What is a Man? A Response to Gillette...

bekkilyn said:

The problem with the second video is that it doesn't address ANY of the problems with bullying behavior, abuse, and harassment that the first video attempts to address. Pretending those things don't exist isn't a solution.

Click to expand...

This one also seems to position participation in war as a positive thing, which instantly loses me.

Hazelelponi said:

what's the difference, in your point of view, in talking to a child who did "x" wrong and explaining to them what they did wrong and why it's wrong, and calling a child evil because their brother did "x" wrong?

Click to expand...

Can you point out the places in either of the ads where they said: "all men are evil!"? Because after watching them both multiple times I still haven't been able to find those places, and after asking several people who told me the ad said it I've yet to have one of them be able to point out where it's been said. What I do get? Is many people telling me "It's obvious that's what it says!" all while being unable to point out where it's said. So, again: where does it say

calling a child evil because their brother did "x" wrong

Click to expand...

curious if you see either scenario as abuse?

Click to expand...

If you'd like to discuss child rearing shouldn't you start a thread about that subject? This thread is about a couple of companies trying to sell us razors and watches. And pointing out bullying is wrong.
tulc(who has a beard and doesn't own a working watch)

Hazelelponi said:

This commercial by Egard Watches is in answer to the feminist #metoo Gillette commercial that, in my opinion, promotes the message that most men are faulty in Gillettes opinion and thus need improvement.

I have said in another thread in regards the modern trend to demonize men through the false narrative of "toxic masculinity":

Again, there is no such thing as "toxic" masculinity. There is no maleness that taken to an extreme is dangerous.

There is a certain danger in the extremely insecure, as they see themselves as not possessing various (potentially desirous) traits, and therefore use other means of masquerading as someone in possession of them.

Strength, for instance, is a positive trait which can be either emotional or physical. Someone who is insecure and doesn't see themselves as being in possession of strength will sometimes try to display strength by beating up someone weaker. However, this isn't a display of strength at all, its a display of massive insecurity.

It's the insecurity which is dangerous and not "strength". They feel powerless in their insecurity, so they seek instances to demonstrate power - not strength. It's nothing to do with masculinity at all.

The man secure in his strength has no need to display anything as he is confident in what he has possession of. It will then rear it's head during times it's needed; when someone weaker needs protecting, etc.

Berating the insecure is far from likely to help their insecurity any, truly that's more like feeding the beast.

Berating all men because they are men, isn't helpful either, that just plays into the hands of a bunch of insecure women who are currently making a power play.

I'm not putting my money toward something that goes against what I know and believe.

I hold to that thought process, there is nothing inherently "toxic" about either masculinity nor femininity - God created us male and female and called it good. We are His children, and He called His creation good.

Fallen mankind in a fallen world is faulty, but there is nothing about berating people that will fix the falleness of mankind. Such a thing becomes harmful to our society when your pitting male against female etc.

If we want people to be the best version of themselves provide a good Christian example. Be that Child of God whom people want to touch the hem of your garments because you are such an example of God. Share the message of salvation with the lost

I like the commercial in answer to Gillette, it's positive. I'd far rather join with something positive, than divisive negativity.

I have a husband, son, and grandsons and I refuse to call any of them toxic for being men. It's called verbal abuse and I won't engage.

Click to expand...

The Gillette commercial is propaganda in my opinion.

I'm a radical pacifist; I disagree with war in all its forms, in every time and place. (And I'm not an American).

That's largely off-topic here, but as a response to that video, the minute they put the message that participation in war was good, is the minute they lost any sense from me that it was an ethical message overall. I'd say war is the example par excellence of the negative behaviours and attitudes which get summed up as "toxic masculinity," we don't need anyone extolling it.

Hazelelponi said:

I asked you to humor me and answer a direct question - you refused.

Click to expand...

Actually what I said was:

If you'd like to discuss child rearing shouldn't you start a thread about that subject? This thread is about a couple of companies trying to sell us razors and watches. And pointing out bullying is wrong.

Click to expand...

which is an answer to your question, it simply wasn't the sort of answer you wanted apparently.
I might also point out: I can't seem to find where you pointed out those portions of the commercial where it said all men are evil.

Good day.

Click to expand...

You have a good day as well.
tulc(just noticed it's started snowing here in Chicago!)

Paidiske said:

I'm a radical pacifist; I disagree with war in all its forms, in every time and place. (And I'm not an American).

Click to expand...

Hello, I’m an American and I happen to be a man. This world is inclined toward sin. Some of the most peaceful nations exist because of wars that were necessary. It’s an entirely different matter to look at war as “good” as opposed to necessary. I don’t like war.

Paidiske said:

I'd say war is the example par excellence of the negative behaviours and attitudes which get summed up as "toxic masculinity," we don't need anyone extolling it.

Click to expand...

Toxic masculinity is a ridiculous blanket phrase made up by radical feminists who want to blame men as the problem of society. Heaven forbid patriarchy, which God established. And again regarding war, it’s not good. I don’t like war, but I will gladly stand up and fight against tyrannical dictators who would gladly commit mass murder. And it will be difficult to convince me that my attitude about that is “toxic” or even negative

HosannaHM said:

Toxic masculinity is a ridiculous blanket phrase made up by radical feminists who want to blame men as the problem of society.

Click to expand...

"Toxic Masculinity is a neologism used to describe normative masculine behavior in Western society associated with behaviors linked to dominance, misogyny, homophobia and violence.

According to The Advocate,[1] "toxic masculinity" may have been coined by psychologist Shepherd Bliss during the Mythopoetic men's movement in the 1980s and 1990s to describe a type of masculinity caused by a repression of "deep masculinity." The earliest known mention of the term in research can be found in Michael Kimmel and Amy Aronson's 2004 book Men and Masculinities: A Social, Cultural and Historical Encyclopedia."

Toxic Masculinity | Know Your Meme

The cited source in The Advocate is here: What Is Toxic Masculinity?

HosannaHM said:

Heaven forbid patriarchy, which God established.

Click to expand...

I don't believe God established patriarchy. I believe it's a result of the fall.

Paidiske said:

"Toxic Masculinity is a neologism used to describe normative masculine behavior in Western society associated with behaviors linked to dominance, misogyny, homophobia and violence.

According to The Advocate,[1] "toxic masculinity" may have been coined by psychologist Shepherd Bliss during the Mythopoetic men's movement in the 1980s and 1990s to describe a type of masculinity caused by a repression of "deep masculinity." The earliest known mention of the term in research can be found in Michael Kimmel and Amy Aronson's 2004 book Men and Masculinities: A Social, Cultural and Historical Encyclopedia."

Click to expand...

Okay, I skimmed the article that you sent me from "the advocate" and it laid out your point. This site is so far to the left though, I feel like I could send you something from a conservative standpoint and you would feel the way I do right now. I will concede what I said about woman making it up, as I don't know for sure unless your site is true with the facts. However, I won't concede that it is used negatively by radical feminists. I don't mean to sound reductionist, but I think this is far more of a simple concept than requires psychological research. There are good men and bad men. There are good women and bad women. I don't think the male gender is the reason for everyones problems. Sin is the problem.

Paidiske said:

I don't believe God established patriarchy. I believe it's a result of the fall.

Click to expand...

"Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Genesis 2:18 God called the woman "helper" or "supporter" from the greek word ezer. And that was pre-fall.

HosannaHM said:

There are good men and bad men. There are good women and bad women.

Click to expand...

Well, actually I think there's a mix of good and bad in everyone. Gender is not the reason for everyone's problems, but then, no one is claiming that it is.

HosannaHM said:

"Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.” Genesis 2:18 God called the woman "helper" or "supporter" from the greek word ezer. And that was pre-fall.

Click to expand...

And Scripture elsewhere uses that word of God in relation to humans. The fact that the woman is described as ezer cannot be used to establish hierarchy.

Paidiske said:

Well, actually I think there's a mix of good and bad in everyone. Gender is not the reason for everyone's problems, but then, no one is claiming that it is.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I meant it from the viewpoint of man, not in the complete literal sense. No one apart from God is truly good(Romans 3). Even if we are good, it is because of something God has done. So there is no room for boasting(1 Corinthians 4:7). I will repeat: sin is the problem. I said that about gender because it's the hot topic right now(Gilette).

Paidiske said:

And Scripture elsewhere uses that word of God in relation to humans. The fact that the woman is described as ezer cannot be used to establish hierarchy.

Click to expand...

What about this:
"But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." -1 Corinthians 11:3
Paul is speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Now if God wanted to remove patriarchy, it sure seems like Christ would have mentioned it.

HosannaHM said:

What about this:
"But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ." -1 Corinthians 11:3
Paul is speaking under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Now if God wanted to remove patriarchy, it sure seems like Christ would have mentioned it.

Click to expand...

It's talking about identity and unity, not a chain of command.

We see some relativising of patriarchy in the early church. That was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit too.

Hazelelponi said:

My attempt was to converse with you, a human being, explaining my point in a manner yourself can potentially relate to.

You indicated in your post that your unable or unwilling to answer a very simple question and have a simple conversation where I can elucidate my point, since you said you didn't see it.

Since that is the case I will simply take my leave.

My attempt is always to converse with another human being desirous of a conversation, not make posts for the world at large to read in a vain attempt to convince others of an arbitrary position, ignoring the conversation itself which I understand many do. That is not me.

Click to expand...

so...you couldn't point out anywhere in the Gillette ad it actually said "all men are evil"? A simple "I'm inferring they said it rather then they explicitly said it." would have done just as well.
tulc(hopes that helps)

Paidiske said:

We see some relativising of patriarchy in the early church. That was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit too.

Click to expand...

Can you show me where?

HosannaHM said:

Can you show me where?

Click to expand...

Galatians 3:28 is a go-to verse. But also all of the places where husbands are instructed that their wives have authority over them, as well (eg. 1 Corinthians 7:4 ), or that they are to love their wives and not dominate them (eg. Ephesians 5:25-30 ). Also where we see women exercising roles of leadership and authority (Phoebe the deacon; Junia the apostle; women who presided over worship meetings in their homes, and so forth).

To start with, I think we need to define what we mean when we say “patriarchy”. I’m using the term in the sense of male headship. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I believe you’re thinking of it in the domineering sense. Because we are specifically talking about Christianity, I’m referring to patriarchy in light of God’s intention for men to lead the home.

Paidiske said:

Galatians 3:28 is a go-to verse.

Click to expand...

That’s a great verse, and I agree with it 100%. We are equal in Christ, but men are not women and vice versa. Not one sex is better than the other. Status, race, and class do not make one better than the other. We are equal in Christ. Equality doesn’t mean that men and women are the same. We are still made different and for different purposes. Equal, but distinct.

Paidiske said:

But also all of the places where husbands are instructed that their wives have authority over them, as well (eg. 1 Corinthians 7:4 ), or that they are to love their wives and not dominate them (eg. Ephesians 5:25-30 ).

Click to expand...

Again I agree. Our bodies are not our own, they belong to the Lord and He designed that we take care of each other’s needs. We are not to deprive one another(1 Corinthians 7:4-5). In Ephesians, we get to see the model of the Christian relationship with the man being exhorted to “love his wife as Christ loved the church”. Such a challenging passage. Christ’s example isn’t domineering, but it is to lead. Leading and domineering are not the same thing.

Paidiske said:

Also where we see women exercising roles of leadership and authority (Phoebe the deacon; Junia the apostle; women who presided over worship meetings in their homes, and so forth).

Click to expand...

It isn’t clear that Phoebe was a deacon and I’ll use your same logic when we spoke of “ezer”. The term is used in other places simply as “servant” When it’s referring to the office, it’s generally translated that way. Lydia hosted church meetings, but just because they had it at her house doesn’t mean she led the group. As for Junia or Junias, scholars aren’t certain as to what sex he/she was. But either way, “among the apostles” doesn’t necessarily mean Junia was an apostle, but that the apostles commended the work she was accomplishing. The scriptures are clearer about apostles in other places, just as there are clearer passages when it comes to male/female roles.

HosannaHM said:

To start with, I think we need to define what we mean when we say “patriarchy”. I’m using the term in the sense of male headship. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I believe you’re thinking of it in the domineering sense. Because we are specifically talking about Christianity, I’m referring to patriarchy in light of God’s intention for men to lead the home.

Click to expand...

By patriarchy I'm talking about the social structure we have which affords (some) men power, control, authority etc over everyone else. Historically it has excluded - and to some extent continues to exclude - women from education, employment, various social roles, cultural expression and so on; while confining women to the domestic sphere. We have not yet finished dismantling patriarchy in that social sense.

But I also don't believe that it's God's intention for men to lead the home. I believe it's God's intention for husband and wife to grow in unity of purpose and action, including sharing leadership.

HosannaHM said:

That’s a great verse, and I agree with it 100%. We are equal in Christ, but men are not women and vice versa. Not one sex is better than the other. Status, race, and class do not make one better than the other. We are equal in Christ. Equality doesn’t mean that men and women are the same. We are still made different and for different purposes. Equal, but distinct.

Click to expand...

Equal but distinct stops being equal when it systematically disempowers one group.

HosannaHM said:

It isn’t clear that Phoebe was a deacon and I’ll use your same logic when we spoke of “ezer”. The term is used in other places simply as “servant” When it’s referring to the office, it’s generally translated that way. Lydia hosted church meetings, but just because they had it at her house doesn’t mean she led the group. As for Junia or Junias, scholars aren’t certain as to what sex he/she was. But either way, “among the apostles” doesn’t necessarily mean Junia was an apostle, but that the apostles commended the work she was accomplishing. The scriptures are clearer about apostles in other places, just as there are clearer passages when it comes to male/female roles.

Click to expand...

Sure, you can explain away the evidence for women in leadership if you want to. Many people do. But for me it's part of a clear picture of how things change for women in Christ.