Really? No threads about the Gillette ad yet?

[iluvatar5150]

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.

If that one single case shown in the commercial were the only context from which we had to draw, then I'd say that there's a plausible case to be made that we can't assume that that guy was entitled.

But based on not just the lived experiences of many women, but also the metric tons of butthurt being generated not only by this ad but also loads of similar content, I'd say it's pretty clear that there mountains and mountains of entitlement underpinning a lot of these interactions.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

You think it's wrong for men to "hit on women"?

 

[Ana the Ist]

If that one single case shown in the commercial were the only context from which we had to draw, then I'd say that there's a plausible case to be made that we can't assume that that guy was entitled.

What other context would we draw from? Isn't that the whole point of the commercial? To give you examples of bad behavior?

But based on not just the lived experiences of many women, but also the metric tons of butthurt being generated not only by this ad but also loads of similar content, I'd say it's pretty clear that there mountains and mountains of entitlement underpinning a lot of these interactions.

Lol what?

If you didn't agree with the message....you're entitled?

This has been the "go-to" argument for the left for years now. If you don't agree with what we say, you're entitled, racist, sexist, bigoted, etc....

If you don't want to discuss the topic, fine, but don't pretend that disagreeing automatically makes one a "bad person". That just verifies that the whole issue is virtue signaling and nothing else.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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?

Obviously, putting his hands on you isn't entitlement...it's harassment.

Why did you leave out your response? How did you confront this guy? Or is the reason that the driver confronted him because you didn't?

 

[Paidiske]

Obviously, putting his hands on you isn't entitlement...it's harassment.

It's both. He felt entitled to do harass... why?

Why did you leave out your response? How did you confront this guy? Or is the reason that the driver confronted him because you didn't?

I was a terrified teenager. I tried to be distantly polite and kept wishing he'd stop.

Today I'd probably slap him, but I was too scared then.

 

[rambot]

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!"

Not at all. I'm sure they expected blowback. "Men who are jerks" are pushing back at this message.
But that doesn't mean the message isn't important.

Are advertisements and entertainment the same thing in your mind?

In terms of whether they elicit a response like feeling condescended, absolutely yes.

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

Great question!
Essentially none of the behaviours show in the advertisement are behaviours are participate in. So I have no emotional investment in them saying "cat calling girls and pursuing them aggressively or speaking condescendingly towards them, or low level assault them is bad". I agree with their message. That garbage is garbage behaviour and the men that participate in it should be better.

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???

So if I agree that girls shouldn't have their butt slapped and I express that opinion, I'm virtue signalling? Come on guy. Too often in these discussion I hear "virtue signalling" as if it actually undmines or has any real import on the argument or my agreement with it.
If virtue signalling is, essentially, bragging about not being an aggressive jerk... then you need to find a better argument.
It seems every time I hear the phrase "virtue signalling" it's just an attempt to stomp out a positive message about people. I think that is an asinine response to words of encouragement akin to getting angry at someone wishing you Happy Holidays.

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

Only prideful fools who have no interest in bettering themselves. I have no problem being told how to act like a better person. I'll take their advice and analyze it on my own merit. I'm all for humans pushing each other to be better people.

 

[rambot]

It's both. He felt entitled to do harass... why?



I was a terrified teenager. I tried to be distantly polite and kept wishing he'd stop.

Today I'd probably slap him, but I was too scared then.

Ahhh....so it's YOUR fault [/sarcasm]

 

[rambot]

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.

I have personally never heard of a successful courtship and relationship that started with a dude catcalling a girl on the street.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's both. He felt entitled to do harass... why?

Since you were "distantly polite" as you put it...is it at all possible that this guy didn't realize that he was "harassing" you? Any chance that he was just trying to express interest in you and perhaps awkward about it?

I was a terrified teenager. I tried to be distantly polite and kept wishing he'd stop.

Today I'd probably slap him, but I was too scared then.

It's probably a fair guess that he wasn't capable of reading minds....

At what point do people become responsible for their own agency? I'll accept that if a woman tells a man to leave her alone or stop whatever interaction they're having....and he continues anyway....he's definitely behaving wrongly.

If you're trying to claim that men are somehow supposed to read minds and correctly interpret every woman's level of interest before interacting....you're basically claiming that women are never ever responsible for their interactions with men.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to see women as such helpless creatures incapable of any agency of their own.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I have personally never heard of a successful courtship and relationship that started with a dude catcalling a girl on the street.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Define "successful"?

 

[Paidiske]

Since you were "distantly polite" as you put it...is it at all possible that this guy didn't realize that he was "harassing" you? Any chance that he was just trying to express interest in you and perhaps awkward about it?

Maybe, if he were cognitively impaired. That doesn't make it okay.

At what point do people become responsible for their own agency? I'll accept that if a woman tells a man to leave her alone or stop whatever interaction they're having....and he continues anyway....he's definitely behaving wrongly.

If you're trying to claim that men are somehow supposed to read minds and correctly interpret every woman's level of interest before interacting....you're basically claiming that women are never ever responsible for their interactions with men.

I'm sorry, but I refuse to see women as such helpless creatures incapable of any agency of their own.

Except I wasn't a woman. I was a minor. A rather terrified minor. He shouldn't have put his hands on me.

Should a man have leeway to misread a woman's interest? Yes, of course. To the point of physical groping? No. Consent should be explicitly sought before that point.

And if someone doesn't think consent should be sought... that's an entitlement mentality.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not at all. I'm sure they expected blowback. "Men who are jerks" are pushing back at this message.

Oh wow....that's sad. See post 83 where I basically shot this argument down when iluvatar made it.

But that doesn't mean the message isn't important.

The fact that you agree with "the message" doesn't make you virtuous nor does it make the message important.

In terms of whether they elicit a response like feeling condescended, absolutely yes.
Great question!

It's hard to imagine a way to describe the problem with this commercial then....since you don't distinguish between total fiction and a message that you believe is directly aimed at men in society.

Essentially none of the behaviours show in the advertisement are behaviours are participate in.

Oh I understand just fine....

You agree with commercial so people will think you're a good guy. I totally understand that part.

I bet you "just do it" when Nike tells you to so that it's clear to everyone you aren't a racist either.

So I have no emotional investment in them saying "cat calling girls and pursuing them aggressively or speaking condescendingly towards them, or low level assault them is bad". I agree with their message. That garbage is garbage behaviour and the men that participate in it should be better.

Actually, in the OP you said you liked it and were "cool with it". Which is it? Emotionally invested or not?

Because by sheer fact that you keep repeating "I don't engage in these behaviors" it appears that at the very least, you're emotionally invested in appearing virtuous to anyone reading.

So if I agree that girls shouldn't have their butt slapped and I express that opinion, I'm virtue signalling?

Why would anyone....anyone at all on this forum....think that you're in favor of sexually assaulting women? Is that really something you need to tell everyone that you're against?

Personally, I don't need proof that you're not a total perv. I don't assume the worst in people.

Come on guy. Too often in these discussion I hear "virtue signalling" as if it actually undmines or has any real import on the argument or my agreement with it.
If virtue signalling is, essentially, bragging about not being an aggressive jerk... then you need to find a better argument.

In this case, it is...and yes, you are. It's odd that you're proud of it.

Take any example of virtue signaling....let's say, a Christian on here says, "I've never doubted the existence of god!"

The first time you'll just think "ok". The second time a post later you might think "I read that the first time you wrote it."...

By the 3rd or 4th time in 5 or 6 posts though....you'll probably wonder what he's really trying to say? Is he trying to convince himself because he constantly doubts the existence of god? Is he trying to impress the people reading his posts? Does he think god can read his posts?

So with that in mind, rambot, how many times are you going to say that you "respect teh womenz" and you aren't in any way "emotionally invested" in the message of this commercial you decided to create a thread about??

Did you want to talk about yourself or the message of the commercial?

It seems every time I hear the phrase "virtue signalling" it's just an attempt to stomp out a positive message about people. I think that is an asinine response to words of encouragement akin to getting angry at someone wishing you Happy Holidays.

Well then, allow me to explain what I mean when I say that it looks like someone is virtue signaling....

What I mean is that the person signaling virtue appears to be trying to claim a moral high ground by nothing more than the position they take on an issue. On top of that, they're also claiming that anyone who doesn't agree with them is morally inferior in some way....and that the actual topic needs no further examination than that.

The clearest signs of a virtue signal are typically the needlessness of it (like someone randomly declaring "I'm not a nazi") the inappropriateness of it (like kneeling for the anthem at a football game, or a company that sells shaving cream telling men how to behave) and the total lack of willingness to discuss the issue they're signaling about (see post 83).

Only prideful fools who have no interest in bettering themselves. I have no problem being told how to act like a better person.

Oh....well then....allow me...

Next time a company that sells shaving products, or athletic gear, or really anything irrelevant tries to inform you about what your morals, or political beliefs, or spiritual values should be....tell them to pound dirt. You're a grown man, you can decide these things for yourself, and you're secure enough in who you are that you don't need to signal it to others through the products you buy. Let them know that the very idea that you would turn to a faceless, money grubbing corporation for a sense of who you are as a person is, in fact, an insult to you and your intelligence. Tell them that you're better than that and you see through their desperate attempts to appeal to your values just to sell some razors.

Recognize that if they have to resort to such tactics, it's probably because what they're selling is overpriced junk....and that's why they're focusing on your virtues instead of their products.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Maybe, if he were cognitively impaired. That doesn't make it okay.

So there's no way he misread the situation?

Except I wasn't a woman. I was a minor. A rather terrified minor. He shouldn't have put his hands on me.

No offense, but you're shifting goalposts here. The topic was catcalls and "hitting on" women. No one here is arguing that it's ok to "put their hands" on a woman without her consent. That's not a part of the discussion...so I'm trying to keep the focus on everything else he did.

Should a man have leeway to misread a woman's interest? Yes, of course.

So....you agree it's ok for a man to hit on a woman?

 

[Paidiske]

So there's no way he misread the situation?

I don't believe so.

No offense, but you're shifting goalposts here. The topic was catcalls and "hitting on" women. No one here is arguing that it's ok to "put their hands" on a woman without her consent. That's not a part of the discussion...so I'm trying to keep the focus on everything else he did.

The topic was a sense of entitlement in how men behave towards women. Men putting their hands on women without our consent is a perfect example of a sense of entitlement.

So....you agree it's ok for a man to hit on a woman?

It depends on the context. There are times when it's ok for a man to hit on a woman, and times when it absolutely is not. Any time there's a power imbalance, or hitting on the woman would be disrespecting her role in the situation (eg. it's a work context and instead of interacting with her as a professional you insist on hitting on her), would be good examples of times when it's not ok.

 

[iluvatar5150]

You think it's wrong for men to "hit on women"?

I may respond to your other strawmen later but this one really takes the cake.

Remember those discussions about not arguing in good faith? Yeah, this.

 

[RDKirk]

I saw the ad and really have luke warm feelings about it.

There's nothing in it I hate, there are a few things in it that I like, my favorite part is when the father is with the daughter and he tells her to say "I am strong". I like that positivity.

I'm not a big fan of the sentiment that fighting in and of itself is wrong. It is my belief that the purpose of men in regards to raising boys is to teach them to be men and prepare them for the real world.

And in life, there are times when you need to fight. There are times when you need to use physical violence and there are times when you need to "fight" for your property, business, or livelihood. Real life is not an After School Special on TV.

In any event, I'm meh about the commercial, I dont' consider it anything earth shattering tbh. *shrug*

It's like I said in my first post in the other thread: Welcome to my world of positive masculinity. The commercial says nothing more than what I was taught and what I've taught young other young men under my accountability.

The primary message of the commercial, stated at exactly it's midpoint by Terry Crews was "Men need to hold other men accountable." Up to that point, the commercial showed men failing to hold other men accountable. After Crews' statement, the commercial showed men holding other men accountable. The script of the commercial was just that simple: Precisely half and half.

So that statement: "Men need to hold other men accountable."

How about this: "Police need to hold other police accountable."

Is that not better than, "Cops will be cops?"

As I noted in the other thread, the only time anyone ever says, "Boys will be boys" is when they've skipped a teaching opportunity.

 

[RDKirk]

... a fight that was stopped by a white guy... I think you are looking a little too much into this.

And they certainly depicted a black guy saying, "Boys will be boys."

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

Ok...I never considered this "PC". I always just looked at using racial slurs as "offensive".

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

This is something I would associate with PC culture. The difference in my mind at least, is between choosing not to do something deliberately offensive (as in example 1) which I just call "being polite" or "well mannered"....

....and people looking for ways to find offense (which example 2 is a better fit of). I understand that people can take offense to just about anything, but I think the question should be "would most reasonable people find this offensive?" instead of "will absolutely anyone find this offensive?" which is where PC culture seems to be going (perhaps it always was).

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)

I don't think feelings should prevent discourse. I think an example of that are the reviews of Black Panther....although "Oscar's So White" could be another example to the extent that instead of focusing on who has the best performances, people focused on the race of the nominees (which I hope gets looked back on in disgust at some point).

 

[Ana the Ist]

I may respond to your other strawmen later but this one really takes the cake.

Remember those discussions about not arguing in good faith? Yeah, this.

Ahem....

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

Perhaps you forgot what you wrote.

 

[RDKirk]

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.

Well, since we're talking about race already....

For most of American history--right up to my own personal memory--white men have prevented black men from being masculine enough to defend our own wives and daughters from white men. It has been a primary racist tactic from the very beginning of slavery.

Heck, when I was a senior in high school, I had a group of angry white men roll up on my own front yard in Oklahoma because one of them heard me say an Asian girl at the school was cute. I don't think they realized at the time that my father had fought in two different wars and didn't play that stuff.

Yeah, for most of American history, toxic masculinity and whiteness have been associated with one another.