3 Reasons Why Gillette's 'Toxic Masculinity' Ad Is Incredibly Stupid And Degrading

evince said:
Its also about freeing male children from the cage of worshiping an emotionless existence except for only aggression and anger
Click to expand...
In other words...emasculating them. Sorry Desh...no caring or devoted father would ever allow that to happen to their son. You may consider mastering our emotions "emotionless" but many of us men consider it a necessary survival skill. One that's damned useful in times of extreme adversity. One's that we traditionally bear the burden of.
 
So long, masculinity, you're a relic of unenlightened times
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...nqI2Ac6LabEtyjvFd_Fj42Q20Qv7JRVIY0YkSucVRZtUk

750x422


Heather Wilhelm

This week, the American Psychological Association delivered some sad news for fans of “traditional masculinity.” According to the organization’s new “Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Boys and Men,” the “harmful” ideology of masculinity — marked by “stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, and aggression” together with “anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence” — has got to go.

Here I imagine a mournful, windswept cowboy — preferably Val Kilmer from “Tombstone,” or maybe Harrison Ford from “Indiana Jones,” but wearing a ten-gallon hat — riding off into the sunset, slumped and grim, dragging a sad cache of uneaten rare steaks and unused power tools behind him. Farewell, traditional masculinity! You are too toxic! The APA told us so! Don’t let those swinging Old West barroom doors hit you on the way out, causing the old-timey piano music to abruptly stop and all the dust-strewn poker players who may or may not have tuberculosis to turn and stare at you in shock and dismay!

Reader, I don’t know how you feel about all this. I, for one, find it very upsetting, for one simple and selfish reason: Who is going to kill all the spiders that make their way into my house?

I am now reminded of the movie “Annie Hall,” in which Diane Keaton’s character phones Woody Allen’s character in a panic at 3 a.m. Her big emergency, as a disgruntled Allen discovers after stumbling over to her apartment, is the existence of a spider in her bathroom. Seeing her copy of National Review, and being no fan of conservatism, his indignation flares into a shout: “Why don’t you get William F. Buckley to kill the spider?”

Buckley, as we all know, would have done an unparalleled job of killing the spider, but that is neither here nor there. Also neither here nor there, it turns out, are the APA’s loopy masculinity guidelines, which are the equivalent of 1,000 detached human hands nervously wringing themselves in the corner of a dark maze of fun house mirrors accented by occasional annoying bursts of extremely woke strobe lights.

After reading the report — and if you ever question what opinion columnists do for America, one example of our lionhearted public service involves reading goofy quasi-academic “reports” so you don’t have to — I must admit that I questioned the very necessity of its existence. After all, the very idea of “boys” and “men” is quite gendered and outdated, is it not? As the APA’s own new guidelines remind us, “It is critical to acknowledge that gender is a non-binary construct that is distinct from, although interrelated to, sexual orientation.” Gender, argues Ryon McDermott, a psychologist who assisted in writing the guidelines, is “no longer just this male-female binary.”

So why even bother writing a report supposedly targeted at only boys and men? Who knows? Who cares? Oh logic, you feckless, roaming tumbleweed! In any case, the guidelines aren’t really designed to discuss boys or men at all. Their main intention, it seems, is to hammer home the belief that everything gender-related is a social construct, that biology doesn’t matter until we want it to and that we are all bound like helpless mummies under intersectional layers of oppression that are primarily generated by — surprise! — patriarchal men.

Here is a sentence that actually exists on the APA’s website, paired with a summary of the new guidelines: “Indeed, when researchers strip away stereotypes and expectation, there isn’t much difference in the basic behaviors of men and women.”

There is no direct or encompassing citation for this impressively sweeping statement, probably because it a) is untrue, b) is unscientific and c) likely makes God laugh. How is it that we can live in a civilization so advanced that we can propel a rocket 33 million miles through the cold abyss of space to successfully land on a largely unexplored planet, but still manage to publish insouciant nonsense sentences like this? Never say life isn’t mysterious, friends. It is mind-boggling.

In any case, I will not leave the new “Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Boys and Men” without a bit of positive affirmation.
Amazingly, it is correct a few times. For instance, it is not good to box people into rigid gender roles, nor is it good to teach boys to suppress their emotions just because they’re boys. I don’t see a whole lot of people doing that these days — everyone’s too busy lavishing kids with enthusiastic praise for spending six hours a day watching some guy named Ninja play “Fortnite” on YouTube — but whatever.
Also, violence is bad, except against spiders, and it should not be glorified or celebrated. This is true whether it is a man or a woman threatening to unceremoniously punch you in the often-terrifying and anarchic line for the Walmart pre-Christmas sale.

But what about bravery? What about risk? What about, well, testosterone? What about the wild idea that there might be a natural, nonsocially constructed difference between women and men? The APA’s summary report admits that some emblems of “traditional masculinity” might be worth keeping: “courage,” for instance, and “leadership.” Moreover, an APA-affiliated team is now working on a “positive-masculinities scale to capture people’s adherence to the pro-social traits expected from men.” Oh, boy. I can’t wait.

Just kidding! I can definitely wait. Luckily for me, it took the geniuses who wrote the current guidelines 13 whole years to put them together, so time might be on my side. In the meantime, people, keep your eyes open — and get your spiders killed while you still can.
 
noise said:
So long, masculinity, you're a relic of unenlightened times
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...nqI2Ac6LabEtyjvFd_Fj42Q20Qv7JRVIY0YkSucVRZtUk

750x422


Heather Wilhelm

This week, the American Psychological Association delivered some sad news for fans of “traditional masculinity.” According to the organization’s new “Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Boys and Men,” the “harmful” ideology of masculinity — marked by “stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, and aggression” together with “anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence” — has got to go.

Here I imagine a mournful, windswept cowboy — preferably Val Kilmer from “Tombstone,” or maybe Harrison Ford from “Indiana Jones,” but wearing a ten-gallon hat — riding off into the sunset, slumped and grim, dragging a sad cache of uneaten rare steaks and unused power tools behind him. Farewell, traditional masculinity! You are too toxic! The APA told us so! Don’t let those swinging Old West barroom doors hit you on the way out, causing the old-timey piano music to abruptly stop and all the dust-strewn poker players who may or may not have tuberculosis to turn and stare at you in shock and dismay!

Reader, I don’t know how you feel about all this. I, for one, find it very upsetting, for one simple and selfish reason: Who is going to kill all the spiders that make their way into my house?

I am now reminded of the movie “Annie Hall,” in which Diane Keaton’s character phones Woody Allen’s character in a panic at 3 a.m. Her big emergency, as a disgruntled Allen discovers after stumbling over to her apartment, is the existence of a spider in her bathroom. Seeing her copy of National Review, and being no fan of conservatism, his indignation flares into a shout: “Why don’t you get William F. Buckley to kill the spider?”

Buckley, as we all know, would have done an unparalleled job of killing the spider, but that is neither here nor there. Also neither here nor there, it turns out, are the APA’s loopy masculinity guidelines, which are the equivalent of 1,000 detached human hands nervously wringing themselves in the corner of a dark maze of fun house mirrors accented by occasional annoying bursts of extremely woke strobe lights.

After reading the report — and if you ever question what opinion columnists do for America, one example of our lionhearted public service involves reading goofy quasi-academic “reports” so you don’t have to — I must admit that I questioned the very necessity of its existence. After all, the very idea of “boys” and “men” is quite gendered and outdated, is it not? As the APA’s own new guidelines remind us, “It is critical to acknowledge that gender is a non-binary construct that is distinct from, although interrelated to, sexual orientation.” Gender, argues Ryon McDermott, a psychologist who assisted in writing the guidelines, is “no longer just this male-female binary.”

So why even bother writing a report supposedly targeted at only boys and men? Who knows? Who cares? Oh logic, you feckless, roaming tumbleweed! In any case, the guidelines aren’t really designed to discuss boys or men at all. Their main intention, it seems, is to hammer home the belief that everything gender-related is a social construct, that biology doesn’t matter until we want it to and that we are all bound like helpless mummies under intersectional layers of oppression that are primarily generated by — surprise! — patriarchal men.

Here is a sentence that actually exists on the APA’s website, paired with a summary of the new guidelines: “Indeed, when researchers strip away stereotypes and expectation, there isn’t much difference in the basic behaviors of men and women.”

There is no direct or encompassing citation for this impressively sweeping statement, probably because it a) is untrue, b) is unscientific and c) likely makes God laugh. How is it that we can live in a civilization so advanced that we can propel a rocket 33 million miles through the cold abyss of space to successfully land on a largely unexplored planet, but still manage to publish insouciant nonsense sentences like this? Never say life isn’t mysterious, friends. It is mind-boggling.

In any case, I will not leave the new “Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Boys and Men” without a bit of positive affirmation.
Amazingly, it is correct a few times. For instance, it is not good to box people into rigid gender roles, nor is it good to teach boys to suppress their emotions just because they’re boys. I don’t see a whole lot of people doing that these days — everyone’s too busy lavishing kids with enthusiastic praise for spending six hours a day watching some guy named Ninja play “Fortnite” on YouTube — but whatever.
Also, violence is bad, except against spiders, and it should not be glorified or celebrated. This is true whether it is a man or a woman threatening to unceremoniously punch you in the often-terrifying and anarchic line for the Walmart pre-Christmas sale.

But what about bravery? What about risk? What about, well, testosterone? What about the wild idea that there might be a natural, nonsocially constructed difference between women and men? The APA’s summary report admits that some emblems of “traditional masculinity” might be worth keeping: “courage,” for instance, and “leadership.” Moreover, an APA-affiliated team is now working on a “positive-masculinities scale to capture people’s adherence to the pro-social traits expected from men.” Oh, boy. I can’t wait.

Just kidding! I can definitely wait. Luckily for me, it took the geniuses who wrote the current guidelines 13 whole years to put them together, so time might be on my side. In the meantime, people, keep your eyes open — and get your spiders killed while you still can.
Click to expand...
I don’t kill spiders, they eat pests. I love spiders. They are beautiful.
 
noise said:
So long, masculinity, you're a relic of unenlightened times
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news...nqI2Ac6LabEtyjvFd_Fj42Q20Qv7JRVIY0YkSucVRZtUk

750x422


Heather Wilhelm

This week, the American Psychological Association delivered some sad news for fans of “traditional masculinity.” According to the organization’s new “Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Boys and Men,” the “harmful” ideology of masculinity — marked by “stoicism, competitiveness, dominance, and aggression” together with “anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence” — has got to go.

Here I imagine a mournful, windswept cowboy — preferably Val Kilmer from “Tombstone,” or maybe Harrison Ford from “Indiana Jones,” but wearing a ten-gallon hat — riding off into the sunset, slumped and grim, dragging a sad cache of uneaten rare steaks and unused power tools behind him. Farewell, traditional masculinity! You are too toxic! The APA told us so! Don’t let those swinging Old West barroom doors hit you on the way out, causing the old-timey piano music to abruptly stop and all the dust-strewn poker players who may or may not have tuberculosis to turn and stare at you in shock and dismay!

Reader, I don’t know how you feel about all this. I, for one, find it very upsetting, for one simple and selfish reason: Who is going to kill all the spiders that make their way into my house?

I am now reminded of the movie “Annie Hall,” in which Diane Keaton’s character phones Woody Allen’s character in a panic at 3 a.m. Her big emergency, as a disgruntled Allen discovers after stumbling over to her apartment, is the existence of a spider in her bathroom. Seeing her copy of National Review, and being no fan of conservatism, his indignation flares into a shout: “Why don’t you get William F. Buckley to kill the spider?”

Buckley, as we all know, would have done an unparalleled job of killing the spider, but that is neither here nor there. Also neither here nor there, it turns out, are the APA’s loopy masculinity guidelines, which are the equivalent of 1,000 detached human hands nervously wringing themselves in the corner of a dark maze of fun house mirrors accented by occasional annoying bursts of extremely woke strobe lights.

After reading the report — and if you ever question what opinion columnists do for America, one example of our lionhearted public service involves reading goofy quasi-academic “reports” so you don’t have to — I must admit that I questioned the very necessity of its existence. After all, the very idea of “boys” and “men” is quite gendered and outdated, is it not? As the APA’s own new guidelines remind us, “It is critical to acknowledge that gender is a non-binary construct that is distinct from, although interrelated to, sexual orientation.” Gender, argues Ryon McDermott, a psychologist who assisted in writing the guidelines, is “no longer just this male-female binary.”

So why even bother writing a report supposedly targeted at only boys and men? Who knows? Who cares? Oh logic, you feckless, roaming tumbleweed! In any case, the guidelines aren’t really designed to discuss boys or men at all. Their main intention, it seems, is to hammer home the belief that everything gender-related is a social construct, that biology doesn’t matter until we want it to and that we are all bound like helpless mummies under intersectional layers of oppression that are primarily generated by — surprise! — patriarchal men.

Here is a sentence that actually exists on the APA’s website, paired with a summary of the new guidelines: “Indeed, when researchers strip away stereotypes and expectation, there isn’t much difference in the basic behaviors of men and women.”

There is no direct or encompassing citation for this impressively sweeping statement, probably because it a) is untrue, b) is unscientific and c) likely makes God laugh. How is it that we can live in a civilization so advanced that we can propel a rocket 33 million miles through the cold abyss of space to successfully land on a largely unexplored planet, but still manage to publish insouciant nonsense sentences like this? Never say life isn’t mysterious, friends. It is mind-boggling.

In any case, I will not leave the new “Guidelines for Psychological Practice With Boys and Men” without a bit of positive affirmation.
Amazingly, it is correct a few times. For instance, it is not good to box people into rigid gender roles, nor is it good to teach boys to suppress their emotions just because they’re boys. I don’t see a whole lot of people doing that these days — everyone’s too busy lavishing kids with enthusiastic praise for spending six hours a day watching some guy named Ninja play “Fortnite” on YouTube — but whatever.
Also, violence is bad, except against spiders, and it should not be glorified or celebrated. This is true whether it is a man or a woman threatening to unceremoniously punch you in the often-terrifying and anarchic line for the Walmart pre-Christmas sale.

But what about bravery? What about risk? What about, well, testosterone? What about the wild idea that there might be a natural, nonsocially constructed difference between women and men? The APA’s summary report admits that some emblems of “traditional masculinity” might be worth keeping: “courage,” for instance, and “leadership.” Moreover, an APA-affiliated team is now working on a “positive-masculinities scale to capture people’s adherence to the pro-social traits expected from men.” Oh, boy. I can’t wait.

Just kidding! I can definitely wait. Luckily for me, it took the geniuses who wrote the current guidelines 13 whole years to put them together, so time might be on my side. In the meantime, people, keep your eyes open — and get your spiders killed while you still can.
Click to expand...

LOL I have never heard of Heather Williams before but I might just be a fan of hers now. That was hillarious! :)
 
noise said:
But no such ad would or could ever exist. Women are not lectured and scolded this way. This sort of treatment is reserved for men. And men are tired of it. We've heard it enough. We're terrible; we're horrible; we've ruined the world. Okay, we get it. Thank you. Now shut up and sell your 14-bladed razors and leave us alone.
Click to expand...

Poor buttercup. Don't like it? Then stand up, act like a man, and call out your brothers when you see them behaving badly. After all, don't we expect our police officers to call out the bad apples among them? What about physicians who frequently harm patients -- wouldn't you feel more trusting if you knew that other docs would weed the bad ones out of their profession? Why should you guys be any different?

As for the comment about women -- I would *love* to see Tampax or Revlon or the like come out with a similar commercial calling out girls and women who remain silent when they see other females being bullied. Step it up, ladies. NONE of us should make excuses. NONE.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Poor buttercup. Don't like it? Then stand up, act like a man, and call out your brothers when you see them behaving badly. After all, don't we expect our police officers to call out the bad apples among them? What about physicians who frequently harm patients -- wouldn't you feel more trusting if you knew that other docs would weed the bad ones out of their profession? Why should you guys be any different?

As for the comment about women -- I would *love* to see Tampax or Revlon or the like come out with a similar commercial calling out girls and women who remain silent when they see other females being bullied. Step it up, ladies. NONE of us should make excuses. NONE.
Click to expand...

LOL I don't recall seeing you calling out your fellow liberal posters here when they make horrible comments about conservative women. You're full of it
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Poor buttercup. Don't like it? Then stand up, act like a man, and call out your brothers when you see them behaving badly. After all, don't we expect our police officers to call out the bad apples among them? What about physicians who frequently harm patients -- wouldn't you feel more trusting if you knew that other docs would weed the bad ones out of their profession? Why should you guys be any different?

As for the comment about women -- I would *love* to see Tampax or Revlon or the like come out with a similar commercial calling out girls and women who remain silent when they see other females being bullied. Step it up, ladies. NONE of us should make excuses. NONE.
Click to expand...

Heres an article that I found amusing

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wo...by-the-recent-gillette-ad-2626070632.amp.html
 
tinfoil said:
LOL I don't recall seeing you calling out your fellow liberal posters here when they make horrible comments about conservative women. You're full of it
Click to expand...
I've been called out for saying terrible things about conservative women.

I think it was...."Have you ever noticed that the women who are against abortion are women you wouldn't want to fuck anyways?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top