Society/Culture Has cancel culture gone too far?

[Suspense]

1/ There is no need to remove pro nouns for marketing purposes, there are much more valid ways of marketing, like advertising - proven method.

Are you suggesting that a product re-brand is an invalid marketing strategy?

Advertising is a valid form of marketing - but it is not either/or. You can re-brand and advertise.

I suspect the removal of the pro nouns has more than just a marketing motive.

You said it's not for 'marketing purposes and it's not 'to appear politically correct'. What is your suspicion?

2/ My original post is merely pointing out that Hasbro has removed the pro nouns for no real reason, that does not make it 'tenuous' as you put it.

It has a very tenuous connection to the topic of 'cancel culture' and it is as relevant as Hasbro 'cancelling' the 'Energon' line of Transformers.

If this thread was titled 'Insignificant product re-brandings that have no real impact on your life Megathread' then yes - this would be the place for that discussion.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Are you suggesting that a product re-brand is an invalid marketing strategy?

Certainly not as valid as plain old advertising.

It has a very tenuous connection to the topic of 'cancel culture'. It is as relevant as Hasbro 'cancelling' the 'Energon' line of Transformers.

'Energon' (whatever that is) has near zero impact on peoples lives and society in general, removing pronouns like Mr and Mrs may do so.

 

[The Passenger]

Is all sex in the animal kingdom consensual?

It certainly isn't in the LNP chamber rooms.

 

[Suspense]

Certainly not as valid as plain old advertising.

So you acknowledge that product re-branding is a valid marketing strategy?

'Energon' (whatever that is) has near zero impact on peoples lives and society in general, removing pronouns like Mr and Mrs may do so.

What effect may the re-branding of the 'potato head' product line (while still selling a 'Mr Potato Head' and 'Mrs Potato Head' toy) have upon peoples lives and society in general?

 

[Carringbush2010]

So you acknowledge that product re-branding is a valid marketing strategy?

If it is advertised then yes, if it is purely to be politically correct then no. Again not necessary unless Hasbro has found the market is plummeting for toy characters based on a vegetable.

What effect may the re-branding of the 'potato head' product line (while still selling a 'Mr Potato Head' and 'Mrs Potato Head' toy) have upon peoples lives and society in general?

Well if society is / were to remove pronouns for the pursuit of gender neutrality that would take a deconstruct of how society and it's people address each other wouldn't it. That's a lot of work for something that is not necessary.

 

[Suspense]

If it is advertised then yes, if it is purely to be politically correct then no. Again not necessary unless Hasbro has found the market is plummeting for toy characters based on a vegetable.

They did advertise the fact that they were re-branding. Does that make it 'marketing purpose' yet?

Well if society is / were to remove pronouns for the pursuit of gender neutrality that would take a deconstruct of how society and it's people address each other wouldn't it. That's a lot of work for something that is not necessary.

You misunderstand the concept of gender neutrality and inclusivity.

The aim is not to wholly ban or 'cancel' the terms Mr. and Mrs.
As a man, I can still refer to myself as Mr. and that is perfectly fine.
That is also why Hasbro can keep selling 'Mr Potato Head' and 'Mrs Potato Head' toys.

The aim to remove the presupposition that all people must be either a Mr. (man) or a Mrs./Ms./Miss (woman). Gender neutrality caters for the existence of non-binary persons. It's the acknowledgement of more genders - not fewer genders. And remember how great you said 'choice' was earlier?

 

[Carringbush2010]

They did advertise the fact that they were re-branding. Does that make it 'marketing purpose' yet?

Again, they could've just advertised the spud heads, so removing the pronouns is / was unnecessary.


You misunderstand the concept of gender neutrality and inclusivity.

The aim is not to wholly ban or 'cancel' the terms Mr. and Mrs. As a cis-male, I can still refer to myself as Mr. and that is perfectly fine.

The aim to remove the presupposition that all people must be either a Mr. (male) or a Mrs./Ms./Miss (female). Gender neutrality caters for the existence of non-binary persons.

Again, non binary persons do not require corporations like Hasbro (or anyone for that matter) removing pronouns as a show of support, if that was the angle. Non binary members of society are already well supported by broader society.

The concept of gender neutrality by way of inclusivity is an already, not something that is yet to be achieved.

I think you're misunderstanding the necessity of removing pronouns as a show of support for a minority group.

So if the aim is not to totally ban pronouns then why do private for profit corporations feel the need to remove pronouns if it is indeed not necessary, for any purpose?

 

[Suspense]

Again, they could've just advertised the spud heads, so removing the pronouns is / was unnecessary.

But they didn't 'just advertise'. They re-branded and advertised the fact - therefore the decision to re-brand had a 'marketing purpose'.

Again, non binary persons do not require corporations like Hasbro (or anyone for that matter) removing pronouns as a show of support, if that was the angle. Non binary members of society are already well supported by broader society.

The concept of gender neutrality by way of inclusivity is an already, not something that is yet to be achieved.

I think you're misunderstanding the necessity of removing pronouns as a show of support for a minority group.

So if the aim is not to totally ban pronouns then why do private for profit corporations feel the need to remove pronouns if it is indeed not necessary, for any purpose?

It's not the removal of pronouns that is the aim - it's the removal of the presumption of binary genders (ie. only selling a Mr Potato Head or a Mrs Potato Head).

Think of it this way.

Imagine you are updating a sign-up form for a website and the user has to enter their title.
Previously, the form only a dropdown box with two choices: "Mr." and "Mrs."
Suppose you decide to redesign the website to be more inclusive by changing the dropdown to a textbox, where the user can type in "Mr." or they could type in "Mrs." or "Mx." or no title at all.

That is why it is inclusive. Technically, you have removed "Mr." and "Mrs." from the form - but the form still allows you to enter "Mr." or "Mrs." - they are both still valid titles.

 

[Chief]

But they didn't 'just advertise'. They re-branded and advertised the fact - therefore the decision to re-brand had a 'marketing purpose'.

God I am having flashbacks to Constitutional Law lectures.

 

[Carringbush2010]

But they didn't 'just advertise'. They re-branded and advertised the fact - therefore the decision to re-brand had a 'marketing purpose'.

Again, point to me where the rebrand was a necessity

It's not the removal of pronouns that is the aim - it's the removal of the presumption of binary genders (ie. only selling a Mr Potato Head or a Mrs Potato Head).

The presumption you speak about is only from the few not the majority, please point out the necessity.

That is why it is inclusive. Technically, you have removed "Mr" and "Mrs" from the form - but you can still enter "Mr" or "Mrs" - they are both still valid titles.

Just about every website, form, whatever asks for your gender and it is not just male or female. Inclusivity does not require the removal of pronouns in the first place, so not required.

 

[Carringbush2010]

God I am having flashbacks to Constitutional Law lectures.

God can't help you now, especially in law.

 

[Suspense]

Again, point to me where the rebrand was a necessity

I'm not saying that there is some sort of 'objective' determination as to whether a rebrand was 'a necessity'. Subjectively, I don't really have a position on the matter (whereas you CLEARLY do).

What I am saying we can safely presume that Hasbro and its internal marketing team felt that there was such a need for a re-brand - to the point where they actually did it. And paid money for it. And advertised the fact that did it. And spoke to newspapers about how they felt it was necessary.

Seems like a lot of effort to go towards something - if their internal marketing team felt 'wasn't a necessity'.

The presumption you speak about is only from the few not the majority, please point out the necessity.

Do you have a source for this claim?

That is beside the point - it's not a matter of what % of the population holds that particular presumption. It is the message that it (only having Mr. or Mrs.) sends to society with regard to the aims of gender inclusivity.

Just about every website, form, whatever asks for your gender and it is not just male or female.

Yes because they follow good UX design. My example was to simply show you the principle of how the removal of binary options can allow for more choices overall and greater inclusivity.

Inclusivity does not require the removal of pronouns in the first place, so not required.

It does if the only options provided are Mr. and Mrs.

 

[Carringbush2010]

What I am saying we can safely presume that Hasbro and its internal marketing team felt that there was such a need for a re-brand

Just because the marketing team felt it necessary doesn't mean it is / was.

Do you have a source for this claim?

No but it's a very likely assumption, if it were that the majority are deliberately ignorant of minority groups out of prejudice then that does not reflect what the broader society believes. I would the majority are inclusive of minority groups - that seems the case. Removing pronouns is not required to do so.

Yes because they follow good UX design. My example was to simply show you the principle of how the removal of binary options can allow for more choices overall and greater inclusivity.

Again not required, the broader society are in support of minority groups

It does if the only options provided are Mr. and Mrs.

They're not the only options, if they were then the removal of pronouns would be valid wouldn't it.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

Why are you all still talking about Potato Head? It's got nothing to do with cancel culture.

 

[Chief]

And cancel culture doesn’t even exist anyway! You people are cray!!

 

[JP Sauce]

Again, point to me where the rebrand was a necessity

When was the last time anyone thought about Potato Head toys before this, outside of Toy Story movies?

This has been a brilliant marketing strategy.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Just because the marketing team felt it necessary doesn't mean it is / was.



No but it's a very likely assumption, if it were that the majority are deliberately ignorant of minority groups out of prejudice then that does not reflect what the broader society believes. I would the majority are inclusive of minority groups - that seems the case. Removing pronouns is not required to do so.



Again not required, the broader society are in support of minority groups



They're not the only options, if they were then the removal of pronouns would be valid wouldn't it.

Mx Carringbush2010

 

[Schneebly11]

Ands looks like there has been another victim of “cancel culture” today, one of the biggest opponents of it, after proving to the world he’s definitely not a “woke snowflake” by....... storming off the set and cancelling himself like a “woke snowflake”:

TV presenter Piers Morgan leaves ITV after Meghan Markle comments

United Kingdom’s media regulator launched a probe after receiving 41,015 complaints about Morgan’s comments on Monday.

www.aljazeera.com

 

[Toump Ass]

Do explain how it is necessary

This is not a politically motivated change. It is a grammatically motivated change.

When I am playing with a Mrs Potato Head toy under the old brand, this toy was considered a Mrs Potato Head Mr Potato Head. That's a bit weird isn't it? It's like calling a species "male animal" instead of just animal.

Now, with this exciting and long-overdue amendment, I am playing with a Mrs Potato Head Potato Head. That makes perfect sense!

Seems necessary to me. As an avid toy consumer I demand clarity and honesty when I am purchasing new products.

 

[Carringbush2010]

When was the last time anyone thought about Potato Head toys before this, outside of Toy Story movies?

This has been a brilliant marketing strategy.

Hasbro must've concluded it was necessary for a removal of pronoun from it's product, publicly state it's for the purpose of gender inclusivity.

That created noise and abra cadabra everyone is talking about spud head.

Could've just advertised with probably the same results instead of trying to look politically correct.

So was their aim to look politically correct or sell toys or both?

Either way just goes to show removing the pronoun was completely unnecessary for any purpose.

 

[JP Sauce]

Hasbro must've concluded it was necessary for a removal of pronoun from it's product, publicly state it's for the purpose of gender inclusivity.

That created noise and abra cadabra everyone is talking about spud head.

Correct. As I said, great marketing strategy.

 

[Carringbush2010]

Correct. As I said, great marketing strategy.

Could've had a great marketing strategy without the unnecessary removal pronouns.

 

[JP Sauce]

Could've had a great marketing strategy without the unnecessary removal pronouns.

But that was the marketing strategy.

Edit: And as has been pointed out many times, the pronouns are still there.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

But that was the marketing strategy.

Edit: And as has been pointed out many times, the pronouns are still there.

Bizarre isn't it. Lost count of how many times it's been pointed out.

I've known goldfish with better memory retention.

 

[Carringbush2010]

But that was the marketing strategy.

Edit: And as has been pointed out many times, the pronouns are still there.

But it wasn't necessary.

EDIT: The pronouns were removed from the top of the packaging (otherwise there wouldn't even be a discussion), Hasbro even publicly stated as much (paraphrasing) 'for non binary gender inclusion'. Again, not necessary from either a marketing strategy or to look politically correct or both.