That would be a matter of opinion.
I say mine is cromulent.
The parody commercial makes another.
It appears that you disagree.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Gillette Commercial
- Thread starter Shaka
- Start date
I say mine is cromulent.
The parody commercial makes another.
It appears that you disagree.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
It's as if they see masculinity and maturity as being mutually exclusive.
Curious George
Veteran Member
What would it take for you to intervene in a situation? If you intervene to address another males behavior, are you a "defender of women?"
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
If bullying and mistreating and bullying of women were done by Muslims, then social justice warriors would excuse this as part of these Muslims' Islamic culture. However, if mistreating and bullying of women were done by white Anglo-Saxon men, then social justice warriors would consider this to be a grave immoral injustice towards women.
Too bad, Muslim men don't shave off their beards; otherwise, this Gillette commercial could be done with Muslims.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Any "SJW" who thinks the misogyny of Muslims should get a pass are hypocritical pieces of ****, but exactly how common is this view and what does it have to do with the Gillette commercial?
I can't give you criteria off hand.
I can think of situations where I have though, both with males & females,
straight & gay. Question...
Why should only males intervene with their ilk when only females would benefit?
I see a more general approach, ie, males or females should intervene whenever
they feel called to reproach misbehavior by anyone of any gender. I find this
useful particularly in the workplace, dealing with sexual impropriety, bullying,
fighting, attire, etc.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Fortunately for Muslims, they don't shave their body, so they are spared from getting lectured by any Gillette razor commercials.
I've known many Muslims who do shave though.
Salvador
RF's Swedenborgian
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
Unfortunately for Muslims, they were randomly shoehorned into the debate.
The guys don't wear them. They clearly shave their face.Why do they bother shaving if they wear burkas? ...
As for Muslim women shaving....I have no knowledge of that.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
I find nothing wrong with calling out bad behaviors and modeling good behaviors in their place. "Boys will be boys" is a lame excuse, and it's good to model the guy breaking up the boys fighting, it's good the one guy restrained his friend from harassing women, and it's good to point out kids need good role models because today's boys are tomorrow's men, and they need guidance not excuses.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
By the very definition boys are not men and men are not boys. Boy are physically and mentally immature. Men have a mature body and mind, and we should expect them to behave and act like it.
I think it really depends on the context, and since this issue has gotten a lot of attention in the past couple of years, it's perceived in that light.
I don't think that anyone is arguing that bullying and mistreating women are an essential part of being a "real man."
However, I think that men often strive to be good examples to their kids. Back in the day, it used to be known as "teaching them to behave like gentlemen." Westerns were the favorite film/TV genre, and those were full of stories of standing up to bullying and the mistreatment of women. But it was presented more in a way of "this is what real men do," not so much in the sense of "we must stand against toxic masculinity." It's not so much that the overall message of the video was wrong, but I think some might take issue with how it was presented.
I think some people might take issue that there is some implied collective responsibility that all men must share, just because they're men. It doesn't imply collective guilt, but it does suggest that men should take responsibility for policing other men...just because. Many men would prefer not to be cajoled or shamed into telling other men what to do, and most would prefer to leave criminal matters in the hands of proper authorities.
The Gillette ad wasn't really that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things, but I think it's yet another example of how much of a communication breakdown there is in this country when it comes to public discourse over matters like this.
Curious George
Veteran Member
And did you consider ypurself a "defender of women" for it?
Who ever suggested just males should intervene?
I defend people (which includes women).
I'd never limit my values & defenses on the basis of gender.
Would you?
Gillette.
Curious George
Veteran Member
No, but it was you who saw men intervening on the behalf of women and boys and assumed they were cast as "the defenders of women."
That is just it, they never said such. They didn't even imply such.
This is the point where we agree to have different inferences.
But isn't this exactly why X wave feminism exists?
I mean, just switch "anti-feminist" with "anti-masculine" and it's amazing how well that shoe fits. I'm not down with the haters, I don't care if they call themselves MRA's, feminists, or whatever. There was certainly a time in the past when women in the west lacked equality of opportunity, but that was before I was even born. It's no time in my lifetime, so it's unlikely that it's been the case in any time in the lives of anyone else in this forum. Maybe if someone around here is 80+ years old... maybe... lol
Curious George
Veteran Member
Aye, another point where I walk away believing you are mistaken.