Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

Muckka

joe40 wrote: »

Probably for the best..

Exactly because I just don't want to be in a relationship and I have a great time, fishing, hunting, hillwalking etc

If a Man put's pussy in front of himself, he's seriously fcked up.

I see you identify with me, thanks

Undividual

Since seeing the ad, I've decided to stop my New Year's resolution of following attractive women down the street.

I might eat less barbecued food too, I don't want to end up looking like an extra from a toxic masculinity ad.

Muckka

Undividual wrote: »

Since seeing the ad, I've decided to stop my New Year's resolution of following attractive women down the street.

I might eat less barbecued food too, I don't want to end up looking like an extra from a toxic masculinity ad.

It's ok you're probably too old, as Gillette seem to be supportive of child labour.
Using kid's to push their agenda, shame on Gillette

Zorya

To be honest while I like a man who can do a bit of cooking and will clean the loo before I lose the head entirely I am not that fond of the idea of a male regularly in a apron, being too fastidious about the children's antics. I do most of the cleaning and cooking but then again he does by far the most of the compost-heap turning, coal-bucket carrying and unblocking the septic tank (although I have done that, just as he has made bread).

There is something about the domesticated male that is not at all attractive. A finicky or over-particular man is a turn off. I think some of the socialising of boys that is going on in some places is not a good idea, such as I have heard of in some trends in Scandinavia that seem to aim to tame the maleness.

It doesn't seem like a good idea overall. It won't save society from the tiny percentage of men who are rapists or marauders, because they will exist anyways. But it might impede society in other ways.

For example, if men were not tough-minded and tough-bodied enough to endure the jobs they now occupy at more than 90% as workers - electricians, construction, plumbers, carpenters, machinists, fitters, driving trucks, sewage maintenance, car repairs, fire fighters, crane operators, glaziers, mining, security, steel workers, oil platform workers, forestry, marine work, etc - we would all be fairly screwed.

For most of those jobs you need to be able to endure harsh conditions, which requires a certain amount of perhaps coarseness in order to cheerfully cope.

Plus anyway, I don't know how our betters imagine they can socially engineer testosterone. It's there for better and for worse.

conorhal

Tell me how wrote: »

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.

Given the hillarious rate that 'Woke blokes' describing themselves as 'male-feminist allies' are getting #metoo'd, I'd say their raison d'être is the appearance of 'agreeable and harmless fwend', while they try to weasel their way into some poor girls panties.

Boys if you wan't to walk up to a girl at a party and talk to her (respectfully), do so, and tell your 'woke' buddy trying to cock block you to piss off!

Girl's if a guy chooses to describe himself on social media as a 'male feminist ally', treat him with all the caution you would a guy in a pannel van offering you lift.

Muckka

Zorya wrote: »

To be honest while I like a man who can do a bit of cooking and will clean the loo before I lose the head entirely I am not that fond of the idea of a male regularly in a apron, being too fastidious about the children's antics. I do most of the cleaning and cooking but then again he does by far the most of the compost-heap turning, coal-bucket carrying and unblocking the septic tank (although I have done that, just as he has made bread).

There is something about the domesticated male that is not at all attractive. A finicky or over-particular man is a turn off. I think some of the socialising of boys that is going on in some places is not a good idea, such as I have heard of in some trends in Scandinavia that seem to aim to tame the maleness.

It doesn't seem like a good idea overall. It won't save society from the tiny percentage of men who are rapists or marauders, because they will exist anyways. But it might impede society in other ways.

For example, if men were not tough-minded and tough-bodied enough to endure the jobs they now occupy at more than 90% as workers - electricians, construction, plumbers, carpenters, machinists, fitters, driving trucks, sewage maintenance, car repairs, fire fighters, crane operators, glaziers, mining, security, steel workers, oil platform workers, forestry, marine work, etc - we would all be fairly screwed.

For most of those jobs you need to be able to endure harsh conditions, which requires a certain amount of perhaps coarseness in order to cheerfully cope.

Plus anyway, I don't know how our betters imagine they can socially engineer testosterone. It's there for better and for worse.

There's a woman of the highest order.
I'm sure yourself and your man are happily married.

You're what I would call a unicorn as today it's damm hard to find a woman who appreciates the difference between the sexes.

Tell me how

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

All ads are instructional. That is their purpose. Whether it is to instruct you to buy something or to instruct the audience to discuss the company/product. This ad is focused on the latter.

Many many many women have spoken about their experience with men and how it makes them uncomfortable. Some men have had that experience with women but it seems to be happen to significantly more women, significantly more of the time.

The ad shows scenarios which we are all familiar with witnessing (if not every day) and it suggests not that we are all guilty of it but that we do not accept it as being acceptable.

Why is that a bad thing?

This ad is about respect and the influence our behaviour has on young boys.
It's not rocket science.

Zorya

Muckka wrote: »

There's a woman of the highest order.
I'm sure yourself and your man are happily married.

You're what I would call a unicorn as today it's damm hard to find a woman who appreciates the difference between the sexes.

Well now, thanks, but I might just be a bit too fond of giving back cheek for your liking :P

Zorya

Zorya wrote: »

There is something about the domesticated male that is not at all attractive.

For me I would say the same about women - but to the point I would add the word _overly_ to domesticated. I think I find it unattractive when someone focuses too much on one aspect of their entire being to the expense of any other. And if a person - you say male - is overly domesticated I would find that an unattractive blemish.

For me I am attracted to people who explore their entire being and invest in a diversity of as much as possible. I am the cook in my house. The girlfriends can not cook an over pizza or an omellette even without ruining it and or the kitchen too. But I love cooking. A lot. But it is only one aspect of my being and it does not take away from any other aspect I explore.

I interact with my kids the same way. I have one boy and one girl so far and another kid on the way. I have - to use your phrase - "made bread" and many other things with both of them. I have also wrestled in a big pit of mud with both of them in the garden too. I teach both of them to wire plugs and perform maintenance on cars. I have taught both of them many self defence moves including an reverse handed eye gouging push move that you can use when grabbed. And recently a few times my 8 year old girl has been firing rifles with me and hunting meat.

As for "finicky or over-particular" again I think that would be off putting in any gender. Even the word finicky gives me a revulsion shiver for some reason.

Muckka wrote: »

it's damm hard to find a woman who appreciates the difference between the sexes.

I find a lot of men and women who appreciate the differences between the sexes. I am a man that appreciates them too. A lot. Maybe even too much sometimes

I think for me I am just obsessive about which differences actually are differences - rather than ones we think are there or think should be there. Sometimes where that line lies is very blurry. But most times when people tell me some manly or feminine trait I think "but that trait would be good in _anyone_".

On a barely related comical note my Firefox spell checker keeps replacing feminine with Feminise. Which a lot of the people suggesting we are just trying to dilute or remove manliness will likely find ironic or telling

Zorya

I think one of the biggest problems is the ''blank slate'' theory that is at the root of certain ideologies - that humans can be shaped by social policy. This is false theory. Humans can be shaped but at a great cost, as history repeatedly tells us.

Wibbs

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!

Well you have to laugh really...



Though my personal take on the dynamic going on might explain why the above happens. That is - and very broadly speaking, and bear with me - Human society has evolved to both encourage and put the brakes on male aggression and dominance when required. In very clumsy terms to domesticate and socialise men(women too, but less obviously). That modern humans are akin to "domesticated" versions of previous human species. Even our physiology reflects this. Compared to previous humans we're more neotenous, that is we look more like juveniles as adults compared to previous humans. Bigger eyes, smaller facial features, flattened faces, less robust, more sociable, more playful. You see similar when you compare the wolf to the domestic dog.

Anyhoo, ads like the one we're discussing is part of that drive. Society has the brakes in play, but it's more women with their foot on said brakes. So why might a feminist woman be contrarily more attracted to a sexist man, rather than a "woke"* one? A need to apply the societal brakes, to "tame" him, to bring him into the fold. To socialise him. The "woke" guy is already there, the job's done, so he's no fun/challenge/utility by comparison. You see the same dynamic with "Bad boys". Hell, look at how many letters serial killers, rapists, murderers and assorted scumbags in prison get from Women™. Something that doesn't happen to nearly the same degree in reverse(though there are a subset of men who want to "save" women, particularly "fallen women"). Quite the percentage of women go through a phase of bad boys. This tends to be much more in play in young women. Precious few are chasing bad boys at forty. In very broad strokes the bad boys start to lose their appeal and the "woke" guy is much more in play. For a start it would be foolish to start a family with the bad boy. So for me anyway it's not such a surprise to hear that some feminists are more attracted to sexist men.





* I feel dirty typing that.

conorhal

Tell me how wrote: »

All ads are instructional. That is their purpose. Whether it is to instruct you to buy something or to instruct the audience to discuss the company/product. This ad is focused on the latter.

Many many many women have spoken about their experience with men and how it makes them uncomfortable. Some men have had that experience with women but it seems to be happen to significantly more women, significantly more of the time.

The ad shows scenarios which we are all familiar with witnessing (if not every day) and it suggests not that we are all guilty of it but that we do not accept it as being acceptable.

Why is that a bad thing?

This ad is about respect and the influence our behaviour has on young boys.
It's not rocket science.

Repost for the cheap seats!



It's not rocket science, it's also not the aim or intent of those behind the ad it's not the hoped for result either.

This this ad is entirely political. Entirely, and that's not just my opinion, it's Proctor and Gamble's.

It's no coincidence that this ad was released at the start of the election cycle in the US when presidential campaigns begin to warm up and potential runners consider their chances.
An ad that includes references to the Me Too movement IS political, it also includes contributions from Anna (I’m better then you!) Kasparian, who is a prominent left wing activist and deranged Never Trumper. This all signals pretty hard the political stance of the ad, as does it’s choice of director.
The ad is directed by Kim Gehrig sought out directly by P&G through the activist group Free the Bid, a non-profit which tries to raise the profile of female and non-white advertising directors with (and this is the important part) a socially active approach.
P&G hired Gehrig specifically for her woke, intersection feminist take. Gehrig, you might remember, was the director that brought you the 'woke' Audi super bowl ad on the 'wage gap' last year.
This ad is dripping in politics of a very particular strain, intersectional feminism, and deliberately so. It’s impossible to claim that the aim of the ad is just a message of ‘be nice to people’ when it’s backed by a very specific ideology, one that treats CIS white men as a collectively responsible monolith and who's aim is the deconstruction of gender.

PR expert Mark Borkowski for the Guardian called the advert part of a “fantastically well-thought through campaign”, adding that it appealed to a younger generation that were very aware of the power of advertising and marketing on society.
“It is no longer enough for brands to simply sell a product, customers are demanding that they have a purpose – that they stand for something,” he said. “Masculinity is a huge part of Gillette’s brand, and there is a recognition in this ad that the new generation is reworking that concept of masculinity, and it is no longer the cliché is once was.”

Well perhaps those fawning over the ad might consider that:
1) A multinational corporation has no place 'reworking concepts of masculinity to influence society', that's society's job.
2) I don't think a tampon ad by a 40yr old man telling women how to be feminine would go down well, so perhaps they should have considered the possibility that an intersectional feminist with a nakedly political agenda is a rather insulting choice to assign to a campaign to tell men what being a man should amount to.
3) It's coded anti Trump propaganda for the election cycle, the narrative of the campaign is the narrative of all the negative stereotypes about Trump, and this time the narrative is being shaped early so that so they don't get caught on the hop by the 'pussy grabber' twice come election time.

givyjoe

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?

Most women most certainly did not love the Gillette ad.. It's broken YouTube records for the most unnliked video on its platform. Last time I saw a snapshot it was 20k likes v 200k dislikes. Delusional rubbish.

It's now at 400k likes v 800k dislikes.

An_Toirpin

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

There is tons of data to show that most men don't. Neither do women aspire to it in the same way.

Tell me how

Zorya wrote: »

I think one of the biggest problems is the ''blank slate'' theory that is at the root of certain ideologies - that humans can be shaped by social policy. This is false theory. Humans can be shaped but at a great cost, as history repeatedly tells us. Then again as a friend recently put it modernity is a form of 'extreme provincialism'. Modernity not only is not interested in history but feels it can entirely dispense with it.

Societies since the dawn of time have had behaviours which were once popular and fell out of favour and in many cases the cycle repeated itself and will continue to do so.

Our society is more susceptible to influences largely because of the awareness of them due to the communication of thoughts, images, ideas, stories from both within and outside our society at speeds vastly greater than in the past.

And as it was throughout history, our society does twist and shift depending on the influences.

The only thing different is the speed at which this happens but it is not different to what has gone before.

Burty330

Haha!!

Read this junk ...

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/gillette-ad-toxic-masculinity-655090

Virtue signaling to beat the band with shallow moral platitudes which is then topped of by a recent statement made by The Rock , which read -


"If I ever had an issue with someone, a group, community or a generation — I’d seek them out, create dialogue and do my best to understand them," he wrote. "Criticising ain’t my style. I don’t cast stones and we all get to be who we are."

The Gillete add goes against that statement as it directly criticizes half the population in a very condescending and patronizing manner.

So why is this Carl Kinsella dummy using a quote from The Rock to support a cause that openly criticizes and casts stones at people??

Attacking entire demographics is not his style as he points out himself.

This garbage Joe.ie article completely quoted him out of context which makes them no better than the outlets who fabricated his snowflake generation comments.

Carl Kinsella wrote that piece for no other reason than to pat himself on his own insecure little bonce.

joe40

Zorya wrote: »

To be honest while I like a man who can do a bit of cooking and will clean the loo before I lose the head entirely I am not that fond of the idea of a male regularly in a apron, being too fastidious about the children's antics. I do most of the cleaning and cooking but then again he does by far the most of the compost-heap turning, coal-bucket carrying and unblocking the septic tank (although I have done that, just as he has made bread).

There is something about the domesticated male that is not at all attractive. A finicky or over-particular man is a turn off. I think some of the socialising of boys that is going on in some places is not a good idea, such as I have heard of in some trends in Scandinavia that seem to aim to tame the maleness.

It doesn't seem like a good idea overall. It won't save society from the tiny percentage of men who are rapists or marauders, because they will exist anyways. But it might impede society in other ways.

For example, if men were not tough-minded and tough-bodied enough to endure the jobs they now occupy at more than 90% as workers - electricians, construction, plumbers, carpenters, machinists, fitters, driving trucks, sewage maintenance, car repairs, fire fighters, crane operators, glaziers, mining, security, steel workers, oil platform workers, forestry, marine work, etc - we would all be fairly screwed.

For most of those jobs you need to be able to endure harsh conditions, which requires a certain amount of perhaps coarseness in order to cheerfully cope.

Plus anyway, I don't know how our betters imagine they can socially engineer testosterone. It's there for better and for worse.

I would agree with that if I thought that is is happening on a widescale level in society, I just don't see it.
The careers you have mentioned will continue to attract predominantly young males and we will still produce young males well able to carry out those tasks.
I do agree you can read about silly practises and ideas but by enlarge they do not get traction.
Analagous to the stories that you soon won't be able to celebrate Christmas anymore, that I've been hearing for over 20 years.
Some clown says something silly and then it is extrapolated to mean this is a reflection of society at large.
The young fellas I know and work with ( I work in a sec school) are every bit as manly, masculine, boyish whatever word you want as previous generation.
It would not be possible to socially engineer that out of them even if there was the effort to do so.

Muckka

Zorya wrote: »

I think one of the biggest problems is the ''blank slate'' theory that is at the root of certain ideologies - that humans can be shaped by social policy. This is false theory. Humans can be shaped but at a great cost, as history repeatedly tells us. Then again as a friend recently put it modernity is a form of 'extreme provincialism'. Modernity not only is not interested in history but feels it can entirely dispense with it.

My interpretation of sjw's and femminists is they want to change society for the betterment of their agendas, rather than let people be people.

Ingrained in our DNA is anger,love, responsibility, fear, happiness and success.
Sometimes people need outside help for psychological and social problems, there's professionals are paid handsomely to help out.

But the sjw, lefties and femminists want it their way, or the highway.
Not everyone wants to be a feminist and now I hear men are femminists too.
That has me really confused.
Society doesn't need feminism or sjw's lefties etc

I say **** them, I'm taking the highway and being myself.

Tell me how

conorhal wrote: »

Repost for the cheap seats!



It's not rocket science, it's also not the aim or intent of those behind the ad it's not the hoped for result either.

This this ad is entirely political. Entirely, and that's not just my opinion, it's Proctor and Gamble's.

It's no coincidence that this ad was released at the start of the election cycle in the US when presidential campaigns begin to warm up and potential runners consider their chances.
An ad that includes references to the Me Too movement IS political, it also includes contributions from Anna (I’m better then you!) Kasparian, who is a prominent left wing activist and deranged Never Trumper. This all signals pretty hard the political stance of the ad, as does it’s choice of director.
The ad is directed by Kim Gehrig sought out directly by P&G through the activist group Free the Bid, a non-profit which tries to raise the profile of female and non-white advertising directors with socially active approach. P&G hired Gehrig specifically for her woke, intersection feminist take. Gehrig, you might remember, was the director that brought you the 'woke' Audi super bowl ad on the 'wage gap' last year.
This ad is dripping in politics of a very particular strain, intersectional feminism and deliberately so, it’s impossible to claim that the aim of the ad is just a message of ‘be nice to people message’ when it’s backed by a very specific ideology, one that treats CIS white men as a collectively responsible monolith and who's aim is the deconstruction of gender.

PR expert Mark Borkowski for the Guardian called the advert part of a “fantastically well-thought through campaign”, adding that it appealed to a younger generation that were very aware of the power of advertising and marketing on society.
“It is no longer enough for brands to simply sell a product, customers are demanding that they have a purpose – that they stand for something,” he said. “Masculinity is a huge part of Gillette’s brand, and there is a recognition in this ad that the new generation is reworking that concept of masculinity, and it is no longer the cliché is once was.”

Well perhaps those fawning over the ad might consider that:
1) A multinational corporation has no place 'reworking concepts of masculinity to influence society', that's society's job.
2) I don't think a tampon ad by a 40yr old man telling women how to be feminine would go down well, so perhaps they should have considered the possibility that an intersectional feminist with a nakedly political agenda is a rather insulting choice to assign to a campaign to tell men what being a man should amount to.
3) It's coded anti Trump propaganda for the election cycle, the narrative of the campaign is the narrative of all the negative stereotypes about Trump, and this time the narrative is being shaped early so that so they don't get caught on the hop by the 'pussy grabber' twice come election time.

You seem to have a problem with a concept of masculinity which promotes respect and not having to resort to violence.

Fine, that's your prerogative. I disagree.

You are also being entirely selective in choosing this ad to get hot under the collar about the true motivations of corporations when it comes to advertising. Again, that's your prerogative but come on now, is this the first ad you have ever seen.

An_Toirpin

An_Toirpin wrote: »

There is tons of data to show that most men don't. Neither do women aspire to it in the same way.

Having not seen any data to that effect I can only consider taking your word for it. Which I don't Which leaves the conversation at somewhat of an impasse.

I certainly know I find them attractive traits. I know many of my peers do. And I know I find my current partners highly attractive. And I know others seem too as well.

So as I said - you do not speak for me in this regard or anyone I know. More than that I do not have the data to say.

But let us randomly take one of the traits from the list you are replying to. Being responsible. There is data that suggests women do not aspire to this trait? How so? You mean at all? Or what exactly does it mean to say "not in the same way"? You are a braver person than I to come on to a social media platform like this and say women do not have aspirations to be responsible So I would find clarification interesting and informative.

Grayson

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

The poster specifically mentioned intersectional feminism as being a anti men. It's not at all.

And it's actually really common on the ground as it's a practical way to look at the discrimination faced by woman. rather than say everything is one type of discrimination or another it's a way of saying that the whole experience is layered.

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

You seem to have a problem with a concept of masculinity which promotes respect and not having to resort to violence.

Fine, that's your prerogative. I disagree.

You are also being entirely selective in choosing this ad to get hot under the collar about the true motivations of corporations when it comes to advertising. Again, that's your prerogative but come on now, is this the first ad you have ever seen.

This particular corporation have no right to take the moral high ground on anything as i mentioned earlier in the thread their greatest hits include... price fixing,false advertising, child and forced labour, animal testing, deaths from toxic shock from customers using their tampons...

P&G can rev up and fvck off as far as I'm concerned. Is their behaviour making them the best, most socially conscious multinational corporation they can be? I believe in multinational corporations ability to do better, come on P&G you can do it, you can stop being massively hypocrital virtue signalling charlatans, i believe in you.

Lumen

I wonder whether Saudi Arabia has a boards.sa where people moan about SJWs ruining everything by allowing women to drive.

topper75

conorhal wrote: »

... It's coded anti Trump propaganda for the election cycle, the narrative of the campaign is the narrative of all the negative stereotypes about Trump, and this time the narrative is being shaped early so that so they don't get caught on the hop by the 'pussy grabber' twice come election time.

Interesting. Well if Trump was supposed to be a political backlash, do ads like this and their sentiment not just yield more Trump in turn?

FatherTed

I've been hearing all the outrage about this ad the last few days so finally had the chance to watch it just now.

Really? This is what has gotten all these manly men's knickers in a twist? What a bunch of sissies.

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

This particular corporation have no right to take the moral high ground on anything as i mentioned earlier in the thread their greatest hits include... price fixing,false advertising, child and forced labour, animal testing, deaths from toxic shock from customers using their tampons...

P&G can rev up and fvck off as far as I'm concerned. Is their behaviour making them the best, most socially conscious multinational corporation they can be? I believe in multinational corporations ability to do better, come on P&G you can do it, you can stop being massively hypocrital virtue signalling charlatans, i believe in you.

And that is a reasonable response. It is possible to agree with the sentiment of the ad and call BS on the corporation behind it. (I know you didn't say you agreed with the sentiment either)

But decrying the corporation solely because of the ad (as anyone who is flushing razors ) is childish.

Chips Lovell

Lumen wrote: »

I wonder whether Saudi Arabia has a boards.sa where people moan about SJWs ruining everything by allowing women to drive.

That's where the rot starts. Let them drive and it'll be only a matter of time before they're ruining our shaving cream ads.

Chips Lovell

conorhal wrote: »

Are you prone to bizzare hyperbole?

No. I was more suggesting that people who indulge in bizarre hyperbole have maybe gone too far down an online rabbithole.

Tell me how

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Problem is, many use this argument to decry all considerations towards altering behaviour which is unfair/demeaning/prejudiced to women.

It's like people saying Obama couldn't have an opinion on global warming because he used to fly in Air Force 1.

Burty330

FatherTed wrote: »

I've been hearing all the outrage about this ad the last few days so finally had the chance to watch it just now.

Really? This is what has gotten all these manly men's knickers in a twist? What a bunch of sissies.

^ Look at this tulip thinking he's morally superior to everybody. Ponce