I am not donating another penny to DU until the sexist "Hillary nutcracker" ads are gone

[Clintonista2]

Hillary supporter or not, how can ANYBODY find this sickening display of male chauvinism funny?

[Solon]

1. Complain to Zamashop, don't punish DU for something beyond its control. n/t

[William769]

7. It's not beyond DU's control. NT

[Solon]

10. As far as the Individual ads go, yes they are...

DU get's their ads in blocs, under the heading "Liberals", if you are to complain to anyone it would be blogads, not DU.

http://web.blogads.com/

[William769]

12. Thats different from what you originally posted.

[Solon]

15. Well, I first said to complain to the company selling the nutcrackers...

Now I'm saying to complain to the ads company. Its not that different, but the point remains, DU administrators cannot pick and choose which individual ads will appear to the left in the box, they update randomly, according to the what information the ad company uses to update it. All the DU administrators did was reserve the space for advertisement, I doubt they review every ad before its displayed on the website.

[William769]

20. I can pick and choose who I donate to.

If they think they can get more money from these advertisements than from SOme DU members who have donated since their membership started, then more power to them.

[Solon]

21. All I can say is, if you are so offended, bitch to Skinner, don't start a whine thread. n/t

[Clintonista2]

23. But you already said he couldnt do anything about it..

I'm confused.

[Solon]

31. Until he cancels the contract with blogads, or changes to a different category...

he can't do squat. All I'm saying is that you are bitching at the wrong target, here, let me break it down for you:

DemocraticUnderground.com, with the Admins at the head of it decide to sign up to Blogads, under the category liberal, for their ads on the left side of the forums. Beyond that, they have no more control, Blogads themselves choose what ads are placed under the category of "Liberal". If you want to bitch and moan to Skinner, you may convince him to drop Blogads completely, they have that much control, but then again, he may just ignore you.

[William769]

32. Hence holding our support financially.

Your right it's the Admins decision, but for every action, theres a reaction.

[Clintonista2]

35. I'm glad it only took about 10 replies to get him to admit that DU in fact CAN do something lol.

[Solon]

43. Jesus fucking Christ, do you even KNOW how internet ads work?

The only fuckup I can see here is that the Admins should have put a "We are not responsible for the content of these ads" disclaimer above the ads. They spend a LOT of money to create one of the best forum designs I have ever seen on the Internet, and reliable as well, to be honest, all other internet forums drive me fucking bonkers with their shitty ass designs. Yet you complain about ONE ad that DU isn't even responsible for, even threatening to withhold donations! For crying out loud!

[Clintonista2]

44. If Skinner saw this ad, and decided it was sexist and he was going to get rid of it by any means

necessary, would he be able to do it, or would he not be able to do it? Answer my question please.

[Solon]

47. To be frank, I don't know...

I don't know the details of their deal with Blogads.com, there is probably a contractual agreement between DU and Blogads for something like a year. If that's true, then Skinner can't just cancel the contract unless he is willing to pay some penalty fees or face some type of legal sanctions(getting sued). The most he can probably do is file a complaint about the ad with blogads.com themselves and hope they listen and stop carrying the ad. Like I said, I don't know the details of their plan, there may be no contract, and they can stop carrying blogads.com entirely and deal with the loss of revenue.

[Clintonista2]

50. "Until he cancels the contract with blogads, or changes to a different category..."

To be frank, I don't think you have any clue how it works.

[Solon]

54. And neither do you, that's the point...

I'm saying that why don't you actually go to the SOURCE of the ads in the first place and E-Mail them? Until then you are just pissing in the wind.

[Clintonista2]

56. Because I'm more concerned with a "progressive" website advertising RW stuff

[Solon]

64. Its more than just DU...

The ENTIRE Liberal Blog Advertising Network is affected, which includes many other websites than just DU, here's the site:

http://web.blogads.com/advertise/liberal_blog_advertising_network

Why not raise awareness with blogads.com by complaining to them about this offensive ad since it is also on their websites as well?

[Whisp]

102. what's with this 'bitch and moan' talk anyway.

sure is clear what side of the chauvpig you are on. ;(

[tigereye]

61. I think they can do something about it

you might want to send a pm....


my apologies if this has already been pointed out...

[William769]

24. I didn't start it, but as a member I'll be happy to post what I think.

[incapsulated]

26. He can whine about anything he likes

Bitching and whining is half the fucking threads here, man.

[Bucky]

36. I'm totally offended by you pointing that out. Bitch bitch bitch.

[incapsulated]

39. omg, did you call me a bitch!??

I am so alerting on your ass now!!!

[Solon]

38. True, but it would be slightly more constructive to complain about the right people...

Its not like I support the ad itself, to be frank, the product is in bad taste, however, they are complaining to the WRONG people about it.

[incapsulated]

41. There have been dozens of threads about this

Here and in GD.

Probably more people would post that they are offended in those threads than would ever bother to email Skinner, so you can make the argument that they drive the point home more effectively.

:shrug:

[John Q. Citizen]

118. Hillerites whining? Not again!! n/t

[MattSh]

108. If you don't like the ads, the answer is...

to donate MORE. The reason there are ads here in the first place is that members DO NOT donate enough to cover costs. Hence, ads make up the shortfall. If everyone would double or triple their donations, I'm sure there will be no more offensive ads.

But it's easier to blame the admins, I see...

[noamnety]

71. One of the mods says it can be eliminated

"A link would always be helpful.

The ads are served up by Google based on what we talk about here, not chosen by DU. The admins eliminate them as they are identified."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2002064

That's from last night. But the ad is still here.

[William769]

72. Makes my decision real easy then.

[Solon]

73. Wrong ads...

The ads are served up by Google based on what we talk about here, not chosen by DU. The admins eliminate them as they are identified."

We are talking about the ads on the SIDE of the webpage, not the ones on top and bottom for non-donaters which ARE by and large random. The ones we are talking about here are served up by web.blogads.com.

[noamnety]

84. From web.blogads.com FAQs

Accepting and running ads

I've received an e-mail that a new ad has been submitted into my blog. How do I review and approve it?
Go to web.blogads.com and log in with your e-mail address and password. Click on "Adstrips" on the left. Click on the name of the adstrip that has a new ad in it. (This is visible when you check the "New ads" column). Now you'll see the heading: "Ads waiting for approval." Under this heading you're able to approve or reject the new ad by changing the ad's status in the "Action" column. You can also select the "Position" of the ads here. Save your changes toward the bottom of the page. The ad will appear in your adstrip, and on your blog, within a few minutes.

What happens when I put an ad in "any" status?

These ads will rotate within your adstrip: each time a user loads the page, the ads will be generated in random order.

Why did an ad that I never approved appear on my blog?

You have three days after submission to approve or reject an ad. After three days, the system automatically approves the ad. The rationale for this is that our automatic notification emails often get stuck in bloggers' spam filters or are mistakenly deleted. Ads for which the advertiser has specified a "run after" date do not get activated until that date even if they are approved.

http://web.blogads.com/FAQ/bloggers

[Solon]

86. Ha! found a way for the Admins to get rid of the ad...

I read that part too and thought that, after the "automatic" approval they couldn't do anything, yet then I found this:

What happens if I don't like the way an advertiser has revised an ad that's already running?
Write to the advertiser and ask him/her to change the ad. If they refuse or do not respond, get in touch with us and we'll manually revert the ad to its original state. In the meantime, change the ad's status to "defer." This will remove the ad from the adstrip.

So I would advise all those who have problems with the ad to PM Skinner or whoever manages the ads to defer it indefinitely. It won't delete it entirely, but will prevent it from showing up on the strip.

[noamnety]

91. Oooh, thanks! (nt)

[Whisp]

105. thanks so much for your hard work in solving this!

good fricken grief. :eyesroll:

[Clintonista2]

8. So if pro-republican ads started popping up, there's nothing DU could do about it?

Bullshit.

[Solon]

11. They wouldn't, look at post #10. n/t

[noamnety]

58. If it were similarly racist

they'd find a way to get it removed. Guaranteed.

[soothsayer]

2. uh oh, I'm a nice lesbian chick and bought too of 'em! Omigod, I'm a sexist?

I think they're cute. And collectible! Like my Lieberman yamulkes.

On edit, I never would have noticed the item if it weren't for the outraged threads about it (seriously!).

[Dr. Strange]

25. Oh you lesbians and your Hillary nutcrackers!

I've always wanted to type that!

:rofl:

[Mojorabbit]

53. I love the nutcrackers too

and I am a woman.

[kimmerspixelated]

83. I'll third that!

I laughed my ass off! I'd buy one, except my daughter would find it, and ask questions I'm not prepared to answer yet.

[Snarkturian Clone]

107. totally

"I never would have noticed the item if it weren't for the outraged threads about it (seriously!)."

I never ever ever look at ads on websites. Pretty much conditioned myself to ignore them. Never would have noticed it if people weren't making such a big stink. If this ad is something that sets you off, don't go outside.

[truebrit71]

3. GET.OVER.YOURSELF.

:eyes:

[saracat]

4. I am not sure how I feel about the "nutcracker".I think it is a bit vulgar but

I am not sure it is meant as an "insult" though I can understand it being taken that way. If many people are "offended" by it and interpret it as misogynistic, perhaps it had better be gone.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

46. i agree and it is growing on me...strong women scare the righties

i think i'll order one for my holiday nut bowl

[mzmolly]

51. "i think i'll order one for my holiday nut bowl"

:rofl

You have given me an entirely new perspective on the matter. Thanks!

[onehandle]

5. I was wondering if someone would complain about that.

Not sure if it's a placed ad or an ad picked up by google ads "sense" algorithms.

[William769]

6. You are not the only one, and I am glad some of are making our point in public.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. I think it's hilarious, and I'm ordering one for...

each outraged thread I see.

(It's up to five now. Did I miss any?)

[The Doctor.]

13. What a treacherous bastard you are!

Oh... wait... :D

I agree that the 'nutcracker' is a little over the top, and sexist... but the reactions are really something.

How odd it is that all the "I'm not a Hillary supporter"'s are the ones bringing the most attention to it. Hmmmmm.......

[Clintonista2]

14. uhh I AM a Hillary supporter

Maybe the Hillary avatar should have tipped you off?

[The Doctor.]

40. Then maybe you don't want to draw such attention to it?

-Just sayin'

That, and I wasn't necessarily talking about you... there are other 'non-supporters' bringing even more attention to it.

Good job all.

[Clintonista2]

42. Why wouldn't I want to bring attention to sexist advertisements on DU?

I don't follow your line of reasoning. DU is supposed to be a PROGRESSIVE website, this sort of shit shouldn't exist here.

[John Q. Citizen]

119. What are Hillary fans doing on a progressive website anyway?

[TreasonousBastard]

34. Makes ya wonder, don't it? n/t

[ElsewheresDaughter]

74. i think it is too...she's a dem women and will crush righty balls!

[backscatter712]

16. Grow some thicker skin!

Sure that nutcracker's tasteless, but don't be "that guy" or "that gal" that has to go out and be the PC police.

[Bucky]

29. Grow some thicker nuts, too!

And you, backscatter712, with your subtly scatalogical user name, don't be "that guy/gal" who has to go out and be the un-recruiter of potential PC police cadets.

[emilyg]

104. Don't put up with "tasteless."

[OregonBlue]

17. How many of the people who defend the ad are men? How many are women? Gotta admit, Hillary

is one very tough cookie but it is rather offensive.

[youthere]

113. Sounding off..I am a woman and it does NOT offend me.

[bullimiami]

18. for myself. i dont worry about any ads. they are income that helps support du.

if someone is foolish enough to put their right wing or propaganda adverts here its their loss, our gain.

[incapsulated]

19. I think it's sexist and would normally be marketed...

To repukes, myself.

I think they gamed the categories to get it in there.

[Hawkowl]

22. I don't think the ads hurt her

Really. Hilary is my last choice in the primary, but I think a rep as a ball breaker is much more helpful than an chicken shit, gutless, appeaser (e.g; Pelosi). I think it might actually be helpful if you can spin it to cracking a few right wing nuts.

[frebrd]

27. More to the point, in my opinion.....

this is Democratic Underground and, like her or not (which I don't particularly) she is one of our Democratic candidates. That ad is extremely disrespectful to a fellow Democrat.

[pnorman]

28. Look at this countdown clock, also on sale at that site:

I may order one or two myself!

pnorman
PS:Yes, I realize that the SHIT that Dubya has created, won't disappear when he leaves office, but it'll still drive the bushbots crazy!

[LoZoccolo]

30. "Not recommended for people without a sense of humor...", lol.

Personally, if Hillary is the nominee, I hope she cracks plenty of nuts.

[Bucky]

33. Heh. It's always funny when you say something offensive, then tell offended people "grow up"

[soothsayer]

48. It just shows she has strong thighs!

[incapsulated]

37. I would wager good money...

I'm one of the least "politically correct" people on this website, lol.

I'm not "offended", I just think it's something that is sexist and insulting to Hillary.

Fine if a comedian did it as a joke, I dunno about marketing it as something to buy on a democratic site.

I laughed when Bill Mahr did a similar joke about her giving a cold smile to someone and saying "this is where hard-ons go to die" or something, heh.

But selling such shit on DU is pushing it.

I dunno if Skinner can do anything about it though.

[LoZoccolo]

45. I would see the jokes as having very different subtexts, though.

The hard-on thing sort-of implies that women are supposed to be sexually attractive or acquiescent in order to have value. The nutcracker thing, to me, implies that the male anatomy gives Hillary's opponents no advantage over her. She is destroying cultural notions of male privledge.

[soothsayer]

52. Exactly! I want her to be seen as a ball buster (with strong thighs).

What's wrong with that? And it's cute. She doesn't look ugly or anything. Hell, now I want to buy more!

[incapsulated]

55. Nah, ball breaker, nutcracker...

These are insults used against intimidating women all the time.

It's actually worse than just calling her a bitch. It's calling her a castrating bitch.

It's rooted in fear of powerful women.

[LoZoccolo]

60. They don't have to be insulting.

A lot of it depends on context and intent.

[incapsulated]

63. Sure it does

I just question whether an actual nutcracker with teeth between her legs was meant as a compliment, lol.

[immoderate]

67. People of any sex can be "ball breakers..."

I don't think it's sexist or insulting. I think it's funny. Maybe cute. I don't understand the fuss.:shrug:

--IMM

[incapsulated]

69. Although that is true

"The castrating bitch" figure is a real one used against women for decades.

And when it comes to Hillary, who is running for the most powerful office in the world, and would be the first woman to win it if she does, it doesn't take a brain surgeon to get the inference.

[immoderate]

97. I'm aware of the stereotypes.

That's what makes it funny.

--IMM

[SoFlaJet]

49. so...what...

are we all turning into republicans now? You're unpatriotic now if you say anything about the MSM's darling? Screw that crap I am so over George Bush and the neo-con's version of America where if you criticize or show something offensive to the flavor of the day-who now happens to BE Hillary you're? what? helping the terrorists?

[polichick]

57. Doesn't offend me in the least...

I'm grateful for the ability to crack a few nuts when the situation calls for it ~ and I admire Hillary's willingness to do the same.

[ryanus]

59. so easily offended. lighten up

yea you

[Milo_Bloom]

62. I love mock outrage.

Nothing makes me laugh quite as much as people who get morally offended by things like this.

"how dare you laugh at something that doesn't meet with my specifications... I will now be outraged on behalf of a whole group of people just to show you how serious I am".

[incapsulated]

66. I just love when...

People are sure they know the intentions of others.

There are many threads about this, in the GD as well.

People who are not supporters of Hillary have also said they find it sexist and inappropriate.

Disagree if you like, god knows I disagree with most of DU all the time, but don't be so arrogant to dismiss it out of hand.

[William769]

68. The person you responded to must be God, He knows the intentions of everyone.

[Milo_Bloom]

77. I know you still haven't answer the Health care issues I raised.

Amazing how you cowarded out of that thread the moment I was proven 100% correct.

[Milo_Bloom]

76. I dismiss any mock outrage out of hand.

Anytime Anyone becomes offended on behalf of others I dismiss them with the same broad brush. Until we learn to grow up and stop "taking offense" at everything that we don't specifically approve of, we aren't going to win anything.

[incapsulated]

78. I disagree that this is "mock outrage"

And I am truly the last person to jump on these bandwagons.

I think the thing would sell very well to freepers, frankly, and what else do you have to add to that?

[Milo_Bloom]

85. Then no one here will buy it....

And DU will wind up making money from an advertisement that had no effect... the company will stop making them, because their advertisements failed... its a win win.

[incapsulated]

87. Actually, several people on this thread...

Said they bought it, lol.

Look, it can be taken two ways, she is a take no prisoner woman who will stomp anyone in her way or... she is a mean, castrating bitch.

I understand completely people who see the later more than the former and don't like it. This is hardly a new insult for Hillary to have thrown at her, after all.

[Milo_Bloom]

92. Just because they said they did...

...doesn't mean they did. I am not really paying attention to who said they bought it and who didn't say it, but if they are not a Clinton fan, I suspect they are just saying it to get the goat of someone who is a Clinton fan. ( I am not a Clinton fan and certainly wouldn't but it... not because it is sexist, but because I don't want a Clinton figurine in my home).

In the end, you kinda made my point for me... "Look, it can be taken two ways, she is a take no prisoner woman who will stomp anyone in her way or... she is a mean, castrating bitch."

You are exactly correct and that is what I was saying. The item, love it, hate it, or indifferent to it, doesn't make a statement about ALL WOMEN... it makes a statement about one specific woman. The mock outrage I was talking about is when someone takes something like this and in order to express their disatisfaction applies it to ALL WOMEN.

They aren't REALLY outraged on behalf of all women, they are outraged because they feel it gives a negative impression of their chosen candidate.

I have seen far far FAR more sexist things on DU hurled against Ann Coulter (most of which I find personally hysterical), but no one complains about them because it is Ann Coulter after all.

[noamnety]

79. I explained why I am pissed over here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3593299#3593811

If you are so amused at people who get outraged at the misery of others, I don't understand what values you have, or why you are here. I thought we were here BECAUSE we get outraged over the misery of others.

[Milo_Bloom]

89. Because there is no misery created.

The perception exists not because of the joke, but because it actually does exist. Some people DO feel emasculated taking orders from someone of a different sex, race, age, etc.

I am all for equality, but there is a funny thing about equality, it is equal.

Do you feel the same outrage for a young person who is denied an opportunity because someone feels the older staff won't listen to them? They have done this joke countless times in TV shows, Movies, but where was the outrage?

The problem, so many people overlook, is that you wind up exacerbating the problem by demanding how people react to a certain situation.

[noamnety]

90. It exists because we are TAUGHT that's how life is

by repetition. Catapulting the propaganda. We shouldn't be catapulting THAT propaganda here.

A young person who isn't listened to is ignored because of a perceived lack of experience, and they grow out of it. And we all go through that. That is not the same as discrimination based on race, gender, or orientation - based on the identity we are born with - which plunges us into a LIFETIME of poverty and abuse, as a class.

I resent the implication at the end that we need to be quiet when we see sexism. Nobody ever overcame any kind of discrimination by being quiet about it and smiling nicely. All that results in is a bunch of people who can be as sexist/racist/homophobic as they like without having that unpleasantness of being called on it.

[Milo_Bloom]

96. Its EXACTLY the same.

Discrimination is discrimination, just because someone can "grow out of it" doesn't change what it is. A black person can "act more white" and probably overcome certain barriers, a woman can "act less emasculating" and overcome certain barriers. At the end of the day, it is all discrimination.

The mistake you make here is thinking anyone is telling you to "be quiet". The problem is in the demands. "I demand you not laugh at that or purchase that because I personally find it offensive". " I demand you not say these words or tell this joke because it might offend someone".

People SHOULD be able to be as sexist/racist/homophobic as they like; however, others SHOULD be able to call them on it without demanding how they act.

[AlCzervik]

65. Lighten up Francis.

[onehandle]

70. You just made the list, buddy. nt

[AlCzervik]

75. cool!

[K8-EEE]

80. I think it's funny!! Thinking of getting onoe

as a gag gift for Xmas....

My goodness, any politico is gonna get made fun of, it's actually a nice likeness of her!

[Lucinda]

81. I don't find it funny in the least, but i'm not offended by it

I'm offended and disgusted by the war, by the erosion of civil liberties, by corrupt politians...
But by a nutcracker, not so much.

[Musty]

82. I'm a woman...

...and I think it's sexist and funny. Some things are like that.

[Politicub]

88. I hate the ad, too

And I want to see it gone.

Sexism has no place here. We're better than this.

[tammywammy]

93. I think it's funny

I'm not supporting Hillary in the primaries, but if she makes it to the White House, I do expect her to be a "ball buster." I'd hope she is. Those men on Capital Hill need to be straighted out. :)

[lojasmo]

94. Holy hell. Who gives a crap....

Either about the stupid dolls, or your donating?

[Clintonista2]

109. Obviousley you

Why would you be posting here otherwise?

[lojasmo]

116. I do not give a whit about your donations here.

Nor do I think the nutcrackers are particularly sexist. The sentiment is particular to Clinton's method of manipulation and triangulation, in my opinion.

[mikelgb]

95. there have been far worse ads on DU

the google ones are particularly amusing as the 'guess' what ads you want based on the content of the posts... I have even seen ads to support/donate to Republican candidates

but DU needs money I suppose

but if they make through ads like that I am with you, no donation

I can ignore ads

[Lerkfish]

98. I'm also offended by the ad, but as I said in another thread,

i don't think DU should be punished for the content of the ad services they contracted with.

:shrug:

[Maribelle]

99. I find it offensive and sexist, degrading to women.

And this demeaning and degrading pomp, I suppose that's exactly what the product has going on.


But please, why on earth here?

[Froward69]

100. I haden't noticed it till that other thread pointed it out.

it gave me a chuckle. (I am divorced) I didn't think of hillary in a disparaging light. I Thought of my ex wife. It occurs to me that In our "Free" society. offensive material is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I like to tell jokes, I even tell disparaging penis jokes. If I were critical of them I would not repeat them. However they make the ladies laugh. Humor goes both ways. Truthfully, if one is offended by something meant to be humerous, they hold that subject disparaging to themselves.

[Beausoir]

101. It's sexist and offensive and childish.

[emilyg]

103. I'm not donating either.

[Semper_FiFi]

106. bumpety bump and reccomend. n/t

[MLFerrell]

110. And I suppose that the fact that you have an HRC avatar has NOTHING to do with your "outrage"...

:eyes:

[noamnety]

114. Meanwhile, in another thread,

someone wanted to know why only the people who oppose HRC have a problem with the ad.

Perhaps people can be offended by the whole "you'll be less of a man if take orders from a woman" tripe regardless of their support - or lack thereof - of HRC.

[Ethelk2044]

111. Hillary Supporter tries to make something out of nothing

I am a woman and I am not offended.

[Clintonista2]

122. You're the same woman who calls Hillary a "whore", so I'm not surprised. nt.

[youthere]

112. WAAAH.

Jeeebus fricking christ on a pogo stick. Get a grip. THIS is the issue that causes you outrage?
AND I'll bet you $5 Sen. Clinton owns one herself.

[watercolors]

115. Thank you, I'm disgusted also

I find it embarassing that we should treat her in such a way. I hate the ad. Its one I would expect on a freeper page! We have far too many chauvinst on DU.

[Redneck Socialist]

117. I'd donate more if DU gave 'em out as swag with your donation.

You win the "funniest thread on DU today" prize!

[jzodda]

120. I'm against anything that divides us

I haven't seen this ad, (I will look for it now) but I don't like anything that divides us. Support who you want but do it politely and with respect for people supporting somebody else. Always keep in mind that anybody we nominate has as good a chance to win as anybody in this party in decades. Maybe since FDR-thats how I see it. Anytime we denigrate a candidate from our side we help the Freepers, the last people we want to help.

[truebrit71]

121. Somebody please send the Waaaaaaaaaambulance...

:puke: