RIP Kleenex Mansize

[Bonebreaker777]

LET Man size = Big.

LET Mothercare = Parentcare.

LET Transpennine Express = BSOD.

I'll be cool with that

[OilSheikh]

Sexism backlash ?
WTF? We bend over too much for these SJW people days.

[scaryjim]

So guess you equally disapprove of the term kid sized? After all, some kids grow pretty massive (be it vertically, horizontally or both).

tbh I've never come across "kid-sized" as a description, but yeah, I think as much of that as I do about man-sized. I was *very* pleased when Wetherspoons changed their "kids" breakfast to a "small" breakfast. There's no need to apply these excluding qualifiers to things when we have perfectly appropriate adjectives for them.

… No it isn't necessary. Likewise I find the complaints unecessary oversensitivities. ...

I'm sure you don't see what the problem is. As I've already said in this thread, that's part of the problem. But by all means, take your inability to see the problem as confirmation that there is no problem, if that makes you feel better about it...

… We bend over too much for these SJW people days.

Social Justice Warriors. People who fight for a just society. I'm sure these are the bad guys. Totes. I mean, who wants a *just* society? Got to be trouble makers.
#NotEnoughEyeRollInTheWorld

[wazzickle]

I like that people who are getting upset about this pick their battles so badly, and get so up in arms about the small things, when they accuse others of being snowflakes.

[peterb]

Reminds me of a Feminista telling me that history was a sexist term because it was His-Story.

Completely ignoring the fact that the etymology of history is from Latin Historia and Old French 'estoire' - meaning story.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/history

[TooNice]

I'm sure you don't see what the problem is. As I've already said in this thread, that's part of the problem. But by all means, take your inability to see the problem as confirmation that there is no problem, if that makes you feel better about it...

I am up for a good debate, but can we drop the passive aggressiveness? Not that I am bothered by it, and not that I expect to come to an agreement in the end, but it seems a bit beneath what I expect from a long time member.

I can confirm that I do not see the issue. But until you claim why you think it is a problem, I can just turn around and point out that you are merely stating opinion ("I think there is an problem") as fact ("It is undeniably a problem"), or alternatively, returning what you said by stating that you are seeing a problem where there isn't one. A pretty fruitless discussion.

The way I see it, this "problem" is particularly subjective, as it doesn't really affect anyone in a tangible manner. Whether I think that a description like "Men-sized" is problematic or not, won't stop anyone (of any gender or age) from buying it. Much like terms like "girly drinks" stopped me from buying them.. back when I drank alcohol. Nor did the term bother me, silly as I thought it was. I think I would be oversensitive fuss something I consider so insignificant, and apply the same standard to others. Perhaps I should be (bothered), but I was not, and it is only fair to others for me to apply the same standard. To view / treat others on a different standard would be something-ist (incidentally it would also mean that if I -was- bothered by such qualitatives, I might see where you are coming from.. but I don't).

I mean, has the renaming (which is possibly more a marketing move than anything) really changed society? Has it tangibly affected the issue of gender roles in society? A significant victory that brings us towards a fairer society? Changed people's view?

As little final note, convincing people like me, who do not see the value of the change but isn't opposed to it as I fo not find it detrimental either (I see it as switching meaningless with meaningless), that there was a problem, and value in the change than trying to antagonise us. It is something I have noticed a lot with certain groups. It isn't just those who oppose their values, but also those who are indifferent who are seen as being part of the problem. In doing so, you are making enemies that needn't be, and end up having to face not only those who completely oppose your values, but also those may share -some- of your values (especially on bigger issues) but decide let you fight the good fight because we do not want to be associated with you. I have been fortunate enough that none of the vegan friends / acquaintances have taken an antagonistic tone in our discussions, nor tried to shove their values down my throat, and as a result I respect them a lot more for it, and I can even accept some of their moral high ground (not quite enough to convert me, but I can see the value of their worldview).

So go on, I dare you to enlighten me. Or don't if you don't want to. I assure you though, right now, I have nothing to feel "better" or "worse" about on this subject. It is largely indifference (and an inkling of wondering if there was any worth in this "victory").

[Ttaskmaster]

I was *very* pleased when Wetherspoons changed their "kids" breakfast to a "small" breakfast. There's no need to apply these excluding qualifiers to things when we have perfectly appropriate adjectives for them.

We've had 'Kids Menus' for many decades, without a problem. Why does it need changing to 'small'?

Social Justice Warriors. People who fight for a just society. I'm sure these are the bad guys. Totes. I mean, who wants a *just* society? Got to be trouble makers. #NotEnoughEyeRollInTheWorld

SJWs do NOT fight for a just society.
They fight just to have something to fight about. They fight to ostracise and publicly vilify anyone who doesn't agree with them. They fight to take offense on behalf of those who aren't actually offended, often having to explain to them why they should be offended... and if no-one hasn't not been not offended lately, they'll just make something up to get offended about.

No gender been offended today? Make up another new gender.
No racial discrimination today? Scream cultural approriation at some native restaurant for using a non-indigenous recipe.
None of the 43 different gender identities been belittled today? Find a product that does not pader specifically to each one and scream sexism at them.

TBH, it sounds like a pathetic half-assed attempt at creating something between 1984 and a Labour Government...

I like that people who are getting upset about this pick their battles so badly, and get so up in arms about the small things, when they accuse others of being snowflakes.

People who get upset about this generally do so because we're pandering to an overly vocal minority who are simply seeking attention, rather than offering any reasonable offence that needs addressing.

I mean, has the renaming (which is possibly more a marketing move than anything) really changed society? Has it tangibly affected the issue of gender roles in society? A significant victory that brings us towards a fairer society? Changed people's view?

I think there's certainly a bit of chicken & egg cause and effect going on.
Changing one brand name won't change peoples' perceptions of gender roles in society... but changing them all will. Whether these changes are being made as a result of societal changes, or themselves contributing to those changes is debatable, with the most likely conclusion being 'both'.

[opel80uk]

As little final note, convincing people like me, who do not see the value of the change but isn't opposed to it as I fo not find it detrimental either (I see it as switching meaningless with meaningless), that there was a problem, and value in the change than trying to antagonise us. It is something I have noticed a lot with certain groups. It isn't just those who oppose their values, but also those who are indifferent who are seen as being part of the problem. In doing so, you are making enemies that needn't be, and end up having to face not only those who completely oppose your values, but also those may share -some- of your values (especially on bigger issues) but decide let you fight the good fight because we do not want to be associated with you. I have been fortunate enough that none of the vegan friends / acquaintances have taken an antagonistic tone in our discussions, nor tried to shove their values down my throat, and as a result I respect them a lot more for it, and I can even accept some of their moral high ground (not quite enough to convert me, but I can see the value of their worldview).

If, after it being expressed that that some people find terms like man sized exclusionary and with you admitting that if those terms were to stop being used it would not affect you in anyway whatsoever,
you still choose not to support it, why would someone persist in attempting to try and make you see the ‘value in the change’? You’ve already said you see it as ‘switching meaningless with meaningless’, thereby dismissing those who said they feel it is exclusionary, and as such, you ARE part of the problem. Furthermore, I find yours and others attitude on this incredibly perplexing, far more so than those actively opposed to any change. If everyone else in my house wanted to paint the living room blue because they didn’t like the cream colour it was now, and I was completely neutral to the blue colour as I was to the cream, they were prepared to do it and pay for it themselves to the same standard it is now, and I had no inkling to paint the room myself and it wouldn’t inconvenience me in any way whatsoever, why would I spend any time questioning or criticising their decision to want to paint the room blue, or why they don’t like the cream? In fact, if it would make others in the house happy to paint the room blue and was cost neutral to me in every way, why would I not support it? It makes me question if those that say they don’t have an opinion either way are being disingenuous.

[ik9000]

and if no-one hasn't not been not offended lately, they'll just make something up to get offended about.

It does seem like it sometimes doesn't it! I mean it's just a product name.

Anyway as a man I've always felt comfortable buying a product that was clearly aimed at me, But hey, I won't be able to buy them once they change the name since if women don't buy them because they say "man" on the box, then XL size tissues are clearly only for XL people i.e. obese folk - and I'm not, nor do I want to identify as such. Ergo, no sale. Now if only I had twitter, idle time on my hands, and a self-righteous indignation that I could vent at a marketing department, maybe I too could propagate such a fuss about nothing.

[peterb]

It does seem like it sometimes doesn't it! I mean it's just a product name.

Anyway as a man I've always felt comfortable buying a product that was clearly aimed at me, But hey, I won't be able to buy them once they change the name since if women don't buy them because they say "man" on the box, then XL size tissues are clearly only for XL people i.e. obese folk - and I'm not, nor do I want to identify as such. Ergo, no sale. Now if only I had twitter, idle time on my hands, and a self-righteous indignation that I could vent at a marketing department, maybe I too could propagate such a fuss about nothing.

Ah, but that loss of sales from you will be made up by sales to females because of course no female would buy something labelled man-size.

[Ttaskmaster]

why would I spend any time questioning or criticising their decision to want to paint the room blue, or why they don’t like the cream? In fact, if it would make others in the house happy to paint the room blue and was cost neutral to me in every way, why would I not support it?

The colour is not the problem.
The reasons behind wanting the change are what's being questioned.

People are wary of opening potential floodgates on what could end up getting quite ridiculous... and what has already given us plenty of precedent examples of such.

[ik9000]

Ah, but that loss of sales from you will be made up by sales to females because of course no female would buy something labelled man-size.

given how many of my jumpers/tshirts etc have been purloined by my sisters/gfs/wife over the years I can say that women have no issue taking man-sized items when it suits them.
one of my colleagues regularly buys mens workboots for her size 9s.
similarly several of my more petit friends buy childrens range shoes for themselves to avoid the VAT.

It's all a fuss about nothing.

[opel80uk]

People are wary of opening potential floodgates on what could end up getting quite ridiculous... and what has already given us plenty of precedent examples of such.

Examples such as?

[ik9000]

Examples such as?

XL discriminates against obese folk. Another re-brand needed. Soon we won't be able to have large or small things - they will have to find other adjectives.

[Ttaskmaster]

Examples such as?

LGBT - The initialism signifying the community of a particular minority... now evolved to be dozens of different GSM, GSRM, GSD, MSGI, MOGII, MOGAI, LGBTQ, LGBTIQ, LGBTQIA, QUILTBAG, and all manner and combinations of LGBTTQQIAAP, all with or without a '+' at the end (for future expansion, obviously).... and woe betide you if you don't use the right one to the right person!
Incidentally, just about everyone, including the straight, white, vanilla default person, is actually included in several of these 'minorities' - So even if you're the overwhelming majority, you're still a minority and can be offended.... yeah.

That's just sexual preference, by the way. You also have gender identity politics and all the silly pronouns going on with that - You now have quite sizable lookup tables to ascertain which is well beyond even the most complex foreign language I've ever tried to learn. English already has about 40 basic pronouns, but now with the advent of multiple gender identities, that table multiplies up by the number of additional genders, sub-genders and gender-states. We're having to make up a bunch of new words just to cope with it, and even then that's only pleasing the majority of the minorities.
Society barely knows what to do about two basic gender roles, but now there are dozens of extras throwing themselves into the mix.
We had this silliness back in the days of the 'Womyn' and 'Wimin', but now there are more options than Sky TV channels... even though there's still nothing worth watching.

So now we ban Man-size things, even though there's a perfectly valid reason for the term...

I assume place names will be changed next?
Fancy a house in Rickpersonsworth? Oh, no, can't even do that - A person doesn't have a 'worth' any more, because slavery is over.... not that this is anything to do with the etymology, but that is a genuine complaint I heard quite a lot while living there.

[opel80uk]

LGBT - The initialism signifying the community of a particular minority... now evolved to be dozens of different GSM, GSRM, GSD, MSGI, MOGII, MOGAI, LGBTQ, LGBTIQ, LGBTQIA, QUILTBAG, and all manner and combinations of LGBTTQQIAAP, all with or without a '+' at the end (for future expansion, obviously).... and woe betide you if you don't use the right one to the right person!
Incidentally, just about everyone, including the straight, white, vanilla default person, is actually included in several of these 'minorities' - So even if you're the overwhelming majority, you're still a minority and can be offended.... yeah.

That's just sexual preference, by the way. You also have gender identity politics and all the silly pronouns going on with that - You now have quite sizable lookup tables to ascertain which is well beyond even the most complex foreign language I've ever tried to learn. English already has about 40 basic pronouns, but now with the advent of multiple gender identities, that table multiplies up by the number of additional genders, sub-genders and gender-states. We're having to make up a bunch of new words just to cope with it, and even then that's only pleasing the majority of the minorities.
Society barely knows what to do about two basic gender roles, but now there are dozens of extras throwing themselves into the mix.
We had this silliness back in the days of the 'Womyn' and 'Wimin', but now there are more options than Sky TV channels... even though there's still nothing worth watching.

So now we ban Man-size things, even though there's a perfectly valid reason for the term...

I assume place names will be changed next?
Fancy a house in Rickpersonsworth? Oh, no, can't even do that - A person doesn't have a 'worth' any more, because slavery is over.... not that this is anything to do with the etymology, but that is a genuine complaint I heard quite a lot while living there.

Again though, even if all the above was not a manifestly exaggerated analysis of the changes taking place in society, and even if we agree that there are now self-identifiers that whilst you cannot relate to, others would like society to adopt, how does any of it adversely affect you? Is the sum of your objection that you might have to learn new terminology, and you don’t want to? Or that new words are being made-up? (and even then, I doubt very much whether anyone is able to force you to use their preferred terminology. You are still free to use the pronoun you choose, are you not?)
I genuinely fail to see why anyone not a part of any of the groups you’ve listed would be bothered one way or the other. When I asked for some of your many examples, I thought you would have had some that have actually negatively impacted you.

And why are you misrepresenting what has happened with the man size thing? They haven’t been banned – Kleenex have decided to rebrand after people made complaints. Saying that the term has been ‘banned’ implies that somehow Kleenex are being legally compelled to take the course of action that they are when that is not the case; they could if they wanted continue to use the term.