Really? No threads about the Gillette ad yet?

BigDaddy4

It's a new season...
Sep 4, 2008
7,442
1,983
Washington
✟217,619.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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. Does a short-term (less than a month) encounter before going back to college count? Been there, did that.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Part of the disconnect, I expect, is that "unwanted" and "threatening" are often so close as to be overlapping, when we're talking about random interactions with men. Part of the problem I have with catcalling - as noted in my first post in this thread - is that it very seldom stops short of catcalling.

Very seldom, huh?

I eatched probably the same catcalling videos you did. As I recall, it stopped with catcalling 99-100% of the time. I can post some of these videos if you like.

Where are you getting this idea that it "very seldom" stops with the catcalling?



The catcall is often an exercise of power as much as an articulation of attraction.

You make it sound like this is a nature show on orangutans. Exercise of power? Are you kidding?


Part of the problem with the guy who hits on you is that many of them don't graciously accept being politely turned down.

I'm sure that happens. A lot of guys handle rejection poorly.

And that brings us back full circle to the idea that there's a time and place, and at random in public might not be it...

But it might be....and you'll never know if you don't try.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I think that you're mistaken.

Yeah?

Kaepernick denies giving Travis Scott blessing to perform at Super Bowl - sports - att.net

Now, I don't really know who Travis Scott is...country singer is my guess...but I think we can all agree, he doesn't really need Kaepernick's approval to perform at the Super Bowl does he?

Yet, look at what Colin's wife says...

"If you’re with them, then you are definitely not with us. "

So without any real discussion...Travis Scott is now "part of the problem". No....they didn't ask him his position on police brutality. No....they didn't ask his position on anything. That's the core of virtue signaling....its just to create a "us vs them" mentality so that you can promote yourself while bashing others.

Nobody needs Kaepernick's "blessing" to work with the NFL.
 
Upvote 0

A_Thinker

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 23, 2004
11,911
9,064
Midwest
✟931,284.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yeah?

Kaepernick denies giving Travis Scott blessing to perform at Super Bowl - sports - att.net

Now, I don't really know who Travis Scott is...country singer is my guess...but I think we can all agree, he doesn't really need Kaepernick's approval to perform at the Super Bowl does he?

Yet, look at what Colin's wife says...

"If you’re with them, then you are definitely not with us. "

So without any real discussion...Travis Scott is now "part of the problem". No....they didn't ask him his position on police brutality. No....they didn't ask his position on anything. That's the core of virtue signaling....its just to create a "us vs them" mentality so that you can promote yourself while bashing others.

Nobody needs Kaepernick's "blessing" to work with the NFL.

I think that we were discussing the MOTIVATION for people making the choices that they do ... and your seeming belief that you can read their minds to determine if they are simply, "virtue-signalling", as you call it.

As to your response ... you're right, Travis Scott didn't NEED to get Kaepernick's "blessing" to work with the NFL.

But HE CHOSE to approach Kaepernick. Why did he do so ? I suppose that only he knows. But the article you cited indicated that he and Kaepernick came away from the meeting not exactly on the same page. And that's okay ... people can feel differently about issues. And none of this means that those people who are making these decisions are trying to SIGNAL their VIRTUE. Sometime they just think that they want to do the RIGHT thing, and everybody's free to decide what the RIGHT THING is for themselves.

You know ... I have participated in support for the welfare of people far removed from myself for about 40 years now. I don't do that to SIGNAL my VIRTUE (I've very rarely mentioned it to anyone ... and I'm only mentioning it now as an personal example of my argument). I choose to do it because I think that it's the RIGHT THING for me to do.

Everybody that chooses to support a GOOD cause is not seeking the applause of their fellowman, ... though SOME surely do. Try not to be so cynical.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SummerMadness

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
18,201
11,829
✟331,677.00
Faith
Catholic
Everybody that does GOOD is not seeking the applause of their fellowman, ... though SOME surely do. Try not to be so cynical.
Claims of virtue signaling when a person has actually gone through the process of raising money for a particular cause and donating their time and money to that cause is more than enough information to know that the naysayers don't want to engage on the topic. But that's how these folks operate. Do they really want to argue against the cause being championed?

In many cases it reveals underlying racism, misogyny or other forms of bigotry when they come out fully against a campaign, so they try to sidestep the topic by attacking the people supporting the cause. Regardless of these people actually doing something besides gestures (devoting your time and money is more than a gesture), they will pretend no action has been taken because they've got nothing to add with regard to the topic. For instance, in the Gillette commercial, do they really think such behavior is fine? Nah, let's ignore that topic and argue that everyone is just virtue signaling.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,110
19,005
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,140.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Very seldom, huh?

I eatched probably the same catcalling videos you did. As I recall, it stopped with catcalling 99-100% of the time. I can post some of these videos if you like.

Where are you getting this idea that it "very seldom" stops with the catcalling?

My own life experience.

You make it sound like this is a nature show on orangutans. Exercise of power? Are you kidding?

Not even slightly. There is a power element to most of these encounters, and it's not the woman who feels empowered.

But it might be....and you'll never know if you don't try.

Well, that's true. But understand you'll probably frighten more women than you'll attract.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SummerMadness
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I think that we were discussing the MOTIVATION for people making the choices that they do ... and your seeming belief that you can read their minds to determine if they are simply, "virtue-signalling", as you call it.

It's hard to imagine another motivation. Can you imagine any possible way that kneeling for the anthem during a football game would ever affect "police brutality"?

There's plenty of ways that he could really have made a difference....from volunteering his time with inner city youths, to fundraising, etc. Instead, he chooses to do what will garner him the most attention and praise.

As to your response ... you're right, Travis Scott didn't NEED to get Kaepernick's "blessing" to work with the NFL.

But HE CHOSE to approach Kaepernick. Why did he do so ? I suppose that only he knows.

Oh I think it's not difficult to guess, is it? Do you think that maybe he was concerned that by performing....people would assume that he's "for police brutality", racist, or otherwise morally deficient?

Do you think that maybe he was concerned about those things because that's how the left depicts anyone who doesn't "agree" with Colin's "protest"?


But the article you cited indicated that he and Kaepernick came away from the meeting not exactly on the same page. And that's okay ... people can feel differently about issues. And none of this means that those people who are making these decisions are trying to SIGNAL their VIRTUE. Sometime they just think that they want to do the RIGHT thing, and everybody's free to decide what the RIGHT THING is for themselves.

You're right....anyone can do as they like. The thing is, when they do it conspicuously out of place...like during the anthem, or a shaving cream commercial....and their goals are unclear or non-existent (because Colin can't possibly affect police brutality by kneeling during the anthem anymore than Gillette can affect sexual assault with a commercial lol) one should definitely question why they chose to do what they did.

You know ... I have participated in support for the welfare of people far removed from myself for about 40 years now. I don't do that to SIGNAL my VIRTUE (I've very rarely mentioned it to anyone ... and I'm only mentioning it now as an personal example of my argument). I choose to do it because I think that it's the RIGHT THING for me to do.

Everybody that chooses to support a GOOD cause is not seeking the applause of their fellowman, ... though SOME surely do. Try not to be so cynical.

It's not about you...it's about the argument several posters were either making, suggesting, or beginning to suggest. The argument that the only reason why anyone would have a problem with the commercial in question is their personal moral failings.

As I said, it's the go-to tactic of the left. The only reason why you're against illegal immigration is that you're racist. The only reason why you wouldn't support Colin is you're some white supremacist oppressor. The only reason why you wouldn't be against toxic masculinity is that you're a misogynist/rape apologist/sexual predator.

If you want help...I can point out where the discussion started to turn in that direction. I'm not making this up.

I'll tell you what though, you're a reasonable person...so I'll just ask you this...

You agree that people can dislike or disagree with the commercial and it has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not they are a moral person, right? Just as agreeing with the commercial doesn't automatically make you a "good" person even in regards to the subject matter of the commercial?
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,386
11,317
✟433,395.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
My own life experience.

Not really relevant.

Not even slightly. There is a power element to most of these encounters, and it's not the woman who feels empowered.

I think that depends upon the woman.

Well, that's true. But understand you'll probably frighten more women than you'll attract.

And this is something that I guess some women don't understand....most men will either never or very rarely be hit on by a woman. We have to to risk being rejected....something most women will only do a couple of times, men will do maybe hundreds of times throughout their lives.

If a man "scares off" or is rejected 99 times out of 100....that's a success! The one time he succeeded was worth the other 99....and he'd probably go through those 99 failures again for one success.
 
Upvote 0

rambot

Senior Member
Apr 13, 2006
24,489
13,107
Up your nose....wid a rubbah hose.
✟361,494.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Let's just start with the idea that "toxic masculinity" is a real thing and not an umbrella term invented by man-hating feminists to describe anything they don't like about men.
No. Let's not do that later if we need to.
I don't think my question was either unfair or in need of a change of course in terms of a discussion:
Which behaviours in the ad did you specifically think should be continuing unabated?

Are there any that could occur with less frequency in an "ideal" world (whatever you would want that to be)?

That must have been horrible. I can relate. And even the strongest woman can remember a time like that when she was terrified and didn’t know how to speak up for herself.
Every.Single.Time this discussion comes up and a woman shares a story about receiving uncomfortable, unwanted or pushy sexual attention (or worse) another woman pipes up "I can relate". "I know what you mean".
Every time.
If you listen to what women are saying, how can this not be seen as an issue?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Sparagmos
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,110
19,005
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,140.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
And this is something that I guess some women don't understand....most men will either never or very rarely be hit on by a woman. We have to to risk being rejected....something most women will only do a couple of times, men will do maybe hundreds of times throughout their lives.

If a man "scares off" or is rejected 99 times out of 100....that's a success! The one time he succeeded was worth the other 99....and he'd probably go through those 99 failures again for one success.

Except that's two very different things you're conflating there.

It's one thing to approach someone, appropriately and respectfully, and be rejected. Unpleasant, requiring resilience and courage, all of that.

It's another thing to (knowingly or not) choose an approach which leaves the one you're approaching feeling threatened, scared or vulnerable.

I'd suggest it'd be a good thing for men who want their success rate to increase to learn the difference and avoid the second kind of approach. And also good for women who want to be able to go about our daily lives without wondering if that random guy at the bus stop is going to be someone we have to (literally) run from, for our own safety.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,640
14,524
Here
✟1,196,003.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Ladies, you're always free to tell a man to stop catcalling you, it's not as if any women has ever been beaten or killed for doing so... oh wait, that has happened.

What's your point? If we socially stigmatize every single behavior that, when rejected or objected to, ended in one party illegally using force as a response, we're going to be stigmatizing a whole lot of things before the day is done.

That'd be like saying "Because debating sports has, on rare occasions, resulted in people getting so angry at a person, that they assaulted them...we a society should just do the honorable thing and demonize and stigmatize the practice of debating sports"

Implying that societies stance should be driven by "what could happen" based on the most extreme, rare, outlier examples isn't practical or logical.
 
Upvote 0

SummerMadness

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
18,201
11,829
✟331,677.00
Faith
Catholic
These 14 Women Were Brutally Attacked for Rejecting Men — Why Aren't We Talking About It?
It's difficult to determine precisely how many women have been attacked on the basis of rejection; in fact, the list Mic has compiled, which consists of cases that occurred between Jan. 1, 2015 and Feb. 15, 2016 and were reported by media outlets, is likely far from comprehensive.

First, there's the issue of crime (under)reporting: Many instances of gender-based violence in particular are not reported, so we know we're not seeing the whole picture. Furthermore, we also don't track assaults and murders according to motive.

Why aren't we talking about it? Because some men get incensed that people might consider such behavior inappropriate.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,640
14,524
Here
✟1,196,003.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
As a little social experiment...if women (especially those in the PC crowd who love the Gillette ad) say billboards or a commercial saying this:

upload_2019-1-18_18-26-8.png


...what do you think the general response would be?
 
Upvote 0

SummerMadness

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
18,201
11,829
✟331,677.00
Faith
Catholic
What's your point? If we socially stigmatize every single behavior that, when rejected or objected to, ended in one party illegally using force as a response, we're going to be stigmatizing a whole lot of things before the day is done.

That'd be like saying "Because debating sports has, on rare occasions, resulted in people getting so angry at a person, that they assaulted them...we a society should just do the honorable thing and demonize and stigmatize the practice of debating sports"

Implying that societies stance should be driven by "what could happen" based on the most extreme, rare, outlier examples isn't practical or logical.
You keep on saying the negative response is rare, most women do not like the behavior, the behavior that crosses the line is not rare and their fear isn't rare. Strange men following you several blocks happens more than rarely. "But he didn't do anything to her! He just walked behind her, that's not illegal!" If it's not a problem then, let's not worry about adults talking to children in a park, it's rare that the child will be kidnapped and/or murdered, so we should not stifle these people.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SummerMadness

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
18,201
11,829
✟331,677.00
Faith
Catholic
As a little social experiment...if women (especially those in the PC crowd who love the Gillette ad) say billboards or a commercial saying this:

View attachment 249492

...what do you think the general response would be?
Why do you keep conflating this with the "PC crowd"? It has nothing to do with political correctness.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,640
14,524
Here
✟1,196,003.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Why aren't we talking about it? Because some men get incensed that people might consider such behavior inappropriate.

Let's not be disingenuous here...you're better than that.

Nobody is ever going get angry for demonizing the behavior of brutally attacking someone. Pretty sure we're all in agreement that brutally attacking someone is wrong...

Read my previous #152.

If another analogy works better, let's use cars.

People having the ability to drive cars has sometimes led to people having the ability to drive drunk. If someone proposed "we need to make society aware of how toxic it is for people to drive drunk, and that starts with getting rid of toxic precursor behavior like driving...because driving has preceded drunk driving before" When people rightfully object to that, it wouldn't be fair to turn around and imply "well, you're just mad because you feel entitled to drunk driving!"

Attempting to be flirtatious, hitting on women, or even catcalling isn't the precursor to "beat them up if they object". Saying otherwise would almost be similar to the flawed "gateway drug" argument anti-pot people use.
 
Upvote 0