Really? No threads about the Gillette ad yet?

[ThatRobGuy]

Why do you keep conflating this with the "PC crowd"? It has nothing to do with political correctness.

Fine, take the PC part out if that bugs you...how would people (who support the Gillette ad) feel about this:

 

[Paidiske]

If there were actually an epidemic of women throwing babies in dumpsters, I'd be fine with it.

 

[iluvatar5150]

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!"

The analog of driving in this case would be being male. Nobody's saying it's wrong to be male. What people are saying is that there are bad behaviors that are often associated with and excused by being male (e.g. "boys will be boys"), and that society should break that association and men who don't engage in those behaviors should hold other men accountable.

It's not unlike the campaign to promote designated drivers or to encourage people to grab their buddys' keys when they're trashed. We're all drivers, and we should all hold each other accountable.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Is there actually an epidemic of babies being thrown in dumpsters?

It was enough of a concern that they had to do this:
Indiana Installs 'Baby Boxes' for Abandoned Newborns

Home


...but we're getting off in the weeds.

It's an abortion thing.

...actually, I'm sure you've noticed that I'm very pro-choice. It's not an abortion thing. It was a meme someone made directly to respond to ads like the Gillette one.

 

[SummerMadness]

'Paying to stay safe': why women don't walk as much as men

Talk to women all over the world about their walking habits, and one issue comes up again and again: personal safety.

In Washington DC, non-profit worker Hannah Geyer has all but given up her regular 15-minute walk through a park to and from the venue where she performs in a variety show. The groups of men who loiter in the park have literally frightened her off her feet.

"They would get really, really, really close to me," Geyer says. "It's one thing if you're yelling at me from across the sidewalk, because I can just be, like, 'whatever' and keep walking. But physically putting their bodies into my path or getting into my bubble when I don't answer or look irritated at them – which is all the time ... It was [them saying]: 'I'm gonna stop you from walking where you're walking.'"

It's obviously not rare, to the point that women have different travel patterns than men.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The analog of driving in this case would be being male. Nobody's saying it's wrong to be male. What people are saying is that there are bad behaviors that are often associated with and excused by being male (e.g. "boys will be boys"), and that society should break that association and men who don't engage in those behaviors should hold other men accountable.

It's not unlike the campaign to promote designated drivers or to encourage people to grab their buddys' keys when they're trashed. We're all drivers, and we should all hold each other accountable.

It's not a true equivalent though...grabbing your buddies keys is directly preventing them from committing a crime that puts others lives in danger. The very fact that we're discussing an outlandish comparison where we compare drunk driving with "Wow, she was hot, I'm going to go try to get her number" perfectly illustrates where it's gone into the realm of silly.

The true equivalent would be trying to grab your buddies keys because he commented on how there was a new beer he liked.

If this ad showed someone in the process of grabbing a woman when she was trying to get away, and another man stepped in and put a stop to it, I'd be applauding.

But what's happening here is something I touched on earlier, they're purposely expanding the term and scope of what "toxic" means (much like many watered down the term 'terrorism'), in order to artificially make an issue more pervasive than it actually is, so much so, that it includes things we see everyday so they can say "see how prevalent this is?!?!"

 

[SummerMadness]

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.

Or, we do what we actually did, raise awareness about drunk driving, promote use of cabs and designated drivers, tell people that we need to stop that guy that is obviously drunk from getting behind the wheel. Alcohol isn't the culprit, it's how alcohol is used that is the culprit. You can drink until you pass out, just don't get behind the wheel. Likewise, there is no issue with a man approaching a woman to ask her out on a date; however, soliciting a woman on the street, is not the most appropriate time. Go to a bar, nightclub or some other social activity, not on the street.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

'Paying to stay safe': why women don't walk as much as men



It's obviously not rare, to the point that women have different travel patterns than men.

Just to make sure we have things in proper context. I didn't say assaults are rare (in fact, DOJ data would imply they're far too common). I said that the assaults, motivated by a man being mad because a woman rejected his catcall on the street, is rare.

Again, the commercial and the "toxic masculinity" movement as a whole wants to expand the term "toxic" to include a lot of things it shouldn't, and attempt to imply a causal relationship between things that have, at best, a weak indirect relationship in rare outlier incidents.

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's not a true equivalent though...grabbing your buddies keys is directly preventing them from committing a crime that puts others lives in danger. The very fact that we're discussing an outlandish comparison where we compare drunk driving with "Wow, she was hot, I'm going to go try to get her number" perfectly illustrates where it's gone into the realm of silly.

The true equivalent would be trying to grab your buddies keys because he commented on how there was a new beer he liked.

If this ad showed someone in the process of grabbing a woman when she was trying to get away, and another man stepped in and put a stop to it, I'd be applauding.

But what's happening here is something I touched on earlier, they're purposely expanding the term and scope of what "toxic" means (much like many watered down the term 'terrorism'), in order to artificially make an issue more pervasive than it actually is, so much so, that it includes things we see everyday so they can say "see how prevalent this is?!?!"

I think the disconnect here is in how the two camps are interpreting the unsolicited approaching of women. You're coming at it from the camp of "this is totally okay", while a whole lot of women - more than you're acknowledging - are saying that it's not as uncommon as you're portraying it; it often is not as innocent as you're presenting it; and it's appreciated much less often as you might realize.

You (or men in general) don't get to decide the totality of this situation. The women have a say (or ought to have a say) in it, too. And if a WHOLE LOT of them are saying that this sort of approach is not okay (and from where I sit, that seems to be the case), then it's not okay and men who don't appreciate that ought to take some time to educate themselves on their experience.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Or, we do what we actually did, raise awareness about drunk driving, promote use of cabs and designated drivers, tell people that we need to stop that guy that is obviously drunk from getting behind the wheel.

Correct, because getting drunk and trying to drive is the direct, exclusive precursor to drunk driving.

If a person his hammered, and they're getting in their car to drive, there is only one outcome, that is drunk driving, right?

'Catcalling -> Sexual Assault' doesn't have the same causal relationship (or level of correlation) as 'Drinking then driving a car -> Drunk Driving'

 

[Ana the Ist]

Fine, take the PC part out if that bugs you...how would people (who support the Gillette ad) feel about this:

View attachment 249493

Lol I was actually trying to think of a less extreme message myself. Something like...."Women, what's up with all the nagging and promiscuous clothing?? Stop showing 50% of your breasts in public and bothering your spouses with stuff they don't care about....you can do better."

It's the same thing though...it's the suggestion that this is a problem that the majority struggle with that's false.

 

[SummerMadness]

It's not a true equivalent though...grabbing your buddies keys is directly preventing them from committing a crime that puts others lives in danger. The very fact that we're discussing an outlandish comparison where we compare drunk driving with "Wow, she was hot, I'm going to go try to get her number" perfectly illustrates where it's gone into the realm of silly.

The true equivalent would be trying to grab your buddies keys because he commented on how there was a new beer he liked.

If this ad showed someone in the process of grabbing a woman when she was trying to get away, and another man stepped in and put a stop to it, I'd be applauding.

But what's happening here is something I touched on earlier, they're purposely expanding the term and scope of what "toxic" means (much like many watered down the term 'terrorism'), in order to artificially make an issue more pervasive than it actually is, so much so, that it includes things we see everyday so they can say "see how prevalent this is?!?!"

You keep arguing that something needs to be a crime for it to be a problem, which is obviously false. If this were an adult male trying to talk to children in a park, it doesn't matter if it is legal to speak to those children, that is inappropriate behavior. If someone invites you to a family dinner and begins to insult your family, that is legal, but it is not appropriate. Legality is not synonymous with ethical, you're making a specious argument here. Legal and ethical are not the same, someone can still act in an unethical, inappropriate manner and still follow the law. That's why some laws are immoral, because legality does not make it right.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You're coming at it from the camp of "this is totally okay", while a whole lot of women - more than you're acknowledging - are saying that it's not as uncommon as you're portraying it; it often is not as innocent as you're presenting it; and it's appreciated much less often as you might realize.

Actually, I'm not...I think it's sort of a tacky practice that one expects to see by the "frat guy" character in a movie.

The camp I'm coming from is the one that objects to:
A) The notion that it's the precursor to sexual assault
B) That if we don't view it as a precursor to sexual assault, and don't actively go out of our way to stop other people from doing it, that makes us "part of the toxic problem"

 

[SummerMadness]

Correct, because getting drunk and trying to drive is the direct, exclusive precursor to drunk driving.

If a person his hammered, and they're getting in their car to drive, there is only one outcome, that is drunk driving, right?

'Catcalling -> Sexual Assault' doesn't have the same causal relationship (or level of correlation) as 'Drinking then driving a car -> Drunk Driving'

Again, another straw man. Catcalling is a form of harassment, no one said that a sexual assault has occurred.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Correct, because getting drunk and trying to drive is the direct, exclusive precursor to drunk driving.

If a person his hammered, and they're getting in their car to drive, there is only one outcome, that is drunk driving, right?

'Catcalling -> Sexual Assault' doesn't have the same causal relationship (or level of correlation) as 'Drinking then driving a car -> Drunk Driving'

Agreed. It's a bit like saying "sometimes men put rufies in women's drinks at the bar...therefore women shouldn't go out drinking." The idea that "sometimes x happens after y" isn't an argument against x....it's an argument against y.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You keep arguing that something needs to be a crime for it to be a problem, which is obviously false.

Then why do you keep attempting to correlate it to incidents of criminal activity?

You've posted links about assault cases, and something about how women were beaten for rejecting catcalls. At the very least, you're implying that it's some sort of precursor to crime, or that certain crimes are a natural consequence of it.

 

[comana]

I think the disconnect here is in how the two camps are interpreting the unsolicited approaching of women. You're coming at it from the camp of "this is totally okay", while a whole lot of women - more than you're acknowledging - are saying that it's not as uncommon as you're portraying it; it often is not as innocent as you're presenting it; and it's appreciated much less often as you might realize.

You (or men in general) don't get to decide the totality of this situation. The women have a say (or ought to have a say) in it, too. And if a WHOLE LOT of them are saying that this sort of approach is not okay (and from where I sit, that seems to be the case), then it's not okay and men who don't appreciate that ought to take some time to educate themselves on their experience.

Thank you for getting it. I don't know of a single woman (myself included) who would welcome that kind of approach and also our first reaction would be to feel threatened and not flattered. There are more appropriate ways to try to meet a woman that may even be welcomed.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Or, we do what we actually did, raise awareness about drunk driving, promote use of cabs and designated drivers, tell people that we need to stop that guy that is obviously drunk from getting behind the wheel. Alcohol isn't the culprit, it's how alcohol is used that is the culprit. You can drink until you pass out, just don't get behind the wheel. Likewise, there is no issue with a man approaching a woman to ask her out on a date; however, soliciting a woman on the street, is not the most appropriate time. Go to a bar, nightclub or some other social activity, not on the street.

We didn't tell people to stop drinking though. If you want to make an argument against catcalling or hitting on women, do that...but don't pretend that the possibility of a sexual assault has anything to do with it. Sexual assault happens without catcalling all the time.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Actually, I'm not...I think it's sort of a tacky practice that one expects to see by the "frat guy" character in a movie.

The camp I'm coming from is the one that objects to:
A) The notion that it's the precursor to sexual assault
B) That if we don't view it as a precursor to sexual assault, and don't actively go out of our way to stop other people from doing it, that makes us "part of the toxic problem"

Maybe I've missed something, but I haven't seen anyone say that it's automatically a precursor to sexual assault. But what I have seen here and elsewhere is that it tends to make women feel:

• Uncomfortable
• Unsafe
• Degraded
• Guarded
• Powerless
• Intimidated

I could probably go on, but you get the idea. None of these are criminal; none of these are automatically even physical. But they're all bad.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Catcalling is a form of harassment

Not necessarily.