"These 17 Ads From The Past Will Probably Disgust You. Unless You Really Hate Women."

[Lady Freedom Returns]

OMG!!! I found this story on Facebook. And when I took a look at the ads...

I know we have sexist ads now, but these.... wow.

http://www.viralnova.com/vintage-sexist-ads/

[uppityperson]

1. Before I look, let me guess

cigarette ads
house cleaning supply ads
automobile ads

Off to look. Nope, was wrong about a couple of those. The ones they show are wild.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

2. Looking at those makes me think we HAVE come a long way.n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. Yes we have ...

kicking and screaming.

[yeoman6987]

53. Wow!

I remember watching "Mona Lisa Smile" and these ads remind me of that movie. Some of the females were looking for husbands and even left college when they found him. I think these ads are crazy 40 years later, but I suspect that they were current during their time. Thankfully times change. I wonder if Republicans had tear build up while looking at the ads thinking "what should be the same". Those crazy emotional conservatives. LOLOLO! They are probably so depressed.

[bemildred]

3. Ah yes, who can forget the nose cones and the penis symbols.

And the artfully postured women. And they say Freud was wrong.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

4. And to think these are from the "Good Old Days" that the Conservatives keep harking on!

These things were seen by kids for goodness sake! And it was OK!

[Whisp]

5. eeeesssshhhh

I'm watching the tv series Mad Men, and it makes me cringe. Plodding through it but it's tough going.
I'm not sure what the appeal is. Is it that women can claim they've come a long way baby (not that long a way there buddy), or is it men thinking, o those good ole days where men were men and women were like pets.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

6. And that one is not the worst of them!

Wow! just Wow!

[Jenoch]

37. I've seen every episode of Mad Men.

The thing about the series of sexist magazine ads in the OP is that they were all created by men. They all appear to be from before the Mad Men era to me.

(One thing they really exaggerate in Mad Men is the drinking in the office.)

[Scuba]

7. All that spanking! Those Madison Avenue guys must have been some freaks.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

8. I know!

Makes me wonder about the "moral" fibers of that time. You know, the "Good Old Days" conservatives talk about!

[adirondacker]

18. I'd be willing to bet it's 90% projection from that group.

I recall a PBS documentary (back in the 90's) about JP Morgan Jr in which they divulged his desire for spankings from his Mrs. The documentary must be buried, because I can't locate Anything about it on the internets. Weird.

[adirondacker]

9. I recall the VW Bug ad...

[Lady Freedom Returns]

10. ...

[adirondacker]

13. I showed this to my mother about ten years ago and your smilies are a dead on

reaction she had! She drove her entire life accident free.

[Warpy]

11. And people don't get that those of us who lived through the 1950s

would never, ever want to go there again. It was a hideous period for everybody but straight white males, especially those on the way up the ladder. It was pure hell for women and for anybody who wasn't lily white and Christian, preferably Protestant. No others need apply.

[Cleita]

68. Those are pretty awful and I remember them. Now let's get rid of all those

ads for mops, brooms and cookware that show the little woman in the kitchen or doing housework. Those are the REAL sexist ads.

[Warpy]

70. I love the store circulars that come out around Mother's Day

There is always a big section full of discounted cleaning products.

Yeah, that's how we show her how much we love her, let's get Mom a new MOP.

[Cleita]

71. Or washing machine. My husband and I actually knew a guy who asked me to

help him buy a new washer and dryer for his wife's birthday.

[pipoman]

12. "Indoors women are useful, even pleasant.

On a mountain they are something of a drag."

wow.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

31. yeah, that one really is just maniacal in it's sociopathy.

[pipoman]

33. Holy Shit indeed. ..

I see no humor...

[Tuesday Afternoon]

36. well, the woman could go into stereotype .... and be totally ironic and laugh

manically, while she unleashes the monkeys on their ass now That would Be Funny

[Boudica the Lyoness]

62. That pissed me off

Made me wonder what the women thought of those ads at the time. In the 50's I was just a child.

BTW; Did you see the price of those sweaters? Pretty expensive.

[BainsBane]

14. You've missed a lot, Lady Freedom

Not only will some likely insist there is nothing wrong with those ads, they will insist you hate sex and /or men for suggesting anything is wrong with them.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

16. How true.

The fight is still going. But we have made some headway since the time those ads were considered appropriate.

[Bonobo]

19. No. No one will. nt

[Demo_Chris]

21. No, sorry, I doubt anyone will say anything of the sort...

That you believe this is rather telling though. Perhaps you should join the rest of us, including those you so unjustly vilify, here in this century.

[Bonobo]

22. It shows she is incapable seeing in anything but extremes. nt

[BainsBane]

29. Wherever could I have gotten that impression?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024627183

[Tuesday Afternoon]

34. Such a lovely little thread, that one. Weaves quite the yarn, doesn't it?

[Bonobo]

38. Nevertheless you seem rather blind to gradations. nt

[BainsBane]

39. You really want to go there?

Given the mountains of straw you post all the time? Aren't you still claiming HOF members hate sex?

[Bonobo]

40. Did I ever say that? I seriously seriously doubt it. nt

[BainsBane]

41. Let's revisit what you have said

Shall we? You mention gradations, yet you can't figure out the basic outline.

Just what is it that you have taught your daughter that is so terrible about feminism?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/111413342

Since much of that thread is devoting to mocking my concerns about racist imagery, shall I conclude you tell her that women who study history and raises issues of racist historical context must be met with mockery, as others in that thread do?

Or is the more general horrors of radical feminism? Anti-men, anti-sex, etc?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/111411963

Is it that they support rape prevention campaigns? Want to see pedophiles prosecuted? Don't decide a woman is a liar just because she's a woman? We cant have that. We should ignore the court record and instead regurgitate the output of the publicity machine. Attack the victim's mother. http://www.democraticunderground.com/111412823 Like any of that has any bearing on whether an accused pedophile raped his seven year old daughter, as Dylan herself told multiple people following the assault, including a therapist hired by Allen himself, and outside the presence of her mother.

Or is it that radical feminists don't understand the most oppressed people in the world are white men?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/111413299
Because there is no International Men's Day.

And this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/111412985
God forbid anyone care about racism as opposed to the more important matters like the fact any random guy can't get a supermodel to date him. http://www.democraticunderground.com/111413228
http://www.democraticunderground.com/111411805

I know, the talking point that misandrist society is in conspiracy against so-called nice guys to keep them from getting the really hot girls. Any guy, just by virtue of being male, should be able to snag any supermodel he wants, even if he wallows in self-pity, regardless of his physical appearance, or if he has little to offer. That men are left to pick from the non-super model ugly chicks of the world just shows how horrible women are. And the fact that we have the nerve to not look like we are supposed to shows just how oppressed the poor menz who complain about such things are. This Onion piece gets it right: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024640908
That is how to succeed with women.

What you haven't figured out that what is responsible for much on your list of what men need is not the horrible women of the world but the patriarchy you insist doesn't exist. That same patriarchy that relegates women to second class citizenship creates those expectations of what it means to be a man. Yet you fight to defend that patriarchy by insisting it doesn't exist and in so doing prop up what you later identify as oppressing you. If you respected feminists enough to listen to what we have been saying for years, you would know that. Instead, you decide to make us the enemy and spend your days gossiping about us.

And that women cut their hair. Yes, that is pure misandry. To imagine that women have the right to choose their own hairstyle! http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=12734 The only possible choice that a woman makes that can be respected is becoming a porn star, or so it seems by what your little group cares most about.
A random comment by a lesbian on a message board definitely shows that society is organized in order to persecute men. The fact is not all women are attracted to men, and they have a right not to be. And women have every right to be attracted to certain men and not others, just like men. That is not misandry. It is personal preference. Some of us make a point of avoiding men who hate our gender. We have the right to make any choices we want in regard to personal partners. That is not oppression. It is that we are autonomous human beings not compelled to tolerate people we don't like.


And let's not forget the greatest outrage to men ever: the rape prevention PSA that suggests that rapists rather than women are responsible for their own assault. The horror.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1114&pid=11093

Oh, and then there is this one, that the law governing rape really isn't relevant. What that little group thinks means much more than actual laws governing sexual assault. http://www.democraticunderground.com/111412049
That after claiming men didn't need any education about rape.

And back to the sacred genre of the rape porn. You won't defend mid-century advertising images, but your entire group went to the mat to defend the exalted genre of rape porn and to blatantly distort and make a mockery out of all objections raised to it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/111411514
It would be hard to imagine anyone misconstruing this argument any more if they deliberately sought to do so.

There are only two possible scenarios I see. 1) either you lack the ability to comprehend arguments advanced by feminists; 2) you don't respect women enough to bother trying to understand. Because you are as far off as anyone can be. You spend so much time reading HOF and worrying about what we write, yet understanding NONE of it. If you even got the basic outline right, you might have a basis to criticizing me about missing gradations. As it stands, I'm not really putting much stock in it.

If you decide you do want to start to understand this much maligned radical feminism, this is a good start.

[Bonobo]

43. I take it that I didn't as it then,

Your response is way too long for me to spend time on but I assume that you must admit I never said what you claimed.

Is it a lie? Well....

[BainsBane]

44. No, I won't admit it

but I can't swear to it. I have seen plenty of threads to that effect in the men's group and you never disagreed. You never said, hey, that's not true. Additionally, You've said plenty else that shows way more than a failure to comprehend gradations. In fact, you approvingly post an article calling radical feminism a "hate movement." Given you regularly identity me and the rest of HOF as radical feminists that means you consider us part of that hate movement. The problem is you don't have the most basic understanding of any of the ideas discussed in HOF. I know you don't care. You never have before. What's unusual is that you spend so much time reading and worrying about views you don't care about. I guess the point is to find a scapegoat to make yourself feel better about whatever makes you feel compelled to lash out at people who have the audacity to argue for equal rights for women.

The point stands. You are in no position to pass judgment on my so-called misunderstanding of gradations. So you won't defend this mid century advertising images but you will defend rape porn and twist and distort arguments by those who raise objections to it. I have no idea why that is better than the advertising. At least no one was enslaved or hurt during ad campaigns. I'm guessing if they weren't labeled as mid-century and were live action, you'd be all in favor of them. I recall a fair bit of angst about a HOF post expressing concern about a car ad with women locked in the trunk. Why anyone would think that was better than these mid-century ads escapes me. Nothing embodies misogyny more than violence against women, and that it is used for profit hardly makes it better.

[Bonobo]

45. That's called lying. nt

[Tuesday Afternoon]

46. No, sir. That is called being honestly doubtful and giving you the benefit of it.

You can not NOT read what she wrote and then dismiss her in that way.

Well, you can but, it doesn't look good on you.

really, Bonobo.

[Bonobo]

47. She made it up. Out of thin air. That is what lying is.

Look at what she accused of saying. That was made up. It was a lie. Not complicated.

[BainsBane]

64. That's why I posted dozens of links

"made up out of think air."

I'd still like to know why those ad images are so much worse than rape porn.

[BainsBane]

49. How would you know when you didn't bother to read my posts?

Since you insist.

2. The problem is that the phrase "objectifying" doesn't actually mean anything.
Aren't you really just saying, in different words, that men shouldn't "desire" women? I think so.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4544565

That you present opposition to objectification as opposition to male desire of women, as natural sexuality, reveals a clear intent to dismiss the view as anti-sex.

Pathologizing the male sexual response: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11145354
In this case you assume no women, not just feminists, but no women want sex as much as men.

3. For a good portion of your life, you have an irrationally and self-destructively high desire for sex. By a "good portion" of your life, I mean two things: broadly, several decades between the teens and the fifties, and more proximately, many times a day during those long decades. One researcher found that among men between the ages of 18 and 25, fully 50 percent had thought about sex in the last 5 minutes.

I think you mistake not wanting bad sex or unfulfilling sex for not wanting sex at all. I'm sure any number of men on this board would tell you their partners enjoy a lot of sex.

4. If you are heterosexual, those sexual partners you desire so much do not reciprocate your urgency. Clark and Hatfield also had college men approach college women on campus using the same lines. The guys were reasonably attractive, as judged by the fact that over 50 percent of the women said "yes" to the request for a date. But the number of women who said yes to the sexual offer was precisely zero (the study was done twice, both before and after the AIDs epidemic, and the number was zero before as well as after). I heard a talk recently which revealed that it's not all about sex at all - the researcher discovered that if women were not afraid of men, if women found men attractive, and if women thought they'd have more fun in bed with a strange man, the sex difference would go away! The researcher seemed to take the findings as a blow to what she called "essentialism." Perhaps that's good news for Brad Pitt. But unfortunately, most real women essentially find most real men rather scary, unattractive, and unsexy, and they consequently say "No."

Awful women saying no to men they consider unattractive. Another misandrist conspiracy. If the world were fair, women would have sex with anyone, even men who regularly insulted their gender and engaged in relentless self pity.

Except for rape. Evidently you have decided women enjoy the fantasy of being raped, not that you bother to ask any actual women what they think about that. Nor did you bother to question how the category of rape as descriptor for female fantasies emerged. Or consider the basic concept of a fantasy and rape being an OXYMORON since a fantasy is based on desire and rape involves the absence of consent, meaning the woman does not only not desire it but refuses it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/11148958


Then there was your famous thread equating opposition to old men preying on underage girls with homophobia. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4446364
We can also recall your justification of selling school girl underwear in Japanese vending machines. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023947990
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3948593 and rest of the subthread.

You see those all as normal sexual responses and describe as pathological or bigoted those who think otherwise.

You seem to be confused about the term creepy. Creepy is what women say when they want to be polite about referring to someone as a sexual predator. It is not a slur on men. It is a term for sexual predators. Most men are not in fact sexual predators.

It would take all day to look through the rest of the posts my search turned up, but these are enough to make clear you regularly present women as lacking in sexual desire, not engaging in enough sex, or being bigoted against men who like sex with underage girls.

I'll wait your apology for calling me a liar and for engaging in hate speech. I also have to wonder what kind of person insists the radical feminist idea that women should be seen as people rather than objects to be ogled, raped and beaten is hateful. It seems quite clear to me that rape and mutilation, either in practice or enjoying it as a form of "entertainment" requires a deep hatred of women. In fact, I can think of little more hateful than that.

[Bonobo]

50. BB: "Aren't you still claiming HOF members hate sex?"

You still can't post where I claimed that.

And all your bullshit cannot obscure the fact that you made it up.

[BainsBane]

60. The point was your allegation that I can't see gradations

I noted that you weren't in a position to judge because you can't see entire shapes. I then asked you a question. A question is not a lie. It is a question. It is not even a declarative statement. However, as I made very clear, you have accused radical feminists, which you identify HOF members as being, of engaging in "hate speech" and have claimed women in general don't want sex. It is astounding that you get on your high horse about a question I posted to you, after I've linked to volumes of vitriol you have posted about the feminists you clearly hold in utter contempt.

You are in no position to accuse me of not understanding gradations or engaging in bullshit when yours is neck deep.

If you actually bothered to read, you might have an idea of what I had actually said. But as usual what a "radical feminist" thinks pales in comparison to your ego.

[The Straight Story]

51. "I can think of little more hateful than that" Oh...I can

From calling fellow women pets to thinking that men just want to whack off to rape porn. Or that all men seem to do is whack off to any images of women.

You are quick here on call outs yet you leave out those in your own group and what they say about men in general.

If men here on Du were to say half the things about women we see in HOF there would be hell to pay.

"Most men are not in fact sexual predators."

Yeah, try telling that to your friends. I have been called all sorts of things here. The most common is misogynist - ie, I hate women.

Traveling on over to HOF what I see is a meta style group who spends it's time not on the history of feminism but rather spending a lot of time bashing men here on DU.

We hate women, we just want to jack off to rape videos, we hate women, we don't care about the issues women face, we don't get it, and so on.

I am on the side of women. I get it. From objectification to straight white male privilege. Girls in my classes in school heard all about the white European men of the world, what they did in history, and they (and others) never really heard about women or others in history. From commercials to tv shows to history classes we all grew up hearing about, mostly, just one group.

Women, others, got left out and screwed over. That was wrong. Is wrong.

But that does not mean everything is sexist.

What I have seen time and again is that us men here on DU - progressive guys - are the enemy because we don't always agree on some points.

Time and time again we get told we are nothing more than just some 'thing' who wants to get off and that we hate women. I can side with women time after time on the issues, vote for those who feel the same way, but here on DU I am some evil sexist who hates women.

You have allies all around.

"Awful women saying no to men they consider unattractive. Another misandrist conspiracy. If the world were fair, women would have sex with anyone, even men who regularly insulted their gender and engaged in relentless self pity. "

WTF? Does it really have to be this twisted and complex?

From benevolent sexism to porn all I hear from a select few here is about how men are just assholes who hate women. Maybe it is time for those few to look at themselves and how they see men.

We are not out to get women, keep them down, we don't hate them.

We are not your ex boyfriends or lovers who treated you bad.

We are liberal men that respect women in general, are for your rights, care about women's issues, and want to elect people who will insure women and others have the same rights as everyone else.

[BainsBane]

59. So why do people watch rape porn?

Last edited Tue Mar 11, 2014, 02:15 PM - Edit history (4)

If not for arousal? Isn't that the purpose of porn?

I agree calling people dogs is bad, which is why I take offense at the word bitch when used for anything other than a female dog. Perhaps you ought to put in a word with some of the guys in the men's group who consider it an outrage when such vulgar insults are hidden by juries, which isn't often. I will add the other vulgar terms that some around here like to use against and about women.

You may or may not have been called all sorts of things, but you are not most men. You are one man.

The other thing I am sick to death of is the "your friends" trope. If you can't treat me as an individual human being, that shows a profound lack of respect for my very humanity. I am one person only. That you refuse to treat me as such shows that you don't even see me as a person.

This:

"Awful women saying no to men they consider unattractive. Another misandrist conspiracy. If the world were fair, women would have sex with anyone, even men who regularly insulted their gender and engaged in relentless self pity. "

WTF? Does it really have to be this twisted and complex?

That relates to the MRA talking point that none of the hot women go for "nice guys." Given that so many of Bonobo's points relate to women (by this he means the right women, the ones he wants) not being attracted to short men or not wanting to have sex with men they don't consider attractive, the point struck me as related to his posts. YMMV.

From benevolent sexism to porn all I hear from a select few here is about how men are just assholes who hate women. Maybe it is time for those few to look at themselves and how they see men.

You would be wrong to assume any of that is about men in general. It is about certain kinds of men, not men in general. Men in fact post in HOF and hundreds of DUers have recommended threads denouncing misogyny, such as this one http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=38236There are several others. You don't agree, as is your right. You, however, are not all men. Nor are the handful of men and women who set their sites against HOF members the majority of DUers.

You seem to think posting on DU makes someone superior to the general population. I do not. You get no special consideration from me simply because you have an account here. You stand on your own merits as a person, based on what you write, as do I and everyone else. Someone calling himself liberal means nothing when he consistently presents views that oppose everything I care about. You claim you support women's rights but mock and attack nearly every thread on the subject. You have made your position on the issue crystal clear. You don't get to treat women's rights with contempt, complain about how oppressed white men are, and then claim to be on my side.

Whether one respects women has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. It has to do with how one is raised and personal values. Political positions are conservative or liberal but the fact is some on this site are not liberal on gender issues: Examples: not everyone is pro-choice; some have argued men shouldn't have to pay child support if a woman refuses to have an abortion; some have argued women should have to pay more for health insurance; they deny objectification is an issue, or say it is the fault of men; they deliberately mock women's rights by going on endlessly about faux outrage about doors; they oppose EEOC and sexual harassment laws passed decades ago; they become incensed when women talk about rape; they become incensed when women talk about domestic violence; they repeatedly defend accused rapists over victims; hey insist men are oppressed more than women; they insist male privilege doesn't exist; they insist white privilege doesn't exist. All of those are conservative positions. Claiming to be a liberal really means little when one consistently opposes liberal positions on equal rights.

If you watch this video, you will recognize some of these arguments commonly raised on DU.

That you think what has been said to you is more hateful than the beating, rape, and mutilation of women really says everything. Your ego is so important it trumps women's lives. What more is there to say to someone who thinks something like that?

Don't worry about what I think about you because the fact is I don't, unless presented with one of your self pity rants and frankly I'm bored with them. While it is understandable that you consider yourself of great importance, it is mistaken to assume I share that view. I really don't care what you think or what you do. You don't need to defend yourself to me. You are entitled to believe whatever you want to. What you are not entitled to do is tell me how I can feel about that. Live your life in peace, forget about me, and spare yourself the indignity of having to read the views of a woman who has the audacity to think that I and not you get to decide what issues matter to me.

[BainsBane]

24. I suppose you're right

They are wearing clothing which means they can't really be important. So these women haven't quite reached the height of their potential as women, becoming porn stars and existing as mere objects of lust and rage. So you're correct. It was premature of me to think anyone would take exception to a critique of these images as opposed to the elevated genre of rape porn. Clearly for a woman to be truly liberated, she must be violated, beaten and mutilated by multiple men. Then her "choices" (never mind if she actually made a choice) serve as a smokescreen behind which a few men advance their "right" to watch the rape, beating, and mutilation of women.

Joining in this century? Funny comment. I'm not the one at war with EEOC laws or who insists a woman deserves to be fired for filing a sexual harassment claim. I'm not the one who thinks the way to meet women is to offer them $10 for a BJ. I'm not the one who bemoans the fact that more women than men are in institutions of higher learning and that women are starting to close the wage gap on men. I'm not the one who goes into a state of outrage over an anti-rape or anti-street harassment PSA. I'm not the one who is angry that the WHO releases reports on violence against women or that there even exists an International Women's Day. I guess I'm just not hip enough to the current century to realize that all of these things are an outrage against the only half of the population that matters, men.

Excuse me for not being able to tell which posts the outrage brigade are going to be up in arms over. Earlier today it was because I commented that a man who called his son evil wasn't a good parent. My mistake, I learned, was not instead condemning the dead mother, who wasn't even mentioned in the OP or article in question. Other times it's because I had the nerve to post about violence against women or a serial killer in Juarez because they aren't about male victims and therefore should not be discussed in public. It isn't exactly easy to keep up with all the ways that I'm supposed to dutifully express the inherent inferiority of women to men.

The crap that goes on here, what people have actually said, is so much worse than anything I could possibly make up. It's pretty hilarious that you take offense at that comment, but then I know the real outrage is that women like me are allowed to speak.

FYI, hundreds of DUers have spoken out about the misogyny on this site. I am hardly alone. 183 recs for this thread alone, and there have been several others recently similarly rec'd. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1255&pid=38236

[Agschmid]

26. Jury results...

On Mon Mar 10, 2014, 10:20 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

I suppose you're right
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4642155

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Please put her out of her misery about being in this thread. She has lied and put down every member on this board that does not agree with her. She doesn't want the shit storm to stop, she is the shit storm. Please hide and send a message that her hateful, OTT attitude does not work any more. Thank you for your consideration.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Mar 10, 2014, 10:29 PM, and the Jury voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: While I don't necessarily agree with everything Bains said, this post is not worth a hide IMO. The alerter comments especially the "put her out of her misery" was frustrating to read... Had I been a vote to hide those alerter comments would have driven. Me the other way. - Agschmid
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: She has gone too far in this post. She does have the right to express herself, and even to vent, but she has really flipped out this time. The post should be hidden.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

28. wow. The Alerter. and Juror #4. but, really -- I have to address this:

She has lied and put down every member on this board that does not agree with her.

Baines and I have had very contentious disagreements in GC&RKBA but, I have never had her lie about or to me.

I consider BainsBane to be a very worthy adversary.

So then, this is One DUer that BainsBane has not put down or lied to.

Carry on.

[BainsBane]

30. I guess I was spot on

about the real outrage being that I speak my mind.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

32. I am inclined to agree with you. Some people want to kill the messenger because they

do not like the message. I think this could be a distinct possibility in your case.

[Capt. Obvious]

66. 4 people voting on personality

It's why we need 7 jurors.

[Demo_Chris]

42. I don't even know where to begin with this, so I won't bother. nt

[Logical]

15. Sabrina does not look normal. Odd. n-t

[VScott]

17. The old torpedo tits push-up bras.

Didn't dawn on me until later in life from watching old reruns (Carol, on "Mr. Ed", Laura on "The Dick VanDyke Show", etc), and realize how ridiculous they looked.

[SomethingFishy]

20. Wow.. That looks like exactly what Republicans are talking about

when they want "their country back".

Thank god it was never theirs to begin with.

[one_voice]

23. OMG....those are aweful...

I think there's something wrong with Sabrina.

[Behind the Aegis]

48. It is always interesting to dip into the past.

Last edited Tue Mar 11, 2014, 02:50 AM - Edit history (1)

It really demonstrates the mindset of the day.

Old Ivory Soap ads...



(1888 Anti-Native American)


(Racist (year unknown, supposedly from Louisiana))
?w=584

(Ummm... )
?r1

(Ships Ahoy!)


(Dishpan hands? NO!)
?r1

(Not Ivory Soap, and not too gay!)
?r1

[Sissyk]

25. I remember seeing some of those before.

Glad those are all in the past. They suck.

[giftedgirl77]

27. Wow, that's really disturbing.

I'm 36, never really saw anything like that before.

[awoke_in_2003]

52. Rec for exposure...

I don't want to go back there, and I'm a man.

[My Good Babushka]

54. They are awful

but I admit that I adore 50's and 60's kitsch and advertising. I collect vintage cookbooks and McCall's Needlework magazines. I didn't have to live through it, though. As far as I'm aware, my family never was a patriarchy. It was well known that my grandmother's mother was the tyrant of the family. My grandfather was discovered as a bootlegger quite early in his life, and he was never allowed to drive, so he was quite dependent on my grandmother. There was a greater variety of family dynamics than portrayed in the media.

[Vattel]

55. yeah, they are really vile

[YarnAddict]

56. Wish they'd included the year in all of them.

Some of them were really shocking.

[Cleita]

69. Forties and fifties mostly. n/t

[Feral Child]

57. K&R n/t

[TeeYiYi]

61. Oh my gawd...

I've never laughed so hard!

I know all about vintage sexist ads, but some of those are hilarious.

If they weren't vintage, I wouldn't be laughing. But they are, and I am.

TYY

[ismnotwasm]

63. And it was taken for granted by so many

That this was "normal" Ick.

( shared on FB-- thanks)

[melm00se]

65. This is one of those things

that historians have to deal with.

applying current day values and perceptions to older day events.

the term is "presentism".

[undeterred]

67. That projection equipment could really give a woman back pain.