found out their food is basically just shit wrapped in a shell.

Can I say that you're overreacting here and reading into this too much, or will I be tarred and feathered for saying that? Jeez, the whining over the SI swimsuit issue is getting really annoying.

I don't see that as the main attraction at all. I mean, who cares about the SI models one way or the other? You get to be one of the first people on the whole planet to look at the new fiesta platters! Those are some serious braggin' rights at the office water cooler, I tell you.

(/snark)

Ya, that's gross and skeevy.

Aww. I like Taco Smell on occasion. There aren't many other places that you can get so full of food for less than $3. I can't eat it more than once a month, but I have some fond memories because Taco Hell was My First Job (and I don't think I've worked as hard at a job since).

That being said, the above ad campaign is really creepy. Do not like. Will not be returning to Taco Bell until this stops. ;-P

ferrarimanf355, you can say whatever you want - but when use predictable language like "overreacting" and "whining," feminists tend to ignore you.

I've grown to hate the word exotic. It seems to mean something really, really creepy about 90% of the time.

Jessica:
Snap.

Yeah, seriously. Tar and feathering is so out. It's a lot of work for very little payoff. Also, who wants to handle hot tar, anyway?

First time posting. Still a little nervous, what with being a Baby Feminist and all.

I can see where it -could- be harmless. I like my boy-eye-candy at times. The problem is that so often it doesn't stop there. Some men (and I suppose this could be a trap for some lesbians too) become so wrapped up in the package that they impress these ideals on others, which most people can never fufill. It's a lose-lose for everyone, since unrealistic requirements will lead to frustration on both ends and no one ends up happy. That's why expectations for the physical exclusively tend to suck so much in the long run.

As a fantasy, harmless. As an ideal? Painful for both sides.

Right, Jessica.

I knew that this was going to be one of those posts where someone's going to say that it's unimportant(then again, that happens a lot). Seriously, you think it's unimportant? Then skip over it. Don't post just to whine that everyone else should ignore it too.

BelliButton, don't be nervous! Welcome, I'm glad you've decided to join in on the commenting fun. :)

I still feel like there's so much to know! 27 seems so late to come to a feminist awakening! I just was very lucky that my parents both were -so- equal in their relationship. I think I didn't really see the problems until I was out on my own, and had more than a few things tossed my way to make me understand.

I don't believe anything is 'unimportant', though. When things are brushed under the carpet, that's when they turn into Dust Bunnies of Doom.

Or something. (Thank you so much, Jessica!)

BelliButton, it's good that you're posting!

The ad goes beyond presenting a fantasy and even beyond setting up an ideal. These kind of ads and contests promote the idea that access to women is a prize. In this contest a woman become nothing more than an object for male consumption, much like the food being sold.

BelliButton, it's never too late and there's always so much more to learn, even for long-time feminists. It's a process for all of us.

These kind of ads and contests promote the idea that access to women is a prize.

More than ads do that. Many women help propogate that, and society and general expectations of human interaction do, as well.

The entire current setup of human romantic interaction (from a het viewpoint, which is obviously what this ad is targeting) place men as lowly supplicants and women as gatekeepers, and that we have to "win" the favor of these gatekeepers in order to be granted the illustrious prize of her company.

A lot of things placing "woman as prize" would change if this dynamic changed, but I don't see it changing, as there is some measure of power in being the rejector, instead of the rejectee.

I do honestly believe it demeans both sides of the fence. Ennui's right; it puts the woman up on a pedestal and lowly men have to compete for her time. The woman herself is dehumanized as a prize and commodity.

I don't see an acceptance possible for either side; it's not a question of rejector and rejectee, but just more people being led around by something besides what their humanity entitles them to.

This makes me sad. I need to go look at Monty or something.

This reminds me a little of the old Burger King ads with the Subservient Chicken. You typed in a command, and a person in a chicken suit would do it. Kinda funny. Subservient Swimsuit Model, though, not so much.

Chalupa? Wrapped? You are tampering with Mexican physics!

Taco Bell needs a new copywriter. One use of "exotic" in that passage would be more than enough, but that copywriter managed to cram in two -- describing the beach and the woman, of course.

I agree with what Geek said:

These kind of ads and contests promote the idea that access to women is a prize. In this contest a woman become nothing more than an object for male consumption, much like the food being sold.

My interest was also piqued because my mom, a former commercial actress and model, was one of these women in ad campaign contests back in the 70s. She was "Marcy Hopkins," a fictional girl-next-door-at-the-next-barstool character who recurred in Schaefer beer spots and had to accompany a kid to the Super Bowl for Schaefer's "Win a trip to the Super Bowl with Marcy Hopkins" contest. (Thankfully, her date turned out to be a nerdy college student/ aspiring astronaut whose professor had helped him submit thousands of entries and who was more interested in football than in her.) I've asked her about the experience, but I think she's sort of embarassed about the whole affair and prefers not to discuss it.

Your Mom was indeed lucky, given the target demographic for Schaefer (guys who found a $5 bill on the ground and wanted to buy a case of something).

Hmn, I'm sorely tempted to sign up myself, and get my female friends (or gay male friends) to sign up as well, just to spite them.
At least the beach part sounds appealing.

Taco Bell has a history of advertising exclusively to straight men (not that they are alone in this). Apparently the rest of us don't eat there.

I just don't get this from a marketing standpoint.

They always market fastfood to Mom's (now you don't have to cook!) or men (none of that pussyass healthy lady food for us - or, the go to - look. she's hot. buy this.)

Why ignore half of your market base? Not only men eat fast food or drink beer. And not only women buy cleaning products. It's just bad advertising.

I am tempted to sign up: if I win, I'd donate my win to feministing so they can blog about it :)

OMG, that would be freakin' HILARIOUS. Can you imagine?

ugghhhhhhh

Taco Bell is the only widely available fast food chain (in my area, at least) that makes vegetarian substitutions easy. Why do they have to fuck it up so badly with stupid ad campaigns?

Well I don't agree that women being gatekeepers ends up with men being lowly suplicants, begging for sex. Seems to me like most of the time it ends up with the feeling that you have to trick the woman, or even force her; "All's fair and love and war."

And it's not so great being the gatekeeper, either. It means that the woman has to be responsible for protection, and for any consequences like pregnancy. It also results in the whole stud/whore double standard. Am I wrong?

Well I don't agree that women being gatekeepers ends up with men being lowly suplicants, begging for sex.

Then can I assume you aren't male?

There's no other way to look at it, really. We're taught that we have to present ourselves to women, in the form of a lowly supplicant, and hope and pray that we're deemed good enough, educated enough, rich enough, handsome enough, interesting enough, and funny enough. Also that even if we're accepted, we're expected to assume that there are 10 more men waiting to ask for her phone number right after us, and hat there's no real guarantee that even if we hit off, that she won't just toss us aside in favor of the next, better option.

We're expected to have constant romantic rejection a common part of our lives.

And it's not so great being the gatekeeper, either. It means that the woman has to be responsible for protection, and for any consequences like pregnancy. It also results in the whole stud/whore double standard. Am I wrong?

The gatekeeper is a position of some power, though. There is no power in being the supplicant. It's why, regardless of "tradition", you'll find many, many men (myself included) that have never once been asked out, or asked for a phone number by a woman.

Women are often taught to expect that people they are interested in will come to them, and that those people are the ones who should be putting in the effort to impress them, not the other way around.

Supplicants are powerless, and at the mercy of the person they are asking for approval. Why would someone want to be in that position? Thus, I don't see the dynamic changing.

That, I think is the entire root of "woman as prize". Because we've all been taught that from the most basic of interactions.

Ennui, that only goes so far as what males are taught, because honestly what women are taught is not that we'll expect anything handed to us, but that we will have to maintain a physical and emotional standard to be worthy of said attention. It's a vicious double standard for -both- sexes that just perpetuates the Patriarchy. Just look at eating disorders or body image in general; if you don't look like said 'exotic' Brazilian cutie, you're a hambeast not worth a second thought and should be put down or something. Conversely, if you ARE good looking, you're only wanted for that, leaving you just as empty and unfufilled as a person.

I definately can see the frustrations on your end, as in your eyes it's a supplicant approaching a goddess. Just understand on our end it's a hopeless ideal on either side too. No one wins in this situation.

Wildberry, you aren't wrong. It also leads to a dynamic where men are encouraged to try to get what they want regardless of what the woman wants, because her non-consent is considered an obstacle to overcome.

Women, then, are put in a no-win situation where they are expected to set boundaries (which men are not expected to respect) and when they fail, it is a moral failing on their part.

At the same time, women are pressured to conform to unrealistic beauty standards (and spend more time and money on them than men) to attract men.

It's ultimately a passive, not active role that women are placed in, regardless of the illusion of power in rejecting.

Not to say that this doesn't hurt men as well. It is a harmful view of human relationships that is bound to be destructive to everyone. However, when it means that women's sexual autonomy is not respected (indeed it is considered in service of male sexuality) it's not equal-opportunity harm.

Ennui, that only goes so far as what males are taught, because honestly what women are taught is not that we'll expect anything handed to us, but that we will have to maintain a physical and emotional standard to be worthy of said attention.

This is true, but women are never taught that they might have to supplicate themselves before another party in the hopes they might pass favorable judgement on them, and give them attention.

In addition to physical and emotional standards, though, men in that position are also subjected to financial ones. A man that isn't wealthy, or well-off, or doesn't have symbols of financial status is deemed a "loser", and I even see feminists making that call.

Our overall emotional state is generally valueless, in comparison to our finances, and our ability to, well, basically, lift heavy things and be a "protector", or whatnot.

Just look at eating disorders or body image in general;

Yeah, the dynamic causes women to kill themselves for a particular look, and causes us to kill ourselves with work, for a particular income. Nobody wins.

Conversely, if you ARE good looking, you're only wanted for that, leaving you just as empty and unfufilled as a person.

We feel the same way about money.

I definately can see the frustrations on your end, as in your eyes it's a supplicant approaching a goddess.

That's pretty much how we're expected to look at it, yeah. Also why I don't date anymore, i got tired of it.

Just understand on our end it's a hopeless ideal on either side too.

I suppose it just depends on which hopeless you want to work with. Erasing the dynamic of goddess/supplicant would go a long way to helping though. I just don't see equal amounts of people approaching each other, if interested.

SO many women I know are completely uncomfortable with the idea of approaching an object of interest.

No one wins in this situation

Indeed. And it creates Taco Bell advertisements, and eBay auctions where you can win an evening with a movie star for donating to her charity of choice.

Oh, I'm afraid I really have to beg to differ on that score, Ennui. Women get taught from a very early age to change for someone else to accept them. It's just in a different way. You said it yourself. It can be looks, money, whatever, we're all locked into the idea that no matter what we are now, it will not be good enough to have someone want us. Personal experiences on your end do sound (from other posts as well) like you've been scarred in a lot of ways too, but understand for a lot of us we've been taught from any age at all that we work for is to fufill this entire cycle. Like you said, no one wins at all.

Most of us are never objectified to the level where we've got some Taco Bell ad auctioning us off. Instead, we're told we're never good enough for it, and get caught in the downward spiral of sucky, sucky self image. I can easily see how the same thing happens to men. And it's the Patriarchy that makes it all endure.

... I need a drink.

I more bothered by the idea of a trip to the SuperBowl with a woman than some kind of virtual photo shoot. I kind of agree with BelliButton, but look at this kind of thing as just fantasy. Getting the actual woman as the prize seems more demeaning.

Also, along those lines, I don't see anything wrong with having ideal versions of men and women. But I'm okay with the idea that there are lots of things that I want, but will never have. I think the problem is that the message goes from, 'this is ideal', to, 'this ideal is pretty normal'- which is where the unrealistic expectation set in. But seriously, some people get frustrated in the dating game and some people don't. I know the dynamic can be pretty f*cked up, but I'm not convinced that's really the same issue as both sides having expectations that are too high.

You said it yourself. It can be looks, money, whatever, we're all locked into the idea that no matter what we are now, it will not be good enough to have someone want us.

Indeed. I was just speaking of the situation involving who approaches whom.

Instead, we're told we're never good enough for it, and get caught in the downward spiral of sucky, sucky self image. I can easily see how the same thing happens to men.

From our point of view, though, we see that people wish to change the dynamic for women, so that women can feel accepted, acceptable, important, fun, attractive, etcetera, without fitting any particular standard. Yet, when it comes to us, the standard of "good guy" and "loser" seem to be rigid, and no one holds any interest in changing that on any real level.

But seriously, some people get frustrated in the dating game and some people don't.

Yeah, the gorgeous women who have no shortage of people approaching them are not frustrated, and the wealthy, successful men who are never rejected don't get frustrated.

It's the rest of the population, that doesn't fit these standards, that have to deal with people that expect them, that get frustrated. Both the people that expect them and don't get them, and the ones that don't fit them, end up with some degree of frustration.

All I'm saying is the entire dynamic of basic (het) human romantic interaction is what creates the setup of "woman as prize", and sets a situation where certain types of people are "out of reach" based on arbitrary qualities, which only make them more desirable and prize-like.

I just hate to be forced to see the world in those lines, I suppose. I pride myself in being able to see both sides to the situation, but in something like this it's ifuriating. How is it possible to break the bonds of social norms that have lasted this long? Last I checked I'm fresh out of socialogical napalm.

... which would be awesome, should it exist, don't get me wrong.

There's a double standard for women too, a whole slew of them. You get nice guy and loser, we get sweet girl and slut. We show sexuality and are reviled for it, even as we're pursued for it. The whole thing is vile enough to make either side lose hope.

I need to get off my soapbox on this one. We're both on the same page.

The system sucks. I'm going to go and buy a dog.

More of a reason to boycott Toxic Hell.

*ICK*

"I am tempted to sign up: if I win, I'd donate my win to feministing so they can blog about it :)

OMG, that would be freakin' HILARIOUS. Can you imagine?"

LOL, that's the first thing I thought too. This prize needs to go to a woman/ gay man or an aspiring photographer or both.

Taco Bell is disgusting. I can make the same burrito they would serve, only better and cheaper.

noueux: In my teenage years, I worked at a McDonald's, and learned that you can vegetarianize almost anything on the menu. My favorite sandwich then was a Big Mac without meat, which is surprisingly tasty.

Then of course, I had to go see Supersize me, and read nutrition books and now I wouldn't set foot in there.

So I guess no women eat at Taco Bell? Good to know. This woman sure isn't going to bother.

"I am tempted to sign up: if I win, I'd donate my win to feministing so they can blog about it :)

OMG, that would be freakin' HILARIOUS. Can you imagine?"

LOL, that's the first thing I thought too. This prize needs to go to a woman/ gay man or an aspiring photographer or both.

Taco Bell is disgusting. I can make the same burrito they would serve, only better and cheaper.

noueux: In my teenage years, I worked at a McDonald's, and learned that you can vegetarianize almost anything on the menu. My favorite sandwich then was a Big Mac without meat, which is surprisingly tasty.

Then of course, I had to go see Supersize me, and read nutrition books and now I wouldn't set foot in there.

How is it possible to break the bonds of social norms that have lasted this long?

You'd have to find a way to make people uncomfortable with them. Problem is, most people expect things to be this way, and see no point in altering them.

The whole thing is vile enough to make either side lose hope.

Like I said, why I bowed out. The ends are not worth the means.

I need to get off my soapbox on this one. We're both on the same page.

Indeed we are.

The system sucks. I'm going to go and buy a dog.

I prefer cats. :D

So I guess no women eat at Taco Bell? Good to know. This woman sure isn't going to bother.

So I guess no women eat at Taco Bell? Good to know. This woman sure isn't going to bother.

Sexist AND racist???

Taco Bell gets the bigotry Daily Double!

Objectify a woman, stalk her (legally ..no restraining orders here!) and misidentify and distort her culture - remember geography fans, Brazil and Mexico ARE DIFFERENT COUNTRIES!!!

Sexist AND racist???

Taco Bell gets the bigotry Daily Double!

Objectify a woman, stalk her (legally ..no restraining orders here!) and misidentify and distort her culture - remember geography fans, Brazil and Mexico ARE DIFFERENT COUNTRIES!!!

what women are taught is not that we'll expect anything handed to us, but that we will have to maintain a physical and emotional standard to be worthy of said attention.

couldn't have said it better myself, bellibutton. but ennui's response that women are never taught that they might have to supplicate themselves before another party in the hopes they might pass favorable judgement on them, and give them attention - where the hell are you living?

and the thing that bothers me about the whole "gatekeeper" theory is that in this case, the woman isn't the gatekeeper in any way! she has no control over who wins her, as an object, from Taco Bell...yes, yes it's time with her that they're giving away, whatever, but she is so objectified in this thing it hurts.

I did go to the site and play through the stalkercam thing...there's a moment where, dressed in a white string bikini, she leans to one side, spreads her legs apart and says "see? now I'm all yours." That's when I navigated back here. It made me die inside, just a little bit.

misidentify and distort her culture - remember geography fans, Brazil and Mexico ARE DIFFERENT COUNTRIES!!!

Not to nit-pick, but how exactly did they "misidentify and distort her culture"?

where the hell are you living?

The US. I am almost 30 years of age, and I've never had a woman present herself to me, shy and worried about rejection, to ask for my number, like society expects men to do hundreds of times in our lives.

I know plenty of men that have never had a woman approach them.

They aren't taught to do so.

Mild Ennui, in most threads I deem you a troll, but you aren't half bad in this one, though it irritates me because you seem to be trying to say that men have it much worse.

Is it your opinion that women have nothing to complain about, and that if anyone does, its men? Cuz that's how you come off in every single thread I've seen you in.

Regardless, for me this is just more evidence (not that I needed any more) that feminism helps men too, since you seem to care only about the welfare of men, yet still came to the same conclusion as the feminists.

Mild Ennui:

I agree that het relations are screwed up, and I agree with your assessment of het male pressures. You are completely off base on the het female pressures, however.

"women are never taught that they might have to supplicate themselves before another party in the hopes they might pass favorable judgment on them, and give them attention."

Oh yes, we are. Yes, indeedy. Many men require certain standards of appearance and behavior to even put a woman in the fuckable category. And if a woman dares to act as though she might deserve to be viewed as desirable to some guy who has put her in the unfuckable category, he lets her know how wrong she is.

"as there is some measure of power in being the rejector, instead of the rejectee."

Oh yeah, we have the power to turn men into violent beasts upon rejection. Some power.

"Yeah, the gorgeous women who have no shortage of people approaching them are not frustrated,"

Oh no? Maybe they are frustrated by all that attention, being constantly interrupted in their daily routine, constantly expected to respond nicely, never knowing if the guy they turn down is going to flip out on them. Ever think of that?

Buddy, listen to women. It ain't all wine and roses for us. That lovely shade of green is actually sort of bilious in this light.

Mild Ennui: I'm certainly an outlier, b/c I'd never been asked out until my current boyfriend and I got together. I've always been the initiator. At the same time, while women aren't taught or encouraged to approach men, we are expected to just hope that he approaches us. So yeah, shy and fearing rejection is still big with women. All high school was for most of my female friends (socially) was praying that a guy would find them pretty and popular enough, and a lot of girls went to great lengths to hide good grades and athleticism so as not to intimidate the boys. And the endless heartbreak of being rejected by a guy, which of course meant that you were not pretty or popular enough, and by extension were pretty worthless as a girl... I mean, really, no one gets a good deal with dating. I was always terrified, but since I didn't cover my opinions or intelligence, and I wasn't conventionally pretty for the high school crowd, guys didn't ask me out. I'd never have had a boyfriend if I wasn't the one putting myself out there.

"The US. I am almost 30 years of age, and I've never had a woman present herself to me, shy and worried about rejection, to ask for my number, like society expects men to do hundreds of times in our lives.

I know plenty of men that have never had a woman approach them.

They aren't taught to do so."

This is a completely accurate observation. However, it's not because we are being taught to sit on our thrones while all the men wait in a line to bow at our feet, then choose the one we deem most desirable, or whatever you think it is.

Rather, it's because we are taught to be passive. Making the first move, well, that'd just be too assertive, confident, and entirely inappropriate for the dainty ladies that we are supposed to be. Not to mention we're supposed to lack sexual desire.

Is it your opinion that women have nothing to complain about, and that if anyone does, its men? Cuz that's how you come off in every single thread I've seen you in.

Not my specific intent here, no. I was saying the whole concept of "woman as prize" comes from the deeply ingrained het romantic interaction dynamic that everyone has pressed into their brains from an early age.

As I said, though, whether real or imagined, there is some measure of power, or perceived power, in being the one that passes judgement and hands out the "pass" or "fail" on one's supplicants.

Which is why I said the dynamic of "woman as prize" isn't likely to change any time soon, because for every woman who thinks it's sexist and needs to go, there are 5 more than are perfectly comfortable being said prize.

Regardless, for me this is just more evidence (not that I needed any more) that feminism helps men too, since you seem to care only about the welfare of men, yet still came to the same conclusion as the feminists.

Yeah, and is it so wrong that I care about the welfare of men? I'm male. You're female, and care more about the welfare of females than males.

What point are you getting at, by pointing out the obvious?

I could be way off, but does anyone else hear echoes of 88mph?

No? hmmm...

Also, this ad is terrible and creepy.

Also, I refuse to call Taco Bell Mexican food! I think they are the reason why I rarely eat ground beef anymore...

"I am almost 30 years of age, and I've never had a woman present herself to me, shy and worried about rejection, to ask for my number, like society expects men to do hundreds of times in our lives."

My boyfriend has been asked out by tons of girls, myself included. But they are not the type of girl who who would ever go for some pompous frat boy asswipe. If I was into that type of guy I probably wouldn't ask him out because I'd half expect him to, well, be an ass about it.

Oh yes, we are. Yes, indeedy. Many men require certain standards of appearance and behavior to even put a woman in the fuckable category. And if a woman dares to act as though she might deserve to be viewed as desirable to some guy who has put her in the unfuckable category, he lets her know how wrong she is.

Not what I meant. I meant that women are not expected to approach men in order to gain their approval. Women are not expected to be the ones asking for phone numbers, asking for dates, or giving pursuit to someone they're interested in.

That was what I meant.

Though, we face the same pressures, though more based on our finances than our looks. Like I was discussing with someone else earlier, there may be different things behind it, but at the end of the day, both women and men are expected to live up to a standard, and if we don't, are quickly, (and sometimes cruelly) informed of this by someone we might be interested in.

And if a woman dares to act as though she might deserve to be viewed as desirable to some guy who has put her in the unfuckable category

That's a touchier spot. If someone is absolutely not physically attractive to another, they can't really tell that other person "Hey, I deserve for you to think I'm attractive!".

Though, you probably aren't speaking of something simple like that, I'm sure you're speaking of the extremes of the "ideal".

Oh yeah, we have the power to turn men into violent beasts upon rejection. Some power.

That's a terrible generalization. I'm quite certain that the majority of men that get rejected aren't going to become "violent beasts" when told no, they cannot have a woman's phone number.

Buddy, listen to women. It ain't all wine and roses for us. That lovely shade of green is actually sort of bilious in this light.

Well, a lot of women assume that we have it ever-so-great on our side. Trade for a week? :P

So yeah, shy and fearing rejection is still big with women.

Shy, yes. But if one doesn't approach, how can they be rejected?

I mean, really, no one gets a good deal with dating

That's what I've been saying all along.

This is a completely accurate observation. However, it's not because we are being taught to sit on our thrones while all the men wait in a line to bow at our feet, then choose the one we deem most desirable, or whatever you think it is.

Not all women, no. A great deal of them, yes.

Making the first move, well, that'd just be too assertive, confident, and entirely inappropriate for the dainty ladies that we are supposed to be.

Shockingly enough, would you be surprised to find out that a great deal of men would actually prefer to be approached? To have a woman pursue us, instead of the other way around?

Assertiveness is attractive, regardless of what you're taught. Sure, just like there are women who only want to be waiting to pass judgement, there are men who refuse to have a woman act assertive, but there are plenty of men that would love it if a woman approached them for once.

Also, I refuse to call Taco Bell Mexican food! I think they are the reason why I rarely eat ground beef anymore...

I'll admit, I don't call it Mexican, either. I'm not really sure how I'd classify it. I'm also somewhat ashamed to admit I eat there on occasion.

Once in a great while, I can't help but crave pseudo-Mexican-ish "food".

My boyfriend has been asked out by tons of girls, myself included. But they are not the type of girl who who would ever go for some pompous frat boy asswipe. If I was into that type of guy I probably wouldn't ask him out because I'd half expect him to, well, be an ass about it.

I hope you aren't inferring that I'm a "pompous frat boy asswipe".

@Mild Ennui: "Yeah, and is it so wrong that I care about the welfare of men? I'm male. You're female, and care more about the welfare of females than males."

Ya know, I think the dudes could really use you over at AskMen.com, or some porn blog or other places where men take pure joy in keeping a fresh supply of objectified prizes to fawn over.

How about it?

"I hope you aren't inferring that I'm a 'pompous frat boy asswipe'."

Not explicitly, no. But you must be unapproachable in some way, and maybe your whining about how it's so hard to be a man because women don't ask you out has something to do with it.

Ya know, I think the dudes could really use you over at AskMen.com, or some porn blog or other places where men take pure joy in keeping a fresh supply of objectified prizes to fawn over.

What do you even mean with that comment? What would you even be basing that on?

Not explicitly, no. But you must be unapproachable in some way, and maybe your whining about how it's so hard to be a man because women don't ask you out has something to do with it.

Internet =/= real life. I'm actually very quiet in my daily life. Bordering on shy. I never raise my voice, and tend to be soft-spoken.

I would definitely not be the "frat boy" stereotype, as I am not loud, nor do I excessively drink, to be honest, I rarely drink at all. Nor do I catcall women, or anything of that nature.

Though, I don't exude visible qualities of wealth, I don't wear tailored clothing, and I slouch.

Maybe that's why I'm "unapproachable".

Or it could very well be that most women don't approach men, and don't want to, just like I said, really.

And, for the record, I was not whining. Unless you'd like me to classify women disliking how the current standard dynamic affects them adversely is "whining", which I'm sure you wouldn't.

My point was that the way things are ends up directly causing the "woman as prize" shit that ends up in advertisements like this article is about.

My wife had her best friend drop hints to me to ask her out.

I speculate that women aren't much less aggressive in pursuing dates, but are more savvy in negotiating screwy societal norms through their social networks.

Then again, I've only ever been asked out by women when I was already in a relationship. I wonder if I smelled better or something then.

If I kept records, I'm pretty sure this trend would have reached statistical significance.

Here's the thing, Mild Ennui.

I bet it sucks to be a man in the current dating culture that we've got going on here. I believe that it sucks mainly because men, like you, have told me. And they have told me why.

I've never been a man, and I have a whole different set of knowledge and experience about this than the one that you are sharing.

We are listening to you. So, when a group of women tells you about their experiences and how *their* experiences are affected by this "gatekeeper/supplicant" paradigm, you need to believe them. You don't know better.

I find this bemusing:

1) Jessica posts "Taco bell is sexist."

2) Everyone agrees.

3) Ennui posts "But TPHMT!"

4) Amazingly, pretty much everyone still agrees. Try THAT on IBTP!

So why are we still talking about TPHMT? Is this now to become some bizarre moment where, having reached agreement on TPHMT (however temporary), we are now supposed to find our way to TPHMM (The Patriarchy Hurts mostly men) or perhaps MHIWWITDW (Men Have It Way Worse In The Dating World) or...? Because I for one don't see how that makes sense.

So why are we still talking about TPHMT? Is this now to become some bizarre moment where, having reached agreement on TPHMT (however temporary), we are now supposed to find our way to TPHMM (The Patriarchy Hurts mostly men) or perhaps MHIWWITDW (Men Have It Way Worse In The Dating World) or...? Because I for one don't see how that makes sense.

Even more bizzarly, I think we're supposed to agree that TPHMT by giving power to women who don't want to give it up. And also that Ennui's life experience is more relevant than what women are saying about theirs.

Has anyone else noticed what a Nice Guy(tm) Mild Ennui is? It's becoming clearer to me with every post...

iscah, you aren't the only one.

Ah, the smell of a pissing match. Should I or shouldn't I. Oh, what the hell.

Here is a little thought experiment:

What does a dateless gal do who can't find a mate?

What does a dateless guy do who can't find a mate?

1) They could get together
2) They could work on making themselves attractive to the opposite sex (hetero example here)

I want you all to do a thought experiment and think long and hard about what the guy and gal could do to make themselves more attractive to the opposite sex (without breaking the law!). And be real folks. We know how people do.

Let's say each person succeeds at achieving an increased level of desirability. Then think about the following questions for the guy and then contrast with the gal.

What new tangible characteristics might each individual possess? What qualities of his/her personality probably have changed? Did she/he acquire new talents? Do any of these new qualities or characteristics increase with time or do they fade with time. And lastly, does society value these new characteristics in other areas besides mating?

*************************

Mild Ennui, here is the thing. You seem very interested in having this conversation with people who more or less are in agreement with at least the fact that the patriarchy is hurting men as well.

Do you think that the guys who could most benefit from this conversation are going to be lurking at feministing?

So why are we still talking about TPHMT? Is this now to become some bizarre moment where, having reached agreement on TPHMT (however temporary), we are now supposed to find our way to TPHMM (The Patriarchy Hurts mostly men) or perhaps MHIWWITDW (Men Have It Way Worse In The Dating World) or...? Because I for one don't see how that makes sense.

I don't speak in acronyms, and the IBTP site is run by a strongly misandrist lesbian separatist, who is most definitely not a good barometer of feminism, and mostly spouts ridiculous nonsense in an attempt to sound intelligent. I cannot take anything on that website seriously.

Even more bizzarly, I think we're supposed to agree that TPHMT by giving power to women who don't want to give it up. And also that Ennui's life experience is more relevant than what women are saying about theirs.

Well, I can't see a lot of women wanting to give up that power, regardless of if it is mostly imagined or not.

Secondly, and inversely, why would their life experiences be more relevant than mine?

One or two anecdotal references from women that asked out their boyfriends doesn't change that the great majority do not. That's just simple statistical fact, really.

Has anyone else noticed what a Nice Guy(tm) Mild Ennui is? It's becoming clearer to me with every post...

iscah, you aren't the only one.

I don't even know what you're implying.

Would you like me to make up funny trademarked condescending names to call you? Would that help? I wasn't aware you needed namecalling for a discussion.

Mild Ennui, here is the thing. You seem very interested in having this conversation with people who more or less are in agreement with at least the fact that the patriarchy is hurting men as well.

Well, last I checked, the rational feminists also held the viewpoint that it hurts pretty much everyone, men included, and only benefits a select few.

Are you saying that I'm incorrect? That women think all men universally gain great benefit from it, and no damage?

Do you think that the guys who could most benefit from this conversation are going to be lurking at feministing?

Oooohh. Wait. A gear just clicked.

I was very certain you were somehow implying that I would "fit right in" with the crowd you mentioned.

I suppose I misjudged your statement. I apologize for jumping to that conclusion.

Nice to include lesbianism among the list of Twisty's supposed sins.

I really don't want to discuss anything with you because too often you've dismissed women's experiences and then backpedaled and covered up with semantics.

But I won't ignore insults to lesbian women. You owe the people here an apology.

"Assertiveness is attractive, regardless of what you're taught."

Maybe you think so. Maybe even most men think so. That's not what the patriarchy is teaching girls, though.

"Not all women, no. A great deal of them, yes."

Then why did you say that was why women didn't approach men? What is the problem, then, if not what I suggested and not what you suggested?

"Is it your opinion that women have nothing to complain about, and that if anyone does, its men? Cuz that's how you come off in every single thread I've seen you in.

Not my specific intent here, no."

Well its a good thing that I didn't ask for your specific intent here, then, is it? Is it your specific intent somewhere else? Or perhaps its an unspecific one. You evaded the question, I asked for your general opinion. Do you think feminism isn't needed? You seem to attempt to convince us all of that whenever you open your mouth.

"Well, I can't see a lot of women wanting to give up that power, regardless of if it is mostly imagined or not."

You can't? What women, the ones in your mind's eye? Are they blocking your view of all the women right here who have said that we don't want this "power," because it's not as great as you seem to think it is?

Nice to include lesbianism among the list of Twisty's supposed sins.

No, I said lesbian separatism.

Judging by her decree that heterosexual sex should be a criminal act, *but only for men*, and that women need to be away from men...etcetera, one can easily see her ideal world.

.I really don't want to discuss anything with you because too often you've dismissed women's experiences and then backpedaled and covered up with semantics.

You dismiss the experiences of men as less important than those of women.

But I won't ignore insults to lesbian women. You owe the people here an apology.

Excuse me? So, because she's a lesbian, that means she is an untouchable entity who must never be disagreed with?

Finding her ideas laughable and ridiculous (such as the "all men who have sex with women should be considered criminals") does not equate to insulting her.

I'm sorry, if you don't want to be considered ridiculous, don't say ridiculous, outlandish things such as that.

It's not some insult against lesbians.

A lesbian separatist feminist, is the type of feminist who believes that women should be isolated from men, and form a society wherein men are irrelevant, and have no contact with women, and all sexual/social/romantic relationships do not include men in any way.

She has continually posted things that hold these viewpoints.

It's not an insult to point that out, and say it's incredibly ridiculous, and totally untenable.

Perhaps you owe me an apology.

Maybe you think so. Maybe even most men think so. That's not what the patriarchy is teaching girls, though.

I never said otherwise.

Then why did you say that was why women didn't approach men? What is the problem, then, if not what I suggested and not what you suggested?

I said not all women do not approach men. Just most.

You evaded the question, I asked for your general opinion. Do you think feminism isn't needed? You seem to attempt to convince us all of that whenever you open your mouth.

I didn't evade it, I answered it. I said that was not my intent. Meaning, if I came off that way, it was unintentional.

You can't? What women, the ones in your mind's eye? Are they blocking your view of all the women right here who have said that we don't want this "power," because it's not as great as you seem to think it is?

I don't think the people here are representative of the majority of women, let alone all women.

And no, I mean the women I encounter on a daily basis. Yes, I'm aware there are a scant few women here who seem to have no problem reversing the dynamic, and pursuing that which they want, instead of waiting for it to come to them.

That doesn't suddenly mean that all women, or the majority of women now think that way.

And still you nitpick instead of taking responsibility for what you said. You insulted a woman in part because she is a lesbian. That is uncalled for. Separatist stands alone all by itself without suggesting that being a lesbian is part of what you don't like about her.

I'm done. You've refused to own up to it as you have done in the past and I'm not interested in getting pulled into this nitpicking at the cost of larger discussions.

You insulted a woman in part because she is a lesbian.

Refrain from putting words in my mouth.

I insulted her because she's a raving lunatic, and a misandrist.

And, if you want to read a little too much into her statements, something of a misogynist, as well.

I did NOT "insult her in part because she's a lesbian". Sorry, no matter how much you want to pin that, it won't stick.

Separatist stands alone all by itself without suggesting that being a lesbian is part of what you don't like about her.

"Lesbian Separatism" is a sub-movement within radical feminism. Calling it "Separatism" could mean *anything*. It could mean she wants the south to secede again, it could mean anything you want it to.

Again, I referred to her as a strongly misandrist lesbian separatist. Which is what she is. That's the name of that particular branch of feminism. Saying the site is run by a lesbian separatist, and is therefore not a good barometer of feminism, is not an insult. It's simply accurate.

Mainstream feminism, as far as I've read, wants equality with men, and a society in which we work together, not against each other. Not a society in which we are removed from each other.

You've refused to own up to it

Maybe if your knees didn't jerk quite so hard when you (mis)read statements (and much too quickly), you wouldn't think I had something to "own up to" in the first place.

Geek: You insulted a woman in part because she is a lesbian.

Even I think you're being silly here, Geek. The "lesbian" is necessary to say exactly what sort of separatist she is, for the benefit of those who don't know her. Even if that were not the case, people don't usually speak in the most terse terms technically possible, and it would be unreasonable to call someone a bigot because they did not trim out every extraneous identifier from their criticism of someone. Use of the phrase "white supremacist," for instance, is not generally taken to be a sign of racism, especially when you consider that it is possible for people to be racist/sexist/(et cetera)ist in favor of groups they are not a member of.

Mild Ennui, you need to take a class on logic and critical thinking.

Maybe you should re-respond to my questions, and this time, actually answer the damn things, instead of picking out a pretend problem with them and then acting like that's answer enough.

Did I ever say all women this, all women that? No, you did. Are you a mind reader? You read the mind of the women you encounter on a daily basis? Are you most women? Do you personally know, or have you even met, most women? How do you figure you're the one who knows what most women think?

You know, you are really impotent. You come here and complain about a bunch of shit, but what the fuck do you even accomplish at the end of the day? Pestering us with your poor logic? Distracting us with your whining about how, actually, women are the privileged group; men's issues are the ones that really deserve our discussion and efforts? Or do you just want dating advice? What is even your purpose on this website? Tell me, then maybe I can address your concerns and fix it all for you.

If I don't respond to you after this, it's because you're continuing your pattern of not saying anything worth responding to. Just letting you know.

Though I know it will prbably fall on deaf ears, a pertinent example....
I once had a roommate who was oh so excited to be dating a former sorority member, particularly because, at the school he went to, that particular sorority had a reputation for holding blow job classes for all their members (and yes, I do realize it was probably just a rumor...roommate hadn't quite figured that out though)
Not expected to approach men as supplicant's? Are you kidding?
(this isn't to suggest that there is anything wrong with oral sex or with improving one's technique. I'll just note that I seriously doubt that the frat house down the street was holding cunnilingus classes...or that anyone would believe a rumor to that effect)

This one is really ridiculous! Imagine you drive to taco bell, it's 2am and all you want is a spicy chicken crunch wrap supreme and those fiesta potatoes, and of course you want HOT sauce with that. You've just spent five hours writing your english paper due tomorrow, and you are a little loopy, so you type in the website.
this is how i discovered direct daniella and i was really pissed, especially with the fact that she flirts with you and tells you that you are taking a great picture...even if you cut off her head. At 2:30am this is definetly the worst surprise a feminist can ever have.

I meant that women are not expected to approach men in order to gain their approval.

Yeah, well, what you said was "women are never taught that they might have to supplicate themselves before another party in the hopes they might pass favorable judgment on them, and give them attention."

Being expected to look a certain way hoping men will approach you and ask for your phone number and a date, having to act a certain way hoping that someone will be interested enough to pursue you, is supplicating oneself and hoping for a favorable judgment to be passed. Just because we don't ask doesn't mean we don't humiliate ourselves to get dates.

If someone is absolutely not physically attractive to another, they can't really tell that other person "Hey, I deserve for you to think I'm attractive!".

No. But they deserve to treated with respect and compassion like all people. I'm talking about average looking women who some men find attractive and other men do not. Many men who find a woman unattractive do not treat her like a woman who happens not to attract them. Those men treat unattractive women like subhumans who shouldn't pollute their space by being in the same room. Unfuckable women get treated with contempt.

I'm quite certain that the majority of men that get rejected aren't going to become "violent beasts" when told no, they cannot have a woman's phone number.

No, some of them just get verbally abusive.

Well, a lot of women assume that we have it ever-so-great on our side.

The women here are listening to what you have to say on the topic and agreeing with you. Trade for a week?

Just because we don't ask doesn't mean we don't humiliate ourselves to get dates.

That had been agreed upon earlier.

However, the definition of "supplicate" I was using was "to seek or ask for by humble entreaty.", which rather implies the asking part of it. That's what I was saying. Women aren't generally taught to go out and ask, they're taught to wait to BE asked.

I apologize for being unclear.

Many men who find a woman unattractive do not treat her like a woman who happens not to attract them. Those men treat unattractive women like subhumans who shouldn't pollute their space by being in the same room. Unfuckable women get treated with contempt.

I never said that a large amount of men didn't do that.

No, some of them just get verbally abusive.

And a lot get terribly embarrassed and slink away, proverbial tail between their legs.

The women here are listening to what you have to say on the topic and agreeing with you. Trade for a week?

Haha, deal. :P

...than what the hell's on the fire sauce packets?

Cause I always need 10 or 12 packets of fire per burrito, lol.

Daniella does not eat Taco Bell. Really.

And if she does, DON'T STAND BEHIND HER.

Mild Ennui,

The model is Brazillian - Taco Bell serves Mexican food (or, a type of simulated "Mexican type food product").

But, I'm sure to the folks at Yum Brands, Mexico and Brazil might as well be the same country, irregardless of the historical, ethnic and cultural differences.

Not to mention this "exotic" business... why do women of color always get called "exotic" when, in fact, most of the women on the planet have that look?

Actually, in the worldwide grand scheme of things, it's White women that are really the "exotic" ones!

The model is Brazillian [sic] - Taco Bell serves Mexican food (or, a type of simulated "Mexican type food product").

...So? If McDonald's had endorsed this ad campaign, would that be somehow confusing her ethnicity, because McDonald's serves "American" type food?

I think it's just a fast-food chain doing a promo with SI. I don't think it's an attempt to link her Brazilian heritage with Mexico.

Mild Ennui,

On that whole women being gatekeepers thing, and all the "power" that status allegedly gives them.

Yes, women get to be sexual gatekeepers, they get to decide which of the men who approach them gets to be involved with them.

Assuming they even get approached - ask a woman who doesn't fit into her community's beauty standards about that.

On the other extreme, if a woman does fit into her community's beauty standards, she may be subject to constant bombardment by amorous males.

Ask any woman who's walked by a construction site about that - or, for that matter, any woman who's had to walk past any large group of men standing on a streetcorner.

Attractive women are constantly subject to male attention at any time - and yes, if a woman hurts these guys feelings, it could get ugly (in some cases, it could actually get physically violent).

Yes, in most cases that doesn't happen - but, it's like playing Russian Roulette - turn down 100 guys, and maybe 99 of the will be cool about it... but what if that 100th guy is some kind of violent rapist?

Would YOU like to have to live with those odds, every day?