Mr. Rebates

Monday, September 2, 2013

Food Court Proposal Gone Bad

This is not fake this women wakes away and humiliates her man. Why do Men always fall prey to such women and take such behavior? Women say they believe in equality, so when will they get on one knee and propose to their Man? 

Marriage Proposal Ends Terribly!

Whether this is real or fake this is not the way a women should treat a man, this is abusive behavior. That is an assault and battery. 
This just shows how Violence against Men is on the rise and women and society in general think this its just a Joke. 

Saturday, August 31, 2013

My wife wants to destroy me, says Om Puri

Om Puri, who has been accused of physical abuse by wife Nandita Puri, says he is the victim
Wednesday, Aug 28, 2013

Actor OM Puri’s wife Nandita Puri has  filed a complaint alleging domestic violence against her husband. 
She has also alleged that Om is “absconding”. However on Monday night he was as accessible and 
forthright as ever.
Sounding deeply wounded but unvanquished by the serious allegation he  said, “I’ve been shooting  
the entire day. If Nandita says I am absconding then I am afraid she is speaking of a situation I am 
not aware of. I have nothing to hide. I don’t need to run away.”
Shocked and embarrassed by the latest in the series of allegations levelled at him by his wife, Om says,
“I don’t even know what domestic violence means. Because I’ve never indulged in it. If anyone, I am 
the victim here, not she.

Only I  know how I’ve suffered all these years just to safeguard and protect my son Ishaan from the 
consequences of my broken marriage.”

But enough, says Om, now. “I’ve taken enough. I can’t any more. My wife wants to destroy me. 
I can’t let her. I’ve responsibilities towards myself, my son and others who are dependent on me.

She thinks she can accuse me of anything and gain sympathy because the laws in this country 
are heavily weighed in favour of women, and  rightly so considering the rise in incidents of violence 
against women in our society.
But the same laws are also misused by privileged vengeful wives who want to destroy their husband’s 
career and life.”
Om  says he won’t allow Nandita to mess with his reputation anymore. “She accuses me of violence. 
I don’t even stay in our flat together anymore. I’ve been living in a humble flat while she lives like a queen 
in the terrace flat, the first home that I bought with my hard-earned money.”
Here, Om’s voice gives way and he breaks down. “I’ve toiled incessantly for 40 years, given my wife and 
son the best life possible. And this is what I get in return?”
He concludes,  “I’ve taken all the pain and humiliation for our son’s sake. But now I’ve reached 
breaking point. I am shortly calling a press conference to clear my name. I am supposed to travel  to 
Europe in a few days to shoot for my next international project. If this ugly allegation prevents me from 
travelling for my work then I promise you, there will be hell to pay.”

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Marriage law: The 'Inter Continental Ballistic Missile' of a Bill

The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, approved by the Rajya Sabha on Monday, has long been pegged the 'Intercontinental Continental Ballistic Missile' (ICBM) Bill by protesting men's groups, for its inclusion of the 'Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage (IBM)' clause as a valid condition for divorce. 

Virag Dhulia, a men's rights activist and head of gender studies at the Bangalore-based Confidare Research says, "The Rajya Sabha has betrayed us. We now hope the Lok Sabha MPs will not let us down." Men's groups like Dhulia's partnered with Men's Rights Association, Pune and have been protesting the Bill for months now. In December 2012 they led a rally to Jantar Mantar and courted detention on May 1, 2013 en route the Prime Minister's residence. Their objections to the Bill are that it will blindly give away property in the name of marriage, that men will stop marrying to prevent this, thus destabilizing the institution of marriage. 

"Whichever country has these clauses also has supportive laws like a legalization of pre-nuptial agreements, which India doesn't have. India is cherry picking laws that suit them, which can prove disastrous. In 2011, China rolled back a law like this because men had stopped marrying and stopped buying property" Dhulia warns. 

But the Bill is in fact far reaching and thought out over a period of decades. The first proposals for amendments to the Hindu Marriage Act came from the Law Commission in 1978. Two more Law Commission reports, several Supreme Court Judgements and after much debate among invested parties led by women's groups like Majlis, the Bill has been tabled. 

Chakshu Roy, head of technology initiatives at PRS Legislative Research, New Delhi says, "The Law Commission and the Supreme Court have on a number of occasions recommended the inclusion of irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for divorce. The Law Commission suggested that before a divorce is granted on this ground, the court should ensure adequate financial arrangements have been made for the parties and children. The Bill incorporates these suggestions and introduces this ground for divorce and makes financial provision for the wife and children."

What the Bill essentially says is that there are certain conditions based on which either the husband or wife can apply for divorce. These are cruelty, medical reasons such as communicable diseases, mental illnesses, desertion. The Bill essentially sought to correct the lacuna that arose from the need to dissolve the marriage in the eventuality that none of these stand i.e. the dissolution of marriage due to an organic breakdown. 

The Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage clause allows a woman or a man to exit on the premise that she is unfulfilled or unhappy in a marriage after a three year period of separation. The wife also bears the right to block a divorce thrust upon her if she can prove she will be in grave financial hardship. The Bill will also allow the court to consider a waiver of the 6-18 month lock-in period for couples who file by mutual consent.

A huge triumph, points out activist and head of women's group Majlis, Flavia Agnes, is the Bill's determination of the compensation due to the wife. In doing so, the Bill now allows the court to take into account inherited and inheritable properties. This becomes a crucial factor in cases where husbands are able to sell off properties in their name and prove they have no assets, leaving the wife without compensation.  

Men's groups protest this clause saying it allows women to divorce a man after five days and "clean him out". Agnes dismisses concerns stating that women have gotten the short end of the stick for far too long.

A lot of the debate has been ill-informed. Advocates state that the court will consider many factors while making such a decision. As any nuclear armed country knows, setting off a missile isn't so simple, there are many check points.

Bombay High Court asks sessions court to decide on bail plea of former Miss World Yukta Mookhey's hubby!

What will the average women learn from this? Former Miss World puts false 498a on her husband, this women is worst then a beast. What should society do with such women? 

Observing that harassment and cruelty cannot be a one off incident and has to be a continuous offence, Bombay High Court on Wednesday directed the sessions court to take appropriate decision on anticipatory bail plea filed by Prince Tuli, estranged husband of former Miss World Yukta Mookhey .

Yukta had on July 3 filed a case against her husband, parents-in-law and sisters-in-law under sections 498A (cruelty), 406 (criminal breach of trust). She had also levelled allegations under section 377 (unnatural sex) against Prince.
Prince and his family had then approached the sessions court seeking anticipatory bail. The sessions court had granted them interim protection from arrest and posted the matter for hearing on August 30.

Aggrieved by this, Yukta approached the High Court. "The sessions court while granting him interim relief observed that the probe is at a preliminary stage and hence it would not go into the merits of the case but in its order the court said that after perusing the complaint it feels harassment case is not made out," Yukta's advocate Pradeep Havnur said.

Justice S S Jadhav today directed the sessions court to finally hear and decide the anticipatory bail plea on August 30. "It appears that the sessions court judge has not taken into consideration that 498 (a) (harassment) is a continuous offence," the court said disposing of the petition.

The court also took note of the fact that before filing an FIR under section 498(A), Mookhey had filed 15 NC (non cognisable) offence with the suburban Amboli police.

"When no investigation was done on her NCs she was constrained to file an FIR," Justice Jadhav said.

The court also queries as to why Havnur did not point this out to the sessions court. "You could have pointed out that this is not the first time and she has been suffering like this since long. It is a continuous offence," the court said.

Havnur said Yukta had been threatened both prior and after lodging of FIR.

In 2008, Yukta married Prince, whose family has a transport and hospitality business in Nagpur. She has been staying with her parents and three-year-old son since a year.

Monday, July 22, 2013

What A Wonderful World!: Get Raped In Dubai And You'll Serve 16 Months In Prison

July 21, 2013
A court in Dubai has sentenced a young Norwegian woman, Marte Deborah Dalelv, to 16 months in jail after she brought charges of rape against a colleague. Dismissing her allegations, the court saw fit instead to find her guilty of drinking alcohol and wanting the sex that she alleged was forced upon her. Meanwhile she was fired by her Qatar-born employer, the interior designer Wissam al Mana, who is otherwise known as Janet Jackson’s latest husband. (See postscript below for a statement from al Mana’s company.)
The circumstances are complicated but, after listening to an interview Dalelv has given to Ritula Shah of the Media Service, I haven’t the slightest doubt she is the victim of a grotesque miscarriage of justice: not only is she telling the truth but the Dubai court knows it. As for her colleague, he is probably a local man though he seems not to have been named in English-language accounts. You can listen to the podcast here (the interview is about 9 minutes into the program). Here and here are some other useful links. Why would the victim of a terrible crime receive a jail sentence? Asia is not America, and for me, as someone who has spent 27 years watching the world from a vantage point in East Asia, the episode illustrates in microcosm an obvious and profoundly troubling fact: globalism is a one-word  oxymoron. It has never made sense and probably never will. Cultures are different and, in their attitude to truth and human rights, the many brands of Asian culture are particularly remote from Western expectations.
Certainly, all American wishful thinking to the contrary, the world is NOT converging to American values. Yes, of course, more and more consumers around the world are drinking Coca-Cola and eating Big Macs. But this is a superficial observation that says nothing about any values worth the name.
Of course, Dubai, which is the most populous constituent of the United Arab Emirates, seems on a superficial view to be highly Westernized. A more accurate description is that Dubai is highlyeconomically advanced. It is home, for instance, to major regional operations of such U.S. corporations as Hewlett-Packard, EMC Corporation, Oracle Corporation, Microsoft, and IBM. It also boasts the world’s tallest building, the 163-floor Burj Khalifa. Meanwhile the Emirates airline, which is based in Dubai, counts, on some measures, not only as the world’s largest international carrier but the world’s best (it was so designated a few months ago by the British consultancy, Skytrax).
But Dubai’s official religion is Islam — and not a particularly liberal brand. This means that Westerners are tolerated only under sufferance. Western women in particular are not always welcome. This despite the fact that Dubai features one of the most disturbingly imbalanced male-female ratios in world history: in the overall population, males outnumber females more than three to one. The ratio for adults is probably even more imbalanced. The only foreign women who seem to be welcome are prostitutes, particularly Russian and Indian ones. Other foreign women enter Dubai at their own risk and woe betide them if they rock the boat. The status of ordinary decent local women in Dubai is powerfully symbolized by the fact that wives can be beaten with impunity so long as no marks are left.
Justice in an American sense does not exist. For me the characteristically Asian aspect of Marte Deborah Dalelv’s fate is that she has been indicted on a “crime” – drinking alcohol – that is widely tolerated among other foreign residents of Dubai. Basically she is a victim of a principle I call “selective enforcement.” It is a principle that is observable in many parts of Asia (see my books on Japan and China for a fuller account). The idea is that though a lot of things are nominally illegal, they are widely tolerated – provided only you don’t rock the boat on issues that matter more to the authorities. The tax system in many East Asian nations provides an example. Although taxes are ostensibly high, the authorities turn a blind eye to some types of evasion – provided only taxpayers show “discretion” on what really matters. One example that can be succinctly described is the South Korean government’s policy (one learned from Japan in a previous era) on foreign cars. There are no import barriers – absolutely none, except that the tax authorities make a policy of auditing  anyone who buys a foreign car. In a nation where much of the tax code is considerable “optional,” this elegantly end-runs American pressure to open the market.
The larger point here is that Eastern and Western cultures are mutually incompatible. Rudyard Kipling made the point more than a century ago: “Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.”
My bet is that, on appeal, Marte Deborah Dalelv will be shown some leniency. But for globalism, the Asians will never cut much slack. This applies in spades to the naïve American view that globalization and Americanization are somehow the same thing (thank you George H. W. Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, and, of course, Thomas L. Friedman). Asians are incandescent with rage at such casual cultural imperialsm but, being Asians, rarely give any explicit indication of their anger. They expect people to read between the lines.

I have now received an official statement from Al Mana’s company. See below.
(July 20, 2013) – “We are sympathetic to Marte Dalelv during this very difficult situation. Al Mana Interiors has repeatedly offered Marte support and company representatives were by her side throughout the initial investigation and police interviews, and spent days at both the police station and the prosecutor’s office to help win her release.
“Company representatives have been supportive and in communication with Marte throughout her ordeal. Only when Ms. Dalelv declined to have positive and constructive discussions about her employment status, and ceased communication with her employer, was the company forced to end our relationship with her. The decision had nothing to do with the rape allegation, and unfortunately neither Ms. Dalelv nor her attorneys have chosen to contact the company to discuss her employment status.
“We continue to be open to helping Ms. Dalelv and extending her resources during the Dubai legal process. We are hopeful that we can resume a positive discussion about the assistance she needs during this difficult time.”

Tuesday, July 9, 2013

Prince and his entire family have a psychological problem: Yukta Mookhey

Jul 9, 2013
Yukta Mookhey got married to Prince Tuli from Nagpur in November 2008. She had visited Nagpur during the promotion of her film Memsaab during June-July 2008 when she stayed at his family-owned hotel, Tuli International. 

They met each other via people at their hotel and did not exchange numbers initially, but he got her number and they spoke and met a couple of times, met her parents in Mumbai and they agreed to marry soon thereafter. Four years into their marriage, she moved back to Mumbai into her parents' house and filed a case of domestic violence against Prince and his family on July 4th, 2012. On May 16, 2013 he filed an application for divorce. She has subsequently registered an FIR for domestic violence and unnatural sex against him. She exclusively spoke to the Media about what led her to take this drastic step. Excerpts from the conversation:

When did you first realise there was a problem in your marriage?
Initially when I met him, I obviously had no reason to doubt him. But problems started within the first month of our marriage. Now when I look back, there are things that seem obvious, but at that stage they did not seem odd. For instance, my sister-in-law interrogated me in a hotel till 3 am about how much I earned, what I planned to do with my life, what kind of marriage I would give, what I would do with my money after marriage, whether or not I would give it to my husband or my in-laws, whose name both my Mumbai flats were in, etc. There is a healthy way of asking, but this was covertly done. Usually when the boy and girl are compatible, this does not happen. While Prince is 31, his sister and I are the same age and are 34. She lives in Mumbai with her kids and was probably therefore given the task of interviewing me. Meeting a family person when you are contemplating marriage is fine, but it was different interviewing someone till 3 in the morning in the way it was done. Prince had once asked me, 'How does it feel to get married into a family where everyone has mistresses?' I had dismissed it, thinking it to be ridiculous.

They are wealthy people. Why would they be interested in your money?
So it seems, but I had different experiences. They may have disposable income, but if you can't make use of your culture, education and values, what's the point ? I never asked him how much money he makes or the details of his family business. In contrast, I was asked why my husband has not been given control of my flats and never even had a joint account with him.

What do you think was his problem with you?
The more I am away from the situation, I have instropected and calmed down and believe that not just Prince, but his whole family have a psycological problem. He lost his older brother to drugs and alcoholism about two years back. Prince, of course, has a very violent streak. If he gets angry for a certain thing, then he doesn't know what he is doing and you can't reason with him. It's difficult for a wife to create understanding with a man who, at the drop of a hat, will lose his temper. And if you don't get intimidated by his threats, then he will sexually and physically assault you. I lived in Nagpur for about four years during which time, I tried my best to adjust into the new family, a new city and a new way of life. I was not allowed to work and therefore, stayed at home. But the more I was adjusting to be a devoting caring wife and being a dedicated mother, the more and more acrimonious the environment seemed to be getting.

Being from the glamour world, I thought I was well-dressed, but if I was not dressed to his taste when we went out for evening get-togethers, he would denigrate me. I accepted it as my husband's critical view and tried to look better. If you denegrate your wife before she steps out of the house and physically assaultd her in the car and then expect her to have a smiling and happy face outside, how long can it work out? My in-laws would accuse me of not smiling in front of their relatives. I have been spiritual from the age of 13 and would visit my guru's ashram in Ganeshpuri, an hour-and-a-half from Mumbai. I started reading up books on relationships, did my meditation and gave it my best shot. They are Sikhs and even accused me of wanting to convert everyone into a Hindu.

Why did you resort to separation?
It reached a point where he was threatening to take my child away from me, was threatening me for life, and for money.

Why would he want money from you?
He would often travel to Mumbai on the pretext of work. I had seen messages from girls to him and had seen him behave in a certain way with girls at parties. So, to avoid my mind getting disturbed, I stopped questioning him about his work in Mumbai. I would tell my father-in-law that my friends in Mumbai had seen him in Mumbai with girls till five in the morning, drunk. He got socially involved with Amit Mehra (son of late Prakash Mehra) who offered him to be a co-producer in Zanjeer for a sum of `1 crore. I did not know much about the film business, but strongly advised him against it even though my father-in-law thought that I was the one instigating him to invest. There was a big spat between Prince and his father where Prince got shooters in civil clothes and had a huge fight with his father. Prince pressurised me to give him one of my flats for raising the money which I refused. Apparently, he had access to one of his father's accounts from where he did transfer some money to Amit's account. (Reportedly, Amit Mehra too ran into trouble with his brothers as he was unable to pay up the money for the title of Zanjeer). My husband went berserk threatening me, my parents and his father to give him the money. I had no choice but to leave my matrimonial home and come back to Mumbai to my parents. But Prince continued his threats to me and many of my relatives.

He would say, 'We are powerful people and know how to buy out the judiciary. All the ministers are in our pockets, I will get your entire family killed in accidents.' Inspite of his threats, we tried to reason with his parents if he could sit down and discuss it. I always tried to calm him down and find a way to deal with it. I remember his parents also thought that due to his drugs and alcohol problem, he too, had a psychological problem and also went to a counsellor. The only strength that kept me going is my guru's teachings, which helped me let go and forgive.

Is he attached to your son?
He was not involved as a father. Neither during my pregnancy nor after Ahhreyn was born. He physically traumatised and manhandled the child, which is never in favour of the welfare of a kid. He has abused me mentally, socially and emotionally and would yell at me in front of the kid throwing him around. He calls even now from different numbers abusing me and my parents and threatening me but has not once asked about him.

Were your parents supportive of you?
Initially, they were not and always pushed me to adjust. But he would say to my parents, 'If your daughter does not please me, then I will go out and do what I want to'. Their family has a tradition of having mistresses. My parents were summoned to Nagpur several times and were told about how they did not give adequate gifts during my marriage. They have a fleet of cars, but still I was accused of not bringing my car from Mumbai. It's never about the money, it was about the control and making me lose my independence. Once my parents were also with me, that too bothered them. Even though my sister-in-law had two maids, I was not given a maid for four years and would do everything for my son myself.

Where do you stand today emotionally?
I wish I had found this one moment of courage during those four years. You go through so much abuse. In every profile of an abuser you will find that the woman is always made to feel guilty and she is told that she deserves the treatment she has received. You feel psychologically paralysed. My spirituality and my son are the only two things that have helped me keep my sanity. In Nagpur, I was always gripped by fear and would fear seeing the watch turn 12 knowing that he would get up and start misbehaving. I want my son to see me strong and will fight for my son's rights and mine against people who think that they can buy off the judiciary and the ministry in this country and can intimidate a woman who has a public image by trying to defame her. I have faith in the judiciary and stand as a spiritually strong woman with no malice, anger or resentment against Prince or his family. I have threats to my life and the life of my son. Being a mother has transformed me from being a headstrong person to a loving person. We recently received an application that my mother-in-law is going through chemotherapy. I have reached a state of forgiveness and compassion and have told the cops that given that she is an elderly person, I don't want to inconvenience her in any way. Prince is an MBA and has worked at JP Morgan in New York and lived in the US for 10 years. Yet inspite of his education and the restraining orders from the High Court on July 4th, 2012, restraining him from talking to the media against my image, we continue to live in the fear of his threats on our lives.

Tuesday, July 2, 2013

7 Mistakes Clorox Made in Taking a Swipe at New Dads

Clorox, makers of bleach and many other consumer products, just came out with a clever article called “6 Mistakes New Dads Make.” The article gleefully tells us that “Like dogs or other house pets, new Dads are filled with good intentions but lacking the judgment and fine motor skills to execute well.” And that’s just in the first paragraph. The rest of the article is so condescending and insulting that it’s hard to know where to start tearing it apart. So, in no particular order, here are 7 colossal mistakes Clorox made by publishing that article.
  1. They’re alienating potential consumers. With $5.5 billion in annual sales, you’d think that Clorox would have noticed that men–especially dads–are accounting for a growing share of household purchases. That’s true in traditional households (whatever that means), but it’s doubly true in households where at-home dads are making the majority of day-to-day purchasing decisions, and in single-dad-headed households–a fast-growing demographic–where dads are making 100% of the purchases. Even if Clorox used the ridiculously outdated statistic that women account for 80% of purchasing, that still leaves 20%–a whopping $1.1 billion worth of Clorox products that men are buying. $1.1 billion that Clorox is apparently willing to walk away from. I’m sure Clorox shareholders aren’t going to be too happy that the company just played Russian Roulette with a fifth of its annual sales. And lost.
  2. They’re alienating existing customers. I’ve done a lot of research and writing about the portrayals of fathers in the media. And a number of advertising execs told me that they ridiculed dads because women don’t like to be ridiculed and would never stand for it. There’s another factor at work here, too. Fatherhood is a women’s issue. Moms want their partners to be more involved and they want to see images of involved men. Women, probably more than any other group, understand the power of media messages and advertising to shape our consciousness. Many countries have banned ultra-thin models because there’s a direct connection between images of the “ideal” woman and eating disorders. the words “mailmen” and “policemen” have been replaced by “mail carriers.” We talk about “the men and women of the armed forces,” despite the fact that women account for less than 20% of military. We do all this because we want our daughters to grow up knowing they can be and do anything that boys can. Bottom line, women are going to be pretty ticked that Clorox is telling everyone that dads are useless and stupid. Useless, stupid dads aren’t involved dads. And women want involved dads.
  3. They’re falling back on old, old, old (and never accurate) stereotypes about men. According to Clorox, we’re too dumb to take their babies in from the rain. We’re so out of touch with life that we can’t tell whether our children’s clothes fit. We’re so blind that we won’t notice “the caked-on layer of dried yellowish crust (applesauce? sweet potato? Play-Doh?) surrounding Baby’s mouth and spattered baby food onto her bib.” And we’re so irresponsible that we’ll pop open a cold one, plop the baby down to eat dinner off the floor, and watch endless hours of inappropriate TV. (We’re also apparently so illiterate that we’d never think to “embrace parental sacrifice and crack open a book”).
  4. They’re incredibly sexist. Imagine an article on a major financial services company’s website that spent a few hundred words talking about how girls aren’t good at math, how women can’t park cars or balance their checkbooks, that diamonds are a girl’s best friend and how all they want in life is to marry a rich guy, and how life was so much better when females were in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.
  5. They don’t understand irony. The idiot who wrote that article–and the team of even bigger idiots who signed off on it–clearly understand the power of media messages: Dads, they say, “have been inspired by raunchy comedies to bring babies to inappropriate places like casinos, pool halls, and poetry readings. None of these places are healthy for baby.” Okay, let’s assume that’s true. Wouldn’t it follow that those same dads might be so disturbed by how they’re being portrayed on the company’s website that they’d never want to buy a Clorox product again? Hmm.
  6. They assume that all dads behave the same way and that all readers of their web content will find humor where there really isn’t any. It doesn’t take a marketing genius to tell you that treating a group as large as fathers or mothers or men or women as a single demographic is incredibly naive–and incredibly bad for the bottom line.
  7. They underestimated how offended people would beAnd by “people” I mean everyone except employees of Clorox.
Thanks for the memories, Clorox, because as of right now, any of your products I might have around the house are going to be exactly that. Tossed out and replaced with the Costco brand.

Clorox hate-speech ad smears fathers as clueless dogs; boycott Burt's Bees products

July 01, 2013

Have you had enough yet of the dad bashing frequently seen in the media? According to sitcoms and TV commercials, men are complete idiots who wouldn't even know how to put their own underwear on straight if it weren't for their wives telling them how to do things.

Clorox jumped on the man-bashing bandwagon this week with an online advertising campaign so highly offensive that if it had targeted blacks instead of dads, it would have been called the most extreme example of corporate racism ever witnessed.

The ad begins by claiming dads "lack the judgment and fine motor skills" to take care of children, and it compares dads to dogs and other house pets in their sheer stupidity.

The ad then goes on to identify the "6 mistakes new dads make," each of which is an outrageous slur against all men. It claims, for example, that dads will put their baby's clothes on backwards and not be able to figure out why they don't fit.

The ad goes on to explain that dads allow their babies to "eat off the floor," and then they plop them down on the couch to "watch reality TV shows."

Even worse, Clorox somehow believed it was entirely appropriate for its marketing campaign to include this: "Some new dads have been inspired by raunchy comedies to bring babies to inappropriate places like casinos, pool halls, and poetry readings."

Here's also a screen shot of the online ad, before it was pulled by Clorox without explanation:

"So, to summarize," says a media editorial, "new dads give our kids dirty food and Play-Doh to spread all over their faces while watching 'Kardashians,' then put them in backward summer clothes in freezing weather, oblivious to their cries en route to a poetry slam. But you can't blame us, because of our perpetually beer-soaked state and canine-level motor skills."

Yep, dads are stupid morons, says Clorox. And they think it's hilarious to shove that message in your face. It's all part of the man-bashing bandwagon we're witnessing across the mainstream media.

Clorox customers outraged

Actual comments on the Clorox website:

What the heck are you THINKING, Clorox?

As a woman, a single mother, and a feminist, I find this "article" disturbing on so many levels. Perpetuating unfounded gender stereotypes is deplorable and insulting. Always.

Me want to comment but me two dum. Me MUST be male may bE evn noo dad.

Has the Clorox marketing department been in a bomb shelter since the 50s or something?

What in the almighty hell were you thinking by making fathers out to be giant dummies who can't figure out which end of the baby a diaper goes on? It's 2013, for pete's sake - do you really not realize that marginalizing 50% of a household ISN'T okay anymore?

Insulting on so many levels. I agree with the other responses and dads who have all weighed in. It wasn't even the slightest bit funny and as a stay at home dad who makes all the household purchases I will be more inclined to go with another brand since you think so little of my ability to make sound decisions. How is that for good judgment?

Message to Clorox: Your advertising and marketing team members are a bunch of @sshats

Can you imagine the outcry if this ad had been about WOMEN?




Here's how it would have read, using the exact words from Clorox:

"Like dogs or other house pets, BLACKS are filled with good intentions but lacking the judgment and fine motor skills to execute well." - Clorox.

"Prudence won't stop MEXICANS from relaxing with a brew and blaring inappropriate shows while baby stares in horror/awe/wonder at the colorful moving yell-box." - Clorox.

"Some GAYS have been inspired by raunchy comedies to bring babies to inappropriate places like casinos, pool halls, and poetry readings." - Clorox.

Suddenly the offensiveness of it all seems obvious, doesn't it? Now you see that the Clorox advertisement is classic hate speech against men.

These Clorox people are so clueless and hateful, they will probably soon run "Clorox n----r jokes" and laugh it up at the expense of innocent African Americans, too. I can already see the racist ads from the Clorox marketing team: "Hey n----rs, here's how to get your WHITES more WHITE!" (Because they're selling bleach, of course.)

If you find that last paragraph highly offensive, that's my whole point: Clorox did this to fathers of all colors, including blacks! And the company is so completely disconnected from reality that it somehow thought its hate speech was not just acceptable, but even entertaining. How sick is this, really?

Personally, I denounce racism, sexism, man bashing and corporate hate speech. I am never buying Clorox products again, and I recommend you join me in this boycott against corporate hate speech targeting men. I would take exactly the same position if Clorox attacked women, African Americans or anyone who is gay, too.

Boycott Burt's Bees, now owned by Clorox

Burt's Bees was purchased by Clorox in 2007. (Yes, it's true. Look it up.)

Media is announcing a boycott of all Clorox products, including Burt's Bees, for the remainder of 2013.

Stop rewarding this company with your dollars when they turn around and use that money to run hate speech ad campaigns that depict all dads as stupid morons.

Boycott Burt's Bees and Clorox beginning immediately.

Unless, of course, you support hate speech. Because while Clorox only targeted men in this ad campaign, tomorrow they may target women, or blacks, or short people, gays, or God forbid... undocumented immigrants!

Message to Clorox: Grow up! Get a clue! Targeting dads for hate speech is not acceptable, and it's not going to be tolerated in our society. Didn't you ever hear of something called the Civil Rights Movement?

Men are fed up with white males being the brunt of racist, gender-phobic insults like the one you recently publicized. Shame on you and may your upcoming financial losses remind you to think twice before attacking ANY group of human beings in future advertisements.