Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

Call it what you want, there are elements of human behaviour carried out predominantly (but not exclusively) by a certain gender which makes many (but not all) of the other gender uncomfortable at least occasionally or actually unsafe at times.

It is not the gender they (whoever they are) are looking to change it is the behaviour.

Were there a female behaviour which makes many (but not all) of the other gender uncomfortable at least occasionally or actually unsafe at times then that too should be flagged.

Have you a female behaviour in mind which you think should be the focus of an ad?

No I don't have a female behaviour in mind that should be the focus of an ad.
I don't see women in those terms, i see humans as fundamentally flawed beings who inflict pain and suffering in each other. It isn't the fault of one gender (or as you so cryptically said "a certain gender", what point could you be trying to make there i wonder?) or the other.
This sjw gender politics nonsense has to stop.

The very mentality of people who espouse this nonsense is frightening. I've been listening to the podcast of the former Newstalk presenter Dil W (not going to attempt to butcher the womans surname) and she only interviews people she agrees with and harps on about how wonderful it is to not have to listen to the opinions of people she doesnt agree with anymore.

It's time to wake up and grow up.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wibbs wrote: »

And yet in the US, Canada and Australia there are shelters for the pets of abused women. Yeah.

I did pet fostering whilst living in the UK for families fleeing violent home situations. It’s not really a whackadoo idea, it actually fulfills an immediate need, solves a pressing problem. People can’t bring their pets to the shelter they’re bunking at, it’d be absolute bedlam if everyone brought their pets. But they don’t want to give up their pets, especially if there’s children involved. The pet might be the one bright spot in their lives. So fosterers would mind them. A dedicated animal shelter for this purpose does the same job.

Wibbs

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm a man but do you seriously want to go down that road.

Yep, pretty damned daft. Though just because we were pretty damned daft back not so long ago, that's no reason to go pretty damned daft in the other direction today. Though for some "feminists" there is the sniff of revenge and evening the score. QV the silly cows with "Male tears" tee shirts. People rightfully complained and boycotted about that nonsense back then and it changed for the better and they got static, so we should complain about this nonsense today so it changes for the better. And if we're being called silly broflakes for it, big deal, they were called silly bitches for complaining back then and thank god they did complain.

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm a man but do you seriously want to go down that road.

You know you're right when I saw those ads earlier this week I was outraged...

Seriously, do you have anything from this century to back up your argument?
We all know sexism was a big seller in the 60's and 70's. It doesn't speak to modern attitudes.

Wibbs

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I did pet fostering whilst living in the UK for families fleeing violent home situations. It’s not really a whackadoo idea, it actually fulfills an immediate need, solves a pressing problem. People can’t bring their pets to the shelter they’re bunking at, it’d be absolute bedlam if everyone brought their pets. But they don’t want to give up their pets, especially if there’s children involved. The pet might be the one bright spot in their lives. So fosterers would mind them. A dedicated animal shelter for this purpose does the same job.

Which is fine and laudable OD, but when pets are being looked after over and above abused men that's a pretty good indicator that society has taken a blindingly stupid turn.

Phat Cat

Tell me how wrote: »

I'm a man but do you seriously want to go down that road

Yeah, of course I do.

Advertisements have gone full circle over the last few decades and the genders being ridiculed have switched. That makes it justifiable in your opinion? Sort of like a warped affirmative action?

Tell me how

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep, pretty damned daft. Though just because we were pretty damned daft back not so long ago, that's no reason to go pretty damned daft in the other direction today. Though for some "feminists" there is the sniff of revenge and evening the score. QV the silly cows with "Male tears" tee shirts. People rightfully complained and boycotted about that nonsense back then and it changed for the better and they got static, so we should complain about this nonsense today so it changes for the better. And if we're being called silly broflakes for it, big deal, they were called silly bitches for complaining back then and thank god they did complain.

The reverse sexism is there and is pitiful (as is those male apologising on behalf of their gender) but it's being attributed to all arguments nearly by default. "Oh, your only doing this to get back at us".

It's also not exactly comparing apples with apples in terms of the content of the Gillette ad.

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

No I don't have a female behaviour in mind that should be the focus of an ad.
I don't see women in those terms, i see humans as fundamentally flawed beings who inflict pain and suffering in each other. It isn't the fault of one gender (or as you so cryptically said "a certain gender", what point could you be trying to make there i wonder?) or the other.
This sjw gender politics nonsense has to stop.

The very mentality of people who espouse this nonsense is frightening. I've been listening to the podcast of the former Newstalk presenter Dil W (not going to attempt to butcher the womans surname) and she only interviews people she agrees with and harps on about how wonderful it is to not have to listen to the opinions of people she doesnt agree with anymore.

It's time to wake up and grow up.

Dil is on the extreme end of advocating feminist and masculine positions.
Not everyone who thinks there is room for improvement agrees that we need to go as far as we might imagine she would like.

conorhal

Tell me how wrote: »

I think it was the same study that found the following.

So the consequence of male violence tends to be greater (unsurprisingly given the likely strength disparity).

Frankly, I wonder if that's even true. Especially when you look at the numbers of men killing themselves over divorce and custody battles.
Men may be more capable of being physically threatening, but I do wonder if women are killing men at any lesser a rate, just doing it a little more indirectly.
Then there's the homlesness, alcoholism, depression etc. that are consequences which aren't fatal, but no less impactful in peoples lives, but coupled with almost zero support or resources compared with those for women. I'd say it's a toss up as to which gender suffers most as the outcome of domestic violence. For women there is a rake of resources, for men..... there's the noose.

Tell me how wrote: »

I think those that feel men are being unfairly targeted should push for advocacy in the areas where they think it is needed as a priority over voicing their disgust at their perception of being unfairly targeted.

Of course some men are trying to campaign for exactly that, bit of an up hill struggle though.... you try to organize a conference on the issue and people like this arrive to protest you...

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

Seriously, do you have anything from this century to back up your argument?
We all know sexism was a big seller in the 60's and 70's. It doesn't speak to modern attitudes.

Next.

johnnyskeleton

Has this been posted yet:

Muckka

conorhal wrote: »

Frankly, I wonder if that's even true. Especially when you look at the numbers of men killing themselves over divorce and custody battles.
Men may be more capable of being physically threatening, but I do wonder if women are killing men at any lesser a rate, just doing it a little more indirectly.
Then there's the homlesness, alcoholism, depression etc. that are consequences which aren't fatal, but no less impactful in peoples lives, but coupled with almost zero support or resources compared with those for women. I'd say it's a toss up as to which gender suffers most as the outcome of domestic violence. For women there is a rake of resources, for men..... there's the noose.





Of course some men are trying to campaign for exactly that, bit of an up hill struggle though.... you try to organize a conference on the issue and people like this arrive to protest you...

That redhead is an absolute nutjob of a head banger.

Wibbs

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I did pet fostering whilst living in the UK for families fleeing violent home situations. It’s not really a whackadoo idea, it actually fulfills an immediate need, solves a pressing problem. People can’t bring their pets to the shelter they’re bunking at, it’d be absolute bedlam if everyone brought their pets. But they don’t want to give up their pets, especially if there’s children involved. The pet might be the one bright spot in their lives. So fosterers would mind them. A dedicated animal shelter for this purpose does the same job.

Which is fine and laudable OD, but when pets are being looked after over and above abused men that's a pretty good indicator that society has taken a blindingly stupid turn.

Tell me how

conorhal wrote: »

Frankly, I wonder if that's even true. Especially when you look at the numbers of men killing themselves over divorce and custody battles.
Men may be more capable of being physically threatening, but I do wonder if women are killing men at any lesser a rate, just doing it a little more indirectly.

Don't see how we can use evidence from one part of a report but qustion that from another part of the same report.

conorhal wrote: »

Then there's the homlesness, alcoholism, depression etc. that are consequences which aren't fatal, but no less impactful in peoples lives, but coupled with almost zero support or resources compared with those for women. I'd say it's a toss up as to which gender suffers most as the outcome of domestic violence. For women there is a rake of resources, for men..... there's the noose.

All real issues which men do face. And which there is some advocacy but still room for improvement.
But, I think we have to go with the evidence that females do tend to suffer more in terms of the outcome of the violence.

conorhal wrote: »

Of course some men are trying to campaign for exactly that, bit of an up hill struggle though.... you try to organize a conference on the issue and people like this arrive to protest you...

But how many of those women are there?
Seriously?

I'm not suggesting there aren't areas in which means lives could be collectively improved but I am suggesting that if so the focus should be in working towards those improvement instead of complaining that we are being unfairly targeted.

Tell me how

Phat Cat wrote: »

Yeah, of course I do.

Advertisements have gone full circle over the last few decades and the genders being ridiculed have switched. That makes it justifiable in your opinion? Sort of like a warped affirmative action?

No. I do not think that men are/were demeaned in the Gillette ad as females were done in previous ads.

This is a message targeting behaviour, not a gender.

freshpopcorn

This is being discussed on Today with Maura and Daithi now!

qwerty ui op

Muckka wrote: »

This is about advertising, masculinity and men...

Start up your own thread if you like.

Is it...

I put sjw into search function you'd swear I was living in a different planet, thread after thread page after page about a type of person I've never come across not only that I can't remember many times when someone has brought sjw into conversation. I've lived into both rural Ireland and Dublin and worked with people of all ages.

It's a form of madness, you're facepalming at me because I haven't joined the lunatics in the asylum.

Muckka

conorhal wrote: »

Frankly, I wonder if that's even true. Especially when you look at the numbers of men killing themselves over divorce and custody battles.
Men may be more capable of being physically threatening, but I do wonder if women are killing men at any lesser a rate, just doing it a little more indirectly.
Then there's the homlesness, alcoholism, depression etc. that are consequences which aren't fatal, but no less impactful in peoples lives, but coupled with almost zero support or resources compared with those for women. I'd say it's a toss up as to which gender suffers most as the outcome of domestic violence. For women there is a rake of resources, for men..... there's the noose.

Unfortunately the bottom of the cliff's of moher is peppered with poor souls, who've been fcked over due to custody battle's, infidelity and horrific abuse from women.

I haven't come across one woman who've regretted putting their exe through hell during a divorce or separation.

I have heard men who have said, she was right to leave me, she put up with enough of my drinking, gambling or drugging...

But never have I heard a woman regret her lying, cheating and bulling a guy to the Cliff edge.

There's the difference.

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

Dil is on the extreme end of advocating feminist and masculine positions.
Not everyone who thinks there is room for improvement agrees that we need to go as far as we might imagine she would like.

She is interviewing and is extremely pally with most of the leading voices of feminism in this country. Her podcast is an echo chamber in which a lot of these people feel at ease expressing frankly misandrist beliefs that they are usually too careful to let slip in mainstream media interviews or appearances.

Muckka

qwerty ui op wrote: »

Is it...

I put sjw into search function you'd swear I was living in a different planet, thread after thread page after page about a type of person I've never come across not only that I can't remember many times when someone has brought sjw into conversation. I've lived into both rural Ireland and Dublin and worked with people of all ages.

It's a form of madness, you're facepalming at me because I haven't joined the lunatics in the asylum.

I wasn't facepalming at you.
I'm sure you're an intelligent and nice person.

It was the fact that you've never come into contact with these Headbanger's.
Unfortunately I have.

Luckily for you, you haven't.

One thing for sure, it's not hard to wind them up.

You'll usually see them with abnormal hair dye, slightly tubby and have an entourage of skinny guy's hanging off them.

Some of them have the physical appearance like a South Park character..

Almost like barrels

Tell me how

nullzero wrote: »

She is interviewing and is extremely pally with most of the leading voices of feminism in this country. Her podcast is an echo chamber in which a lot of these people feel at ease expressing frankly misandrist beliefs that they are usually too careful to let slip in mainstream media interviews or appearances.

If they are keeping these views to their own echo chamber, I'm not going to get too bothered.

I don't listen to her podcast as I don't agree with her views and the extent to which she holds them.

Seanachai

qwerty ui op wrote: »

Is it...

I put sjw into search function you'd swear I was living in a different planet, thread after thread page after page about a type of person I've never come across not only that I can't remember many times when someone has brought sjw into conversation. I've lived into both rural Ireland and Dublin and worked with people of all ages.

It's a form of madness, you're facepalming at me because I haven't joined the lunatics in the asylum.

It's more or less a USA phenomenon at the moment, the equivalent here would be what I call new liberals or people with very hard left views, militant vegans, intolerant towards most traditional value systems etc. I've run into the mentality in the office work environment, more so among the millennial generation. I would be very wary of discussing certain subjects with them as it could end up with you being brought into an office on some phoney allegation.

hatrickpatrick

Tell me how wrote: »

Call it what you want, there are elements of human behaviour carried out predominantly (but not exclusively) by a certain gender which makes many (but not all) of the other gender uncomfortable at least occasionally or actually unsafe at times.

It is not the gender they (whoever they are) are looking to change it is the behaviour.

Were there a female behaviour which makes many (but not all) of the other gender uncomfortable at least occasionally or actually unsafe at times then that too should be flagged.

Have you a female behaviour in mind which you think should be the focus of an ad?

Emotional blackmail? Pretending to like someone for the thrill of the attention? Pretending to be attracted to someone for money or security? Believing that certain behaviours (cheating, emotional abuse, even physical violence) are ok when committed by women but not by men, because "they're done for better reasons" or some stupid rationale like that? Pretending to like a woman and acting friendly until she's out of the room and her character is torn apart? Paternity Fraud? Feeling entitled to hit a guy, or always go first, or any other such sh!te because of "chivalry" being preached by adults during childhood?

Now, these are all stereotypes. I absolutely would not want them to be the focus of an ad, because while a lot of guys fear some of the things on this list, most of us recognise that it's a small minority of women who behave this way and simply get load of attention for it, while the silent majority of good women who are simply nice, kind human beings don't get that attention because it doesn't make an interesting story or drive internet traffic. I would not want the many wonderful female friends I have to feel as if their gender was under attack or constantly being belittled or shamed because of a barrage of mainstream media sources criticising them or acting as if they're somehow complicit in other womens' bad behaviour by virtue of also happening to have an X chromosome.

Is it so much to ask that I, as a man, be afforded the same freedom from being generalised and stereotyped by mainstream, respected sources, or that if I was, there'd be a similar mainstream outcry and backlash against it as there is when the media treats women like sh!t in this way?

"Men" don't harm people. Women don't harm people, Individuals harm people. It's that simple.

Seanachai

Muckka wrote: »

conorhal wrote: »

Frankly, I wonder if that's even true. Especially when you look at the numbers of men killing themselves over divorce and custody battles.
Men may be more capable of being physically threatening, but I do wonder if women are killing men at any lesser a rate, just doing it a little more indirectly.
Then there's the homlesness, alcoholism, depression etc. that are consequences which aren't fatal, but no less impactful in peoples lives, but coupled with almost zero support or resources compared with those for women. I'd say it's a toss up as to which gender suffers most as the outcome of domestic violence. For women there is a rake of resources, for men..... there's the noose.

Unfortunately the bottom of the cliff's of moher is peppered with poor souls, who've been fcked over due to custody battle's, infidelity and horrific abuse from women.

I haven't come across one woman who've regretted putting their exe through hell during a divorce or separation.

I have heard men who have said, she was right to leave me, she put up with enough of my drinking, gambling or drugging...

But never have I heard a woman regret her lying, cheating and bulling a guy to the Cliff edge.

There's the difference.

Women can be much more cunning and insidious when they want to pursue a vendetta. These types will gravitate towards career positions where they have the power to cause serious havoc in men's lives, or even women that they see as being against their own position.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wibbs wrote: »

Which is fine and laudable OD, but when pets are being looked after over and above abused men that's a pretty good indicator that society has taken a blindingly stupid turn.

I disagree because, like I said, it’s just something that developed out a pressing need, namely “Shît, what are we going to do with their pets?”. It’s just problem-solving. More than likely an on-the-spot idea thought up by someone somewhere who was at the coalface. And I bet that person wasn’t even thinking about gender issues and screwing men over. They were probably just looking at a dog or cat and thinking “Hmmm, this is an issue, what the hell do we do about this?” and it likely snowballed from there.

And as for the people who volunteer at these pet shelters or do pet fostering for fleeing families like moi, well, nobody can help every charitable cause so people pick the ones they are most drawn to and have an aptitude for. My fostering pets for families fleeing from abusive homes doesn’t mean I don’t give a shît about abused men. I just volunteered in a field where I thought I’d be of most use.

Would men be overlooked less if these specialist animal shelters didn’t exist? I doubt it. The reason they came into existence isn’t stupid at all when you think about it. A problem presented itself and was solved. There’s nothing nefarious about it. And personally, I love the idea of children who had to flee an abusive environment having somewhere they can go to visit their pets.

One eyed Jack

freshpopcorn wrote: »

This is being discussed on Today with Maura and Daithi now!

We won’t need to shave when we’re all vegans

nullzero

Tell me how wrote: »

If they are keeping these views to their own echo chamber, I'm not going to get too bothered.

I don't listen to her podcast as I don't agree with her views and the extent to which she holds them.

I don't agree with her either, but i see that as a good reason TO listen to her podcast.

Phat Cat

Tell me how wrote: »

No. I do not think that men are/were demeaned in the Gillette ad as females were done in previous ads.

This is a message targeting behaviour, not a gender.

Men were demeaned in the Gillette ad, okay not as much as in the Done Deal ad that I posted, but men were condescendingly told how to behave and act in an advertisement endorsed by global conglomerate (that, rather ironically, profit from child and forced labour).

If you choose not to see that then that's your prerogative, but its there for everybody else to see and it's not really open to interpretation, especially since it was directed by radical feminist Kim Gehrig

Muckka

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Emotional blackmail? Pretending to like someone for the thrill of the attention? Pretending to be attracted to someone for money or security? Believing that certain behaviours (cheating, emotional abuse, even physical violence) are ok when committed by women but not by men, because "they're done for better reasons" or some stupid rationale like that? Pretending to like a woman and acting friendly until she's out of the room and her character is torn apart? Paternity Fraud? Feeling entitled to hit a guy, or always go first, or any other such sh!te because of "chivalry" being preached by adults during childhood?

Now, these are all stereotypes. I absolutely would not want them to be the focus of an ad, because while a lot of guys fear some of the things on this list, most of us recognise that it's a small minority of women who behave this way and simply get load of attention for it, while the silent majority of good women who are simply nice, kind human beings don't get that attention because it doesn't make an interesting story or drive internet traffic. I would not want the many wonderful female friends I have to feel as if their gender was under attack or constantly being belittled or shamed because of a barrage of mainstream media sources criticising them or acting as if they're somehow complicit in other womens' bad behaviour by virtue of also happening to have an X chromosome.

Is it so much to ask that I, as a man, be afforded the same freedom from being generalised and stereotyped by mainstream, respected sources, or that if I was, there'd be a similar mainstream outcry and backlash against it as there is when the media treats women like sh!t in this way?

"Men" don't harm people. Women don't harm people, Individuals harm people. It's that simple.

You don't hear much about good women and what they do that's good, or men for that matter.

Because they're not protesting against the natural harmony of the way society moves along, they're not making a show of themselves and others.

Vegans, strident religious people, bitter atheists, vegans, sjw's, lefties and animal rights activists seem to be the scourge of society.

That's my opinion, they're constantly anxious and worried about when they get their next hit of narcissistic supply

First wave femminists were ok, but the third wave femminists are shocking.
I just hope this stop's, because men are waking up to their bull****.
And fear the wrath of these Jezebel's.
They'll Stoke controversy anywhere.

It's an addiction to them.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Muckka wrote: »

I wasn't facepalming at you.
I'm sure you're an intelligent and nice person.

It was the fact that you've never come into contact with these Headbanger's.
Unfortunately I have.

Luckily for you, you haven't.

One thing for sure, it's not hard to wind them up.

You'll usually see them with abnormal hair dye, slightly tubby and have an entourage of skinny guy's hanging off them.

Some of them have the physical appearance like a South Park character..

Almost like barrels

We had a couple of SJW women over at the house this xmas for pre drinks (gfs work colleagues). Kind of looked like lads from an early 2000s indie band but still pretty in a strange sort of way.

They're different when you get them on their own, much more open to debate and discussion. Nothing like social media or protest rallies.

I ended up liking them, I enjoy being around people with different viewpoints, even if I don't agree with them.

It makes for really interesting conversations, especially when gin is involved.