Kleenex drops the MANSIZE label from tissues...because of complaints that it's sexist.

First topic message reminder :

Words fail....what next  

Once more the deranged minority stamps it's foot and a big international company bows down.

"Kleenex has binned its "Mansize" branding after some customers complained it was sexist.
After 60 years, the tissue boxes will be renamed "Extra Large" in response to criticism from customers and feminist campaigners.
Kimberley-Clark, which owns Kleenex, said it succumbed to growing public demand to change the name, despite not itself believing that the Mansize branding was sexist.

Kleenex announced the changes on social media after customers challenged the branding.
Customer Lisa Hancox wrote: "Hi @KleenexUK. My four-year-old son asked me what was written here. Then he asked, why are they called Mansize? Can girls, boys & mummies use them?... He suggests you should call them 'very large tissues'. It is 2018."
Another consumer tweeted: "In this day and age, is it right for @KleenexUK to have a product that is MANsized? The world is changing, maybe they should too?"

Sam Smethers, the chief executive of feminist group The Fawcett Society, explained why the move matters.
She told Sky News: "Kleenex's re-branding matters because throughout marketing and advertising, we use lazy gender stereotypes to sell products and convey messages which reinforce those stereotypes."



https://news.sky.com/story/kleenex-rebrands-sexist-mansize-tissues-following-customer-complaints-11528558

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

In other words, you got your threads mixed up.

Not at all Rags

I hoped you could be humble

In this instance i was wrong

You cannot sadly

Night

I didn't even read Vic's posts in this thread. You keep saying you're going, but you're so keen to start an argument you just can't tear yourself away.

Don't worry Rags, Didge can have a row in an empty room!

There are far more pressing issues in the equality debate than the name on a box of flipping tissues, this kind of moronic complaint does nothing to move the issue on, it just puts peoples backs up that such a thing should be an issue, if they give a damn at all..

magica wrote:Don't worry Rags, Didge can have a row in an empty room!

He's probably having one right now.

magica wrote:Don't worry Rags, Didge can have a row in an empty room!

And clearly you cannot answer the points bu look to cast the poster magica

Hence how poor is that of you to scvore points at me?

Yes I like to debate, which is what an argument is, but I doubt you even understand that is the reality

You see, I can easily score points to, if you want to play tit for tat, with such childishness.

Vintage wrote:There are far more pressing issues in the equality debate than the name on a box of flipping tissues, this kind of moronic complaint does nothing to move the issue on, it just puts peoples backs up that such a thing should be an issue, if they give a damn at all..

So why are you not pressing to have the name of sizes changed on everything to uniform, the notion "man sizes"?

Still waiting for someone to actually tell me what actual size "man size" is

The only thing I see ridiculos here, is some here acting like dinosaurs to a company coming in line with every other company on sizes.

It then means those complaining are the issue and dinosaurs, as how on earth does this effect you?

This was never PC, what this was, is eradicating a poor archaic sexist notion, as there is no such thing as man size

eddie wrote:What if they changed the word “manhole” to “womanhole”?

That would be interesting.

You know what? You deserved a laugh on that one. That was truly funny, honey.

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

eddie wrote:What if they changed the word “manhole” to “womanhole”?

That would be interesting.

You know what? You deserved a laugh on that one. That was truly funny, honey.

I must admit, i did not see this and its hilarious, but can you imagine how a militant feminist would react?

So +1 to eddie

They would go into meltdown mode over that

Can anyone remember the advert for the Yorkie Chocolate bar ? It showed a Trucker in his Cab holding a Yorkie Bar with the voice over saying, "It's not for Girls"!

nicko wrote:Can anyone remember the advert for the Yorkie Chocolate bar ?    It showed a Trucker in his Cab holding a Yorkie Bar with the voice over saying, "It's not for Girls"!

Yes, but I don't know why anyone would find that offensive - it was just a funny advert.

Didge wrote:

*THE Ben Reilly* wrote:

eddie wrote:What if they changed the word “manhole” to “womanhole”?

That would be interesting.

You know what? You deserved a laugh on that one. That was truly funny, honey.

I must admit, i did not see this and its hilarious, but can you imagine how a militant feminist would react?

So +1 to eddie

They would go into meltdown mode over that

Thank you both for recognising my genius. It’s a struggle, I tells ya.

Didge wrote:

magica wrote:Don't worry Rags, Didge can have a row in an empty room!

And clearly you cannot answer the points bu look to cast the poster magica

Hence how poor is that of you to scvore points at me?

Yes I like to debate, which is what an argument is, but I doubt you even understand that is the reality

You see, I can easily score points to, if you want to play tit for tat, with such childishness.

It was a joke Didge, hence the laughing face. Don't take life too seriously.

magica wrote:

Didge wrote:

And clearly you cannot answer the points bu look to cast the poster magica

Hence how poor is that of you to scvore points at me?

Yes I like to debate, which is what an argument is, but I doubt you even understand that is the reality

You see, I can easily score points to, if you want to play tit for tat, with such childishness.

It was a joke Didge,  hence the laughing face. Don't take life too seriously.

I dont take you seriously, does that help?

Raggs, believe me, in todays PC World some would complain about it !

Vintage wrote:There are far more pressing issues in the equality debate than the name on a box of flipping tissues, this kind of moronic complaint does nothing to move the issue on, it just puts peoples backs up that such a thing should be an issue, if they give a damn at all..

Of course there are ...sadly some militant know nothing so called feminists dont see that and pick a totally inoffensive product to kick up a fuss about....a bit like women who falsely cry rape, they harm the genuine cases that need to be taken seriously.

Syl wrote:

Vintage wrote:There are far more pressing issues in the equality debate than the name on a box of flipping tissues, this kind of moronic complaint does nothing to move the issue on, it just puts peoples backs up that such a thing should be an issue, if they give a damn at all..

Of course there are ...sadly some militant know nothing so called feminists dont see that and pick a totally inoffensive product to kick up a fuss about....a bit like women who falsely cry rape, they harm the genuine cases that need to be taken seriously.

Here we go again

So what on earth is man size, based on tissues?

Second, what is wrong with this company, coming in line, witrh just about everything else on size definitions?

Third, it seems you and some others here are the real issue, as why is this even keeping you up at night?

As clearly it is, because there is no big deal here, whn no such size definition is used in clothing

The above is just a load of old crap, by you

Raggamuffin wrote:

nicko wrote:Can anyone remember the advert for the Yorkie Chocolate bar ?    It showed a Trucker in his Cab holding a Yorkie Bar with the voice over saying, "It's not for Girls"!

Yes, but I don't know why anyone would find that offensive - it was just a funny advert.

Of course it was....many ads that no one bothered about would be considered totally wrong nowadays...….mind you some were a bit near the knuckle, especially the poster ads.
We had a thread about them once, for eg women being put over their husband knee  for not doing the housework correctly.
Wonder what the Fawcett Society would make of that one.

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

Of course there are ...sadly some militant know nothing so called feminists dont see that and pick a totally inoffensive product to kick up a fuss about....a bit like women who falsely cry rape, they harm the genuine cases that need to be taken seriously.

Here we go again

So what on earth is man size, based on tissues?

Second, what is wrong with this company, coming in line, witrh just about everything else on size definitions?

Third, it seems you and some others here are the real issue, as why is this even keeping you up at night?

As clearly it is, because there is no big deal here, whn no such size definition is used in clothing

The above is just a load of old crap, by you

I already answered that yesterday Didge...man sized obviously means BIGGER than normal sized.
If you completely disregard answers then claim no one has answered you yet no wonder a discussion with you is like bloody groundhog day.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:

Here we go again

So what on earth is man size, based on tissues?

Second, what is wrong with this company, coming in line, witrh just about everything else on size definitions?

Third, it seems you and some others here are the real issue, as why is this even keeping you up at night?

As clearly it is, because there is no big deal here, whn no such size definition is used in clothing

The above is just a load of old crap, by you

I already answered that yesterday Didge...man sized obviously means BIGGER than normal sized.
If you completely disregard answers then claim no one has answered you yet no wonder a discussion with you is like bloody groundhog day.

No you did not, as there is no such thing as man size. Its simple a made up concept

Considering some men I know claim to be big and are nothing of the sort, you would think women would do everything to actually dispell this myth, but yet. Who am I to say to women, who want to pander to men, to feel good about themselves, bragging about size?



And I bet you even fail to see the connection

The reality is this. Tissue size is not, nor should it be associated with the size of men. It was nothing more than a gimmic in order to make men more comfortable with buying tissues. As the reality is, they were once seen very much as feminine. This is not the case today. Hence there is no need to promote a product that way

Again I am very much against PC, but the arguments I am hearing from you on this are so utterly pathetic

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

Of course there are ...sadly some militant know nothing so called feminists dont see that and pick a totally inoffensive product to kick up a fuss about....a bit like women who falsely cry rape, they harm the genuine cases that need to be taken seriously.

Here we go again

So what on earth is man size, based on tissues?

Second, what is wrong with this company, coming in line, witrh just about everything else on size definitions?

Third, it seems you and some others here are the real issue, as why is this even keeping you up at night?

As clearly it is, because there is no big deal here, whn no such size definition is used in clothing

The above is just a load of old crap, by you

The sentence I have highlighted just proves that you do an awful lot of self projecting Didge.
I slept all night....you have been posting all day yesterday and all throughout the night....maybe it's you who should wind down and take a rest.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:

Here we go again

So what on earth is man size, based on tissues?

Second, what is wrong with this company, coming in line, witrh just about everything else on size definitions?

Third, it seems you and some others here are the real issue, as why is this even keeping you up at night?

As clearly it is, because there is no big deal here, whn no such size definition is used in clothing

The above is just a load of old crap, by you

The sentence I have highlighted just proves that you do an awful lot of self projecting Didge.
I slept all night....you have been posting all day yesterday and all throughout the night....maybe it's you who should wind down and take a rest.

And yet you decided to post such an idiotic argument on the forum

So I would beg to differ, on what does keep you up at night.

You see, when you get taken to task, you then turn this on me and no I have not been posting all day and all night. For you to think so, would have to have you up looking in all day and night

So grow the fuck up

Seriously, you might need some ice, to cool down that burning envy you have of me. As you want to start bitching about me, no problem, then happy to ablidge back to you

Your choice

Didge wrote:

Syl wrote:

The sentence I have highlighted just proves that you do an awful lot of self projecting Didge.
I slept all night....you have been posting all day yesterday and all throughout the night....maybe it's you who should wind down and take a rest.

And yet you decided to post such an idiotic argument on the forum

So I would beg to differ, on what does keep you up at night.

You see, when you get taken to task, you then turn this on me and no I have not been posting all day and all night. For you to think so, would have to have you up looking in all day and night

So grow the fuck up

Seriously, you might need some ice, to cool down that burning envy you have of me. As you want to start bitching about me, no problem, then happy to ablidge back to you

Your choice

It took about 10 seconds to check when you had posted...1am...3am...5am...7am...I checked because you said the thread had kept me up all night when it's you who has been up all night posting.

Seriously Didge, go and have a lie down, you were looking for a row all yesterday too.

Syl wrote:

Didge wrote:

And yet you decided to post such an idiotic argument on the forum

So I would beg to differ, on what does keep you up at night.

You see, when you get taken to task, you then turn this on me and no I have not been posting all day and all night. For you to think so, would have to have you up looking in all day and night

So grow the fuck up

Seriously, you might need some ice, to cool down that burning envy you have of me. As you want to start bitching about me, no problem, then happy to ablidge back to you

Your choice

It took about 10 seconds to check when you had posted...1am...3am...5am...7am...I checked because you said the thread had kept me up all night when it's you who has been up all night posting.

Seriously Didge, go and have a lie down, you were looking for a row all yesterday too.  

So that means I posted at intervals during the night


You have no idea why I maybe up at night, but then , your dumb brain, has no idea why to even understand why
How does that mean, then I have been here all day and all night?

It does not, but because your argument on here was as weak and pathetic as you are. You decided to make this debate about me

How has that panned out for you? In other words, you are looking for a fight and believe me, now you have one, so well done. You have what you want, being the pathetic attention seeker that you are

Or do you need some more man size tissues to get over me wiping the floor with you?

Seriously, how about you mind your own fucking buisness, and actually debate, as i can continue to bitch back, harder and far worse than you

As 'er indoors (is that sexist?) frequently says when I am being objectionable/grumpy/argumentative/sullen/flatulent or in ball-scratching mode: "When God made man...she was only joking."

Fred Moletrousers wrote:As 'er indoors (is that sexist?) frequently says when I am being objectionable/grumpy/argumentative/sullen/flatulent or in ball-scratching mode: "When God made man...she was only joking."

How is that demeaning to women?

I would summarise, that some bible fundemenatlists, would take offense to your view as God as female

The thing I always find interesting Fred, is the arrogance of humans, that they are some how special. That in some way created by a supreme being and that they are immortal through death with souls

To me it is sheer arrogance and stems alongside the lines of why we do have problems with intolerance

Just because humans are by far more intelligent than many species and this only arised due to violence and war. Where the brain deveolped through this to the extent we see today. That some how, people classify a god based on gender

I mean what does gender really mean after death with the claim to a belief of a soul?

I know you are taking the piss, but more interested here as what on earth is the issue with changing the size on tissues, to what already is universal elsewhere?

Granted some idiots are campaigning to have this change, based on man hate, but in this one instance, I do not see PC and do not agree with their views to change this. I simple see common sense to change this

I mean no male would buy something that stated women size, and visa versa with women on man size

Casting gender to the size of tissues, is about as dumb as it gets and is only done. Based simple of marketing towards men. To not feel ashamed to have and buy tissues

Didge wrote:

magica wrote:

It was a joke Didge,  hence the laughing face. Don't take life too seriously.

I dont take you seriously, does that help?  

Good, cos no one does

magica wrote:

Didge wrote:

I dont take you seriously, does that help?  

Good, cos no one does

Fabulous darling

x