Are All Men Trash? Discussion

Jenuall wrote:#MenAreTrash may work well on a lot of moderates, and lets face it - the people who are broadly already on your side. In addition to this it can act as a fantastic call to arms and identifier of people with shared views - that is A Good Thing™

But this approach will rile the strawberry float out of the people who you most need to get your message across to - y'know the ones who genuinely are full on trash. It should not be seen as a crushing defeat to explore other options for bringing more of those people on board.

But might be the most needing of your message - but also the least likely to listen to it in any other format.

And IF (and it's if) as you say it'll already work well on the largest part of your audience...why deviate?

You don't need absolute conversion rate - you need sufficient. Why stop a message that should be effective to the largest part of your audience (you said that, not me) to try and focus instead on the likely unsalvageable? Your argument seems to be "how do you reach the minority"?

Made up example again

If #MenareTrash" makes 60% of moderates/undecided consider than change their mind is it a better strategy than some magic strategy (I don't think anyone's actually said what it is other than "don't call them out") that magically converts the 10% most scummiest?

GRcadians are trash

Hexx wrote:Also I find the talk round Martin Luther King pretty pointless because his speech failed on quite a few bits of it's aims. It's hardly a poster child of sucessful outcomes.

It did fail on a number of aims, it was always going to. But it succeeded on others, not least of which inspiring millions of people to do and be better.

Knoyleo wrote:GRcadians are trash

uh, well ACTUALLY,

Knoyleo wrote:GRcadians are trash

I'm fully supportive of equality but there's a very vocal minority of feminists that seem to think its okay to constantly deride and vilify men without realizing that by doing so, they themselves are being discriminatory and making a mockery of the values they're supposedly championing.

are we trash because grcade attracts trash, or has grcade made us trash?
:thinkingemoji:

Knoyleo wrote:GRcadians are trash

Was this covered by MRT? I've lost track if any women come post here anymore.

It's just a wall to wall sausage fest.

Ironhide wrote:I'm fully supportive of equality but there's a very vocal minority of feminists that seem to think its okay to constantly deride and vilify men without realizing that by doing so, they themselves are being discriminatory and making a mockery of the values they're supposedly championing.

Yeah but #Notallfeminists

Hexx wrote:I've lost track if any women come post here anymore.

A few. About 5% of the userbase. It's not a great stat to be honest.

Hexx wrote:

Jenuall wrote:#MenAreTrash may work well on a lot of moderates, and lets face it - the people who are broadly already on your side. In addition to this it can act as a fantastic call to arms and identifier of people with shared views - that is A Good Thing™

But this approach will rile the strawberry float out of the people who you most need to get your message across to - y'know the ones who genuinely are full on trash. It should not be seen as a crushing defeat to explore other options for bringing more of those people on board.

But might be the most needing of your message - but also the least likely to listen to it in any other format.

And IF (and it's if) as you say it'll already work well on the largest part of your audience...why deviate?

You don't need absolute conversion rate - you need sufficient. Why stop a message that should be effective to the largest part of your audience try and focus instead on the likely salvageable? Your argument seems to be "how do you reach the minority"?

Made up example again

If #MenareTrash" makes 60% of moderates/undecided consider than change their mind is it a better strategy than some magic strategy (I don't think anyone's actually said what it is other than "don't call them out") that magically converts the 10% most scummiest?

I think my argument is how do you reach as many people as possible, and that is generally through more than one mechanism. Yes you aren't going to get 100% and there will of course be many people who as you say will NEVER be convinced, but if you think there is an opportunity to reach more people without compromising your core message then why would you not at least consider it?

I don't know, but to me it feels like most of the moderates are already on board without the need to be beaten over the head with the #MenAreTrash branding, and so going hard on it may be counterproductive. But then I am probably giving the moderates too much credit, whilst also assuming that there are more of them than I think!

Hexx wrote:

Ironhide wrote:I'm fully supportive of equality but there's a very vocal minority of feminists that seem to think its okay to constantly deride and vilify men without realizing that by doing so, they themselves are being discriminatory and making a mockery of the values they're supposedly championing.

Yeah but #Notallfeminists

I did say vocal minority, I'm sure most feminists are perfectly rational people who just want a fairer more equal world.

Jenuall wrote:

Hexx wrote:

Jenuall wrote:#MenAreTrash may work well on a lot of moderates, and lets face it - the people who are broadly already on your side. In addition to this it can act as a fantastic call to arms and identifier of people with shared views - that is A Good Thing™

But this approach will rile the strawberry float out of the people who you most need to get your message across to - y'know the ones who genuinely are full on trash. It should not be seen as a crushing defeat to explore other options for bringing more of those people on board.

But might be the most needing of your message - but also the least likely to listen to it in any other format.

And IF (and it's if) as you say it'll already work well on the largest part of your audience...why deviate?

You don't need absolute conversion rate - you need sufficient. Why stop a message that should be effective to the largest part of your audience try and focus instead on the likely salvageable? Your argument seems to be "how do you reach the minority"?

Made up example again

If #MenareTrash" makes 60% of moderates/undecided consider than change their mind is it a better strategy than some magic strategy (I don't think anyone's actually said what it is other than "don't call them out") that magically converts the 10% most scummiest?

I think my argument is how do you reach as many people as possible, and that is generally through more than one mechanism. Yes you aren't going to get 100% and there will of course be many people who as you say will NEVER be convinced, but if you think there is an opportunity to reach more people without compromising your core message then why would you not at least consider it?

I don't know, but to me it feels like most of the moderates are already on board without the need to be beaten over the head with the #MenAreTrash branding, and so going hard on it may be counterproductive. But then I am probably giving the moderates too much credit, whilst also assuming that there are more of them than I think!

Fair enough - but isn't that you can communicate method A and method B?

I don't think (I might have missed that) anyone has said you should exclusively communicate one way (in this case #MenAreTrash) but it felt like some people have said one of the ways you shouldn't ever communicate (#MenAreTrash)....if I've missed something or missunderstood sorry,

On that note I think Gillette's (sorry to keep bringing it ups) approach of "Men can do better" is probably more effective than "Men are Trash" - but it both cases I'm happy with the collectivisation. Whereas I got the impression some people would never be ok with that (in the viewpoint "there are other methods of communication you should try instead" rather than "there are other methods of communcation you should try as well...but I might have got that wrong)

Ironhide wrote:

Hexx wrote:

Ironhide wrote:I'm fully supportive of equality but there's a very vocal minority of feminists that seem to think its okay to constantly deride and vilify men without realizing that by doing so, they themselves are being discriminatory and making a mockery of the values they're supposedly championing.

Yeah but #Notallfeminists

I did say vocal minority, I'm sure most feminists are perfectly rational people who just want a fairer more equal world.

I was teasing! I didn't mean to seriously suggest you mean all feminist

Hexx wrote:

Jenuall wrote:

Hexx wrote:

Jenuall wrote:#MenAreTrash may work well on a lot of moderates, and lets face it - the people who are broadly already on your side. In addition to this it can act as a fantastic call to arms and identifier of people with shared views - that is A Good Thing™

But this approach will rile the strawberry float out of the people who you most need to get your message across to - y'know the ones who genuinely are full on trash. It should not be seen as a crushing defeat to explore other options for bringing more of those people on board.

But might be the most needing of your message - but also the least likely to listen to it in any other format.

And IF (and it's if) as you say it'll already work well on the largest part of your audience...why deviate?

You don't need absolute conversion rate - you need sufficient. Why stop a message that should be effective to the largest part of your audience try and focus instead on the likely salvageable? Your argument seems to be "how do you reach the minority"?

Made up example again

If #MenareTrash" makes 60% of moderates/undecided consider than change their mind is it a better strategy than some magic strategy (I don't think anyone's actually said what it is other than "don't call them out") that magically converts the 10% most scummiest?

I think my argument is how do you reach as many people as possible, and that is generally through more than one mechanism. Yes you aren't going to get 100% and there will of course be many people who as you say will NEVER be convinced, but if you think there is an opportunity to reach more people without compromising your core message then why would you not at least consider it?

I don't know, but to me it feels like most of the moderates are already on board without the need to be beaten over the head with the #MenAreTrash branding, and so going hard on it may be counterproductive. But then I am probably giving the moderates too much credit, whilst also assuming that there are more of them than I think!

Fair enough - but isn't that you can communicate method A and method B?

I don't think (I might have missed that) anyone has said you should exclusively communicate one way (in this case #MenAreTrash) but it felt like some people have said one of the ways you shouldn't ever communicate (#MenAreTrash)....if I've missed something or missunderstood sorry,

On that note I think Gillette's (sorry to keep bringing it ups) approach of "Men can do better" is probably more effective than "Men are Trash" - but it both cases I'm happy with the collectivisation. Whereas I got the impression some people would never be ok with that (in the viewpoint "there are other methods of communication you should try instead" rather than "there are other methods of communcation you should try as well...but I might have got that wrong)

Yeah I'm definitely in the as well camp - I think Men are Trash, Men can do better and a whole host of other slogans, approaches and conversations all have their place.

I think the trash perspective is the most provocative (short of getting really hardcore and calling men full on banana splits or something ) and therefore the best at gaining attention, and it works well in the rhetorical statement / call to arms perspective. I think it has more limited power in terms of actually initiating change amongst some of the key demographics - but that's where other tools can be brought into play.

Gillette’s approach was better because it had a more positive message and it’s harder to pretend it’s an attack on all men. The arsewipes will still claim it was an attack of course, but it’s only going to offend those idiots.

The average bloke that stumbles across a discussion like this is far more likely to consider his actions if he hears “men can do better” than if he hears “men are trash”. One of them (to the ears of somebody in the middle) is saying “you’re not so bad, but we can all try and be better”, the other is very easily spun or misinterpreted as “you have a penis? Then you’re a banana split!”.

Moggy wrote:One of them (to the ears of somebody in the middle) is saying “you’re not so bad, but we can all try and be better”, the other is very easily spun or misinterpreted as “you have a penis? Then you’re a banana split!”.

No just imagine if you had a penis and a banana split, what a world that would be.

Jenuall wrote:

Moggy wrote:One of them (to the ears of somebody in the middle) is saying “you’re not so bad, but we can all try and be better”, the other is very easily spun or misinterpreted as “you have a penis? Then you’re a banana split!”.

No just imagine if you had a penis and a banana split, what a world that would be.

Don’t hate on intersex people.

Hexx wrote:

Knoyleo wrote:GRcadians are trash

Was this covered by MRT? I've lost track if any women come post here anymore.

It's just a wall to wall sausage fest.

unironically I think at least 90% of the userbase are white males aged 30+
the people on here who at least I know are women are a couple of other ex SONM members

Jenuall wrote:

Moggy wrote:One of them (to the ears of somebody in the middle) is saying “you’re not so bad, but we can all try and be better”, the other is very easily spun or misinterpreted as “you have a penis? Then you’re a banana split!”.

No just imagine if you had a penis and a banana split, what a world that would be.

You know intersex people (previously hermaphrodites) exist right? And they're probably already subject to enough abuse without you laughing at the mere concept