Actually 4% for men not 5 but this conclusion is well worth noting

John Flatley from the ONS said : “The data shows the complexity of measuring crime in all its different forms. Even offences under the heading of ‘violence’ vary enormously, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving, to homicide. We need to be careful that our perceptions and understanding of crime levels are shaped by appropriate data, and not overgeneralised.”

Ignoring there is an issue and something needs to change.

No, just that there are better ways than a **** advert from a corporation that changes its mind based on marketing. Gilette aren’t going to change the minds of these people that’s been shown already. What they will do is sell more cheap shite as a result. Which was what they wanted in the first place. This is a company with a history of human and animal rights abuse. They don’t care about any of these issues. Anybody that thinks for one second that they do is very, very naive

Brand-based advertising remains one of the most powerful mediums. It’s reach and ability to influence behaviours is unrivalled.

So, it seems logical to use it for good as well as for consumerism. Funnily enough, the people who know how to do this best work in marketing and advertising – usually on behalf of consumer brands. So, again it seems logical that a brand may do so. Am I missing something…?

As for complaining it targets white males. White males still have control of most of the capital, most governments, most of the means of production, most of the education system and most social organisations. White men have the most power so the greater ability to abuse power – it doesn’t take a genius to see that.

Some of the arguments about black men committing the most crime are amazingly naive. The most disadvantaged group in society, targeted most by the criminal justice system found to have committed the most crime. Doesn’t smell bad at all does it…

How do you reconcile you being over 3 times more likely a victim of stranger violence with your parking male privilidge?

With no difficulty. I’ve been ‘victim’ a handful of times of random stranger violence, for different levels of victimgood ranging from a random beating up from a gang of young lads in Hulme that was bad but could have been a lot worse, to being swung at by lads who later may have regretted this. On all occasions it was late, I was pissed, and aged under early 20s. This is pretty typical of both perpetrators and victims. Without dismissing these sorts of things, it’s pretty normal for lads to put themselves in situations where this is a risk. Women tend to have to be more careful, and so don’t put themselves in these situations.

@MOLGRIPS, unfortunately the term and many others have been weaponised just like ones from the other side of the hall, they’ve started to alienate people because they’re used to silence opposing opinions and no platform. What’s to lose by parking it for a bit and seeing where the conversation goes without them? If it brings peoole to the table and greater understanding it’s a good thing, no? Anyone with an ounce of sense knows these issues are real, but if something is blocking reasoned conversation, where’s the harm in trying something new? There’s very little ground being made while the shitstorm ensues.

@johnx2 I think the risk taking is one of the issues, I did read something about that. It is often referred to in a negative way.

The only ones that need to change are these two groups

So you’re denying there’s an issue?

The vast majority included in this statistic is low level unwanted touching etc,

So it’s not important?

Without dismissing these sorts of things, it’s pretty normal for lads to put themselves in situations where this is a risk. Women tend to have to be more careful, and so don’t put themselves in these situations.

Ok but the men have a choice – you can get home early, or not go out. Women face the risk of sexual assault *all the time*. It can’t be avoided.

You all are being told there’s an issue, by the people whom it affects. You are dismissing their concerns based on your experience, as someone whom it does not affect. Can you not see a problem here? Would you like to share your opinion on uncomfortable hosiery, which was also an article in today’s Guardian?

…and that’s without mentioning the close shaves.

…and that’s without mentioning the close shaves.

Nicely done Sir.

The only ones that need to change are these two groups, the rest of us are just calmly carrying on as normal fully functioning adults.

“Ignoring there is an issue and something needs to change”.

Not sure how you and it seems MG miss the point. The poster names the knuckledraggers as a group that need to change, accepting there is a problem but only that “some” need to change. You and the add give the impression that men in general are a problem not just the few.

So it’s not important?

Context is important.

Ok but the men have a choice – you can get home early, or not go out.

This may well reduce risk but it doesn’t eliminate it and I would be keen to see some statistics that suggest it reduces the incidence to that of women in similar circumstances.

You and the add give the impression that men in general are a problem not just the few.

Society is the problem.

Not sure how you and it seems MG miss the point. The poster names the knuckledraggers as a group that need to change, accepting there is a problem but only that “some” need to change. You and the add give the impression that men in general are a problem not just the few.

Exactly, people are being damaged, there are some that need to change their ways, there needs to be a consensus on the best way forward to achieve this. Talking at people doesn’t seem to be working terribly well thus far, does it?

The vast majority included in this statistic is low level unwanted touching etc,

So it’s not important?

It’s important to countering your point which was regarding the woman you said felt too afraid to park in this alleyway of yours.

I doubt the woman you were referring to was avoiding the alleyway for fear of having her knee touched in a way that she wouldn’t feel was worth reporting to the Police. Far more likely she was afraid of serious violence.

In which case the numbers re violent crime *are* important. (…and you’re attempting to trivialise serious violence against women by equating it with events that 80pc of women don’t report just to win an internet argument.)

No, just that there are better ways than a **** advert from a corporation that changes its mind based on marketing. Gilette aren’t going to change the minds of these people that’s been shown already.

Of course it’s not but it is just one way to reach millions with only the effort of a massive brand. How has it be shown already that it hasn’t worked?

I don’t think there’s many that think the message behind the add is not worthwhile. Onyl that it’s been executed poorly by Gillette. If you alienate a good percentage of those that could help with that message then it’s a fail 🤨

You and the add give the impression that men in general are a problem not just the few.

So to continue the street violence thing, you’re walking home, late on a lonely road. A group of young women are coming the other way towards you. No Biggie. A group of young men? Nah, don’t worry, men in general aren’t a problem, just a few. Tell me there’s no adrenaline going into your system…

(My obvious and laboured point is that ‘bad men’ are part of the group ‘men in general’. Whose job is it to do something about bad men? I’d say men in general. Blimey. This is so uncontroversial it’d be safe to use it in an ad..)

No, just that there are better ways than a **** advert from a corporation that changes its mind based on marketing. Gilette aren’t going to change the minds of these people that’s been shown already.

Exactly true, what the aim really appears to be is to move the general population more to one side, to increase the number of people who tell a mate to wind it in a bit, who stand up and stop something who encourage others to change, that challenges behaviours and means that more people are thinking like decent folk. It’s exactly the same as drink driving campaigns and social pressure as a part of those.

(My obvious and laboured point is that ‘bad men’ are part of the group ‘men in general’. Whose job is it to do something about bad men? I’d say men in general. Blimey. This is so uncontroversial it’d be safe to use it in an ad..)

Would you apply that to Muslims? I wouldn’t.

Problems in society need to be solved by society a whole, not by subsets of society chosen by other subsets of society.

So to continue the street violence thing, you’re walking home, late on a lonely road. A group of young women are coming the other way towards you. No Biggie. A group of young men? Nah, don’t worry, men in general aren’t a problem, just a few. Tell me there’s no adrenaline going into your system…

Are they black men?

Would you apply that to Muslims?

Eh?

Ah, I get it. Actually yes, I do think that peer pressure is most effectively exerted by, er, peers…

Are they black men?

Actual laugh out loud! If I was black I’d probably add a few smileys too.

Would you apply that to Muslims?

Ah, I get it. Actually yes, I do think that peer pressure is most effectively exerted by, er, peers…

Peers chosen by you? So you’re lumping Extremist Suicide bombers into a set of your choice – Muslims – and putting some sort of responsibility on Muslims to sort it out?

Which Muslims? Arab Muslims? African Muslims? All Muslims?

Extremist Suicide bombers also wear shoes, why not claim that Extremist Suicide bomber’s peers are shoe wearers and make terrorism the responsibility of people who wear shoes?

Nah, it’s just you choosing to lump Extremist Suicide bombers into the Muslim category of your choice because it suits you.

Ad absurdam…

And yet, it is those who are actually around an individual who are best placed to notice and head off bad behaviour. This discussion has been about casual bullying type behaviour by men, but similar would apply to extremism I guess.

How has it be shown already that it hasn’t worked?

Just read reactions from the ye olde macho men. Are they not the ones that need to change?

Problems in society need to be solved by society a whole, not by subsets of society chosen by other subsets of society.

And that

I don’t think there’s many that think the message behind the add is not worthwhile. Onyl that it’s been executed poorly by Gillette. If you alienate a good percentage of those that could help with that message then it’s a fail 🤨

I hope you are right Taxi but i’d be a bit worried that if people are alienated by the ad then they are possibly not really seeing, or agreeing with, the message behind it.

And yet, it is those who are actually around an individual who are best placed to notice and head off bad behaviour.

So why classify them by religion? There’s no evidence that Extremist Suicide bombers hang around with (say) Indonesian Muslims. Why not classify the nutters by geographical area? Why not say People in (say) London who are actually around Extremist Suicide bombers from London should be doing more to deal with it?

Why pick religion? You can’t justify it. ‘Muslims’ is just an arbitrary group you’ve chosen to put Extremist Suicide bombers into.

You seem to have dismantled your point. Random capitalisation doesn’t help 😀

Interesting read

I was waiting from some dross from GT and here it is. Did you read that trash before linking it GT? I got this far

Women make up 60 percent of university graduates, and dominate education, health care, and law. Yes, there is a pay gap. While some of that is due to bias, it’s actually more to do with the fact that men do most of the dangerous jobs, work outdoors more than women, are in arduous trades more than women, tend to pick higher-paid occupations when they’re in training, and are more willing to move to get higher-paying jobs.

Which is a pack of lies:

What proportion of School heads, university dons/profs, national health trust bosses, private clinic bosses and top baristers are women? Sweet **** all.

The pay gap is not due to men doing dangerous jobs because they are some of the worst paid. Window cleaner is one of the most dangerous. Agricultural labourer is outdoors, dangerous and badly paid. Men are highly paid to do the least dangerous jobs on the planet such as sit on the boards of companies where they earn 5,6 or 7 figures sitting on their fat arses.

Women are just as willing to move into high paying jobs but hit a glass ceiling created by you guessed it, men.

Women are just as willing to move into high paying jobs but hit a glass ceiling created by you guessed it, men.

And also themselves by pulling the ladder up behind them when they do break through.

Sorry I’m too triggered by ‘how tight do you run your helmet’ to contribute anything meaningful to this thread.

Like all hot topics, ie women, Bre*it and vegan food – this ad is surely best judged by our Piers?

(escorted out of the room by my ears)