It's a rough first draft typed on a tablet so ignore spelling/grammatical errors. I'm looking for feedback on the content and substance. I quote:

Super Bowl advertisements. At $4,000,000 for 30 seconds it's almost possible to justify the hype that surrounds them each year. Whether artistically spectacular, creative and clever or simply funny; whether kept under wraps until the big night or teased relentlessly in the preceeding weeks, there's always a large degree of anticipation to see how the premium spots will be filled.

Last year, however, GoDaddy caused a stir for seemingly the wrong reasons. The website design company's advert spawned an anti-sexist social networking campaign by the organisation 'MissRepresentation' to call out sexist adverts (or, at least, adverts sexist against women) with the hashtag #notbuyingit.

On first viewing, the GoDaddy advert seems fairly innocuous. A model-esque woman sits next to a fat, nerdily-dressed manchild with a laptop. They kiss. For a lot time. The camera zooms in to nothing but their intertwined mouths. This, explains the advert, represents the GoDaddy has hybrid of sex websites with excellent technical support and capabilities.

The advert is a lot of things. It's weird. It's eyewateringly weird. It's potentially offensive to IT professionals logo The IT Crowd show us can be Irish and ruggedly handsome or even nerdy and attractively "indie"). But one thing it simply isn't is sexist. It isn't hard, watching it, to predict that Social Justice Warriors would pounce on it, but when all it does is describe a sexy woman as sexy and show her kissing an unsexy manchild it's hard to consider the advert as sexist. Sexist would be when an advert shows dad getting takeout because "it's mum's night off" - either because it suggests that it's mum's job to cook dinner, or because it suggests that dad is too stupid to cook a meal himself. Sexism is the new MullerLight Greek Style yogurt advert showing a beach lifeguard running towards the camera, with the voiceover "Delicious. Mouthwatering." then "Thick." as he falls over. But these SJWs pick the low hanging fruit of any advert that shows an attractive woman and MissAppropriate them for their cause - ignoring the fact that just as many adverts, if not more, use similarly unrealistically attractive men in their marketing.

They are missing the wood for the trees. The force most damaging to women is, simply, themselves. Their self image. Fear. Just look at the eating disorders blamed on runway models being skinny. The makeup adverts making girls feel ugly if they don't cake themselves before leaving the house. Girly magazines!

Christ, Cosmo does more damage to girls and young women in one issue than any Super Bowl advert; not putting out for the guy you like? You're teenagers now, he'll just dump you. You ARE putting out? Well okay, but your technique is probably bad and he'll dump you anyway. Try putting ice cubes up his bottom, or rub tobaso on your privates to really spice things up #YOLO. Recently the same celebrity bikini photo was printed in a "lad rag" and a girly mag. For the boys? "Phwoar, hot celeb shows off her curves!" For the girls? "10 worst celeb bikini bodies!" Now, which one is more damaging?

The problem is that in essence SJWs, a lot of feminists and a lot of Mens Rights Activists are going out of their way to be offended. A Lynx advert showing hot women flocking to the scent isn't objectifying women, just as a Diet Coke advert showing women tricking a man into stripping off his shirt to reveal his chiseled torso isn't objectifying men. The word sexism is used too liberally and it devalues the label to lash out at innocuous things like these adverts. Personally, this writer's #notbuyingit.