#stoke ppls misogyny

[maretriarch]

weird genre of woman influencer who's entire profile is her pretending to be a very annoying type of woman that doesnt actually exist (usually ''your boyfriends girl best friend that wants to fuck him and is also calling you fat'') and all the comments are "youre TOOOOOO good at this" "my anger problems could not" "id be in jail" "its just a skit its just a skit" "i hate other women" etc etc

[ciderjacks]

YouTube leftist commentary video talking about feminism but it’s by a leftist Man. I always click off immediately. No thank u.

[time-is-restored]

more whinging bc i got negative hours of sleep last night and i need to stay awake somehow lol

cw: discussions of misogyny + abuse

god the more i think abt it the more exhausted i get by the gender politics of ted lasso.

like god i do genuinely think that rebecca's arc in s1 is one of the best depictions of a mean + cruel woman ive ever seen on TV specifically bc it manages to thread the needle so well? like they never tilt her balance too much and doom her to being either totally fucked up + evil OR totally soft and sweet and harmless. and ted's 'divorce makes u crazy' response to her apology STILL makes me crazy wrt the sheer. understanding and empathy there, and she's just. given so much more depth than ive come to expect, especially for an ensemble cast sitcom w a (then) p short run time.

but my fucking god. we literally don't learn a fucking thing about michelle. im pretty sure the one (1) concrete thing we know about her comes in the fucking finale, and it's that she's a teacher for... something. the two most important people in ted's life and we don't know anything abt them! they're literally just empty symbols representing the importance of Family™, and that vacancy does nothing but weigh ted's storyline down!

like, i liked michelle's episode/storyline in s1, bc the blinding novelty of a woman instigating a divorce not being the Actual Devil, as well as a just. generally very empathetic + nuanced take on how divorce shakes out between two ppl who really care for each other, was so 'WAIT TV CAN DO THIS??' that i felt satisfied with that being Her Arc™. divorce happens, life happens, people fall out of love, and it hurts but its ultimately okay. the show, at the time, was ultimately abt a football club and how caring abt that football club helped everyone around it.

but then the show sticks around, and her continued absence just... raises a lot of questions? how did the conversation abt ted going overseas happen? what conversations did they have abt henry? how long term was it intended to be? did money really not factor into it all? like it's one thing for a character's backstory to be vague when it's not really the focus of attention (s1 was ultimately rebecca's story before anyone else's), but when it's the load bearing stone of their '''''''arc''''''' in s3...????

like. god. and then it fucking infects every other woman on the show!

sassy + nora? well sure we'll give you a softball - you can have one (1) scene where a woman is able to resolutely and firmly reject a man asking her out without immediately being seen as cruel or gameplayey (not that the audience will see it that way! she's already a lecherous temptress for them!), but neither of them will ever be able to speak to rebecca onscreen again, even after the heart-wrenching scenes in s1 CLEARLY establishing them as a beating heart of rebecca's arc.

shandy? nope, don't even think abt her motivations/drives, just forget her. simi? LMAOOO imagine a black woman getting a personality beyond righteous anger. jack? three-four episodes, and we learn so little abt her that her conflict with keeley - which SHOULD'VE have been a huge emotional beat - just feels like a kick in the teeth (and while, yes, i absolutely agree that in a real world context, jack's rejection of keeley would be largely motivated by class, in Ted Lasso Land™ rebecca is just as rich - if not richer? - and we're never once encouraged to interrogate her priorities).

barbara's the one that really makes me miserable, bc i feel like on a show with less run time, she could've played REALLY well. she's a great contrast to keeley, has an amazing delivery, and the scene where keeley + her first discuss the snowglobes shows that she has the potential for some really moving vulnerability + pathos. but instead they give SO many of keeley's scenes to characters who ultimately get written out, so when barbara stays it's like... okay? sure? like, i was so stoked that barbara survived the Mass Exodus of side characters that i didn't wanna look the gift horse in the mouth but... wasn't the last thing we saw of her and keeley's relationship like. general resentment + distrust abt the shandy debacle? when did that improve? how???

i don't think i'll ever have enough mental real estate to explain how disappointed keeley + rebecca's 'arcs' in s3 made me, and at least there's the saving grace that. virtually no one other than jamie got a coherent arc this season, so at least it was on some levels an egalitarian screw up. but fuck dude. keeley was just forced to react to bad things that were happening to her, and we got to see her do her job (which, unbelievably, does actually involve things other than being an awkward manager!) precisely one (1) time.

i even like rebecca's arc on paper - i think it's really cool to see a character backslide so intensely in terms of obsessing over and struggling to come to terms w a past relationship, especially an abusive one, bc like. yeah! that shit sticks with you for longer than a season! and beyond that, seeing her regain her sense of self and what SHE actually gives a shit about was oftentimes just as sweet as s1. but her scenes were poorly connected, and she had to carry WAY too much of a burden as the Resident Speech Giver for any of her internal characterisation to make sense. like, sorry, but it's kind of hard to believe a character's Going Through It™ when they have to spent near 100% of their screen time giving Take It From Me, Kid, speeches. and then she's not even given a real opportunity TO fuck up + sabotage her relationships, even when she starts getting really weird w ted! it's all just so meaningless and like nothing that she does is ever going to matter. she never speaks to zava again, we don't get to see her interact w bex or kate, her pleas to ted get COMPLETELY shut down...

but the thing that REALLY makes me sick is this complete lack of interiority absolutely butchers the characters of jade + jane, who are otherwise RIFE with potential. like, jade is a completely unflinching, unapologetic asshole to nate + his family, and that's never interrogated. even in Sitcom Land™, it's more than reasonable to view jade's actions as racist, especially when she doesn't give the same treatment to others (at least not as i recall? honestly i usually watch the taste of athens scenes while peeking out behind my hands, so i could 100% be wrong here). and yet, suddenly, and completely inexplicably, she's charmed by nate. she wants to give him the time of day. she finds him attractive, and wants to date him, and generally take control of his life and force him into a decision that is literally the exact opposite of what he expressed wanting to do. except even that LAST thing isn't allowed to be interrogated, bc god FORBID a woman is enough of a fully realised creation to actually be culpable of the terrible shit they do!

and fucking jane??? beard's so head-over-heels for this woman that the emotional abuse + extremely controlling tendencies don't even make him bat an eye, and we don't get to know anything about her? she's literally just the suggestion of an alluring woman! good at sex! good at chess! fuck you if you wanna know more, even though the show ENDLESSLY hits you over the head with how painful their relationship is for beard - beard who is given virtually no other storyline. like, i literally can't read brendan's refusal to label jane as abusive as anything other than like. that bio-essentialism shit where ppl 'women are better than men <3' so hard that they end up genuinely and wholeheartedly arguing that someone's sex defines their morals - or worse, that their sex is a deciding factor in determining whether someone's actions are good or bad. not context, but a legitimate 'add points if woman, take away points if man' variable.

like that's so feminism 101 it's legitimately almost worse than nothing. that's like getting as far as 'hey so you know how we're all inundated with both implicit + explicit messaging abt what is Valued and Good for women vs men to-' before shoving ur earplugs in and going 'if you are oppressed by society we'll automatically stamp a 'good person' label on ur head and now we don't have to think abt any of our biases + internalised beliefs ever again <333'. the most useless and fucking pointless stand against the patriarchy ever, especially coming from the same show that ENDLESSLY slots characters into the 'loving gf/wife' archetype and then give them Literally Nothing Else. my comrades you have literally just done madonna/whore 2: oops all madonnas! this is not liberation!!!! this is a miserable cage!!!!!!!!!

im just. higgins' wife. mae. trent's daughter and anonymous 'her'. the women at the hotel and the restaurants and the firm and the fucking physios, fuck - dani's gfs! who are they? what do they want? where do they go when the camera stops rolling? can anyone hear me?? hello??? hello???? brendan hunt i am OUTSIDE YOUR HOUUUUUUSE

[knifefightscene]

i wonder if right wing us media are publishing so much pro d*pp content is to distract people from roe v. wade while stoking misogyny backlash against women standing up for their rights, so more people will support forced birth. the timing feels way too convenient for me.

They’re pushing violent misogyny but literally what is new it’s like being force fed redpilled but not even aware of it plus ppl actually think it’s a huge conspiracy that mainstream outlets r supporting Amber i do want to die

[thebreakfastgenie]

i think what’s important to note is WHY the ‘all men are oppressors and women are innocent victims’ coming from terfs is problematic, and it’s bc it’s rooted in bio-essentialism which then leads to the follow up belief that this state of perpetually being oppressed by the brutal male force of nature is impossible to chance bc those characteristics are thought to be intrinsic. so while of course we are still very much oppressed by men as women atm and i agree w you that we must reiterate that i think this black and white gets us nowhere. The step to being anti trans and to not letting men be allies (who i mean do suffer from patriarchy tho of course flinta safe spaces are important and necessary) etc etc is so tiny from here once you operate on arguments based on fear.. i hate that this view is always moralised to this point of panic in online discourse but it is very much not good to continuously reinforce that women can only ever operate as victims bc that’s ‘nature’… you know? Hate that this is spelled out almost nowhere in this entire discourse. telling ppl why sth is problematic and granting them the brains to come to the same conclusion on their own is actually so important

Well, I definitely agree that saying women are victims by nature is bad. It's also antifeminist! Like you said, if there is some brutal male force of nature, it's impossible to change anything. That's not a feminist position. It does nothing to advance to liberation of women.

And I guess actually saying "all men are evil and all women are innocent victims" is bioessentialist but the thing is 9 times out of 10 I don't actually see anyone making that argument, I see people claiming someone made that argument when what people are really saying is "women are oppressed by men." There's kind of a TERF panic that in my opinion has people frantically warning against bioessentialist strawmen. I also see a lot of apologism for men. We don't actually need male positivity. Society actually thinks men are great. Men are harmed by patriarchy and though the purpose of feminism is not to address that, dismantling patriarchy does benefit men as well. Women venting about men by saying things like "I hate men" or "men stink" is not a bioessentialist threat or dangerous to anyone. Other marginalized groups also vent about their oppressors.

As far as fear goes, I think it's complicated, because many women do fear men as a group, and it's not exactly irrational--look at the statistics for domestic violence. But extreme fear isn't productive and stoking it isn't healthy.

And like... anything coming from TERFs is problematic. Like I alluded to before, just about the only thing TERFs say that's correct is "misogyny is real." TERFs--and I mean, true TERFs, not "women you disagree with or just don't particularly like"--are, before anything else, just stupid. I'm not trying to "No True Scotsman" this or something, it's possible to be smart and hold regressive beliefs, it's just that the whole TERF thing doesn't really make sense if you think about it all together, and also any group of supposed feminists that regularly platforms and praises socially conservative misogynists is stupid in my opinion.

So basically I agree with you but I think there's an unnecessary online panic about bioessentialism. It's bad, but I don't think it's, like, such a huge issue within feminism that we need to be constantly on-guard for it.

[bitegrip]

what do you think about this post? https://adropofinkasapoem.tumblr.com/post/643207057812652032/softblanketofstars-hungrygayandtired-okay

i came across this post just now, and i wanted to know your opinion since you write a lot of great metas and i love reading your opinions on this topic! :D

if you’re asking abt the original op’s opinions i have to laugh, bc as the most recent addition said there’s like. absolutely no chance any gay ship will be canon in a shonen jump series unless it’s between 2 super side characters and strictly implicit (rather than explicit). we may get a gay character, but they will undoubtedly be a male side character and probably turned into a spectacle for readers to point fingers at.

internal fandom politics aside, kr//bks’ bloated idolization of kr//bk is actually harmful in that it is genuinely misleading. this is why it reminds me of the dreaded kl*nce dumpsterfire--the ship’s actual canonical foundations are loose, at best there’s a vague shape of structure in place that could be expanded on but is still a ghost of potential rather than anything corporeal, but yet the ship is overbearingly popular in the fandom and ppl break their backs trying to validate it. subsequently, other slash fans not in the fandom see the popularity and mistakenly assume it must be a legit thing in canon and go experience the series. then they either have an incredibly disappointed awakening or their rose-colored glasses are so powerful they continue to be misled and fall into the rabid fandom cesspool.

this is harmful bc obviously misleading ppl abt smth that makes them so passionate--such as the fleeting rush of serotonin seeing a queer-coded or canon gay ship brings for young lgb ppl starved of representation--can lead to real disenchantment and emotional lows. but it is also Very Bad bc it’s not as simple as voltron’s scenario began, where having major gay characters was actually on the table. shonen jump is actively homophobic and regularly queerbaits by exploiting fujin and slash fans with things like merch and non-canon content (the movies, bnha smash, filler eps, ovas, ect) to get their money, while not letting their ships touch canon in any meaningful way. this has been going on as far back as dragon ball z, and as far as i can tell as a westerner, really exploded with naruto and the rise of naruto/sasuke in the late 90s/2000s.

as much as i’m sure shonen jump and all the shonen megafauna probably despise it in the most heteropatriarchal way possible, they are not stupid. they know that slash is an immensely popular fan culture both in japan and internationally (especially in the west). they know they can make money off of us. but they don’t want to actually give us what we want, because that means endorsing our weird queer interests that are obviously unfounded ravings of social pariahs. so they use merch and filler and movies and everything shy of actual canonization to string our interests along without actually listening to or indulging them. the shonen rival trope we know (born via naruto & sasuke) itself even reflects this, as they know this trope is popular among fujin and that any story containing it will garner some attention from slash communities for them to line their pockets with. their willingness to flesh out the relationships between characters like naruto and sasuke, and even include homoeroticism in canon sometimes to stoke the flames with the most milquetoast fire poker ever, is not queer-coding or endgame hinting or some peripheral acknowledgement of queerness and certainly not a romantic subplot. it’s queerbaiting, and if it’s not it’s the blatantly homophobic mindset that men can only like women and thus can’t be gay Ever, born of the rampant misogyny in shonen culture that op of the addition mentioned. this is the shitty reality of gay ships in shonen, and it doesn’t change just bc it's a ship you like.

also for the record the ship that gets the most queerbaiting in canon and canon-adjacent content is not actually kr//bk, it’s bkdk. kr//bk tends to be pretty removed from canon with its queerbaiting tactics (mostly merch and spoofs, w a few exceptions), meanwhile they used a whole ass sex metaphor for deku vs kacchan 2 in canon. so while i don’t want to undermine kr//bks being manipulated & i honestly think it’s even more slimy that they do fanservice for smth that has no foundations in the story, it is important to acknowledge the ship that is actually used to queerbait within canon. even if the queerbaiting is unfortunately kinda complicated and could have a whole essay of its own.

[chucksrus84]

When PoC use identity politics to express their thoughts on racism, we're often told (by Bernie Sanders and his supporters) to ditch it in favor of economic equality. However, when it comes to reaching out to white working class, identity politics suddenly becomes an important issue; and although his followers may not hear it, dog-whistle racism, is something many of us are unwilling to excuse. So, if you're not one of those "leftists" speaking out against the tune of Bernie Sander's dog-whistle...then you're one of those people who believe that the civil rights of PoC are secondary to reaching out to voters who shared Trump’s bigoted, misogynistic and prejudiced views.

Keep in mind that Trump scapegoated groups of ppl (Mexicans, Blacks, Women, Native Americans, Immigrants, Muslims, etc) most vulnerable to exploitation, then used that conservative strain of bigotry and misogyny to stoke anger and mistrust among his conservative base. These are the people Bernie Sanders wants to reach out to. Their economic anxiety and “pain” is important to this particular Senator and his supporters; while the continued disenfranchisement of Poc, Black men and women, children, immigrants, Black LGBTQ community, etc...are expendable. 

And it disappoints me that Nina Turner, the Young Turks or for that matter, Shaun King, has done nothing to discourage that type of narrative within his campaign. It’s utterly depressing and disappointing. I guess black lives really don’t matter in the scheme of things. 

[morganbelarus]

Sexism is the new clickbait. It’s time to find another route to internet fame.

Image: vicky leta / mashable

It's becoming all too easy for brands to use sexism as low-hanging fruit to go viral. Time after time, we rise to the bait, giving the brands exactly what they set out to achieve internet fame.

In some ways, it's reassuring to see a brand getting dragged for sexism. The fact that people will readily call BS on companies objectifying women and reinforcing outdated gender stereotypes is a sign of hope and progress. For some brands, getting dragged for sexism is a dream-come-true; a chance to go viral; to be the name on everyone's lips, or tweets, even if it's for all the wrong reasons.

SEE ALSO: The tricky art of marketing women's empowerment in the era of Trump

On an almost daily basis, sexism in headlines, adverts and newspaper front pages is getting taken to task on Twitter. But, by tweeting about those brands and making them go viral, are we giving them exactly what they want?

No such thing as bad publicity

As Oscar Wilde said "the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about". Brand managers are well aware of this," says Anthony Patterson, professor of marketing at Liverpool University. A "response whether outrage or support demonstrates that consumers are engaging with their brand."

Patterson says the willingness of brands to court controversy stems from their worry that their latest campaigns will go unnoticed and ignored by "an indifferent and disinterested consumer body". "Brands well know that courting controversy via the odd comment that could be interpreted as sexist is sure to garner a response from observers on social media," Patterson continues.

Take the Daily Mail, for example. On eve of Britain triggering Article 50 and officially entering Brexit negotiations, it was #LegsIt (not #Brexit) that topped the UK's Twitter trends. The newspaper's headline declaring "Forget about Brexit, who won Legs-it!" alongside a photograph of Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and British Prime Minister Theresa May and a pain staking analysis of their legs, prompted the ire of thousands on social media.

ARE YOU.

FUCKING.

KIDDING ME? http://pic.twitter.com/ieJ8mXjyAg

Dolly H Alderton (@dollyalderton) March 27, 2017

A statement from a Daily Mail spokesperson (which began with "for goodness sake, get a life") only added fuel to the fire. "Sarah Vine's piece, which was flagged as light-hearted, was a side-bar alongside a serious political story." The Daily Mail wasn't sorry. And, why would they be? We, by venting our outrage on Twitter at their "light-hearted" sexism, made #LegsIt the most talked-about story of the day.Was it all a trap?

The 'light-hearted' excuse just doesn't cut it

But, this isn't the first time the word "light-hearted" has been used by a brand accused of sexism. Increasingly, obscure and previously-unheard-of brands are using provocative and sexist advertising to ensure their brands get noticed. In 2016, a billboard advert for a gym in Derbyshire was accused of being "offensive and fat-shaming". When asked for a comment, Jan Spaticchia, chief executive of gym company Energie Group, said that by taking a "light-hearted approach" they felt they can "connect" with more people.

Recently, USPAAH, a relatively unknown mobile spa app was called out on Twitter for its sexist ad on the London Underground. "Out with the guys 'til 4am again?! Keep her sweet with a spa mani/pedi at home," it read. Rather than apologising, the brand responded to the criticism with a series of extremely sassy replies, further stoking the Twitter fire. "We were thinking that it's a lighthearted anecdote based on our experiences. That's all. But thanks for your feedback," read one of USPAAH's sassy tweets. When asked for comment, a spokesperson said they were ware that their "cheeky campaign" had "caused a bit of a stir on Twitter".

And this is one of the reasons why today ppl are marching, striking, protesting! @USPAAH #saveyourself from misogyny! #epicfail #IWD2017 http://pic.twitter.com/3a2kvWal03

Edvige (@edvigeb) March 8, 2017

And, just this week, London estate agent Marsh & Parsons was dragged on Twitter and forced to remove an advert after it was accused of being "demeaning to women". The text of the advert appears to describe the pictured woman as a "modern extension" to her older partner, who's described as a "charming period property". The company's CEO, David Brown, said the ad was intended to be part of a series of "tongue-in-cheek" ads comparing people to property and reflecting "the range of people" and properties they work with. "We have always tried to get our message across with a gentle sense of humour and up until now, our work has been extremely well-received," said Brown. He said the campaign was intended to "prompt conversation".

"There is no need to advertise in a sexist manner and it is bad and indeed lazy advertising that does [use sexism]," says Professor Isabelle Szmigin at the University of Birmingham. She says the "tongue-in-cheek response" to criticism is "just too easy" for brands and positions people who complain as "supposedly without a sense of humour".

Szmigin adds that that "the key" for new brands is to get attention and "many brands go for the easy route". This is so true. It is all too easy to dismiss casual sexism as a bit of "light-hearted" fun after you've achieved viral fame for your brand. But, at what cost?

The thing is, "light-hearted" sexism is still sexism.

If a brand or media company knowingly uses sexism as a device to get attention, even if the employees behind the campaign don't subscribe to the message behind the ad, it still feeds into and fuels a persistent narrative of sexism and misogyny. These ads might seem harmless, but not everyone will know about the marketing strategy lurking behind them.

A spokesperson for the Advertising Standards Authority said that gender stereotyping in ads is a live issue that they've been investigating over the past year. "Ads should not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread harm or offence, and particular care should be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of amongst other thingsgender and sexuality," the spokesperson said.

Women shouldn't be roadkill in a brand's race to get viral fame. Brands, it's time to get your act together and find another way to get internet fame.

WATCH: Across the globe, nasty women and men hit the streets one day after Trump's inauguration

More From this publisher : HERE

=> *********************************************** See Full Article Here: Sexism is the new clickbait. It’s time to find another route to internet fame. ************************************ =>

Sexism is the new clickbait. It’s time to find another route to internet fame. was originally posted by 16 MP Just news

[viralhottopics]

Sexism is the new clickbait. It’s time to find another route to internet fame.

Image: vicky leta / mashable

It’s becoming all too easy for brands to use sexism as low-hanging fruit to go viral. Time after time, we rise to the bait, giving the brands exactly what they set out to achieve internet fame.

In some ways, it’s reassuring to see a brand getting dragged for sexism. The fact that people will readily call BS on companies objectifying women and reinforcing outdated gender stereotypes is a sign of hope and progress. For some brands, getting dragged for sexism is a dream-come-true; a chance to go viral; to be the name on everyone’s lips, or tweets, even if it’s for all the wrong reasons.

SEE ALSO: The tricky art of marketing women’s empowerment in the era of Trump

On an almost daily basis, sexism in headlines, adverts and newspaper front pages is getting taken to task on Twitter. But, by tweeting about those brands and making them go viral, are we giving them exactly what they want?

No such thing as bad publicity

As Oscar Wilde said “the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about”. Brand managers are well aware of this,” says Anthony Patterson, professor of marketing at Liverpool University. A “response whether outrage or support demonstrates that consumers are engaging with their brand.”

Patterson says the willingness of brands to court controversy stems from their worry that their latest campaigns will go unnoticed and ignored by “an indifferent and disinterested consumer body”. “Brands well know that courting controversy via the odd comment that could be interpreted as sexist is sure to garner a response from observers on social media,” Patterson continues.

Take the Daily Mail, for example. On eve of Britain triggering Article 50 and officially entering Brexit negotiations, it was #LegsIt (not #Brexit) that topped the UK’s Twitter trends. The newspaper’s headline declaring “Forget about Brexit, who won Legs-it!” alongside a photograph of Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon and British Prime Minister Theresa May and a pain staking analysis of their legs, prompted the ire of thousands on social media.

ARE YOU.

FUCKING.

KIDDING ME? http://pic.twitter.com/ieJ8mXjyAg

Dolly H Alderton (@dollyalderton) March 27, 2017

A statement from a Daily Mail spokesperson (which began with “for goodness sake, get a life”) only added fuel to the fire. “Sarah Vine’s piece, which was flagged as light-hearted, was a side-bar alongside a serious political story.” The Daily Mail wasn’t sorry. And, why would they be? We, by venting our outrage on Twitter at their “light-hearted” sexism, made #LegsIt the most talked-about story of the day.Was it all a trap?

The ‘light-hearted’ excuse just doesn’t cut it

But, this isn’t the first time the word “light-hearted” has been used by a brand accused of sexism. Increasingly, obscure and previously-unheard-of brands are using provocative and sexist advertising to ensure their brands get noticed. In 2016, a billboard advert for a gym in Derbyshire was accused of being “offensive and fat-shaming”. When asked for a comment, Jan Spaticchia, chief executive of gym company Energie Group, said that by taking a “light-hearted approach” they felt they can “connect” with more people.

Recently, USPAAH, a relatively unknown mobile spa app was called out on Twitter for its sexist ad on the London Underground. “Out with the guys ’til 4am again?! Keep her sweet with a spa mani/pedi at home,” it read. Rather than apologising, the brand responded to the criticism with a series of extremely sassy replies, further stoking the Twitter fire. “We were thinking that it’s a lighthearted anecdote based on our experiences. That’s all. But thanks for your feedback,” read one of USPAAH’s sassy tweets. When asked for comment, a spokesperson said they were ware that their “cheeky campaign” had “caused a bit of a stir on Twitter”.

And this is one of the reasons why today ppl are marching, striking, protesting! @USPAAH #saveyourself from misogyny! #epicfail #IWD2017 http://pic.twitter.com/3a2kvWal03

Edvige (@edvigeb) March 8, 2017

And, just this week, London estate agent Marsh & Parsons was dragged on Twitter and forced to remove an advert after it was accused of being “demeaning to women”. The text of the advert appears to describe the pictured woman as a “modern extension” to her older partner, who’s described as a “charming period property”. The company’s CEO, David Brown, said the ad was intended to be part of a series of “tongue-in-cheek” ads comparing people to property and reflecting “the range of people” and properties they work with. “We have always tried to get our message across with a gentle sense of humour and up until now, our work has been extremely well-received,” said Brown. He said the campaign was intended to “prompt conversation”.

“There is no need to advertise in a sexist manner and it is bad and indeed lazy advertising that does [use sexism],” says Professor Isabelle Szmigin at the University of Birmingham. She says the “tongue-in-cheek response” to criticism is “just too easy” for brands and positions people who complain as “supposedly without a sense of humour”.

Szmigin adds that that “the key” for new brands is to get attention and “many brands go for the easy route”. This is so true. It is all too easy to dismiss casual sexism as a bit of “light-hearted” fun after you’ve achieved viral fame for your brand. But, at what cost?

The thing is, “light-hearted” sexism is still sexism.

If a brand or media company knowingly uses sexism as a device to get attention, even if the employees behind the campaign don’t subscribe to the message behind the ad, it still feeds into and fuels a persistent narrative of sexism and misogyny. These ads might seem harmless, but not everyone will know about the marketing strategy lurking behind them.

A spokesperson for the Advertising Standards Authority said that gender stereotyping in ads is a live issue that they’ve been investigating over the past year. “Ads should not contain anything that is likely to cause serious or widespread harm or offence, and particular care should be taken to avoid causing offence on the grounds of amongst other thingsgender and sexuality,” the spokesperson said.

Women shouldn’t be roadkill in a brand’s race to get viral fame. Brands, it’s time to get your act together and find another way to get internet fame.

WATCH: Across the globe, nasty women and men hit the streets one day after Trump’s inauguration

Read more: http://on.mash.to/2optxYz

from Sexism is the new clickbait. It’s time to find another route to internet fame.