Gillette ran a campaign which clearly overestimated the intelligence of rather a lot of men.
They implied, not that all men are rapists but that men should primarily be the ones to encourage other men away from toxic behaviours, towards more positive ways of being, and relating.
Whilst i understand that where the intentions behind it, i don't think they relayed that message. It was also a bit of u-turn as they are the promotors of masculinity. (note i didn't say toxic with reason, there are more then enough men who are proud to be muscular and are not a-holes)
Which of course they should be.
The fact that there was an offended 'backlash' against this idea, just goes to show how far we have to go in changing attitudes.
No it went directly against everything they had been defending for years, with dangerous generalisations and so futher and so forth. The same type of commercial for women, implying they would be gold diggers looking for rich men would generate similar backlash.
They could have archieved more with the same message brought in a better way
I got a very pungent whiff of it on the 'other side' when discussing how a group of young men had displayed horrible behaviour towards a young woman on a bicycle.
Wokeism and said behavior's you talk about are two different things.
Anyway I actually asked
@Milzy what they meant by it.
There's still still time for them to enlighten us.
Well basicly a blind by facts, inogrant for reason kind of way of looking at the world what for some reason has the inmage of being about ''not being an ahole'' but how can you not be an ahole if you exclude, harrass etc. people who do not agree with you? They just has a school shooting in the US days after twitter threaths of ''days of vengeance''
So you don't think people should ever be criticised for what they say.?
That there should be no consequences?
Wokeism isn't criticism because criticism means you share you opposition against a certain opinion/action/or something else, on a personal level you might choose not to communicate with that person., wokeism doesn't neccasarly seek to communicate with said person, it seeks to exclude said person, exclude anyone who in their view talks to that person and seek to exlcude shops, bussinesses etc. dealing with that person.
For example if someone says all cyclists are @+&£#@*s and should be prevented from cycling on the roads, then we as cyclists can't object, or can't decide not to have anything to do with that person from now on?
We don't need wokeism to object to something or not
Or does 'freedom of expression ' only go one way, and only have consequences for one party??
And as
@glasgowcyclist says you've not yet defined 'woke' itself nor wok(e)ism.
It gets used a lot as a perjorative but no one using it as such, seems to have a clear definition.
Those of us against whom its used seem to have more of an idea - Curiously 🤔
And we don't generally mind being 'accused' of being socially and politically aware, and of having some degree of empathy for others...
I did an attempt, but i'm sure there are many other disagreeing with it that's also the danger and why i compared it to the likes of nazism because that in it's hayday worked the same, might be hard to imagine now but it is how it works. The same as Putin has inserted hate for Ukrainians and anything ex-sovjet that doesn't want to rejoin Russia. Opposing Putin gets you murdered opposing woke might gets you cancelled, but i think it's neccasary to at least aknoledge it's downside and identify the traits claimed with this movement that have nothing to do with it. such as it inclusivity etc. (not saying they are not ''inclusive'' just saying that inclusivity on itself does'n have anything to do with wokeism.
