Really? No threads about the Gillette ad yet?

[rambot]

I didn't.

The part that feels "iffy" to me is a company that sells shaving products is attempting to sermonize about proper behavior for half the population.

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

Can we agree that no one should really care what Gillette has to say about men's behavior? We're talking about a company that makes advertisements like this...

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

Beyond the simple fact that Gillette doesn't really have any relevance to the topic of male behavior....I find it rather condescending that they just depict men as violent sex crazed animals in need of restraint. It's the equivalent of depicting women as overly emotional/fragile. It's nothing more than one-dimensional stereotyping.

You find a commercial that depicts men as "violent sex crazed animals" condescending? Because it is a trope in almost every single movie and show that exists. Personally, I didn't feel like they depicted all men doing that because I don't do those things. 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".
And a not small portion of the male population doesn't like being told what to do.

 

[grasping the after wind]

That's just pride. I know many men; dare I say most men I know (like way way way most...) appreciate correction so long as its communicated respectfully and with good intent.

And from a source they find worthy of respect and adhering to the same standard that the source is recommending. When a shaving cream/ razor company, a company based whose entire existence is upon men's vanity, begins to preach at me in hopes their preaching causes me to buy their product I find it annoying not edifying.

 

[iluvatar5150]

So you're saying men can't be Christians?

Or are you saying men just don't like being Christians?

This. I think that if the only negative reaction were towards the blatant pandering and corporate hypocrisy, the critics would have a point. But that's not what the bulk of the anger is about - the bulk of the anger is directed at the underlying message that some stereotypically male behaviors are bad and destructive and that men ought to be better than that. And you're right - it's an odd sentiment coming from a group that probably has a high percentage of people identifying as Christian.

Besides, Gillette's been making grown men cry for a while. Why stop now?

 

[rambot]

So then, you disagree.with Jesus .... ???

I'm just curious ....

No. I disagree with how you are applying that passage in this situation.

 

[A_Thinker]

When a shaving cream/ razor company, a company based whose entire existence is upon men's vanity,

Shaving is not just a vanity, ... for me, it's a matter of comfort ...

 

[Redac]

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.

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.

 

[Ironhold]

Funny, they only depict/diss negative behavior in that ad, so why would people think they are dissing positive “masculine” traits?

This:

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.

A big part of teaching young men right from wrong is teaching them when they need to take a stand for something, and in some instances - like, say, someone coming for your wallet - that stand means the use of violence to defend self and others. I mean, the one guy stopping the other guy from getting too pushy with the ladies is an example of the judicious use of force in a proper fashion.

Likewise, as cliche as it may be, there are times where some guys just need to knock each other around for a bit to establish where the boundaries are and what's going on.

 

[dgiharris]

The "overly PC" themes being forced on everyone is why I fear we're going to end up with more Trumps before we get a decent president again. While some of us can just call it out for what it is, many folks are driven into the arms of people like Trump when they get fed up with a bunch of ultra-left college kids dictating what they can and can't do/say.

...and maybe I'm the only one who noticed, but did anyone else see in the ads that they specifically picked the white guys to be the bad guys? Perhaps in their quest for ultimate PC-ness, they were afraid of portraying the black guys as the bad guys in those scenarios out of fear of being called racist.

So, when the white guy is making cat calls at the woman, hero to the rescue:
View attachment 249393

Terry Crews:
View attachment 249394

Then this guy stopping the white guy from getting grabby at a pool party:
View attachment 249395


...and when the two white kids are fighting at the BBQ:
View attachment 249396



I don't think it was an anti-white sentiment intentionally...but I do think they new exactly what audience they were trying to play to, and that audience most certainly would've twisted a "white guy stops black guy from grabbing woman" or "black kid tackles white kid" scenario into accusations of "racism in the media"

This is a trend I've been noticing for about 20 years and it is getting worse...

What I mean is that there are plenty of white people and white men that are not racist, not sexist, just decent people living their lives. However, the trend of portraying whites as the bad guys is going to alienate all of the white people that are decent people. Essentially, what is your incentive to be a decent human being if you are regarded as a bad person no matter what you do...

Basically, we need to just take a step back in this country in regards to how we view all this stuff...

Speaking of....

Am I the only one put off by viewing anything sexual as automatically bad and evil? Specifically, Cat Calls...

I remember once, my friend and I were just leaving a convenience store (we just graduated high school) when this older sexy lady in her late 30s early 40s pulled up and exited her jeep. As she walked passed us we honked the car horn, she looked at us, and we waved at her. She immediately smiled a giant smile, looked at us for a second still smiling shaking her head and then walked into the store with a new pep in her step and a slight blush...

When I was younger my friends and I would do Cat Calls all the time, I would term them as respectful cat calls and to be honest reception to the cat calls were overwhelmingly positive.

I dunno... I guess I might be coming off as a creep or something, but I feel we are taking things way too far if we are going to view a cat call as inappropriate???

I guess we should/could have a discussion about when cat calls are appropriate or ok vs when they are not appropriate or ok? Surely there is some sort of etiquette about cat calls? I mean, a 40 yr old man cat calling a 16 yr old girl is clearly inappropriate... Then there is the amount of distance involved. Almost feels like the further away you are the more okay it is vs cat calling someone that is 5 feet from you....

I dunno.. thoughts?

 

[dgiharris]

...
Likewise, as cliche as it may be, there are times where some guys just need to knock each other around for a bit to establish where the boundaries are and what's going on.

I forget the actual study, but someone did a study regarding school aged boys vs school aged girls and their social circles, friends, conflict resolution etc.

The study found that boys got along way better with each other than girls. That is, when a boy had a problem with another boy, they often solved it by fighting and then after the fight they usually became friends!!!!

Girls on the other hand did not fight. They resorted to all manner of passive aggressive behavior to include gossiping and sabotage and as a result when girls hated each other they continued to hate each other and rarely became friends.

My best friend in Elementary school was a guy I got into a fight with in the 6th grade. We got into a fight over something stupid, it came to blows, we nailed each other pretty good a few times and the fight ended in a stalemate. I had him in a head-lock, he had me in some weird sorta ankle-lock that hurt and we are rolling around on the ground. We reached a stalemate and after lying on the ground for a couple of minutes we did the "You let go and I'll let go on 3... 1...2...3..."

We declared the fight as a tie and then we walked home talking about the fight and joking around-- that is, we became instant friends after that fight and we were inseparable for years until he had to move away....

So to some extent "Boys will be boys" is true and so I always cringe with this new wave PC anti-masculinity agenda that seems to be being pushed.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Am I the only one put off by viewing anything sexual as automatically bad and evil? Specifically, Cat Calls...

I remember once, my friend and I were just leaving a convenience store (we just graduated high school) when this older sexy lady in her late 30s early 40s pulled up and exited her jeep. As she walked passed us we honked the car horn, she looked at us, and we waved at her. She immediately smiled a giant smile, looked at us for a second still smiling shaking her head and then walked into the store with a new pep in her step and a slight blush...

When I was younger my friends and I would do Cat Calls all the time, I would term them as respectful cat calls and to be honest reception to the cat calls were overwhelmingly positive.

I dunno... I guess I might be coming off as a creep or something, but I feel we are taking things way too far if we are going to view a cat call as inappropriate???

That's kind of what I touched on in post #38

This term "toxic masculinity" got tossed out, and the other poster implied that people were getting bent out of shape because they weren't paying attention to the adjective.

I replied by saying that people were setting the bar incredibly low with regards to what they'll classify as "toxic"

Obviously it's fine to call out legitimate instances of it...however, per the example in my post, a guy seeing an attractive woman, saying "wow", and then making a move to approach her and talk to her isn't "toxic", and the "hero" in that scene putting his hand on his chest to stop him and say "whoa, not cool" is laughable.

When petty things like that start getting the classification of "toxic" and "misogyny", that's the precise moment when those words will lose their impact and people will stop taking it seriously when people report it...when the scales tip and the words get used more often in overreactions than it legitimate cases, it's only a matter of time before people just assume "they're overreacting" when they hear those words.

 

[iluvatar5150]

This is a trend I've been noticing for about 20 years and it is getting worse...

What I mean is that there are plenty of white people and white men that are not racist, not sexist, just decent people living their lives. However, the trend of portraying whites as the bad guys is going to alienate all of the white people that are decent people. Essentially, what is your incentive to be a decent human being if you are regarded as a bad person no matter what you do...

Basically, we need to just take a step back in this country in regards to how we view all this stuff...

I don't know... I think if we look at popular American media over the last, say, 60 years or so, there are some pretty common tropes with regards to how villains have been written:

• Gangbangers, usually black
• Mobsters, usually Italian but possibly Russian or Asian
• Terrorists, usually Arab but possibly Irish
• Drug cartel bosses, usually Hispanic
• Warlords, usually African or near-Asian
• Wealthy oppressors, usually white and very rich
• Serial killers, usually white and crazy

Perhaps I'm just forgetting something, but I can't think of a trope that has as the bad guy a normal, not-rich, not-crazy, non-immigrant white dude doing "normal" white guy things. Or if there is a trope, it's a pretty recent one.

I think what part of what upsets a lot of people is the bad guys are no longer somebody else with whom they don't identify. Now, the behaviors being targeted are ones they've normalized and ones they either witness or participate in on a regular basis.

Surely there is some sort of etiquette about cat calls?

Yeah - unless you know that the comment is going to be well-received, don't.

 

[iluvatar5150]

That's kind of what I touched on in post #38

This term "toxic masculinity" got tossed out, and the other poster implied that people were getting bent out of shape because they weren't paying attention to the adjective.

I replied by saying that people were setting the bar incredibly low with regards to what they'll classify as "toxic"

Obviously it's fine to call out legitimate instances of it...however, per the example in my post, a guy seeing an attractive woman, saying "wow", and then making a move to approach her and talk to her isn't "toxic", and the "hero" in that scene putting his hand on his chest to stop him and say "whoa, not cool" is laughable.

When petty things like that start getting the classification of "toxic" and "misogyny", that's the precise moment when those words will lose their impact and people will stop taking it seriously when people report it...when the scales tip and the words get used more often in overreactions than it legitimate cases, it's only a matter of time before people just assume "they're overreacting" when they hear those words.

In the video, the woman was walking by quickly and there was no social context to facilitate their interaction or to suggest that she was open to being hit on. While this is may be one of the weaker examples in the video, the guy still would've had to chase her down and interrupt whatever it was that she was doing. I've known a lot of women to find that sort of approach in that context to be uncomfortable, if not outright insulting and threatening. I'm not above employing some of my own machinations in order to meet women, but a big part of the process is not just looking at the intentions behind my actions, but also in looking at how they'll be interpreted and received and modulating them accordingly.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Another issue that's muddying up the waters is what I've started referring to as "tribalism-driven outrage".

It's similar to selective outrage...but where it differs is that it seems to be reactionary based on which entities were the first to establish positions to support/oppose something. It's kind of like a hybrid between selective outrage and virtue signaling for lack of a better description.

One very recent example is the flak the R&B Performer "The Weeknd" is getting for some lyrics in his new song. Basically, some lyrics about how woman he likes might be into girls and he says (paraphrasing) "it may just be a phase" and "bring her along and all 3 of us can have some fun" and implying that he can "make her straight" - I won't use the actual lyrics for obvious reasons.

Since the first critics of the lyrics were some prominent social media personalities in the LGBT community, the PC crowd has sided with them and started bashing the Weeknd and claiming that LGBT people should boycott his music and any radio station that plays it.

However, had the first critic had been, let's say, an evangelical congressman or senator like Ted Cruz, saying "these kinds of lyrics glorifying premarital sex & bisexual acts need to be removed and everyone should boycott these songs", I have no doubt in my mind that the same people bashing him now, would be coming to his defense on grounds of free speech simply to oppose Ted.

...and I've seen some of that behavior going in the other direction too.

Basically, whoever goes public with an "against XYZ" position first, sets the tone for where the rest of the tribes are going to land on an hot button topic.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

In the video, the woman was walking by quickly and there was no social context to facilitate their interaction or to suggest that she was open to being hit on.

the guy still would've had to chase her down and interrupt whatever it was that she was doing.

I've known a lot of women to find that sort of approach in that context to be uncomfortable

...then let's pick a different name for it and not use the same descriptor that's used to describe much more severe things.

Like I touched on...this is the same thing that happened with the word "terrorism". People wanted to "pad the stats" so that they had something to use as debate fodder and could throw out a big number to express how pervasive they saw a problem to be, and in the process, watered down the term thus causing it to be taken less seriously.

I'll draw a parallel here.

We've both been on CF for a long time, remember when Islam was the hottest debate topic? Right wing folks would highlight instances of terrorism to prove a point, and as a response, many on the left wing would use a watered down definition of the term as to be able to say "well, technically there's been more terror from the right wing".

We'd end up with 2 dozen threads a week (usually coming from the same 5-6 posters) about stuff like "Someone spray painted a swastika on a park bench, they need to speak out against this terrorism!"

After a while, I'd see the thread titles and know exactly what kind of nonsense was going to be in it.

The same thing is happening with a lot of terms and lingo for these social justice topics as well.

So much like it's completely ludicrous to use the same term to define killing vs. vandalizing, it's equally ludicrous to use the same term to define "approach woman for the first time to ask for a date even if it may annoy her" and "abusing power in the workplace and physically forcing yourself on someone"

 

[SummerMadness]

That may be the case for some people. However, for other people, the objection solely lies with the double-standard for which that adjective is used...or, indeed, the very low standard with which it gets invoked.

Let's take a look at this little bit from the ad.

An attractive woman walks by, and a guy says "wow" and starts to walk after her and the other guys says "c'mon man, not cool".

So vocalizing that you think someone's attractive, and making an attempt to approach them is "toxic"?

Vocalizing you think someone's attractive is not toxic, but starting to follow a woman and hitting on her is. I think what you're pointing out is a distortion of what the intervening man is stopping. Street harassment is deemed harassment because this guy will insist this woman needs to stop and talk to him because he finds her attractive. This isn't a bar or a club, this is her walking down the street. She could be trying to get to work, class, appointment, etc., on time, but this guy doesn't care, he has to let her know she is attractive and stop her from going about her business. That is why it is considered toxic, particularly because there are men that encourage other men to hit on women in this way. The purpose is not to chastise a man for being attracted to a woman, it's about your behavior in finding a woman attractive. As I said earlier, there is a time and place.

For the people who use that term, would they be using the term "toxic femininity" to describe the woman ogling and responding to "the hot guy", but completely ignoring the "the not guy"?

If the woman was stopping this guy when he comes into work to tell him how attractive he is and not letting him get his work done, then yes, that would be similar to a man catcalling a woman. Her being attracted to a man at work (or a man being attracted to a woman at work) is not a problem, it's her conduct. I've actually dealt with women that harass you on the street, it's no fun. Two times happened when I was running, the other was simply walking down the street (the one in which an old woman said I was a mighty, fine looking man and if she were younger she would rape me, and no she didn't use a euphemism, she said she would rape me). It's not simply someone looking at me and finding me attractive, it is either stopping me from what I am doing (the two times I am running), the other is use crude language that is just plain wrong. It's the behavior, not simply the attraction.

 

[SummerMadness]

I dunno... I guess I might be coming off as a creep or something, but I feel we are taking things way too far if we are going to view a cat call as inappropriate???

I guess we should/could have a discussion about when cat calls are appropriate or ok vs when they are not appropriate or ok? Surely there is some sort of etiquette about cat calls? I mean, a 40 yr old man cat calling a 16 yr old girl is clearly inappropriate... Then there is the amount of distance involved. Almost feels like the further away you are the more okay it is vs cat calling someone that is 5 feet from you....

I dunno.. thoughts?

I think for woman in her 40s, she might smile at a catcall because it is not common, but when you're 20 it's not flattering. I think the frequency with which something occurs has a big effect on how you view the behavior. If you got catcalled once or twice a year, you might shrug your shoulder, but what if that's everyday? For the catcaller, they may not do this all the time, but for the woman, you are one of many men that harass her, it's a problem. I think back to a time when I would be stopped by women while running (I don't know, might be a Philly thing), it irritating when it happened more than once; I'm trying to run here, I don't want to talk to you.

I think of catcalling as similar to microagressions, the action itself is quite mild, some people are worse than others, but te real issue is the cumulative effect of that behavior. One catcaller, meh. Two catcallers, ugh. Three, four, five... At some point the number of interactions becomes a problem.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Vocalizing you think someone's attractive is not toxic, but starting to follow a woman and hitting on her is.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. There's no expectation of privacy on the street. Now, if he starts blocking her, or physically touches or threatens her, that's when a crime has been committed. Walking on the same public street in close proximity to someone else and asking them out isn't a crime.

I think what you're pointing out is a distortion of what the intervening man is stopping. Street harassment is deemed harassment because this guy will insist this woman needs to stop and talk to him because he finds her attractive. This isn't a bar or a club, this is her walking down the street. She could be trying to get to work, class, appointment, etc., on time, but this guy doesn't care, he has to let her know she is attractive and stop her from going about her business.

I think we can go ahead and just toss out the whole "making someone late for something" angle. Would we be calling it toxic if someone stopped someone else on the street to ask them "what did you think of that game last night?" or other forms of small talk?

If the woman was stopping this guy when he comes into work to tell him how attractive he is and not letting him get his work done, then yes, that would be similar to a man catcalling a woman. Her being attracted to a man at work (or a man being attracted to a woman at work) is not a problem, it's her conduct.

...so, if the roles in that sample commercial I provided were reversed, and it was a guy sitting at the desk, and when the "hot" female walked by and he smiled and was polite, but when a heavier set (or some other trait that society typically deems as being not attractive) walked by and said hi, and he ignored her and then she said "I'm the second most attractive woman in the office, but it's a small office", and the commercial was being presented in such away to convey "see, everyone, this is funny!", you know darn well the PC/feminist crowd would be all over it for "fat shaming" and "how dare they try to give the idea that it's okay to treat women certain ways based on looks alone", etc... etc...

Really...watch this ad again:

...imagine it being verbatim, just with the genders reversed one guy sitting at the desk, then two women walking by... same lines, same interactions, same comedic tone. Do you think the PC crowd would react the same to it?

 

[SummerMadness]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. There's no expectation of privacy on the street. Now, if he starts blocking her, or physically touches or threatens her, that's when a crime has been committed. Walking on the same public street in close proximity to someone else and asking them out isn't a crime.

Something doesn't need to be a crime for it to be inappropriate. Walking on a public street doesn't mean that one should not be given personal space. Why should anyone have to stop and have a conversation with you? No crime was committed, but it's wrong for you to demand that someone accommodate you simply because you want to talk to them.

I think we can go ahead and just toss out the whole "making someone late for something" angle. Would we be calling it toxic if someone stopped someone else on the street to ask them "what did you think of that game last night?" or other forms of small talk?

But now you're arguing for something that doesn't happen. People don't often solicit people on the streets to ask them about what they thought of the game last night or other forms of small talk. Most people are not fond of making small talk simply because you want to have a conversation. Go ahead, try it. And we already know how people will act, they often want to be left alone. (EDIT NOTE: I'll throw in the caveat that I grew up in and around NYC, I believe small talk quotient is highly correlated to the population density, so people living in cities tend to hate small talk.)

...so, if the roles in that sample commercial I provided were reversed, and it was a guy sitting at the desk, and when the "hot" female walked by and he smiled and was polite, but when a heavier set (or some other trait that society typically deems as being not attractive) walked by and said hi, and he ignored her and then she said "I'm the second most attractive woman in the office, but it's a small office", and the commercial was being presented in such away to convey "see, everyone, this is funny!", you know darn well the PC/feminist crowd would be all over it for "fat shaming" and "how dare they try to give the idea that it's okay to treat women certain ways based on looks alone", etc... etc...

Really...watch this ad again:

...imagine it being verbatim, just with the genders reversed one guy sitting at the desk, then two women walking by... same lines, same interactions, same comedic tone. Do you think the PC crowd would react the same to it?

Now you're arguing something else completely. We're talking about street harassment and whether that's consider toxic masculinity. You're saying it was akin to the woman in this commercial, and it's not. The topic of whether people would be upset about what kind of person is deemed attractive is another topic altogether and is not related to toxic masculinity. Do I think the politically correct crowd would have a problem with making fun of someone for being obese? Yeah, I could see that. But I could also see them decrying the inflation of musclebound men as better than everyone else because of the unrealistic images it asks men to conform to (similar to whatever beauty standards women should follow). But that's not what toxic masculinity is referring to.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Now you're arguing something else completely. We're talking about street harassment and whether that's consider toxic masculinity. You're saying it was akin to the woman in this commercial, and it's not.

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 now you're arguing for something that doesn't happen. People don't often solicit people on the streets to ask them about what they thought of the game last night or other forms of small talk. Most people are not fond of making small talk simply because you want to have a conversation. Go ahead, try it. And we already know how people will act, they often want to be left alone.

Chalk it up to growing up in different places I guess...it's not uncommon where I live. Few times a month I'll chat it up with some strangers when I'm out walking around town.

Something doesn't need to be a crime for it to be inappropriate. Walking on a public street doesn't mean that one should not be given personal space. Why should anyone have to stop and have a conversation with you? No crime was committed, but it's wrong for you to demand that someone accommodate you simply because you want to talk to them.

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

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.

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.

 

[SummerMadness]

So much like it's completely ludicrous to use the same term to define killing vs. vandalizing, it's equally ludicrous to use the same term to define "approach woman for the first time to ask for a date even if it may annoy her" and "abusing power in the workplace and physically forcing yourself on someone"

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; nonetheless, the guy forcing himself on women is much worse. When it comes to catcalling, it's not simply being annoyed, some men take it to a level of danger, but that's why most women find the experience uncomfortable.

It reminds me of a bit I heard, turns out it's from John Mulaney:

It's easier to justify your actions, but you really have to take the woman's perspective into account, many of them have had men that "innocently" asked them out on a date and followed them home. I have never had an experience where I thought to take a detour home because someone was following me, a lot of my girlfriends and female friends have.