Senate This Is An OUTRAGE!

It used to be that the essential emotions of American advertising were envy and jealousy. It provided an aspirational model even if it was deceitful. Now they are transitioning to shame and anxiety. You need to buy something because you owe it to society, or because without it society will leave you behind.

 

I just feel like ads to women about social justice are about how something is hurting women or are about something women can relate to, and are generally supportive, or trying to make women feel more empowered. Sometimes that can come off as pandering or condescending or feel like being manipulated, but sometimes it actually comes off as authentic and supportive.

When things are targeted to men it's of course the other side of the coin because male is the dominant sex in society. But I don't understand why a similarly supportive or empowering approach couldn't be taken. Men having to live up to a certain standard of masculinity or feeling pressured to do so by society has negative consequences for the well-being of a lot of men (according to research). That angle is sympathetic and not this thing that feels like it's zeroing in on people for being male to tell them everything wrong with men and therefore wrong with them as men.

Then there is also the matter of gender expression. I am all for people being free to express their gender the way that comes naturally to them, barring things that are violating the rights of others (for instance, sexually harassing a female colleague is not a valid form of "gender expression" because it's violating her rights as an individual human being; likewise bullying is not a valid form of "gender expression" because it's violating the rights of the victim). So I think the overlap that comes into play is men who identify with certain traditional masculine qualities as part of their gender expression feel like they are being told their gender expression is unacceptable, as it's assumed that any "traditionally masculine" appearing gender expression means the oppression of women or means "toxic masculinity" or simply shouldn't be allowed.

To me, all of this is about gender expression, which I see as along a spectrum, and I think people should be free to express their gender in the way that fits them, regardless of their biological sex. Even if gender is nothing but a social construct, gender expression is still something that's really important to a lot of people, and it feels awful trying to express gender in a way that doesn't come naturally (it feels like you can't be yourself).

Admittedly I haven't watched the Gillette ad with audio and in my first post I just read about it, so I am not 100% sure anymore how I feel about it. If it's touching upon the experience of being male in a way that isn't about shaming men, then I am probably fine with it.

 

For a sec I thought this was going to be an Ambassador Udina meme thread

 

Am I outraged about that? No, I find your Russia support hilarious. It's not exactly 'hysteria' if they are collaborating to hijack our elections. Don't you work for facebook? I find your contempt for simple facts embarrassing since you of all people are skeptical. Do I think they're solely responsible? No. But I do believe some meddling happened. I even agree with your assessment that Democratic leadership will use this fact to blame their losses on Russia so they never have to face the fact that they pick lame candidates. But just because they use it to do that, doesn't mean that it had no influence whatsoever on the current state of our country.

 

When have I supported Russia

 

If OP is suggesting we dismantle corporations then I agree.

 

It seems a lot of people give attention to that which does not deserve it.

 

Obviously the bolded applies to the area of violating the rights of other people, which is unacceptable. As for whether one expresses themselves as dominant or submissive or feels at home in a personality that is one way or another, even if only in certain contexts, that is something people should be free to do. If they are not violating the rights of other people, then the rest of society should bugger off basically. Let people express themselves as they are/choose to the extent that it doesn't violate the rights of others. Not everyone has an aggressive go-getter personality type interested in commanding others.

 

I think it's a matter of leaving people alone to pursue their own lives in the way they see fit. If you don't think someone around you is independent enough it's your problem, not their problem. Their problems are what they determine their problems to be.

And I am not arguing about what is to be admired in women. I'm saying though if a woman wants to express her gender a certain way that is her right. If you agree, then please stop debating this as though I'm saying "all women should be X way." I don't think all <anyone> should have to be <any way> and that is my entire point.

And for that reason I wouldn't look at a woman and be like "oh, you're too submissive. and that's a problem. women shouldn't be like you."

 

I think part of the reason people react angry to the Gillet commercial (and similar stuff) is that people don't like being told that they are the problem. No matter their gender or ethnicity

 

Seriously, gender identity is part of one's inner identity. It's akin to being asked to be someone you aren't. Criticizing someone's choice about what toys to buy their kids (if anything that's the same problem - she's defining her kid's identity for her instead of letting her kid define her own identity) is not the same thing as criticizing what someone perceives as an essential quality of their person. It's like I cannot help or control everything about who I am. I cannot change myself into a dramatically different personality type. No matter how much I was bullied in PE it didn't turn me into a star athlete. So I think that attacking women for being "too submissive" for my tastes is disgusting. It doesn't help them if they do have a problem, it just puts them down. It is essentially the same thing as the mother in your example is doing--asking someone else's identity/tastes/interests/preferences to conform to HER standards.

 

wrong thread

 

anakinfan edit: NSFW beneath the cut

Spoiler

Imagine being so woke you're anti space exploration

 

is the jc out of morons? we need to go searching for them on twitter now?

 

... whut?

 

Isn't that the same guy who was accusing some weird joke about birds of being "presumptive about other species" or whatever?

It's trite and lazy to cite "outrage about outrage" (I've done it myself, mind you, it's just so easy!) but I legitimately think Twitter and the Internet as a whole make it way, way too simple to pay attention to complaints about... everything.

 

It all comes in cycles. Not too long from now a new Eminem style rapper or South Park style TV show or some other kind of artist will come out that intentionally "shocks" everyone in trying to be as offensive as possible. And for whatever reason, in the specific time and place that particular form of media is released, it will catch on and become popular. And suddenly we're back to another "rebellious" era where everyone decides they want to go against the mainstream and start becoming offensive again. Which resets the 20 year clock until everything goes back to becoming not offensive anymore. And so on and so forth.

 

This is a Star Wars board, people. I have seen people fall to the ground, twitching and frothing at the mouth in pure rage, over the lengths of imaginary starships. And I 100% support this.