The best that men can get..

[Ostroeuropa]

Any notion of balance in norm enforcement is an absurdity at this point. Any balance that existed is a historical phenomena that feminism has erased through its criticism and policing of men enforcing norms on women, either from the outset or at some point where some threshhold was crossed. It's like people are afraid of drawing the obvious conclusion about what it means that men have a 200 year head start on discourse of how not to be a sexist.

Women have five times higher in group bias. They, on average, believe irrational things like "If I am good, my gender must be good" that men on average do not. This advert with its focus and the social context it arises in are a product of this dynamic and a continuation of it, and it is one of the reasons it is not a suitable advert to facilitate positive social change. It arises in the context of continual affirmation of women and encouragement for them to take more and more power without criticism of how they use that power despite escalating problems there, and constant denigration and criticism of men and how they contribute to this problem.

They are not the primary contributors to this problem. They are not even close. Not anymore.

This advert absolves the primary perpetrators of their responsibility and obligation and miscasts it. It is as irresponsible as an advert that portrayed murder of whites as a primarily black phenomena and urged them to stop in the context of a society who believed that was the case despite overwhelming statistical evidence to the contrary.

Moreover, because it frames this as a social obligation present on men without being critical of the feminist narrative, it ignores that men often lack the means and opportunities to to so due to child custody bias and so on. This means that future instances of the negative behavior will be blamed on men failing to fulfill obligations that they were not able to fulfill due to institutional sexism against them which continues to go uncriticized, akin to an advert encouraging the poor to invest in their communities to fix poverty.

Indeed, we know the behaviors on display correlate strongly with a lack of father involvement. Men cannot intervene if they are not allowed to be present.

[Seangoli]

Or we could go the Human Behavioral Ecology route, and argue thst implies they are signalling to females about their potential fitness through presenting a greater ability to achieve social cohesiveness than other males. A desirable trait, as those males more capable of existing and maintaining social cohesion are seen as having stronger networks than with other individuals with less ability to do so.

Which is still the same thing, incidentally. If they feel compelled to make these signals to women, it's because they think women will find these signals desirable. And, if you go the evolutionary aspect, this is because women have done so in the past and therefore we bred to comply with that result.

So it just moves which women are doing the norm enforcement.

You could just as easily argue that males influenced this sort of norm enforcement behavior in females, as females having constant norm enforcement would allow them to more readily impress useful or desirable information on children. This, in turn, is a desirable trait to makes, as it increases the likelihood that their children survive, leading to thisnsort of femake behavior to be selected for.

Trying to argue that one side or the other is the "real" enforcer of norms utterly misses the point, fundamentally misunderstands how culture works, and gets into a ridiculous chicken-or-egg argument that goes nowhere, fast. It's a lot more nuanced than that, with both sexes influencing each other in varying ways, and both playing their part in creating, morphing, and enforcing norms, even if the methods of doung so are different.

[Galloism]

Which is still the same thing, incidentally. If they feel compelled to make these signals to women, it's because they think women will find these signals desirable. And, if you go the evolutionary aspect, this is because women have done so in the past and therefore we bred to comply with that result.

So it just moves which women are doing the norm enforcement.

You could just as easily argue that males influenced this sort of norm enforcement behavior in females, as females having constant norm enforcement would allow them to more readily impress useful or desirable information on children. This, in turn, is a desirable trait to makes, as it increases the likelihood that their children survive, leading to thisnsort of femake behavior to be selected for.

Trying to argue that one side or the other is the "real" enforcer of norms utterly misses the point, fundamentally misunderstands how culture works, and gets into a ridiculous chicken-or-egg argument that goes nowhere, fast. It's a lot more nuanced than that, with both sexes influencing each other in varying ways, and both playing their part in creating, morphing, and enforcing norms, even if the methods of doung so are different.

So the Scooby Doo villain was right all along - it was the meddling kids.

So maybe, just maybe we shouldn't expect one sex to do all the work towards correcting it and fixing it?

[Seangoli]

You could just as easily argue that males influenced this sort of norm enforcement behavior in females, as females having constant norm enforcement would allow them to more readily impress useful or desirable information on children. This, in turn, is a desirable trait to makes, as it increases the likelihood that their children survive, leading to thisnsort of femake behavior to be selected for.

Trying to argue that one side or the other is the "real" enforcer of norms utterly misses the point, fundamentally misunderstands how culture works, and gets into a ridiculous chicken-or-egg argument that goes nowhere, fast. It's a lot more nuanced than that, with both sexes influencing each other in varying ways, and both playing their part in creating, morphing, and enforcing norms, even if the methods of doung so are different.

So the Scooby Doo villain was right all along - it was the meddling kids.

So maybe, just maybe we shouldn't expect one sex to do all the work towards correcting it and fixing it?

That's actually a fair point, amd kne I don't disagree with i the least.

[Galloism]

So the Scooby Doo villain was right all along - it was the meddling kids.

So maybe, just maybe we shouldn't expect one sex to do all the work towards correcting it and fixing it?

That's actually a fair point, amd kne I don't disagree with i the least.

Except that's not our society. Women are never asked to combat sexism as women. The general sexism of women is never addressed in broad group fashion like this.

Not fucking ever.

I'm pretty ok with lots of visions of equality. Calling out both men and women as groups - fine. Don't call out either men and women as groups - fine.

But don't tell me we can only call out men as a group but never call out women as a group and call that equality. This is an expression of a wider societal trend to call out and demonize men as a group, which is something we do not accept when it comes to women.

[Seangoli]

That's actually a fair point, amd kne I don't disagree with i the least.

Except that's not our society. Women are never asked to combat sexism as women. The general sexism of women is never addressed in broad group fashion like this.

Not fucking ever.

I'm pretty ok with lots of visions of equality. Calling out both men and women as groups - fine. Don't call out either men and women as groups - fine.

But don't tell me we can only call out men as a group but never call out women as a group and call that equality. This is an expression of a wider societal trend to call out and demonize men as a group, which is something we do not accept when it comes to women.

As a general point, I reject the Oppression Olympics and a deside to show that one side is somehow more oppressed than the other, one side has it better, one side does it more. Frankly, I find the entire notion that one side has it fundamentally worse to be completely wrong, and requires one to ignore a lot of nuance.

Men and women suffer in different, often completely unrelated, ways due to social pressures and cultural stereotypes. Whether one is worse than the other is not only difficult to answer honestly, it is impossible to compare them directly. In many ways Men have it worse due to specific cultural norms and expectations towards men and in other women have worse for a different subset of norms and expectations. I don't view it as particularly useful to get into arguments about who has it worse.

And I see women called out quite often, as well.

[Galloism]

Except that's not our society. Women are never asked to combat sexism as women. The general sexism of women is never addressed in broad group fashion like this.

Not fucking ever.

I'm pretty ok with lots of visions of equality. Calling out both men and women as groups - fine. Don't call out either men and women as groups - fine.

But don't tell me we can only call out men as a group but never call out women as a group and call that equality. This is an expression of a wider societal trend to call out and demonize men as a group, which is something we do not accept when it comes to women.

As a general point, I reject the Oppression Olympics and a deside to show that one side is somehow more oppressed than the other, one side has it better, one side does it more. Frankly, I find the entire notion that one side has it fundamentally worse to be completely wrong, and requires one to ignore a lot of nuance.

Men and women suffer in different, often completely unrelated, ways due to social pressures and cultural stereotypes. Whether one is worse than the other is not only difficult to answer honestly, it is impossible to compare them directly. In many ways Men have it worse due to specific cultural norms and expectations towards men and in other women have worse for a different subset of norms and expectations. I don't view it as particularly useful to get into arguments about who has it worse.

And I see women called out quite often, as well.

Please link to any company making an ad that calls out women for shitty sexist behavior and calling on women to police other women's sexism. Ever.

You can go back to 1941 - the invention of the TV advertisement.

And i'm not talking oppression olympics. I'm talking we need to treat people equally.

A radical notion these days, I know.

[The Black Forrest]

That's actually a fair point, amd kne I don't disagree with i the least.

Except that's not our society. Women are never asked to combat sexism as women. The general sexism of women is never addressed in broad group fashion like this.

Not fucking ever.

I'm pretty ok with lots of visions of equality. Calling out both men and women as groups - fine. Don't call out either men and women as groups - fine.

But don't tell me we can only call out men as a group but never call out women as a group and call that equality. This is an expression of a wider societal trend to call out and demonize men as a group, which is something we do not accept when it comes to women.

Ok. Bare with me as in am not following you in full. I am taking this as pointing back to the ad. So a series of questions.

Women haven't been on an equal footing until recent times. How would they combat sexism if they are not equal? For example that bit in the ad where the guy touches the womans shoulder and says "what she really means...." How would she be treated if she spoke against that in the meeting? Anyway, my wife said she has been on the receiving end of that a couple times.

Demonetization of men? Is that what you are taking from the ad? The "boys will be boys" message is rather interesting you have to admit. My familes previous generation still uses that phrase. Society implies it as well as you have seen with the brock turner case. Don't get me wrong. I have seen "those evil men" type of comments and they should be weighed and ignored if they prove silly. Just like comments about feminists the evil women comments that are usually made.

One message I took from that ad is that men should be more involved with the raising of children. Many do. Way more then the last generation. There are many that still don't. My wifes cousin has three. One with severe mental disabilities. Her husband helps a little but views most of the work to be done by her. His son can be called a little bastard. I have seen it myself as he tries jackassery on me at family events. I close that down quick. My wife mentioned it to her cousin and a series of comments which basically could be summed up as "boys will be boys" was given.

Would the ad radiate with the husband? Hmmmm probably not and he would be with the group calling it BS. He is a bit of an ass anyway. Get's upset when football is on and the kids aren't being quiet.

Will the problem be solved? Possibly. Probably driven by the fact men can't really be the sole breadwinner anymore. Are women who have to work as well expected to also take care of the house and the kids? Not as much well at least in my neck of the woods. It varies between households.

I guess the answer is to listen to the message and evaluating it rather then only looking for faults and how they are attempted to assign blame.

I don't know. I didn't see the ad saying those bastard males!

[The Black Forrest]

As a general point, I reject the Oppression Olympics and a deside to show that one side is somehow more oppressed than the other, one side has it better, one side does it more. Frankly, I find the entire notion that one side has it fundamentally worse to be completely wrong, and requires one to ignore a lot of nuance.

Men and women suffer in different, often completely unrelated, ways due to social pressures and cultural stereotypes. Whether one is worse than the other is not only difficult to answer honestly, it is impossible to compare them directly. In many ways Men have it worse due to specific cultural norms and expectations towards men and in other women have worse for a different subset of norms and expectations. I don't view it as particularly useful to get into arguments about who has it worse.

And I see women called out quite often, as well.

Please link to any company making an ad that calls out women for shitty sexist behavior and calling on women to police other women's sexism. Ever.

What shitty sexist behavior would that be?

[Galloism]

Except that's not our society. Women are never asked to combat sexism as women. The general sexism of women is never addressed in broad group fashion like this.

Not fucking ever.

I'm pretty ok with lots of visions of equality. Calling out both men and women as groups - fine. Don't call out either men and women as groups - fine.

But don't tell me we can only call out men as a group but never call out women as a group and call that equality. This is an expression of a wider societal trend to call out and demonize men as a group, which is something we do not accept when it comes to women.

Ok. Bare with me as in am not following you in full. I am taking this as pointing back to the ad. So a series of questions.

Women haven't been on an equal footing until recent times. How would they combat sexism if they are not equal?

Even as far back as the suffragettes and anti-suffragettes, they recognized that they were the primary enforcers of social norms, and one of the concerns raised by the anti-suffragettes was that giving women the franchise would remove women's position as being the moral authority that transcends petty politics.

For example that bit in the ad where the guy touches the womans shoulder and says "what she really means...." How would she be treated if she spoke against that in the meeting? Anyway, my wife said she has been on the receiving end of that a couple times.

I've been on the receiving end of this by women and men at the very least dozens of times, if not over a hundred.

Then again, sometimes I explain in a manner that's sometimes too technical and I recognize this. It's a personal failing.

Demonetization of men?

I actually went back and read my post to see if I typoed this.

Is that what you are taking from the ad? The "boys will be boys" message is rather interesting you have to admit. My familes previous generation still uses that phrase. Society implies it as well as you have seen with the brock turner case. Don't get me wrong. I have seen "those evil men" type of comments and they should be weighed and ignored if they prove silly. Just like comments about feminists the evil women comments that are usually made.

The ad portrays this as a general male behavior that's either performed or excused by most, specifically saying that "some" already are good people. This is not substantially different than Trump's statement regarding Mexicans. It portrays this as the "norm" among men as a group, with decency being "the exception".

One message I took from that ad is that men should be more involved with the raising of children. Many do. Way more then the last generation. There are many that still don't. My wifes cousin has three. One with severe mental disabilities. Her husband helps a little but views most of the work to be done by her. His son can be called a little bastard. I have seen it myself as he tries jackassery on me at family events. I close that down quick. My wife mentioned it to her cousin and a series of comments which basically could be summed up as "boys will be boys" was given.

Would the ad radiate with the husband? Hmmmm probably not and he would be with the group calling it BS. He is a bit of an ass anyway. Get's upset when football is on and the kids aren't being quiet.

Will the problem be solved? Possibly. Probably driven by the fact men can't really be the sole breadwinner anymore. Are women who have to work as well expected to also take care of the house and the kids? Not as much well at least in my neck of the woods. It varies between households.

I guess the answer is to listen to the message and evaluating it rather then only looking for faults and how they are attempted to assign blame.

I don't know. I didn't see the ad saying those bastard males!

That's because we are reflexively ok with sexistly calling out men for behavior engaged in by both men and women. We get defensive when we talk about women that way.

And again, I'm a big fan of equality.

I would be happy to see more men involved in fatherhood. However, the implication of the ad is that fathers are excusing bad behavior and are overall bad fathers is bad, even if the exhortation is "you can do better".

IE, imagine an ad telling black people to stop excusing bad behavior for their black children, talks all about these horrible things black people do, and then follows up by exhorting them to do better. We wouldn't be near so generous.

[Galloism]

Please link to any company making an ad that calls out women for shitty sexist behavior and calling on women to police other women's sexism. Ever.

What shitty sexist behavior would that be?

Raping men, harassing men, sexually assaulting men, groping men, beating men, playing mind games with men, abusing children (male children especially - most child abuse against boys is committed by women). Murdering children, and I'm not talking about abortion. I'm talking about infanticide. Raping boys in school. Silencing men on the basis of their gender by using sexist terms like mansplaining. Yelling kill all men. Mocking men for complaining (calling them sissies, whiners, criticizing them crying, male tears, etc), much of which is on full display in regards to people complaining about this video (in a truly ironic fashion).

That's a good start. We can go on from there.

[West Leas Oros 2]

What shitty sexist behavior would that be?

Raping men, harassing men, sexually assaulting men, groping men, beating men, playing mind games with men, abusing children (male children especially - most child abuse against boys is committed by women). Murdering children, and I'm not talking about abortion. I'm talking about infanticide. Raping boys in school. Silencing men on the basis of their gender by using sexist terms like mansplaining. Yelling kill all men. Mocking men for complaining (calling them sissies, whiners, criticizing them crying, male tears, etc), much of which is on full display in regards to people complaining about this video (in a truly ironic fashion).

That's a good start. We can go on from there.

I think you ought.

[Valrifell]

Can't imagine a worse qualified corporation to try and talk about the issue. Because somehow the same company that implicitly claims their aftershave gets you swimming in pussy is in the position to talk down to their consumer base in this way.

[Tahar Joblis]

Which is still the same thing, incidentally. If they feel compelled to make these signals to women, it's because they think women will find these signals desirable. And, if you go the evolutionary aspect, this is because women have done so in the past and therefore we bred to comply with that result.

So it just moves which women are doing the norm enforcement.

You could just as easily argue that males influenced this sort of norm enforcement behavior in females, as females having constant norm enforcement would allow them to more readily impress useful or desirable information on children. This, in turn, is a desirable trait to makes, as it increases the likelihood that their children survive, leading to thisnsort of femake behavior to be selected for.

Trying to argue that one side or the other is the "real" enforcer of norms utterly misses the point, fundamentally misunderstands how culture works, and gets into a ridiculous chicken-or-egg argument that goes nowhere, fast. It's a lot more nuanced than that, with both sexes influencing each other in varying ways, and both playing their part in creating, morphing, and enforcing norms, even if the methods of doung so are different.

That's a stretch.

Here's the first big problem (and this is the same issue, by the way, that crops up when you try to posit that male mate-selection is why promiscuous women are viewed negatively): Men are not very picky when it comes to choosing women. I'm not saying men don't have preferences between women, but on the long scale, it's "successful men mate with very many women," to the point where you have significantly more female ancestors than male ancestors. On the scale of monogamous-normed behavior and men who are not on the Chinggis Khan model of gaining many women, women are highly selective (and parents picking out husbands for daughters are if anything even more selective) and that effect tends to dominate the total selection process.

Second, what men select on is well-studied, and it really tends to involve much more in terms of physical traits than social traits.

Social traits - status, group identity, affiliations, connections, wealth, class, et cetera - are in general traits that women use much more than men to select mates (and which women's parents used to select mates).

Third, norm enforcement behavior is often not a neutral third-party activity. Punishing someone to enforce social norms generally pushes them towards disliking you. Norm enforcement is controlling behavior, and there's no real evidence for men seeking out controlling women to marry.

Fourth, assigning responsibility on the evolutionary scale is sort of bizarre. I can construct a more plausible story assigning the responsibility for the phenomenon of men raping women to the collective evolutionary behavior of women, and everybody here would find it horrible.

Culture changes much faster than biology.

We can cook up stories to come up with a new way to blame men for women's behavior, but this one really doesn't hold up. There are two basically reasonable explanations for why, in the modern West, we see women enforcing social norms far more than men.

(1) Feminism has reduced male norm enforcement and led to a lopsided gender power dynamic that favors women over men. We can see in historical media men performing norm enforcement on women much more than they do today, and we can see directly the feminist backlash against almost any instance of a man trying to enforce a social norm on a woman.

Mind you, women enforce social norms on other women and on children even in the most patriarchal societies, so this isn't everything, and it's basically reasonable to conclude that women devoting more energy to norm enforcement has (2) something to do with basic biological tendencies, because most gendered differences in behavior turn out to be partly due to nature and partly due to nurture.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Can't imagine a worse qualified corporation to try and talk about the issue. Because somehow the same company that implicitly claims their aftershave gets you swimming in pussy is in the position to talk down to their consumer base in this way.

To be fair, literally every men's products company will sell you their stuff on the basis that it will score us some puss, so yeah.

[Valrifell]

Can't imagine a worse qualified corporation to try and talk about the issue. Because somehow the same company that implicitly claims their aftershave gets you swimming in pussy is in the position to talk down to their consumer base in this way.

To be fair, literally every men's products company will sell you their stuff on the basis that it will score us some puss, so yeah.

True, but as far as corporations who market themselves as "man's man's" company, Gillette is pretty up there with the likes of Axe.

This is just whiplash, tbh.

[Galloism]

Can't imagine a worse qualified corporation to try and talk about the issue. Because somehow the same company that implicitly claims their aftershave gets you swimming in pussy is in the position to talk down to their consumer base in this way.

To be fair, literally every men's products company will sell you their stuff on the basis that it will score us some puss, so yeah.

That's a separate, but super serious, problem by the way.

There's a social norm that men's worthiness is centered entirely around women's approval of them, and this is a major major problem.

[Saiwania]

Can't imagine a worse qualified corporation to try and talk about the issue. Because somehow the same company that implicitly claims their aftershave gets you swimming in pussy is in the position to talk down to their consumer base in this way.

This never ever happens, primarily because sex/courtship between people, is a competitive activity. If lying in marketing helps sales figures, of course this company is going to be incentivized to do whatever it is that maximizes profits, if this includes telling men that buying and using their product is going to increase their physical appeal or whatever.

People can never trust a salesperson because that job is inherently about saying or doing whatever it takes to make that sale happen. Its a different matter perhaps, if someone needs or wants the product in question anyways for one or more valid reasons; and is considering among what the market for it is offering.

[West Leas Oros 2]

To be fair, literally every men's products company will sell you their stuff on the basis that it will score us some puss, so yeah.

That's a separate, but super serious, problem by the way.

There's a social norm that men's worthiness is centered entirely around women's approval of them, and this is a major major problem.

And of course, many will claim that men are at fault for this “major major problem”.

[West Leas Oros 2]

To be fair, literally every men's products company will sell you their stuff on the basis that it will score us some puss, so yeah.

True, but as far as corporations who market themselves as "man's man's" company, Gillette is pretty up there with the likes of Axe.

This is just whiplash, tbh.

Are you saying this was a stupid business decision?

[Ostroeuropa]

Ok. Bare with me as in am not following you in full. I am taking this as pointing back to the ad. So a series of questions.

Women haven't been on an equal footing until recent times. How would they combat sexism if they are not equal?

This is a two dimensional view of sexism and privilege that ignores misandry and the power women wield today and historically and how they have always upheld sexism as a group, especially against men, and that one of the main ways they became liberated was by ceasing to do so... against other women, at the same time as demanding men cease, something they mostly obliged. Conversely, sexism enforced against men has not abated, in large part because part of female chauvinism is a refusal to recognize their own faults and negative moral culpability, which resulted in feminists casting sexism as entirely revolving around misogyny, thus not cultivating anti-misandrous attitudes necessary for women to curb their behavior.

Both inter-personally and on a societal scale, women enforce sexism and always have throughout history. This view of yours also runs dangerously close to the notion that women lack agency. "How would they combat sexism if-"

By doing things differently, thats how. As Gallo notes, women have always held a great deal of authority in society. It is merely inconvenient to recognize it, and attempts to explain it away by feminism have usually revolved around recasting them as misogynistic rather than recognizing them as stemming from misandry.

[Galloism]

True, but as far as corporations who market themselves as "man's man's" company, Gillette is pretty up there with the likes of Axe.

This is just whiplash, tbh.

Are you saying this was a stupid business decision?

Maybe not, actually.

I read an article from Australia (that I'm now kicking myself because I can't find it again) that states this ad might be an appeal towards (average) the sexism of women. In married couples, wives very often make the majority of spending decisions - including buying things like razors for their husbands and teenage offspring.

Because of women's majority of spending power, they may feel that this ad will cause more razors to be sold due to men "just not caring", but women desiring the sexist advertising in question.

[The Black Forrest]

What shitty sexist behavior would that be?

Raping men, harassing men, sexually assaulting men, groping men, beating men, playing mind games with men, abusing children (male children especially - most child abuse against boys is committed by women). Murdering children, and I'm not talking about abortion. I'm talking about infanticide. Raping boys in school. Silencing men on the basis of their gender by using sexist terms like mansplaining. Yelling kill all men. Mocking men for complaining (calling them sissies, whiners, criticizing them crying, male tears, etc), much of which is on full display in regards to people complaining about this video (in a truly ironic fashion).

That's a good start. We can go on from there.

Well? The problem is the view that it's not that frequent. Is it women's fault this is not a topic of discussion? You can fall back on the silly notation of the grand conspiracy of the feminists making sure it isn't. It's more of a cultural issue. Are not men lucky to have an "aggressive" woman? Would not a "real" man be able to defend himself? You can't have a discussion if you can't really talk about it when your own gender.

It is a valid topic for discussion. It does not help when you have MRA's out that messing up the message over the evil feminists and women don't have it as bad. The only real message I ever saw about male rape was lady gaga in one of her songs. Victims of sexual violence marched across the stage and there were men in the group.

As to infanticide? Do you mean neonaticide? That is a problem and there are efforts to help in that with the postpartum depression and all. Why would you use that as an attack on women?

Yelling kill all men? You think every self declared feminist does this? I am sure my wife has wanted to kill me a few times.

Mansplaining? You don't think that is ever valid? I once heard a guy try to explain the pain levels of woman giving birth. The only time I heard that get tossed out was when it involved an MRA type. Anecdotal I know as I don't hear it that often.

Society hasn't accepted male emotions. Are you saying this is because of women?

[Skarten]

Has someone already posted that copypasta from the youtube comments? If not, am i allowed to do it then?

[West Leas Oros 2]

Has someone already posted that copypasta from the youtube comments? If not, am i allowed to do it then?

I didn’t know such a thing existed.