New Gillette commercial "not an indictment on manhood"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Lil devils x:

The very idea that people think that a PSA being against violence and sexual assualt and harrassment is now "liberal" is pretty funny when you look at the conservative PSA's from the 80's and like every Conservative Christian PSA ever made.

I don't get the point of comparing to something else if a thing is bad on its own merits.

Shadowstar38:

Lil devils x:

The very idea that people think that a PSA being against violence and sexual assualt and harrassment is now "liberal" is pretty funny when you look at the conservative PSA's from the 80's and like every Conservative Christian PSA ever made.

I don't get the point of comparing to something else if a thing is bad on its own merits.

The point is it is not liberal or conservative it is a typical PSA. Typical PSA's are supposed to be comically stereotypical with the most blatantly fucked up scenarios possible or they are not doing it right. ONLY the MOST blatant and stereotypical are even remembered. The others don't get noticed so they failed. Gillette got this one right otherwise no one would be talking about it at all.

That is how these are SUPPOSED to work.

Saelune:

hanselthecaretaker:

Satinavian:
It is an ad.

Trying to convince people that the company is somehow on the side of the good guys and thus deserving your money. Without actually having something to do for it.

Silentpony:
The politics aside, its just a bad ad. Like if you didn't know its from Gillette, you'd never guess its a shaving razor ad.

These. At the end of the day, they used their tag line to make a ?bigger? statement hoping to capitalize on it.

Doesn't change that their point is still valid.

Pretty much this. Whatever they are trying to capitalize or not is besides the point (specially in a capitalist society). The ad doesn't make Gillette the good guy; it makes them the guy with a point worth thinking.

ObsidianJones:
Ok, a lot of answers. Feeling a might popular all of a sudden.

Let me clarify.

I don't get why people are paying so much attention to this. This is no different than the PSA of the past.

911 Pizza delivery, Sexual Harassment, Homosexual Tormenting, Bullying (can someone explain to me why people had a problem with Gingers?)... this sort of thing has been a part of our landscape since we've had media. In all forms.

What I don't get is why all of a sudden, the same people who watched those PSAs in the past are even responding today. Literally, a year or two ago no one gave a damn. Now, everyone is in a tizzy because a razor company is doing something we've been doing for years. Why the hell is this ad so inflammatory?

Is it because Weinstein and Cosby were taken down and now some men feel like they are vulnerable? I don't get why they are now focusing on it instead of ignoring it like they always did.

Because the current political environment has shown it's true colors of "outrage culture" not being that perpetrated by the "SJW's" but rather the "snowflakes" who cannot handle being told that violence and sexual harassment is bad. The very same people that promote rape culture feel violated that a company in the core of their " male space" dared to bring up serious issues. Not unlike the people who completely lost their shat over Anita Sarkeesian daring to come into their male space and criticize games. In their minds, Gillete, their beloved razors that some guy had to stick his hands into the toilet to fish out his razor he attempted to flush, just sold out to Anita Sarkeesian.

https://twitter.com/warroom/status/1085247500066480129

1. Does it matter as it is just an ad? From the ideology that brought us "ban the word bossy: it makes girls under achieve" we have so many saying "so what" to this ad. Well, it is just the latest shot in the war on men. It adds to the over-all media atmosphere of man bashing and can impact social, political, economic and governmental policies.
2. Is it man bashing? Aren't they just asking men to be better? No. Two boys are wrestling and someone breaks it up. Would you rather drug them? Because that sort of thing is happening. A guy says to a girl, at a party, "smile" and is treated like a rapist for doing so. Would you rather he go MGTOW? A guy sees a pretty woman dressed and made up in ways that she knows/should know, will attract attention. He wants to talk her up. Another guy intercedes telling him, "not cool". Would you rather women wear burkas? What if the guy were Tom Brady? Maybe she actually would love for Tom Brady to chat her up (were he not already married). This guy may have cock blocked a beautiful relationship.
3. Will it be effective? Dunno. As someone else noted, there's no such thing as bad publicity.
EDIT
4. Timing. Very bad. As new laws and policies continue to turn men ever more into exploited, disposable utilities, the further pile on is not appreciated.

Lil devils x:

First of all, pregnant women and new mothers ARE handed out pamphlets informing them of the warning signs of postpartum depression and what to do if they notice signs so they can prevent something tragic ( including but not limited to infanticide) from happening. That does not in any way mean they are saying that all mothers do these things. What this ad did was similar to that. It is showing that this does not have to be this way and that men can help put a stop to this by stepping in and trying to actively change this. The AD shows men stepping in and stopping it from happening, that this is something that can be changed and that is what makes Men the "best" man they can be, not unlike the pregnancy and motherhood pamphlets women receive to help them be the best Mom they can be.

I've seen those pamphlets, they tend to express postpartum depression as a medical condition that some women suffer from, describe the signs and risk factors, what sort of treatment to seek, etc. All in a very neutral, definitely not blaming the woman and even more so not demanding that all women have a responsibility to deal with other women's postpartum depression.

But then, I could fire off a whole series of news stories of women doing all kinds of bad deeds, some of which are specifically female others of which are merely stereotypically so. Then claim that all women need to be better and that all women are responsible for preventing all other women from engaging in that behavior. It would be the same basic premise as the Gillette ad, and it would be considered misogynistic in the extreme.

Maybe work off of L'Oreal and their "Because You're Worth It" slogan. Are you really worth it ladies, if you aren't actively working to stop other women from engaging in whatever negative behaviors I might use as examples?

CaitSeith:

Your version isn't comparable.

How so? I mean I didn't write a script, but you'd follow the same general format. Flash up some relevant news articles, play a few sound clips, and a few illustrative shots with actors, flash up the L'Oreal logo with their slogan "Because You're Worth It" and then ask, "But are you really worth it?" then call for all women to take responsibility for the actions of all other women in a similar fashion.

Gorfias:
What if the guy were Tom Brady?

Damn, what if he were tom brady indeed. I never considered "what if this thing was actually something completely different", you are blowing my mind here.

Schadrach:

Lil devils x:

First of all, pregnant women and new mothers ARE handed out pamphlets informing them of the warning signs of postpartum depression and what to do if they notice signs so they can prevent something tragic ( including but not limited to infanticide) from happening. That does not in any way mean they are saying that all mothers do these things. What this ad did was similar to that. It is showing that this does not have to be this way and that men can help put a stop to this by stepping in and trying to actively change this. The AD shows men stepping in and stopping it from happening, that this is something that can be changed and that is what makes Men the "best" man they can be, not unlike the pregnancy and motherhood pamphlets women receive to help them be the best Mom they can be.

I've seen those pamphlets, they tend to express postpartum depression as a medical condition that some women suffer from, describe the signs and risk factors, what sort of treatment to seek, etc. All in a very neutral, definitely not blaming the woman and even more so not demanding that all women have a responsibility to deal with other women's postpartum depression.

But then, I could fire off a whole series of news stories of women doing all kinds of bad deeds, some of which are specifically female others of which are merely stereotypically so. Then claim that all women need to be better and that all women are responsible for preventing all other women from engaging in that behavior. It would be the same basic premise as the Gillette ad, and it would be considered misogynistic in the extreme.

Maybe work off of L'Oreal and their "Because You're Worth It" slogan. Are you really worth it ladies, if you aren't actively working to stop other women from engaging in whatever negative behaviors I might use as examples?

CaitSeith:

Your version isn't comparable.

How so? I mean I didn't write a script, but you'd follow the same general format. Flash up some relevant news articles, play a few sound clips, and a few illustrative shots with actors, flash up the L'Oreal logo with their slogan "Because You're Worth It" and then ask, "But are you really worth it?" then call for all women to take responsibility for the actions of all other women in a similar fashion.

You need to check the pamphlets again, as it encourages FAMILYAND FRIENDS of new mothers to be mindful of signs of post partum depression because often the person who is suffering cannot see the signs for themselves. Women and girls are taught about this in school when we are taught about getting our period pregnancy and parenthood. Like I stated before, I was first taught about this in school, and from the angle of "we should watch out for these symptoms and behaviors" so that we can help OTHER WOMEN as well as ourselves in case we notice them happening. In fact, in our women's " magazines" it has numerous articles on these issues and what you should do if you suspect friend or family member is suffering. If you have ever read women's magazines, you would see that there is no shortage of articles on how to address women's issues, and not just this one.

Now when you compare the sheer numbers between this happening to women and violence happening among men, it is pretty apparent that the numbers are no where near comparable. You do understand that in women's magazines they already have numerous " female products" that sponsor PDA's for women already and this has been going on a very very long time don't you? This is a pretty typical thing you find in the Female sphere".

This is nothing new:
https://oureverydaylife.com/handle-adult-female-bully-8544246.html
https://www.loreal.com/the-loreal-foundation/foundation
https://www.pradagroup.com/en/group/social-responsibility.html

Saelune:
'Don't judge all Republicans'

Meanwhile Trump and his Supreme Court cronies just reminded me I am subhuman to them.

Lil devils x:

hanselthecaretaker:
but white washing it is no different than saying all liberals are a bunch of lazy America-hating immoral degenerates. Point is, there is a broad spectrum of each, both good and bad. The thread about labels applies here pretty well.

"white washing" IS exactly part of the problem with " conservative approved" dancing. Dancing is okay with conservatives if it is considered appropriate to " white culture" standards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YIO_dxyJio
The woman gets a good twerk going on about 38:07 you can watch.
There are a good number of conservatives that find other cultures dances offensive and have even gone as far to outlaw them repeatedly throughout our History.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zw7PCVGYr4
https://newsone.com/3833341/gop-mayor-twerking-pool-ban/
They forced many Native American Tribes to have to Dance in secret as well so they were not killed for doing so.
https://timeline.com/ghost-dance-wounded-knee-71926e23cf3b
https://www.legendsofamerica.com/na-dances/
http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/380

Ok, for the record my personal idea of "conservatism" revolves around the notion of simply living in a way that protects and promotes a happy, healthy, functional lifestyle for myself and any loved ones that one might be responsible for. Kinda like the principles for animal conservation, energy conservation, environmental conservation, etc.

My idea of "liberalism" falls under dreaming big but knowing where to set pragmatic boundaries. Basically acknowledging the "Life is tough; it's tougher if you're stupid" adage and keeping it in the back of my mind as much as possible. Splice genes as much as you want, but he prepared to own up to any unforeseen consequences of playing God.

I believe in a higher power; at least higher than human if for no other reason than to keep us somewhat humble. I also believe man-made religion is a root cause for much of society's ills, much like politics. Both are ultimately twisted human constructs that reek of arrogance and accomplish much of the opposite of what Jesus himself wanted.

The labels and "sides" are mostly more bs human inventions to me; primarily character flaws meant to instill a false sense of security and belonging for the opposition to try taking advantage of.

And also for the record, any decent father would understandably frown upon their daughter "twerking", simply because odds are that kind of blatantly suggestive behavior sure as hell won't get her far in life, or at least not on the path that will instill a sense of self respect or garner it from anyone else. It's also funny this kinda thing gets a pass or overlooked in the age of women wanting to be treated as something more than sex objects.

hanselthecaretaker:

Saelune:
'Don't judge all Republicans'

Meanwhile Trump and his Supreme Court cronies just reminded me I am subhuman to them.

Lil devils x:

hanselthecaretaker:
but white washing it is no different than saying all liberals are a bunch of lazy America-hating immoral degenerates. Point is, there is a broad spectrum of each, both good and bad. The thread about labels applies here pretty well.

"white washing" IS exactly part of the problem with " conservative approved" dancing. Dancing is okay with conservatives if it is considered appropriate to " white culture" standards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YIO_dxyJio
The woman gets a good twerk going on about 38:07 you can watch.
There are a good number of conservatives that find other cultures dances offensive and have even gone as far to outlaw them repeatedly throughout our History.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zw7PCVGYr4
https://newsone.com/3833341/gop-mayor-twerking-pool-ban/
They forced many Native American Tribes to have to Dance in secret as well so they were not killed for doing so.
https://timeline.com/ghost-dance-wounded-knee-71926e23cf3b
https://www.legendsofamerica.com/na-dances/
http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/380

Ok, for the record my personal idea of ?conservatism? revolves around the notion of simply living in a way that protects and promotes a happy, healthy, functional lifestyle for myself and any loved ones that one might be responsible for. Kinda like the principles for animal conservation, energy conservation, environmental conservation, etc.

My idea of ?liberalism? falls under dreaming big but knowing where to set pragmatic boundaries. Basically acknowledging the ?Life is tough; it?s tougher if you?re stupid? adage and keeping it in the back of my mind as much as possible. Splice genes as much as you want, but he prepared to own up to any unforeseen consequences of playing God.

I believe in a higher power; at least higher than human if for no other reason than to keep us somewhat humble. I also believe man-made religion is a root cause for much of society?s ills, much like politics. Both are ultimately twisted human constructs that reek of arrogance and accomplish much of the opposite of what Jesus himself wanted.

The labels and ?sides? are mostly more bs human inventions to me; primarily character flaws meant to instill a false sense of security and belonging for the opposition to try taking advantage of.

And also for the record, any decent father would understandably frown upon their daughter ?twerking?, simply because odds are that kind of blatantly suggestive behavior sure as hell won?t get her far in life, or at least not on the path that will instill a sense of self respect or garner it from anyone else. It?s also funny this kinda thing gets a pass or overlooked in the age of women wanting to be treated as something more than sex objects.

Any " Decent" father? YIKES. Where I come from, sex was viewed as a beautiful part of life that should be celebrated, even openly, and at one time was a "public event". People were never "shamed" for sex, it was openly celebrated. Violence on the other hand is seen as obscene, not sex, and it would be considered "indecent" for anyone to view violence without taking action to stop it. Boxing, for example would be considered immoral. Sex OTOH was encouraged and a father would be PROUD of his daughter for having sex and enjoying it as much as possible. That is the thing, if it doesn't fit into "white culture" POV then it is viewed as somehow "bad" or indecent when it really is not nor should others be forced to conform to " Christian culture standards" simply because they do not agree. Why should Christian standards be forced upon the rest of society when they do not believe that to be true? If the US is truly freedom of religion, stigmas placed on sex, nudity and what is considered " suggestive" should be removed as well. How a woman dresses or dances has NO bearing on how a woman should be treated. Hell even in tribes where everyone running around stark naked is the norm, that in no way impacts how they are treated, why should it? Who defines whether or not someone has self respect? Having pride and confidence in oneself is up to that person to determine, not someone else attempting to force their religious beliefs upon them. Being naked, being sexually confident is in no way dishonorable nor should people be made to feel as though it is.

The idea that how a woman dances, or dresses should impact how she is treated is cringe.
The only " dishonor" I see here is the attempt to shame women into conforming to how you think they should be rather than encourage them to do what they feel confident in doing. It is dishonorable to attempt to shame others when they are not harming anyone, including you.

Lil devils x:

I view the backlash against the ad as just another example of people trying to maintain the status quo and enable toxic behaviors to continue rather than wanting to address them and see them for what they are. I see it as what exactly has to happen to address this and get people talking, which Gillette did here. We need MORE people willing to speak up like Gillette did here and " The Rock" has done previously as well.

I find this a rather odd comment to make by someone who is generally socially progressive, because the ad is a huge pile of stereotyping bullshit. Not only would you or anyone defending this ad be full of rage if "men" was replaced with "blacks" or "muslims" but the ad itself shows how lowly it considers social progressives of today.
Let me elaborate on the last point. Take bullying, trying to somehow portray that as a male issue is blatantly absurd. I have seen, heard of and read about plenty of female bullying. Even gangs of teenage girls bullying and beating up other girls.
Than there is a specific part in the ad where a, i suppose, boss tells a woman during a meeting "what i believe she meant to say is..." as if that's somehow sexist. Without any context about the meeting or people involved this can be a totally normal situation. I've had to explain what a boss tried to say to a client due to language issues and correct him that way. (granted i didn't put my hand on his shoulder but i'm not a tactile person at all) The fact they knew that a snippet without any context would be interpreted the way it did JUST because it involved a man saying it about a woman shows they expect their target audience to have sexist biases towards interactions between men and women.
And than comes the snippet where men are told to take responsibility for what other men do. Biggest epic bullshit ever that wouldn't pass if told about any minority if hypocrisy wasn't the modus operandi of the far left. Why should I take responsibility for someone's actions because I was born with a penis?

generals3:

Lil devils x:

I view the backlash against the ad as just another example of people trying to maintain the status quo and enable toxic behaviors to continue rather than wanting to address them and see them for what they are. I see it as what exactly has to happen to address this and get people talking, which Gillette did here. We need MORE people willing to speak up like Gillette did here and " The Rock" has done previously as well.

I find this a rather odd comment to make by someone who is generally socially progressive, because the ad is a huge pile of stereotyping bullshit. Not only would you or anyone defending this ad be full of rage if "men" was replaced with "blacks" or "muslims" but the ad itself shows how lowly it considers social progressives of today.
Let me elaborate on the last point. Take bullying, trying to somehow portray that as a male issue is blatantly absurd. I have seen, heard of and read about plenty of female bullying. Even gangs of teenage girls bullying and beating up other girls.
Than there is a specific part in the ad where a, i suppose, boss tells a woman during a meeting "what i believe she meant to say is..." as if that's somehow sexist. Without any context about the meeting or people involved this can be a totally normal situation. I've had to explain what a boss tried to say to a client due to language issues and correct him that way. (granted i didn't put my hand on his shoulder but i'm not a tactile person at all) The fact they knew that a snippet without any context would be interpreted the way it did JUST because it involved a man saying it about a woman shows they expect their target audience to have sexist biases towards interactions between men and women.
And than comes the snippet where men are told to take responsibility for what other men do. Biggest epic bullshit ever that wouldn't pass if told about any minority if hypocrisy wasn't the modus operandi of the far left. Why should I take responsibility for someone's actions because I was born with a penis?

I thought you were from Germany right? This is addressing american culture. Do you watch the PSA's I posted above from the 80's? Re read post 91, 93, and 107 The entire point of the PSA is to be absurdly stereotypical. AND BTW having a man cut off a woman and speak for her belittling her is SEXIST and should never be happening. Speaking up when one of your buddies does something is why you speak up in the same way that women are encouraged to speak up when other women are doing bad shat too, as is commonly promoted in women's magazines. This is not only promoted to men, this was an advertisement targeting men so that is why it was discussing men in the same way women's magazines target women. If you read the links I provided above, you would see women discuss these issues as well ALREADY. It doesn't hurt for men to do the same.

FYI, my girly teen magazines were about 50% fashion and makeup and 50% PSA's sponsored by those trying to sell us fashion and makeup.

generals3:
And than comes the snippet where men are told to take responsibility for what other men do. Biggest epic bullshit ever that wouldn't pass if told about any minority if hypocrisy wasn't the modus operandi of the far left. Why should I take responsibility for someone's actions because I was born with a penis?

This is the part I take issue with the most. Telling men that they are responsible for convincing other men to uphold a particular societal behaviour.

No matter how virtuous the behaviour, it is everyone's responsibility to strive for it, and not just one sex's job to do so.

Should this advert be directed towards any other societal demographic there would be outrage. The reasons would be mirrors of those expressed here.

But hey, it's a man's job to confront other men. Men are the ones who have a societal responsibility to interject and potentially put themselves into a dangerous situation to protect the other sex from the unwelcome behaviour/advances of their sex-peers.

Abomination:

generals3:
And than comes the snippet where men are told to take responsibility for what other men do. Biggest epic bullshit ever that wouldn't pass if told about any minority if hypocrisy wasn't the modus operandi of the far left. Why should I take responsibility for someone's actions because I was born with a penis?

This is the part I take issue with the most. Telling men that they are responsible for convincing other men to uphold a particular societal behaviour.

No matter how virtuous the behaviour, it is everyone's responsibility to strive for it, and not just one sex's job to do so.

Should this advert be directed towards any other societal demographic there would be outrage. The reasons would be mirrors of those expressed here.

But hey, it's a man's job to confront other men. Men are the ones who have a societal responsibility to interject and potentially put themselves into a dangerous situation to protect the other sex from the unwelcome behaviour/advances of their sex-peers.

Girly magazines ALREADY tell girls they are responsible for stopping other girls behavior, why is it so bad for men to have the same thing said to them? The reason why they are telling men to stop their buddies from acting like asses is that men who behave like asses to women already frequently do not take what women tell them seriously regardless. It takes men doing so as well. Men are also supposed to help stop bullies from beating people up and keep children from fighting, like women ALREADY do as well.

Girls just don't think it is a big deal when they are told they should do this, why do men think it is?

Lil devils x:
I thought you were from Germany right? This is addressing american culture. Do you watch the PSA's I posted above from the 80's? Re read post 91, 93, and 107 The entire point of the PSA is to be absurdly stereotypical. AND BTW having a man cut off a woman and speak for her belittling her is SEXIST and should never be happening. Speaking up when one of your buddies does something is why you speak up in the same way that women are encouraged to speak up when other women are doing bad shat too, as is commonly promoted in women's magazines. This is not only promoted to men, this was an advertisement targeting men so that is why it was discussing men in the same way women's magazines target women. If you read the links I provided above, you would see women discuss these issues as well ALREADY. It doesn't hurt for men to do the same.

Belgium, not Germany. And in post 107 you mention "comically" stereotypical, there is nothing comical about the ad or its setting. And I watched two of the PSA's from the 80's you posted. None of them stereotyped groups of people but rather actions and their consequences. This one is clearly about men. So the comparison doesn't hold. And even if somehow it would, would you use that to defend a PSA about terrorism and muslims? or gang violence and blacks? Doubt so.

Additionally NO the action is not sexist, saying that is sexist on itself. Because you assume that because it is a man doing it to a woman it must be sexist. That's totally forgetting men do it to men and women to men/women in the corporate world. You have a lot of sharks out there who want to be the ones getting all the attention and credit, even if it requires underhanded tactics like belittling others during meetings by acting like a "know it all" and interrupting others. See that's one of the problems with this rabid radical progressive propaganda going around nowadays, people are being brainwashed into interpreting actions in a sexist manner.

And this is not about "discussing" things, this is about a bad ad badly stereotyping a group of people linked to each other only by their sex. Something that would be considered a no-go if targeted at other groups.

Lil devils x:

Girly magazines ALREADY tell girls they are responsible for stopping other girls behavior, why is it so bad for men to have the same thing said to them? The reason why they are telling men to stop their buddies from acting like asses is that men who behave like asses to women already frequently do not take what women tell them seriously regardless. It takes men doing so as well. Men are also supposed to help stop bullies from beating people up and keep children from fighting, like women ALREADY do as well.

Girls just don't think it is a big deal when they are told they should do this, why do men think it is?

You should know that context matters. Are there TV ads like this about girls being responsible for other girls' behavior? Because an article in a girls magazine is a totally different context. The medium used, the way the message is told and the audience all change how the message will be interpreted and how it will affect people.

generals3:

Lil devils x:
I thought you were from Germany right? This is addressing american culture. Do you watch the PSA's I posted above from the 80's? Re read post 91, 93, and 107 The entire point of the PSA is to be absurdly stereotypical. AND BTW having a man cut off a woman and speak for her belittling her is SEXIST and should never be happening. Speaking up when one of your buddies does something is why you speak up in the same way that women are encouraged to speak up when other women are doing bad shat too, as is commonly promoted in women's magazines. This is not only promoted to men, this was an advertisement targeting men so that is why it was discussing men in the same way women's magazines target women. If you read the links I provided above, you would see women discuss these issues as well ALREADY. It doesn't hurt for men to do the same.

Belgium, not Germany. And in post 107 you mention "comically" stereotypical, there is nothing comical about the ad or its setting. And I watched two of the PSA's from the 80's you posted. None of them stereotyped groups of people but rather actions and their consequences. This one is clearly about men. So the comparison doesn't hold. And even if somehow it would would you use that to defend a PSA about terrorism and muslims? or gang violence and blacks? Doubt so.

Additionally NO the action is not sexist, saying that is sexist on itself. Because you assume that because it is a man doing it to a woman it must be sexist. That's totally forgetting men do it to men and women to men/women in the corporate world. You have a lot of sharks out there who want to be the ones getting all the attention and appearing as the ones who know it all, even if it requires underhanded tactics like belittling others during meetings by acting like a "know it all" and interrupting others. See that's one of the problems with this rabid radical progressive propaganda going around nowadays, people are being brainwashed into interpreting actions in a sexist manner.

And this is not about "discussing" things, this is about a bad ad badly stereotyping a group of people linked to each other only by their sex. Something that would be considered a no-go if targeted at other groups.

Don't excuse the "Sharks". Stop them when you can. That's all.

generals3:

Lil devils x:
I thought you were from Germany right? This is addressing american culture. Do you watch the PSA's I posted above from the 80's? Re read post 91, 93, and 107 The entire point of the PSA is to be absurdly stereotypical. AND BTW having a man cut off a woman and speak for her belittling her is SEXIST and should never be happening. Speaking up when one of your buddies does something is why you speak up in the same way that women are encouraged to speak up when other women are doing bad shat too, as is commonly promoted in women's magazines. This is not only promoted to men, this was an advertisement targeting men so that is why it was discussing men in the same way women's magazines target women. If you read the links I provided above, you would see women discuss these issues as well ALREADY. It doesn't hurt for men to do the same.

Belgium, not Germany. And in post 107 you mention "comically" stereotypical, there is nothing comical about the ad or its setting. And I watched two of the PSA's from the 80's you posted. None of them stereotyped groups of people but rather actions and their consequences. This one is clearly about men. So the comparison doesn't hold. And even if somehow it would would you use that to defend a PSA about terrorism and muslims? or gang violence and blacks? Doubt so.

Additionally NO the action is not sexist, saying that is sexist on itself. Because you assume that because it is a man doing it to a woman it must be sexist. That's totally forgetting men do it to men and women to men/women in the corporate world. You have a lot of sharks out there who want to be the ones getting all the attention and appearing as the ones who know it all, even if it requires underhanded tactics like belittling others during meetings by acting like a "know it all" and interrupting others. See that's one of the problems with this rabid radical progressive propaganda going around nowadays, people are being brainwashed into interpreting actions in a sexist manner.

And this is not about "discussing" things, this is about a bad ad badly stereotyping a group of people linked to each other only by their sex. Something that would be considered a no-go if targeted at other groups. We live in an era where feminists bash companies for using female bodies to advertise a product and somehow this huge pile of negative stereotyping is ok?

You gotta be kidding. So if a PSA has a guy with a mustache that did drugs in front of his kids that means that all dads with mustaches are doing drugs in front of their kids? Yea, they are just as Comical stereotyping as the other PSA's. So in what way are they stereotyping the guys that are stopping the guys behaving badly? That is the primary focus of the ad if you didn't notice here. They are addressing the BEHAVIOR and men are their target audience. That is how this works for girls as well. They use girls as examples when addressing girls as well. It is pretty standard.

It certainly IS about discussing things, the ad's purpose was the same as every other PSA, to be so obnoxious people talk about it opening the door for discussion. It isn't like they had one dad standing at a grill saying " boys will be boys" they had an infinite number of dads standing at their grills in UNISON.

" Radical propaganda" is not to blame for women being pissed at men talking over them, it is due to the sheer amount of times it actually happens.

https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2017/07/07/men-interrupting-women
This IS the problem. Simply because you haven't taken notice, those affected certainly have. We have studies on this shat now it is so bad.

generals3:

Lil devils x:

Girly magazines ALREADY tell girls they are responsible for stopping other girls behavior, why is it so bad for men to have the same thing said to them? The reason why they are telling men to stop their buddies from acting like asses is that men who behave like asses to women already frequently do not take what women tell them seriously regardless. It takes men doing so as well. Men are also supposed to help stop bullies from beating people up and keep children from fighting, like women ALREADY do as well.

Girls just don't think it is a big deal when they are told they should do this, why do men think it is?

You should know that context matters. Are there TV ads like this about girls being responsible for other girls' behavior? Because an article in a girls magazine is a totally different context. The medium used, the way the message is told and the audience all change how the message will be interpreted and how it will affect people.

They target where their target audience IS. Most men do not read the same types of magazines women do. Men and women consume media in different ways and men are far more likely to watch a Superbowl commercial than they are to read a self help blog in a magazine. Addressing their target audience is what they are supposed to do.

Girls are far more likely to watch a chick flick as well instead of a superbowl ad and they hit the spot with this PSA movie:
http://www.mtv.co.uk/mean-girls/news/the-things-mean-girls-taught-us-about-bullying

Lil devils x:
You gotta be kidding. So if a PSA has a guy with a mustache that did drugs in front of his kids that means that all dads with mustaches are doing drugs in front of their kids? Yea, they are just as Comical stereotyping as the other PSA's. So in what way are they stereotyping the guys that are stopping the guys behaving badly? That is the primary focus of the ad if you didn't notice here. They are addressing the BEHAVIOR and men are their target audience. That is how this works for girls as well. They use girls as examples when addressing girls as well. It is pretty standard.

It certainly IS about discussing things, the ad's purpose was the same as every other PSA, to be so obnoxious people talk about it opening the door for discussion. It isn't like they had one dad standing at a grill saying " boys will be boys" they had an infinite number of dads standing at their grills in UNISON.

" Radical propaganda" is not to blame for women being pissed at men talking over them, it is due to the sheer amount of times it actually happens.

https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2017/07/07/men-interrupting-women
This IS the problem. Simply because you haven't taken notice, those affected certainly have. We have studies on this shat now it is so bad.

The ad even contains a snippet stating men should feel responsible about other men's actions. This is different from the absurd extrapolation you just mentioned.

And the ad is not just "obnoxious" it's blatantly sexist and obnoxious. Nuance.

And the article linked gives little context about the study and the "interruptions" but even if we assume it truly is a problem, That doesn't mean any instance where a man interrupts a woman must be sexist. So what, now we're supposed to only interrupt men? Wouldn't that be sexist?

Saelune:

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was part of a music video she and a bunch of other people made in college and a bunch of Republicans condemned her for it (though they condemn her everytime she breathes)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot1etonOf_M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj2Xald7NYQ - The actual video

By a bunch, you mean 2. And by Republicans, you mean twitter accounts famous exclusively for tweeting about this video. And by condemned, you mean they said "here's a video of her dancing" and "she's acting like a nitwit".

I understand you're not a friend to the Republican Party and vice versa, and I appreciate your desire to see the forest for the trees, but some of these trees aren't real. I know your response will be "doesn't matter; still evil," but as someone aware that the story you're referring to is essentially false, I felt obligated to let you know.

generals3:

Lil devils x:
You gotta be kidding. So if a PSA has a guy with a mustache that did drugs in front of his kids that means that all dads with mustaches are doing drugs in front of their kids? Yea, they are just as Comical stereotyping as the other PSA's. So in what way are they stereotyping the guys that are stopping the guys behaving badly? That is the primary focus of the ad if you didn't notice here. They are addressing the BEHAVIOR and men are their target audience. That is how this works for girls as well. They use girls as examples when addressing girls as well. It is pretty standard.

It certainly IS about discussing things, the ad's purpose was the same as every other PSA, to be so obnoxious people talk about it opening the door for discussion. It isn't like they had one dad standing at a grill saying " boys will be boys" they had an infinite number of dads standing at their grills in UNISON.

" Radical propaganda" is not to blame for women being pissed at men talking over them, it is due to the sheer amount of times it actually happens.

https://www.advisory.com/daily-briefing/2017/07/07/men-interrupting-women
This IS the problem. Simply because you haven't taken notice, those affected certainly have. We have studies on this shat now it is so bad.

The ad even contains a snippet stating men should feel responsible about other men's actions. This is different from the absurd extrapolation you just mentioned.

And the ad is not just "obnoxious" it's blatantly sexist and obnoxious. Nuance.

And the article linked gives little context about the study and the "interruptions" but even if we assume it truly is a problem, That doesn't mean any instance where a man interrupts a woman must be sexist. So what, now we're supposed to only interrupt men? Wouldn't that be sexist?

Maybe they should not interrupt women just as much as they don't interrupt men and that would be a start. would be nice if they stopped interrupting all together, but at least reducing the amount to equals would be beginning to address the issue. It is a matter of respect and it shows that men feel they can disrespect the person who is speaking more when it is a woman than when it is a man. Respecting others is the best place to start there.

The single snippet was all that was needed to make the point of the ad. You have men self reflecting as they look into the mirror thinking about all these awful things they have seen happen and then it shows that men can step up to make a difference, to be the " best a man can be" by doing so. Not unlike the message in mean girls for girls. Click the link I provided above and read the lessons learned from "mean girls" that addresses #1. Link in post# 124

Lil devils x:
Dancing like this is perfectly acceptable, just doing any dancing that is not white is too " liberal".

Well that just screws white "liberals", doesn't it? They'd have to dance like conservatives, anything else would be cultural appropriation and most people who want to dance don't have time to get get doxed by a Twitter mob.

Lil devils x:

.

To each their own. I'll be the first to admit the U.S. has one of the most sexually dysfunctional 1st world societies (indeed it's ridiculous that ten year old kids can watch people getting their heads blown off on basic cable but have to shield their eyes from titties), but on the other hand twerking and running around naked aren't exactly the best remedies. Being comfortable in your own skin is important, but it'd be interesting to see the statistics of teen pregnancies, broken families and resulting troubled youth among the twerking moms vs "square" moms. Not saying there aren't exceptions, but they don't make the rule.

The worst part is, the innocent kids are ultimately the ones that suffer most, and that cycle is likely to continue.

Schadrach:

Lil devils x:
Dancing like this is perfectly acceptable, just doing any dancing that is not white is too " liberal".

Well that just screws white "liberals", doesn't it? They'd have to dance like conservatives, anything else would be cultural appropriation and most people who want to dance don't have time to get get doxed by a Twitter mob.

You missed the part that it was addressing conservatives specifically, or you just decided to clip that part out. There are plenty of liberals who have cultural appropriated the shat out of anything and everything and don't seem too worried about being doxed to hell. Funny how that works in reality. Twerking has been a huge thing in Black communities for a very long time now, but white people didn't seem to notice until a white girl did it. Hasn't affected Miley's twerking has it?

Lil devils x:
Girly magazines ALREADY tell girls they are responsible for stopping other girls behavior, why is it so bad for men to have the same thing said to them?

It is also bad that girly magazines try to tell girls they are responsible for the behavior of others.

The reason why they are telling men to stop their buddies from acting like asses is that men who behave like asses to women already frequently do not take what women tell them seriously regardless. It takes men doing so as well. Men are also supposed to help stop bullies from beating people up and keep children from fighting, like women ALREADY do as well.

This is where things start to break down. Women do it? All women? Are we attaching gender roles again? The guys being assholes are our "buddies"? Far more frequently, they are not.

Girls just don't think it is a big deal when they are told they should do this, why do men think it is?

Do they? All girls are fine with being told what they should and should not do? Who they are responsible for by proxy?

No stranger is responsible for the actions of another stranger, and certainly no sex is suddenly responsible for a demographic's behavior. To imply otherwise is sexist.

Abomination:

generals3:
And than comes the snippet where men are told to take responsibility for what other men do. Biggest epic bullshit ever that wouldn't pass if told about any minority if hypocrisy wasn't the modus operandi of the far left. Why should I take responsibility for someone's actions because I was born with a penis?

This is the part I take issue with the most. Telling men that they are responsible for convincing other men to uphold a particular societal behaviour.

No matter how virtuous the behaviour, it is everyone's responsibility to strive for it, and not just one sex's job to do so.

Should this advert be directed towards any other societal demographic there would be outrage. The reasons would be mirrors of those expressed here.

But hey, it's a man's job to confront other men. Men are the ones who have a societal responsibility to interject and potentially put themselves into a dangerous situation to protect the other sex from the unwelcome behaviour/advances of their sex-peers.

Ok, this is where shines the ironic sensitivity of those who're convinced that the sensitivity of everyone else is the problem.

The ad doesn't assign responsibility to only men to police other men. It calls to upstanding individuals to encourage people who behave like the animals we supposedly evolved from thousands of years ago to act like decent humans beings. Are you seriously offended that a commercial might suggest it's ok to tell a mongoloid buddy who's harassing someone to settle the fuck down and that the alpha male bullshit has gotten stale? The ad calls out that for too long (forever actually,) inexcusable behavior that affects other people has been allowed to be the status quo and that it need not be that way. You are correct, it's not just men's responsibility, but if men chilled out on it, 90% of the problem would be alleviated, so it makes a fair bit of sense to target the largest part of the issue in pursuit of ending the ENTIRE issue. And I'm sorry, more often than not, people respond more readily to someone of a like nature as the standard being upheld is an equal one, so yeah, speaking to good guys about the behavior of bad guys makes sense.

I, for one heterosexual male who grew up with two older sister and a mother, have nothing but respect for others, not least of all women. I have no problem calling out knuckle dragging, dick-measuring bullshit that creates a hostile environment for someone else. I've done it on several occasions, from asking a friend who created an uneasy environment for everyone by aggressively approaching the same woman who was clearly never interested in the first place to jumping between a man and the woman he'd just punched and restraining him. In every case I've had to intervene, I can only imagine a woman addressing an aggressive male could not have had the same impact as I with the men I had to deal with who had clearly already shown the regarded women as nothing; any call to decency from a "girl" would not only have fallen on deaf ears, but likely further incensed the situation.

This is as shallow as the misguided "ALL Lives Matter" response; no one is saying "men ONLY," they're saying "men TOO;" two completely different messages, and responding to the latter as if it were the former shows a shallow, dismissive callousness that belittles the seriousness of the issue.

hanselthecaretaker:

Lil devils x:

.

To each their own. I?ll be the first to admit the U.S. has one of the most sexually dysfunctional 1st world societies (indeed it?s ridiculous that ten year old kids can watch people getting their heads blown off on basic cable but have to shield their eyes from titties), but on the other hand twerking and running around naked aren?t exactly the best remedies. Being comfortable in your own skin is important, but it?d be interesting to see the statistics of teen pregnancies, broken families and resulting troubled youth among the twerking moms vs ?square? moms. Not saying there aren?t exceptions, but they don?t make the rule.

The worst part is, the innocent kids are ultimately the ones that suffer most, and that cycle is likely to continue.

" twerking moms" have NOTHING to do with teenage pregnancy, two major factors impact that: 1) lack of access to resources 2) lack of education. It is honestly pretty messed up you would think that Twerking leads to teenage pregnancy in the first place. Black communities have been kept in poverty since the end of slavery, teenage pregnancies are directly related to poverty, not twerking and happen in twerking and non twerking communities. You have some " misguided" ideas on sex here. For example, women who are confident enough to twerk are also usually confident enough to purchase a form of birth control if they can afford to do so.

Also in regards to how men treat women by how they are dressed, women are actually MORE likely to be targeted for rape if they wear long sleeves covering their skin and appear to be shy because predators see them as less likely to report them because they would actually have to tell someone what happened to them over and over again and shy girls lack the confidence to do so.

" Even though it is thought that women who dress provocatively are the most likely to be rape, studies show that women with passive, submissive personalities are more likely to get raped. These women tend to wear clothes that are concealing such as high neckline, long pants and long sleeves. This may sound ironic but, predatory men can identify submissive women by their style of dress."

https://hubpages.com/politics/Through-the-Eyes-of-Criminals-Ways-not-to-be-Singled-Out

It is not the confident twerking woman who is more likely to be targeted, it is the modest, shy one. Not only by rapist, but also PUA's looking for that one night stand. They want the less confident woman, and scantily clad women are usually far too confident for that.

Abomination:

Lil devils x:
Girly magazines ALREADY tell girls they are responsible for stopping other girls behavior, why is it so bad for men to have the same thing said to them?

It is also bad that girly magazines try to tell girls they are responsible for the behavior of others.

The reason why they are telling men to stop their buddies from acting like asses is that men who behave like asses to women already frequently do not take what women tell them seriously regardless. It takes men doing so as well. Men are also supposed to help stop bullies from beating people up and keep children from fighting, like women ALREADY do as well.

This is where things start to break down. Women do it? All women? Are we attaching gender roles again? The guys being assholes are our "buddies"? Far more frequently, they are not.

Girls just don't think it is a big deal when they are told they should do this, why do men think it is?

Do they? All girls are fine with being told what they should and should not do? Who they are responsible for by proxy?

No stranger is responsible for the actions of another stranger, and certainly no sex is suddenly responsible for a demographic's behavior. To imply otherwise is sexist.

As a woman, I have yet to hear a woman actually complain about being told that sitting there and doing nothing when someone else is being bullied is a bad thing. In fact, it is a constant running theme in chick flicks most popular " must watch" movies of all times as rated by girls.

Just read the link in post 124 above to get an idea of how this is viewed by girls for the most part. I am sure the bullies may disagree with it, but I have yet to see anyone rage on it as men have here.

Lil devils x:
As a woman, I have yet to hear a woman actually complain about being told that sitting there are doing nothing when someone else is being bullied is a bad thing. In fact, it is a constant running theme in chick flicks most popular " must watch" movies of all times as rated by girls.

Just because someone is not offended by something does not mean something is not offensive to someone else.

Just read the link in post 124 above to get an idea of how this is viewed by girls for the most part. I am sure the bullies may disagree with it, but I have yet to see anyone rage on it as men have here.

It is not "rage", so stop using such gendered language when a man is upset about something. I do not like being told that I am responsible for another person's actions because they have a penis and I have a penis. I disagree with the notion and find it offensive that I have an expectation placed on me because of my sex. That I have an obligation to potentially put myself in danger because I am male.

You know "Be a man". And then with the same breath, have the gall to accuse those who take umbrage with the message, that they are showing signs of toxic masculinity.

I will use my own judgement to confront individuals if I feel they are behaving inappropriately and I feel I have the leverage to exert positive influence without undue risk to myself - and my sex has nothing to do with it. Yet my unwillingness or inability to do so at a given time is no reflection on my gender.

Gorfias:
A guy sees a pretty woman dressed and made up in ways that she knows/should know, will attract attention. He wants to talk her up. Another guy intercedes telling him, "not cool". Would you rather women wear burkas?

Uhh...Aren't you contradicting yourself there, bro?

When you say

A guy sees a pretty woman dressed and made up in ways that she knows/should know, will attract attention. He wants to talk her up.

You're implying that if she doesn't want random people to chat her up on the street, she shouldn't dress/makeup in ways that make her look attractive.

IE, that perhaps if she wants less attention, she should cover up.

And then you say

Would you rather women wear burkas?.

Which is, obviously, covering up. The whole reason for burkas is based on the concept of "preserving female modesty", IE, not attract male attention by looking attractive.

So which is it?

a) Is it the woman's responsibility to not get approached, and thus she should cover up/wear a burka?

Or b) is it the man's responsibility not to approach random attractive women on the street without knowing anything about the woman's availability or if she want to be approached?

Pretty sure it's b. If I wanted to chat up attractive women, I'd go to a club/bar/activity where women go, so I'd know they're likely to be open to being approached. I'm not going to bug a random girl on the street who I have no idea if they're on their way to a date with their boyfriend, or whatever else.

Xprimentyl:
Ok, this is where shines the ironic sensitivity of those who?re convinced that the sensitivity of everyone else is the problem.

What? Do not assume such things about those who take issue with this. There is no evidence of that.

The ad doesn?t assign responsibility to only men to police other men.

It actually does.

Are you seriously offended that a commercial might suggest it?s ok to tell a mongoloid buddy who?s harassing someone to settle the fuck down and that the alpha male bullshit has gotten stale?

Not at all. Nobody has expressed that it is a bad thing to do. What people take issue with is that men are being told they are responsible for the actions of other men because they are men.

You are correct, it?s not just men?s responsibility, but if men chilled out on it, 90% of the problem would be alleviated, so it makes a fair bit of sense to target the largest part of the issue in pursuit of ending the ENTIRE issue.

The people who need to stop doing this are not the type of people who will be convinced by a disposable razor add. The add is also not directed at them but at others who do not do this thing, and are then being told they are responsible for the actions of the harassing party because they share the same genital configuration.

This is as shallow as the misguided ?ALL Lives Matter? response; no one is saying ?men ONLY,? they?re saying ?men TOO;? two completely different messages, and responding to the latter as if it were the former shows a shallow, dismissive callousness that belittles the seriousness of the issue.

Nobody arguing here disagrees that sexual harassment or discrimination is wrong. That is the basis for why people take exception to the advertisement, that if it was directed at any other demographic's behavior it would be considered bigoted. Yet when males state "I am not okay with this message" they are immediately labelled pro-domestic abuse, pro-sexism, pro-discrimination.

Now that is the irony here.

Abomination:

Lil devils x:
As a woman, I have yet to hear a woman actually complain about being told that sitting there are doing nothing when someone else is being bullied is a bad thing. In fact, it is a constant running theme in chick flicks most popular " must watch" movies of all times as rated by girls.

Just because someone is not offended by something does not mean something is not offensive to someone else.

Just read the link in post 124 above to get an idea of how this is viewed by girls for the most part. I am sure the bullies may disagree with it, but I have yet to see anyone rage on it as men have here.

It is not "rage", so stop using such gendered language when a man is upset about something. I do not like being told that I am responsible for another person's actions because they have a penis and I have a penis. I disagree with the notion and find it offensive that I have an expectation placed on me because of my sex. That I have an obligation to potentially put myself in danger because I am male.

You know "Be a man". And then with the same breath, have the gall to accuse those who take umbrage with the message, that they are showing signs of toxic masculinity.

I will use my own judgement to confront individuals if I feel they are behaving inappropriately and I feel I have the leverage to exert positive influence without undue risk to myself - and my sex has nothing to do with it. Yet my unwillingness or inability to do so at a given time is no reflection on my gender.

In what way is rage in any way gendered? My personal mental image with the word "rage" is that of a petite long black haired girl with raccoon eyeliner goth dressed screaming at the top of her lungs because someone was playing Garth Brooks too loud. It s one of my "go to" words to express anger, and although I associate it with a female likely because I am female, it is not " gendered" in any way and can apply to anyone who is pissed about someone playing garth brooks in the other room, including myself. So yes, let's use " rage" as it is no where near a "gendered" word. Yea, I think you are overreacting just a tad because if it is okay for girls to tell other girls to not be a an ass it is okay to tell other guys to not be an ass and if that offends you, maybe it is your issue, not anyone else's at that point.

Of course humans are responsible for what they allow to happen in their presence, it isn't like we should all suffer from " bystander effect" and let the world go to shat since no one will find the courage to respond because they want to kick the can to the next person expecting them to do it instead. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/bystander-effect

We have a responsibility to create the world we want to live in and we do that by not expecting others to do instead of us. EVERYONE, not just men have this responsibility BTW, they are just asking men to do so as well. Like they said in mean girls,

"There are two kinds of evil people: people who do evil stuff, and people who see evil stuff being done and don't try to stop it" - Janis

Although they portray GIRLS doing this and target GIRLS with this message it is clearly meant for everyone, just like the Gillette AD. The mother holding her child to protect them from bullying is doing nothing to help them eh? It is not just men who were portrayed in the AD trying to do something to help if you hadn't noticed.

Abomination:
]Nobody arguing here disagrees that sexual harassment or discrimination is wrong. That is the basis for why people take exception to the advertisement, that if it was directed at any other demographic's behavior it would be considered bigoted. Yet when males state "I am not okay with this message" they are immediately labelled pro-domestic abuse, pro-sexism, pro-discrimination.

Now that is the irony here.

I dunno man. I see a couple of people complaining that the ad is shaming them for talking to women, kind of seems to me like some people equate acting in a harassing way with how men show attraction.

Gorfias:
A guy sees a pretty woman dressed and made up in ways that she knows/should know, will attract attention. He wants to talk her up. Another guy intercedes telling him, "not cool". Would you rather women wear burkas?

Kerg3927:
It says a dude who sees a pretty girl can't get excited and go talk to her, even though women often dress the way they do and wear makeup precisely to elicit that sort of a reaction from men. For most people, that behavior is part of being human.

Also, men talking about what women want from the way that they dress. Man oh man do we live in progressive times. I think these comments right here just proved that the ad was needed. Seriously. You two. This may blow your mind. Women are not fucking thinking about you when they get dressed unless they clarify it.

Also, it would be considered insulting IF the person had no idea what they were talking about. Speaking as a man who has been abused and seen friends abused from this crap, the ad is talking about things that are very real and need to be solved, so it knows what it's talking about. But it seems like men, well, just aren't interested. (That and they're interested in equating harassment with sex overall)

As it stands, I'm a white male seeing an ad about not being an abusive asshole, stopping abusive assholes when you see it, and I'm scratching my head wondering why everyone else is flipping the fuck out.

aegix drakan:

Gorfias:
A guy sees a pretty woman dressed and made up in ways that she knows/should know, will attract attention. He wants to talk her up. Another guy intercedes telling him, "not cool". Would you rather women wear burkas?

Uhh...Aren't you contradicting yourself there, bro?

When you say

A guy sees a pretty woman dressed and made up in ways that she knows/should know, will attract attention. He wants to talk her up.

You're implying that if she doesn't want random people to chat her up on the street, she shouldn't dress/makeup in ways that make her look attractive.

IE, that perhaps if she wants less attention, she should cover up.

And then you say

Would you rather women wear burkas?.

Which is, obviously, covering up. The whole reason for burkas is based on the concept of "preserving female modesty", IE, not attract male attention by looking attractive.

So which is it?

a) Is it the woman's responsibility to not get approached, and thus she should cover up/wear a burka?

Or b) is it the man's responsibility not to approach random attractive women on the street without knowing anything about the woman's availability or if she want to be approached?

Pretty sure it's b. If I wanted to chat up attractive women, I'd go to a club/bar/activity where women go, so I'd know they're likely to be open to being approached. I'm not going to bug a random girl on the street who I have no idea if they're on their way to a date with their boyfriend, or whatever else.

Seriously, it is the whole ignorant perspective that a woman dresses for a man because of the view that women exist to serve/ please men rather than the fact that most women dress in what they like for their OWN pleasure and how they view themselves. This entire male POV being imposed upon a female is so screwed up in so many ways. Why are guys so arrogant to think that a woman even remotely thinks about them when she is picking out what she wants to wear? I like to wear short floral mini dresses and babydoll type sundresses the vast majority of the time. It has ZERO to do with men. I find the idea that a guy would think that I picked out my clothes because I want them to harass me as disturbing and frightening and it honestly makes me feel like they are trying to terrorize women to bully us into covering up in an attempt to make them stop, although the opposite has been shown to be true when we do.

Although I should not feel obligated to tell people why I choose to wear what I wear, I will do so only to enlighten them on what might actually be going through a girls mind when dressing since some of these guys have NO FUCKING CLUE why a girl dresses.

I don't like to wear much clothing period. I feel like I am suffocating and the second I shut the door and lock it I get that shat off of me like I am on fire. I usually wear one item of clothing around the house and that is it because of COMFORT. I don't like blankets, I don't like sweaters, I HATE SOCKS, I HATE PANTS even if I am freezing , if my toes are covered by blankets I feel like I am buried beneath 15 ft of bedrock and am trying to claw my way out. I like lightweight floral clothing because it makes me feel good, it is comfortable and I find the floral patterns pretty. I live my life with a song in my heart and wake up cheerful, my spring colored florals and ivory dresses reflect my personality. If I decide to wear lip gloss or makeup that day it is for me, not some random creeper. Although I do not usually wear much makeup, when I do I try to match my skintones, hair or flowers on my dress not to impress some dude that I don't even realize exists. I dress because this is what I like and this is what makes me happy, and I think others usually do the same. We ( girls) do not exist to serve men and they really really need to get it out of their heads that our thought process on what we do or wear has anything to do with them, outside of shopping for mace.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here