Man oh man. A man who finally stands up for men

There’s an interesting debate unfolding on the pages of Adweek between Glenn Sacks, who heads something called the Fathers’ Rights Movement and advertisers who see Sacks as an overzealous nutcase.

Sacks, you see, has a problem with the way men in general and fathers in particular are portrayed in TV commercials and sitcoms. He says that, for the most part, men/fathers are portrayed as buffoons who appear totally helpless in front of their kids and invariably have to be rescued by their smarter, more adept wives/mates. He cites Volvo and Verizon as two of the more egregious practitioners of the men-bashing genre.

I happen to agree with Sacks and have seen the male-bashing phenomenon go on for quite some time now. While no expert on either commercials or sitcoms, I do know something about the workplace and have seen countless instances where, in mixed groups, it’s seen as perfectly acceptable to belittle men. But, reverse the roles just once, and watch out.

I’m not sure who, when or why it became politically correct to bash men, but I think it sends horrible messages to the next generation. Like Mr. Sacks, I’ll keep standing up for guys when I see or hear something that’s clearly ‘below the belt’ in work situations. I just wish Hollywood and Madison Avenue would wake up to the long-term damage they’re wreaking. Putting other people down because of their race, creed, color, or even gender, is wrong, and speaks more about the image and reputation of the oppressor than the oppressed.

6 thoughts on “Man oh man. A man who finally stands up for men

  1. interesting. so is the repman blazing a new trail as Mr. Clean- the comic?
    i think you should post your gigs on the blog so med supply execs and other readers can come listen…

  2. I-man, I don’t think the average comic cares about his or her reputation. They care more about getting that one big break that propels them to the Letterman or Leno shows. If it means attacking individuals or groups of individuals, then so be it. One caveat that came from my Comedy Institute instructor, though, was to lay off profanity, insults and sexually explicit material unless it was very, very funny. The edgier the material, the funnier it has to be.

  3. by the way, lunchie. the word “wholes” was intentional…so don’t waste your time…

  4. as an aside, who edits this stuff? for a pr firm, these spelling errors are like me sending samples of gloves with wholes in each pair:
    “I hapen to agree with Sacks and have seen the male-bashing”

  5. very interesting post rep- both on the topic itself and on the timing. as your readers know, you have recently embarked on the comedy circuit and having been to quite a few comedy clubs, i can tell you that much of the material used is mocking a person, a group of people etc. have you found that to be the case, and if so, what does that say about their image and reputation?