Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But by focusing solely on masculinity (never criticizing any toxic form of femininity, for instance), and by tying it directly to gender (rather than just say that this is ****ty behavior), our victimologists have ensured that huge swaths of people will *never* be receptive to said message. Even where they make real, valid points.
This isn't about changing behavior or improving anything. This is about insulting a non-favored demographic, and virtue-signaling.
If it was about changing behavior, they'd be focusing on the behavior. Instead they focus on identity.
^^^^^^^This. It is about punishing the entire male gender, for being male. They are making it seem like that actions of a FEW bad actors reflect the actions of the entire male gender. Not cool at all.
But by focusing solely on masculinity (never criticizing any toxic form of femininity, for instance), and by tying it directly to gender (rather than just say that this is ****ty behavior), our victimologists have ensured that huge swaths of people will *never* be receptive to said message. Even where they make real, valid points.
This isn't about changing behavior or improving anything. This is about insulting a non-favored demographic, and virtue-signaling.
If it was about changing behavior, they'd be focusing on the behavior. Instead they focus on identity.
Choosing Tonka over Barbie doesn’t mean you’re masculine, just means you preferred Tonka.
What did we say? We said nothing. The male actor in that scene was portraying a douchebag. His words portrayed it much more than a hand on the shoulder, while both were inappropriate.
he
Whether or not the behavior was inappropriate is not the point. There is a lot of inappropriate behavior going on out there from both men and women. Yet Gillette chose to create a commercial attacking one gender and not the other. Why is Gillette not attacking women teachers for having sex with their students, for example? It's an issue that has been well documented and prevalent.
Which is the more egregious behavior, sex with students or placing one's hand on the shoulder of a subordinate?
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 16 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,543 posts, read 16,524,552 times
Reputation: 6029
Quote:
Originally Posted by turkey-head
In a sense I agree with you.
But by focusing solely on masculinity (never criticizing any toxic form of femininity, for instance), and by tying it directly to gender (rather than just say that this is ****ty behavior), our victimologists have ensured that huge swaths of people will *never* be receptive to said message. Even where they make real, valid points.
This isn't about changing behavior or improving anything. This is about insulting a non-favored demographic, and virtue-signaling.
If it was about changing behavior, they'd be focusing on the behavior. Instead they focus on identity.
They showed the behavior in the video, so at best, you are arguing characterization, which isnt substantive in this case.
Whether or not the behavior was inappropriate is not the point. There is a lot of inappropriate behavior going on out there from both men and women. Yet Gillette chose to create a commercial attacking one gender and not the other. Why is Gillette not attacking women teachers for having sex with their students, for example? It's an issue that has been well documented and prevalent.
Which is the more egregious behavior, sex with students or placing one's hand on the shoulder of a subordinate?
Probably because Gillette wasn't attacking men, merely reminding them that the new generations are watching them and learning from their behavior. Everyone should always be trying to be a better person.
Here is a list of companies owned by Proctor and Gamble. I would ask that everyone that opposes discrimination boycotts each and every one of these brands:
Always menstrual hygiene products
Ariel laundry detergent
Bounty paper towels, sold in the United States and Canada
Charmin bathroom tissue and moist towelettes
Crest toothpaste
Clancy's Potato Chips, Stackerz, etc...
Dawn dishwashing
Downy fabric softener and dryer sheets
Fairy washing up liquid
Febreze odor eliminator
Gain laundry detergents, liquid fabric softener, dryer sheets and dish washing liquid
Gillette razors, shaving soap, shaving cream, body wash, shampoo, deodorant and anti-perspirant
Head & Shoulders shampoo
Olay personal and beauty products
Oral-B inter-dental products
Pampers & Pampers Kandoo disposable diapers and moist towelettes. The 2014 Financial Report lists Pampers as Procter & Gamble's largest brand.[2]
Pantene haircare products
SK-II beauty products
Tide laundry detergents and products
Vicks cough and cold products
Probably because Gillette wasn't attacking men, merely reminding them that the new generations are watching them and learning from their behavior. Everyone should always be trying to be a better person.
Of course Gillette was attacking men. But even worse than that; Gillette was even attacking boys in that ad.
When was the last time Gillette put out an ad depicting the amoral behavior of female teachers having sex with their students, or women using children as pawns in divorce to get larger settlements, or dating men with money that they weren't attracted to?
And before you say it, of course I recognize that not all women do these things; and of course I would oppose such a hypothetical ad. Because making broad generalized statements in that kind of forum is discriminatory; and I oppose discrimination in all its form against anyone whether male or female.
They showed the behavior in the video, so at best, you are arguing characterization, which isnt substantive in this case.
They picked one and only one group of people (men) and depicted 100% negative behavior about that group.
What if they had chosen women, or black people, or Jewish people, or gay people as their target, and done the same thing? I think we all know what would have happened.
I recently stopped buying their razors before even hearing this (i.e. overpriced for poor quality), but after learning this I'm even more glad I don't support them anymore.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
