Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

El_Duderino 09

Plopsu wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I didn’t say you would find it in this thread which is why I thought your question was strange. I did mention somewhere you would find it though.

Hint. Try the IMD threads and the IWD threads. I feel pretty sure you won’t actually look up those threads but I might be wrong.

Actually, I read quite a bit of them when they were ongoing (could still be). My point was that they're not relevant to this thread and really seemed just an effort to drive the thread off topic (but I might be wrong too).

Ah problem solved then. If you read those threads then you’ll already know about the apathy and antipathy towards men’s rights among those who get all excited about issues like the Gillette ad. You might even be able to spot some of he same usernames who are apathetic about men’s issues but get all hot and bothered for a thread like this.

Cienciano

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

This kind of crap has been routinely appearing in the Irish Times, Irish Examiner, Independent etc written and pedalled by the likes of Una Mullally and Louise O'Neill for several years now, and it's widely circulated among young people on social media as well. It's all over the mainstream. You'd have to cut yourself off from the media entirely to avoid ever coming across a man-shaming headline these days.

You've been on boards since 2005, surely you have figured out how to avoid these and you've realised people want clicks to generate revenue? If you haven't, stay away from social media, you'll feel much better for it.

Zorya

I don't think people are wailing and gnashing their teeth about this advert, I think at first glance many just find it smarmy bullcrap.
But advertising is very intrusive in daily life (well, I don't have a TV but I seem to remember there were a lot of adverts.) It is one thing to have a gawp at this the once and think ''cringe'', but if this was being aired everyday several times a day and hitting your ears over and over for the length of a campaign - which is what I presume is destined to happen wherever it is being released - then what a nauseating repetition of ideological drivel it would be for anyone to have foisted upon them.
Can't see how Gillette will win with this.

Rory28

Hurrache wrote: »

So as you say it doesn't concern you in the least, but you wail that are 'we' supposed to take it? So it obviously does concern you at some level.

The msg does. You just proved why why by calling me a wuss when I said I had a problem with it.

El_Duderino 09

Tenderribs wrote: »

Plopsu wrote: »

So you were calling people whingers based on nothing?

I suspect it is a case of pyschological projection. El Duderino has likely been accused of whinging in the past, he doesn't feel he can live up to masculine ideals which makes him feel inferior. His strategy is to attack masculinity. He accuses others of whinging in an attempt to make them feel how he has felt.

Pop psychology aside. I’ve a genuine thanks for you if you can show anywhere in this thread where I’ve attacked masculinity.

Ok. Back In your box Freud.

jimgoose

Zorya wrote: »

I don't think people are wailing and gnashing their teeth about this advert...

Hmm. Possibly not. But we've got - so far - 27 pages and several uses of the words "soyboy" and "incel" already. :pac:

Plopsu

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ah problem solved then. If you read those threads then you’ll already know about the apathy and antipathy towards men’s rights among those who get all excited about issues like the Gillette ad. You might even be able to spot some of he same usernames who are apathetic about men’s issues but get all hot and bothered for a thread like this.

And everybody commenting negatively on the ad here has such posts there? I think not. So, you're shut up and stop whinging opener in this thread was really just like some of the other bedwetters, broflakes, snowflakes nonsense that's pervaded the thread.

Tenderribs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Pop psychology aside. I’ve a genuine thanks for you if you can show anywhere in this thread where I’ve attacked masculinity.

Ok. Back In your box Freud.

you're projecting

hatrickpatrick

Cienciano wrote: »

You've been on boards since 2005, surely you have figured out how to avoid these and you've realised people want clicks to generate revenue? If you haven't, stay away from social media, you'll feel much better for it.

I have, but that's not the point. There shouldn't be a double standard at all, and we should be vocally objecting to the fact that women are untouchable for gender based general criticism in the media while this trend of sh!tting all over men as a "group" is now entirely mainstream and encompasses media, politics, etc.

Double standards simply are not ok, and it pisses me off that more isn't being done to oppose them.

Silentcorner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do you mean the bit in the ad where the man steps in to help the boy being chased by a group? That stood out as a noble thing to do.


Do you really think ads are a big part of your own moral philosophy?

What the hell are you on about????? Do I think ads are a big part of my own moral philosophy??? What the f##k is that supposed to mean?

This is an advert.

Like all adverts it aims to influence...to buy products and services ordinarily.

This ad has attempted to influence how we frame our own moral structure.

That is fu##ing nuts!

Imagine if Always Tampax started preaching about women getting abortions!

Zorya

jimgoose wrote: »

Hmm. Possibly not. But we've got - so far - 27 pages and several uses of the words "soyboy" and "incel" already. :pac:

I just can't wait for the many many memes

VeryTerry

jimgoose wrote: »

Hmm. Possibly not. But we've got - so far - 27 pages and several uses of the words "soyboy" and "incel" already. :pac:

Don't forget ”broflake” which nicely sums up the mindset of most of the offended posters.

jimgoose

VeryTerry wrote: »

Don't forget ”broflake” which nicely sums up the mindset of most of the offended posters.

I just mentally substitute the word "fucktrumpet" for all of them. Try it, it's quite satisfying.

Faugheen

So people are upset that an ad asks them to be the best man they can be.

Pretty sure those people are proving the point.

If you see yourself as a decent man then there’s nothing for you to be upset about.

How Soon Is Now

Whoever started using all these stupid made up words online is one massive **** stain....

hatrickpatrick

Faugheen wrote: »

So people are upset that an ad asks them to be the best man they can be.

Pretty sure those people are proving the point.

If you see yourself as a decent man then there’s nothing for you to be upset about.

There is, because the ad is assuming most of us aren't and need to be "told". It's the same as the "teach men not to rape" crap - it assumes the default is that the majority of us are natural scumbags unless we're "led" to not be scumbags.

Zorya

Faugheen wrote: »

So people are upset that an ad asks them to be the best man they can be.

Pretty sure those people are proving the point.

If you see yourself as a decent man then there’s nothing for you to be upset about.

How about if you see yourself as a decent man* you might be a bit irked at the suggestion that you were heretofore anything other than a decent man?

(* or are the mother of decent men)

Silentcorner

Faugheen wrote: »

So people are upset that an ad asks them to be the best man they can be.

Pretty sure those people are proving the point.

If you see yourself as a decent man then there’s nothing for you to be upset about.

Every man tries to be the best man he can, often in trying circumstances, men raise their boys to be better men...men can do all of this without the help of an advert.

The issue, and it is very clear, it is only one gender who needs to correct their behaviour, that is at least unbalanced at worst misandrist!

El_Duderino 09

Plopsu wrote: »

And everybody commenting negatively on the ad here has such posts there? I think not. So, you're shut up and stop whinging opener in this thread was really just like some of the other bedwetters, broflakes, snowflakes nonsense that's pervaded the thread.

I didn’t say everybody commenting negatively on the ad here has such posts there. That’s a strange question to ask. Are you sure you’re replying to my posts? You seem to be asking questions based on things which I haven’t said which makes it difficult to reply.

Broflakes is a new one on me though. Lol. First time I ever seen that was this thread.

freshpopcorn

Silentcorner

freshpopcorn wrote: »

To be fair...that is edgy :rolleyes:

El_Duderino 09

Tenderribs wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Pop psychology aside. I’ve a genuine thanks for you if you can show anywhere in this thread where I’ve attacked masculinity.

Ok. Back In your box Freud.

you're projecting

A genuine thanks if you can show anywhere in this thread where I have attacked masculinity.

Or back in your box Freud.

Tenderribs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A genuine thanks if you can show anywhere in this thread where I have attacked masculinity.

Or back in your box Freud.

It's your general mo, masculinity makes you feel inadequate.

Rootsblower

Babooshka wrote: »

I would love to be in advertising and do stuff like this....Gilette, just be less cunty....it would sell a lot more razors and crack people up laughing, why oh why don't more advertising companies do this.

See the classic Dudley Moore movie “Crazy People” with Daryl Hannah I think you’ll like it

El_Duderino 09

Tenderribs wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

A genuine thanks if you can show anywhere in this thread where I have attacked masculinity.

Or back in your box Freud.

It's your general mo, masculinity makes you feel inadequate.

So any examples of me attacking masculinity or not?

Given the Fact that you won’t give any examples of me attacking masculinity because I have not don’t that. What does your pop psychology say about you for accusing me of something which turns out to be somehow which you have constructed in your own mind?

Examples or back in your box.

Faugheen

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There is, because the ad is assuming most of us aren't and need to be "told". It's the same as the "teach men not to rape" crap - it assumes the default is that the majority of us are natural scumbags unless we're "led" to not be scumbags.

It’s not assuming most of us aren’t.

Look at the issues covered by the ad - sexual harassment, workplace bullying etc.

Most, but not all, of these are carried out by men. Whether you like it or not, it’s the truth. Look at the MeToo movement, the vast majority of cases involve men being the perpetrators (whether the complainant is a man or a woman). Saying that a woman is the perpetrator in only a handful in comparison doesn’t do anything to stop the fact that it’s a bigger problem for men to deal with when they are decent people. I could go into more extremes but they’re not covered by this ad so I won’t.

The ‘boys will be boys’ bit is very important. It allowed men to get away with things we shouldn’t have got away with.

What it’s doing is asking us, as men, to be better. It could be anything from stop sexually harassing a colleague to not standing for a colleague being sexually harassed by someone else, or a multitude of other things that in the face of it seem like nothing but could actually mean a lot.

This ad isn’t saying that most men are sexual bullys. Anyone who genuinely believes that is getting upset over nothing and just need to step back. It’s asking us, as men, to stop our own gender from giving the rest of us a bad name.

That’s the problem here, men give other men a bad name whether people want to admit it or not.

By getting annoyed at an ad asking men to be the best you can be, you really don’t help a decent man’s case that he already is.

0cp71eyxkb94qf

Bring back the sexy club orange ads.

Tenderribs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So any examples of me attacking masculinity or not?

Given the Fact that you won’t give any examples of me attacking masculinity because I have not don’t that. What does your pop psychology say about you for accusing me of something which turns out to be somehow which you have constructed in your own mind?

Examples or back in your box.

You love that box, don't be trying so hard.

Wibbs

Kyra CoolS Armband wrote: »

Gillette have their head screwed on. Discussion like this thread has brought them right back to being culturally relevant, in a world of hipster beards and designer stubble. Those of us who are in favour of these discussions are delighted with the exposure, making us feel good about ourselves and the noble cause we strive for. Those of us who are not feel good in a different way - angry and want that to be known. Either way, the name Gillette gets mentioned and we feel a bit better than the other section of society. Multiple times.

I think the real argument needs more nuance. I think most fathers would stop their kids from having a fight, 'boys will be boys' is usually a way to deal with the cognitive dissonance after the event, when a parent admonishes themselves for not being able to intervene. It is a minority that would let their kids roll around fighting in front of the neighbours and say sure isn't it great gas, boys being boys.

The sexist behaviours portrayed are often more subtle than those portrayed and the first step is recognising it in ourselves. The way to stop them is a call to 'check ourselves', somewhat like Panti's noble call. Will Gillette do this? No. They want to make us feel good about ourselves, not bad.

This has to be a parody post. "Panti's noble call" :pac::pac: we're looking to hyped up untalented drag acts for "noble" in "noble causes" now? The kickback can't come soon enough.

DEFTLEFTHAND

The things is you can't breed the nature out of boys, they're always going to rustle and tustle with each other, it's what they they do, like all young male mammals.

My brother and I used to fight like crazy up until about 13,14. Wrestling on the grass outside, punching each other in the car. It's how young males work their aggression out.