Provide for yourself, provide for your loved ones. Give to those who appreciate and appreciate those who give.
@Polaroid, "Fvck and be fvcked."
@Polaroid, Provide for your loved ones? You mean, like a husband providing for his wife? Perhaps?
@Professor Xavier, Or perhaps a wife providing for her husband.
@Polaroid, really want to know who down voted this
@Professor Xavier, Gender doesn't matter in most things. Just be a good person.
@Polaroid, hey, i love you. Fu*k the downvotes. Keep enlightening us. I love positivity
@celtics313131, I bet I love you more you sexy fvck
@Donald Drumpf, Probably some chicken shjt.
@Banana Waffle, Yeah, but more often than not it's the other way around. Isn't it? Yes that's right! Lol
I don't really see anything wrong with this? A real man will provide, doesn't say is the only provider. A real woman would appreciate it, as anyone who shares in wealth should appreciate that wealth. Perspective maybe?
@The Chemist, WOMANS MUST RULE, DOWN WITH THE PATRIARCHY!🗣🗣👩🏻🎤🙅💃
@The Chemist, I would ask you to use perspective, while its true that from an entirely objective point of view it fits your definition, this sign was clearly not made with objectiveness in mind and asserts a sexist point of view in the sociocultural environment it was placed in
@Donald Drumpf, Clearly? Were you there for the meeting? Do you personally know the person that wrote it? I mean, it might seem heavily slanted that way to any random person, but you can't really say it with any sort of authority because you didn't have a hand in its creation.
@HiroAntagonist, that fact that nobody is coming forward to claim credit and the fact that without such context, somebody essentially just wasted a shlt ton of money on a billboard to advertise what can be objectively considered either complete nonsense or a self evident fact that anyone would know, is pretty implicit proof of the owner's intent. Nobody's stupid enough to waste that much money unless they're trying to put forward some kind of message.
@Donald Drumpf, And maybe that message is what you yourself said was possible from an objective point of view. You don't know. I don't know. Maybe that was the point of their statement. Maybe it's some sort of New Age word art. Doesn't matter. Saying "this thing I have no personal knowledge of and only just read on the internet clearly means X" is just not a good angle to take, simply because you're basing it on assumption rather than fact.
@HiroAntagonist, if it was art they would've come forward and said so instead of hiding from negative media backlash due to this obviously sexist remark
@Donald Drumpf, Because anonymity isn't a thing anymore? Because there aren't street artists and art activists that don't hide their identities? Again, you're making a rather large assumption.
@HiroAntagonist, making people anonymously hate you isn't art it's trolling
@Donald Drumpf, I can think of a lot of people on the internet that would argue good trolling is itself an art. But now you're defining what's art, again from your perspective. That's the only point I'm trying to make: just because it can be taken multiple ways does not mean your way is definitive, because you have no hand in its creation. If da Vinci came up to you and explained the meaning behind one of his works, you could not simply say "You're wrong and I'm right."
@HiroAntagonist, I can have and will continue to do so
@Donald Drumpf, Hey man, if you're cool with looking like a major tool, good on you. Admitting it is always a helpful step.
@HiroAntagonist, if they're free to call their "art" art, then I'm just as free to call it "not art" or even "bullshlt sexist trash" and I'm just as right
@Donald Drumpf, As long as you tack "in my opinion" on the end, sure. Because opinions are neither right or wrong. However, if a person comes forward and states "this is the meaning" then your opinion doesn't matter, because now there's fact. Isn't language fun?
@HiroAntagonist, what do you think this sign means?
@HiroAntagonist, no in fact it isn't fun because brats like you can twist the original implied meaning of words into something completely different and unrelated
@Donald Drumpf, I'm not twisting anything. Do... Do you not know the difference between a fact and an opinion? That might explain a few things.
@Hamilton Porter, What I think doesn't really matter. The message isn't that objectionable to me, but I see why people wouldn't like it, and I understand why it would cause certain kinds of people to get their undies in a bunch. But as far as I know, it only means exactly what it says. There's no context to determine tone, no reasoning given, nothing to indicate it might be a quote. So it's hard to make a solid determination independent of the author(s).
@Donald Drumpf, in short, it's sexist solely because people take it as sexist, not because of the intent behind it?
@HiroAntagonist, I think the anonymity is what is causing the commotion. If you have been misinterpreted it's imperative you correct any misunderstanding. Don't you think? Especially after such an uproar.
@Hamilton Porter, Unless the uproar is the intention. There's not any evidence to suggest that in this case, nor any to suggest otherwise. But some people like to strike matches just to watch them burn.
@HiroAntagonist, this sign is like me saying "I want to be just like Hitler when I grow up, white pwr!" what you're saying as that as soon as any scrutiny is thrown at what I said, I can be like "oh my bad lol. I meant that Hitler is a good example of a charismatic leader"
@HiroAntagonist, so it's fair to presume anything. And if anything can be presumed, then no presumption is wrong. And in that case Drumpf can call it how he sees it. That's a very expensive match by the way. But I don't see any other reason for striking it other than the reason you've stated.
@Corpsman , Sort of. That particular statement doesn't have any way it can be taken other than bad. But you're right, essentially. And then I as a viewer could have my view of "no, you're racist and horrible and genocidal based on my opinion." My opinion is still valid. But because I didn't make it, I cannot say "this was clearly intended to be XYZ"
@Hamilton Porter, Money can't buy common sense. And no, as I've stated, opinions aren't right or wrong. But stating something as a definitive fact is not the same as stating an opinion. That's the distinction I was going for.
@HiroAntagonist, the evidence you want of intent to uproar, is that it's a billboard. Someone payed good money to post that where everyone, all types, could see. Either the poster is incredibly naive, or trolling.
@TheHippie52, Let me just toss this out as a hypothetical: If this wasn't about "traditional" gender roles, but pro-trans rights or gay marriage or some other thing, that's likely going to anger a significant number of people, right?
@HiroAntagonist, well you would have to continue the tone of the billboard, so your hypothetical would have to be a softball version of "Adam and even not Adam and Steve". Yea it would upset ppl
@TheHippie52, No, I meant something *for* trans rights or gay marriage. Something that is the opposite of this, basically, given in the same sort of neutral tone but can be taken pro and con. I don't keep up with the hashtags but "#loveislove" or something.
That would make a lot of people mad, the opposite kinds of people as this. Does that make it trolling? Because suddenly it agrees perfectly with your point of view while also angering people that don't share your view. What would you call it?
@HiroAntagonist, your hypothetical is flawed, there are laws and unfair regulations against trans and gay marriage. There's no law or injustice with a woman providing for a man.
This billboard suggests traditional gender rolls are the way it should be. If you take the time and money to creat this billboard you either firmly believe that and want to spread that opinion (which is naive to believe that's the only way it should be) or your doing it to trigger feminists (trolling)
It's just another naive fool getting everyone worked up. Subconscious trolling
@The Chemist, Yeah, but it's not like you could trust women, anyway. They'll just cheat on you. What else could you expect?
@The Chemist, the problem is that it strongly implies women should not be financially independent of men.
@HiroAntagonist, The problem is that societies fundamentally operate on various things being "widely known." "Society" knows that men providing for women is a known "thing," it's not something someone pulled out of their aśs just for this billboard. So, when you say something like this, without explicitly stating that it should be taken otherwise, it is *implied* to be taken as a statement in favor of traditional gender roles. Consequently, saying that there's not necessarily anything wrong with this is not only naive, but kind of excusing the perpetrators of the blame. It can reasonably be assumed they knew exactly how this would be taken, because this trope is common knowledge.
@The Chemist, Side note to the above comment: this is why people consider it bullshìt when a politician says "oh I didn't mean it *THAT* way.." They're just covering their áss and talking their way out of it, but we all basically know they knew what they were saying. (Ex: almost anytime trump has a controversy, and kellyanne conway bullshíts her way out of every motherfücking conversation.)
@Donald Drumpf, You mean, like when a husband works his balls off for his wife when she's home on leave because she's the only one in the relationship who can get pregnant? Shouldn't she appreciate that her husband is providing for her?
@TheHippie52, You answer my question without meaning to, in as roundabout a way as possible. My point is, if a person agrees with the statement, it's wonderful and/or brave and/or laudable. If a person disagrees with the statement, it's hateful and/or trolling and/or offensive. That's it, it's based entirely on subjective perception, not objective fact.
@abossassbitch, Like Paul can reasonably assume that since Karen wears such right skirts and bends over a lot and laughs at his jokes and touches his shoulder it's totally fine to smack her backside when she walks by?
An extreme example for a point that's separate from what I was originally trying to say, yes, but still.
I'm honestly not convinced that there wasn't a fair bit of ignorance. Considering the number of ridiculous religious or pro-life billboards I drive by in my own state that have never been posted on the internet (widely, at least) the person(s) maybe legitimately not have thought it would garner this attention.
@Donald Drumpf, Or perhaps it is a psychological test. It only means what you interpret it as. To some it may be sexist. To some it may not. I thought of it like this at first, perhaps the first part is a message to all those useless fathers that abandon and don't take care of their kids. And the second part is a message to all those useless mothers that try to bash and take advantage of good fathers that do provide for their kids.
Perspective is everything. For example, I find it quite funny when parents complain about certain jokes in kids movies being dirty. Truth is that it is only dirty if you have a smutty mind and see it that way. Young kids usually don't see those jokes like that. For example, go back and watch some of your favorite kids movies when you become an adult and see what jokes you never noticed before.
@Donald Drumpf, isnt it possible that the company that put up the billboard realized to late the dangers of a special snowflake storm. And in order to save face want to remain anonymous?
@BlazingBowman, if it was an advertisement they would've left a name number or website
@Donald Drumpf, not neccesarrilly it couldve been a spoiler of sorts. Like a teaser for an upcomming movie. They do that stuff sometimes.
@HiroAntagonist, But that's not just an extreme example, it's a bad/ unrelated one. My point was that these things are common knowledge. Your example would assume that it's common knowledge that it's ok to sexually touch someone just because of what they wear and such. On the contrary, it's pretty well known at this point by people who aren't assholes that clear consent is necessary, which your example does not have. Similarly, people who aren't assholes know that statement is sexist and problematic, though you could argue I guess that there are subsets of the population who are sexist and think that's fine? But those aren't the majority.
What does it fvcking matter? I drive by religious billboards saying that I'm going to hell all the time and I don't try to start sh!t over it. Get over yourselves
@Thegirlfriendsshirt, It's about hurt fweelings.
@K2S0, looks like someone's triggered
Who cares if women might get hurt feelings. They will never see it as long as this isn't between their kitchen and bedroom.
Down with Pat Riarchy!
@Doctor Krieger, Can't tell if autocorrected form of patriarchy, or reference I don't know..
@abossassbitch, neither. It's satire about how feminists personify the idea of patriarchy as if it was a malevolent hive-mind being.
Basically, this Pat Riarchy prick is somehow oppressing all women by means unknown.
Does that mean trannies can't provide or appreciate?
@Sexy Homunculus, Of course they can’t, they could’t appreciate what they were given at birth so they fuсking mutilated it. As a result, they can provide no offspring to the human race.
Lol good thing there's no such thing as "real" women and men, we're all just garbage meat popsicles
I'm sure they just did it so people would talk. Right on cue, people.
Dammit, North Carolina! You're my home state! You're better than this!
@Scott Sterling, DON'T LISTEN TO SCOTT NC!! SCOTT'S A DJCK!!
@Professor Xavier, At least I can feel mine, Baldy.
@Scott Sterling, Are you sure? (Invades your mind).
@Professor Xavier, -puts on tinfoil hat- What now, Professor?
@Scott Sterling, Dam it!
Why would they give out their name, when chicken shts like you would go after them, just to punish them? Nick, hang yourself please?
@Professor Xavier, ya'know... im going to go out on a limb here and say i don't think he uses this app. Just a thought.
@Benbezzler, Wow really???????????????????????????? Gee, I'm glad you clarified that for me sir!
@Professor Xavier, oh gee I don't know it's almost like bad people deserve punishment or something
@Donald Drumpf, How is it bad when you tell people to appreciate each other?
@Donald Drumpf, oh gee I don't know it's almost like the freedom of speech exist to protect people no matter how bad something they say is unless it advocates for violence.
@DeadStroke, STOP! His mind is to weak to handle such logic. I have sensed an unsuppressed amount of stupidity coming from him. I'm afraid it may be to late.😔
@Professor Xavier, You don’t get to talk about stupidity when you can’t even differentiate the words “to” and “too” you fuсking dumbass.
@Professor Xavier, You are also a complete retard for using a long string of the same punctuation mark.
@Professor Xavier, You obviously have no idea who Mr. Offerman is. He is the definition of a man. You’re just a limp-dicked pussy fаggot.
ANOTHER UN-FUNNY COMEDIAN GETTING POLITICAL! WHY, THIS IS A FIRST!
Yeah, pretty much.
That moment a professional troll finds a new medium to feed off of
Of course they don't want to be identified. People are pieces of shot. You can be tortured for several days for being white because trump won a democratic election. Fvck this planet
This has to be one of the most successful trolls in a while. Millions of self righteous people are pissed off at each other
Deal with it