Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Absolutely there should be shelters for abused men.
Absolutely there should be every possible support for abused men.

But in fairness - do you want women to organise this?

I'm old enough to remember the fight to get them for women - and funding is still an issue. It took serious graft and lobbying to just get legislation passed saying there was such a thing as marital rape and that only happened just under 30 years ago - as far as I know there has only been one successful prosecution and that was of a man whose previous prosecution for the same offence was overturned on appeal.
To get safe places for women (and children) fleeing violence was, and is, a continuing battle.

The same facilities should be available for men - but men need to make this happen. And the first step is victims need to come forward and speak about their experiences... and that is one of the areas where masculinity can be toxic - the shame men feel is effectively silencing them and that has to be addressed. They are the victims and that does not make them weak or lesser men - it means they had the misfortune to be in a relationship with an abusive bully.

Well, I think both genders can muck in to get men’s shelters happening myself. But I also think we need to be realistic and acknowledge that generally each gender probably considers the plights facing their own gender first and foremost, subconsciously at least. I think that’s natural. So I agree with you that it would be more successful as a men-led movement. Not least because men might have more insight into the reasons that prevent other men from seeking help to escape abuse. The shelters, counselling services and other initiatives won’t last if men don’t seek them out. Like you said, funding is hard to secure even for services that are being used. Encouraging men to seek them out is what needs to happen and I think male input is very much needed in conjunction with the expertise of mental health specialists and psychologists.

Muckka

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Absolutely there should be shelters for abused men.
Absolutely there should be every possible support for abused men.

But in fairness - do you want women to organise this?

I'm old enough to remember the fight to get them for women - and funding is still an issue. It took serious graft and lobbying to just get legislation passed saying there was such a thing as marital rape and that only happened just under 30 years ago - as far as I know there has only been one successful prosecution and that was of a man whose previous prosecution for the same offence was overturned on appeal.
To get safe places for women (and children) fleeing violence was, and is, a continuing battle.

The same facilities should be available for men - but men need to make this happen. And the first step is victims need to come forward and speak about their experiences... and that is one of the areas where masculinity can be toxic - the shame men feel is effectively silencing them and that has to be addressed. They are the victims and that does not make them weak or lesser men - it means they had the misfortune to be in a relationship with an abusive bully.

Masculinity isn't toxic.

I couldn't say the same for femmism.
The first wave was ok but the third wave is absolutely toxic.

Why do you always try to get the high ground, but ironically dig a whole so deep....

Any man who I know of who defended himself against a female bully ended up in the **** house.

I don't think you belong in this discussion,as you seem to be attempting to get your femmist agenda going, and defending the undefendable.

Do you want women to organise this ?

Who build's the road's, schools, park's, hospital's, probably the roof over your head where you're warming your arse is made by a man

Your posts are absolutely contradictory and make no sense....

Close the door on your way out please....

Wibbs

Tell me how wrote: »

Ok so, Trump is Hillary's fault and the fault of women who try to stand up to what has been ingrained prejudice against them? Trump got through a 12 person primary not because he would be best placed to beat Hillary but because of the cess pit that the Republican Party had become in allowing itself to remove all morals and let the one that would stoop the lowest go ahead and do it.

An equal level of nonsense....

Any wonder women feel they have a way to go if they are being told that Hillary is as nonsensical as Trump.

You do know that the Democrats fiddled the primaries where Bernie outright won a load of sates, but the party leadership ignored that and claimed Hillary did? They rigged the election in plain sight in favour of the candidate they had already decided upon. A candidate with fingers in all sorts of dodgy pies and with backing of all sorts of dodgy people, a candidate who many in the top level of the military thought was a real danger. Here's a mad thought: I can think of both of them being muppets and avoid the polarity ballsology. Trump is a thundering oaf and completely out of his depth and that thundering oaf still beat Clinton. How bloody awful do you have to be to lose to an orange moron like that? And talk about Americans being faced with a rock and a hard place choice like that. No wonder half didn't bother voting at all.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, Wibbs, your response is wrapped in a bouquet of condescension. Not the best way to get anyone to read a wall of text post. I couldn’t get past the first third of your response.

You’ve buried a FYP of sorts in your response but it’s easily missed. So technically I can’t complain but changing my post to that extent is really not on. But you enjoy a certain stature around here so I guess that comes with privileges.

You have spectacularly missed my point. Pet shelters and fostering for fleeing families exist for prosaic reasons. You’re determined for that not to be the case but it is. I’m a former volunteer at such an initiative but it doesn’t mean that I value animals more than men. Very far from it. I just understand why they came into being and it’s not because of stupidity.

There are myriad reasons why men’s shelters are not really in existence. It’s such a complicated topic.

I’m really disgusted at your tinkering with my post. It’s really low behaviour and not something anyone should have to resort to.

If you have good points to make, you shouldn’t need to resort to condescension and gimmcky “post-fixing”. Put your points across succinctly. That’s all that required when there are good points to be made.

You do understand that FYP is a long standing thing on the interwebs and on Boards? It's not an attack on you for god's sake, though it seems it struck some nerve. And you are actually pulling the privilege angle? You have got to be kidding me, but apparently not. And not a shock TBH. Can't really respond, so go for the huffy Im not reading that, pull the I'm being oppressed angle and claim "it's complicated"? OK.

"You have spectacularly missed my point.". I really dunno what to say about that.

If they made an ad asking women not to have a bunch of kids while on the dole and expect a free house and asked other women to help enforce it, there would be uproar.

Wibbs

Tell me how wrote: »

But they 'were' suggesting men generally because all men needed to hear the ad.

Speak for yourself, you don't speak for me and you've some neck to think that you speak for all men.

Tell me how

Wibbs wrote: »

You do know that the Democrats fiddled the primaries where Bernie outright won a load of sates, but the party leadership ignored that and claimed Hillary did? They rigged the election in plain sight in favour of the candidate they had already decided upon. A candidate with fingers in all sorts of dodgy pies and with backing of all sorts of dodgy people, a candidate who many in the top level of the military thought was a real danger. Here's a mad thought: I can think of both of them being muppets and avoid the polarity ballsology. Trump is a thundering oaf and completely out of his depth and that thundering oaf still beat Clinton. How bloody awful do you have to be to lose to an orange moron like that? And talk about Americans being faced with a rock and a hard place choice like that. No wonder half didn't bother voting at all.

Here's why this is relevant. Many think a wrong on one side is automatically equal to a wrong on the other ergo Trump = Hillary.

And this follows in to the feminine/masculine discussion.

'Yes men have for generations being dominant and oppressive to women in various walks of life but I saw a woman from a hen party grab a barmans ass once so we're quits.'

I detest the extreme feminism approach but any suggestion that men can improve in how they act is currently being treated like someone is trying to cut our balls off.

Tell me how

Wibbs wrote: »

Speak for yourself son, you don't speak for me and you've some neck to think that you speak for all men.

Christ Wibbs, you're here long enough to not go this route.

Bannasidhe

Muckka wrote: »

Masculinity isn't toxic.

I couldn't say the same for femmism.
The first wave was ok but the third wave is absolutely toxic.

Why do you always try to get the high ground, but ironically dig a whole so deep....

Any man who I know of who defended himself against a female bully ended up in the **** house.

I don't think you belong in this discussion,as you seem to be attempting to get your femmist agenda going, and defending the undefendable.

Do you want women to organise this ?

Who build's the road's, schools, park's, hospital's, probably the roof over your head where you're warming your arse is made by a man

Your posts are absolutely contradictory and make no sense....

Close the door on your way out please....

Listen me ol Mukka.

I have not attacked you personally in any way, shape, or form.

The same cannot be said for you.

Now, either put me on ignore or stop beating your chest long enough to actually read what I have actually said before doing your tired old Tarzan act.
Preferably the former.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wibbs wrote: »

You do know that the Democrats fiddled the primaries where Bernie outright won a load of sates, but the party leadership ignored that and claimed Hillary did? They rigged the election in plain sight in favour of the candidate they had already decided upon. A candidate with fingers in all sorts of dodgy pies and with backing of all sorts of dodgy people, a candidate who many in the top level of the military thought was a real danger. Here's a mad thought: I can think of both of them being muppets and avoid the polarity ballsology. Trump is a thundering oaf and completely out of his depth and that thundering oaf still beat Clinton. How bloody awful do you have to be to lose to an orange moron like that? And talk about Americans being faced with a rock and a hard place choice like that. No wonder half didn't bother voting at all.

You do understand that FYP is a long standing thing on the interwebs and on Boards? It's not an attack on you for god's sake, though it seems it struck some nerve. And you are actually pulling the privilege angle? You have got to be kidding me, but apparently not. And not a shock TBH. Can't really respond, so go for the huffy Im not reading that, pull the I'm being oppressed angle and claim "it's complicated"? OK.

"You have spectacularly missed my point.". I really dunno what to say about that.

Wibbs, you accused me of being blinkered. I think you need to take a step back yourself. You know little to nothing about my feelings about supports for men who are the victims of domestic abuse. Because I haven’t said much about it and just made a point about one area I have a little knowledge of. You don’t seem to have even considered or reflected on the points I made on that topic. That to me points to someone who is quite entrenched themselves. I see the nuance here, whereas all you see is “SOCIETY VALUES PETS MORE THAN MEN!”. I was just recognising that sometimes things come about for very practical reasons to solve an immediate problem that has presented itself.

As for privilege, you know full well I’m not using it in the context it’s used when comes to gender relations. I’m talking about a long-standing poster and moderator massively changing a post they had quoted, something that a new forum member would not get away with. I would ordinarily have reported that but I know there is no point. It’s a cheap tactic, and one I have little respect for. I like jokey FYP posts. IMO, that’s the only context where it’s appropriate. When someone glances at this thread, there is a large post of mine that has been greatly altered that they will see and think that’s what I said. It’s misrepresentating me and the points I went to the trouble of making. It’s really disrespectful.

Wibbs

Tell me how wrote: »

Here's why this is relevant. Many think a wrong on one side is automatically equal to a wrong on the other ergo Trump = Hillary.

Nope, it means both candidates were hardly a great bet for different reasons and just because I think candidate A is a muppet I don't automatically consider candidate B to be the better bet. If I were American I'd be seriously questioning the whole setup of the political system over there. There's little enough to distinguish the parties at this stage, certainly at the top. IMHO Trump and Clinton are symptoms of a deeper malaise.

Tell me how wrote: »

Christ Wibbs, you're here long enough to not go this route.

T you stated that all men needed to see this ad, as if all men were in need of seeing this ad. I replied with you do not speak for all men. That's the only route I'm on.

*edit* I do see the "son" part was OTT, so I'll snip that.

Tell me how

Wibbs wrote: »

T you stated that all men needed to see this ad, as if all men were in need of seeing this ad. I replied with you do not speak for all men. That's the only route I'm on.

*edit* I do see the "son" part was OTT, so I'll snip that.

How the F was the ad going to reach those men who were speeding unless all men watched it. They could hardly have had a precursor to the ad with text on the screen "If you speed when driving, please watch the following ad, if not, close your eyes for 30 seconds".

You assumed I implied that all men were speeding. Howsever, it proves my point.
React first, consider later.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wibbs wrote: »

You do understand that FYP is a long standing thing on the interwebs and on Boards? It's not an attack on you for god's sake, though it seems it struck some nerve. And you are actually pulling the privilege angle? You have got to be kidding me, but apparently not. And not a shock TBH. Can't really respond, so go for the huffy Im not reading that, pull the I'm being oppressed angle and claim "it's complicated"? OK.

"You have spectacularly missed my point.". I really dunno what to say about that.

And what is this shît about? “Not a shock”? What do you think you know about me, Wibbs, that apparently makes it not a shock? I don’t even massively contribute to gender relations threads on boards, if at all.

You did indeed touch a nerve. There’s no shame in it. But honestly, Wibbs, your own posts aren’t exactly coming across as models of restraint either.

Wibbs

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

As for privilege, you know full well I’m not using it in the context it’s used when comes to gender relations. I’m talking about a long-standing poster and moderator massively changing a post they had quoted, something that a new forum member would not get away with. I would ordinarily have reported that but I know there is no point. It’s a cheap tactic, and one I have little respect for. I like jokey FYP posts. IMO, that’s the only context where it’s appropriate. When someone glances at this thread, there is a large post of mine that has been greatly altered that they will see and think that’s what I said. It’s misrepresentating me and the points I went to the trouble of making. It’s really disrespectful.

If by massively changing/misrepresenting/greatly altered your post you mean I only changed "pets" to "men", then guilty as charged. We clearly have different definitions of massively changing/misrepresenting/greatly altered. However seeing as it is an issue for you that someone might think that's what you originally wrote(highly unlikely), then fair enough I have edited my own post(double mirror irony) to be crystal clear that it was me.

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe to try and nudge the penny so it may drop I did some editing to your post:

(changed the quote title too)

BTW I'm not a mod of After Hours. And I know full well it's not "privilege" in the sense of gender relations, but I have found it's an easy and ready go to accusation in other areas. It's akin to calling ist/phobe/bullying and the like.

Muckka

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Listen me ol Mukka.

I have not attacked you personally in any way, shape, or form.

The same cannot be said for you.

Now, either put me on ignore or stop beating your chest long enough to actually read what I have actually said before doing your tired old Tarzan act.
Preferably the former.

I don't know what you're taking about, seriously.

Nobody's attacking anyone, being a bit dramatic are we.
You just can't debate in here full stop, as you're not making any sense.
You go around in roundabouts, this is a discussion about men's issues.
If you can't take the heat, it's your problem not mine.
I'm only replying to the hypocrisy of your post's.

I have seen you wind up people, then play the victim, run to virtual security and get that individual banned.

It's a pattern you're well aware of.

You're barking at the wrong dog here.
Now good luck.....

Wibbs

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And what is this shabout? “Not a shock”? What do you think you know about me, Wibbs, that apparently makes it not a shock? I don’t even massively contribute to gender relations threads on boards, if at all.

Not a shock in the sense of I've seen similar before in general, not specifically you. Though I did say "It's not an attack on you". Though, yes, apologies, I should have been more clear there. Mea Culpa.

Tell me how wrote: »

How the F was the ad going to reach those men who were speeding unless all men watched it. They could hardly have had a precursor to the ad with text on the screen "If you speed when driving, please watch the following ad, if not, close your eyes for 30 seconds".

Ah Cock! :o I thought it was in reference to this bloody razor ad. Shit. Apologies, now I get you. Mea culpa Part Deux. *looks up recipe for humble pie*

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wibbs wrote: »

If by massively changing/misrepresenting/greatly altered your post you mean I only changed "pets" to "men", then guilty as charged. We clearly have different definitions of massively changing/misrepresenting/greatly altered. However seeing as it is an issue for you that someone might think that's what you originally wrote(highly unlikely), then fair enough I have edited my own post(double mirror irony) to be crystal clear that it was me.


(changed the quote title too)

BTW I'm not a mod of After Hours. And I know full well it's not "privilege" in the sense of gender relations, but I have found it's an easy and ready go to accusation in other areas. It's akin to calling ist/phobe/bullying and the like.

Sometimes it’s deployed cynically. And then sometimes it’s true. And sometimes when people are called bullies/racists/phobes, they are actually those things. The label can be richly deserved.

I’m sure I’m not the only forum member to notice long-standing posters getting away with things others wouldn’t. You might think I’m a raving loon for saying this but on the other hand, you could be biased.

Bannasidhe

Muckka wrote: »

I don't know what you're taking about, seriously.

Nobody's attacking anyone, being a bit dramatic are we.
You just can't debate in here full stop, as you're not making any sense.
You go around in roundabouts, this is a discussion about men's issues.
If you can't take the heat, it's your problem not mine.
I'm only replying to the hypocrisy of your post's.

I have seen you wind up people, then play the victim, run to virtual security and get that individual banned.

It's a pattern you're well aware of.

You're barking at the wrong dog here.
Now good luck.....

I literally have no idea what you are talking about.

You obviously have some issue with me for something you think I did and apparently gives you licence to make comments about arses and generally comment about me the poster rather than what my posts actually say (which is being a dick by the way).

I haven't run away from anything - I have a life so guess what - I'm not always on boards.

Muckka

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Sometimes it’s deployed cynically. And then sometimes it’s true. And sometimes when people are called bullies/racists/phobes, they are actually those things. The label can be richly deserved.

I’m sure I’m not the only forum member to notice long-standing posters getting away with things others wouldn’t. You might think I’m a raving loon for saying this but on the other hand, you could be biased.

I was called Tarzan by a bully a few post's up, I'm not offended but if I called her a dancing whale I'd probably be in trouble.

But I would never call someone a whale.

Muckka

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I literally have no idea what you are talking about.

You obviously have some issue with me for something you think I did and apparently gives you licence to make comments about fat arses and generally comment about me the poster rather than what my posts actually say (which is being a dick by the way).

I haven't run away from anything - I have a life so guess what - I'm not always on boards.

Nobody said anything about a fat arse.

Are you calling me a dick on a public forum ?

Grown up and discuss something you're interested in, now leave me be.
Because I'm not falling into the trap you usually set up to get someone banned....

I want to discuss men's issues, you've no businesses in here.
Your just being paranoid about men....

Wibbs

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’m sure I’m not the only forum member to notice long-standing posters getting away with things others wouldn’t. You might think I’m a raving loon for saying this but on the other hand, you could be biased.

Oh no I'd broadly agree that can happen alright. I've seen it myself. Generally speaking it's down to the understandable human thing of giving more leeway to people you "know" for a long time. We'll listen to stuff from friends that if we heard from strangers we'd burn them at the stake. Newbies can be treated more suspiciously. Another factor and anybody who modded would likely get this; a mad number of newer posters are reregs. The obvious ones, we all know them. Choresex3000bot... (funny enough a very pleasant chap to deal with) get nuked, but the less obvious ones start out grand and only after a while the mask slips(I've been caught out there myself, more than once). Oh I know it's not perfect OD and it's certainly not an excuse, more an explanation why mods, at least some can be more twitchy with newer users and give more leeway to older users.

Wibbs

Muckka wrote: »

Nobody said anything about a fat arse.

Are you calling me a dick on a public forum ?

Grown up and discuss something you're interested in, now leave me be.
Because I'm not falling into the trap you usually set up to get someone banned....

I want to discuss men's issues, you've no businesses in here.
Your just being paranoid about men....

To be fair M, stop responding to anyone who rubs you the wrong way. Kinda solves the problem.

Muckka

Wibbs wrote: »

To be fair M, stop responding to anyone who rubs you the wrong way. Kinda solves the problem.

Just going to ignore her, I'm new to board's, but can see how she wind's people up and next thing someone's banned and she's whistling Dixie...

I don't know how to hit ignore I'm on an android phone myself....

Bannasidhe

Muckka wrote: »

Just going to ignore her, I'm new to board's, but can see how she wind's people up and next thing someone's banned and she's whistling Dixie...

I don't know how to hit ignore I'm on an android phone myself....

I. did. not. get. anyone. banned.

Please someone tell him how to put me on ignore on an android because this is getting beyond a joke.

Wibbs

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I. did. not. get. anyone. banned.

Tempted to test this out B. :

Bannasidhe

Wibbs wrote: »

Tempted to test this out B. :

Seriously.

I would love to have such an amazing power but sadly I don't.
I literally have no idea who or what he is talking about so maybe my power is so super I can get people banned while I'm doing absolutely nothing... or am I.. :eek:

freshpopcorn

Mod NoteMuckka since your new to boards remember to not attack the poster and relax a little!

Tell me how

Muckka wrote: »

Nobody said anything about a fat arse.

Are you calling me a dick on a public forum ?

Grown up and discuss something you're interested in, now leave me be.
Because I'm not falling into the trap you usually set up to get someone banned....

I want to discuss men's issues, you've no businesses in here.
Your just being paranoid about men....

Wibbs wrote: »

To be fair M, stop responding to anyone who rubs you the wrong way. Kinda solves the problem.

And here we have Wibbs stepping in to diffuse the situation. Something he now knows how to do having watched the Gillette ad.

Bannasidhe

Tell me how wrote: »

And here we have Wibbs stepping in to diffuse the situation. Something he now knows how to do having watched the Gillette ad.

:D:D:D

BBFAN

nullzero wrote: »

No I don't have a female behaviour in mind that should be the focus of an ad.
I don't see women in those terms, i see humans as fundamentally flawed beings who inflict pain and suffering in each other. It isn't the fault of one gender (or as you so cryptically said "a certain gender", what point could you be trying to make there i wonder?) or the other.
This sjw gender politics nonsense has to stop.

The very mentality of people who espouse this nonsense is frightening. I've been listening to the podcast of the former Newstalk presenter Dil W (not going to attempt to butcher the womans surname) and she only interviews people she agrees with and harps on about how wonderful it is to not have to listen to the opinions of people she doesnt agree with anymore.

It's time to wake up and grow up.

Why on earth may I ask would you go to the trouble of listening to a podcast of someone you obviously have nothing but hatred for?

givyjoe

BBFAN wrote: »

Why on earth may I ask would you go to the trouble of listening to a podcast of someone you obviously have nothing but hatred for?

You picked up hatred from that? Are you serious?