Post: #1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8Jiwo3u6...ture=share

check out the one for women as well

totally rediculous

Post: #2

They should reverse the genders and have the guys from RVF be the guys describing the girls being sketches..then they should show that video to Toronto and Portland and Australia, lolololol.
That will teach them about double standards .

Post: #3

Just so everyone knows, that one for men is a comedy spoof. Here's the real one for women. What's the point of this? Most girls are delusional and think they're beauty pageant queens. All you have to do is be skinny and have a decent face and you're ahead of most girls. We know how it is in America.

Post: #4

The video for girls was dumb as hell because they took what the girls said at face value without considering what they might be thinking. Girls will tear down their own appearance to other people because it's a status/attention seeking thing. They're fishing for compliments while trying not to seem immodest. It's like "Oh God, I look this great, I mean my skin and teeth are just perfect and my ass shames all the Kardashians, but I'll deign to feel ugly to other people because I'm just that morally superior to everyone around me".
Other girls will also highlight the supposed beauty of their peers to tear them down. It's something along the lines of "She's just so pretty, it's a wonder she can't keep a man or just be happy" kind of thing.

The comedy vid wasn't all that funny. Comedy would have been if some RVFers snuck into the Dove for Women video and basically agreed at how ugly these lizards were, and even added some stuff like "She was horse-faced. Not as bad as Sarah Jessica Parker, but I say that only because you wouldn't have noticed it immediately, as her snaggle-teeth were that much more prominent. Looking at her face was like watching a bad movie you have to see two or three times to grasp the whole scope of how shitty it is".
They would have edited it out of the final cut (they probably did a lot of takes on the DfW video in all seriousness) but it would have still been a riot.

Post: #5

Procedural flaw: Same sketch artist drawing from both descriptions. Unless I missed it, there is no reason to believe that he wasn't intentionally drawing the women who were self-describing worse just to prove the point that he was getting paid to prove.

My recommendation: double blind. Compare different sketch artists' renditions of both the self-description and descriptions of others.


Fact of the matter is that everyone of the women on that video was acceptable for her age. Shoulda brought some average Toronto women in and had a stranger describe their fat deposits.

Post: #6

The Dove ad got a lot of praise on social media, all of it overlooking the fact that it's an ad for soap.

There have been some blog critiques of the ad pointing out that all the women are thin and reasonably attractive. But those critiques then degenerated into feminist mumbo-jumbo about other standards for beauty, etc... At least the original ad shows that how important being beautiful is for women. And maybe the women who are more critical about their looks take action to look better and it works. Lord knows that there are lots of women that don't even try.

I wonder how this would have worked as an experiment with women throughout the whole range of attractiveness spectrum:
"I'm a little heavy, but men tell me that I'm sexy and jiggly. My face is too wide. And when I put my chin to my neck, it looks like I have a second chin." <jumps out of window>

Post: #7

The latest Dove ad now compels women to choose between two building entrances marked "Average" and "Beautiful."

But it's actually receiving some backlash for "forcing" women to label themselves.

Quote:But let’s just go with the assumption that this really is real—that these are actual, random women, just going about their day and then confronting this very public, made-up dichotomy: am I "beautiful," or am I just "average"?

Any available scenario is icky. Maybe there are women here who had the audacity to never feel the need to define themselves based on how they look and now they have to face this humiliating choice.

If every woman is beautiful, then the word loses meaning. Everyone wants to count themselves amongst the beautiful, smart, funny, etc. but the fact is that not everyone holds these traits.

These Dove sketches are just a circle jerk for women to pat themselves on the back for existing. I'm glad they're backfiring.

Post: #8

Dove is owned by Unilever, who also sell Axe Body Spray and market it this way:



They're just cynically telling women up is down by handing them a viral-media-ready Facebook-Like farming tool, guaranteed to create a warm, squishy feeling of moral-superiority in women, to thereby make them unquestioningly-align their purchasing power with Unilever.

Post: #9

(04-09-2015 05:57 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  Dove is owned by Unilever, who also sell Axe Body Spray and market it this way:

Hahaha, that's so awesome. Exactly like politics. They say one thing to one group of people and another thing to another group of people! Gotta love the hypocrisy.

Post: #10

TheLastPsychiatrist wrote an amazing takedown of these Dove Beauty sketches. I'll highlight only the relevant portion, but the entire article is well-worth reading. (And if you've never read TheLastPsychiatrist before, do so. Within two weeks (or a month, depending on your reading speed) of consistently reading him, you'll become a much better person).

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/05/dove.html

Quote:"Oh my God," you might say, "I know it's just an ad, but it's such a positive message."

If some street hustler challenges you to a game of three card monte you don't need to bother to play, just hand him the money, not because you're going to lose but because you owe him for the insight: he selected you. Whatever he saw in you everyone sees in you, from the dumb blonde at the bar to your elderly father you've dismissed as out of touch, the only person who doesn't see it is you, which is why you fell for it. Even mirrors fail you. Hence a sketch.

The gimmick that propels the Dove ad is a comparison between subjectivity and objectivity, though in this case objectivity is defined as however well Mantegna can use a charcoal pencil. Why not just use a photograph?

Because when it comes to beauty, we all know photographs can be manipulated, especially in ads, especially by Dove. So the ad frees you from your cynicism and goes with a new standard of beauty, one that, like yoga or genetics, has been around for a long time AND you know very little about it; it hasn't been over-critiqued, you haven't watched it fail over and over, and thus seems pure, fantastical, true. The artist's sketch. How can anything this lovingly and precisely created not be the real thing? And nothing makes a middle aged neurotic happier than 45 minutes alone in a loft with a good looking man who requires no sexual contact and just wants to listen to you talk about yourself, unless he's also sketching you attentively in natural light. "Can I offer you a Pinot Grigio?" Slow down, Christian, you're making me woozy. There is not enough quantitative easing in the universe to prop up this fantasy, but at $3000000000000 you can't say America's not committed to the attempt.

The mistake in interpreting this ad is in assuming the ad is selling based on the women and their beauty. If that were true, it would be counterproductive: if they are naturally beautiful, if the problem is actually a psychological one, then they certainly don't need any beauty products. A beauty ad operates by creating a gap between you and an ideal: by creating an anxiety that can only be mitigated by the product. But this ad reduces anxiety and avoids cynicism. Therefore, it is not a beauty products ad. It is selling something else. This is why there aren't any products in the ad.

Dove is telling you you don't need to do anything to be beautiful, but it knows full well women must do something to themselves to feel good about themselves, and if they don't need makeup then at least a moisturizing soap. All Dove needs to solidify this is to be recognized as an authority on beauty-- real beauty, not fake, Photoshopped, eyeliner and pushup bras beauty.

It is the sketch artist who is the most important character in the ad, the ad is selling him. That's why he doesn't just draw the sketches, he sticks around to chaperone these women to self-awareness. By the way he is depicted you understand that he knows beauty, inner and outer; he is part father, part lover, expert in what makes a woman valuable. For you to accept him, he can't be married; but since in real life he is, they only show you the right hand-- the part of him that almost autonomously draws beauty. He is an authority on appearance, he is the "other omnipotent entity" that decides whether "you are beautiful."

The ad lets the women become beautiful without selling them anything. It lets them win. It lets them win. It endears them and you to Dove, it makes you feel more sympathetic to Dove, like it's an ethical beauty products company, like it's Lawful Neutral. It gave these women its confidence; it gave you, the viewer, its confidence.

And then-- spoiler alert-- it will screw you and take your money.

Post: #11

(04-10-2015 12:35 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  (And if you've never read TheLastPsychiatrist before, do so. Within two weeks (or a month, depending on your reading speed) of consistently reading him, you'll become a much better person).

The beauty of The Last Psychiatrist is that his essays lure you in with the promise of mockery of easy targets, but his train of thought eventually leads you to having to confront your own failings. You end up with a better understanding of yourself for having read him.

As such, be very wary of sharing him with Blue Pill Thinkers. They're not ready for that level of self-knowledge. I've had a couple of Intelligent-Persona Girls in my circle who have flipped their shit after they've read articles I recommended, in classic SJW Narcissistic Fury fashion.

Post: #12

(04-09-2015 08:34 PM)monster Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 05:57 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  Dove is owned by Unilever, who also sell Axe Body Spray and market it this way:

Hahaha, that's so awesome. Exactly like politics. They say one thing to one group of people and another thing to another group of people! Gotta love the hypocrisy.

Here's the actual ad (purely for information purposes):

Post: #13

(04-10-2015 05:27 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  The beauty of The Last Psychiatrist is that his essays lure you in with the promise of mockery of easy targets, but his train of thought eventually leads you to having to confront your own failings. You end up with a better understanding of yourself for having read him.

As such, be very wary of sharing him with Blue Pill Thinkers. They're not ready for that level of self-knowledge. I've had a couple of Intelligent-Persona Girls in my circle who have flipped their shit after they've read articles I recommended, in classic SJW Narcissistic Fury fashion.

Bosch, I could tell you so many stories about that - but I'll only pick one.

I'm a member in good standing of a philosophy message board. (I won't name which one, but internet savvy people can quickly find out which.) The board's major purposes are: philosophy, self-knowledge, emotional connection / empathy, and confronting your childhood wounds (ideally, though not necessarily, through therapy).

I had only been a member of the RVF forum for about six weeks, and had only seriously begun processing Red Pill ideas for about ten weeks, when I attended my first Meet-Up Group devoted to this philosophy message board. During the second meeting, eight members (led by one member in particular) spent about 90 minutes telling me that my communication style was "too dominating", and that I didn't seem "very empathetic".

About thirty minutes after this, the subject changed, and I mentioned Roosh's three-circle venn diagram in this article.

http://www.rooshv.com/how-to-be-a-great-man

I set up my argument by first saying, "You can't use an excess of money and six-pack abs to make up for a lack of philosophy." (Everyone nods.) But then I continued, "You also cannot use an excess of philosophy to make up for a lack of six-pack abs and money." (Everyone stops nodding; place goes dead-silent.)

Except one guy, (who had spent hours repeatedly hammering me on my lack-of-empathy), says, "You don't need money and six-packs abs to attract a virtuous woman."

To which I replied, with confident body-language and a matter-of-fact tone, "Philosophically, what you say is 100% true - but you're not empathizing with a virtuous woman's desire for six pack abs and money."

He did a full-body shudder - such that his shoulders moved five inches, while immediately breaking eye contact by jerking his head downwards and to the left, while also involuntarily moving five inches to his left (away from me).

After that, I wasn't invited back.

------------------------------------

Multiple TLP articles made me able to see through the group's flawed arguments, but this one is my favorite. (Especially because the philosophy group is so focused on childhood wounds, and (ostensibly) learning to get over them.)

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/06/a..._look.html

Quote:Say you yell every day at an/your eight year old girl for sloppy homework, admittedly a terrible thing to do but not uncommon, and eventually she thinks, "I'm terrible at everything" and gives up, so the standard interpretation of this is that she has lost self-confidence, she's been demoralized, and case by case you may be right, but there's another possibility which you should consider: she chooses to focus on "I'm terrible at everything" so that she can give up. "If I agree to hate myself I only need a 60? I'll be done in 10 minutes. "

It is precisely at this instant that a parent fails or succeeds, i.e. fails: do they teach the kid to prefer (find reinforcement in) the drudgery of boring, difficult work with little daily evidence of improvement, or do they teach the kid to prefer (find reinforcement in) about 20 minutes of sobbing hysterically and then off to Facebook and a sandwich? Each human being is only able to learn to prefer one of those at a time. Which one does the parent incentivize?

If you read this as laziness you have utterly missed the point. It's not laziness, because you're still working hard, but you are working purposelessly on purpose. The goal of your work is to be done the work, not to be better at work.

For a great many people this leads to an unconscious, default hierarchy in the mind, I'm not an epidemiologist but you got it in you sometime between the ages of 5 and 10:


<doing awesome>

is better than

<feeling terrible about yourself>

is better than

<the mental work of change>


You should memorize this, it is running your life. "I'm constantly thinking about ways to improve myself." No, you're gunning the engine while you're up on blocks. Obsessing and ruminating is a skill at which we are all tremendously accomplished, and admittedly that feels like mental work because it's exhausting and unrewarding, but you can no more ruminate your way through a life crisis than a differential equation. So the parents unknowingly teach you to opt for B, and after a few years of childhood insecurity, you'll choose the Blue Pill and begin the dreaming: someday and someplace you'll show someone how great you somehow are. And after a few months with that someone they will eventually turn to you, look deep into your eyes, and say, "look, I don't have a swimming pool, but if I did I'd drown myself in it. Holy Christ are you toxic."

"Well, my parents were really strict, they made me--" Keep telling yourself that. Chances are if your parents are between 50 and 90 they were simply terrible. Great expectations; epic fail. Your parents were dutifully strict about their arbitrary and expedient rules, not about making you a better person. "Clean your plate! Go to college!" Words fail me. They weren't tough, they were rigidly self-aggrandizing. "They made me practice piano an hour every day!" as if the fact of practice was the whole point; what they did not teach you is to try and sound better every practice. They meant well, they loved you, but the generation that invented grade inflation is not also going to know about self-monitoring and paedeia, which is roughly translated, "making yourself better at piano."

"You don't know how hard it is to raise kids," says someone whose main cultural influence in life was the Beatles. The fact that you will inevitably fail in creating Superman is not a reason not to try. Oh: I bet I know what you chose when you were 8.

The mistake is in thinking that misery and self-loathing are the "bad" things you are trying to get away from with Ambien and Abilify or drinking or therapy or whatever, but you have this completely backwards. Self-loathing is the defense against change, self-loathing is preferable to <mental work.> You choose misery so that nothing changes, and the Ambien and the drinking and the therapy placate the misery so that you can go on not changing. That's why when you look in the mirror and don't like what you see, you don't immediately crank out 30 pushups, you open a bag of chips. You don't even try, you only plan to try. The appearance of mental work, aka masturbation. The goal of your ego is not to change, but what you don't realize is that time is moving on regardless.

------------------

TLP's articles also made me realize, "Dude. You can read these articles at breakneck speed, instantly internalize them - even though they make you realize that you've wasted your entire life from ages 21 to 38 - and instantly change your habits. But your body doesn't make other people think you're strong at all, and you've never taken a punch to the face! Either learn to box within 18 months, or stop whining that no one respects you."

Post: #14

(04-10-2015 05:27 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  The beauty of The Last Psychiatrist is that his essays lure you in with the promise of mockery of easy targets, but his train of thought eventually leads you to having to confront your own failings. You end up with a better understanding of yourself for having read him.

Care to recommend a few?

G

Post: #15

^ Any of the ones on Narcissism, Geo. There's categories listed on the right of the page.

This two-parter is brutal:

Don Draper Voted Most Influential Man

So You Want To Be Don Draper? You Already Are

More recent ones get far more in-depth.

I notice Amanda Hess has fallen off the radar since his takedown of her in the last essay from 2014. He not only destroyed her argument, he destroyed her entire belief system.

Post: #16

(04-11-2015 10:45 AM)Geomann180 Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 05:27 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  The beauty of The Last Psychiatrist is that his essays lure you in with the promise of mockery of easy targets, but his train of thought eventually leads you to having to confront your own failings. You end up with a better understanding of yourself for having read him.

Care to recommend a few?

G

I know you didn't ask me, but my five personal favorites.

(1) http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/06/a..._look.html

(2) http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2012/10/t...issus.html

(3) http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/11/a...ology.html

(4) http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/09/w...u_got.html

(5) http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/07/w...nting.html

-------------------

(6) http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2013/01/n...would.html

The sixth is about women and feminism, so it's hilarious. Think of it as a bonus article.

Also, whenever TLP says, "There's a word for that, but I don't know what it is...", the word is narcissism.