Really? No threads about the Gillette ad yet?

[ThatRobGuy]

I think this is something that has been lost on the left (but oddly I think they picked up this behavior from the right), the idea of nuance. Catcalling a woman and physically forcing yourself on someone are not the same, they are very different. However, both behaviors are wrong and should be seen as that;

I would agree, wrong is wrong. I don't think the point is to dismiss wrongdoing.

I think the idea is that many of us take umbrage at the practice of expanding the scope of what a term means just to pad the stats for the purposes of make an issue one is passionate about seem more pervasive in attempts to artificially draw attention to it.

It's a dishonest tactic, even if the cause it's trying to draw attention to is a noble one.

For instance, if someone was passionate about raising awareness about prostate cancer, and they attempted to redefine the term in a way to include a bunch of (much less) threatening condition simply to be able to say "3/4 men have experienced this, this is a huge problem, everyone needs to rally behind this cause and demand more public attention and funding!"

...that would be a dishonest tactic, even though for a noble goal.

I see that happening with a lot of the issues that the PC crowd tends to get behind. They water down the term so that it includes more things (and sometimes things that shouldn't be included) so they can make the problem seem more pervasive than it is. I see with the topics of racism, sexism, and homophobia the most. There's nothing wrong with wanting to draw focus to those issues (and make no mistake, those are real issues that are still a problem in society and need to be fixed), but when people expand the scope of each of those words to include a bunch of things that really shouldn't be included, simply to make it seem more pervasive than it actually is, it begins to have the "boy who cried wolf" effect.

 

[SummerMadness]

I wasn't specifically talking about street harassment...I was talking about the double standard that's in place with regards to what the PC crowd gets outraged about.

But we're talking about toxic masculinity, but you're muddying it with complaining about all forms of political correctness. I don't have a problem with some forms of political correctness, while there are other forms I take issue with, it's not monolithic.

...but nobody is "demanding" anything. Unless force is used, in which case I've already stated that would be wrong (and criminal)

Criminal is not the threshold. I can go to a a friend's family dinner and call the mother ugly, I didn't break a law, but I certainly did something that was rude, which is wrong. When you stop someone on the street, you are making a demand, not in the sense of, "Stop! You must speak to me," but you are requesting they stop to talk to you. As is often the case, many women do not want to talk to you, and that's where you enter the realm

This idea that "being exposed to, or having to see/hear something I don't like" is the exact same flawed logic evangelicals use for defending their positions for restricting the activities of LGBT people.

"Everyone has to behave in a manner to make sure they don't make me uncomfortable - even if what they're doing doesn't violate my rights" is precisely the attitude that PC crowd would be arguing against if this were a conversation about gay marriage, bakeries, or which bathroom people can use.

Again, you are mixing up different topics and arguing against them as if they are the same. You say this is political correctness in general, but you are complaining about a man stopping a woman because he thinks she's hot and wants her number. That is "not cool," which is the point. It's not about political correctness.

Like I noted before, the PC crowd tends to pick their side based on tribalism more than actual ideas. Since PC dictates that one must side with the group that's been subjected to more institutional disenfranchisement, they're siding with the notion that "men shouldn't approach women in the street to ask them out because it's toxic because it make them uncomfortable' ". Yet, if this were a conversation about bathroom usage, it'd be "That trans person should be able to use whichever restroom makes them happy, and quite frankly, it doesn't matter if that makes you uncomfortable"
(IE: since trans people are the ones who've been disenfranchised more, they get the support of the PC crowd)

I'm in the camp that says there's no expectation for "nobody is allowed to do anything that makes me uncomfortable" (within the law of course) in public places.

Now you're comparing two different scenarios. If you were to compare a transgender person deriding someone as intolerant for not dating them, I could see what you're saying is similar. You are stripping away too many factors and ignoring the salient point, it's not about feeling comfortable in public spaces, it's about forced interactions being wrong. Feeling discomfort because of your existence is wholly different from feeling discomfort because you're forcing an interaction (I know force sounds extreme, would overt and deliberate be better?).

 

[SummerMadness]

I would agree, wrong is wrong. I don't think the point is to dismiss wrongdoing.

I think the idea is that many of us take umbrage at the practice of expanding the scope of what a term means just to pad the stats for the purposes of make an issue one is passionate about seem more pervasive in attempts to artificially draw attention to it.

It's a dishonest tactic, even if the cause it's trying to draw attention to is a noble one.

For instance, if someone was passionate about raising awareness about prostate cancer, and they attempted to redefine the term in a way to include a bunch of (much less) threatening condition simply to be able to say "3/4 men have experienced this, this is a huge problem, everyone needs to rally behind this cause and demand more public attention and funding!"

...that would be a dishonest tactic, even though for a noble goal.

I see that happening with a lot of the issues that the PC crowd tends to get behind. They water down the term so that it includes more things (and sometimes things that shouldn't be included) so they can make the problem seem more pervasive than it is. I see with the topics of racism, sexism, and homophobia the most. There's nothing wrong with wanting to draw focus to those issues (and make no mistake, those are real issues that are still a problem in society and need to be fixed), but when people expand the scope of each of those words to include a bunch of things that really shouldn't be included, simply to make it seem more pervasive than it actually is, it begins to have the "boy who cried wolf" effect.

I tend to think what's happened is the left has lost a lot of nuance, something they used to be all about, hence attitudes about gender fluidity. Ultimately, I think the issue is how topics are debated as a tit-for-tat and refusing to cede ground, so "rape culture" becomes a catchall term that doesn't make sense for every case. At the same time, I think there is also the notion of word/term/concept evolution where the longer we know and understand a topic, how it is defined changes as it must change (that's what language does). The question of course is what happens when attitudes about that evolution clashes; unfortunately, I think the nuance of the discussion gets lost in the push to "win" the argument.

 

[rambot]

That's a fair point. I want companies to be socially responsible, but I don't like the "let's pretend to care about something important to sell [product]" style of marketing either.
Ringo

Out of curiousity, and I ask this as a question to all the posters here:

What was your response to all the Dove "she beauty" or whatever those ads were called?

 

[rambot]

I'd disagree here -- I think it was intentional -- but it's rather telling that the default bad guy in an ad against "toxic masculinity" must be white. It's mostly white guys displaying their "toxic masculinity" who are being stopped, for the most part, by virtuous black men, who appear no less "masculine" in any real way. It's almost like toxic masculinity and whiteness are being associated with one another.

If we're going to turn this into race....maybe what it was doing was calling on minority men to start stepping into those situations.
So white guys don't have to. If there are underlying messages about race here...

 

[SummerMadness]

If we're going to turn this into race....maybe what it was doing was calling on minority men to start stepping into those situations.
So white guys don't have to. If there are underlying messages about race here...

That's right, why is this commercial demanding minorities fight against toxic masculinity? Are they implying that white men are already doing it and people of color are not stepping up enough?

 

[Ringo84]

Out of curiousity, and I ask this as a question to all the posters here:

What was your response to all the Dove "she beauty" or whatever those ads were called?

I didn't have a very strong opinion, but I was positive to the extent that they were aiming for body positivity for women.
Ringo

 

[rambot]

Personally, when I see ads from megacorps about any kind of social commentary I don't assume they are trying to sell me anything more than the brand.

And if they are going to do that, they better be, really, REALLY, really consistent (which they won't be).

Show me the sparkley, amazing product and we'll go from there.

 

[Paidiske]

On the subject of catcalls... I'm nearly 40 now. I haven't been catcalled in a while, but if I were, by a young guy, in a situation where there was clearly no threat to my safety... that might be okay.

Most of my experience of being catcalled hasn't been like that, though. It's often been groups of guys, in situations where I didn't necessarily feel safe at all. It's often gone coupled with unwanted touching, threats, harassment.

So my first reaction to a catcall is actually to feel threatened, and it might be helpful to guys to realise that for many women, that would be a common response.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Again, you are mixing up different topics and arguing against them as if they are the same.

The topics aren't the same, but the standards should be. Having two different standards is literally the definition of "double standard"

If the defined standard is going to be: "People should be allowed to do what they like, even if it makes others uncomfortable, provided that they don't violate the rights of others" (which, for the record, is my position 100%...people complaining about who uses what bathroom can take a hike IMO), then that standard needs to be applied consistently, and not selectively in cases where the people who are uncomfortable are one's "political rivals" and the one engaging in the action is one's "political ally".

Criminal is not the threshold. I can go to a a friend's family dinner and call the mother ugly, I didn't break a law, but I certainly did something that was rude, which is wrong.

The reason why we should use the criminal/'violation of rights' as the standard (or threshold) is because if we go off of what's considered "uncomfortable"/"rude"/"offensive"/etc... you're going to get 10 different definitions from 10 different people.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's often gone coupled with unwanted touching, threats, harassment.

If that's the case, then that crosses the line into "force" which is wrong.

 

[Paidiske]

If that's the case, then that crosses the line into "force" which is wrong.

Yes, but my point is, my first reaction to a catcall now is to feel unsafe. So I don't want to be catcalled. And I was suggesting that many women would have a similar reaction.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yes, but my point is, my first reaction to a catcall now is to feel unsafe. So I don't want to be catcalled. And I was suggesting that many women would have a similar reaction.

Understood.

But to expand on what I said before, how something makes a person feel is going to vary from person to person, so the fact that something makes one person out of fifty uncomfortable can't be the standard we set, as a society, for what constitutes "toxic".

 

[Ana the Ist]

Like I said in my post...I don't think they were trying to be "anti-white"...I think they were afraid of being viewed as "anti-black". Since they can't have a commercial without a mix of races (since the PC crowd will call that racist), and they can't have the black guys be the bad guys (since the PC crowd will call that racist), they went with the default option.

Lol I'm just gonna ignore that you consider whites "the default option". There's a pretty simple formula for this situation if you're trying to determine if anyone's actions are racist.

1. Did they treat the race in question differently because of their race?

2. Was there a basis in fact for #1? E.g. -stating whites are more likely to have blue eyes than blacks.

If the answer to #1 is yes and #2 is no...then it meets the bare minimum standard of racist behavior.

...and that's really the problem with the overly-PC crowd, no matter what, you'll never make them 100% happy. I think the ultimate display of that is when women (wearing the vagina hats at the marches) were chastised by the overly-PC people - who were supposed to be on there side - because "well, that's implying that all women have those, some trans women still have penises so those hats are offensive". If you go down the rabbit hole of trying to meet all of their standards, it'll be a never-ending quest.

I saw a FB group that's name really summed up my feelings on the matter
"Political Correctness is important, but let's not lose our <dang> minds" (substituting "dang" for a no-no word)

I don't see it as "overly PC culture"....just PC culture. I'm a bit curious about what makes it "overly PC" instead of just PC.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Understood.

But to expand on what I said before, how something makes a person feel is going to vary from person to person, so the fact that something makes one person out of fifty uncomfortable can't be the standard we set, as a society, for what constitutes "toxic".

It's not merely the desire to approach a woman that's toxic. It may not even be the catcalling in and of itself that's toxic (I would lean on the side of saying that it is, but let's say for the sake of argument that people can disagree about that)

What's really toxic is the sense of entitlement that underlies the catcalling and hitting on women, and really, many of these behaviors.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That's right, why is this commercial demanding minorities fight against toxic masculinity? Are they implying that white men are already doing it and people of color are not stepping up enough?

Doubtful...it's more likely because the crowd they were trying to appeal to in this commercial most certainly would've taken offense to a scene where a black guy was catcalling, and a white guy "had to step in and be the voice of reason and respectfulness".

Like I said before, that's the problem with trying to appease the PC crowd rather than just appealing to common sense. You end up painted in a corner where you can't even make a point (controversial or otherwise) without getting chastised by the very group you're trying to appease.

Like I mentioned in a previous post, a prime example would be the women at the womens' march against the GOP's attack on womens' reproductive rights. They wore vagina hats (wouldn't be my first choice to get a point across, but it's not for me to say...if they want to make controversial statement, that's their right, I'll never tell them they can't) to make a point, and the PC people (who were supposed to be their allies), attacked them because "not all women have vaginas, that's a microgression against trans people).

The women who protested as part of that crowd were most certainly not "anti-trans", however, the PC crowd still found some reason to find offense with it.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I don't see it as "overly PC culture"....just PC culture. I'm a bit curious about what makes it "overly PC" instead of just PC.

PC: "let's not go around tossing around N-word jokes...it's in bad taste"

Overly-PC: "There weren't any black actors nominated for Oscars this year, that's evidence of racism in Hollywood"


Like I touched on before...when one tries to "make the PC crowd happy", it's easy to paint yourself into a corner when they (arguably) will find a reason to be offended with 3/4 of the things you say no matter what (even when you're supporting liberal ideas)

 

[Paidiske]

Understood.

But to expand on what I said before, how something makes a person feel is going to vary from person to person, so the fact that something makes one person out of fifty uncomfortable can't be the standard we set, as a society, for what constitutes "toxic".

I sorta disagree. I think some things are common enough that we can say "It's likely this will be received badly, so better not to do it."

As iluvatar pointed out a couple of posts ago, any behaviour which sends the message, "I'm entitled to your time, your attention, your body... or to publicly broadcast my judgement of your body to the world," would pretty fairly fall into that category.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It's not merely the desire to approach a woman that's toxic. It may not even be the catcalling in and of itself that's toxic (I would lean on the side of saying that it is, but let's say for the sake of argument that people can disagree about that)

What's really toxic is the sense of entitlement that underlies the catcalling and hitting on women, and really, many of these behaviors.

How can you say it's a sense of entitlement that's causing it? Unless you can read minds, that's not something you can ever know and it's likely going to vary from person to person.

 

[Paidiske]

How can you say it's a sense of entitlement that's causing it? Unless you can read minds, that's not something you can ever know and it's likely going to vary from person to person.

Okay, let me give a real life example.

I can recall a bus trip I took in my teens. I was young and not confident in speaking up for myself. A guy sat opposite me on the bus, and for the entire 40-minute trip, kept asking me personal questions, putting his hands on my knees, generally invading my physical and emotional space, to the point where even the bus driver told him to knock it off.

If it wasn't a "sense of entitlement" which told that bloke he had a right to do what he was doing, what should I put it down to, precisely?

 

[Ana the Ist]

And that has NEVER happenned before? Or is it that you just don't like it when it's directed at men?

No...at least not in my lifetime. Until now, companies that sell shaving products have almost exclusively used their advertisements to sell shaving products.

Nope. Men who are jerks can and should be told by anyone and everyone that their behaviour is not acceptable.

Is that what you think is happening? "Men who are jerks" are sitting there watching the commercial and thinking "I guess I better change my behavior! Thanks Gillette!"

It's hard to imagine anything dumber...though I suppose Snuggles the laundry detergent bear could start a dialogue on race relations lol.

You find a commercial that depicts men as "violent sex crazed animals" condescending?

Yes.

Because it is a trope in almost every single movie and show that exists.

Are advertisements and entertainment the same thing in your mind?

Personally, I didn't feel like they depicted all men doing that because I don't do those things.

What does "what you (as in you personally, rambot) do" have to do with the commercial?

Do you think Gillette is giving you a chance to virtue signal to everyone that you're "one of the good guys" by agreeing with the commercial's general message???

They depicted "men" doing those things but the sense I got was "for those of you who participate in those behaviours, you could be doing better".

It's contextless garbage.

And a not small portion of the male population doesn't like being told what to do.

I don't think much of the population at all likes being told what to do....

What's your point?