Gillette: Men Are Toxic

[jamil]

Ah, it's interesting you phrase that as Christian values, since this is still putting the onus on women, for suffering consequences of having sex. That's really more of an Islamic view, where women should cover themselves from head to toe and cover their hair, for fear of arousing men. If a woman gets attacked, it's her fault, for inflaming a man's passion. In fact, if a woman is raped and doesn't have 4 male witnesses to confirm her story, she can be punished for adultery with her rapist.

I mean, if that's how you want to live, it's up to you. I hear Tehran is nice this time of year.

Wow. C'mon man. You drove all the way through Tehran to get to Nantucket?

I think you're making some pretty absurd assumptions of facts not in evidence. What are the consequences of having sex outside of marriage? Well, there's a risk of pregnancy, notwithstanding birth control. So that requires a realm of decisions that would not have been necessary otherwise. Have the kid, abort the kid, see if the guy will be responsible, decide to forget the dude for whatever reasons.

Okay, so who's it on? Who is responsible for that? I never heard JK say that this is the woman's fault. You just inferred that from...well, maybe from your own prejudice about people who think couples should wait until marriage to have sex. How many people does it take to have sex in a way which can cause a pregnancy? THAT's how many people are responsible for it.

It's on both of them, or the three of them, or the four of them...I'm not judging...however many are involved in the impregnation. I don't imagine that many people on either side would disagree that the people involved in the pregnancy are responsible for it. So c'mon man. Give some credit to the people who disagree with you for not being the *******s you imagine.

 

[HoughMade]

Well, I live on the north side of Indy, so close enough, I guess. Just a few years ago, a couple blocks from where I live, a man was caught breaking into a teenage girl's bed room, naked except for boots, gloves, and a ski mask, carrying duct tape, rope, and a knife. The girls father was the one that discovered him (thankfully before the creep could do anything) and ended up strangling him to death (not that anyone shed any tears for the dead rapist). But yeah, you don't have to look very long for all sorts of bad stuff happening here.

I mean, if it really is different where you live, then that's good. But I've heard of this type of harassment (the type shown in the ad) happening everywhere from little towns like Bloomfield to the bigger cities. So, if you've found an idyllic pocket a gentlemanly behavior, I'd say it's exception, not the rule.

So your standard is perfection, or else all men are subject to suspicion?

 

[JettaKnight]

Maybe we should take a cue from the Japanese and make commercials so messed up that no one could possibly be offended.

[video=youtube_share;2jOeqZBpmyo]http://youtu.be/2jOeqZBpmyo[/video]

 

[Beowulf]

So your standard is perfection, or else all men are subject to suspicion?

No, my standard is to expect people to be a decent human being and not get bent out of shape if I am asked to call out behavior that doesn't make that standard.

I really still don't understand why this is so controversial. You guys are bending so far backward to find some secret crazy conspiracy against men in here that I'm surprised you haven't snapped your spinal columns.

Are there some feminists out there who hate men? Yes
Are there some women out there who are mean and violent? Yes

But let me ask you what is more likely... that most women just wanted to be treated with respect and not be harassed and groped, or there is global conspiracy involving nearly half the population to destroy manhood and steal your testicles?

I swear to listening to the comments from some of you guys, it sounds like there was some sort of weird science experiment to combine Alex Jones and Jordan Peterson into one monstrous entity and then it was unleashed on the internet.

Again, if your grasp of masculinity is so fragile that a razor commercial can threaten it, you might just want to examine yourself first. Otherwise, just don't be a jerk to women (or men for that matter) and don't tolerate other people around you who are. That's it. Pretty basic. If you are already doing it, then great. That commercial wasn't aimed at you (as much as it was aimed at anyone and not just getting people to buy razors).

 

[chezuki]

to get to Nantucket?

I used to know a guy from there. Happy feller with weird breath.

 

[indiucky]

I swear to listening to the comments from some of you guys, it sounds like there was some sort of weird science experiment to combine Alex Jones and Jordan Peterson into one monstrous entity and then it was unleashed on the internet.

 

[Beowulf]

Interesting.......

[video=youtube;irVB8b0zhQI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irVB8b0zhQI[/video]

You may want to look at the source material for those charts, as they are attributed to the NISVS 2010 study, but don't really seem to be from the actual study. I won't go as far to say as they are false, but I do wonder if they are really showing the full picture in posting those graphs and not just trying to prove their point that men are battered equally by women.

Original data from the CDC

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm?s_cid=ss6308a1_e

Starting around page 126 in the report, it does breakdowns with men and women. The data shows women face a substantially greater amount of sexual violence and rape than men do. One area, however, where there is closer parity is that nearly 1/3 of women and 1/4 of men will face slapping, pushing, or shoving by an intimate partner in their lifetime. So women are certainly not that much less likely to strike their intimate partner. They are, however, much less likely to stalk, severely assault, rape, or kill men, than men are to do to them. But numbers show that clearly not all men do it. But I would argue if 30% of men are hitting or shoving their intimate partner at some point in their life, that's a pretty big issue.

If you had 3 daughters, would you be okay if the husband or boyfriend of one of them hit her? I would imagine not.

 

[JettaKnight]

No, my standard is to expect people to be a decent human being and not get bent out of shape if I am asked to call out behavior that doesn't make that standard.

I really still don't understand why this is so controversial. You guys are bending so far backward to find some secret crazy conspiracy against men in here that I'm surprised you haven't snapped your spinal columns.

Let's ignore the "I'm never buying a Gillette product again!" folks. They're as far out in right field as the pink ***** hat feminist.


The video implies that all those harmful things it shows were someone once acceptable in the recent past. Maybe you didn't infer that, but Hough did, and I do too. That's mostly what's off putting.

Couple that with the fact that plain ole masculinity is getting caught up in the dragnet to eliminate "toxic masculinity", and you've got some feathers ruffled. One need only look back one month to the kerfuffle over "Baby It's Cold Outside" to see this is true.

Personally, I see it as one more step to utter destruction of gender difference and complete fluidity. There's just as many people pushing for that as are the men you could deem "toxic".


Oh, and it's also a new buzzword like "white privilege" - don't nobody here like that.



Just trying to broker the peace here - I still view it as a dumb commercial from a company who's trying to get to accumulate more stuff.

 

[indiucky]

If you had 3 daughters, would you be okay if the husband or boyfriend of one of them hit her? I would imagine not.

How kind of you......Thank you for thinking so highly of me...

The numbers were from the CDC report...Looking forward to the next tampon commercial addressing the issue of domestic violence against men telling women that they can do better...Looking forward for the march against prostrate cancer with a ribbon...Looking forward to the awareness for the high rates of suicides among men...Maybe a concert with Beyonce? Hopefully someone will address the reason men serve more time for the same crime committed by a woman....

Women can do better...It's time to raise awareness....One young feminist stepped up to the plate...It hurt her career but she went in search of the truth and found it....

Good luck.....

[video=youtube;wLzeakKC6fE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLzeakKC6fE[/video]

 

[jamil]

Wow. If I had a dollar for every time in my life I had been catcalled, called "baby", propositioned, groped, or otherwise been treated rudely by men, I could buy a complete collection of vintage Smith wheelguns (and I'm not even close to "hot"). I can attribute a lot of it to working in an 'urban' environment for most of my career, but it doesn't excuse it. Do men really not see it happening, or do they turn a blind eye?

Now that I think about it, it could come down to the environment. Indiucky, I don't really think you would turn a blind eye if a lady were being treated badly by another man. You just don't hang in the hoods that I have hung in.

Maybe it is the urban community where family values may not have been replaced with something similar. But I don't think it is the urban-ness by itself. Years ago I lived in a small community in Missippi for about 8 years. Yeah, it was rural. That's not the point. It was a very evangelical, close-knit community. When boys and men talk to men and women not in close relationship, there is a strict conduct of how you address people. Yes sir, no sir; yes ma'am, no ma'am, Mr., Mrs, or Ms. And catcalling is an unacceptable way to address women. Period. You treat people with respect.

If you cat call a woman anywhere in proximity to a parent or elder family member, you're getting the back of a hand, a newspaper, shoe, whatever is convenient, upside your head. Boys are raised to respect women. I'm not saying it's all good. They also reinforce traditional views of a woman's place, for example. So they could stand to evolve on that. But in that community you'll not see a woman being catcalled, called "baby", propositioned, groped, or otherwise being treated rudely by men. Down there, the only place you might get treated like that is if you're you're in a seedy bar in the next non-dry county over, where the unsavory people hang out.

One thing missing more and more from society as it progresses away from traditional family values, parents aren't teaching their kids useful moral values anymore. In communities whith a strong church presence, people get that training through their churches. I think it makes society worse worse off in that useful values aren't being taught. I get it that not everything taught at church is beneficial. Sometimes it's wrong, IMHO. But I'm not advocating for or against church, as I'm agnostic. I'm just saying that we're not replacing these structures, which help people learn how to override the crappy human instinct and behaviors.

 

[jamil]

I think Indi should have a "wall of INGO" where he post pictures of him and each INGO "celebrity" that comes into the shop.

Eh, I dunno man. I am too to have my picture in public places.

 

[jamil]

You may want to look at the source material for those charts, as they are attributed to the NISVS 2010 study, but don't really seem to be from the actual study. I won't go as far to say as they are false, but I do wonder if they are really showing the full picture in posting those graphs and not just trying to prove their point that men are battered equally by women.

Original data from the CDC

https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS-StateReportBook.pdf

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm?s_cid=ss6308a1_e

Starting around page 126 in the report, it does breakdowns with men and women. The data shows women face a substantially greater amount of sexual violence and rape than men do. One area, however, where there is closer parity is that nearly 1/3 of women and 1/4 of men will face slapping, pushing, or shoving by an intimate partner in their lifetime. So women are certainly not that much less likely to strike their intimate partner. They are, however, much less likely to stalk, severely assault, rape, or kill men, than men are to do to them. But numbers show that clearly not all men do it. But I would argue if 30% of men are hitting or shoving their intimate partner at some point in their life, that's a pretty big issue.

If you had 3 daughters, would you be okay if the husband or boyfriend of one of them hit her? I would imagine not.

It doesn't matter if the numbers are equal. It matters if it happens, and if there is a remedy. For women, there is a remedy, notwithstanding its discomfort. For battered men, there's really nothing. It's way more socially acceptable for a woman to hit a man. No one in the sane realm in the entire political spectrum thinks it's okay for a man to hit a woman. It pisses people off. Men who have daughters who are hit by men, punch such men in their faces. There's not such outrage over women hitting men. That's the point more than the equality of distribution. It's not legitimate to say that if it doesn't happen as much, its not worth talking about. Which seems like this is where you want to go with this.

 

[jamil]

No, my standard is to expect people to be a decent human being and not get bent out of shape if I am asked to call out behavior that doesn't make that standard.

I really still don't understand why this is so controversial. You guys are bending so far backward to find some secret crazy conspiracy against men in here that I'm surprised you haven't snapped your spinal columns.

Are there some feminists out there who hate men? Yes
Are there some women out there who are mean and violent? Yes

But let me ask you what is more likely... that most women just wanted to be treated with respect and not be harassed and groped, or there is global conspiracy involving nearly half the population to destroy manhood and steal your testicles?

I swear to listening to the comments from some of you guys, it sounds like there was some sort of weird science experiment to combine Alex Jones and Jordan Peterson into one monstrous entity and then it was unleashed on the internet.

Again, if your grasp of masculinity is so fragile that a razor commercial can threaten it, you might just want to examine yourself first. Otherwise, just don't be a jerk to women (or men for that matter) and don't tolerate other people around you who are. That's it. Pretty basic. If you are already doing it, then great. That commercial wasn't aimed at you (as much as it was aimed at anyone and not just getting people to buy razors).

THat's almost everyone's standard. But, you're seriously minimizing the message of the commercial. That's not all the commercial is saying, and I think you know that.

 

[jamil]

I swear to listening to the comments from some of you guys, it sounds like there was some sort of weird science experiment to combine Alex Jones and Jordan Peterson into one monstrous entity and then it was unleashed on the internet.

Again, if your grasp of masculinity is so fragile that a razor commercial can threaten it, you might just want to examine yourself first. Otherwise, just don't be a jerk to women (or men for that matter) and don't tolerate other people around you who are. That's it. Pretty basic. If you are already doing it, then great. That commercial wasn't aimed at you (as much as it was aimed at anyone and not just getting people to buy razors).

C'mon man. This is intellectually dishonest. Take the emotion out of it and think about what's actually being said. You might find that it's no where near "grasp of masculinity so fragile". You might also think about examining yourself. Perhaps it's not just the people who are disagreeing with you that are full of ****. Perhaps you're thinking people are saying things they're not saying. I've already pointed out some of that.

 

[Beowulf]

It doesn't matter if the numbers are equal. It matters if it happens, and if there is a remedy. For women, there is a remedy, notwithstanding its discomfort. For battered men, there's really nothing. It's way more socially acceptable for a woman to hit a man. No one in the sane realm in the entire political spectrum thinks it's okay for a man to hit a woman. It pisses people off. Men who have daughters who are hit by men, punch such men in their faces. There's not such outrage over women hitting men. That's the point more than the equality of distribution. It's not legitimate to say that if it doesn't happen as much, its not worth talking about. Which seems like this is where you want to go with this.

Nope, I'm not saying it doesn't deserve to be talked about.

But what I get from most of the protestations over the Gillette ad are simple but-what-about-isms, as if you can't call out the bad behavior of some men, without addressing every single other social in the same breath. How does the fact that some men are abused by women negate the fact that much larger number of women are abused by men?

Let me answer that, it doesn't. If you are really concerned about the number of men abused by women, then please open a shelter to help them out. Though, there are some shelters right here in Indy that do in fact help abused men. The Julian Center is one such place and it is one that I wholeheartedly support and have done volunteer work with. So I encourage everyone on the forum, regardless of gender, orientation, political inclination, and favorite sports team to open your wallets and support the fantastic work they do. https://www.juliancenter.org/donate/

Back to the fragile male egos and the Gillette ad. If you don't like getting preached to by a cynical corporation, then do something about it. Volunteer, join the Big Brothers or other such groups, help out the Boy Scouts, become a foster family, work with many of the groups out there trying to end the school to prison pipeline. What I'm seeing instead is that because some of you feel targeted by the ad and other such statements, you want to shut down any discussion and hide in a corner. If you don't like the conversation, get out there and change it. Prove that they are wrong about most men.

I will tell you what won't work to convince anyone... *****ing and moaning about a Feminist anti-male agenda and complaining that no one is highlighting all the terrible things that women do. That simply will get you ignore or lumped in with the (hopefully) small percentage of men who are being called out.

As to the point of comparing this to the anti-gun rhetoric that is thrown around, my point above applies just the same. We can sit here and complain about anti-gunners making up lies and violating the constitution, but if all we do is sit here and complain about it, they'll win. We need to get out there and contact our congressmen and senators, work to recruit pro-gun candidates for whatever party you are member of, take family members/neighbors/co-workers to the range and teach them that shooting is fun hobby and how to be safe. If we do that, we'll convince most people that we are right and the anti-gunners are wrong.

Is your response to anti-gun lies to point out that knives are just as dangerous and why isn't anyone trying to ban them? I hope not, since that doesn't do anything but make things worse.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Nope, I'm not saying it doesn't deserve to be talked about.

But what I get from most of the protestations over the Gillette ad are simple but-what-about-isms, as if you can't call out the bad behavior of some men, without addressing every single other social in the same breath. How does the fact that some men are abused by women negate the fact that much larger number of women are abused by men?

Let me answer that, it doesn't. If you are really concerned about the number of men abused by women, then please open a shelter to help them out. Though, there are some shelters right here in Indy that do in fact help abused men. The Julian Center is one such place and it is one that I wholeheartedly support and have done volunteer work with. So I encourage everyone on the forum, regardless of gender, orientation, political inclination, and favorite sports team to open your wallets and support the fantastic work they do. https://www.juliancenter.org/donate/

Back to the fragile male egos and the Gillette ad. If you don't like getting preached to by a cynical corporation, then do something about it. Volunteer, join the Big Brothers or other such groups, help out the Boy Scouts, become a foster family, work with many of the groups out there trying to end the school to prison pipeline. What I'm seeing instead is that because some of you feel targeted by the ad and other such statements, you want to shut down any discussion and hide in a corner. If you don't like the conversation, get out there and change it. Prove that they are wrong about most men.

I will tell you what won't work to convince anyone... *****ing and moaning about a Feminist anti-male agenda and complaining that no one is highlighting all the terrible things that women do. That simply will get you ignore or lumped in with the (hopefully) small percentage of men who are being called out.

As to the point of comparing this to the anti-gun rhetoric that is thrown around, my point above applies just the same. We can sit here and complain about anti-gunners making up lies and violating the constitution, but if all we do is sit here and complain about it, they'll win. We need to get out there and contact our congressmen and senators, work to recruit pro-gun candidates for whatever party you are member of, take family members/neighbors/co-workers to the range and teach them that shooting is fun hobby and how to be safe. If we do that, we'll convince most people that we are right and the anti-gunners are wrong.

Is your response to anti-gun lies to point out that knives are just as dangerous and why isn't anyone trying to ban them? I hope not, since that doesn't do anything but make things worse.

That pipeline doesn't need to be ended. That's EXACTLY what allowed Parkland to happen... trying to avoid the school to prison pipeline because it would make the school look bad (and more importantly cut off their federal money). As I've been saying, SOME people (not just men) are ****birds. They need to be removed from society. Not ALL people are ****birds and we don't need to be lectured as such. Lecture (and incarcerate or execute) the ****birds. Leave the good guys and gals alone. That's the point you're missing.

Like I said, all the commercial had to say was, "If you're an *******, stop it." Period. Full stop. Don't paint an entire gender with the same broad brush.

 

[BugI02]

In the same vein, I've never seen a police officer being unprofessional, or a gun owner misuse their firearm, or ...

People are going to magnify the ones that act poorly - we all know this.
Advertisers are going to jump on whatever trend there is to sell us **** we don't need - we also know this.



TV's have a mute button for a reason. And I find this commercial less offensive than Chevy's "real people".




As I write this, I realize I don't care about the commercial, I don't care about who gets offended from the commercial, I really only care about keeping my post count up because Bug is trying to pass me.

So I'm kind of your ****posting muse? Awwww

 

[Beowulf]

That pipeline doesn't need to be ended. That's EXACTLY what allowed Parkland to happen... trying to avoid the school to prison pipeline because it would make the school look bad (and more importantly cut off their federal money). As I've been saying, SOME people (not just men) are ****birds. They need to be removed from society. Not ALL people are ****birds and we don't need to be lectured as such. Lecture (and incarcerate or execute) the ****birds. Leave the good guys and gals alone. That's the point you're missing.

Like I said, all the commercial had to say was, "If you're an *******, stop it." Period. Full stop. Don't paint an entire gender with the same broad brush.

The Parkland failure wasn't anything to do with ending the the School to Prison pipeline, it had more to do with sucking off the Federal teat and keeping their numbers looking good.

Groups working to end the School to Prison Pipeline, like Rupert's Kids (https://www.rupertskids.org/) work with boys to help provide them with positive role models and help them develop real life skills that let them become functioning members of the community, rather than ending up involved in crime and going straight into prison.

 

[PaulF]

I don't see what the fuss is about either. All I see is a bunch of snowflakes getting offended over a commercial with several valid messages. As I said on another forum earlier, if the shoe does not fit, then just move along. If it does, then lace that b*tch up and be a better man.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

The Parkland failure wasn't anything to do with ending the the School to Prison pipeline, it had more to do with sucking off the Federal teat and keeping their numbers looking good.

Groups working to end the School to Prison Pipeline, like Rupert's Kids (https://www.rupertskids.org/) work with boys to help provide them with positive role models and help them develop real life skills that let them become functioning members of the community, rather than ending up involved in crime and going straight into prison.

We're talking about two different things I think. The program to which I was referring was an Obama era federal program to end the school to prison pipeline by giving schools money if they could keep their students out of trouble. That's great as far as intentions go, but the schools quickly figured out that if they didn't take actions to put problem students into that pipeline (as Cruz should have been), they get more money.

As to the second part of your statement, I'm all for programs like that. That option requires that attention be paid to these problem kids and action taken when a pattern starts to evolve like that which Cruz exhibited. But instead, they were incentivized to sweep it under the rug.

And sorry for the