Post: #276

So would calling women ”big fat liars” be a nuclear diss against their ego?

Asking for a friend.

Post: #277

Post: #278

Instapundit Wrote:GILLETTE TO STARBUCKS: “Brand Purpose” Is A Lie.

Quote:In recent years, companies have been told that they need a purpose, a reason for existing beyond making money. Consumers look for authenticity, and prospective employees want to work somewhere that makes the world better. “Purpose” has been touted as the key to 21st-century success by both the Harvard Business Review and Fast Company.

Johnson and Johnson claims, “We put the needs and well-being of the people we serve first.” Starbucks exists “to inspire and nurture the human spirit–one person, one cup, and one neighborhood at a time.” State Street made a statue of an empowered little girl facing down Wall Street’s bull.

With the world’s top companies staring nobly into the middle distance, it seemed to be the dawn of something magnificent: capitalism with a soul.

LOL, just kidding.

State Street underpays women. Starbucks paid no U.K. corporate tax for three years on sales of £1.2 billion (about $1.5 billion), thus failing to nurture my local neighborhoods by paying for police, social services, or even street sweepers. Johnson and Johnson kept 98% of its cash offshore in 2017–almost $42 billion.

When companies are talking about something other than their products, I assume it’s because they don’t want us talking about their product — or their management.

UPDATE: Saw a great term on Facebook: “Wokewashing.”

Post: #279

Post: #280

Post: #281

(01-16-2019 12:15 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  For decades, feminists have been trying to get their man-hating ideas into the mainstream through every venue possible: TV, movies, newspapers (of course!), mags, and now ads.

Correct. People scoff when you talk about these things but folks...it is working.

How did the millions of people get exterminated in Siberian death camps, and Nazi Germany and the former Yugoslavian civil war? How did this HAPPEN?

Because they started by demonizing a group of people. First you make advertisements making them look like bums. Then you have your American Psychiatric Association publish a study showing that your target group is inherently criminal. Then you make it a crime for that group to ask girls out on a date in college.

Step by step, you criminalize them.

--So that any prosecutor, when asked which of the 10 cases on her desk she wants to prosecute (she only has resources to prosecute 3) will always tend to prosecute white men. Because she knows that white men are criminals and she'll have better luck getting a jury to convict...because the jury members knows white men are criminals.

--So that any IRS field agent, when deciding who to audit and charge with white collar fraud (out of the dozens of potential cases) will always audit the white male. Because men are criminals.

--So that the college acceptance clerk, when grading college admissions essays, will give lower grades to the men. Because she doesn't like the way men explain things and boast, it seems arrogant to her.

--So the job offer tends not to go to the man. Because men are sexually abusive.

Everybody ALWAYS says: "Oh but that won't happen here". Until it does. Usually it's the young, naive people who haven't seen people killed, who are still living half way in momma's apron strings, who believe It Can't Happen Here. Yes, it can happen here in the USA, in the UK. Take off your blinders, look at the here and now.

Yes, men are mad at Gillette, but that's a drop in the bucket. We are still losing. Losing badly.

Post: #282

(01-17-2019 04:32 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

Excellent example of how none of these words have precise defintions.

Racist. Homophobic. Toxic Masculinity. Sure, you can write a precise definition of these terms - identify something discreet which is unhealthy (envy/hate of other races, obsession over homosexuality, boys raised by single mothers) but that's not how they're commonly use. As Anita Sarkeesian observed "Everything is sexist, everything is racist": and she wasn't wrong.

These are dehumanizing terms masquerading as diagnoses. I hate it when I hear people joking about something being "racist" - yes, they're defusing it... but they're also empowering the concept.

Post: #283

First shave with my new Muhle R89. So far so good.

Post: #284

(01-17-2019 05:12 PM)Aurini Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 04:32 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

Excellent example of how none of these words have precise defintions.

Racist. Homophobic. Toxic Masculinity. Sure, you can write a precise definition of these terms - identify something discreet which is unhealthy (envy/hate of other races, obsession over homosexuality, boys raised by single mothers) but that's not how they're commonly use. As Anita Sarkeesian observed "Everything is sexist, everything is racist": and she wasn't wrong.

These are dehumanizing terms masquerading as diagnoses. I hate it when I hear people joking about something being "racist" - yes, they're defusing it... but they're also empowering the concept.

Excellent point. Keeping things vague is vague itself and almost impossible to call out.

Post: #285

memes strike again

   

Post: #286

I hate to say it, but men are losing this battle. We are definitely behind. I've talked to a lot of normies about the commercial, and I am the only one that brings up that this commercial actually portrays men horribly and doesn't do women any favors. Most women and normie men defending it really have a hard time reading between the lines and go back to Gillette simply asking "men to be better."

It's kind of funny. They seem to think it's only "conservative men, racists, and MRAs" that want to criticize and boycott this commercial. I even had one girl claim I had "white male fragility" because I was talking about this commercial negatively. Ironically, I thought all these people were just proving my point in why this commercial is a negative thing.

This has unintentionally revealed what everybody around me thinks of men. And for the normie men, it allows me to see how plugged in those around me are. I did publicly speak out against this commercial, but I feel like we have to start publicly criticizing these things in a rational way. People need alternative viewpoints out in the open in order to at least give them an idea on why some people might have a problem with it without looking at them as monsters.

It's a problem that men are not allowed to stand up for themselves without being labeled as hateful monsters. I have younger male relatives that will one day be exposed to this kind of crap when more commercials like this inevitably get made. I'm going to have to make a bigger effort with them when they're older to not let them get warped into thinking they are pieces of shit for having a penis.

By the way, does anyone else hate the fact the left stole the word "woke" from redpill people?

Post: #287

(01-17-2019 06:16 PM)yankeetravels Wrote:  By the way, does anyone else hate the fact the left stole the word "woke" from redpill people?

Yeah, I dont get it. The last thing I remember Woke meant being red-pilled, then I start seeing the "Get Woke Go Broke" Meme and realized Woke was being applied to the ideology of the Left.

How does this make sense and when/how did it happen? FFS Woke doesnt even make sense to describe Leftist Ideology which is entirely mainstream, Woke from what exactly. Looks like it is just an instance of the Manosphere/Red Pill community just giving up and letting the mainstream dictate terms.

**EDIT** Looks like the term Woke was first used by Black People in America for race-related issues, so probs never belonged to the RedPill anyway.

Post: #288

(01-17-2019 04:35 PM)budoslavic Wrote:  

I had no idea who that Aquaman actor was and only vaguely heard about the film until a few days ago when I saw a video of him feeling up his pre-teen daughter's tit, creepy uncle Joe Biden style.

Post: #289

Ultra based black man preaching!

Post: #290

(01-17-2019 12:37 PM)mzp1 Wrote:  In my opinion this has little to do with Women as Consumers, or even the profits of P&G at this point. This is a far-larger issue than those things.


I have come to the conclusion that Masculinity itself is the driving force behind human evolution. On a more fundamental level [...]

You may have come to that conclusion, unfortunately it's false. At best, masculinity is a result, not a cause. What is a driving force behind human evolution is humans' adaptive evolution via natural selection. if you want to argue with that, you have formidable opponents to fight against - starting with Darwin himself sitting in the first row.

Post: #291

(01-17-2019 07:06 PM)ksbms Wrote:  

(01-17-2019 12:37 PM)mzp1 Wrote:  In my opinion this has little to do with Women as Consumers, or even the profits of P&G at this point. This is a far-larger issue than those things.


I have come to the conclusion that Masculinity itself is the driving force behind human evolution. On a more fundamental level [...]

You may have come to that conclusion, unfortunately it's false. At best, masculinity is a result, not a cause. What is a driving force behind human evolution is humans' adaptive evolution via natural selection. if you want to argue with that, you have formidable opponents to fight against - starting with Darwin himself sitting in the first row.

But do you not agree that most of the evolution occurs through males? For instance, it is somewhat accepted on this forum that Nature takes risks through the males.

Also, Natural Selection, through Competition, affects Men alot more than Women. Success and Failure are both far greater for Men than Women.

A Females primary purpose is to reproduce other humans.
A Male has no purpose other than to be the best human he can be.

Ergo, Males - who are differentiated by Masculinity - are both the primary cause, and the primary objective of human Evolution. Females are here to keep things going for us.

I also stated that Men have both X and Y Chromozomes, whereas Women have only X. And that generally Masculine characteristics such as Strength, Willpower, Logic etc are often also desired by Women. It is because Femininity is not a thing of itself, it is just an absence of Masculinity.

So Men are more complete Humans compared to Women, having both Chromozomes and more universally beneficial Human characteristics. Evolution is really only concerned with the complete (male) Human as it doesnt make sense to improve an ever-incomplete being.

Post: #292

We are seeing a few good responses in the msm.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/42190/wal...matt-walsh

Quote:Feminists love the ad and apparently cannot understand why so many men have reacted negatively to it. I thought I would help them out by offering a mansplaination:

1) The Me Too movement didn't "change" anything for most of us. It is obviously insulting, not to mention absurd, to suggest that men, as a whole, experienced some sort of great awakening when Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Kevin Spacey got in trouble. We already knew that it's wrong to rape. We were already well aware that harassment is not okay. There is not a single man on Earth who watched a news report about Weinstein, slapped his forehead, and said, "Oh! So we're not supposed to do that? Alright then! My mistake!" Even the men who do those things already knew they weren't supposed to do them. They do the things anyway because they are evil, and that's what evil people do.
But the vast majority of men are not rapists or harassers and were, prior to this past year, already staunchly opposed to both activities. There was nothing epiphanic or revolutionary about Me Too for us. To insinuate that we learned that rape and assault are bad, or that we needed needed to learn such a lesson, is patronizing in the extreme.

2) "Boys will be boys" is not a rationale for bad behavior. In my entire life I have never once heard anyone, ever, offer "boys will be boys" as an excuse for rape or bullying. I have never seen a bunch of men standing around watching a kid pummel another kid while they all nod in approval and say "boys will be boys" to one another, like programed automatons. Have the people at Gillette ever even met an actual human man before? Perhaps not. Maybe that's why they think we need a razor with 14 blades to shave in the morning, as if our beards are made from the steel bristles of a wire brush.
In any case, "boys will be boys" does not generally function as an excuse. It is a cliche but, like many cliches, it contains great wisdom. Boys will indeed be boys, and should be boys, and should be allowed to be boys without their natural boy-ness being constantly suppressed. Boys are energetic, aggressive, creative, competitive. They need safe and accepting outlets for these impulses. Incidentally, rolling around and roughhousing is one such outlet. The ad shows an enlightened man swooping in to stop a couple of young boys from wrestling around in the grass, which is exactly the wrong approach. As long as it's all in good fun, and nobody is getting seriously hurt, and it is not a case of assault or actual bullying, then the fatherly instinct to step back and let the boys be boys is correct.
There are only, in the end, two options. Either we let boys act like boys or we force them to act like girls. But the latter option makes as much sense as forcing girls to act like boys. You wouldn't demand that your daughter stop playing with dolls and go out and wrestle in the grass instead. Why should we demand the reverse of boys? That's the point of "boys will be boys," and God help the boys cursed with parents who don't understand this point.

3) The ad says that "some men" act the right way. Can you in your wildest and most fevered dreams even imagine the reaction to an ad that spoke about women in these terms? Imagine an ad for Dove body wash that shows women doing stereotypically negative things like gossiping and nagging and shopping too much, and then the narrator comes on: "Sure, some women act the right way." Feminists would be rioting in the street. They'd storm Dove headquarters and stone the head of marketing to death with loofahs dipped in cement.
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.

Post: #293

Not a parody. The cucks over at National Review wrote an article making the “conservative” case for the Gillette commercial.

Post: #294

(01-14-2019 01:37 PM)Syberpunk Wrote:  The first time in many years Gillette managed to put out something with an actual edge to it.

Shots fired. I say again, SHOTS FIRED.

Post: #295

A thought occurred to me. In the "future is female" scenario like we are talking about (advancement in the workplace, earning power, influence)... redefining "masculinity" is actually an attempt to redefine what men ARE in a post-Patriarchal world. What their role is in this new progressive society. Men are now becoming disadvantage. They earn less. They're already acting like women and women are acting like men. The trajectory is clear. Men will step aside in leadership roles (work, family, etc.) and become supportive deltas who will happily take on duties previously reserved for females (caring for the baby, making dinner, washing the dishes, etc.). We're already seeing it under the guise of equality and calling themselves male feminists. The soy boys are actually the canaries in the coal mine. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing "Alpha" females in the West with a harem of men who serve her for other things than just sex.

Post: #296

(01-17-2019 10:46 PM)Avoy Wrote:  A thought occurred to me. In the "future is female" scenario like we are talking about (advancement in the workplace, earning power, influence)... redefining "masculinity" is actually an attempt to redefine what men ARE in a post-Patriarchal world. What their role is in this new progressive society. Men are now becoming disadvantage. They earn less. They're already acting like women and women are acting like men. The trajectory is clear. Men will step aside in leadership roles (work, family, etc.) and become supportive deltas who will happily take on duties previously reserved for females (carrying the baby, pushing the stroller, washing the dishes, etc.). We're already seeing it under the guise of equality and calling themselves feminists. The soy boys are actually the canaries in the coal mine. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing "Alpha" females in the West with a harem of men who serve her for other things than just sex.

Agree completely...but there is a huge flaw in the idea of a "male delta".

Maybe the soyboys think "Ok, I can just be the househusband and push the baby stroller. How bad can it be"

They don't get it at all.

Women will NEVER politely allow a man to be a delta man and push a stroller. They will never sit back and allow the man to be happy or safe in ANY subservient role.

Men allow women to be housewives because men are essentially protectors by nature. Men love women and care for them and are willing to sacrifice if needed to protect women and children. Men are genetically wired to protect women. We can respect them as housewives.

Women will NEVER allow men to be househusbands safely. Because deep in their hearts, women DO NOT THINK ABOUT MEN AS HUMAN BEINGS. They have ZERO wiring to "protect men". Men are simply warriors that women use, or discard, like a well-trained horse. Women love to ride horses, but when that horse breaks down or gets sick...POW. Horse carcass off the glue factor, and woman has a new horse.

Men's lives are NOT IMPORTANT. Our feelings are NOT IMPORTANT. They don't even see them. They don't acknowledge them.

Men care about men, women, and children.

Women only care about women, and children. Men exist only to serve and earn.

I'm not saying this because I dislike women. I am perfectly fine with the way women are wired. Evolution made them this way to protect the race and to take advantage of men and women's inherent qualities to make us stronger. Men fight and die. Women stay safe in the village. If a man dies in battle, his wife immediately shacks up with a new man. It's ok.

But never think for a moment that a woman-dominated world will be anything except men in chains, men in tracking collars, and men as slaves. That is the only outcome. Because a man with less money, to a woman, is always viewed as a slave, never as a partner.

Post: #297

(01-17-2019 11:19 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  Women will NEVER politely allow a man to be a delta man and push a stroller. They will never sit back and allow the man to be happy or safe in ANY subservient role.

In the suburbs where I grew up this is commonplace. While younger single women may love Alphas now... married women favor more manageable men to do their bidding (happy wife, happy life). And by Delta I mean guys who will go to work each day, be good employees, and bring home a paycheck. I suspect Hollywood will soon introduce a new male archetype that women should aim for as their war on traditional masculine men continues -- but even that's getting confusing for them with the spectrum of genders available (they need to be "inclusive").

Hate to say this, too, but with enough negative messaging in media and entertainment... even Alpha Males could fall out of favor for young women via social stigma and peer pressure. It's already happening with Trump supporters.

Let's just hope I'm wrong about all this. I don't plan to change. Plus, we're not at that point yet, so let's have fun and enjoy the time we have left.

Post: #298

On one hand, doing nothing about such nonsense is what causes the destruction to a national culture. These dummies need to feel the weight of their actions in the pocketbook.

On the other hand, it's yet another "man-vs-woman" media blitz that promotes the "divide and conquer" campaign. Another tireless attempt at class warfare.

The inertia is hard to escape at times.

Post: #299

(01-17-2019 11:47 PM)Avoy Wrote:  Alpha Males could fall out of favor for young women via social stigma and peer pressure. It's already happening with Trump supporters.

Alpha males will always have 'stud' potential in a future matriarchal dystopia of slave bartering.

Post: #300