- Sep 4, 2005
- 28,072
- 16,968
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Fine, take the PC part out if that bugs you...how would people (who support the Gillette ad) feel about this:
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Why do you keep conflating this with the "PC crowd"? It has nothing to do with political correctness.
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!"
Is there actually an epidemic of babies being thrown in dumpsters?
...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.It's an abortion thing.
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.'"
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.
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.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.
'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.
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?!?!"
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.
Fine, take the PC part out if that bugs you...how would people (who support the Gillette ad) feel about this:
View attachment 249493
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.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'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.
Again, another straw man. Catcalling is a form of harassment, no one said that a sexual assault has occurred.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'
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'
You keep arguing that something needs to be a crime for it to be a problem, which is obviously false.
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.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.
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.
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"
Catcalling is a form of harassment
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?