Let's flip it again; what are signs that various female dominated occupations have a misandry problem in the same fashion? The thing we were just discussing with avions de chasses, why is that intrinsically misogynistic while the similarly themed ManServant startup is not intrinsically misandrist? Why are the attacks on the former a blaring cacophony and the attacks on the latter practically non-existent?
I don't think it's reasonable to actually claim that something so broad can actually exist unless it's utterly global. It's individuals that make choices on their acceptable behaviours, not the industries in which they are employed.
Some individuals are misogynistic or misandrist, and they might be drawn to industries where their own gender is dominant, but using that as a petard to attack those industries in entirety and everyone involved within them strikes me as missing the problem entirely.
Because manservants is just another instance of an actual escort service where the audience is "people who want an escort service", and the avions de chasse is the insertion of an escort service into an otherwise everyday service that has an audience of people who (i suspect) mostly aren't interested in an escort service. Its similar to how a billboard that is OK in the red light district won't be acceptable in the main street or the suburbs.
Manservants is explicitly not an escort service (http://www.citylab.com/work/2014/07/the-manservants-service-...) (http://manservants.co/become-a-manservant.html), though. In both instances it's simply trading on the sexual market value of men or women (just because it's not sex doesn't mean the sexual market value of the person in question isn't relevant, see booth babes, ad et al). If you consider this to be misogynistic or misandrist in either instance, it ought to be in both.
Sure, I forgot the non-escort bit - although as you say, it is definitely about sexual attraction. However the defining point I made was that ManServants is explicitly joining that market of sexual market value, but Uber is adding that service to their existing commodity service which did not express interest in it. I consider it unnecessarily sexual to do the latter, but not the former.I consider it misogynist because they have looked at a large mixed gender audience and decided to cater to the sexual desires of the men in it. If you can point out the existing mixed gender non sexual audience that ManServants has started pushing their product on, I might consider it comparable.
Avions was a marketing promotion for uber lyon where people could sign up for a free 20 minute ride with one of the models. I don't know if I see how that is "pushing" the service on the unwilling, but I acknowledge its not the same as having specifically gone to a single outlet vendor for a specific kind of service.
More like offering to have your photo taken for free with a cosplaying booth attendant at a convention for a non sexual product or using sex for advertising (terribly uncommon right?)
It's a deliberate attempt to force people into consistency. If you object to sex being used for marketing of unrelated products that should always be true. Whether that's uber with avions, car or game companies with booth babes, or the "just squeezed" juice ads with continuously flexing male glutes or voodoo stocking etc etc etc.
Well, I do object to booth babes and the Uber promotion, I'm not familar with the others you mention. So no need to force anything. Many people have previously objected to boothbabes with the exact same arguments, and I don't see anyone saying one is OK but not the other, so I don't know why you are acting like there is some hidden inconsistency to be exposed.
You don't find it the slightest bit interesting that you're intimately familiar with the foremost examples of female objectification that spring to mind, but male examples of the same are so beneath your awareness that you don't even notice them generally speaking?
That's the way it is for most of society.
Frankly I don't particularly care, I don't really understand why people get incensed over these things. There is a market for them and where there is a demand that demand will be met. Complaining about it bitterly won't change that fact. We may as well attempt to wish away our sex drives. I bring up the inconsistency between the two not because I think that the war on female objectification should be expanded to the male counterpart thereof, but just to expose the difference in the views on the two subjects by society at large.
No, I don't think its odd that I am familiar with examples in the tech industry but not those outside of it. I see boothbabes at conferences, I don't see ads for juice anywhere. I am not convinced that society is more OK with objectifying men than women and I don't think my exposure to advertising is evidence for your point.
You see more female objectification in the tech industry because it's a male dominated industry. That's just demographics. If you think there is just as much outrage over the sexual objectification of men as there is over the same for women in society at large though I really don't know what to tell you.
Do you have an example of a female dominated industry that hires half dressed men as decoration for their conferences? I don't think this happens, although I'd be fascinated to be proven wrong. I don't think there is as much outrage over the sexual objectification of men because I don't think there is as much of it to be outraged by. The use of hot women in advertising is a standard, why aren't you mentioning that? Overall, why do you keep mentioning different categories of things and saying that because one involves a man and one involves a woman they make a good comparison? Uber offering rides with women != ManServants, boothbabes != an orange juice ad. Try and find some actually similar examples to talk about.
Edit: although Uber == boothbabes seems accurate, so I guess they weren't all off!
I don't think it's reasonable to actually claim that something so broad can actually exist unless it's utterly global. It's individuals that make choices on their acceptable behaviours, not the industries in which they are employed.
Some individuals are misogynistic or misandrist, and they might be drawn to industries where their own gender is dominant, but using that as a petard to attack those industries in entirety and everyone involved within them strikes me as missing the problem entirely.