Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

Wibbs

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

Gay woman tells men what straight women want? Hell its hard enough to get a straight(no pun) answer from straight women on that question. If I were a woman, I doubt I'd ask a Gay lad what Straight men wanted in a woman. Never mind that people, men and women(though I have found women slightly worse for this) will say one thing and then actually go for something very different.

Muckka

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

If there was a catastrophic failure in society, I'm sure women would like a real man, not one of those cucks that Gillette want's us to be or aspire to be.

My concept of masculinity is ok, you'rs well from reading your posts, you seem to get stuck in and rise people, then stand back get offended by their reaction.
Then get outraged, then go running telling tales to the virtual security.

You know nothing about men, nothing...

Muckka

Wibbs wrote: »

Gay woman tells men what straight women want? Hell its hard enough to get a straight(no pun) answer from straight women on that question. If I were a woman, I doubt I'd ask a Gay lad what Straight men wanted in a woman. Never mind that people, men and women(though I have found women slightly worse for this) will say one thing and then actually go for something very different.

She screams narcissm.....to the highest order.
She should go protest somewhere else....

Wibbs

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

Seems like deflection.

I'm not so sure you know what that word means, though ironically you're attempting to do it.

You brought up the "Women™ love this ad". You brought up "What Women™ want". Not me. I'm merely replying to you and questioning your sources and confident expertise on that.

Lumen

Ush1 wrote: »

Unfortunately that isn't the case.

Can you give an example to back up your assertion?

Ush1 wrote: »

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.

Eh, OK. I don't see what any of that has to do with what I posted or the rest of this thread.

Bannasidhe

Wibbs wrote: »

Gay woman tells men what straight women want? Hell its hard enough to get a straight(no pun) answer from straight women on that question. If I were a woman, I doubt I'd ask a Gay lad what Straight men wanted in a woman. Never mind that people, men and women(though I have found women slightly worse for this) will say one thing and then actually go for something very different.

You obviously don't have much experience of the relationships between gay men and straight women if you don't realise that is exactly what happens.

Ush1

Lumen wrote: »

Can you give an example to back up your assertion?

Because you can't escape. I'm sure many women who get raped or people who are violently assaulted tried to run away but for many reasons couldn't escape. Maybe the attacked was faster than them? Perhaps multiple attackers or they may have already been injured.

Lumen wrote: »

Eh, OK. I don't see what any of that has to do with what I posted or the rest of this thread.

If has to do with the idea that we can live in a civilisation without violence.

Muckka

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You obviously don't have much experience of the relationships between gay men and straight women if you don't realise that is exactly what happens.

Well you're not a straight woman..... exist doors thataway.....

Bannasidhe

Muckka wrote: »

If there was a catastrophic failure in society, I'm sure women would like a real man, not one of those cucks that Gillette want's us to be or aspire to be.

My concept of masculinity is ok, you'rs well from reading your posts, you seem to get stuck in and rise people, then stand back get offended by their reaction.
Then get outraged, then go running telling tales to the virtual security.

You know nothing about men, nothing...

I'm not even slightly outraged. I am having a discussion. That's all. No 'rising' people. But it would seem some people are getting outraged at finding out that not everyone thinks John Wayne is the be all and end all of masculinity.

As for the running to security comment you seem to be implying I report posts if I disagree with them. What a strange - and a wee bit paranoid- accusation.
I just click unfollow when I think it's become an echo chamber of outraged masculines.

Muckka

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm not even slightly outraged. I am having a discussion. That's all. No 'rising' people. But it would seem some people are getting outraged at finding out that not everyone thinks John Wayne is the be all and end all of masculinity.

As for the running to security comment you seem to be implying I report posts if I disagree with them. What a strange - and a wee bit paranoid- accusation.
I just click unfollow when I think it's become an echo chamber of outraged masculines.

John Wayne, would you ever get a grip.
We're not in the 60's

It's Chuck Norris nowadays....

Do you want us all to be pussies ?

Lumen

Ush1 wrote: »

Because you can't escape. I'm sure many women who get raped or people who are violently assaulted tried to run away but for many reasons couldn't escape. Maybe the attacked was faster than them? Perhaps multiple attackers or they may have already been injured.

Agreed. However, I wonder what proportion of violent incidents fall into that truly last resort category.

Ush1 wrote: »

If has to do with the idea that we can live in a civilisation without violence.

Has anybody suggested that we can?

Muckka

Muckka wrote: »

It's Chuck Norris nowadays.... Do you want us all to be pussies ?

On a slightly side note I did get involved in a conversation looking for examples of "masculine" that would demonstrate a purer non-"toxic" version of masculinity. Basically if you had to name someone who strikes you as "masculine" and not at all toxic who would it be.

In the end me and the people I was talking with settled on Jocko Willink who checks most of the boxes on what people think "masculine" looks like but to people who know him he tends to be described as a large pussy cat - open about his feelings - hyper respectful of others - seemingly no toxic behaviours to or about women and so on.

Of course he might turn out to be the exact opposite and the next person to be outed as awful and horrible. But so far he seems to be a pretty good example to use. I know relatively nothing about Chuck Norris except for the comical Chuck Norris Memes.

Ush1

Lumen wrote: »

Agreed. However, I wonder what proportion of violent incidents fall into that truly last resort category.

Many, look at any news reports of violent assault or even murders. Particularly scary was last year the number of especially violent crimes by teenagers on one another(the young girl in Lucan and the boy in Louth). Also, 70kg is plenty heavy enough to throw a dig.

Lumen wrote: »

Has anybody suggested that we can?

Lumen wrote:

Was. We are not evolving any more.

Civilisation is what we have created to leave that behind.

Bannasidhe

Muckka wrote: »

John Wayne, would you ever get a grip.
We're not in the 60's

It's Chuck Norris nowadays....

Do you want us all to be pussies ?

Chuck Norris is so 80s.

Now it's Chris Hemsworth, Hugh Jackman, Ryan Gosling, Ryan Reynolds.

I don't want you all to be anything.

I'm simply suggesting a having a dialogue about masculinity is not a bad thing.

conorhal

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?

Are you prone to bizzare hyperbole?


1) In the case of intersectional feminism, Yes (how can it be otherwise with an ideology that determines what your rights or entitlements are based solely on your genitalia or skin colour and where that places you in a grevience hierarchy?)
2) No
3) I don't think many leftists or liberals, given the rather nasty authoritarian streak that they've displayed lately, seem to understand what those terms mean either frankly.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm simply suggesting a having a dialogue about masculinity is not a bad thing.

That is a suggestion I agree with and I think such discourse is a good thing. A lot of it from me focuses on the idea that "masculinity" quite often is not even a thing.

For example a user in the last few points listed a few things about "real masculinity" as "proection of the weak, strength, responsibility, self sacrifice, leadership".

Forget masculinity. They are all traits I find potentially equally beneficial in all _people_. Not men or women. Not masculine or Feminine. Just people in general.

My concern with words like "masculine" and "feminine" is it creates divisions we do not need, that are not even there, and that suggest beneficial traits are the sole purview or pursuit of any one gender over another. My girlfriends are the most self sacrificing, responsible, strong people I know who are more than willing at any time to protect the weak for example. Maybe I am gay and am attracted to the masculinity in them? Or maybe the concept of masculinity is too nebulous and mostly fabricated.

An_Toirpin

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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?

Because the purpose of masculinity is intrinsically linked to femininity. It evolved that way. If you want men to be different then ask women to seek something different.

An_Toirpin

Deleted User wrote: »

That is a suggestion I agree with and I think such discourse is a good thing. A lot of it from me focuses on the idea that "masculinity" quite often is not even a thing.

For example a user in the last few points listed a few things about "real masculinity" as "proection of the weak, strength, responsibility, self sacrifice, leadership".

Forget masculinity. They are all traits I find potentially equally beneficial in all _people_. Not men or women. Not masculine or Feminine. Just people in general.

Women seek out these qualities in men. Men do not seek out these qualities in women.

conorhal

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Because the purpose of masculinity is intrinsically linked to femininity. It evolved that way. If you want men to be different then ask women to seek something different.

According to Psychology Today even feminists can't stand 'woke men'....


https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/women-who-stray/201812/feminists-think-sexist-men-are-sexier-woke-men

What hope do you have when even feminists don't desire the change they're demanding!

An_Toirpin

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Women seek out these qualities in men. Men do not seek out these qualities in women.

Speak for your own you do not speak for me. I absolutely 100% seek out those characteristics in everyone. Sexual partners. Friends. Even employers. They are just good characteristics to nurture in yourself and those around you. If you only seek them in one gender that is perfectly ok - but let us not extrapolate that to a generalization.

Undividual

seamus wrote: »

That's because there is no problem.

Just a group of people whose entire sense of identity is based on "manliness" and who foam at the mouth whenever anyone would dare to question whether traditional notions of manliness such as "boys will be boys" are actually a reasonable way to raise children who can be functional members of society that treat everyone else with respect.

Realistically the people who get worked up about this so-called "attack on men" are only one step removed from the same psychopath who kidnapped that 13 year old girl and kept her trapped for months.

Source or projection? Lacking credibility.

Tell me how

conorhal wrote: »

According to Psychology Today even feminists can't stand 'woke men'....


https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/women-who-stray/201812/feminists-think-sexist-men-are-sexier-woke-men

What hope do you have when even feminists don't desire the change they're demanding!

Because in it's truest sense this is the meeting of two extremists.

Most women who are truly ultra feminists aren't such in my view and most men who claim vehemently to be 'woke' are equally misguided. In both cases, I think they have assumed the position to give them a particular raison d'être more so than a stringent belief that it is right.
In both cases I believe they are sexist.

However, some people accuse any one who advocates for women's right as being an ultra feminist (male or female) and I don't believe this is true either.

Grayson

conorhal wrote: »

Are you prone to bizzare hyperbole?


1) In the case of intersectional feminism, Yes (how can it be otherwise with an ideology that determines what your rights or entitlements are based solely on your genitalia or skin colour and where that places you in a grevience hierarchy?)
2) No
3) I don't think many leftists or liberals, given the rather nasty authoritarian streak that they've displayed lately, seem to understand what those terms mean either frankly.

I don't think you know what intersectional feminism is.

Intersectionality is simply a way of saying that things overlap. So a black woman may face discrimination because she's black and separately because she's a woman. A poor white woman may face difficulties both because of poverty and because of discrimination based on her gender. A white working class man won't face the difficulties based on gender that a woman would but at the same time they will face difficulties because of their background.

It's a way of identifying that discrimination isn't a simple yes no idea. And since intersectional feminism is about approaching all the difficulties faced, it's going to benefit men too. Because when you attempt to end the discrimination a black woman faces, it will help end the discrimination black men face. If you want to lessen the disadvantages that a poor woman faces, it helps poor men too.

lbc2019

David Pocock

Muckka

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Chuck Norris is so 80s.

Now it's Chris Hemsworth, Hugh Jackman, Ryan Gosling, Ryan Reynolds.

I don't want you all to be anything.

I'm simply suggesting a having a dialogue about masculinity is not a bad thing.

There's no dialogue.
Masculinity is a personal thing.

Some of us men have a lot more testosterone then other men.

It doesn't matter if we're gay or straight.

You've got gay guys I know who are 100% more masculine than the cuck culture society think's is endearing to our progress.
I often hang out with some gay guys we go hunting and fishing together, as I'm mgtow myself and a lot of my straight friends are married.
I hear a lot of funny stories from my gay friend's about their encounters with so called millennial married me on grindr, you know the types, sensitive, have feelings and gentle, mostly Liberals like yourself, but closet bisexuals.
But these lads are playing the four legged monster with the The Tom Sellek look alike down the road.

A lot of men nowadays won't even get their hands dirty unless of course they're changing nappies while his missus is getting banged by Brad down in the gym.
And he's cruising on grindr while she's entertaining Mark from accounts....

I myself am probably old fashioned, I curse, say **** you if I don't like you.
Maybe a pig in some people's eyes, but fck em.

I laugh at racial joke's, I laugh at gay joke's, I have a sense of humour.

I'm laughing at the joke and not at the subject matter.

joe40

Muckka wrote: »

There's no dialogue.
Masculinity is a personal thing.

Some of us men have a lot more testosterone then other men.

It doesn't matter if we're gay or straight.

You've got gay guys I know who are 100% more masculine than the cuck culture society think's is endearing to our progress.
I often hang out with some gay guys we go hunting and fishing together, as I'm mgtow myself and a lot of my straight friends are married.
I hear a lot of funny stories from my gay friend's about their encounters with so called millennial married me on grindr, you know the types, sensitive, have feelings and gentle, mostly Liberals like yourself, but closet bisexuals.
But these lads are playing the four legged monster with the The Tom Sellek look alike down the road.

A lot of men nowadays won't even get their hands dirty unless of course they're changing nappies while his missus is getting banged by Brad down in the gym.
And he's cruising on grindr while she's entertaining Mark from accounts....

I myself am probably old fashioned, I curse, say **** you if I don't like you.
Maybe a pig in some people's eyes, but fck em.

I laugh at racial joke's, I laugh at gay joke's, I have a sense of humour.

I'm laughing at the joke and not at the subject matter.

Probably for the best..

hatrickpatrick

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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?

You're missing the point - something like Inbetweeners is fictional. It's not literally telling people what to do or criticising anyone based on their demographic. The Gillette ad is instructional based on demographic and perceived demographic failures or shortcomings, and that's the problem.

Is this not kinda obvious?

As an analogy, if someone writes a fictional movie about BDSM - let's say Fifty Shades - would you not agree that this is a totally different thing to someone making an advertisement *telling* women "be more submissive in bed and let your bf spank you"?

Would you see the difference between a female politician writing a fictional erotica about a rape, because she has a fantasy along those lines, and a female politician actually standing up and saying "women, you should enjoy rape"?

Inbetweeners wasn't telling anyone that they "should" do this or that. It wasn't claiming to be real-life social commentary or advocacy either. There's obviously a massive difference between the two.

Undividual

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

Can you tell my why you think there are ads about toxic masculinity (which do not relate to the product at all) but none about feminine toxicity?

Wibbs

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You obviously don't have much experience of the relationships between gay men and straight women if you don't realise that is exactly what happens.

Funny enough I have some. And it makes much sense as she'll at least be sure they're not trying to get the leg over and won't skew advice because of it. One woman friend in particular goes to her Gay male mates for just such advice. They're generally very supportive and their general advice is good, the specific advice on the other hand is vague to woeful(actually one lad is pretty sensible and cuts through the BS). A tiny sample size to be fair. Though the usual "just be yourself" stuff figures highly. A common if piss poor useless piece of advice that to be fair comes from both genders and sexualities.

Grayson wrote:

It's a way of identifying that discrimination isn't a simple yes no idea. And since intersectional feminism is about approaching all the difficulties faced, it's going to benefit men too. Because when you attempt to end the discrimination a black woman faces, it will help end the discrimination black men face. If you want to lessen the disadvantages that a poor woman faces, it helps poor men too.

And yet the vast bulk of mainstream feminism concerns itself almost exclusively with the grievances real and imagined of White, middle class, college educated young women. The intersectional stuff tends to be much more the remit of college campuses and tumblr.

Mrsmum

conorhal wrote: »

According to Psychology Today even feminists can't stand 'woke men'....


https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/women-who-stray/201812/feminists-think-sexist-men-are-sexier-woke-men

What hope do you have when even feminists don't desire the change they're demanding!

Could be like loving high heels but finding them hell to be in all the time.