(comic by Natalie Dee. Write to her if you’d like to get permission to use her coppywritten artwork on your blog!!!)
POSTSCRIPT: It’s been several months and I’m still getting hundreds of visitors to this post. Most of you are men, so hello Dude Nation!!! Thanks for stopping by this FEMINIST BLOG and making my site peak at #13 on “WordPress Blogs of the Day!”
If you MUST comment, please be sure to read this entire post, including the comments thread, FIRST. In accordance with this blogger’s general commenting policy, repetitive or obnoxious comments will be deleted. Man Law Defenders who inflict incoherent, post-modern philosophical blather on the rest of us, or feel the need to post assessments of my apparent psychological state, will see their comments left alone because contrary to popular belief feminists DO have a sense of humor! Expect to be mocked for your impertinence, and thanks for keeping us entertained!
And now, back to our regularly scheduled program.
***************
Because I don’t watch television, I found out about the new Miller Light Beer campaign first from Twisty at IBTP, who had found out about it from Amanda at Pandagon. Then I moved on to Feminist Law Professors, at which point I started to google for images on the internet, search term: Asshole. Not surprisingly, illustrations for this post were a cinch to find.
It appears this new campaign centers around something called Man Laws, such as the Man Law for how long to wait until you are allowed to hit on your friend’s ex-girlfriend (answer: six months if she’s gorgeous). Amanda sums up the gist of the latest Man Law commercial, which was shown during the Daily Show with Jon Stewart the other night:
I just saw a commercial with a bunch of men sitting around drinking Miller Lite and debating whether or not it’s cool to carry a beer by sticking your thumb in the top of the bottle to carry it. Since no one in the history of the world has ever actually thought that was a good idea, I found myself incapable of suspending my disbelief.
But that’s not what shocked me about this commercial. The entire fake debate about sticking your thumb in the bottle was just an excuse for the next part of the commercial where it was smugly agreed upon that, and I swear to god they said this, “You poke it, you own it.” And in case you didn’t get the point that this was “cute” sleaziness, they repeated a few times and then declared that poking equals ownership was the new Man Law.
Twisty, my favorite feminist-historian-philosopher-humorist, summed it up thusly:
All I can tell you is that this latest entry in the already-crowded field of repellent phallocentric advertising campaigns contains images of dudely morons sticking their fingers into beer bottles, along with the compellingly asinine, soon-to-be-really-tiresome-catch-phrase “you poke it, you own it.”
Of course, the beer company didn’t invent the phrase. In his influential 1789 treatise on private property, De droites du doigt (literally, “The Rights of the Finger”) French philosopher and monarchist Joseph de Maistre declared “You poke it; you may kill it, or give it to your bootblack.” Miller Lite, in an effort to strike a chord with its super-intellectual audience of civic-minded philosophy buffs, is clearly paying homage to one of the great authoritarian conservatives of the French Revolution.*
(*Postscript: If you’re not aware that she made this up, I’m informing you now; she’s spoofing!)
In the marketing world, beer is synonymous with machismo and heteronormative sex. In the world of beer-swilling Manly Men, women and beer are consumables, and in all of the new Miller Lite ads, all Man Laws pertain to ownership of either beer, women, or both. The first ad cast the hypothetical ex-girlfriend as the ex-property of the best friend, even though the writers granted said girlfriend agency by letting her be the dumper. The second ad concerned the rules pertaining to beer possession and loss. The third ad of “You poke it, you own it” fame is obviously an allusion to both the ownership of beer and of women.
From the looks of this new Miller Lite commercials available for viewing on the internet, male ownership of beer/flesh is the Prime Directive, the #1 Man Law.
And the biggest irony of all? The new ad campaign is pushing Miller Lite as The Thinking Man’s Beer. The effort supposedly “abandons the innuendo and machismo of the beer-commercial genre for a slightly more thoughtful (if self-consciously low-brow) approach.”
The THINKING MAN’S BEER? Well then, what the fuck are they thinking? I have officially thrown Miller Beer into The Pit of Contempt.
The feminist blogosphere, as you may have guessed, is not amused. We know women are still treated like chattel around the world. Even in the U.S. we know our claim to bodily sovreignity is tenuous. Our human rights are under attack daily as religious right wing-nuts try to send 
us back into the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. The bottom line is that patriarchal culture has men buying and and selling women like slaves wherever they can get away with it. In most parts of the world this is really happening; female trafficking is a big dirty secret that much of the world doesn’t want to acknowledge or talk
about. Somewhere in the world right now some owned woman is being poked against her will without a condom. She will likely die of AIDS. Furthermore, in some places marriage is not a protection against HIV; it’s a risk factor.
So, forgive the feminists for being a little bit touchy about this particular Man Law. If you’re laughing at the Man Law commercials, we’re not laughing with you. Unless, of course, you’re laughing at the fact you know you and your buddies are a bunch of assholes who really don’t own shit when it comes to women, in which case we can get on board and laugh at you too.
Perhaps the unwritten male code as it pertains to women can be explained away by evolutionary psychology; i.e., “mate guarding.” Perhaps there is something inherently biological about the male urge to possess and control women, as mate-guarding occurs with disturbing regularity in the animal kingdom. Human mate-guarding tactics range from the
merely amusing (”cockblocking”) to the deperately insane (marriage). The most common form of mate-guarding I’ve experienced as a human female is the tendency for men to use words like “love,” “committment,” and “monogamy” as tools to keep “their” women chaste while they enjoy bachelor-party lifestyles on the lowdown. Is this learned behavior, or innate? I do not know.
What I do know is this: The superhighway that is my life is littered with roadkill, i.e., men who poked me and forgot that when it comes to romancing the Hedonistic Pleasureseeker, they are forever in a trial period. Some of this roadkill is pretty fresh. Yes, the Hedonistic Pleasureseker is newly single, and looking! Anyone out there game? Do you dare??????????
69 responses so far ↓
lauren // May 27, 2006 at 8:53 pm
lol
joe // May 28, 2006 at 12:05 pm
So you got burned a few times get over it your not the first person ( i didnt say woman cause women leave a trail of bad memories and broken hearts also maybe not as bad as men but still the trail is there ) so instead of blaming men for all your relationship woes ask yourself ” Why do i keep picking losers and then blaming them for my bad choices in men?” but i know you wont because just like most of americans today you cant take responsibility for your own mistakes its easier to blame some one else so grow up and take man laws as they are intended a JOKE!!! new man law “Laugh ,have fun, enjoy life”
hedonisticpleasureseeker // May 28, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Wow, Joe, did I just blame men for ALL my relationship woes? Hmmmmmmmm . . . let me read what I just wrote up there . . . NOPE! Rather, I was writing about men with regards to their poke-it-and-own-it mate-guarding practices, and how they backfire when they force them on me. Especially when they continue to “poke around” behind MY back . . . can we agree that the Sexist Double Standard should be abolished forever?
Of course the Man Laws are a joke. But when the joke is on women, given the status of women in this world, it’s just not funny. It’s akin to making jokes about blacks and slavery and then saying “it’s just a joke, get over it!” when the black people complain. Not funny. Capice?
Iceman // May 29, 2006 at 9:40 am
It really is true that feminists dont have a sense of humor. It always amazes me how women like you cry wolf about your “human rights” being trampled in everything. Then you wonder why no one pays attention when there has been a real violation of women.
Flux // May 29, 2006 at 9:47 am
I’d ordinarily agree with you about men and beer (I don’t drink the stuff personally) but I actually enjoy those Man Law commercials. There are a good half dozen of them, and seen in context (they’re showing them non-stop on the NBA playoff games) the “you poke it you own it” one isn’t even vaguely sexual. I didn’t get that meaning from it, at least. The guys in those commercials seem far too concerned about their beer drinking rules to worry about anything so non-beer oriented as sex.
Another spot revolves around the rules about taking beer home from a party if no one drinks it. “Ownership passes to the host once you stick it in his cooler.” one says. “I can’t take my own beer home?” a wrestler-looking guy exclaims in disbelief.
Of course they’re sexist and stupid… it’s a beer commercial! But considering the genre, and the product (a watery American beer that, like the Bud brands, can’t advertise on taste and has to therefore go for humor) they’re actually pretty clever, with the concept of crucially-unimportant issues being debated by a cross-section of males who ultimately arrive at a concensus which is then dubbed, a “Man Law.”
On the other hand, if they start running ones debating proper female bikini area grooming, or frequency of “wife cooks your favorite steak” rules, I might have to withdraw my tentative approval.
hedonisticpleasureseeker // May 29, 2006 at 9:50 am
Iceman: You're kidding, right? You read my blog and think I don't have a sense of humor? Hahahahah! Very funny!
Me thinks Iceman has reading comprehension problems.
Check out my essay again, where I've provided photographic evidence and links to examples of how "owned" women in this world are being violated today. Really. Not funny.
hedonisticpleasureseeker // May 29, 2006 at 10:03 am
Flux, I don't know how old you are, but through the years beer and (heteronormative) sex have become forever entwined in the marketing world.
i.e., Beer=Woman. Beer companies have spent millions, perhaps even billions, to program the viewing public to associate the two. This point is not even worth debating.
Bottom line is that the "you poke it, you own it" law pertains primarily to women, because no man in his right mind has EVER carried his buddies' beers by sticking his fingers in them. The fake debate was merely the setup for the "joke."
That said, I don't think the Man Law commercials are going to result in an increase in Miller Lite sales. The beer tastes like watered down piss.
I drink Guinness.
Lean Cuisine at I Blame The Patriarchy // May 30, 2006 at 6:06 am
[...] You know those beer commercials that appeal to hairy-knuckled 18-to-34-year-old morons with the jolly idea that guys own whatever they penetrate? This Flux dude believes that I (along with fellow-blamer Hedonistic) “overreacted” to these “fairly innocent and clever” ads when I posted a couple of paragraphs about them a few weeks ago. Apparently my having satirized Boo-Yah Nation with a bunch of totally made-up shit about an obscure French historical figure with a finger stuck in a beer bottle amounts to an egregiously wasteful intellectual expenditure. [...]
Jodie // May 30, 2006 at 7:35 am
Found you at Twisty’s. Lovely writing, and I agree wholeheartedly.
hedonisticpleasureseeker // May 30, 2006 at 7:45 am
Sami // May 30, 2006 at 10:58 am
Feminists don’t have a sense of humor? Even when you get past the stupidity of these commercial, there’s no humor to be found. It’s just another “hurr hurr, we are men” beer commercial that has no entertainment value if one doesn’t subscribe to its “ideals.”
Luckynkl // May 30, 2006 at 12:41 pm
Oh, I think women have a lovely sense of humor. After all, for our amusement, we did create man.
Sadly, men have lost those qualities which we once found amusing. He’s high maintenance. And has become tedious and a bit of a bore. So much so that women can’t see much fun in reproducing more of them. Eventually, we’ll probably lose enough interest in them to stop the production line altogether. And find other more exciting and fun things to amuse ourselves with.
Matt P // May 30, 2006 at 11:01 pm
What amazes me most about this contretemps is that the commercial’s defenders seem genuinely oblivious to the (clearly intentional) sexualization in the commercial.
Although I’d read about it at Pandagon and IBTP, I had not seen the spot myself until last Wednesday when a friend and her husband were over to watch TV. The ad came on, my friend and I groaned in realization of what we were about to see, and Fairly Heteronormative Husband cackled away at the dumbassedness on screen. When it ended he, predictably, said he didn’t see what all the fuss was about.
It proved surprisingly easy not only to get through to him but to bring him over to our side. We merely had to point out that A) “poke” is a word rarely used other than as an extremely thin double entendre, especially by the kind of men on display in the commercial, and B) who the hell has ever carried a beer by sticking their finger down the neck, anyway? Heteronormativity did the heavy lifting from that point on, as he realized exactly what he was thinking of when he saw a man sticking a finger in a bottle.
So, if this guy could get it fairly easily, why can’t the rest?
baddminton // May 31, 2006 at 2:03 pm
Aghhh, some of these people’s comments are so infuriating! I guess it’s easier to remain ignorant. This weekend I got mad because my boyfriend’s dad and his friend were making jokes about a man they know having a “Mangina,” because he was being a baby about being sick. I’m so sick of jokes that insinuate that women and female characteristics represent weakness. If a man ever shows weakness he’s called a “pussy.” And what is most frustrating of all is that we are not allowed to get offended. You are so right: If it were a racist joke, an African American would not be told they didn’t have a sense of humor, or to lighten up. Sexist jokes hurt just as much, but we’re not allowed to admit that they hurt without getting called angry feminists or uptight, or whatever. It so kills me. I’m so glad I found your blog, and I can’t wait to read more. Thank you for giving an articulate voice to something that needs to be said!
hedonisticpleasureseeker // May 31, 2006 at 6:51 pm
Thank you! I agree, if Miller Lite put out a "funny" commercial alluding to the ownership of African Americans, this whole country would go nuts. As it stands, while people now acknowledge that it's NEVER OK to cast a human being in a slave class due to the color of his/her skin, somehow it's still OK to cast women into the Sex Class. Don't they realize the Sex Class is another slave class? Or at least, a subordinate, subservient one?
a case of the mondays » Blog Archive » 30 Reasons Why A Beer Is Better Than A Woman // May 31, 2006 at 10:03 pm
[...] Hedonistic Pleasureseeker writes about the Man Laws on Miller Lite commercials. There is a "30 Reasons Why Beer Is Better Than Women" graphic in her post that can't quite be read. Want to know what they are? [...]
dl0 // June 1, 2006 at 1:06 am
Get a life. If women were less concerned about their equality in this world where it is a fact of life, then I don’t know what to say. I guess I can take pleasure in the fact that this silly commercial actually angered you and gives you a reason to further hate us “assholes”.
There is an instinctual dynamic in human relations you seem to have transcended. At least in your mind you have.
hedonisticpleasureseeker // June 1, 2006 at 1:38 am
Wow, I'm not sure if you could have written anything that made less sense. Your point, sir, is . . .?
Hogan // June 1, 2006 at 5:30 am
A redhead calling herself hedonisticpleasureseeker puts out a booty call, and what does she get? Joe, Iceman, Flux and dlo.
I weep for my sex.
hedonisticpleasureseeker // June 1, 2006 at 6:01 am
You’re a doll, Hogan! Thanks.
John // June 1, 2006 at 8:09 am
I think what dlo is trying to say is that theres a relationship between men and women which goes far deeper than these simple debates. And this is not a relationship that you can simply change with pointless, anal critcism of relatively innocent commercials like this one. Sure you have your reasons to look out for the respect and proper treatment of women. Its a noble cause and I tip my hat to you. Getting your feathers ruffled over this commercial however is pretty ridiculous. It is true, men often use beautiful women as a symbol of success, but the truth is this is not a characteristic of men, its a characteristic of humans. Women are often drawn to men of power/physical appearance and general desirability (if her friends like him she has more reason to, also giving birth the “player”). If you find yourself asking why men often act so cocky or why they hold female characteristics to be a sign of weakness, then also ask yourself this: Why are women (in general) so often drawn to the very thing they complain about? Why do they go for men who they know are seeing many other women (women often want to know that the genes they are recieving are desired by their peers, we are a social animal)? Why aren’t there more feminine, less egotistical men in relationships, ready to be as sensitive to stupid beer commercials as their loving partners. Anyone with half an ounce of wisdom would know that this is because as dlo tried to say, theres far more to the dynamic between men and women than we can break down here. Theres separate (general) instinctual sexual cues that men and women each have which, with all my apologies, you will never be able to change. There are general characteristics with complex hormonal foundations which define the sex, such as the womans generally weaker physical characteristics which simply can’t be denied. When a man calls another man a “vagina”, although this is in bad taste, it is derogatory in a way which is generally obvious to anyone whos been to a gym. Women aren’t usually benching tremendous weights, men are. Therefore in the context of the situation relating a man to a woman is derogatory in terms of weakness. If you have a problem with that you can shoot yourself up with testosterone and change your name to jim. Emotional stability plays a role in this too. Men don’t often sit around watching soaps and reading romance novels, because to be honest we don’t make ourselves as emotionally available as women. There are complex factors that play a role in this as well which include how women generally react to very emotional men (often not well, especially not sexually…many sensitive men end up as a womans close friend, while the cocky, less emotionally available man gets to know her intimately), as well as how important emotional stability is for a man to build a career and a stable foundation for his future. Because as we know women are generally instictually attracted to men who are in control of their surroundings and can provide well for their families (economic factors obviously ). This shows another side to why calling a man a “Vagina” may be derogatory. Generally men can’t afford to have the emotional instability that women have. The idea that a man should control his feelings is constantly reinforced by other men, and as I described above, very often women. Again we are a social animal driven by instinctual sexual cues. I’m not saying that we are all slaves to our insticts but frankly, its only natural to follow them or at least be deeply connected to them. Therefore these men that sit around making manlaws are actually just following their instincts. It is a stereotype of our condition, which is neither meant to gloat about men nor offend any feminists during their lifetime commercial break. And theres the “humor”, a shallow commercial with a shallow humorous message which displays the state of men as universal, making us feel like part of a bigger dynamic within which we truly don’t have control but can still enjoy ourselves. There. You can go back to your Danielle Steele novel now. I could go on and on about this subject but I’d rather not because the truth is theres better ways I can affect the world with my opinions than by sitting on my computer replying to you. And theres better ways you can carry our your mission to gain equality for women (which I support) than by bashing a beer commercial which didn’t make any direct attack upon women in the first place. Bye
Dixie // June 1, 2006 at 10:32 am
I started in on John’s comment and bogged down quickly. Angrily, I persevered. So, I can give you the shorter John:
We are MEN and you don’t understand us because it’s all biological and instinctual and stuff with, you know, the way we act.
You aren’t doing this feminism thing right, silly women. Go back to reading your Danielle Steele, where you can find better ways to carry out your mission. I have better things to do than reply to you, even though I support equality for women.
(Dear John:
If you think I replied because my feathers were ruffled, I hasten to correct you. My outloud laughter pulled everyone in the house to read over my shoulder.)
hedonisticpleasureseeker // June 1, 2006 at 10:58 am
Danielle Steel novel? Soap operas? Emotionally unstable? Good God! Ladies, do I take this poor man on or do I let it go? He did try, after all to be nice; he's just corrupted, as all of us are, with stereotypes he is convinced are:
natural!
instinctual!
universal!
unavoidable!
. . . when what they really are is LEARNED, if they are true at all in the first place (and that's debatable). Furthermore, this attitude that men shouldn't be required to control their basest instincts absolutely REEKS of male privelege.
I'm convinced that the labels men place on women: emotionally unstable, gossipy, illogical, mentally weak, etc., are actually projections on to women (the lesser, the other) of those rejected parts of men's own imperfect selves. I won't go into it here, but if you want to learn more, look up the term "patriarchal reversal" and have some fun.
I don't doubt the effects of some hormones on human appearance, physical strength, and behavior. The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker LOVES the mating dance!!!! However, most of what passes in society as "natural" simply IS NOT. The most emotionally stable people I know are ALL FEMALE. The most gossipy, romantic and emotionally wobbly people I know are ALL MALE. What are the odds? I have no idea! Human beings are what they are!
Since John puts forth his argument with a premise that's false, it is illogical to engage in the debate. I just have to toss his thesis and that's a shame, because it was nicely written. Oh well. But I must make one last point before toddling off to bed: My getting my panties in a knot over an admittedly stupid commercial, and writing about it in my personal online diary, is my perogative.
Sleep well everyone!
hedonisticpleasureseeker // June 1, 2006 at 8:43 pm
I'm awake but barely caffeinated. Still, my synapses are firing well enough to see the irony here: Just look at the energy men are putting into complaining abour our postings in our little online diaries! Masculinity is indeed a fragile construct, in constant need of reinforcements and defense!
The irony is so precious. My last deluded protester, while kind, objected to the energy I expended writing a post about a harmless commercial, and then proceeded to write a novel defending it.
(John, that's actually very funny! Thank you for bringing a smile to my face!)
I think I read this on Pandagon, but the very existence of “Man Laws” proves just how tenuous this manufactured idea of masculinity really is. Can you imagine a bunch of women making “Women Laws?” Of course not. How lame.
Hogan // June 2, 2006 at 10:18 pm
Look, I’m all for you women having equality or whatever, but you insist on talking about stuff that affects my life. I think you’d get a lot more support for your cause if you would stop bringing up the possibility that guys like me should change anything that we think or do or say or enjoy, and concentrate more on, oh, I don’t know, other countries or something. Birkas–those are really bad, right? Anyway introspection is girly.* So if you promise to stop trying to make me do that, I’ll promise to see if I can treat you like a thinking feeling human being with her own purposes and desires and all that. Deal?
* - MAN-LAW
hedonisticpleasureseeker // June 3, 2006 at 2:02 am
Hogan, are you single? (twirls hair, bats eyelashes, and generally starts dithering in a "natural" femmy way)
And while I'm here, folks, Sami wrote a wonderful response to those out there who would call American feminists "petty" for complaining about things that affect women in the U.S.A. while women in other countries have it so much worse. Check it out!
Postscript: Feministe also weighs in on the matter here: http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/06/07/the-trouble-with-western-feminism-and-islam/
Hogan // June 5, 2006 at 4:44 am
Hogan, are you single? (twirls hair, bats eyelashes, and generally starts dithering in a “natural” femmy way)
Well, (puffs out chest, straightens tie, polishes shoes on back of pants legs, slicks down eyebrows . . .
(needle-scratching-on-record noise)
Nah. Married as hell. And too big a coward to cheat.
hedonisticpleasureseeker // June 5, 2006 at 4:49 am
What a lucky lady your wife is!
Hedonistic Pleasureseeker » Blog Archive » Awkward Porn: It’s Good to be #1 at Something // June 5, 2006 at 7:35 pm
[...] Postscript: Folks, nothing raises your blog ranking like writing about sex and porn (and stupid beer commercials, but that's another post). This blog is presently ranked #19 with WordPress for blogs written in English. I wouldn't ordinarily care, but life is pretty solitary these days and maintaining this site gives me hundreds of reasons to smile every day. Thanks for stopping by and making it happen! Posted by hedonisticpleasureseeker Filed in Sex, Feminism, Porn Queen Chronicles [...]
hedonisticpleasureseeker // June 5, 2006 at 8:50 pm
I don’t know what I’m feeling more of this morning: depressed, or furious.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5046170.stm
There are presently female slaves being auctioned off in airports in the UK as we speak.
Still think it’s “funny,” guys?
Hogan // June 6, 2006 at 1:41 am
What a lucky lady your wife is!
You may be right. Certainly I’m as lucky as anyone can be and still have to work for a living.
Would you like to be my new blogcrush? That should be OK.
hedonisticpleasureseeker // June 6, 2006 at 2:42 am
My very first blog crush! Yayyyyyyyyy!
Eastendgrl // June 9, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Wanna know what’s funny, boys? That there are still women who will speak to you. When I think about this, I laugh, and laugh…
john c // June 14, 2006 at 12:53 am
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5046170.stm
That is a tragic story that continues — why things like this continue, alludes me. I believe if we wanted to stop it, collectively we could — but we choose not to address the people that act in this barbaric form. Slavery has been a part of our collective way of life since the beginning of collective civilization (if you want to call it that).. I don’t support oppression in any form (period!).
As for the beer commercial- and “man law” this too is a form of oppression, but I think its funny, and clever (this is my opinion) the commercial did provide a laugh (and yes – I agree the commercial is boorish and simple minded) and most men are might agree with me on the subject.
Secondly – I am glad I am a man, because if I were a woman I would be continually aggravated, because I couldn’t put up with the crap most man spew out to women.. The women of the earth – have two advantages while their available – when they young – most men chase them in hopes of sexual favor – when their older most men will chase them in hopes of wisdom and favor.. (this is a world wide not just North American)..
I as a man could not stand being chased by women, when I was younger, how women and girls learn to accept the role must be either a learned behavior (AKA taught by other females or instinctive) .. It would take a more learned person than me to know the true nature.
But I have learned a “few” things in life.
(1) Don’t be afraid – they can kill you but in most countries they can’t eat you.
(2) Kindness may never be rewarded but it is “good form” to practice it.
(3) Love is usually a one-way street – you practice until you get it right.
(4) Women (girls) are not wrong to feel the way they fill, it is their right to have feelings just like a men. Man and Woman don’t agree on a lot of stuff, but is at mostly just “stuff”, and not life and death decisions – So lighten up the world will get by.
(5) If you think you are important, try changing the weather or the environment, you will soon see the earth doesn’t care much about what you think.
I married late in life and love my wife very much – and she is the only woman that I ever knew including my mother that can hurt me by a stern look or a disappointed frown. I really want to live up to my ideals as a man when it comes to my wife’s opinion..
I would not cheat but that does not mean I would not look.. I am sure the same is clear to my wife..
May you find your way as pleasant.
dr_depravo // June 14, 2006 at 3:33 am
So close yet so far,
as laid down in the aincent tome of manlaw, poking your fingers into beer bottles is only to be done when cleaning up empties. All five fingers must have a beer bottle attached and a crude joke about either Freddy Krueger or Edward Scissorhands must be made. All onlookers may only laugh when the beer bottles are removed and the foul stench of dead beer and cigarette ash cannot be removed from the fingers.
Rob // June 14, 2006 at 11:54 pm
These commercials really are horrible. I live in a college dormatory and that’s all the proof I need to see that your average 18-25 year old male thinks that even if they have a chance of poking it, then they own it. The fact that I don’t subscribe to this sort of philosophy has gotten me some problems.
Guys, a little secret. Your woman will like you better if you don’t patronize her and instead treat her like a human being.
blogger9 // June 22, 2006 at 3:04 pm
If you check out http://realmanlaws.com you will see that the real men out there ARE thoughtful and do respect women, and there are a LOT of them out there.
Hedonistic Pleasure seeker? what’s the history behind this name?
hedonistic // June 22, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Hello Blogger9. An uptight family member called me a “Hedonistic Pleasureseeker” many years ago. He intended it as an insult, and did not know he was being reduntant. It became a little inside joke between my sister and me, and eventually the perfect name for my blog.
hedonistic // June 22, 2006 at 3:25 pm
By the way, I'd meant to stop by this thread and thank everyone for their kind comments, and then forgot all about it. Thanks everyone!
And for what it's worth, I'm deleting aggressively obnoxious comments, as is my perogative. Please do not feed the trolls. Thank you for understanding!
belledame222 // July 1, 2006 at 8:02 pm
What I want to know is:
When and how exactly did beer become the MANLY drink? When the babes in bikinis thing start?
I mean, I can guess why, certainly, from a marketing perspective: something to do with the conflation of “working class” with “manly.” Beer is seen as the working man’s drink: hence, macho marketing.
but still. curious as to how that all developed.
and now I’m also wondering about the history of booze ads in general; and how much this has to do with Prohibition, even still.
because, because, because…because Prohibition, you know, came out of the earlier Temperance movement.
best represented by Carry A. Nation, the prototype of the terrifying, fun-killing “feminazi” if ever there was one.
…i’m gonna go post about this, ’scuse.
Joe // July 26, 2006 at 10:07 pm
The you poke it, you own it law is the best one of all the man laws! You obviously need to chill out because I don’t think anyone is actually taking you seriously! Why do feminists hate men so much that they sit there and complain about everything? I think someone is bitter because she was poked and the guy didn’t want to “OWN” her haha. Maybe he wanted to go play golf at Augusta instead haha. I am just kidding about those last two, but you really need to relax. No one of rational thought is equating the you poke it man law to woman!!
Joe // July 26, 2006 at 10:36 pm
I think my first post was too attacking in nature, and I apologize for that. My only real point is that I think your claims in this blog are a pretty big stretch and you are really reaching. I think the feminist movement would have more merit if it would focus on actually important issues as opposed to complaining about everything small thing that no one cares about. When someone constantly complains about everything, people begin to tune out. I think feminists are dealing with that issue right now.
hedonisticpleasureseeker // July 27, 2006 at 7:51 am
Hi Joe! No problem. Something tells me that, had you read the thread above you would not have posted it in any case, because your concerns have already been addressed. Thanks for stopping by anyway!
Scott Frazier // August 7, 2006 at 12:09 am
Ok, one thing everyone seems to be missing. In my house at least, this commercial is funny, bc the (obvious)reference to “ownership” by men, in the culture that the ad is viewed in, is ridiculous. My wife and I BOTH laugh, bc we realize the innate tendency of men towards “mate guarding”. However, we both also realize, if I even hinted of acting so towards her, she would kick my ass. So the whole scene is now so implausible, it’s funny. Terrible product, excellent commercial.
Burt Reynolds =/= (Deleuze) // August 15, 2006 at 1:24 pm
Exponentially the resistance to Miller Lite is a faux reactionary attempt at revolution. The resistance at the site of feminism is a misplaced one. The problem is that the resistance to such places feminism in an oedipal relation to the fixed term “man”. It is a negative desire that involves a closed end that results in repression. Their argument is that “Man Laws” are degrading to women on the basis it makes them look as a subordinate object in society. Their is a hint of microfascism involved in this resistance in that it attempts to replace the dominance of man with the dominance of equality. This is still oedipal because it founds that things cannot enter society because of the prohibitted stance taken by the transcendant notion of “Women are equal to men”, thus “sexist” notions like “you poke it, you own it” are rejected from the political sphere. The resistance to the misogyny inherent in Miller Lites commercial does not stop Miller light (if the disgusting taste of their beer did not accomplish this a pissed off feminist doesn’t stand a chance), at best your resistance causes the flow of capital to encapsulate around the controversy continuing the domination of capital in one of two ways. either a.) miller profits from the success of the commercials and continues running subtly sexist ads or b.) miller downfalls, this type of ad fails and capitalism seems to be the savior once again, allowing it to continue flowing. Im sure all you hairy scary feminists understand why capitalism isn’t beneficial so i need not entertain the defense of that notion. The idea to trangressing this is to re-invent your notion of life. Life is desire, the flow of desire. The problem with your post is the way it utilizes desire, the feminist says “Yes, this is me, I am Woman and Fully HUMAN” has subjected her desire to an image in an oedipal relation. What should be said is “I am not one of your kind, I do not need the transcendant equality to produce my continuous flow of desiring life” This keeps desire open and keeps it as a positive desire that is constantly becoming as compared to the negative desire that is repression.
hedonistic // August 15, 2006 at 1:39 pm
Nevermind that most of what you wrote is incomprehensible, because this gave me my best laugh of the day:
“Their is a hint of microfascism involved in this resistance in that it attempts to replace the dominance of man with the dominance of equality.”
Are you serious?
(Please don’t answer.)
pony // August 15, 2006 at 6:28 pm
oh thanks hed for not jettisoning this. I’ll read it frozen February nights when I’m broke, the chocolate drawer is empty, my car won’t start, I realize I have no vintage slips, and life seems not worth living…
and laugh my self silly.
chuck norris // August 15, 2006 at 7:40 pm
The everyday threats to our existence as a species is constantly being thrown in our faces . People talk all the time about how we can change the world or fix the law with legislation, but really the only thing that matters is our ability to make our selves happy . The quality of our lives is not enhanced by talk of government or law , but by the ability for us to make our selves laugh. Thankfully we have a solution to this problem , thanks in part to miller company , man laws create a unique quality of life that only can be found in the creation of its laws. Making man laws are more important than living or dying . man laws increase the value of life.
hedonisticpleasureseeker // August 15, 2006 at 10:36 pm
Whatever drugs yer on, man, I want some.
Burt Reynolds =/= (Deleuze) // August 15, 2006 at 10:47 pm
All chuck norris jokes aside it is strangely absurd for someone who references hedonism in their handle to be this uneducated with history.
An argument lies here. Your focus on sexism as a site of resistance is still an oedipal relation. You force an oedipal relation upon those with different views as you as a way of classifying them as immoral or deviant. This clinging to the notion of morality is hysterically unlaughable. Isn’t it odd that you cling to the same system of morality that for your ‘movements success’ that at one point caused a good deal of harm to your movement. Your clutching to morality is absurd when faced with the historical legacy that Women were at one pointed considered immoral in the sense that they were less moral than men. Even in places like the bible you find (among others) that women were literally expelled from the camp during their period for moral considerations. Women have historically not held power because morally women should be subordinate to men. You accept the standard fixed term that ‘Man’ is the transcendent being in society and ask for equality to this. the last part of my last post is an alternative to your resistance. You shouldn’t strive to live up to transcendance you should re-invent your being. that is life as desire.
but i imagine you will make a childish scoff at this argument and contain it as academia oppressing and holding back women, when ironically it is your own resistances that hold you back. From the grave Gilles Deleuze reports to you a new way and from Slovenia Slavoj Zizek shows you the error of your resistance yet you pettily continue on.
You want to know whats funny about your resistance? its so petty. Instead of fighting the pay/power discrepancy in america, things like wife burning in india, Mass rapes in Sudan, Forced clitorectomies in multiple parts of the world YOU have decided that you must spend your time opposing a fucking miller lite commercial?!?! You are laughable ma’am
hedonisticpleasureseeker // August 15, 2006 at 11:07 pm
I don’t know if I need to Dial A Feminist or just hit delete. Ladies? Do we bat it around like a cat toy before eating it, or just flush it?
Dates Bubbas // August 16, 2006 at 12:02 am
Just flush it.
Hogan // August 16, 2006 at 5:00 pm
On the other hand, I’ve been confusing Burt Reynolds with Deleuze for years now, so I’m glad someone came along and cleared that up for me.
(Or was it Guattari?)
(Shit.)
Sasha // August 16, 2006 at 6:01 pm
Folks who can’t be bothered to use adequate capitalization aren’t worth batting around. Flush.
A Late Entry // September 14, 2006 at 4:53 am
Is this a forum for discussion, or opportunity for bitter people to reinforce their own views?
I find much of “Burt Reynolds’s” post incomprehensible, but the parts that did make literal sense, also made some intellectual sense.
Despite the verbose, pretentious language, Reynolds makes a good point that Hedonistics simply ignores. Specially, I am referring to this passage:
“You want to know whats funny about your resistance? its so petty. Instead of fighting the pay/power discrepancy in america, things like wife burning in india, Mass rapes in Sudan, Forced clitorectomies in multiple parts of the world YOU have decided that you must spend your time opposing a fucking miller lite commercial?!?! You are laughable ma’am”
I found it odd that Hedonistics ignored the only comprehensible part of his post.
I am a man with a liberal education. I hold a Masters degree in a liberal field, and I believe in equality. However, I struggle with liberals who are just as intolerant of others as conservatives are. For example, in Hedonistic’s original post she states:
“Human mate-guarding tactics range from the merely amusing (”cockblocking”) to the desperately[sp?} insane (marriage)”
I’m not familiar with the concept of “mate blocking” but I can say with authority that my marriage to my wife is neither insane, nor an attempt to guard or own her. My wife will confirm that I am not a jealous man, so much so in fact, that my lack of jealousy sometimes irritates her. I am married to my wife because I believe in a commitment. Commitment is not always easy but in my opinion it is intrinsically valuable. More importantly, our relationship works for us.
My point is that if Hedonistic feels like she is battling injustice, then at some level I applaud her. However, many her posts, and the post of her supporters, can be perceived as male-bashing, and in fact insulting to anyone who does not have a political extreme view on relationships. I understand heterosexism, heterosexual privilege, white privilege, Christian privilege etc, etc. Yes these privileged lifestyles exist but that does not invalidate my relationship, or other more “traditional” lifestyles or relationships. Marriage might be insane for you hedonistic but it is not insane for me.
Equality is not achieved by “lowering” one group or population, at a loss to another. Equality is achieved when everyone is raised to an ethical, egalitarian perspective.
Does Hedonistic want to combat inequality? Then I suggest she begins by not alienating those that who do agree with her and start taking a more thoughtful and respectful stance on her issues.
If you are unable or unwilling to do this then the only thing you accomplish is to reinforce your own views within your limited community. While this may help you continue to anoint yourself and your intellectual colleagues as “Enlightened”, it achieves no real purpose and creates no real change in the world.
hedonistic // September 14, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Aw. Pretentious, sensitive liberal man had his feeeewings hurt by a little blogrant written months ago by a woman on her PERSONAL BLOG. Precious! Thank you for demonstrating Male Privilege at its finest: Laying out your “credentials” and then assuming the authority to lecture random women on the internet about how they need to do things, all to serve your personal convenience and that of your dominant class in general.
FWIW, I (and other committed feminists) DO attend to the oppression of women around the world, CERTAINLY more than whiny white male liberal men do, so fuck off already, because I put money where my mouth is. The worldwide oppression of HALF THE HUMAN RACE (hello) is addressed in my blog, specifically in THIS POST and IN THIS COMMENTS THREAD, so perhaps you have reading compreheshion problems.
Let me rephrase my position, just in case it didn’t sink in: Generally, pseudo-”concerns” from total strangers about my supposed personal responsibility to solve all the problems in the world before I may express my displeasure about - well, anything I suppose - on my PERSONAL BLOG will receive the kind of attention they deserve. Pretentious, condescending people are coddled in my home, and they will not be coddled in this salon.
NEXT?
A Late Entry // September 14, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Thank you for demonstrating your own pathology! My thoughts are automatically attributed to me because I am a male. More insidiously my thoughts are not only a reflection of my gender but apparently my desire to oppress women. What a convenient philosophy!
It must be nice to automatically disregard any response to your own posts on the basis of gender. The formula, as I’ve seen it demonstrated here, seems quite useful
Disagreement + Male = Intended Oppression & Gender Basis.
I gave my BRIEF background, because I assumed you would try to discredit my ideas on some level. I hoped that by identifying myself as someone who has SOME education in feminism and privilege I could present myself as ally to women. I may not agree with you but I do support my wife, mother, and friends and colleagues. Imagine someone who disagrees with extremist feminist arguments and still loves and respects women!
Yet you never address those portions of my response. Instead you hide behind the proclamation that this is your PERSONAL blog. Please! You may sound as if I broke into your home and read your diary. You have made the decision to post your thoughts to the internet. By maintaining this blog and responding to posts you invite this type of PUBLIC dialogue. You want to this to remain private? Then don’t put it a public forum. You may as well have posted an editorial in the newspaper then been pissed when someone responded.
hedonistic // September 14, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Late Entry, feel free to state whatever you like. My comments section is open, and I only delete the truly obnoxious comments that contribute nothing to the matter at hand. That said, demonstrations of whiny privilege will get the back of my virtual hand regardless of what dangly bits are hanging in the pants, or under the skirts, of the composers.
Bill // September 17, 2006 at 9:59 pm
She has a life. You may not like the way she lives it, but it is hers. She is not bitching, but setting forth her point of view as is her right.
Just because a blog is “public” doesn’t mean that it is subject to some sort of “fairness doctrine” in which all opinions are entitled to “equal time.” This is HPS’ soapbox, her online home. She expresses her opinions and invites comment, but when she feels that a guest is speaking irresponsibly, disrespectfully or incoherently it is her right to ask that guest to leave, forcefully if necessary.
This is not an academic environment in which credentials confer authority to opinions. Everyone here has her or his experience in society and is qualified to comment on that basis. Clear thought and expression are persuasive. Rant and cant are not.
HPS does not suggest that there are not more egregious and violent expressions of disrespect for women than beer ads. She makes the point that Rudy Giuliani made through aggressive enforcement of “minor” laws. Tolerance of a “joke” demeaning toward women is like tolerance of jaywalking or spitting on the sidewalk. Both reflect an acceptance of bad behavior that may ultimately encourage more serious abuses and crimes.
Dates Bubbas // September 18, 2006 at 3:32 am
Awesome response, Bill!
hedonistic // September 18, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Yes, thank you Bill! Now I’m sorry that I deleted the “get a life” comment that spurred it! Then again, it was obnoxious and offered nothing to the subject at hand, so, I suppose it had to go, lest be forced to eat my words.
I also find it interesting - - and VERY telling - - that certain people consider it their privelege to ignore a discussion thread, where most of their concerns have already been addressed, choosing instead to post their comments/questions/suggestions/demands in the expectation of acknowlegement, explanation and a personal response from Moi.
Privelege in a nutshell. Their screen names are gender neutral and they could be ANYONE. But whaddayou wanna bet they’re all men? It’s rare for women to be so presumptuous.
hedonisticpleasureseeker // September 19, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Oh thankyouthankyouthankyou Ginmar for reminding me of one of Ron Sullivan’s priceless quotes from Twisty’s fab post,
http://blog.iblamethepatriarchy.com/2006/04/27/can-a-liberal-white-dude-be-a-feminist//
“Can a liberal white dude be a feminist?” Of course, being Twisty, her answer is an emphatic NO, that although men can be champions and supporters, they cannot be feminists because they’re not women. I am not sure I buy into this argument personally, because I figure people ought to be able to self-identify as they see fit, and if a man acts like a feminist he can bloody well call himself one for all I care.
Regardless, this little passage is priceless:
“One thing an old broad like me has seen many many many times already is some huffulacious oh-so-sincere dude walking in to a group of women almost at random and telling them
a/ what they should be doing in their free time;
b/ how to do it right;
c/ how to be feminists;
d/ why he has their best interests at heart, really;
e/ why he’s qualified to give them orders;
f/ that they’re intolerant, which is self-evidently a Bad Thing;
g/ that they’re preaching to the choir (and the biggest surprise is that they’re preaching);
h/ that some of his best fucks are women;
i/ how to be better feminists;
j/ that they’re not serious enough;
k/ that his wife thinks he’s the greatest;
l/ what God thinks;
m/ why whatever he’s doing this month is more important then feminism;
n/ that feminism is boo-zhwah, and that’s self-evidently a Bad Thing;
o/ that they’re shrill — wow, I almost forgot shrill;
p/ that they can’t pee standing up;
q/ that they should be ashamed of themselves;
r/ that they just don’t welcome open and vigorous debate;
s/ that he needs a beer (this is followed by an expectant silence);
t/ that they’re taking everything he said wrong;
u/ that they’re unreasonable;
v/ that they’re ~touchy~;
w/ that they’ve never said anything about oppression of women in (choose sauce: Iraq, Afghanistan, China, sub-Saharan Africa, the southeastern USA, the ghet-to, Brazil, Antarctica)
x/ that they should apologize to him because his parents had him circumcised;
y/ that he Is Too A Feminist (which evidently means something);
z/ how they should transcend feminism and embrace humanism.
Pick any two menu items and get the third half-price; pick any three and get the fourth free. With five you get a can of wine. And if you’re the guy in question, you get a free hot cup of Shut the Fuck Up.”
Ron Sullivan, I WUV YOU. MWAH.
Dates Bubbas // September 20, 2006 at 3:08 am
Absolutely priceless.
Eddie Cheever // September 28, 2006 at 11:19 pm
http://forums.clubsi.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=7339151&an=0&page=2
hedonisticpleasureseeker // September 28, 2006 at 11:30 pm
And your point, sir, is? That I should care what a mess of anonymous men think of:
1) A little personal blogrant from last May? It blows my mind that this is still a Top Post on WordPress, #5 on Google for Man Laws, and my most visited post today despite the fact that it’s Half Nekkid Thursday. Get your priorities straight! Can we move on? I certainly have. Are they even playing this commercial anymore?
2) My appearance. WTF? Should I be concerned about Random Dude’s opinion of my fuckability? Sweet Jeebus on a cracker!
Next?
hedonisticpleasureseeker // September 29, 2006 at 1:17 am
Oh, one more thing: “Blog wars” are for teenage fanboys.
Small Fast Plane Part 8: Negotiations « Hedonistic Pleasureseeker // October 2, 2006 at 1:53 am
[...] Me: What, like the Man Law commercial? “You poke it you own it?” [...]
Daniel Hendleman // December 17, 2006 at 1:18 pm
This shouting match leaves me very disheartened.
Perhaps I was disheatened beforehand
I cry for us all
R10 // December 20, 2006 at 1:05 am
for anyone who might still be reading…
but animals we are none the less. While in our society “cock-blocking” as you so eloquently put it is obsolete, it is sensless to believe that that instinct would not be there. Hell we have vestigial organs why shouldn’t behaviors which obviously aren’t a detriment to our quest for procreation disappear faster.
Why is it that when men descriminate against women its labeled as sexist and immediately regarded as male ignorance, but when women descriminate against men its is called feminism and viewed in a sort of “way to go girl” kind of way.
One of the earlier responses presented a viewpoint that so exemplifies this that it scares me. In the response luckynckl refered to man as entertainment and clearly views US as useless and expendable.
This is the only double standard never addressed by feminists, most likely because it doesn’t portray them as victims of todays social beliefs.
As for with Hedonistic’s belief that mate-guarding is a completely learned behavior and reflects on the entirety of the male population, I can not see an ounce of objective reason for this. Mans(Humans) closest primate cousins exhibit this kind of behavior in instances where it can not possibly have been a learned behavior, and in this instance is fairly practical. All living beings have 2 obvious and undeniable instincts, Survival, and procreation. Mate guarding, as seen in primate communities, is a very good way of ensuring that their genes are passed on. Humans in any sense of the word are animals. We may have bigger brains and less hair (generally
While I am not sexist in a traditional sense I do believe that ther are situations where a man would be more beneficial than a women. These situations are rare but completely logical. The main undeniable difference between men and women is size and strength. Men are genetically larger and stronger than women. If you disagree, find a website that lists world records in sports events. There will be very few if any instances in which a womens world record will be better then the mens record. I apologise if this offends you but there are no ifs ands or buts about it. This difference in size and strength is nearly negligible in todays world where fighting and running are not requisite for survival, but it creates situations for employers would be completely justified in hiring a man over a woman. These situations are limited to jobs where size and strength are beneficial, such as for club bouncers or movers. However I do not believe that women should be turned down for any job that they are more qualified to do. Women should also be payed the same as men when they do the same job. It is as simple as that.
Leave a Comment