Anyone who takes depictions like that seriously, remember, does so at their own peril. :-)
An ad that fails to connect with its selected demographic does not sell anything.
These ads began in the late '80's, early '90's, and coincided with Media stories (Lovingly told by the Boston Globe), such as Willow, a Vice President at Digital Equipment, summarily firing all the men, or, in the Fortune 500 in which I worked, being told by a manager with a Hillary hairdo that "All White males need to pay for years of discrimination toward minorities and women".
There was a cultural shift toward man-hate at that time, or beginning then, as the Wellesly College lesbians were emboldened by the Hillary election. This has been subtly reinforced since, and unfortunatley there are enough willing or compliant dolts among the males to feed this agenda forever. Boy-hate Tshirts being worn by girls appeared. Plastic guns were outlawed. Teaching "there is no difference between boys and girls", until, the very manager who spouted the man-hate at me became a parent of a girl and then a boy. Then, she observed, marvelling, that there really IS a difference! Amazing!!
Indeed, and like I said, anyone who seriously beleives this does so at their own peril.
I take a firm & unapologetic posture with these types. If they have convinced themselves that I (as a male coworker, for example) do not contribute much, then it's incumbent upon me to live up (or live down) to that standard.
That is, I won't come to the resuce, for example, when I am needed the most. That goes for professional and personal life, in my case. And it's not about sex, either, as I treat the men who take a condescending posture with me the same way.
That is, if I am a buffoon, idiot, neanderthal, etc (because of my politics, sex, or whatever), it seems to be I can't meaningfully assist anyone else without running the risk of screwing matters up even more.
So I refrain from contributing. It's only fair.
I have said numerous times on this forum and others that, on balance, liberals benefit from their personal and professional relationships with conservatives more than conservatives benefit from their relationships with liberals.
They use our nobility against us - it really is time to let them fend for their own: the weakest will fail, but they deserve it, and the rest will suffer for a spell but maight realize that they can't behave that way with impunity.
In other words, it's our personal responsibility to pubush the liberals in this way. Indeed, the reason they are so bold and brazen is that we as a culture failed to punish them for their bad behavior.
When you fail to punish bad behavior, you get more of it. That's exactly what he have now.
"Teaching 'there is no difference between boys and girls', until, the very manager who spouted the man-hate at me became a parent of a girl and then a boy. Then, she observed, marvelling, that there really IS a difference! Amazing!!"
Leftist celebrity-thing Rosie O'Donnell came to the same conclusion. When she adopted her boy and girl, she said she tried to get the boy to play with the doll and the girl to play with the truck, but when she came back they were back to the traditional behavior.
First, imagine how much damage has been done to millions of children by misguided leftists who try to change WHAT THEY ARE. And they claim to be the ones who are tolerant and respectful.
As to the anti-male commercials, it's pretty simple, really. At its base is the anti-family attitude of the radical left. How radical? To the point that Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto called for its abolition. Really? Yep... listen:
"Abolition of the family! Even the most radical flare up at this infamous proposal of the Communists." (p. 87, Pocket Books paperback edition)
Marx goes on to criticize the family as a structure resulting from economic forces, to the point of suggesting that it is the result of the class struggle. Never mind that even higher animals have a family structure, with father, mother and children. I suppose Marx would say that's because the alpha male gorilla had more bananas than the beta.
The left knows that if you want to destroy an institution, whether it be the family, an organization, the military, or even a nation, one of the best ways is to undermine confidence in the leadership. Make him look like an incompetent dolt. Convince those under his authority that they could do a much better job, and encourage them to usurp that authority. This is the very definition of revolution. Have any of you fathers seen this process in your homes?
As destructive as it is, revolution might be relegated to pot-addled ramblings in Berkeley dorm rooms if it weren't receiving support from some very powerful institutions in our society. In the case of commercials it is obviously the advertising industry. While some may wonder why that bastion of capitalism is seemingly slitting its own throat, one has to look no further than the likes of George Soros to find the explanation. A man of great wealth supporting the most leftist Senator in America for president.
A dichotomy? Not at all. Marxism is the ultimate vehicle for the greedy, because once you abolish private property, someone has to control the means of production. And guess who stands at the ready to humbly accept that call.
Woah, wait a minute! Who said anything about abolishing private property? I'll put up with a commercial or two calling me an idiot, but I'll be jiggered if you're gonna take my truck! Well, get comfortable, Joe Sixpack...there's more.
Marx's destructive wish-list doesn't stop with the family. It includes "abolition of private property" (p. 82), "countries and nationality" (p. 90), and even the most fundamental principles of a society, "eternal truths, all religion and all morality" (p. 92).
The mechanisms include "a heavy progressive income tax", creation of a "national bank", and "free education for all" (p. 94), none of which existed in the U.S. when the Manifesto was published in 1848. And none of which were included in the enumerated powers of the Federal government in the Constitution, making them illegal under the 10th Amendment.
But we have them now. How? You can research the specifics yourselves, but it was always the result of the actions of the left or their "useful idiots".
Returning to today, the erosion of the family, whether it be anti-male commercials, the push for the acceptance of homosexual marriage, or any one of the other thousand tactics used by the left, is at its root nothing less than another of the goals of Marxism to destroy fundamental institutions of a society to replace them with their own.
Regardless of the smaller battles, that has been the political war for decades. All that is left to resolve is which principles will win.