Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

Chips Lovell

With regard to questioning what you're doing with your time, I'd almost argue that the opposite is the case.

If your answer is "yes", to any one of these questions, then it's a sure fire sign you're spending far too much time online and not enough time in the real world.

1. Do you think men are being oppressed by the feminists?
2. Do you think vaccines cause autism?
3. Do you use the words "liberal" or "leftist" as a catchall term for any trendy affectation that rankles with you without really understanding what either word means?

givyjoe

Lumen wrote: »

The only situation in which self-defensive violence is necessary is when you're with a person who has insisted on crippling their running ability with ridiculous clothing choices.

If there's a campaign to be fought it's against stupid shoes. Stand with me brothers.



Was. We are not evolving any more.

Civilisation is what we have created to leave that behind. We live in a society where (fortunately) health and happiness are no longer dependent on having the biggest fists. As a 70kg weakling this pleases me. This is my time!

I thought your earlier story regarding your child was a bit made up sounding. Now I'm sure it was.

Your suggestion as a 70kg weakling, was your son to punch the kid in the face, hmmm.... I doubt it.

Also, what was this alternative method which your son used? Do enlighten us so we can learn too.

markodaly

Ush1 wrote: »

Unfortunately sometimes a punch in the face is needed, even if you don't want to do it.

Anger and violence is a clear and essential part of our evolution. That's not to say you go straight for the headbutt, but you need it there when the sh*t hits the fan.

I remember in my younger days, there was a time when we got hassled walking home from school by a group of boys going the other way. They were a bit older and bigger than us.
It was kid stuff, name calling and so on first, but then it escalated to punches and kicks. Naturally, we didn't like this so formed a plan.

Anyway, I got a few older brothers involved who on a Wednesday would be home on a half day earlier (we were in primary school, they in secondary school).
That day the group of boys, as usual, started with the usual stuff. Then the trap was set.

When the kids started off getting physical, my brothers came around the corner and ran after them. The boys shat themselves.

It wasn't a beat down of epic proportions or anything. They were pushed, slapped a little and thrown around a bit. One of them, the biggest one, got picked up and thrown against an iron fence and was told to never go at us again or they will be repercussions.....

They scurried off.

Low and behold, they never bothered us again....there is a lesson in that.

That is not to say violence if you can call it that is always the answer, but it should not be off the table. Kids and younger people often don't know what they are doing but a smack in the face is a reminder.

I remember one time, this kid with a loud mouth having a go at me. He was smaller than me, loud and all confident and I was more introverted. Anyway, he started at me for ages, I let it go. Of course, this gave the guy courage, so then he began getting physical. Two punches in the face I returned and he was all nice as pie after and never bothered me again.

Luckily I have never been bullied, maybe because I won't take $hit from people and others know that, so of course, they would go after the weakest person available.

hatrickpatrick

eviltimeban wrote: »

Come on guys, let's be honest here - most of us have been in situations, or know people, where that "man's man" thing is still rife. Whether it was our fathers, grandfathers, uncles, older male cousins - or even friends. We quietly accept it or don't challenge it for the most part.

Individually we might think progressively and actually be supportive, but in a big group of lads having a few pints in the pub you'll keep your mouth shut and say nothing. I guarantee it. This ad is saying "don't do that, be brave enough to say something". I don't think it's saying every man is like that, nor am I. Just that when you are in that situation, don't accept it. Challenge it. Is anyone going to do that though?

Why should we? Who are Gillette or anyone else to tell us what to do? There are a lot of things women do in groups which lads would find distasteful, why are they not being publicly told, as a group, "don't do that"?

Why are men constantly being corrected, instructed, told what to do and talked down to as a group? That's literally the definition of being talked down to. Treating us like we're somehow inferior or subordinate and have to do what we're told.

An_Toirpin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think one of the issues is the use of the term "toxic masculinity" as it implies masculinity itself is toxic - which it isn't - rather than that some aspects of what is perceived by some as 'proper' masculinity are toxic - to men, and by extension to those who interact with those men.

Man up.
Boys don't cry.
Real men.
Hit things rather than feel.
Survival of the fittest.
If you want it - take it.

These toxic aspects harm men, they tell men to behave in ways that can be harmful to their mental health and physical welfare. Be a manly man, shove down those feelings, it's better to rage than cry, don't seek help or support, use your fists not your brains, emotions are for the week, grab what you want and damn the consequences, when it gets too much lash out.

No one is saying ALL men are toxic. Some are saying there are things that are been hyped as masculinity that are toxic.

Nor, is anyone saying there are not aspects of femininity that are toxic. The difference here is women are used to being told by ads how to behave, be a proper woman, how to dress, how to eat, how to live, how to orgasm, how to find love, how to keep love, what every woman wants... - there is a whole magazine industry alone dedicated to that. A decades old industry. Women are pushing back against that.

The messages sent as to what constitutes 'proper' masculinity and femininity (messages reinforced and exploited by advertisers) are insidious, harmful, and subconsciously powerful and affect all genders. They are saying if you aspire to be a real man or woman you must be like THIS (and our product will help you achieve that).

Most women loved the Gillitte ad - these are your wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, nieces, grandmothers... has anyone stopped for a second to consider what this says about what women think about the way so called 'proper' men act? Or does that not matter to real men?

No one says Hit things rather than feel or Survival of the fittest or if you want it - take it.


Man up is a great phase. It appeals to true masculinity (proection of the weak, strenght, responsibility self sacrifice and leadership. Real men is a vague phase and no more common than real women.

Seanachai

eviltimeban wrote: »

Come on guys, let's be honest here - most of us have been in situations, or know people, where that "man's man" thing is still rife. Whether it was our fathers, grandfathers, uncles, older male cousins - or even friends. We quietly accept it or don't challenge it for the most part.

Individually we might think progressively and actually be supportive, but in a big group of lads having a few pints in the pub you'll keep your mouth shut and say nothing. I guarantee it. This ad is saying "don't do that, be brave enough to say something". I don't think it's saying every man is like that, nor am I. Just that when you are in that situation, don't accept it. Challenge it. Is anyone going to do that though?

I have no time for those kind of men myself, clobs is what I'd call them, I've actually learned that even though they may be physical brutes, they are quite weak and fragile psychologically. Rigidity and close-mindedness is a sure sign of a weak ego. They can only flourish in packs and I find that if they're the dominant set in a village or town, they can actually ruin the place.

The guys that I've met that exhibit the real tough aspects of masculinity tend to be the polar opposite of those type of men. The issue that I have with the whole (new) liberal consensus in general is that it isn't actually aimed at the clobs, as much as it is actually attacking the positive assertive elements of masculinity that are being misconstrued as belonging to the stone age.

hatrickpatrick

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think one of the issues is the use of the term "toxic masculinity" as it implies masculinity itself is toxic - which it isn't - rather than that some aspects of what is perceived by some as 'proper' masculinity are toxic - to men, and by extension to those who interact with those men.

Man up.
Boys don't cry.
Real men.
Hit things rather than feel.
Survival of the fittest.
If you want it - take it.

These toxic aspects harm men, they tell men to behave in ways that can be harmful to their mental health and physical welfare. Be a manly man, shove down those feelings, it's better to rage than cry, don't seek help or support, use your fists not your brains, emotions are for the week, grab what you want and damn the consequences, when it gets too much lash out.

This is all true, but why can't we dismantle these messages in a positive way, not in a scolding or chiding way?

No one is saying ALL men are toxic. Some are saying there are things that are been hyped as masculinity that are toxic.

The ad, along with the relentless stream of similar headlines in recent years, is implying that most of us are "problematic" in some way.

Nor, is anyone saying there are not aspects of femininity that are toxic. The difference here is women are used to being told by ads how to behave, be a proper woman, how to dress, how to eat, how to live, how to orgasm, how to find love, how to keep love, what every woman wants... - there is a whole magazine industry alone dedicated to that. A decades old industry. Women are pushing back against that.

That's not the same as telling women that because some women are bad people, most of them are responsible or that enough of them are bad people to warrant an ad campaign about it.

The messages sent as to what constitutes 'proper' masculinity and femininity (messages reinforced and exploited by advertisers) are insidious, harmful, and subconsciously powerful and affect all genders. They are saying if you aspire to be a real man or woman you must be like THIS (and our product will help you achieve that).

Most women loved the Gillitte ad - these are your wives, mothers, sisters, daughters, nieces, grandmothers... has anyone stopped for a second to consider what this says about what women think about the way so called 'proper' men act? Or does that not matter to real men?

But you've said yourself. "Women are pushing back against that" - and yet many are now cheering because it's happening to us, too. That just comes across as petty, bitter, hypocritical and just straight up being an asshole. It doesn't matter if women love the Gillette ad, any more than it would matter if men loved an ad telling women to become better women in the eyes of men - indeed, women loving it is another symptom of the fact that society is ok with men being generalised and condescended to, but not the reverse.

VeryTerry

Muckka wrote: »

Axl Rose should write a song about Gillette, he's a great writer, well ahead of his time...

One about all the court cases taken against him for abusing women?

markodaly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Man up.
Boys don't cry.
Real men.
Hit things rather than feel.
Survival of the fittest.
If you want it - take it.

To be honest, men dont really say that **** to each other. I know, I have been one for over 5 decades.

Its mostly American soundbites perpetuated by American culture. Its about as real as the Irish saying 'to be sure, to be sure'.

As an aside from toxic masculinity, is there a female equivalent?

El_Duderino 09

I was listening to LBC with Nick Ferrari yesterday morning going bananas about the Gillette ad. And today back to how PC has gone mad and you can't make a joke or say anything without someone getting 'offended' boo hoo.

People phoned in to say they love the Inbetweeners (I do too) and how it's only interesting because it's not PC and all patted each other on the back for not giving in to the offended.

Has anyone else noticed how the same people could be so amused y the Inbetweeners and so offended by the Gillette ad? I'm sure those people will see the Gillette ad as a completely different thing from PC.

The crucial difference between Gillette and other crude speech, is that the Gillette ad is aimed at men.

These characters wan more PC to protect a group they identify with.

hatrickpatrick

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

With regard to questioning what you're doing with your time, I'd almost argue that the opposite is the case.

If your answer is "yes", to any one of these questions, then it's a sure fire sign you're spending far too much time online and not enough time in the real world.

1. Do you think men are being oppressed by the feminists?
2. Do you think vaccines cause autism?
3. Do you use the words "liberal" or "leftist" as a catchall term for any trendy affectation that rankles with you without really understanding what either word means?

What would you say to someone who believes that mainstream society currently tolerates hate speech against men and generalisations against men, but not against women?

I wouldn't say that's oppression specifically by feminists, it's a far wider societal issue. And it's not just on the internet - any Irish Times reader will have noticed it over the last few years as well, or person in college in fact.

hatrickpatrick

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I was listening to LBC with Nick Ferrari yesterday morning going bananas about the Gillette ad. And today back to how PC has gone mad and you can't make a joke or say anything without someone getting 'offended' boo hoo.

People phoned in to say they love the Inbetweeners (I do too) and how it's only interesting because it's not PC and all patted each other on the back for not giving in to the offended.

Has anyone else noticed how the same people could be so amused y the Inbetweeners and so offended by the Gillette ad? I'm sure those people will see the Gillette ad as a completely different thing from PC.

The crucial difference between Gillette and other crude speech, is that the Gillette ad is aimed at men.

These characters wan more PC to protect a group they identify with.

The Gillette ad is not intended as a parody, Inbetweeners obviously is. Also, Inbetweeners isn't hate speech. A show about similarly crude teenage women talking about lads in similarly crude terms wouldn't be a problem as long as there's equality in the tolerance for both.

You cannot compare political messaging with fictional writing in this context.

Chips Lovell

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

What would you say to someone who believes that mainstream society currently tolerates hate speech against men and generalisations against men, but not against women?

I wouldn't say that's oppression specifically by feminists, it's a far wider societal issue. And it's not just on the internet - any Irish Times reader will have noticed it over the last few years as well, or person in college in fact.

I'd ask them what they'd been smoking.

Lumen

givyjoe wrote: »

I thought your earlier story regarding your child was a bit made up sounding. Now I'm sure it was.

Your suggestion as a 70kg weakling, was your son to punch the kid in the face, hmmm.... I doubt it.

You're welcome to your beliefs. Whatever.

givyjoe wrote: »

Also, what was this alternative method which your son used? Do enlighten us so we can learn too.

Per school policy he reported the bullying to the teacher, it was escalated to the principal, meetings were convened with various permutations of myself, my son, the bully and the parent, facts were determined, the bully was suspended, the bullying then stopped.

It turned out that my son wasn't the only victim, this happened to be the last straw after a serious of other complaints, unbeknown to me at the time.

So, non-violence FTW.

This is a bit off-topic, but one interesting aspect was that the bully fessed up immediately, took his punishment and amended his behaviour, whereas his mother went completely ballistic in her defence of him, trying every angle to make the whole thing go away. :rolleyes:

Bannasidhe

An_Toirpin wrote: »

No one says Hit things rather than feel or Survival of the fittest or if you want it - take it.


Man up is a great phase. It appeals to true masculinity (proection of the weak, strenght, responsibility self sacrifice and leadership. Real men is a vague phase and no more common than real women.

Well then by that criteria the Gillette ad saying Man up as it advocates showing leadership and strength by protecting the weak so it is demonstrating true masculinity.

According to your definition of true masculinity anyway.

As for the notion of 'real' women - you must have missed out on decades of ads and glossy magazines if you think such a concept doesn't exist.

And that brings us to feminism - one of the things feminism has done is work to shatter the old concept of what a real woman is and the whole concept of femininity and yes, it's a work in progress as there are a lot of residual subconscious messages still floating around. And no, feminism doesn't have all the answers, and no - it's not a hive mind so there are disagreements. But there is a dialogue happening.

Gillitte is calling on men to have such a dialogue about masculinity. Albeit in a clumsy, buy our product kinda way.

hatrickpatrick

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

I'd ask them what they'd been smoking.

Fair enough. How would you react to this?

https://menarehuman.com/the-worst-a-man-can-get/

(Fairly short read, but pretty much sums up the source of the resentment)

Chips Lovell

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Fair enough. How would you react to this?

I got to this bit and the coffee shot out my nose

Everyone – especially feminist woman – demand that women should be respected. But they refuse to respect men. They laugh at equality. And any attempt to rebuke their lecturing of men is met with accusations of ‘fragile masculinity!’ and ‘you must be a rapist!’ and ‘you must hate women!’. And yet, to do the reverse would be ‘mansplaining’! So many buzzwords made to control men.

It's a case in point of the kind of hysteria I'm talking about.

El_Duderino 09

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The Gillette ad is not intended as a parody, Inbetweeners obviously is. Also, Inbetweeners isn't hate speech. A show about similarly crude teenage women talking about lads in similarly crude terms wouldn't be a problem as long as there's equality in the tolerance for both.

You cannot compare political messaging with fictional writing in this context.

Hold on. Why does it have to be parody to be OK? What if people think the Gillette ad has a meaningful and true message? Are you willing to dictate what's PC gone mad and what's appropriate PC to protect your feelings?

Muckka

The advert is ****.

Using kid's to promote emasculation and manshaming and basically supporting child labour isn't cool...

Wibbs

Lumen wrote: »

That's not evolution by reproductive natural selection, it's something else.

It's still evolution. It doesn't require reproductive natural selection.

Sure. I'm not saying nobody ever needs to use violence, but I was responding to the idea that I personally need to use it ("That's not to say you go straight for the headbutt, but you need it there when the sh*t hits the fan."), which I don't think I do.

Oh certainly but one big reason you don't need to is that you can farm that requirement out to someone else.

pleasant Co. wrote: »

Ah, 11 stone, got it :pac:

Crap, that's me. Didn't realise that was chicken chested weakling level. Maybe it is these days, but 11 stones at my height(5'11") was about average a generation or so ago.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Man up.
Boys don't cry.
Real men.
Hit things rather than feel.
Survival of the fittest.
If you want it - take it.

These toxic aspects harm men, they tell men to behave in ways that can be harmful to their mental health and physical welfare.

And yet societies that are more gender polarised and traditional have lower rates of anxiety, depression and suicide in men(and women). In the west we've never had so many diagnostics and avenues for treatment of emotional disorders yet the rates of same are climbing. How's that work then?

Oh and as an interesting aside the countries with the highest number or women executives, CEO's and company owners? It isn't the Scandinavian "right on gender equality" nations, it's countries like Russia, Brazil, China, India and a few in Africa. Nations and cultures that are very much of the more masculine/feminine defined roles and not a quota in sight. Norway brought in one of the first quota systems for jobs and yet you can count the number of top executives and CEO's in Norway on the fingers of one hand. After an unfortunate accident with a lawnmower.

And while the hit rather than feel I would disagree with I've little issue depending on context with a healthy dose of "man the fcuk up" and a helping of stoicism, certainly over some stereotypical "feminine" attack of chronic emotional diarrhoea. Nor would I have much issue with and again in contest of pursuing what you want. Leading rather than always going for consensus another. It seems to me at least that many of these pushed "acceptable" traits for men are aimed at making for more complaint nice tame cubicle drones in multinationals and many such multinationals push these ideas the most.

Nor, is anyone saying there are not aspects of femininity that are toxic. The difference here is women are used to being told by ads how to behave, be a proper woman, how to dress, how to eat, how to live, how to orgasm, how to find love, how to keep love, what every woman wants... - there is a whole magazine industry alone dedicated to that. A decades old industry. Women are pushing back against that.

"How to orgasm", said no man ever. But yeah I'd agree 100% on this, though I'd disagree with the push back part B. There's far more of that stuff in the ether these days and from many more sources than even twenty years ago.

Most women loved the Gillitte ad

Sources please, because that's one helluva claim. Just because you and maybe your peers "loved it" you can't extrapolate that out to "most women".

Bannasidhe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This is all true, but why can't we dismantle these messages in a positive way, not in a scolding or chiding way?



The ad, along with the relentless stream of similar headlines in recent years, is implying that most of us are "problematic" in some way.



That's not the same as telling women that because some women are bad people, most of them are responsible or that enough of them are bad people to warrant an ad campaign about it.



But you've said yourself. "Women are pushing back against that" - and yet many are now cheering because it's happening to us, too. That just comes across as petty, bitter, hypocritical and just straight up being an asshole. It doesn't matter if women love the Gillette ad, any more than it would matter if men loved an ad telling women to become better women in the eyes of men - indeed, women loving it is another symptom of the fact that society is ok with men being generalised and condescended to, but not the reverse.

I don't want to get into a multi-quote thang so I'll be brief.

Yes, I think things have flipped too far the other way into men are stupid/useless type ads in recent years - push back.

The messages sent to women are different but just as harmful. It's to see other women as competition (for men usually), to strive to 'have it ALL' (career, husband, kids, SUV, house that looks like a showroom, perfect body, great sex life, superb culinary skills...). It's Career Girl meets Nigella in Wonder Woman's body. Women police each other via glossy magazines.
Women are not portrayed as members of a pack (yes, I know that's B.S) in the way men are (oh - ye band of brothers) so the focus is different. Just as harmful, but different.

I think, tbh, you are misinterpreting what the reaction of women means - it isn't petty - it's relief that an ad aimed at men is attempting to answer the age old question what do women want? - those are the men that women want. It's not saying you have to be like this - it's saying we would like you to be like this.

As for ads aimed at women - you do realise most of those are made by men yeah?

Muckka

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I don't want to get into a multi-quote thang so I'll be brief.

Yes, I think things have flipped too far the other way into men are stupid/useless type ads in recent years - push back.

The messages sent to women are different but just as harmful. It's to see other women as competition (for men usually), to strive to 'have it ALL' (career, husband, kids, SUV, house that looks like a showroom, perfect body, great sex life, superb culinary skills...). It's Career Girl meets Nigella in Wonder Woman's body. Women police each other via glossy magazines.
Women are not portrayed as members of a pack (yes, I know that's B.S) in the way men are (oh - ye band of brothers) so the focus is different. Just as harmful, but different.

I think, tbh, you are misinterpreting what the reaction of women means - it isn't petty - it's relief that an ad aimed at men is attempting to answer the age old question what do women want? - those are the men that women want. It's not saying you have to be like this - it's saying we would like you to be like this.

As for ads aimed at women - you do realise most of those are made by men yeah?

THOSE ARE NOT THE MEN THAT WOMEN WANT.

Those are the men which society wants us to be, soften us down, manshaming etc

Bannasidhe

markodaly wrote: »

To be honest, men dont really say that **** to each other. I know, I have been one for over 5 decades.

Its mostly American soundbites perpetuated by American culture. Its about as real as the Irish saying 'to be sure, to be sure'.

As an aside from toxic masculinity, is there a female equivalent?

This is an American ad aimed at the American market.

However, given we have a serious problem with male suicide in this country (not to mention too many murder/suicides where men have killed their wives and/or children) maybe a long hard look and dialogue about Irish notions of what constitutes true masculinity would be a good idea.

And yes, I already spoke about toxic femininity.

An_Toirpin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As for the notion of 'real' women - you must have missed out on decades of ads and glossy magazines if you think such a concept doesn't exist.

And that brings us to feminism - one of the things feminism has done is work to shatter the old concept of what a real woman is and the whole concept of femininity and yes, it's a work in progress as there are a lot of residual subconscious messages still floating around. And no, feminism doesn't have all the answers, and no - it's not a hive mind so there are disagreements. But there is a dialogue happening.

Is this why women today have never been so unhappy, since data has become available? Liberation :rolleyes:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/whats-happening-to-womens_b_289511
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/07/the-chart-that-shows-how-feminism-is-ruining-womens-lives/

Bannasidhe

Muckka wrote: »

THOSE ARE NOT THE MEN THAT WOMEN WANT.

Those are the men which society wants us to be, soften us down, manshaming etc

Sorry to burst your bubble there but it is. Listen, I have no skin in this game as I have zero interest in men except as platonic friends but yes, women do want those kind of men. Men who step in when other men are being dicks. Men who break up the kids fighting - while cooking! Men who are supportive. Men who express their feelings. Help around the house would also be very welcome.

If you think these things are manshaming tbh that says more about your concept of masculinity than what women want.

markodaly

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This is an American ad aimed at the American market.

However, given we have a serious problem with male suicide in this country (not to mention too many murder/suicides where men have killed their wives and/or children) maybe a long hard look and dialogue about Irish notions of what constitutes true masculinity would be a good idea.

And yes, I already spoke about toxic femininity.

I am not sure how one equates higher rates of male suicide to notions of what is or is not true masculinity. Broad strokes and all that. As Wibbs said, its in the west where suicide is more pervasive. The west is MUCH more egalitarian than the rest of the world.

See this is one of the problems with the narrative of what is or is not true masculinity. Someone takes a problem like say higher rates of male suicides and blames it on toxic masculinity as if that is the easy answer for all men's ills. Just be more like women. It's a happy meal solution, one that does not require any critical thinking.

As to toxic femininity, when can we expect the Irish Times or Dove to address that?... probably never.

Wibbs

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think, tbh, you are misinterpreting what the reaction of women means - it isn't petty - it's relief that an ad aimed at men is attempting to answer the age old question what do women want? - those are the men that women want. It's not saying you have to be like this - it's saying we would like you to be like this.

And there you go again extrapolating what you want to Women™ in general. A tad solipsistic. Though that's a trait I have found to be far more evident in the feminine rather than the masculine. Never mind that it has been my experience that the guys who exhibit many of the traits(within reason of course) you consider toxic are the guys who get more attention and action from Women™ than the more agreeable, introverted, more compliant guys Women™ apparently want. That can be a source of confusion for many a young man.

Bannasidhe

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Is this why women today have never been so unhappy, since data has become available? Liberation :rolleyes:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/whats-happening-to-womens_b_289511
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/07/the-chart-that-shows-how-feminism-is-ruining-womens-lives/

Where is the data for pre-women's liberation?

Look - this thread shouldn't be about feminism. It shouldn't be about Us Vs Them.

It should be about whether there is or is not a problem with traditional concepts of masculinity that is harmful to MEN.

Why are people trying to make this about women?

Bannasidhe

Wibbs wrote: »

And there you go again extrapolating what you want to Women™ in general. A tad solipsistic. Though that's a trait I have found to be far more evident in the feminine rather than the masculine. Never mind that it has been my experience that the guys who exhibit many of the traits(within reason of course) you consider toxic are the guys who get more attention and action from Women™ than the more agreeable, introverted, more compliant guys Women™ apparently want. That can be a source of confusion for many a young man.

Why are we still talking about women in a thread about an ad aimed at men?

Seems like deflection.

Never said masculinity is toxic. I said there are aspects of it that are. Also said there are aspects of femininity that are toxic. Not sure what the hell else you want from me. I am not getting into a discussion of toxic femininity or feminism in a thread about perceptions of toxic masculinity.

Ush1

Lumen wrote: »

The only situation in which self-defensive violence is necessary is when you're with a person who has insisted on crippling their running ability with ridiculous clothing choices.

If there's a campaign to be fought it's against stupid shoes. Stand with me brothers.

Unfortunately that isn't the case.

Lumen wrote: »

Was. We are not evolving any more.

Civilisation is what we have created to leave that behind. We live in a society where (fortunately) health and happiness are no longer dependent on having the biggest fists. As a 70kg weakling this pleases me. This is my time!

Animals are constantly evolving. The civilisation we have created remember is underpinned by the threat of violence ultimately.

If you don't let the state take a bunch of your money in taxes they will physically take you and lock you up. From police to armies fighting wars to border patrols removing illegal immigrants.

It is your time and that's a good thing, but it might only be your time because bad guys get locked up prison.