2 hours ago, taestell said:

So what I'm learning is that some people feel uncomfortable when the term "toxic masculinity" is used, and they would prefer that a more politically correct term like "men exhibiting toxic behaviors" be used instead.

Toxic Masculinity is such an obnoxious smug term. It oozes with elitism.

I think just calling a person a jerk or ahole is a much better term and perfectly assesses the person.

^I agree completely.  A new culture is arising out of Twitter, etc., where terms come to take on specific meanings in those realms and then they spring the term on unsuspecting non-Twitter people and as soon as you don't respond in the exact precise exactomundo way as defined by them, they pounce all over you.  They declare total victory when you don't even know the rules of the game.  

 

Twitter, etc., really are mob rule.  These people arrive at some sort of conclusion and then all sorts of people who like to think they are independent thinkers all rush in with them. 

^ lol toxic masculinity isn’t a new term by any stretch. It’s not something invented out of thin air on twitter, nor is it symptomatic of PC culture run amok. Queer communities have been talking about it for quite a while, because many gay men suffered mightily in their childhoods because of it. Just because you don’t like the how it sounds, or you misunderstand what it means doesn’t mean the concept is invalid. 

Edited January 17, 20196 yr by edale

Something went wrong sorry, I don’t think my phone likes the new forum ?

Edited January 17, 20196 yr by Enginerd

lol this thread is 4 pages of responses to twitter astroturfers commissioned to insight outrage over a silly "short film" ad.  Can't we direct our energy towards something more constructive?  Debating the political affiliations of trolling twitter accounts and how that may or may not affect our country is ludicrous.  

2 minutes ago, tklg said:

lol this thread is 4 pages of responses to twitter astroturfers commissioned to insight outrage over a silly "short film" ad.  Can't we direct our energy towards something more constructive?  Debating the political affiliations of trolling twitter accounts and how that may or may not affect our country is ludicrous.  

 

I think everyone gets that, even down to the thread creator, since this thread is more general than the ad and in fact hasn't been primarily about the ad for a while now.

It's all an ad.  The terminology used to describe men is an ad for a political agenda.  The publication citing the ad is an ad for the political agenda ad.  The political agenda is and ad designed to distract from doing actual work on real things. 

 

Directing energy to discuss a term coined by a publication posing as an ad for an ad is just falling deeper into the political agenda mill.  Instead of wasting any energy that could be used for real work, isn't more helpful to spend energy on  increasing individual worth, rather than worthless shit thought up to distract? Increasing individual worth not only helps the individual but everyone connected to the individual. 

2 minutes ago, tklg said:

It's all an ad.  The terminology used to describe men is an ad for a political agenda.  The publication citing the ad is an ad for the political agenda ad.  The political agenda is and ad designed to distract from doing actual work on real things. 

 

Directing energy to discuss a term coined by a publication posing as an ad for an ad is just falling deeper into the political agenda mill.  Instead of wasting any energy that could be used for real work, isn't more helpful to spend energy on  increasing individual worth, rather than worthless shit thought up to distract? Increasing individual worth not only helps the individual but everyone connected to the individual. 

The ad never uses the term.  You should try watching it.

Rather presumptive are we? 

Quote

The terminology used to describe men is an ad for a political agenda

The quoted text is referencing the reason article.

 

I watched the "short film" and it's fine. The outrage is sparked by the publication referencing the "short film" which is what I'm discussing above.

 

My argument is the "outrage" is artificial and generated by publications associated with specific political agendas designed to divide and conquer and distract.  Continuing to debate the accuracy of the artificial outrage is designed intent.

The debate is that Gillete's ad is innocuous but men of a specific ideology became unhinged about it.  The rest of us think those men are ridiculous.  Reason feels the same way and they are far from a liberal publication.

Quote

but men of a specific ideology became unhinged about it.

 

Who are these men?  does anyone know them in real life?

 

 

Yes. I have a friend who fell into the MRA cult and is upset about every slight against "masculinity." You can pretend this is not real all you want but people on this board are real people too and a few of them caught the vapors from the ad.

The attack on masculinity is a real thing.  Not sure what sort of MRA cult you're referencing, but there will always be extremists and are the target audience of these sorts of publications.  The less the general public participates the better IMO.  

 

Thanks for the civil dialogue.

 

The attack on masculinity only exists to people that have a very narrow and toxic definition of what masculinity is.

So, my fiance and I had a great discussion about the Gillette Ad last night... we raised both the pros and cons and also came to the conclusion that ultimately people were too worked up over it... My fiance is liberal, and although we agree on some policy points, we pretty much disagree across the board lol.. .and she made this devil's advocate point that stuck with me...

 

What if this Gillette Ad had, instead, been a Venus ad. Within the Venus ad, what if it portrayed women getting too drunk at parties and walking home alone; what if there was a cut of a woman in a scantily clad outfit, with a friend that walks up to her and says "c'mon, what does that outfit say about you?"; what if there were two girls teasing a little boy about the way he looks and the adults go "she must have a crush on him, funny how that works"

 

Both ads would cut at the same issue, but it does seem that one side is available to criticism, while the other side is not.

 

Again, this was during a "devil's advocate" sort of discussion, but I think this is a hypothetical scenario worth exploring. 

women dressing in certain way is not a societal problem though

 

Women's products have targeted messages to women for years.  The thing with the Gillette is that it is asking men to be better or saying that they can be better.  Women's advertising has been putting these messages out for years.

Edited January 17, 20196 yr by freefourur

5 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

What if this Gillette Ad had, instead, been a Venus ad. Within the Venus ad, what if it portrayed women getting too drunk at parties and walking home alone; what if there was a cut of a woman in a scantily clad outfit, with a friend that walks up to her and says "c'mon, what does that outfit say about you?"

 

I feel like I have seen things (maybe not an ad, I don't recall exactly) urging women to have respect for themselves and their bodies.  However, these issues are not really comparable to the ones brought up about men.  In these instances, women are potentially hurting themselves, not others.

6 minutes ago, freefourur said:

women dressing in certain way is not a societal problem though

 

Women's products have targeted messages to women for years.  The thing with the Gillette is that it is asking men to be better or saying that they can be better.  Women's advertising has been putting these messages out for years.

 

I guess I'd ask... why is it not a societal problem? 

^ women can dress however they like. It doesn;t need policing at all.

Just now, freefourur said:

^ women can dress however they like. It doesn;t need policing at all.

 

But we must police men's statements to women? Aren't clothes/fashion outward statements about who we are? 

No. Statements are statements. Clothing is clothing

 

You aren't seriously both siding sexual harrassment by shifting blame to women just dressing a specific way are you?

Edited January 17, 20196 yr by freefourur

1 minute ago, freefourur said:

No. Statements are statements. Clothing is clothing

Sure you want to stick with that position? 

 

^ now you are shifting the discussion here. Obviously clothing with a written message is a message

7 minutes ago, jam40jeff said:

 

I feel like I have seen things (maybe not an ad, I don't recall exactly) urging women to have respect for themselves and their bodies.  However, these issues are not really comparable to the ones brought up about men.  In these instances, women are potentially hurting themselves, not others.

 

@YABO713 I should also add that I think you're still right in a way.  Groups that are perceived as being disadvantaged are less often publicly criticized.  I think this probably has to do with the fact that many people feel they are already criticized privately more than other mainstream groups, so they shouldn't be publicly criticized as that would seem like piling on.  (I'm not sure I'm getting my point across correctly, but I guess I mean that people feel the need to "even things up" and that criticizing the disadvantaged group doesn't work toward that goal.)  I'm not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it just seems to be the way it is.

Edited January 17, 20196 yr by jam40jeff

3 minutes ago, freefourur said:

^ now you are shifting the discussion here. Obviously clothing with a written message is a message

 

Point being. clothes carry messages. Again, I'm playing devil's advocate here but I think this is a really interesting point... Both of these carry a message. 

 

Edited January 17, 20196 yr by YABO713

still shifting

8 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

So, my fiance and I had a great discussion about the Gillette Ad last night... we raised both the pros and cons and also came to the conclusion that ultimately people were too worked up over it... My fiance is liberal, and although we agree on some policy points, we pretty much disagree across the board lol.. .and she made this devil's advocate point that stuck with me...

 

What if this Gillette Ad had, instead, been a Venus ad. Within the Venus ad, what if it portrayed women getting too drunk at parties and walking home alone; what if there was a cut of a woman in a scantily clad outfit, with a friend that walks up to her and says "c'mon, what does that outfit say about you?"; what if there were two girls teasing a little boy about the way he looks and the adults go "she must have a crush on him, funny how that works"

 

Both ads would cut at the same issue, but it does seem that one side is available to criticism, while the other side is not.

 

Again, this was during a "devil's advocate" sort of discussion, but I think this is a hypothetical scenario worth exploring. 

 

Even taking the Devils advocate argument, my problem with the ad is that many men take the ad as if it is a societal problem that applies to all men, not the 2% of men who are the assholes and jerks and are actually causing the problem.

 

The thing is, and it goes to counter your fiancé's point, if I am a consumer who you want to purchase your product, don't insult me by telling me that I create a societal problem solely because I belong to a certain class. If you want me to buy your product, you need to start kissing my butt and sucking up to me, otherwise, your product must be the best thing out there that I have no other choice in the marketplace to buy.

 

My wife and I had a similar conversation last night and the outcry would have been the same if not worse, you changed it to women getting drunk at a party and engaging in irresponsible behavior. It would be the same if you had a minority dropping out of school, or selling drugs or whatever bad stereotype you choose there. Point being the outcry would be the same if not much worse because people do not like to be lectured to, especially by companies who are trying to sell them a product for profit. The profit motive portion of it comes across as phony and disingenuous in many cases.

It's interesting that you criticize a woman for being drunk and acting "irresponsibly" but no men of the men in that convo.  That is a form of toxic masculinity itself. It's OK for men to want sex but women are irresponsible.

1 minute ago, freefourur said:

It's interesting that you criticize a woman for being drunk and acting "irresponsibly" but no men of the men in that convo.  That is a form of toxic masculinity itself. It's OK for men to want sex but women are irresponsible.

 

I didn't read that as necessarily sexual activity.   It could really be any stereotypical negative behavior.   

 

If it was referred to as "toxic femininity" would that be considered sexist?   I suspect we'd all agree that it is.

 

So the opposite should be considered the case as well.

 

5 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

 

Even taking the Devils advocate argument, my problem with the ad is that many men take the ad as if it is a societal problem that applies to all men, not the 2% of men who are the assholes and jerks and are actually causing the problem.

 

2%?  I'm pretty certain it's significantly higher than that.

 

Regardless, the ad makes it very clear that they aren't talking about all men.  Any man who watches that ad and thinks it is about them is doing so because they engage in those behaviors themselves.  If they then say the ad is "attacking all men" it's likely because they've rationalized their behavior by telling themselves "all men do it."

Just now, E Rocc said:

 

I didn't read that as necessarily sexual activity.   It could really be any stereotypical negative behavior.   

 

If it was referred to as "toxic femininity" would that be considered sexist?   I suspect we'd all agree that it is.

 

So the opposite should be considered the case as well.

 

IS drunken irresponsibiility something overwhelmingly done by women and policed as a feminine trait by other women? you need to get better at the whataboutism. Because that was weak AF

Just now, E Rocc said:

 

I didn't read that as necessarily sexual activity.   It could really be any stereotypical negative behavior.   

 

If it was referred to as "toxic femininity" would that be considered sexist?   I suspect we'd all agree that it is.

 

So the opposite should be considered the case as well.

 

 

Are there as many societal problems caused by "ladylike" behaviors?  Is there an epidemic of violent crime among women who are too feminine?  Is there a culture of harassment in the workplace among women aimed at men?  Do women regularly get men drunk and rape them because the men were wearing tight shirts showing off their biceps and "asking for it"?

A hint for you guys. There are toxic feminine behaviors but you haven't really described any yet. 

1 minute ago, freefourur said:

IS drunken irresponsibiility something overwhelmingly done by women and policed as a feminine trait by other women? you need to get better at the whataboutism. Because that was weak AF

 

And where did I specify "drunken"?  I left the word out on purpose, in point of fact.

 

I also left out examples because the discussion would be about them, not equivalency.

Just now, freefourur said:

A hint for you guys. There are toxic feminine behaviors but you haven't really described any yet. 

 

I've worked bar security for sixteen years.   I could write a book.   But specific behaviors aren't the point.

16 minutes ago, freefourur said:

still shifting

 

It's not shifting. Clothing makes a statement. Why don't actresses in adult films where Canada Goose Jackets with sweat pants and a baseball hat

8 minutes ago, freefourur said:

It's interesting that you criticize a woman for being drunk and acting "irresponsibly" but no men of the men in that convo.  That is a form of toxic masculinity itself. It's OK for men to want sex but women are irresponsible.

 

 

Dude, take off the liberal glasses here and look at things through a normal person's light.

 

The scenario @YABO713 was what would happen if there was a Venus commercial showing a female drunk at a party.

 

I was responding to that. The scenario involved a female acting irresponsibly. It is also irresponsible for males to act similar at parties. Even though it is a right of passage and everyone has pretty much done it, it does not change the fact that anyone at a party who may be a slobbering drunk is acting to a limited extent irresponsible.

Women are aware of their toxic behaviors and don't 

Just now, YABO713 said:

 

It's not shifting. Clothing makes a statement. Why don't actresses in adult films where Canada Goose Jackets with sweat pants and a baseball hat

But again, the way a woman dresses does not cause societal problems.  And you haven;t made any comments about men dressing in provactacive manners too.

2 minutes ago, freefourur said:

A hint for you guys. There are toxic feminine behaviors but you haven't really described any yet. 

 

I would say bullying is an activity which women and men both take part in, but then it clearly isn't tied to masculinity or femininity.  Plus, we already have a First Lady who has pretty much stamped out all bullying already with her tireless efforts.  Be Best!

Instead of men being introspective they decide to play whatabout. it is very interesting.

Just now, freefourur said:

Women are aware of their toxic behaviors and don't 

But again, the way a woman dresses does not cause societal problems.  And you haven;t made any comments about men dressing in provactacive manners too.

 

Because I'm addressing a hypothetical situation re: a not real commercial.

 

Men could have the same issues of dress. In fact, the way many urban men dress causes them significant and typically unjust problems. But again, clothing doesn't make outward statements. 

1 minute ago, jam40jeff said:

 

I would say bullying is an activity which women and men both take part in, but then it clearly isn't tied to masculinity or femininity.  Plus, we already have a First Lady who has pretty much stamped out all bullying already with her tireless efforts.  Be Best!

Women do bully but it is different in some ways. Women don't let girls be girls and expect that type of behavior to just be feminine. 

1 minute ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The scenario involved a female acting irresponsibly. It is also irresponsible for males to act similar at parties. Even though it is a right of passage and everyone has pretty much done it, it does not change the fact that anyone at a party who may be a slobbering drunk is acting to a limited extent irresponsible.

 

Sure, but there's a huge difference between acting irresponsibly (and in turn harming yourself) and harming others.

1 minute ago, freefourur said:

Instead of men being introspective they decide to play whatabout. it is very interesting.

 

I literally made my point on the first page of this... If you're mad about the Gillette ad it's because you have a guilty conscious. Gillette nailed the ad imo. I made that clear. The fact that you're unwilling to have a normal conversation about any other side of the coin seems a bit unusual for you

Just now, YABO713 said:

 

Because I'm addressing a hypothetical situation re: a not real commercial.

 

Men could have the same issues of dress. In fact, the way many urban men dress causes them significant and typically unjust problems. But again, clothing doesn't make outward statements. 

But a woman dressed in a certain manner doesn't compare to direct sexual harrasment.  It is just not in the same league.

Just now, jam40jeff said:

 

Sure, but there's a huge difference between acting irresponsibly (and in turn harming yourself) and harming others.

 

This is a phenomenal point, btw. 

Just now, freefourur said:

But a woman dressed in a certain manner doesn't compare to direct sexual harrasment.  It is just not in the same league.

 

I mean I'd argue getting arrested because you look like a suspect is worse than being cat called, no? 

Just now, YABO713 said:

 

I literally made my point on the first page of this... If you're mad about the Gillette ad it's because you have a guilty conscious. Gillette nailed the ad imo. I made that clear. The fact that you're unwilling to have a normal conversation about any other side of the coin seems a bit unusual for you

I am willing to have the discussion but you are not discussing toxic feminine behaviors. You are discussing ways in which society already unfairly judges women.  If you have a better example i will engage.

3 minutes ago, YABO713 said:

Men could have the same issues of dress. In fact, the way many urban men dress causes them significant and typically unjust problems. But again, clothing doesn't make outward statements. 

 

Yes, but that's the whole point.  The sole example people seem to be able to come up with for a commercial about women's "bad behaviors" is how they dress.  But that wouldn't be ripe for a commercial such as this just like it wouldn't be for men.  This commercial didn't show men sagging their pants or wearing Bird Dogs as examples of how they need to improve.  It was solely about them hurting others.

Edited January 17, 20196 yr by jam40jeff

Just now, YABO713 said:

 

I mean I'd argue getting arrested because you look like a suspect is worse than being cat called, no? 

They are both bad. But again it doesn't diminish the street harassment.