Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[Raga]

I think some of it is the erroneous perception that government workers don't work, but some of it is resentment over positions that aren't *essential* that are funded by taxpayers. Like just some examples from the city I work in (which has about 350ish total employees) off the top of my head:

The Reservation Office (employs 3-5ish people): rents out various city facilities for venues like weddings and campaign events, sells tickets to city events (father/daughter ball as one example)

The Fitness Center (employs 10+ people)

The municipal shooting range (actually not sure here, I'd guess 1-2)

The city golf course (not sure, but with laborers I'm guessing 5ish)

People in Rec&Tourism who are basically PR for the city and not in a "talk to citizens about polling places and safety and other necessary communication" but in a purely marketing sense

People who maintain a bunch of mostly tacky, generic sculptures and art pieces in various places

And on top of that, most of these positions are low skill and the workers in them would otherwise be working in crappy retail positions or as receptionists or whatever with little to no benefits. When you are generic customer service worker #3407 and you make $8 an hour and have no insurance and you see somebody who does basically what you do making $11 an hour with health insurance and a pension and that being paid for out of your taxed earnings, I get the resentment.

Don't get me wrong. That's stuff nice to have, but at the end of the day we don't *need* a public pool or a big auditorium that can be rented out or people who make sure the city logo is really snazzy.

I think some of the resentment is understandable. It's a first cousin to people who get upset that school taxes end up paying for football and not for textbooks.

[Sinekein]

Don't get me wrong. That's stuff nice to have, but at the end of the day we don't *need* a public pool or a big auditorium that can be rented out or people who make sure the city logo is really snazzy.

Hmm, while not being "necessary" per se, public pools and all public sport installations in general can be enjoyed by people with low-ish incomes who might not be well-off enough to pay for private, more luxurious installations. Aren't schools using it too? And if it's an open, summer pool, in the same way it gives people who can't get on a beach resort to enjoy a bit of holidays.

The auditorium - it depends on how it is used. I don't consider giving access to culture as wasting taxpayer money personally. It's like having a public library or theater. At least in France, most of those who complain about "using taxpayer money to pay for culture" are those who are rich enough to enjoy it on their own and can't suffer that a bit of their wealth is used to help the poor to do the same.

Logo design though I can't picture. Usually if it's necessary the mayor will hire a contractor for the occasion - as long as it's done according to the rules in place.

All in all, I think that there is public money that is wasted, but that it's far from being as huge as some (who'd rather only pay for themselves in all occasion and frown at any form of solidarity) make it to be. Although I can only speak for France, not the US.

[Mazder]

No General elction.
So down to 2 options.
No Deal Brexit or No Brexit.

I am bracing myself.
I might also try and learn Swiss-German.....just in case....

[Mobius_118]

No General elction.
So down to 2 options.
No Deal Brexit or No Brexit.

I am bracing myself.
I might also try and learn Swiss-German.....just in case....

It's important to learn multiple languages.

And accept that isolationism is no longer a viable option for a nation.

[Raga]

I don't consider giving access to culture as wasting taxpayer money personally.

I don't either actually. I used to be a public librarian so I hardly could have that position and not be a relentless hypocrite. But that is the previous position I mentioned that I intrinsically understood was not essential in the way librarians want to think that it is.

There's this sort of running joke/existential conundrum with librarians (at least in the US) that they have a severe inferiority complex that leads them to endlessly reassert how vital they are and how popular libraries are with the general public. *Some* of that is feeling physically threatened by technology and fearing obsolescence. (Which is stupid anyway. As technology has increased, demand for library has *increased* not diminished). Some of it is because libraries, especially public libraries, have to engage in never-ending fights for basic funding because legislatures keeping trying to strip it.

But I think a huge part of that is tied up in the fact that librarianship requires a Masters degree and most librarians intrinsically understand that it doesn't really *need* a Masters degree. The demand for a Masters degree is simultaneously a thing clung to as a way to winnow down the pool of applicants who might depress wages and a source of deep dissatisfaction because other positions with a Masters degree pay way more (whereas librarian pay only allows decent lower middle class status).

You secretly end up knowing your pay is fair for what your skillset actually is but resenting that it's not as high as you want it to be, but also unable to go anywhere else because you know your skills are actually mostly useless in the private sector. (Some really specialized psuedo librarian positions mostly found in academic libraries not withstanding). This leaves you in the position of accepting mediocrity as due recompense and your destiny as inevitably working class/lower middle class forever (which your sense of entitlement wrought by your degree and perception of yourself as smart can't abide) or going around proclaiming how vital what you do is, how special the skills you have are, and how you can in no way be replaced by something cheaper or less educated.

That's a kind of long digression, but my point is that I think there are similar complexions in a lot of government workers and that the public isn't completely stupid and that they can smell it to some degree.

[Raga]

No General elction.

How is that a known quantity? I thought there was a no-confidence vote on May, now? If she's given the boot, can't the new leadership sort of choose to do whatever, including another referendum?

*Edit*

Nevermind, I see she survived no-confidence vote.

[Sinekein]

May's saving grace seems to be that Corbyn is an awful, awful politician.

I don't really know about his ideas or who he is as a person, but failing to gain any ground in two years of Brexit debacle while you are the clear and sole opposition leader is almost of impressive inefficiency.

It's been two years and still it's hard to say what his stance on Brexit is, for a start. In all likelihood he wants it? Because if he didn't, having failed to properly unite and lead an opposition party that is overwhelmingly pro-Remain would mean utter stupidity.

[Raga]

Well, there's also this: https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-f ... ism-crisis

[Mazder]

It's important to learn multiple languages.

And accept that isolationism is no longer a viable option for a nation.

I wouldn't say "important".
Welcomed maybe.

Isolationism, maybe not, but that doesn't mean we should all mix until there are no differences either.

May's saving grace seems to be that Corbyn is an awful, awful politician.

I don't really know about his ideas or who he is as a person, but failing to gain any ground in two years of Brexit debacle while you are the clear and sole opposition leader is almost of impressive inefficiency.

It's been two years and still it's hard to say what his stance on Brexit is, for a start. In all likelihood he wants it? Because if he didn't, having failed to properly unite and lead an opposition party that is overwhelmingly pro-Remain would mean utter stupidity.

As much as Corbyn is a failed politician May is too much of one to have also barely gotten a deal through last year.
People call Corbyn the lesser of two evils right now and TBH I am not seeing as either is less evil than the other when it comes to competency levels.

[Raga]

Interesting Article: The Fight Over Men is Shaping Our Political Future

[Alienmorph]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMKi_HIKsAM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25mrjyDxkM4

Gotta love that these stupid things are actually angering women as well. Truly feminism is in an helthy place right now lol

[Sinekein]

Interesting Article: The Fight Over Men is Shaping Our Political Future

Very interesting read. I fully agree with what is shown of the new APA guidelines, especially as they are not even denying biological differences, only criticizing what those biological differences are used to explain.

[Raga]

I have mixed opinions about the APA guidelines. I'm not a feminist, but I do actually think that the more moderate strains of feminism, especially moderate second wave feminism have some constructive things to say about how constraining rigid gender roles can be and how those can lead to various psychoses and at a macro level to societal dysfunction.

However, the fact that these guidelines just don't deign to speak about biological factors in gendered behavior is itself a problem. This is an exceedingly tentative step, but it can still be construed as a first step towards pathologizing maleness. The APA has a history of sometimes pathologizing things because of social pressure and basically serving as an enforcer of societal norms rather than a seeker after true disease, even when such measures have no real basis in science or the science that has been conducted isn't robust. Because of that, the lack of a look at the actual science behind gendered behavior can be construed as potentially worrisome.

Relevant: https://www.thisamericanlife.org/204/81-words

[Vol]

Well, NJ's passed the $15 minimum wage dealie, on the back of our new governor already breaking the bank open for more programs and welfare and shit. Keeping in mind, $15 an hour is not nearly enough to actually live in this state without sharing a home, and we're already experiencing people (mostly older tax payers) fleeing to other states to not have to pay our retardedly high taxes. Surely this will work as planned and not accelerate the loss of jobs, businesses, and tax-payers.

Oh and we have $125,000,000,000 in pension funds owed, and not enough assets to cover even 40% of it. Because the state government also promised juicy benefits to every one who finagled a government job, the true height of achievement (No offense to you, Raga, as I actually respect librarians). The economic system of spending well in excess of what you have now because you imagine future workers will generate that wealth is buffoonery, and all the third world immigrants we can cram into our cities isn't going to fix that, because, spoilers, they end up costing more than they generate too.

[Mobius_118]

Senator Klobuchar gets AG nominee William Barr to state that ordering someone to commit perjury would be considered obstruction of justice. And Cohen, trump's lawyer was instructed by trump to lie to Congress.

C-Span video confirming that.

Leave it to Minnesota to once again be the voice of reason and put this garbage administration in the dumpster where it belongs.

[Sinekein]

However, the fact that these guidelines just don't deign to speak about biological factors in gendered behavior is itself a problem. This is an exceedingly tentative step, but it can still be construed as a first step towards pathologizing maleness. The APA has a history of sometimes pathologizing things because of social pressure and basically serving as an enforcer of societal norms rather than a seeker after true disease, even when such measures have no real basis in science or the science that has been conducted isn't robust. Because of that, the lack of a look at the actual science behind gendered behavior can be construed as potentially worrisome.

I get the feeling that explaining that the toxic masculinity criticized here being shown as a social construct and as a huge pressure on males exonerates them from individual responsibility. It does not point a finger and say "you are wrong", it accuses society more than individuals. And it also explains why some behaviors that have been shown as normal or even positive are actually anything but.

For those who have interiorized some aspects of toxic masculinity, it does not say "you are a bad person for being like this", it just gives an explanation as to the consequences of such behavior on themselves and others. It does not sound accusatory.

Plus, the "biology" of masculinity matters less and less the more society advances. The number of jobs that rely on physical strength, or stamina, gets lower every day. And women are not selected anymore for their ability to repeatedly give birth. So without negating those biological differences, giving them less and less importance in gender behavior the more society gets automatized makes sense.

[Alienmorph]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhMggUqc7xA

Didn't want to post more of these, but despite the rant-y nature of the video, there's some good points in here.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me_WxIKNiEY

[Mobius_118]

Look at all this fragile masculinity.

[Mazder]

Look at all this fragile masculinity.

Look at all this the very thing feminism wanted, yet is calling them out on being vulnerable.

TBH my take on the Gillette commercial is they listened to twitter way too fucking much, are so vague and use way too many old stereotypes to put forth this message and by the end of it it just becomes a whole "you can't be what you used to be but you can't work through your issues that lead you to those stereotypes either".

I mean it's just boring corporate misunderstanding of what they actually wanted to put out and it's just so lazy and so freaking done.

I mean for example I have only heard the phrase "boys will be boys", in any context, when it's being spoken about in a feminist article/video/speech (and reactions to said speech) on how bad men are at teaching boys, or how boys are forgiven for being violent.
At most I've heard "kid's'll be kids" but that's in reference to both boys and girls.

[Mobius_118]

I dunno man. So far the vitriol over the commercial is coming from the very people who need the lesson.

[TTTX]

I dunno man. So far the vitriol over the commercial is coming from the very people who need the lesson.

Considering how terrible the commercial is, it doesn't give any good context to any of the situations.

For most of them it basically says "this is bad" without giving any context as to why that's bad, aside from "you are a white man everything you do is bad".

[Mobius_118]

There are thousands of commercials that show white folk as unable to do the most basic household chores or as even able to feed themselves.

Then this one razor commercial comes on and suddenly OHMYGAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWDDDDDDDDDDDD MY MASCULINITY!!!!!!!!!11!!1!1!

Grow up. It's a commercial. If you're so easily offended by a commercial, then the standard fare on cable tv should send you into a visceral, foam at the mouth conniption, because Jersey Shore is still a thing.

[Mazder]

I dunno man. So far the vitriol over the commercial is coming from the very people who need the lesson.

Some maybe need elements of it.
The vast majority however are most likely just as jaded as others would be.
I mean if the reverse was done and Veet brought out a vid about how shitty women can be when growing up, all the manipulation and mindgames, etc there would be a lynch mob.

I mean by the end of it all I thought as "what so boys can't fight amongst each other any more? They can't stand up for themselves?" And that was only because they put so much emphasis on the end about the two kids fighting.

There are thousands of commercials that show white folk as unable to do the most basic household chores or as even able to feed themselves.

Then this one razor commercial comes on and suddenly OHMYGAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWDDDDDDDDDDDD MY MASCULINITY!!!!!!!!!11!!1!1!

Grow up. It's a commercial. If you're so easily offended by a commercial, then the standard fare on cable tv should send you into a visceral, foam at the mouth conniption, because Jersey Shore is still a thing.

One, those commercials are a parody, and at best, meant to not be taken seriously.
Two, the Gillette one is trying to be way too fucking serious. They're a multi million dollar razor company. they want to put their money and ad power where it'll actually help then they should have just recorded their CEO handing a cheque to a homeless shelter or something.

TBH the narrative is still heavily on the "you're a straight, white, male and we don't like you having any autonomy, or power, or privilege".
But that's just because it's poorly executed.

[TTTX]

There are thousands of commercials that show white folk as unable to do the most basic household chores or as even able to feed themselves.

Then this one razor commercial comes on and suddenly OHMYGAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWDDDDDDDDDDDD MY MASCULINITY!!!!!!!!!11!!1!1!

Grow up. It's a commercial. If you're so easily offended by a commercial, then the standard fare on cable tv should send you into a visceral, foam at the mouth conniption, because Jersey Shore is still a thing.

most of them are stereo types to laugh at and aren't ment to be taken seriously.

Because the message it's tries show is at best poorly executed, at worst it basically says "Men are bad, because they are men, be better".

Consider the left go ape shit over twitter comments made over 10 years ago and even wants people to get fired over them I don't think you have much ground to stand on here.

I have no idea what Jersey Shore is, I'm not American.

[Sinekein]

Seriously, there are so many reactions to that commercial that you can't help but think Gillette hit a very sore point.

It's almost as if it's okay to ignore it when it's "feminists" who say it, because you can put them in the "crazy/evil leftist who want to cut everyone's balls" box (no matter what they say, the word is so wrongfully used...), but when suddenly it's a symbol of manhood that starts calling them out, it's not tolerable.

I won't hide it, I enjoy the butthurt comments a lot, especially how they twist their brains to try and make respect and decency be evil.

[Mobius_118]

Look, I can safely say that I'm one of the more violent capable, masculine individuals here. I go in the woods with nothing but a knife and a good pair of boots for a week, and live more comfortable than I do in my house. I work hard, I play hard. I have more callouses on my hands and feet than everyone here except for Vol, who is in construction.

My job is literally killing and explosions.

I'm not offended by a commercial, because I don't care. I don't catcall women and I don't actually bully people. If I were to encounter anyone from here except for GAC, who's not a man, I'd buy them their drink and we'd talk it out. Yes, even Theo.

It's not that hard to be a gentleman. And it's really not hard to be offended by a commercial for razors by a corporation that's exploiting the weak's fears of being called out for what they are.

most of them are stereo types to laugh at and aren't ment to be taken seriously.

Because the message it's tries show is at best poorly executed, at worst it basically says "Men are bad, because they are men, be better".

Consider the left go ape shit over twitter comments made over 10 years ago and even wants people to get fired over them I don't think you have much ground to stand on here.

I have no idea what Jersey Shore is, I'm not American.

Gillette tried to say something that everyone should have learned in their developing years. That shit takes years, not minutes. No wonder it fell flat.

Right...I'll keep that in mind as the trump base makes shit up, while the Left uses actual evidence to discredit people. Trump supporters are still convinced Michelle Obama is a man. The two are not comparable.

And think of your areas favorite "reality" tv show. Jersey Shore is worse.

Seriously, there are so many reactions to that commercial that you can't help but think Gillette hit a very sore point.

It's almost as if it's okay to ignore it when it's "feminists" who say it, because you can put them in the "crazy/evil leftist who want to cut everyone's balls" box (no matter what they say, the word is so wrongfully used...), but when suddenly it's a symbol of manhood that starts calling them out, it's not tolerable.

I won't hide it, I enjoy the butthurt comments a lot, especially how they twist their brains to try and make respect and decency be evil.

Someone gets it.

[TTTX]

Gillette tried to say something that everyone should have learned in their developing years. That shit takes years, not minutes. No wonder it fell flat.

Right...I'll keep that in mind as the trump base makes shit up, while the Left uses actual evidence to discredit people. Trump supporters are still convinced Michelle Obama is a man. The two are not comparable.

And think of your areas favorite "reality" tv show. Jersey Shore is worse.

And what is that they are trying to say?

If Trump gets reelected, then the Left is more incompetent then he is (which would be saying a lot), quite frankly the Left should spend more preparing for the next election and make sure not to make them same mistakes as Hillary did.

meh, I haven't watched reality shows in over 10 years now.

Someone gets it.

You two should marry, you'll be a perfect couple .

[Mazder]

Seriously, there are so many reactions to that commercial that you can't help but think Gillette hit a very sore point.

It's almost as if it's okay to ignore it when it's "feminists" who say it, because you can put them in the "crazy/evil leftist who want to cut everyone's balls" box (no matter what they say, the word is so wrongfully used...), but when suddenly it's a symbol of manhood that starts calling them out, it's not tolerable.

I won't hide it, I enjoy the butthurt comments a lot, especially how they twist their brains to try and make respect and decency be evil.

Nah, it's not ignored, it's more tolerated as an outisder looking in sort of thing. There are some who get super mad at it.

I mean it's not just "be decent and respectful" it's "you haven't been respectful and decent enough, therefor you suck, you're bad and you need to do better, every single one of you otherwise you're not a man like us ".
It's never as innocent as that as this advert clearly not making any sort of differentiation, it's [i]every man[.i].

Look, I can safely say that I'm one of the more violent capable, masculine individuals here. I go in the woods with nothing but a knife and a good pair of boots for a week, and live more comfortable than I do in my house. I work hard, I play hard. I have more callouses on my hands and feet than everyone here except for Vol, who is in construction.

My job is literally killing and explosions.

I'm not offended by a commercial, because I don't care. I don't catcall women and I don't actually bully people. If I were to encounter anyone from here except for GAC, who's not a man, I'd buy them their drink and we'd talk it out. Yes, even Theo.

It's not that hard to be a gentleman. And it's really not hard to be offended by a commercial for razors by a corporation that's exploiting the weak's fears of being called out for what they are.

And that's the rub.
You don't care.
You don't care if this advert is speaking to you or about you when it's doing both at the same time.
Just because you're not taking it personal when Gillette says "every man" you are included in that automatically as you're a man and therefor hold this responsibility, no matter how good you may actually be or not. You're automatically included and represented in the bad side of things. Most people don't catcall or bully anyone, but this advert lumbers all of them collectively alongside the worst offenders simply by also being men.
And those reacting so strongly probably do care. The do care that a big corporation is planting a representation for being bad under a very vague and uncontrollable descriptor.

Their intent is "there are still some bad guys out there, let's help them become decent fellas". Instead what they actually said was "shame on literally every single guy for being a guy when there are these bad guys rolling around, every guy is now also bad so fix it".

That's the difference, one cares about being labelled as also bad while the other doesn't.

If the same was done towards women there would be such a massive shitfit thrown that the company would be tarnished forever.

[Sinekein]

I mean it's not just "be decent and respectful" it's "you haven't been respectful and decent enough, therefor you suck, you're bad and you need to do better, every single one of you otherwise you're not a man like us ".
It's never as innocent as that as this advert clearly not making any sort of differentiation, it's [i]every man[.i].

The #NotAllMen explanation. Never heard that one before.

It's one of the most common answers against any accusation of sexism: you attack the phrasing because it focuses on the issues instead of spending time saying "but there are decent guys too".

Seriously, imagine a road safety spot following that rule. "Drinking and driving is dangerous BUT WE KNOW MANY OF YOU DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE. Don't go above the limit speed BUT DON'T WORRY WE KNOW MOST OF YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE DRIVERS. You should ensure your car is well-maintained and safe BUT DO NOT FRET BECAUSE WE KNOW MOST OF YOU TAKE CARE OF THEIR CARS. Use a helmet on a bicycle or a motorcycle YET WE KNOW MANY OF YOU ARE USING ONE ALREADY". It just weakens the message by wasting time saying something that's implicitly true.

Seriously, it's so infuriating. "There is a huge issue of guys slut-shaming women due to their clothes BUT WE KNOW NOT ALL GUYS DO THAT. Catcalling is one of the many reasons many women don't feel at ease when walking in public BUT WE KNOW NOT ALL MEN CATCALL. Little girls should not be taught that they have to conform to feminine roles in society BUT NOT ALL MEN WILL FORCE THEIR DAUGHTERS TO BE THAT WAY."

The message is the same, it's just shorter and hits harder. Gillette never said that all guys are violent drunk rapist predators. Buuuut if you voluntarily misread the message, you can ignore it altogether as "extreme" and act as if everything was fine.

Maaaaaaybe some men do that because they somehow feel threatened by the actual, very real issues with masculinity raised by the spot. Maybe.

[Mobius_118]

And what is that they are trying to say?

If Trump gets reelected, then the Left is more incompetent then he is (which would be saying a lot), quite frankly the Left should spend more preparing for the next election and make sure not to make them same mistakes as Hillary did.

meh, I haven't watched reality shows in over 10 years now.

Don't be a fuckface. It's not complicated.

And trump committed obstruction, no question. I've already pointed that out. He's not going to make to the end of 2019.

And good for you. I don't watch TV anyway.

Someone gets it.

You two should marry, you'll be a perfect couple .

Sine agreed with me on...two issues. Two.

If that's enough to get married, then all of you have been married for years.

And that's the rub.
You don't care.
You don't care if this advert is speaking to you or about you when it's doing both at the same time.
Just because you're not taking it personal when Gillette says "every man" you are included in that automatically as you're a man and therefor hold this responsibility, no matter how good you may actually be or not. You're automatically included and represented in the bad side of things. Most people don't catcall or bully anyone, but this advert lumbers all of them collectively alongside the worst offenders simply by also being men.
And those reacting so strongly probably do care. The do care that a big corporation is planting a representation for being bad under a very vague and uncontrollable descriptor.

Their intent is "there are still some bad guys out there, let's help them become decent fellas". Instead what they actually said was "shame on literally every single guy for being a guy when there are these bad guys rolling around, every guy is now also bad so fix it".

That's the difference, one cares about being labelled as also bad while the other doesn't.

If the same was done towards women there would be such a massive shitfit thrown that the company would be tarnished forever.

Maybe, hear me out: I'm self aware enough to know that I may be lumped in with the shitbirds who are throwing a shit, but I know myself, so I'm not bothered by shit that doesn't apply to me.

I've never had a problem with these feminists you guys seem to bitch about, and I'm not some soy boy hipster. Shocking how respecting people as people, asking for consent, all that can keep you manly yet not a target for feminist hatred.

All this worry about the white man becoming marginalized, it's all in your heads.

[TTTX]

Don't be a fuckface. It's not complicated.

And trump committed obstruction, no question. I've already pointed that out. He's not going to make to the end of 2019.

And good for you. I don't watch TV anyway.

"Being a man is bad and don't hit on women because we don't need to continue the race".

Let's make a deal Trump makes to the end of 2019, you shut up about him for 2020, if he doesn't you can gloat to your hearts desire while his vice president takes over.

I stopped watching real life television and news for that matter when I discovered Denmark had to vote for two inkompetent idiots for 12 years. Now I stick to cartoons, documentaries and movies makes my life so much simpler.

Sine agreed with me on...two issues. Two.

If that's enough to get married, then all of you have been married for years.

No it's because you both are nuts.

[Sinekein]

Yeah we believe guys should not be threatening pieces of shit, what an outlandish idea to share with anyone.

[Mazder]

The #NotAllMen explanation. Never heard that one before.

It's one of the most common answers against any accusation of sexism: you attack the phrasing because it focuses on the issues instead of spending time saying "but there are decent guys too".

Seriously, imagine a road safety spot following that rule. "Drinking and driving is dangerous BUT WE KNOW MANY OF YOU DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE. Don't go above the limit speed BUT DON'T WORRY WE KNOW MOST OF YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE DRIVERS. You should ensure your car is well-maintained and safe BUT DO NOT FRET BECAUSE WE KNOW MOST OF YOU TAKE CARE OF THEIR CARS. Use a helmet on a bicycle or a motorcycle YET WE KNOW MANY OF YOU ARE USING ONE ALREADY". It just weakens the message by wasting time saying something that's implicitly true.

Seriously, it's so infuriating. "There is a huge issue of guys slut-shaming women due to their clothes BUT WE KNOW NOT ALL GUYS DO THAT. Catcalling is one of the many reasons many women don't feel at ease when walking in public BUT WE KNOW NOT ALL MEN CATCALL. Little girls should not be taught that they have to conform to feminine roles in society BUT NOT ALL MEN WILL FORCE THEIR DAUGHTERS TO BE THAT WAY."

The message is the same, it's just shorter and hits harder. Gillette never said that all guys are violent drunk rapist predators. Buuuut if you voluntarily misread the message, you can ignore it altogether as "extreme" and act as if everything was fine.

Maaaaaaybe some men do that because they somehow feel threatened by the actual, very real issues with masculinity raised by the spot. Maybe.

Yeah but they don't start out a road safety spot by having it being down to something none of the people in it can control.
I am a man, right, I can't help it, born that way. Thanks to the Gillette advert anyone who has had any sort of wrong/bad interaction with any man can now turn to me and point me out for being a part of the problem because of a fluke of birth. It's attributing behaviours to ALL men that don't exist in ALL.
This advert also says nothing of the men that are actually making things better despite not pandering to the one methodology/mindset the advert wishes.

I'm scared of getting stabbed by a guy when going out at night, but I'm not making adverts saying that all guys are at shame because of a lot of guys being murderers.
This advert is.
Yeah it might be trying to shame the few on the bad side who might have a shred of a conscience left, but they're also tarring every innocent guy with that same brush, a lot of whom do not like being tarred with said brush.

Maybe, hear me out: I'm self aware enough to know that I may be lumped in with the shitbirds who are throwing a shit, but I know myself, so I'm not bothered by shit that doesn't apply to me.

I've never had a problem with these feminists you guys seem to bitch about, and I'm not some soy boy hipster. Shocking how respecting people as people, asking for consent, all that can keep you manly yet not a target for feminist hatred.

All this worry about the white man becoming marginalized, it's all in your heads.

Yeah, except if you do have someone who is influenced by this advert, or other things like it, and they treat you differently based upon it then it's still affecting you and your life with other people.
Say a woman who's very small takes your larger muscle mass out of context and feels uncomfortable standing next to you because men shouldn't be intimidatingly strong because of some bad experience she's had. Due to this advert it would not be out of grounds to believe she could attribute the same feelings of fear from someone else towards you because of your intimidating size. She then may never trust you due to this and treat you with apprehension and distrust, which would affect any interaction you two had together. If she was your boss you may never get promoted because of it, for example.
Now that's no fault of your own, nor did you do anything to cause it, but it's still applied to you and still affects you.
And, yes, it's unlikely. Just about as likely as catcalling is to be positively reinforced.

I'm not actively against any actual good feminists, but those on the internet seem to be less actual feminists TBH.
There is a difference between respecting people as people and demanding they tiptoe around you because of, well any reason.
I mean I'm sorry if someone has had bad experiences but I'm not going to start going "oh, may I please touch your shoulder" if I am trying to tap them on the shoulder to get their attention of, say, their bus now coming or something, I dunno.

Again it's not "white man" it's "men".
Every man.
Colour, creed, religion, height, etc. it's all just "men are to be shamed for not being good enough".

Yeah we believe guys should not be threatening pieces of shit, what an outlandish idea to share with anyone.

It's a good thing there isn't an advert out there implying all men are threatening pieces of shit, or that they've not done enough of stopping threatening pieces of shit and should still feel shame for the very few, and old stereotypes that are already on their way out.

[Mobius_118]

Well right now the only nutty ones are the people here bitching about being expected to not be a fuckface.

It's fucking depressing.

[Sinekein]

Thanks to the Gillette advert anyone who has had any sort of wrong/bad interaction with any man can now turn to me and point me out for being a part of the problem because of a fluke of birth.

No. Just no.

The advert's point is not to denounce the subpopulation of men who do all bad things at once - catcalling, harassing, mansplaining, excusing toxic behavior, and so on. It's even less to say that all men belong to that hypothetical subpopulation. It's just not what the clip says. No one will look at you and say "stop catcalling" because the Gillette clip mentioned that some men are catcalling. But it's easier to pretend that it's what the clip says, this way you don't have, again, to think about its actual message.

However, now people can very much point at you and say "You're presented with a series of issues with toxic masculinity that affect women all over the world, and all you care about is yourself and the fact that no one recognized your basic decency". Because that's very much a selfish behavior.

This advert also says nothing of the men that are actually making things better despite not pandering to the one methodology/mindset the advert wishes.

That's even worse than #NotAllMen. On top of making sure to always say that any problematic behavior is not universal, now the spot should spend time to praise men who are...basically decent? If you need to be praised just for not being a dirtbag, there is a problem. That's like giving points in class to pupils who don't hit their comrades, or randomly giving awards to all human beings who haven't killed someone.

[Mazder]

Well right now the only nutty ones are the people here bitching about being expected to not be a fuckface.

It's fucking depressing.

Well to be fair it depends on where the "fuckface" line is for each person.
Some feminists are still okay with the whole "hitting a woman" thing when given context to a situation, but most would say it's an absolute no to it, no matter the situation.
Not saying I agree, just mentioning that when the lines keep being redrawn being asked to keep to them can be an annoying prospect in the least.

No. Just no.

The advert's point is not to denounce the subpopulation of men who do all bad things at once - catcalling, harassing, mansplaining, excusing toxic behavior, and so on. It's even less to say that all men belong to that hypothetical subpopulation. It's just not what the clip says. No one will look at you and say "stop catcalling" because the Gillette clip mentioned that some men are catcalling.

However, now people can very much point at you and say "You're presented with a series of issues with toxic masculinity that affect women all over the world, and all you care about is you and the fact that no one recognized your basic decency". Because that's very much a selfish behavior.

This advert also says nothing of the men that are actually making things better despite not pandering to the one methodology/mindset the advert wishes.

That's even worse than #NotAllMen. On top of making sure to always say that any problematic behavior is not universal, now the spot should spend time to praise men who are...basically decent? If you need to be praised just for not being a dirtbag, there is a problem. That's like giving points in class to pupils who don't hit their comrades, or randomly giving awards to all human beings who haven't killed someone.

Yeah except that's exactly what they do not do. They're not presented as issues to be worked but more as things that men need to either atone for or things they're doing, but not quick enough or in the "right way".

Mind you I have issues with the whole "toxic masculinity" thing in principle. A lot of it is bad behaviours but the whole masculinity suffix on it just attributes it to men.
Women wolf whistle all the time, yet it's not sexist. Women abuse men as well, especially young boys, but it's not "proper" abuse.
Women do all kinds of cruel and manipulative shit to other women, but there is never an advert about toxic femininity or toxic female behaviours.
It does seem biased that there is only the "male version" for this strive to making everyone treat each other better.
So once the men are all "fixed" to the same standards will we then start on the women?

Maybe the spot shouldn't be made at all and the razorblade company should stick to making razorblades and put the money they want to use to make a change to make that change in direct ways, with donations to womens charities and funding better campaigns on women's health when it comes to razors, or maybe while they're at it they can remove that stupid pink tax on their razors, seeing as apparently the womens and mens are just so different that this company, that cares about equality so much, would price their razors differently for men and women.

[Alienmorph]

As far as I'm concerned the problem is the ferocious double-standard going on. Like nowadays there's people left and right literally saying that it's not racist or sexist to treat people like shit if thei're white males... even when you're doing it JUST because thei're white or male, or both. If you ask the average hardcore feminist women stalking or herassing men just doesn't happen, it's a think only dick-owners do. Not to mention I just don't see how in the FUCK are we supposed to create a truly unite and egalitarian society if we're costantly trying to split the populations into tiny groups by adding more "safe spaces" and double standards to favorite or demonize certain people instead of others.

There's nothing wrong into telling people to try and be better, but that goes for EVERYONE. That stupid thing instead pretty much is "You. White guy. You need to do better." "I haven't ever even patted a girl in the shoulder if I suspected that might bother her." "YOU NEED TO DO BETTER, YOU TOXIC MALE!" It's just more polite about it than I've just been.

And it's particularly hypocrite when one of the first thing that is used as an example of how evil white men are is the Me Too movement. You know, the thing started by an actress that later on was confirmed to have tried to seduce and stalk underage boys. But... shh... those things don't happen, the only problem are the toxic males.

Stop being so fucking naive. The world sucks, the average person is an asshole regardless of race, gender or sexual preference, and a thing most people do is trying to make somebody else look worse to hide how fucking rotten they are. Today white men are the boogeyman, tomorrow it will be some other demographic, and we'll all be none the wiser. Unless we cut it out with the whole "Us vs Them" mentality once and for all. Either we all strive to be better, or none of us will be.

Also, tell me again there's not an excess of politics in media, when a coversation like this was sparked by a fucking commercial about shaving products.

[Mobius_118]

Also, tell me again there's not an excess of politics in media, when a coversation like this was sparked by a fucking commercial about shaving products.

There it is.

That's why I don't give a fuck, Maz. It's a product that I use, but don't identify a basis of my personality with.

If people are so triggered by it, then they need to examine themselves more than some fucking commercial. And since it's MRA bitches whining about it, then holy shit they have issues.

Just shave your fucking face, and quit being an asshole. Simple.

[Mazder]

There it is.

That's why I don't give a fuck, Maz. It's a product that I use, but don't identify a basis of my personality with.

If people are so triggered by it, then they need to examine themselves more than some fucking commercial. And since it's MRA bitches whining about it, then holy shit they have issues.

Just shave your fucking face, and quit being an asshole. Simple.

Yeah and I'm not saying you supporting Gillette would do that, but others watching the advert can have their opinions of you changed that would affect you in some way is all I'm saying.

And if only Gilette took a simple message and kept it that simple rather than the vague attempt to apply it to every man.

[Raga]

Seriously, it's so infuriating. "There is a huge issue of guys slut-shaming women due to their clothes BUT WE KNOW NOT ALL GUYS DO THAT. Catcalling is one of the many reasons many women don't feel at ease when walking in public BUT WE KNOW NOT ALL MEN CATCALL. Little girls should not be taught that they have to conform to feminine roles in society BUT NOT ALL MEN WILL FORCE THEIR DAUGHTERS TO BE THAT WAY."

This is kind of funny because it reminds me of such a sign which is actually routinely directed at women. In the women's bathrooms of most restaurants that serve drinks, there's usually a sign by the mirror that has that same message from containers of alcohol on it about fetal alcohol syndrome. "Drinking while pregnant can harm your baby's brain." And stuff like that.

I have never interpreted that sign as implying that I serve no purpose but being a vessel for baby incubation (although I have actually encountered some crazy feminist who do) and I've also never taken it to me that it thinks that I'm the sort of person that would do that simply because I have a uterus.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Look, I can safely say that I'm one of the more violent capable, masculine individuals here. I go in the woods with nothing but a knife and a good pair of boots for a week, and live more comfortable than I do in my house. I work hard, I play hard. I have more callouses on my hands and feet than everyone here except for Vol, who is in construction.

My job is literally killing and explosions.

I'm not offended by a commercial, because I don't care. I don't catcall women and I don't actually bully people. If I were to encounter anyone from here except for GAC, who's not a man, I'd buy them their drink and we'd talk it out. Yes, even Theo.

I like how you took time out of your cult tirade to throw shade at me. Nobody here is convinced by your act Mobius. Everyone can see how easily you fly off the handle into a rage spiral by seeing things that go against your ideology.

There's nothing laudable or noble about you. You're an asshole who feels righteous because you've found an ideology that proclaims your exact kind of misbehavior as righteous.

[Mobius_118]

I like how you took time out of your cult tirade to throw shade at me. Nobody here is convinced by your act Mobius. Everyone can see how easily you fly off the handle into a rage spiral by seeing things that go against your ideology.

There's nothing laudable or noble about you. You're an asshole who feels righteous because you've found an ideology that proclaims your exact kind of misbehavior as righteous.

Good job describing yourself, cultist.

[Raga]

My issue with this commercial isn't with the message but actually with the messenger. It's the equivalent of a creepy prosperity preacher or a televangelist actually having one insightful sermon one morning. They might happen to be correct in the moment, but they are still a creepy prosperity preacher.

[Mobius_118]

Hence why it's largely inconsequential in my day to day, and why the backblast from MRAggots is comical.

[Sinekein]

Mind you I have issues with the whole "toxic masculinity" thing in principle.
A lot of it is bad behaviours but the whole masculinity suffix on it just attributes it to men.
Women wolf whistle all the time, yet it's not sexist. Women abuse men as well, especially young boys, but it's not "proper" abuse.
Women do all kinds of cruel and manipulative shit to other women, but there is never an advert about toxic femininity or toxic female behaviours.
It does seem biased that there is only the "male version" for this strive to making everyone treat each other better.
So once the men are all "fixed" to the same standards will we then start on the women?

That's basically an "I'm not racist but..." statement here.

You say you oppose toxic masculinity. Then you spend a lot of energy explaining that those who actually oppose it are wrong.

Seriously dude, you're following an awful number of guidelines taken straight out of MRA's guidebooks. #NotAllMen, Men should be praised for being decent people, and now, We can't fix toxic masculinity without fixing women's issues first, as if there was no such thing as a "small step", and that you had to fix absolutely everything at once, or do nothing.

Also, please define "toxiv feminity", I'm interested.

Maybe the spot shouldn't be made at all and the razorblade company should stick to making razorblades and put the money they want to use to make a change to make that change in direct ways, with donations to womens charities and funding better campaigns on women's health when it comes to razors, or maybe while they're at it they can remove that stupid pink tax on their razors, seeing as apparently the womens and mens are just so different that this company, that cares about equality so much, would price their razors differently for men and women.

Yeaaah suuuuure because all those people who are lashing against Gillette are the first to campaign for women's rights and support female activists - who, in about 95% of the cases, call themselves feminists, and in the remaining 5%, are feminists but don't use the label - when they campaign.

No, actually, those people either ignore, mock or insult them whenever something can vaguely been seen as threatening the current status quo. And when an actual movement occurs, like with #MeToo, they are the first to say to tone it down to "avoid generalizations" and they get into a furore as soon as a false or ambiguous accusation is made by a woman, even if it is in the middle of thousands of sadly real ones. Because "think of the falsely accused guy", they say, after politely (or not even politely) ignoring hundreds of women who explained what they went through.

And once they've shut down every attempt to fix the issues with toxic masculinity, they say that "they're not sexist" and that they "support women's rights".

[Mazder]

That's basically an "I'm not racist but..." statement here.

You say you oppose toxic masculinity. Then you spend a lot of energy explaining that those who actually oppose it are wrong.

Seriously dude, you're following an awful number of guidelines taken straight out of MRA's guidebooks. #NotAllMen, Men should be praised for being decent people, and now, We can't fix toxic masculinity without fixing women's issues first, as if there was no such thing as a "small step", and that you had to fix absolutely everything at once, or do nothing.

Also, please define "toxiv feminity", I'm interested.

I'm not saying men need to be praised for being decent people.
You're the one who is saying that, not me.
What I am saying is "why do they need to tar all men with the same brush to get this message across?" Why is it that they can't call out the bad ones without also calling the decent ones just as bad? It's not about calling out the "good ones" it's about not implying they're also bad, even if it's done accidentally.

And if there is a problem on one side there has to be a problem on the other, at least in some ways that might be better spent trying to compromise rather than pulling one side to one standard when, by your own definitions, they're already at anyway.

All I am saying is why does one language/name heavily imply a problem residing only with men and the others, when they're brought to light, find any other name than the feminine versions.
And me questioning it isn't meant to imply I even have an answer. I don't. I'm some dumbfuck. I am nowhere near as intelligent as you might think I am when I ask the questions. I have no solutions, no direction, all I can see is it's biased/the scales on one end are tipped too far on one case and the scales are tipped too far on another and it's not looking like anything we're doing is actually moving those scales in the right directions.

Toxic femininity. I have no idea honestly. Just as I have no idea what to hunt down when chasing toxic masculinity.
Why can't it just be "Toxicity"? Then we can deal with both at the same time and stop this whole "masculine and feminine" business all together.

Yeaaah suuuuure because all those people who are lashing against Gillette are the first to campaign for women's rights and support female activists - who, in about 95% of the cases, call themselves feminists, and in the remaining 5%, are feminists but don't use the label - when they campaign.

No, actually, those people either ignore, mock or insult them whenever something can vaguely been seen as threatening the current status quo. And when an actual movement occurs, like with #MeToo, they are the first to say to tone it down to "avoid generalizations" and they get into a furore as soon as a false or ambiguous accusation is made by a woman, even if it is in the middle of thousands of sadly real ones. Because "think of the falsely accused guy", they say, after politely (or not even politely) ignoring hundreds of women who explained what they went through.

And how many do you think are actually going to be convinced by this corporate mouthpiece of an ad?
How much of the money spend on shooting, paying actors, sound design, editing, transmission fees, etc, could have instead be spent directly affecting actual people's lives?
How much of this is actually just a PR campaign towards the progressive male who's been moved to Dollar Shave Club because they heard them on one of their podcasts or youtube sponsors?


#MeToo was a weak-ass movement to begin with. Anything born fro Twitter is.

[TheodoricFriede]

Panasonic Arc5 Electric Razor

And now you are free.

[Mazder]

Panasonic Arc5 Electric Razor

And now you are free.

Holy hell $112 for a an electric razor?!
That can fuck right off. Or, now that's the truly offensive point in shaving! lolololololololololol

Wakka Wakka.

[Raga]

Relevant: "I hate rude behavior in a man."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLAY15lB4I4&app=desktop

God, I love that show/book. Favorite book.