Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

hatrickpatrick

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Then post you quoted was a response to a poster complaining that companies don’t make ads “attacking” women. Because of decades of feminist work, women’s issues are in the public consciousness and are taken seriously. That’s the most obvious success of the decades of work that went before.

And yet they claim to represent equality. By not attacking double standards like this, they expose their claim of representing equality to be a fundamental and hypocritical lie. And yet, apparently, calling them out as hypocrites is wrong.

Silentcorner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Then post you quoted was a response to a poster complaining that companies don’t make ads “attacking” women. Because of decades of feminist work, women’s issues are in the public consciousness and are taken seriously. That’s the most obvious success of the decades of work that went before.

Oh come here, I don't dispute that there are a barrel full of women working in women's rights advocacy, charities, academia etc but what has that delivered to your average woman, because, from what I can see, women are getting suffering a lot more than what the public discourse would have you believe.

We get told repeatedly, we need to talk more to express our feeling and emotions like women do, we may not commit suicide as much if we do...but women attempt suicide way more than men do...

In any case, I can't see how this divisive culture is going to lead to a more content population...it clearly isn't!

Nobody is winning here!

Reati

Silentcorner wrote: »

Toxic male is an insult and you meant it as an insult...you have avoided defining it in your own words because you can't.

hmmm...

Reati wrote: »

No, no, no. That's simply not the way you ask the question. You've shown your hand and exposed your set viewpoint with that thinly vailed insult. You probably don't even notice yourself doing it. It's ok. Try again and don't be premature. Build up to it this time.

Reati wrote: »

You are still doing it wrong. When you learn how to ask the question correctly, I'll gladly answer it for you.

Reati wrote: »

When you ask the question correctly, I will gladly give it to you. You have now replied three times with three similarly boring "insults". If you actually wanted the answer, you'd ask the question the right way.

Your call.

Reati wrote: »

I do have a definition. You have decided that you don't want it because you can't ask the question without the undertone of an insult. You can continue to try to bait it out of me. If you want the definition, you need only ask properly.

You seem to be unwilling or unable to draw the dots so I bolded them for you.

Your move.

El_Duderino 09

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's the point though. They're hypocrites and liars, and as liars they obviously pretend not to be. That's why I regard them as scumbags. They pretend to be something they are not, and they use that false definition to attack anyone who criticises them.

They’re a lobbying group. Thats just how lobbying works unfortunately. If you don’t play you can’t win, but you can whinge.

joe40

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Reati wrote: »

Well, you have already shown your bias. Debating really needs to be a compulsory subject

There is no such thing as an "honest" definition. There is a agreed definition and then disputed definition(s). I'm not sure which one you have but I'd love to hear it.

I'm obviously biased, I have strong opinions on this subject as should be obvious, and I'm here to argue it from that point of view rather than an objective one. As is almost everyone.

The definition of toxic masculinity as used by SJWs and radical regressive "leftists" is any self-serving behaviour by men which doesn't put everyone else before himself in a self-sacrificing way, because male utilitarianism is "in", and a man's purpose in life is to be useful to others while a woman's purpose in life is to make sure she does what makes her happy.

That's the message I've had shoved down my throat by the mainstream media for my entire life anyway. It's always the man's job to change, to prove himself, to become a better person. Women are perfect the way they are. Women are the ideal, men are merely defective women. Female behaviour, sexuality, attitudes, etc are the "right" and "good" ways to live, whereas male ones, where they diverge, are the undesirable ones which should be pushed out of mainstream society and shunned.

Toxic masculinity is a buzz phrases used to attack men for refusing to see themselves as facilitators for others' enjoyment of life rather than independent, free human beings in and of themselves. If I don't believe that my role in life is to serve others, I'm a "toxic male". In contrast, those same sources bombard women with the message that they owe nobody anything and should put themselves first.

I fully agree with the latter message - women do indeed owe nobody anything and they absolutely should put themselves first. The problem arises when I apply that same ideology to men as well. Then suddenly I have a toxicity problem.

You obviously feel passionately about this but as a white straight male living in the same society why do I not feel under the same sort of tyranny if it is so rampant.
The "mainstream" is the popular media which is purchased by males and female.
How am I able to live everyday life and not be confronted by the injustices you describe.
In nearly 50 years on this planet I have never felt that my only purpose was to facilitate the enjoyment of others.
Your experiences are obviously different, I must just be lucky.

nullzero

Should've bought those shares in Wilkinson sword last week. Dammit.

hatrickpatrick

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

They’re a lobbying group. Thats just how lobbying works unfortunately. If you don’t play you can’t win, but you can whinge.

Well I am playing, by speaking up about this and joining the boycott of Gillette. My point here is to explain why myself and others are so angry - and why falling us sexist or toxic for being angry is utterly f*cking stupid. It's a pain in the hole to be attacked as sexist for speaking out against sexism.

Reati

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm obviously biased, I have strong opinions on this subject as should be obvious, and I'm here to argue it from that point of view rather than an objective one. As is almost everyone.

You do. It's good to have opinions. I like people who have their viewpoints and stand up for them.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The definition of toxic masculinity as used by SJWs and radical regressive "leftists" is any self-serving behaviour by men which doesn't put everyone else before himself in a self-sacrificing way, because male utilitarianism is "in", and a man's purpose in life is to be useful to others while a woman's purpose in life is to make sure she does what makes her happy.

But it's not. As you have said yourself this is the definition used by SJW and radical left? Hardly call it the honest definition you promised now is it.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's the message I've had shoved down my throat by the mainstream media for my entire life anyway. It's always the man's job to change, to prove himself, to become a better person. Women are perfect the way they are. Women are the ideal, men are merely defective women. Female behaviour, sexuality, attitudes, etc are the "right" and "good" ways to live, whereas male ones, where they diverge, are the undesirable ones which should be pushed out of mainstream society and shunned.

Has it been? Before the MeToo movement and other stuff like that started, can you show examples of such mainstream media messaging? Like 10, 15 or 20 years ago?

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Toxic masculinity is a buzz phrases used to attack men for refusing to see themselves as facilitators for others' enjoyment of life rather than independent, free human beings in and of themselves. If I don't believe that my role in life is to serve others, I'm a "toxic male". In contrast, those same sources bombard women with the message that they owe nobody anything and should put themselves first.

Is this based on the definition used above?

El_Duderino 09

Silentcorner wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Then post you quoted was a response to a poster complaining that companies don’t make ads “attacking” women. Because of decades of feminist work, women’s issues are in the public consciousness and are taken seriously. That’s the most obvious success of the decades of work that went before.

Oh come here, I don't dispute that there are a barrel full of women working in women's rights advocacy, charities, academia etc but what has that delivered to your average woman, because, from what I can see, women are getting suffering a lot more than what the public discourse would have you believe.

We get told repeatedly, we need to talk more to express our feeling and emotions like women do, we may not commit suicide as much if we do...but women attempt suicide way more than men do...

In any case, I can't see how this divisive culture is going to lead to a more content population...it clearly isn't!

Nobody is winning here!

Ah you’re just playing with statistics here. If you know he stats you’re chucking about you’ll know that suicide rates are going up for both men and women. And while women attempt suicide more, men actually die by suicide more. You could cherrypick a few stats but I think it would be very difficult to pin the female attempted suicide rate on feminism when you take all ha relevant stats into consideration.

So to answer your question I stand by my assertion that Gillette doesn’t make a similar ad about women because of he decades of work to ensure women’s issues are taken seriously.

I think if you deny that point, you’ll need to explain it to they dozens of posters who said Gillette wouldn’t make the same Ad about women.

Silentcorner

Reati wrote: »

hmmm...









You seem to be unwilling or unable to draw the dots so I bolded them for you.

Your move.

I'm moving slowly away from you pal...I'm not the first I'd say!

ceadaoin.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Feminists claim to be about "equality" and they attack groups which attempt to highlight men's issues as unnecessary and sexist. We're not allowed to have our own movement by mainstream society because "feminism fights for equality for everyone". And yet as the reaction to this sexist as has shown, this is blatantly untrue.

Maybe movements supporting men's issues would be more successful if they weren't based on blaming and getting one over on women and being resentful of the progress women have made through their own hard work.

For example, I see men complaining about the lack of domestic violence shelters for men. If there is a need then why don't they do what women had to do? work together, set up your own network. Then raise awareness, campaign for funding etc. What they do instead is complain about evil feminists and how women get everything and they get nothing. What does this achieve?

El_Duderino 09

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

They’re a lobbying group. Thats just how lobbying works unfortunately. If you don’t play you can’t win, but you can whinge.

Well I am playing, by speaking up about this and joining the boycott of Gillette. My point here is to explain why myself and others are so angry - and why falling us sexist or toxic for being angry is utterly f*cking stupid. It's a pain in the hole to be attacked as sexist for speaking out against sexism.

If you feel strongly about it then I applaud you for doing something like boycotting Gillette. It’s a small step but it’s a step in the right direction.

Reati

Silentcorner wrote: »

I'm moving slowly away from you pal...I'm not the first I'd say!

Ok well enjoy sitting back in your silent corner while the grown ups talk. You are welcome back to the table when you learn to speak nicely. I'll even start with a definition of toxic masculinity just for you.

SEPT 23 1989

Don't buy their media don't watch their films don't buy their products

Vote with your feet it's all you can do

Manach

As a company Gillette can preach what they like and there are plenty of progressives that will listen to anything that embraces social change for social change sake. However that Gillette are doubling down and seemly miraclous finding tens of thousands of likes for its ad is dishonest and should be called for it.

hatrickpatrick

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Maybe movements supporting men's issues would be more successful if they weren't based on blaming and getting one over on women and being resentful of the progress women have made through their own hard work.

For example, I see men complaining about the lack of domestic violence shelters for men. If there is a need then why don't they do what women had to do? work together, set up your own network. Then raise awareness, campaign for funding etc. What they do instead is complain about evil feminists and how women get everything and they get nothing. What does this achieve?

If feminists didn't claim to be the one true movement for "equality", none of that resentment would be as it is. The fact is that feminism uses the word "equality" to self-style while simultaneously pushing utterly blatant discrimination and hypocrisy, and making all kinds of elaborate excuses to justify it. At the same time, it uses the "equality" definition to deflect any criticism of itself.

If feminism was an honest movement, these culture wars wouldn't be playing out the way they are. But feminism simultaneously says "if you believe in equality, you're just automatically a feminist because that's all feminism is", while literally in the same breath saying "you can't be sexist against men, because privilege - ergo I can say #killallmen and it doesn't make me an absolute scumbag".

That's the problem in a nutshell. The movement is fundamentally dishonest and hateful. And yet men are expected to worship at its alter and are attacked as being "anti-woman" if they refuse to do so.

Silentcorner

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Maybe movements supporting men's issues would be more successful if they weren't based on blaming and getting one over on women and being resentful of the progress women have made through their own hard work.

For example, I see men complaining about the lack of domestic violence shelters for men. If there is a need then why don't they do what women had to do? work together, set up your own network. Then raise awareness, campaign for funding etc. What they do instead is complain about evil feminists and how women get everything and they get nothing. What does this achieve?

But that is exactly how womens movements operate and succeeded...a systematic belief in flawed statistics and ideology....repeated over and over...and you do not understand media if you think they are willing to step on their female audiences...without media support it is impossible.

Men complain that an organisation, presenting itself a Domestic Abuse organisation...ignores the abuse of one gender entirely.

Augme

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Objecting to propaganda which attacks your very identity isn't "sensitive" FFS. If someone made an ad saying "women, you're bad people and you need to change", women would rightly be pissed off and nobody mainstream would be criticising them for it.

I dunno, can't help but feel if the message you got from the video then you seem to be hugely missing the point. In which case commenting in the video might not be a very smart idea.

hatrickpatrick

joe40 wrote: »

You obviously feel passionately about this but as a white straight male living in the same society why do I not feel under the same sort of tyranny if it is so rampant.

Maybe you're not as idealistic about treating all humans as equal as I am? I'll admit to being a committed activist in all sorts of areas, I'm very passionate about politics and always have been. I ended up on the committee of a local political movement founded by Richard Boyd Barrett when I was 14, to take one example So that's just who I am.

Maybe, also, you weren't exposed to as much anti-male sexism as I was when you were a kid? I had a lot of female friends as well as male ones, and our parents always pushed the whole "ladies first" and "never hit a girl even if she hits you, that's just how it is" bullsh!t incredibly hard. I've resented these double standards since as far back as I can remember, honestly.

The "mainstream" is the popular media which is purchased by males and female.

The mainstream isn't just the media, it's polite society in general - politicians, respected voices, etc. All of them are happy to join this "men suck" bandwagon, and apparently no one among them is willing to stand up for us.

How am I able to live everyday life and not be confronted by the injustices you describe.

Again, I don't know. Maybe you didn't experience it as much growing up, maybe it just didn't bother you. Who knows?

In nearly 50 years on this planet I have never felt that my only purpose was to facilitate the enjoyment of others.

Ah, it could be a generational thing then. I'm a child of the 1990s and teenager of the 2000s, and this "boys suck, but if boys say girls suck that's not allowed because its sexist" double standard was being pushed incredibly hard during that era.

Your experiences are obviously different, I must just be lucky.

As above. It's probably a generational phenomenon. The 1990s was the era of the Spice Girls coined term "girl power", while boys were expected to atone for the sins of their fathers. Obviously it was never put that way to us at the time, but looking back that's basically what it was.

hatrickpatrick

Augme wrote: »

I dunno, can't help but feel if the message you got from the video then you seem to be hugely missing the point. In which case commenting in the video might not be a very smart idea.

Well what would you regard as the point, if I've missed it? From my point of view, the point is telling men what to do and telling us that we're not good enough and we should do better. F*ck that. I'm fine just the way I am and so are most other men I know. Maybe we're not fine just the way we are in the sense that we're not the ideal male that women want us to be, but most women I know aren't the ideal female that men would like them to be either, and I for one wouldn't change that for the world. Women should do whatever they want, and the minority of scumbags among them don't tarnish the rest of them who are genuinely incredible human beings. All we're asking for is that the same standard be applied to us - we should do whatever we want, and the minority of scumbags among us don't tarnish the rest of us who are genuinely incredible human beings.

That's it. It really is that simple. This ad tells us that we need to change for others. We don't. We're fine the way we are. Leave us alone and stop telling us what to do. Nothing more, nothing less.

ceadaoin.

Silentcorner wrote: »

But that is exactly how womens movements operate and succeeded...a systematic belief in flawed statistics and ideology....repeated over and over...and you do not understand media if you think they are willing to step on their female audiences...without media support it is impossible.

Men complain that an organisation, presenting itself a Domestic Abuse organisation...ignores the abuse of one gender entirely.

If the shelter is set up a women's refuge then there are valid reasons for them not to accept men. If there is a need for male specific facilities then surely it is an organisation set up and run by men who are best placed to help?

nullzero

Augme wrote: »

I dunno, can't help but feel if the message you got from the video then you seem to be hugely missing the point. In which case commenting in the video might not be a very smart idea.

Let me get this straight; he takes offence to the video therefore by your logic he has misinterpreted the message of the video and as a result shouldn't be allowed to comment on it?
Typical "progressive" logic, when the argument gets away from you and your logic is shown to be flawed just shut the argument down altogether. Really fvcking pathetic.

NSAman

Augme

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well what would you regard as the point, if I've missed it? From my point of view, the point is telling men what to do and telling us that we're not good enough and we should do better. F*ck that. I'm fine just the way I am and so are most other men I know. Maybe we're not fine just the way we are in the sense that we're not the ideal male that women want us to be, but most women I know aren't the ideal female that men would like them to be either, and I for one wouldn't change that for the world. Women should do whatever they want, and the minority of scumbags among them don't tarnish the rest of them who are genuinely incredible human beings. All we're asking for is that the same standard be applied to us - we should do whatever we want, and the minority of scumbags among us don't tarnish the rest of us who are genuinely incredible human beings.

That's it. It really is that simple. This ad tells us that we need to change for others. We don't. We're fine the way we are. Leave us alone and stop telling us what to do. Nothing more, nothing less.

Have you looked at the % of assualtd that are committed by men? The percentage of murders committed by men? The percentage of rapes committed by men? You should look it up. Then you might not think "we're fine the way we are."

El_Duderino 09

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Maybe movements supporting men's issues would be more successful if they weren't based on blaming and getting one over on women and being resentful of the progress women have made through their own hard work.

For example, I see men complaining about the lack of domestic violence shelters for men. If there is a need then why don't they do what women had to do? work together, set up your own network. Then raise awareness, campaign for funding etc. What they do instead is complain about evil feminists and how women get everything and they get nothing. What does this achieve?

This. X 1000 this.

Lots of people seem to be enjoying the victimhood and have no actual interest in solving the problems.

Domestic violence is a great example. They pop up to complain that there’re aren’t resources for Male victims of domestic violence - which is a completely correct observation. But they ignore the decades of work that went Into securing resources for the existing domestic violence victims.

It’s as if feminists simply identify a legitimate issue and, puff, everyone takes it seriously and money appears to address it.

Nothing happens without working for it. It would take time and effort so far beyond just whining on the Internet.

Augme

nullzero wrote: »

Let me get this straight; he takes offence to the video therefore by your logic he has misinterpreted the message of the video and as a result shouldn't be allowed to comment on it?
Typical "progressive" logic, when the argument gets away from you and your logic is shown to be flawed just shut the argument down altogether. Really fvcking pathetic.

I havent shut it down. He's more than welcome to keep talking about it. I just don't think it is very smart.

hatrickpatrick

Augme wrote: »

Have you looked at the % of assualtd that are committed by men? The percentage of murders committed by men? The percentage of rapes committed by men? You should look it up. Then you might not think "we're fine the way we are."

None of them were committed by me or by anyone I know. I'm a man, and I'm fine just the way I am. I haven't done anything wrong and I don't appreciate being spoken to in a condescending and accusatory tone by an ad like this, just because some totally separate human being who has no relation or connection with me whatsoever apart from sharing the same chromosomes and genitalia has done something wrong.

If articles and videos like this appended the word "some" before the word "men", my and most angry lads' opposition would be gone in an instant.

nullzero

Augme wrote: »

I havent shut it down. He's more than welcome to keep talking about it. I just don't think it is very smart.

You haven't, but you're saying he isn't qualified to comment. How narcissistic do you have to be to even write that?

Cockford Ollie

The YouTube video comments section is funny. Arrange by "Top Comments" and all the top comments against the video from an hour ago have been deleted, and lots of claims from be people who've had thier comments thier deleted. Strangely enough the top comment which has been pinned to the top all day is positive towards the video.

Also a strange surge in "Likes" for the video, not suspicious at all.

ceadaoin.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well what would you regard as the point, if I've missed it? From my point of view, the point is telling men what to do and telling us that we're not good enough and we should do better. F*ck that. I'm fine just the way I am and so are most other men I know. Maybe we're not fine just the way we are in the sense that we're not the ideal male that women want us to be, but most women I know aren't the ideal female that men would like them to be either, and I for one wouldn't change that for the world. Women should do whatever they want, and the minority of scumbags among them don't tarnish the rest of them who are genuinely incredible human beings. All we're asking for is that the same standard be applied to us - we should do whatever we want, and the minority of scumbags among us don't tarnish the rest of us who are genuinely incredible human beings.

That's it. It really is that simple. This ad tells us that we need to change for others. We don't. We're fine the way we are. Leave us alone and stop telling us what to do. Nothing more, nothing less.

I don't get that from the ad at all. What I get is that they are saying that the majority of men are good and it's time for them to stand up and speak out against poor behaviour from other males when they see it rather than excusing it with the "boys will be boys" mantra.

Even a man in the ad was saying exactly that , Terry crews, a victim of harrassment himself (from a man). Is that ok for him to say?

Unless you think that the harmful behaviour shown in the ad is all men and nothing needs to change then I'm not getting your anger tbh.