Posted: Jan 27, 2019 12:20 pm
by tuco
Hermit wrote:
tuco wrote:Question is, in the light of Gillette ad or just the current debate on gender, should women tell the streamers in question that they are not cool, just like men should tell other men their toxic masculinity is not cool?

tuco wrote:The question was if its cool and if not whether other women should tell her its not, just like men in the Gillette ad.

No. As Evolving mentioned:
Evolving wrote:... I think it's a false equivalence: men practising toxic masculinity, and women profiting from it (assuming for the sake of argument that that is what they are doing), are not the same thing. They are at opposite ends of a power gradient.

tuco wrote:I agree they are not the same, but that was not the question, nor I wanted to frame it that way.

And yet you framed the question with reference to the Gillette ad. Twice. You seem to not grok Evolving's point, which is that there is too much of a difference between toxic masculinity on one hand and women who exploit primitive men for material gain on the other to argue that as men are encouraged to stop other men to harass women, so women should be encouraged to stop other women from making money out of them. There simply is not sufficient equivalence between the two situations.

tuco wrote:
Evolving wrote:Surely the difference is consent. Group B is consciously and willingly offering itself as a displayer of boobs (assuming there is no coercion involved, which seems unlikely here), and good for them, if that is what they want; group A has no connection with the men "asking" and feels pestered and demeaned by the unwelcome attention.

There is but its not subject of this debate as it's fairly obvious that the difference is consent.

It is precisely the prime difference why I, and it seems most everyone else, reply in the negative. The women in Twitch's IRL section want to exploit their clientele for material gain. It would not surprise me that many of them would drop their bikini tops if Twitch allowed it and if it meant more revenue. Not many women consent to be sexually harassed.

Yes, I know you will reply along the lines of "Yabbut it encourages toxic masculinity." Laklak demolished that claim with humorous sarcasm here:
laklak wrote:I once went to what is colloquially referred to as a 'titty bar'. There were women there who were, well, naked, writhing around on the stage and shaking their goodies at the menz. if you gave them money they would shake their "money maker" right in your face. Fuckin' Ace, dudes.

Anyway, I went outside and asked the first woman I saw if I could stick a rolled up dollar bill between her ass cheeks. She got all fucking offended and shit. I mean, what's up with that? What's a guy supposed to do? Honestly, how the fuck are we supposed to know which women will show us her tits if we don't fucking ask? I was being goddamned polite by asking, instead of just grabbing her and shoving the money up her bum.

Fucking women. I'll never understand them.


Let me just note that the only equivalence between the ad and what I described is that members of one gender should take actions against members of their own gender if such members do not act cool.

I asked this before, how cool is profiting from toxic masculinity, thus inevitably going against the spirit of the Gillette ad? If its cool, I forfeit my point. The philosophy is to get rid of it not to live from it.