Nike choose Dylan Mulvaney to promote womens sportswear range.

I’ve only just seen the other thread. I see posters are talking about sending their nike stuff back to hq. That stuff will have most likely been made by children in Indonesia and Vietnam (80% of them girls, apparently, though the point stands either way)

are those posters really saying that they are cool with buying Nike stuff until and unless they run a single I’ll-judged ad featuring a trans person?

in fairness I doubt any of us is squeaky clean when it comes to fast fashion, but I do find the dissonance a bit grating tbh

@thedancingbear

Your points seem to be:

Don’t boycott Nike because women working in sweatshops will lose their jobs.

Dont boycott Nike now. You should have done it earlier, because Nike exploit women by employing them in sweatshops.

Those arguments don’t make sense together. It comes across as if you are either a) two different people or b) someone who really loves Nike and really doesn’t like women very much.

It’s all a bit confusing. Maybe my poor lil woman brain just can’t compute.

the discussion might be more fruitful if you engaged with the points I’m making, instead of abusing me (cf deleted posts upthread) and making things up about posts on other threads.

is that what you call ‘robust debate’?

You'd naturally assume that he'd do it on different threads. But no. He's switching position in order to reprove different women on the same thread.

I see. So, if a brand is already problematic and mistreats it’s employees, we are hypocrites to also want to hold the brand accountable for betraying the trust of women with this influencer activity?

Just another opportunity to tell women they are womening wrong, that they are hateful and disappointing men around the world.

My mistake, it is this thread.

But you’re basically arguing against yourself @thedancingbear

Strange.

It’s almost as if you just WANT THE WOMEN TO BE WRONG.

Lol.

Look at you. You have no moral position whatsoever than "tell the women off" and you think we're so stupid that we can't see you changing your stance on the same thread.

But then, what can I expect from a man who thinks women on a hockey team have no moral right to withdraw their consent to play a hockey match, if they find the opposing team turns up for the match with male players in the team?

Women always have the right to withdraw consent, mate.

That’s not what I’ve posted though? I’ve acknowledged that it’s complex. The ideal thing is that these inequalities are ironed out. But for the time being don’t we have to play the ball as it lies?

or, if that’s not what you think, then surely the fact that Nike has commissioned one (badly judged) ad featuring a trans person is a drop in the ocean?

No agenda at all (and the post you’re referring to is on this thread, I don’t see another one?)

which part of my posts don’t you agree with?

I have fucking NOT misunderstood.

Go post on reddit that child labour is good actually, because it supports children. They might fall for it. I won't.

@thedancingbear i wasn’t responding to your post. I was responding to the OP.

@thedancingbear

You're on a different Nike thread raising ‘concerns’ that if women boycott Nike then the women who work in its sweatshops will lose their livelihoods.

What exactly is your agenda? <strokes chin>

I think you have misunderstood the implications of what you posted.

It's not up to women to shore up the profits of corporations that use exploited labour regardless of their stance on trans issues, but far less so when that company has a long history of ingrained misogyny, ranging from how women are treated in the workplace, sponsorship deals that discriminate against female athletes and advertising that parodies women's athleticism and clothing requirements in an offensive manner.

you do realise that the sweatshops your Nike trainers are made in are staffed 80% by women and girls, mainly being paid a few hundred pounds a month, many under the age of 18?

and you’re cool with that, but your jumping off point is when they publish an ad featuring a trans person (an ad which I agree is crass)?

in fairness, and as I’ve acknowledged upthread, it’s more complex than that, but I do struggle with the dissonance.

Eh? I think you’ve completely misunderstood my post?

why the abuse?

In the US, Nike are being legally pursued for fostering sexually abusive workplaces.

But they deign to employ women, so I hear we're supposed to ignore that. No matter if women are underpaid there, or abused there, the fact they employ women means this giant multibillion multinational is particularly entitled to other women's money. As if no other sportswear retailer employs women in its factories!

Nike have shown themselves to be woman haters.
Exploiting of the women who make their stuff, Using males to promote women’s clothing.

No way Nike.
Clean up your act.

Nike chose a trolling misogynist. Real women can just decide not to choose Nike.

And here I was, contemplating dropping around £100 on their Metcon shoes. No way, Nike.

2017- Nike reneges on deal to allow independent monitoring of its factories, which allowed workers to report abuseshttps://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-real-march-madness-nike-ditches-university-commitments_b_58deba30e4b0d804fbbb72b72018- no living wages for women stitching shirts

https://cleanclothes.org/news/2018/06/11/adidas-and-nike-pay-record-breaking-amounts-to-footballers-but-deny-decent-wages-to-women-stitching-their-shirts

This is just the top of the google results.

I can't believe I'm hearing that it's our duty to shop from sweatshops, to support the people they employ.

No. Buy elsewhere, and help ethical businesses expand. Then they can employ more people.

Hear, hear!

There are a few of these Nike apologist misogynists about today. So threatened by women talking.

I suppose a problem with boycotting Nike is that it’s a big employer of women and girls, many of them kids, mainly in the developing world.

It seems fine to make a statement (and I agree that the ad is crass - I didn’t believe it was real at first). I do think the repercussions of a campaign that actually harmed the Nike business would be complex.

I just had two friends “like” the post of a drag Queen doing story time. They know the person.

It’s really bizarre. Neither have children, but how can anyone not see what’s going on here?

That makes so much sense - it's the international equivalent of the Stonewall index.

He has a clearly visible penis and has the body of a scrawny man. I certainly didn't behave like him when I was 8 either and haven't seen much evidence that other 8 year old girls behave like him.