It's more accurate to describe it as a social issue. I find that oftentimes when people accuse a position of being "political" or "politically motivated", the insinuation is "this isn't actually about strong feelings on the issue as much as it is an attempt to assume some form of control". I don't really see that here, no do I see any specific endorsement of a political ideology. I see acknowledgement of a sociological phenomenon and a stance on it, and I see no justification to necessarily label the position "political".
Well, I suppose we see the word "political" in different ways. If one sees politics as beginning with the "social contract," then it would seem incongruous to separate "social" from "political" in this way. Any human interaction where people might disagree, or wherever it requires discussion, persuasion, debate, negotiation, and/or compromise can be deemed "political," at least in one form or another.
But you can be a part of the debate, set an example or help to provide a solution to a problem rather than being part of a group that would do none of those things. You're under no obligation to change anybody else's attitude or behaviour than your own, but a change in how individuals view themselves and their attitudes necessarily affects the group's actions and attitudes. If more men speak out for women and social issues, it becomes more acceptable for men to do so.
Of course, one can be a part of the debate, but there are multiple sides and points of view involved. I would only object to the notion that there's one acceptable way to address the problem and the insinuation that every man must walk in lockstep behind it (or else risk being labeled or told that they're "doing nothing").
Because there is no specifically political message. Which party is it endorsing? What legislation is it endorsing?
It doesn't have to address a political party in order to be political. Same for legislation, although there may be some proposals out there related to the overall topic. Then, of course, there have been court cases. Anything that involves the government (including and especially the judiciary) is, by definition, political. What else can it be?
Only if those people take it unnecessarily personally rather than accept it for what it is - an acknowledgement that - in general - this is an issue with a larger group through which individual responsibility is part. It in no way implies that "all men" are the problem, it is merely encouraging men, as a group, to be part of the solution rather than - what is historically and socially true - a big part of the problem. If you feel you aren't subject to these generalizations, what is there to be offended by? It's simply encouraging more men to be like you.
I never said I was offended by it all. I'm just saying that I can understand why some men are. Why can't you understand it?
People do it with other groups all the time. What you have to remember is that this message is also coming from an industry which is lead by a majority of men.
Yeah, Trump has done it quite a bit (such as statements about Mexicans and Muslims), and look at how such statements are received. And I can also understand why many people are reacting negatively to what he says.
So you believe that there is no widespread anti-feminist sentiment?
That wasn't the question. You were talking about avoidance of the issue, not opposition to feminism. Those who express anti-feminist sentiments have reasons for doing so, depending on which brand of feminism they take issue with. As I've been told numerous times (by feminists themselves), there are many varied types of feminism, and as a result, its opposition comes in many forms.
And by the way, feminism is also political.
No mass threats sent to feminist critics, alleged victims of rape, no complete denial of rape culture or the concept of toxic masculinity?
I'm not advocating or endorsing any threats here. Where the law has been broken, it should be punished appropriately. All I'm really saying is that there are multiple sides to this issue, and no one should assume that they hold a monopoly on truth.
There's also a great deal of toxicity coming from multiple sides.
No, the fact that so many men avoid the issue and aren't willing to take a stance (or take a stance on the side of people who abuse women) is evidence of it.
All you're stating here is your own personal opinion and perception. That, in and of itself, does not constitute evidence of anything.
And yet it happens - en masse - throughout the world, and we still live in a society where merely mentioning being a feminist is met with outright hostility from thousands, if not millions, of men and that this behaviour is largely excused and goes unchallenged. We still live in a society that is feeling the effects of thousands of years of strict, patriarchal systems, and ignoring that fact and pretending that men say they want to protect women so it's not a societal issue is misguided. The fact is that women aren't being afforded the same protections by society as men are, and the attitudes, actions and indifference of men play a role in that, and denying their is a problem plays a role in that too.
I can see that you're trying to convince me that there's "only one true way" of looking at this issue and that your perception is somehow more valid than mine or anyone else's who might weigh in on this issue. Since it's been a prominent issue in the public eye for quite some time now (even going as far back as the Anita Hill hearings and even before), it seems quite evident that such behavior
is being addressed and challenged to a large degree.
Sometimes it even goes too far in the other direction. I heard of a recent incident in which an elderly man was attacked on the subway because some woman
thought he was taking inappropriate pictures of her (which he wasn't).
The bottom line is that society can't protect everyone from every bad thing that might happen. We can do the best we can, try to enforce the law and punish the bad guys without embracing a lynch mob mentality. But merely pointing out the times when we fail in that regard - that just by itself does not mean that all these millions of men are "doing nothing" or "avoiding the problem."
Is it possible that it's pointless to talk about a solution if you're going to ignore the societal problem and the ways in which men play a role in perpetuating it and refusing to do something about it?
It's not a question of anyone ignoring the problem. It's just that there may be different views as to what the source of the problem might be. Even if we agree that the problem is "toxic masculinity," then we still have to define the problem and rationally examine where, exactly, that problem comes from. And I don't think it's just men playing a role in perpetuating it. There are women who play a role in it to, such as those who "can't resist the bad boys." Women have a prominent role in all of this as well, and to deny it would be foolish and does nothing to address the issue at hand.
I don't think "one true way" is what this advert (or the broader movement) is trying to say. It's encouraging men to identify the ways in which their individual behaviour may be contributing towards a broader social trend, and asking them to be more understanding in regards to how said behaviour affects both women - in general - and a societal expectation of men. There is no specific solution proposed, just a plea to be more mindful of our behaviour and its negative impact. Something that, despite any protest to the contrary, is a serious problem at the moment.
Sure, and I think the vast majority of men mind their manners and try their best to behave themselves in public. In the end, regarding the behaviors and outright crimes being addressed here, we're only talking about a relatively small percentage of men - a few bad apples. No matter how hard we try, as men and as a society overall, there's always going to be a few.
Only insomuch as people dismiss it merely by the accusation of it being political, rather than engage with the actual debate it is alluding to.
But what is the actual debate here? What is the proposition being advanced, and who is taking the "pro" versus "against" position? There is no "accusation" of being political. It's just an observation of how people approach the issue.
But the discussion is explicitly about men's apathy and ignoring of the issue, and the generalized, unjustified dismissal of it with the label of it being "political" is part of that issue.
It's not that men are apathetic about it, nor are they ignoring it. Maybe some are, but many are seeing that the issue is going in circles merely because it's more important for some people to lump the innocent in with the guilty rather than focusing their efforts on solely going after the guilty.
What reason could there possibly be for reacting so violently against an advert simply asking men to be more understanding and responsive to women and their own negative behaviour towards them?
There could be plenty of reasons, if only you'd be willing to listen to others rather than talking at people and trying to convince that your perceptions are right and that everyone else is wrong.
If there are legitimate criticisms to be made, why are there none in this very thread, where people are simply dismissing the advert as "political" and aren't even making an attempt to express any kind of understanding or point of view?
Well, you might say that they're not "legitimate" criticisms, but I don't see you as being the ultimate judge and jury on that question.
Point of order here: I understand and agree that rape is bad. I understand and agree that sexual harassment is bad. I understand and agree that abuse of women is bad. I know that these problems exist, and I'm not denying them or avoiding the issue. I think any man who does these things to women should be punished to the full extent of the law. That's about the extent that any man can possibly do, without forming lynch mobs or resorting to vigilante justice. What more can a man possibly do?
You say it's unfair that this is an assumption made by one group, without acknowledging that this very thread itself is designed as a way to ignore and dismiss the issue. If you have valid criticisms, raise a thread about that and write in depth about your position and explain it. As it stands, that's not really happened. Your reaction was to start a thread dismissing the advert in a tone intended to appeal almost exclusively with people who would already agree with and take your position. You're not challenging anything, just perpetuating an attitude that essentially ignores any actual discourse on the subject at all.
I've done all that, have I? You can read my mind now? You know all this for certain?
