7 ms·

Nike's End of Men

55 points by oli5679 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Barrin92 5y ago
the article is meandering. On the one hand these new 'woke-ads' are annoying, but to claim that the 'end of men' is the end of Nike as a brand is hyperbolic or even wrong. Instead of pulling up nike ad after nike ad, comparison to two other industries might have made sense. Drinking and smoking. Like Nike shoes they have something in common, namely being historical male vices and once being advertised by cowboys and other virile heroes. However many cigarette companies as well as alcohol producers have very successfully switched to targeting women, or sometimes I guess, with questionable ethics, teenagers. This honestly reads a lot like a male anxiety type post, no accident that the NBA and China make an appearance because aside from feminism the middle kingdom is another source of status fears these days for American men seemingly.
- tester34 5y ago
  >However many cigarette companies as well as alcohol producers have very successfully switched to targeting women, or sometimes I guess, with questionable ethics, teenagers. Could you give some examples? I'm curious how they did it
  - varelse 5y ago
    https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xms9i5 https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xms9i5
bodge5000 5y ago
Whilst I dont nessecarily disagree with the authors points, and they make some good ones, they seem to forget that historically, masculinaty wasn't about "humiliating your enemy", in fact that would be seen as poor form and unsportsman like. Obviously that differs from sport to sport and culture to culture, and some sports even maintain that (particularly some of the more aggressive sports oddly enough, like rugby). Sports haven't changed from aggressive to soft, they've changed from polite to aggressive to soft, and probably took another form before they were polite. So yeh, I think he makes some good points, but as always, its a bit more complicated than that
- Gravityloss 5y ago
  Yes, what about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry or more recently https://brocode.org/the-code/ https://brocode.org/the-code/
magnostherobot 5y ago
> All that striving for greatness is indivisible from the selfish need to inflict cruelty on your dominated foe. Take away the latter and there is no sports. It’s just exercise. I cannot empathise with someone that has this mindset. It seems like the author thinks that all masculinity is toxic - or, at least, that it's called "toxic" by progressives or whatever - and I would strongly disagree with this. When people use the phrase "toxic masculinity", they don't mean "masculinity (which is toxic, by the way)": they mean " the parts of masculinity that are toxic". There's also a whole paragraph dedicated to saying that women aren't at the peak of sports excellence, and shouldn't be covered by Nike's clothing range. I don't think the author has watched any women's sports games before writing this piece. I have plenty more issues with this writing, but I'm gonna stop here because I feel like I might be falling for a rage-bait article.
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  > When people use the phrase "toxic masculinity", they don't mean "masculinity (which is toxic, by the way)": they mean " the parts of masculinity that are toxic". This is technically defensible, just as "the patriarchy" is technically an abstract term. But keep saying "masculinity" always prepended with "toxic" and "toxic" swiftly becomes an adjective, not a subcategory, just as the patriarchy becomes an active global conspiracy it's okay to get people fired for in the fight against it.
  - magnostherobot 5y ago
    Interestingly I would use the use of "the patriarchy" as a term as evidence against the belief of the transformation of the meaning of the phrase "toxic masculinity". The patriarchy doesn't have a qualifier: that a patriarchy exists is considered bad innately, and so the term doesn't need its own "toxic" prepended. Masculinity, on the other hand, is not considered innately bad, and so requires the "toxic" qualifier to narrow the target to the portions of masculinity which are... well, toxic. If the "toxic" was superfluous (due to masculinity being seen as inherently evil, for example), surely people would have dropped it ages ago. This is, of course, based on my personal experience with these phrases. When my friends and I use "toxic masculinity", we can see the difference between it and "masculinity", and when I see the phrase used by strangers online, I assume that they're using it as "the part of masculinity that is toxic". I can't remember any situation where that assumption has misled me, although maybe I wouldn't remember something like that. You're certainly right about some people using the "toxic" as an adjective, insofar as I believe this author has done exactly that in this article. If I was feeling cynical, I might argue that the author may have deliberately conflated all of masculinity with its elements that get called "toxic", in an attempt to make the two seem inseparable. I think the good faith interpretation is simply that this is how the author has seen the phrase used before, and that, somewhere between my circles and his circles, the phrase's meaning has been changed or accidentally misinterpreted.
AzzieElbab 5y ago
I keep wondering what Nikes Chinese TV adds look like
- AzzieElbab 5y ago
  Looked them up. They look like Nikes adds from the 90s
- pjc50 5y ago
  2004: banned https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/just-don-t-do-it-china-bans-nike-s-basketball-advert-678907.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/just-don-t-do-... 2020: https://www.thedrum.com/news/2020/01/15/nike-s-first-chinese-new-year-ad-brings-tradition-and-family-together-playful https://www.thedrum.com/news/2020/01/15/nike-s-first-chinese... (mildly funny, features two women, doesn't specifically reference sports) 2021: back to "cutting ties" https://hongkongfp.com/2021/03/25/chinese-tv-stars-cut-ties-with-nike-and-hm-faces-boycott-as-xinjiang-forced-labour-backlash-builds/ https://hongkongfp.com/2021/03/25/chinese-tv-stars-cut-ties-...
paulcole 5y ago
When it comes to the business of athletics, nobody seems to acknowledge the fact that men’s leagues have a decades-long head-start when it comes to marketing and brand-building (as well as a centuries-long head-start when it comes to power in many cultures). If women’s sport was the “default” today, imagine the uphill climb men would face. If a company is thinking long-term, investing in women’s sports today is an absolute no-brainer. There’s an essentially untapped audience of billions of people. It might take a few decades to reap the rewards (and in the meantime, you get the side benefit of being socially conscious today), but the results are there for the taking.
CoolGuySteve 5y ago
These comments and whoever flagged this article seem to be so focused on getting offended at the tone that they missed the thesis and why this article is appropriate for HN: > The idea is that a company, as its aims grow more expansive, starts catering less to the locked-in core customer and more to a potential whale which demonstrates some interest. Sure, you can just keep doing what’s made you rich, but how can you even focus on your primary business with that whale out there, swimming so tantalizingly close?
- jmeister 5y ago
  It’s disappointing that this essay was flagged. There are many points raised here that are applicable to tech companies, small and large, as well.
- CarelessExpert 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure the article was flagged because this guy apparently thinks that > masculinity is toxic. And that’s also what people love about it, similar to how they’re addicted to the rotten rinds in cheese. All that striving for greatness is indivisible from the selfish need to inflict cruelty on your dominated foe. Take away the latter and there is no sports. It’s just exercise. So, to sum up: Masculinity is toxic. Without toxic masculinity, sports aren't sports. Women, therefore, cannot excel at sports. And so Nike's marketing is bad. Maybe the reason the article is flagged is that the thesis is just dumb?
- myWindoonn 5y ago
  I will give you the charity here. I see what you're saying, and this would be an interesting discussion, but the author's chosen framing ruins it. Nike is a poor choice for making this point, because their original business was making waffle-iron shoes in a garage. They could have stuck to being a specialty cobbler who only caters to the top stars of track-and-field sports. None of the abuses had to happen. The only sad thing that was obligatory in Nike's story was the death of Steve Prefontaine.
Gravityloss 5y ago
I think the arguments are okay and the story is fun if you don't get sucked in to the obvious provocation. I don't necessarily agree with him but at least he expresses a decently well formed thought.
tdsamardzhiev 5y ago
> So yes, masculinity is toxic If all you can make of it is toxicity, then perhaps you should start looking for the problem inwards. > Michael Jordan was a hypercompetitive alpha male asshole who viciously humiliated not just his opponents, but his teammates as well. He's a champion and did what needed to be done to elevate the team up to that standard, and keep it there. I'm sure he'd have bought them a "Snickers" if that worked better.
myWindoonn 5y ago
> It wouldn’t shock you to learn that Carlos hated the new Nike ads I texted to him. His exact words were, “I don’t want fucking activism from a sweatshop monopoly.” As somebody who grew up in Oregon, this is precisely it. I don't just want Nike to change its outward branding; I want Nike to stop advertising. I don't just want friendlier campus life for women; I want Nike to stop employing. I don't just want Nike to move its sweatshops from one country to another; I want Nike to stop enslaving. Nike should stop existing. Anything less is neoliberal simpering.

55 points by oli5679 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

the article is meandering. On the one hand these new 'woke-ads' are annoying, but to claim that the 'end of men' is the end of Nike as a brand is hyperbolic or even wrong. Instead of pulling up nike ad after nike ad, comparison to two other industries might have made sense. Drinking and smoking. Like Nike shoes they have something in common, namely being historical male vices and once being advertised by cowboys and other virile heroes. However many cigarette companies as well as alcohol producers have very successfully switched to targeting women, or sometimes I guess, with questionable ethics, teenagers. This honestly reads a lot like a male anxiety type post, no accident that the NBA and China make an appearance because aside from feminism the middle kingdom is another source of status fears these days for American men seemingly.

tester34 5y ago
>However many cigarette companies as well as alcohol producers have very successfully switched to targeting women, or sometimes I guess, with questionable ethics, teenagers. Could you give some examples? I'm curious how they did it
- varelse 5y ago
  https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xms9i5 https://www.dailymotion.com/video/xms9i5

bodge5000 5y ago

Whilst I dont nessecarily disagree with the authors points, and they make some good ones, they seem to forget that historically, masculinaty wasn't about "humiliating your enemy", in fact that would be seen as poor form and unsportsman like. Obviously that differs from sport to sport and culture to culture, and some sports even maintain that (particularly some of the more aggressive sports oddly enough, like rugby). Sports haven't changed from aggressive to soft, they've changed from polite to aggressive to soft, and probably took another form before they were polite. So yeh, I think he makes some good points, but as always, its a bit more complicated than that

Gravityloss 5y ago
Yes, what about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry or more recently https://brocode.org/the-code/ https://brocode.org/the-code/

magnostherobot 5y ago

> All that striving for greatness is indivisible from the selfish need to inflict cruelty on your dominated foe. Take away the latter and there is no sports. It’s just exercise. I cannot empathise with someone that has this mindset. It seems like the author thinks that all masculinity is toxic - or, at least, that it's called "toxic" by progressives or whatever - and I would strongly disagree with this. When people use the phrase "toxic masculinity", they don't mean "masculinity (which is toxic, by the way)": they mean " the parts of masculinity that are toxic". There's also a whole paragraph dedicated to saying that women aren't at the peak of sports excellence, and shouldn't be covered by Nike's clothing range. I don't think the author has watched any women's sports games before writing this piece. I have plenty more issues with this writing, but I'm gonna stop here because I feel like I might be falling for a rage-bait article.

robertlagrant 5y ago
> When people use the phrase "toxic masculinity", they don't mean "masculinity (which is toxic, by the way)": they mean " the parts of masculinity that are toxic". This is technically defensible, just as "the patriarchy" is technically an abstract term. But keep saying "masculinity" always prepended with "toxic" and "toxic" swiftly becomes an adjective, not a subcategory, just as the patriarchy becomes an active global conspiracy it's okay to get people fired for in the fight against it.
- magnostherobot 5y ago
  Interestingly I would use the use of "the patriarchy" as a term as evidence against the belief of the transformation of the meaning of the phrase "toxic masculinity". The patriarchy doesn't have a qualifier: that a patriarchy exists is considered bad innately, and so the term doesn't need its own "toxic" prepended. Masculinity, on the other hand, is not considered innately bad, and so requires the "toxic" qualifier to narrow the target to the portions of masculinity which are... well, toxic. If the "toxic" was superfluous (due to masculinity being seen as inherently evil, for example), surely people would have dropped it ages ago. This is, of course, based on my personal experience with these phrases. When my friends and I use "toxic masculinity", we can see the difference between it and "masculinity", and when I see the phrase used by strangers online, I assume that they're using it as "the part of masculinity that is toxic". I can't remember any situation where that assumption has misled me, although maybe I wouldn't remember something like that. You're certainly right about some people using the "toxic" as an adjective, insofar as I believe this author has done exactly that in this article. If I was feeling cynical, I might argue that the author may have deliberately conflated all of masculinity with its elements that get called "toxic", in an attempt to make the two seem inseparable. I think the good faith interpretation is simply that this is how the author has seen the phrase used before, and that, somewhere between my circles and his circles, the phrase's meaning has been changed or accidentally misinterpreted.

AzzieElbab 5y ago

I keep wondering what Nikes Chinese TV adds look like

AzzieElbab 5y ago
Looked them up. They look like Nikes adds from the 90s
pjc50 5y ago
2004: banned https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/just-don-t-do-it-china-bans-nike-s-basketball-advert-678907.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/just-don-t-do-... 2020: https://www.thedrum.com/news/2020/01/15/nike-s-first-chinese-new-year-ad-brings-tradition-and-family-together-playful https://www.thedrum.com/news/2020/01/15/nike-s-first-chinese... (mildly funny, features two women, doesn't specifically reference sports) 2021: back to "cutting ties" https://hongkongfp.com/2021/03/25/chinese-tv-stars-cut-ties-with-nike-and-hm-faces-boycott-as-xinjiang-forced-labour-backlash-builds/ https://hongkongfp.com/2021/03/25/chinese-tv-stars-cut-ties-...

paulcole 5y ago

When it comes to the business of athletics, nobody seems to acknowledge the fact that men’s leagues have a decades-long head-start when it comes to marketing and brand-building (as well as a centuries-long head-start when it comes to power in many cultures). If women’s sport was the “default” today, imagine the uphill climb men would face. If a company is thinking long-term, investing in women’s sports today is an absolute no-brainer. There’s an essentially untapped audience of billions of people. It might take a few decades to reap the rewards (and in the meantime, you get the side benefit of being socially conscious today), but the results are there for the taking.

CoolGuySteve 5y ago

These comments and whoever flagged this article seem to be so focused on getting offended at the tone that they missed the thesis and why this article is appropriate for HN: > The idea is that a company, as its aims grow more expansive, starts catering less to the locked-in core customer and more to a potential whale which demonstrates some interest. Sure, you can just keep doing what’s made you rich, but how can you even focus on your primary business with that whale out there, swimming so tantalizingly close?

jmeister 5y ago
It’s disappointing that this essay was flagged. There are many points raised here that are applicable to tech companies, small and large, as well.
CarelessExpert 5y ago
I'm pretty sure the article was flagged because this guy apparently thinks that > masculinity is toxic. And that’s also what people love about it, similar to how they’re addicted to the rotten rinds in cheese. All that striving for greatness is indivisible from the selfish need to inflict cruelty on your dominated foe. Take away the latter and there is no sports. It’s just exercise. So, to sum up: Masculinity is toxic. Without toxic masculinity, sports aren't sports. Women, therefore, cannot excel at sports. And so Nike's marketing is bad. Maybe the reason the article is flagged is that the thesis is just dumb?
myWindoonn 5y ago
I will give you the charity here. I see what you're saying, and this would be an interesting discussion, but the author's chosen framing ruins it. Nike is a poor choice for making this point, because their original business was making waffle-iron shoes in a garage. They could have stuck to being a specialty cobbler who only caters to the top stars of track-and-field sports. None of the abuses had to happen. The only sad thing that was obligatory in Nike's story was the death of Steve Prefontaine.

Gravityloss 5y ago

I think the arguments are okay and the story is fun if you don't get sucked in to the obvious provocation. I don't necessarily agree with him but at least he expresses a decently well formed thought.

tdsamardzhiev 5y ago

> So yes, masculinity is toxic If all you can make of it is toxicity, then perhaps you should start looking for the problem inwards. > Michael Jordan was a hypercompetitive alpha male asshole who viciously humiliated not just his opponents, but his teammates as well. He's a champion and did what needed to be done to elevate the team up to that standard, and keep it there. I'm sure he'd have bought them a "Snickers" if that worked better.

myWindoonn 5y ago

> It wouldn’t shock you to learn that Carlos hated the new Nike ads I texted to him. His exact words were, “I don’t want fucking activism from a sweatshop monopoly.” As somebody who grew up in Oregon, this is precisely it. I don't just want Nike to change its outward branding; I want Nike to stop advertising. I don't just want friendlier campus life for women; I want Nike to stop employing. I don't just want Nike to move its sweatshops from one country to another; I want Nike to stop enslaving. Nike should stop existing. Anything less is neoliberal simpering.