Gillette

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by TinyEvel

Not sure why all the hate for this. Are you saying we as a society should condone bullying or guys grabbing a woman’s ass? That it’s okay to let people keep other people down, or to not consider how, in a meeting, our own assertion to be heard, or right, is more important than letting another person speak?

Is it you disagree with the message? Or the message is valid but shouldn’t be coming from a razor company.

But if Gillette didn’t say it, who would? Sure, female politicians in California, okay. But Gillette as a brand has the right to say this, in my opinion, as a male oriented brand. No less a right than Budweiser can say be a fan of a certain team, or P&G can say that moms should support kid’s sports.

They’re leading by example, saying speak up. And the reactions are proof that it’s a relevant and necessary message. You can choose to buy or not buy their razors, they know that. This takes balls on their behalf, and in my opinion one of the greatest measures of being a man: use your strength to help others.

Allow me to propose a criticism that is about something other than 'too PC.'

While you might applaud the particular aims of these suggested responses [stopping kids from roughhousing, restraining an ogler or a groper] they are STILL patriarchal.

It's not progress to simply replace one set of stereotypes with another.
The 'old' mindset is supposedly that the only people who are harmed by horseplay or ogling are wimps or bitches who don't matter anyway. But this 'new' mindset assumes that people can never derive enjoyment or growth through any of this 'unwelcomed' activity.

But the horseplay and bullying and the ogling and the groping and the remarks, and all that, . . . are still between two individuals who ARE NOT YOU. You are by definition stereotyping and exercising privilege when you step into a situation between two individuals and state 'hey, I'm bigger and stronger than all of you, and I think that your interpersonal reactions should be like xxx'

You have no way of knowing what the inner monologues of the actual participants in the event are, but Gillette call upon you to be a referee anyway. Those who propose this cannot envision anyone in a physical scrap as anything but an aggressor and a terrified recipient, and cannot envision anyone involved in flirting as anything other than a predator and a terrified prey.

Clearly there comes a point where additional evidence accumulates, where a kid is clearly being bested and hurt, or where a woman is clearly receiving emotional damage without the interpersonal skills to handle the moment on her own. And at that point, your tactful intervention might be called for.

But this campaign isn't about being tactful and situationally aware, it's a backlash to underutilized patriarchy demanding that instead that same patriarchy be abused in 'good ways,' in ways that make the critics more comfortable.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Allow me to propose a criticism that is about something other than 'too PC.'

While you might applaud the particular aims of these suggested responses [stopping kids from roughhousing, restraining an ogler or a groper] they are STILL patriarchal.

It's not progress to simply replace one set of stereotypes with another.
The 'old' mindset is supposedly that the only people who are harmed by horseplay or ogling are wimps or bitches who don't matter anyway. But this 'new' mindset assumes that people can never derive enjoyment or growth through any of this 'unwelcomed' activity.

But the horseplay and bullying and the ogling and the groping and the remarks, and all that, . . . are still between two individuals who ARE NOT YOU. You are by definition stereotyping and exercising privilege when you step into a situation between two individuals and state 'hey, I'm bigger and stronger than all of you, and I think that your interpersonal reactions should be like xxx'

You have no way of knowing what the inner monologues of the actual participants in the event are, but Gillette call upon you to be a referee anyway. Those who propose this cannot envision anyone in a physical scrap as anything but an aggressor and a terrified recipient, and cannot envision anyone involved in flirting as anything other than a predator and a terrified prey.

Clearly there comes a point where additional evidence accumulates, where a kid is clearly being bested and hurt, or where a woman is clearly receiving emotional damage without the interpersonal skills to handle the moment on her own. And at that point, your tactful intervention might be called for.

But this campaign isn't about being tactful and situationally aware, it's a backlash to underutilized patriarchy demanding that instead that same patriarchy be abused in 'good ways,' in ways that make the critics more comfortable.

THANK YOU.

[SuperChief]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Allow me to propose a criticism that is about something other than 'too PC.'

While you might applaud the particular aims of these suggested responses [stopping kids from roughhousing, restraining an ogler or a groper] they are STILL patriarchal.

It's not progress to simply replace one set of stereotypes with another.
The 'old' mindset is supposedly that the only people who are harmed by horseplay or ogling are wimps or bitches who don't matter anyway. But this 'new' mindset assumes that people can never derive enjoyment or growth through any of this 'unwelcomed' activity.

But the horseplay and bullying and the ogling and the groping and the remarks, and all that, . . . are still between two individuals who ARE NOT YOU. You are by definition stereotyping and exercising privilege when you step into a situation between two individuals and state 'hey, I'm bigger and stronger than all of you, and I think that your interpersonal reactions should be like xxx'

You have no way of knowing what the inner monologues of the actual participants in the event are, but Gillette call upon you to be a referee anyway. Those who propose this cannot envision anyone in a physical scrap as anything but an aggressor and a terrified recipient, and cannot envision anyone involved in flirting as anything other than a predator and a terrified prey.

Clearly there comes a point where additional evidence accumulates, where a kid is clearly being bested and hurt, or where a woman is clearly receiving emotional damage without the interpersonal skills to handle the moment on her own. And at that point, your tactful intervention might be called for.

But this campaign isn't about being tactful and situationally aware, it's a backlash to underutilized patriarchy demanding that instead that same patriarchy be abused in 'good ways,' in ways that make the critics more comfortable.

You're turning obvious cultural black and whites into grey areas - for what purpose? Why conflate the issue at hand - reinforcing positive cultural norms? Why play devil's advocate on THAT? smh

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by SuperChief

You're turning obvious cultural black and whites into grey areas - for what purpose? Why conflate the issue at hand - reinforcing positive cultural norms? Why play devil's advocate on THAT? smh

Because the 'grey areas' exist regardless of whether they are beneficial to your black and white solution or not.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Because the 'grey areas' exist regardless of whether they are beneficial to your black and white solution or not.

I like your use of the word "solution", FWIW.

[Easy 6]

PC garbage, DJLN nails it again

Won't be buying refill cartridges for my Mach 5