Nike's End of Men(houseofstrauss.substack.com)
houseofstrauss.substack.com
Nike's End of Men
https://houseofstrauss.substack.com/p/nikes-end-of-men
34 comments
> ...saying that women aren't at the peak of sports excellence...I don't think the author has watched any women's sports games before writing this piece.
Women are not at the peak of sports excellent in literally any sport in which both men and women compete. This is a statement of fact and does not denigrate the value of women, generally, or women athletes.
I am baffled when people make claims like yours. Have you played sports or followed sports closely? This is not a rhetorical question. I ask because I've had conversations with friends and the common denominator among those who believe that some women's sports are "peak excellence" never played sports and certainly don't follow sports. The on-the-ground reality is that men have massive biologically driven physical advantages over women. A middling men's pro tennis player would destroy the top women's pro tennis player. The US Women's National Soccer Team was defeated by an under-15 boys team. Compare the world records of men's and women's track and field events–they're not even close. Etc.
> ... shouldn't be covered by Nike's clothing range
The author makes no such claim. Rather, the author points out that Nike's pursuit of what it believes to be a huge untapped market ("women") has led it to disavow and even antagonize the masculine culture which pervades high-level sports and which Nike rode to market dominance.
> rage-bait article
To me, this article read as a fairly innocuous and mostly factual take on Nike's marketing. Is it possible you supplied the rage?
Women are not at the peak of sports excellent in literally any sport in which both men and women compete. This is a statement of fact and does not denigrate the value of women, generally, or women athletes.
I am baffled when people make claims like yours. Have you played sports or followed sports closely? This is not a rhetorical question. I ask because I've had conversations with friends and the common denominator among those who believe that some women's sports are "peak excellence" never played sports and certainly don't follow sports. The on-the-ground reality is that men have massive biologically driven physical advantages over women. A middling men's pro tennis player would destroy the top women's pro tennis player. The US Women's National Soccer Team was defeated by an under-15 boys team. Compare the world records of men's and women's track and field events–they're not even close. Etc.
> ... shouldn't be covered by Nike's clothing range
The author makes no such claim. Rather, the author points out that Nike's pursuit of what it believes to be a huge untapped market ("women") has led it to disavow and even antagonize the masculine culture which pervades high-level sports and which Nike rode to market dominance.
> rage-bait article
To me, this article read as a fairly innocuous and mostly factual take on Nike's marketing. Is it possible you supplied the rage?
I disagree with your claim that women are not at the peak of sports excellence. Many times women's sports are more fun to watch because women place a greater emphasis on strategy over physical dominance. Even when men and women are playing the same sport, such as basketball, they're employing two very different approaches to game play. It's subjective as to which style of game play you prefer to watch, I like both, for different reasons. Just don't watch a women's game and expect it to be just like the men's game but with female players.
You're blurring terminology.
Yes, "more fun to watch" is entirely subjective. "Peak excellence" is much less so. It is indisputable, if one is being honest, that for almost all sports, the top woman/women's team would not be even close to competitive were they to compete against men. Thus, it seems incorrect to claim that any woman/women's team is performing at "peak excellence" without the qualifier "amongst women".
Again, none of this means women or women athletes do not deserve to be treated with respect. Nor does it invalidate one's personal preferences on which sports they like to watch.
However, I do think that for most people who regularly watch sports, peak excellence is an important factor for which sports are more fun to watch. This, in turn, explains why patronage of men's professional sports is so much greater than for women's.
Yes, "more fun to watch" is entirely subjective. "Peak excellence" is much less so. It is indisputable, if one is being honest, that for almost all sports, the top woman/women's team would not be even close to competitive were they to compete against men. Thus, it seems incorrect to claim that any woman/women's team is performing at "peak excellence" without the qualifier "amongst women".
Again, none of this means women or women athletes do not deserve to be treated with respect. Nor does it invalidate one's personal preferences on which sports they like to watch.
However, I do think that for most people who regularly watch sports, peak excellence is an important factor for which sports are more fun to watch. This, in turn, explains why patronage of men's professional sports is so much greater than for women's.
"the parts of masculinity that are toxic".
Which parts are those?
The Wikipedia article is pretty disturbingly biased but let's go with it for lack of anything else:
> Traits traditionally viewed as masculine in Western society include strength, courage, independence, leadership, and assertiveness.
What of those do you consider toxic? Personally I view them as all relatively useful for many situations and contexts. I don't view any of them as toxic, though I would posit some extreme assertiveness in places it's not wanted would be "toxic". But I think thats more likely a toxic individual than masculinity being "toxic".
I view feminine traits in much the same way, mostly being advantageous when leveraged appropriately and unhelpful when employed at the wrong time.
But I'm not about to start suggesting parts of feminity are toxic.
Further more if you want to say masculinity has toxic parts, say that instead of saying toxic masculinity, because we all know what you really mean when you say it that way.
Which parts are those?
The Wikipedia article is pretty disturbingly biased but let's go with it for lack of anything else:
> Traits traditionally viewed as masculine in Western society include strength, courage, independence, leadership, and assertiveness.
What of those do you consider toxic? Personally I view them as all relatively useful for many situations and contexts. I don't view any of them as toxic, though I would posit some extreme assertiveness in places it's not wanted would be "toxic". But I think thats more likely a toxic individual than masculinity being "toxic".
I view feminine traits in much the same way, mostly being advantageous when leveraged appropriately and unhelpful when employed at the wrong time.
But I'm not about to start suggesting parts of feminity are toxic.
Further more if you want to say masculinity has toxic parts, say that instead of saying toxic masculinity, because we all know what you really mean when you say it that way.
It's supposed to mean stuff like not asking for help when you need it, or being overly aggressive in social situations so you don't appear weak. FWIW I hate the term because it's become a catch-all for "things men do that I personally don't like".
Not asking for help sounds like stubbornness and inability to admit a failure or lack of knowledge.That's more a cultural thing from my experience. Common in Asian cultures but also prevelant in older western generations.
Being overly aggressive sounds like a character flaw, psychological problem or poor social conditioning.
I guess if you really want you can label them masculinity and then you'd be right but personally I struggle to draw the connection and find the idea of tying the word toxic to a gender dangerous. Nothing wrong with being masculine. Nothing wrong with being feminine. Nothing wrong with being overly either whichever your gender.
People who want to label me toxic for having a penis is going to struggle working with me, and it isn't my masculinity that's the problem.
(I'm aware you're just trying to explain here, not aiming any of this towards yourself)
Being overly aggressive sounds like a character flaw, psychological problem or poor social conditioning.
I guess if you really want you can label them masculinity and then you'd be right but personally I struggle to draw the connection and find the idea of tying the word toxic to a gender dangerous. Nothing wrong with being masculine. Nothing wrong with being feminine. Nothing wrong with being overly either whichever your gender.
People who want to label me toxic for having a penis is going to struggle working with me, and it isn't my masculinity that's the problem.
(I'm aware you're just trying to explain here, not aiming any of this towards yourself)
[deleted]
> Which parts are those?
>> You could get bullied out of nowhere. What are you wearing? Did your mom pick that out? A buddy who worked for a team told me that Shaquille O'Neal had a tendency to get naked, tackle the team trainer and mock hump the poor guy.
>> Michael Jordan was a hypercompetitive alpha male asshole who viciously humiliated not just his opponents, but his teammates as well
From the article.
>> You could get bullied out of nowhere. What are you wearing? Did your mom pick that out? A buddy who worked for a team told me that Shaquille O'Neal had a tendency to get naked, tackle the team trainer and mock hump the poor guy.
>> Michael Jordan was a hypercompetitive alpha male asshole who viciously humiliated not just his opponents, but his teammates as well
From the article.
What's masculine about being a bully?
"What of those do you consider toxic?"
None of these traits are toxic in general, but due to group dynamics they often lead to toxic behavior. When guys want to show how masculine they are (and I think most are not conscious of this), they start doing stupid things. Bullying and disrespectful behavior, dangerous driving, not letting others contribute, not admitting errors, etc. That's why a culture that rewards "masculine" behavior is bad for collaboration.
None of these traits are toxic in general, but due to group dynamics they often lead to toxic behavior. When guys want to show how masculine they are (and I think most are not conscious of this), they start doing stupid things. Bullying and disrespectful behavior, dangerous driving, not letting others contribute, not admitting errors, etc. That's why a culture that rewards "masculine" behavior is bad for collaboration.
90+% of rapes and almost as much a share of violent crime are committed by men ...
Seems like a good place to start your personal investigation to discover that which is toxic in masculinity.
Seems like a good place to start your personal investigation to discover that which is toxic in masculinity.
I hate the term because it's misandry. We shouldn't tolerate misandry any more than we should tolerate misogyny. Both are toxic behaviors.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
> I feel like I might be falling for a rage-bait article
It does feel like the only bit that is really relevant to HN might be "generic culture war" rather than anything technical or quirky.
It does feel like the only bit that is really relevant to HN might be "generic culture war" rather than anything technical or quirky.
What does women being it not being at the peak of sports have to do with selling clothes?
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
So yeh, I think he makes some good points, but as always, its a bit more complicated than that
Yes, what about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chivalry or more recently https://brocode.org/the-code/
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.
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.
>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
Could you give some examples? I'm curious how they did it
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?
> 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?
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?
> 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?
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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[deleted]
I keep wondering what Nikes Chinese TV adds look like
2004: banned 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...
(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-...
2020: 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-...
Looked them up. They look like Nikes adds from the 90s
> 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.
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.
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.