And of course the men are hideous and stupid and the woman is stunning and totally into being traded to one of the hideous, stupid men.

eToro obviously doesn't want any woman' business.

Did anyone else notice the ad read "Making trading easy&friendly again"? Apparently, trading womyn for rocks is friendly.

Did anyone else notice the ad read "Making trading easy&friendly again"? Apparently, trading womyn for rocks is friendly.

A woman's value is roughly equivalent to that of a rock. Women are fine with this. Thanks, eToro.

"Because women as commodities has been hilarious since the stone age"

And men as bumbling retards.

Oh for f***s sakes, it never ends does it?

That is really very offensive. And irresponsible considering that human trafficking, hello, is a problem.

And it's bullshit to boot. Modern hunter-gatherer societies are the most gender-equal in the world, and stone-age societies probably were about the same. The patriarchy didn't come around until after farming was invented.

"Modern hunter-gatherer societies are the most gender-equal in the world, and stone-age societies probably were about the same. The patriarchy didn't come around until after farming was invented."

I'd like to know on what you base your claims, considering the status and treatment of women in those societies. You call trading girl children as wives for pigs gender equal?

Don't these people ever think about real life issues when making ads. For goodness sake, it's pathetic! I really, really think that they could have come up with something MUCH more creative and less offensive.

Holy fuck. That's disgusting. Plus, sex slavery is such a horrible problem in this country and many others as is. Do we really need ads making light of the subject?

They wouldn't get away with this giant pile of filthy shit if it was a black man that was traded.

This is the sort of advertisement that insults both men and women, by calling men stupid, moronic neandethals and women beautiful sex objects. But it does remain true that the woman is always in submission and the stupid, bumbling, idiotic man always comes out in charge and victorious. Some people say that women can control men, especially in advertising because the beauty and sex appeal overwhelms them, but this commercial is just another classic example that beauty doesn't grant power.

I think everyone is overlooking the fact that there is no way America could manufacture a rock of that quality due to the destruction of our manufacturing base.

You call trading girl children as wives for pigs gender equal?

Hunter-gatherers don't own pigs or any other domesticated animals.

"Hunter-gatherers don't own pigs or any other domesticated animals."

Never, ever. Not even "modern" ones that interact with people from industrialized cultures, even trade with them for material goods? And "true" hunter-gatherer societies do not engage in such as arranged marriage, or trade of girl children for wives?

Also, from the "Anthropology 620.01 Hunter-Gatherers" page of Ohio State University's Anthropology Department from August 2007:

http://foragers.wikidot.com/gender-hierarchies

"Before a man is married he must work for the approval of older married men and access to women. However once he is married that burden is lifted. The opposite is true for women in bride service societies. Women are given meat from their kin regardless of whether or not they are married. As such, women gain next to nothing from a marriage but rather loose autonomy."

"The affects of marriage also seem to have specific effects on the attitudes of men and women in bride service societies. Because marriage is so essential to a man’s success, the largest causes of conflict are the results of sex and violence. However the social standing of women tends to make them play up their sexual skills in order to gain affection and support from their male counterparts. As the authors note women in these simple societies are usually not honored as mothers, nurturers, or gatherer, rather only for their sexuality."

Also:

"Marvin Harris offers another explanation for the existence of gender hierarchies, what he terms 'the-more-warfare-the-more-sexism' formula. In societies where warfare exists a greater incidence of female subordination has been found."

So back to, may I please hear some reasons that one would *generalize* "modern" hunter-gatherer societies as "THE most gender equal" in the world:

"However, as Robert L. Kelly warns scholars and students, it is important to avoid generalizations in the analysis of foraging societies. The theory that all foraging societies had egalitarian political structures, a defined sexual division of labor and equality between the sexes was first presented at the Man the Hunter conference in 1966. This generalization of foraging societies has shown to be untrue and even within seemingly egalitarian societies, some inequality exists (eg. Ju'/hoansi women only have autonomy and control when they demand it). Diversity, or similarities, between foraging groups are a result of diverse selective pressures and environments, and because of this Kelly encourages scholars and students to take into account the variability present in foraging groups."

See it again:

UNTRUE. UNTRUE. EVEN WITHIN SEEMINGLY EGALITARIAN SOCIETIES. That view is apparently 42 years out of date.

I cant believe we are getting so excited about this harmless joke. there are real buttles to fight, dont stress into finding wrongdoing where there is non. and lighten up...

@ a male:"So back to, may I please hear some reasons that one would *generalize* "modern" hunter-gatherer societies as "THE most gender equal" in the world:"

In a sense it was probably pretty egalitarian compared to today, but not so much because women had some special status. Hint: when was the last time you had to kill other men to get laid?

Archeological evidence suggests that in small hunter gather societies male homicide rates were terribly high---much higher than present day rates in many parts of the modern world (and they didn't have hand guns, semi-automatic weapons or machetes, mind you).

Now many archeologists think that male competition for women was the main reason for the high murder rate. Flash forward. What became of the survivors of the HMS Bounty, anyone, anyone? Seems we haven't changed so much.

Prior to agriculture, Fred Flintsone simply did not have the means of wealth and power to exploit and promulgate gender inequities on the same scale that we are seeing today.

I think this is the best demonstration that women tend to focus on the extrinsic...

IT'S A COMMERCIAL! it's nice and made me smile, stop taking everything so seriously.

The world is full of female discriminations, save your energies to the fights they're really needed in

SanerThanEver,

Has anyone referred you to feminism 101?

http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/

Hint - Try these posts:

-Why are you concentrating on X when Y is so much more important?

-all of the "feminists have no sense of humor" posts

Hopefully that will help you understand why this was posted and give you a more appropriate place to address your complaints.

As far as the hunter-gatherer debate is going:
1) Referring to hunter-gather societies as "simple" is considered extremely incorrect and makes me very curious as to what sort of education/understanding of hunter gatherer studies whoever wrote that website (the one posted by keshmeshi) has. These societies are extremely complex and can't be treated as somehow less advanced than ours, they're just very different (no one ever talks about the fact that there are a LOT of downsides to agriculture, and "The Original Affluent Society" argument is quite interesting).
2) Clearly the person who wrote that website has never heard of the Canela or the Ache (and there are some other tribes in South America that I know less about). They subscribe to a belief called partible paternity and women are definitely not treated as a commodity. If anyone is interested in the roots/imlications of partible paternity let me know because I wrote a term paper on it last semester, and it's really a very complex and fascinating societal arrangement!
3) Anyone at all interested in this sort of thing should read the book Mother Nature by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy! Actually everyone should read that book, period, because it's truly an amazing work of scientific and feminist thought.

Oh, and that commercial is absolutely revolting!