Real Women Don't Have to Fake It - Sarah Sanders

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just realized this is parodying the Real Men of Genius ad campaign. That’s… a deep cut.

Yes. It's a parody of a Bud ad. But it figures that DCUM's finest didn't pick up on that.

The Bud ad it’s parodying is like 20 years old.

And?

As I said, a deep cut. Not familiar to many people. Just a very weird thing to base this very weird video with its very weird message on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I kinda wish she would run for President, but Trump is running she won't, but hope in 2028 she runs and wins!!!

I think she would win in 2028, I voted for Mike in 2008 and he was smart, I am not sure why he didn't win, but I am sure she will be able to win. She did so much for Arkansas, she even did more than her dad did in his tenure as Governor.

Oh yeah, Ole Mike Huckabee was a real smart statesman!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfSN4fnXwKM

[Anonymous]

I don't know who this woman is, but after viewing the ad, I have to assume she is having a breakdown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sarah Sanders is the spokesperson for “real women”? Yikes.

More appropriate than Dylan Mulvaney.

And there aren’t 50 million women in between these two extremes? Sarah Sanders does not represent me as a woman. Neither does Dylan, for that matter.

The whole Dylan controversy has been a HUGE fiasco for everyone involved. Those who thought it would be a good idea were not thinking clearly at all...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sarah Sanders is the spokesperson for “real women”? Yikes.

More appropriate than Dylan Mulvaney.

And there aren’t 50 million women in between these two extremes? Sarah Sanders does not represent me as a woman. Neither does Dylan, for that matter.

The whole Dylan controversy has been a HUGE fiasco for everyone involved. Those who thought it would be a good idea were not thinking clearly at all...

Who. Cares.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sarah Sanders is the spokesperson for “real women”? Yikes.

More appropriate than Dylan Mulvaney.

And there aren’t 50 million women in between these two extremes? Sarah Sanders does not represent me as a woman. Neither does Dylan, for that matter.

The whole Dylan controversy has been a HUGE fiasco for everyone involved. Those who thought it would be a good idea were not thinking clearly at all...

Who. Cares.

The cons. They think a trans woman shouldn't get a deal to advertise a sports bra because she's taking that job from a cisgender woman. They think that same woman shouldn't get a deal advertising a beer because mostly men drink it. When I asked in another thread what kind of advertising deals a trans woman should be allowed to have, they didn't answer. The truth is, they want to restrict trans people from working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sarah Sanders is the spokesperson for “real women”? Yikes.

More appropriate than Dylan Mulvaney.

And there aren’t 50 million women in between these two extremes? Sarah Sanders does not represent me as a woman. Neither does Dylan, for that matter.

The whole Dylan controversy has been a HUGE fiasco for everyone involved. Those who thought it would be a good idea were not thinking clearly at all...

Who. Cares.

The cons. They think a trans woman shouldn't get a deal to advertise a sports bra because she's taking that job from a cisgender woman. They think that same woman shouldn't get a deal advertising a beer because mostly men drink it. When I asked in another thread what kind of advertising deals a trans woman should be allowed to have, they didn't answer. The truth is, they want to restrict trans people from working.

if only someone would invent a kind of economy that generates more kinds of jobs than just those that seek broad public affirmation for fringe personal qualities

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sarah Sanders is the spokesperson for “real women”? Yikes.

More appropriate than Dylan Mulvaney.

And there aren’t 50 million women in between these two extremes? Sarah Sanders does not represent me as a woman. Neither does Dylan, for that matter.

The whole Dylan controversy has been a HUGE fiasco for everyone involved. Those who thought it would be a good idea were not thinking clearly at all...

Who. Cares.

The cons. They think a trans woman shouldn't get a deal to advertise a sports bra because she's taking that job from a cisgender woman. They think that same woman shouldn't get a deal advertising a beer because mostly men drink it. When I asked in another thread what kind of advertising deals a trans woman should be allowed to have, they didn't answer. The truth is, they want to restrict trans people from working.

if only someone would invent a kind of economy that generates more kinds of jobs than just those that seek broad public affirmation for fringe personal qualities

wha?

[Anonymous]

the advertising thing (Dylan etc., re: posts above) isn't even trans specific really

just imagine that all of a sudden people with dwarfism were clamoring to be heard

no one hates them - we love them!

but soon you have people with dwarfism driving Dodge Rams in commercials... people with dwarfism showing off high heels... people with dwarfism mowing the lawn....

and after a while even very normal, well meaning people without dwarfism would be sort of like.... enough

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the advertising thing (Dylan etc., re: posts above) isn't even trans specific really

just imagine that all of a sudden people with dwarfism were clamoring to be heard

no one hates them - we love them!

but soon you have people with dwarfism driving Dodge Rams in commercials... people with dwarfism showing off high heels... people with dwarfism mowing the lawn....

and after a while even very normal, well meaning people without dwarfism would be sort of like.... enough

I don’t understand.could you pls explain what this means? Also, what kind of advertising deal should Dylan have without ppl complaining? It’s like you wrote a paragraph of text but didn’t answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sarah Sanders is the spokesperson for “real women”? Yikes.

More appropriate than Dylan Mulvaney.

And there aren’t 50 million women in between these two extremes? Sarah Sanders does not represent me as a woman. Neither does Dylan, for that matter.

The whole Dylan controversy has been a HUGE fiasco for everyone involved. Those who thought it would be a good idea were not thinking clearly at all...

Who. Cares.

The cons. They think a trans woman shouldn't get a deal to advertise a sports bra because she's taking that job from a cisgender woman. They think that same woman shouldn't get a deal advertising a beer because mostly men drink it. When I asked in another thread what kind of advertising deals a trans woman should be allowed to have, they didn't answer. The truth is, they want to restrict trans people from working.

No. They have a sense of humor and were mocking a trans "girl" as Dylan calls herself. 365 days of "girlhood." There have been so many people proclaiming the wonder of transwoemn getting awards intended for women--a la Rachel Levine getting a "woman of the year" acknowledgement.
Dylan gave them the perfect opportunity to do this rather than make a point of Lia Thomas or Rachel Levine winning awards originally intended for biological women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sarah Sanders is the spokesperson for “real women”? Yikes.

More appropriate than Dylan Mulvaney.

And there aren’t 50 million women in between these two extremes? Sarah Sanders does not represent me as a woman. Neither does Dylan, for that matter.

The whole Dylan controversy has been a HUGE fiasco for everyone involved. Those who thought it would be a good idea were not thinking clearly at all...

Who. Cares.

The cons. They think a trans woman shouldn't get a deal to advertise a sports bra because she's taking that job from a cisgender woman. They think that same woman shouldn't get a deal advertising a beer because mostly men drink it. When I asked in another thread what kind of advertising deals a trans woman should be allowed to have, they didn't answer. The truth is, they want to restrict trans people from working.

No. They have a sense of humor and were mocking a trans "girl" as Dylan calls herself. 365 days of "girlhood." There have been so many people proclaiming the wonder of transwoemn getting awards intended for women--a la Rachel Levine getting a "woman of the year" acknowledgement.
Dylan gave them the perfect opportunity to do this rather than make a point of Lia Thomas or Rachel Levine winning awards originally intended for biological women.

So, what kind of advertising deals are appropriate for a "trans girl" to get and not be made fun of?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the advertising thing (Dylan etc., re: posts above) isn't even trans specific really

just imagine that all of a sudden people with dwarfism were clamoring to be heard

no one hates them - we love them!

but soon you have people with dwarfism driving Dodge Rams in commercials... people with dwarfism showing off high heels... people with dwarfism mowing the lawn....

and after a while even very normal, well meaning people without dwarfism would be sort of like.... enough

I don’t understand.could you pls explain what this means? Also, what kind of advertising deal should Dylan have without ppl complaining? It’s like you wrote a paragraph of text but didn’t answer.

I don’t think this question matters or has an answer

Advertising deals that get consumers MORE interested in buying the product are good

Those that don’t are bad

By trial and error an equilibrium will be found

No one is owed advertising deals

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sarah Sanders is the spokesperson for “real women”? Yikes.

More appropriate than Dylan Mulvaney.

And there aren’t 50 million women in between these two extremes? Sarah Sanders does not represent me as a woman. Neither does Dylan, for that matter.

The whole Dylan controversy has been a HUGE fiasco for everyone involved. Those who thought it would be a good idea were not thinking clearly at all...

Who. Cares.

The cons. They think a trans woman shouldn't get a deal to advertise a sports bra because she's taking that job from a cisgender woman. They think that same woman shouldn't get a deal advertising a beer because mostly men drink it. When I asked in another thread what kind of advertising deals a trans woman should be allowed to have, they didn't answer. The truth is, they want to restrict trans people from working.

No. They have a sense of humor and were mocking a trans "girl" as Dylan calls herself. 365 days of "girlhood." There have been so many people proclaiming the wonder of transwoemn getting awards intended for women--a la Rachel Levine getting a "woman of the year" acknowledgement.
Dylan gave them the perfect opportunity to do this rather than make a point of Lia Thomas or Rachel Levine winning awards originally intended for biological women.

Humor is not the same as mocking someone. Only bullies do not realize this fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:the advertising thing (Dylan etc., re: posts above) isn't even trans specific really

just imagine that all of a sudden people with dwarfism were clamoring to be heard

no one hates them - we love them!

but soon you have people with dwarfism driving Dodge Rams in commercials... people with dwarfism showing off high heels... people with dwarfism mowing the lawn....

and after a while even very normal, well meaning people without dwarfism would be sort of like.... enough

I don’t understand.could you pls explain what this means? Also, what kind of advertising deal should Dylan have without ppl complaining? It’s like you wrote a paragraph of text but didn’t answer.

I don’t think this question matters or has an answer

Advertising deals that get consumers MORE interested in buying the product are good

Those that don’t are bad

By trial and error an equilibrium will be found

No one is owed advertising deals

So you think it's find that Dylan had a Bud Lite and a sports bra deal?