Nike choose Dylan Mulvaney to promote womens sportswear range.

[viques]

Do you know what Nike? Forget about “just do it”, as far as I am concerned you can just do one.

Hear, hear!

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

why the abuse?

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.

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.

@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>

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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’?

@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.

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

I’ve not argued either of these things. You certainly could argue either of them. As I say, it’s complex. Certainly some posters seem comfortable buying Nike stuff up to but not including the point they feature a trans person in their advertising

yep, looks like ostracism to me.

how about engaging with my points on this thread.

or is that how you go about your ‘robust debate’?

I’d like you to engage with MY question @thedancingbear

What is your interest in FWR?

Your points have been engaged with, you goldfish.

And thank you for showing us all that you still don't think women have the moral right to withdraw consent to play when the safety conditions are unilaterally changed by the opposition.

I'm absolutely sure your approval provides no pain relief for any woman, past and present, who felt socially obliged to continue a match when she saw the males on the other team, and who ended up being stretchered off after injury.