Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

El_Duderino 09

Tenderribs wrote: »

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

So no examples. That’s grand. I’ll take that as a face saving attempt to walk back from the untrue accusation you made.

Don’t worry.

Wibbs

Faugheen wrote: »

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.

Ever hear of: I'm not my brother's keeper? Or sister's for that matter.

But let's take your angle for a moment. Are women left out of this equation? Where are they in all this? Y'know the half of the population that are the mothers, sisters, friends, partners, coworkers of these "bad" men? Or do they go on carrying the agentless victim card and sit on the sidelines doing nothing, while as usual men have to sort things out? Doesn't sound much like equality to me. Though it is current "feminism"; women are always agentless victims and men are always to blame, and apparently have to fix the world for the poor dears.

professore

Wibbs wrote: »

Ever hear of: I'm not my brother's keeper? Or sister's for that matter.

But let's take your angle for a moment. Are women left out of this equation? Where are they in all this? Y'know the half of the population that are the mothers, sisters, friends, partners, coworkers of these "bad" men? Or do they go on carrying the agentless victim card and sit on the sidelines doing nothing, while as usual men have to sort things out? Doesn't sound much like equality to me. Though it is current "feminism"; women are always agentless victims and men are always to blame, and apparently have to fix the world for the poor dears.

True ... any bullies being defended by parents that I ever saw it was nearly always the mother defending her little Johnny who couldn't possibly do anything wrong. The type who when her kid punches your kid and takes something says "your kid should learn to share"

Look at Cartman in South Park .... he's a prime example of this stereotype.

greencap

JMNolan wrote: »

Why do you say this? Companies get marketing campaigns wrong all the time, why can't this be ill judged? More than likely it is because it fits in with your own bigoted views?

Lol what?

What bigoted views?

They're doing what their shareholders want them to do.

Get the word 'Gillette' plastered all across the internet.

That's my only "view" on this.

professore

I'm actually disgusted that they use CHILDREN in this ad. Little boys being portrayed as evil monsters in the making ... and how only girls need encouragement. How is this permitted? Imagine being a young boy watching this !!!!

Wibbs

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

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.

Not according to progressives. According to them, at least where and when it suits, it's all culture. It's not "natural" for boys to act like that it's all culturally influenced. Oddly, or not, girls behaviour is "natural" and accepted, even lauded. If only boys/men weren't more like girls/women. Well a pretty narrow definition of girls/women of course, mostly based around white, western, middle class, educated girls/women who are feminists.

It's a holdover from the 1960's/70's debate on nature versus nurture where they decided nurture was everything. Politically the more extreme Left tend to have the horn for nurture, the more extreme Right the horn for nature. Both have it arseways. Actual science shows it's six of one, a half dozen of the other.

hatrickpatrick

Faugheen wrote: »

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.

Most are carried out by a small minority of men. You're correct that the ad is "asking us, as men, to be better" - that's what I object to. I don't need to be better, I'm perfectly happy with how I am - and I certainly don't need or want to be told what to do by society or told that the I am, at present, "not good enough". Men giving other men a bad name is the fault of (a) those men and (b) a society which believes that it's acceptable to generalise about men even when it's not acceptable to do this with any other demographic group. It's not my fault, and it's not my problem. I'm a good person and I'm sick of all of this thinly veiled "you're male, so you're probably not a good person on some level" crap, or alternatively "you're male, so the behaviour of others who are male is somehow your responsibility even if you don't behave badly".

F*ck that. Mainstream society does not treat women this way, so naturally I object when it treats men this way. The current zeitgeist is all about telling women to be free and live how they want to live, and to reach for the stars. Simultaneously, it's about telling men to behave themselves, do better, and restrain themselves from being too loud, pushy, or extroverted. Essentially it's saying "women, free yourselves" and "men, control yourselves".

That is a fundamental societal double standard being pushed by the mainstream at this moment, and it's one which in my view quite rightly makes a lot of men feel put upon and pissed off.

professore wrote: »

I'm actually disgusted that they use CHILDREN in this ad. Little boys being portrayed as evil monsters in the making ... and how only girls need encouragement. How is this permitted? Imagine being a young boy watching this !!!!

Girls need encouragement, boys need to be constrained. That's the message. It's repulsive.

Tenderribs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So no examples. That’s grand. I’ll take that as a face saving attempt to walk back from the untrue accusation you made.

Don’t worry.

whatever helps you sleep at night

professore

greencap wrote: »

Lol what?

What bigoted views?

They're doing what their shareholders want them to do.

Get the word 'Gillette' plastered all across the internet.

That's my only "view" on this.

Well it worked .... but I for one won't be buying any of their products anymore. I'd actually stopped a while back as It's overpriced rubbish anyway. Back to the good old Wilkinson Sword safety razor. Good enough for my toxic masculine dad, and good enough for me.

Amirani

seamus wrote: »

Realistically the people who get worked up about this so-called "attack on men" are only one step removed from the same psychopath who kidnapped that 13 year old girl and kept her trapped for months.

Embarrassing.

professore

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Girls need encouragement, boys need to be constrained. That's the message. It's repulsive.

It's grand for the likes of you and me who are comfortable in our own skin .... but young impressionable boys and girls, they believe all this ****.

I have a 14 year old daughter who I teach that everyone deserves equal treatment and good and bad people come in both genders. Many of her classmates don't see it like that though. They could be bullied all day by girls and still spout the line that boys are bullies.

Sir Oxman

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.

^This

Wibbs

Hatrickpatrick, you're right and like I always say in these matters feminism and mainstream feminism - lest the usual "it's only the extremists" stuff pipes up - always boils down to this basic credo: Women are always agentless victims and men are always to blame. Even on the rare occasions where there is an acknowledgment of men in trouble it's blamed on the patriarchy and "toxic masculinity". It's still men's fault. Oh and it's always up to fix it and while we're at it fix all the problems of the world feminists whine about.

greencap

professore wrote: »

Well it worked .... but I for one won't be buying any of their products anymore. I'd actually stopped a while back as It's overpriced rubbish anyway. Back to the good old Wilkinson Sword safety razor. Good enough for my toxic masculine dad, and good enough for me.

Ok.

Share price is somehow still up despite news of your trade embargo.

hatrickpatrick

professore wrote: »

It's grand for the likes of you and me who are comfortable in our own skin .... but young impressionable boys and girls, they believe all this ****.

I have a 14 year old daughter who I teach that everyone deserves equal treatment and good and bad people come in both genders. Many of her classmates don't see it like that though. They could be bullied all day by girls and still spout the line that boys are bullies.

Oh I agree. It took me many years to throw off the "society likes girls and thinks they're better than boys" sh!t off, it messed me up for a long time. Thankfully, it was being friends with so many incredible girls in my teenage years who, contrary to what the media and Gen X adults seemed to pedal, didn't actually want special treatment or look down on lads, and were just all around nice, friendly, fun people. But I can imagine that for the more introverted who don't get to experience that kind of social interaction and have nothing to counter the message that society believes girls are great and boys suck, it must really, really f*ck people up long term.

Sh!t like "ladies first" going all the way back to being three years old had me questioning why I was expected to put myself last just because I was a lad. And then people wonder why so many lads are socially awkward when it comes to interacting with women in their teenage years and early twenties! It's ridiculous.

Wibbs

Tenderribs wrote: »

whatever helps you sleep at night

I really wouldn't bother T. Waste of time.

hatrickpatrick

Wibbs wrote: »

Hatrickpatrick, you're right and like I always say in these matters feminism and mainstream feminism - lest the usual "it's only the extremists" stuff pipes up - always boils down to this basic credo: Women are always agentless victims and men are always to blame. Even on the rare occasions where there is an acknowledgment of men in trouble it's blamed on the patriarchy and "toxic masculinity". It's still men's fault. Oh and it's always up to fix it and while we're at it fix all the problems of the world feminists whine about.

I've always used a different but related phrase as what I view as the basic feminist credo, and I wonder what you'd think of it: "Women have rights, men have responsibilities". That's the message - self-improvement for women is about becoming a happier person and achieving one's own dreams. Self-improvement for men is about becoming more useful to women and to society in general, one's own dreams be damned.

The argument over sex robots is a good example of this actually - the primary reason they're being bashed is because they might make men less useful to women. Sex toys for women aren't treated like this though, because in the eyes of the mainstream, a woman's only duty is to herself. Now, I actually agree with that - if you're single and you have no dependents, your only duty is indeed to yourself, unless you choose to dedicate yourself to others. But I believe that this should apply just as much to men as to women. Self-improvement for me should be about me becoming a happier person, not about how I can be more useful to others. If anyone made an ad which essentially boiled down to "women, here's how you can be of more service to men", everyone would righly lose their sh!t - as indeed feminists regularly do when it comes to trashy magazines which tell women how to be a better partner etc as a form of "self improvement".

When men are talked to like this, the outrage just isn't there - because a lot of people, consciously or unconsciously, actually agree with the basic premise that fundamentally a man's purpose in life isn't to do what makes him happy, but to serve others. Female empowerment means that a woman's purpose in life is to pursue happiness, but this has not been equally applied to men, and that's where most of these repulsive double standards originate.

One eyed Jack

professore wrote: »

I'm actually disgusted that they use CHILDREN in this ad. Little boys being portrayed as evil monsters in the making ... and how only girls need encouragement. How is this permitted? Imagine being a young boy watching this !!!!

To be fair, children are used in all sorts of advertising, the latest one that made me chuckle was the one advertising a car for €20k - an adult male driving it with the voiceover of a child. I get the idea of it, but I’m still not going to spend €20k on a shìte car, any more than a pyjama wearing yummy mummy type is likely to buy one of these heaps of shìte -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDeZV5NiKnk

Kudos to the marketing team behind it though, it’s catchier than the Gillette nonsense

buried

Let me get this straight, a gigantic multi-billion dollar corporate chemical toxic waste producing toilet sink product company that's been polluting the globe and its water table with chemical plastic products for the last century is now telling every male on the planet to be a "better man" and stop Toxic masculinity? f**kinlol man, Yeah Gilette, I'll f**king get right on that, thanks for the advice

Cockford Ollie

There's a new Land Rover radio ad which starts off with a woman voice over joined by a male voice over. The woman says "Sorry, do you mind" and continues the ad by herself.

I'm guessing it's a subtle, or no so subtle, reference to women fighting the patriarchy, being dominant over men etc etc.

buried

flol again

hatrickpatrick

buried wrote: »

Let me get this straight, a gigantic multi-billion dollar corporate chemical toxic waste producing toilet sink product company that's been polluting the globe and its water table with chemical plastic products for the last century is now telling every male on the planet to be a "better man" and stop Toxic masculinity? f**kinlol man, Yeah Gilette, I'll f**king get right on that, thanks for the advice

Irony of ironies, they also charge women more for the same basic setup of a few steel strips glued into a plastic frame while now simultaneously preaching feminist buzzwords. Toxic masculinity indeed

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

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.

Aaaah, that’s not just a boy thing. My sister and I had some vicious scraps that would always just end up with us in a heap laughing on the floor. But the scraps would be serious. Scrapping is normal late childhood and teen close-in-age, living-in-close-quarters sibling tension release. I’d say it’s necessary actually.

All my female friends scrapped similarly with their close-in-age siblings, not always sisters either. It’s not a gendered thing.

hatrickpatrick

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Aaaah, that’s not just a boy thing. My sister and I had some vicious scraps that would always just end up with us in a heap laughing on the floor. But the scraps would be serious. Scrapping is normal close-in-age, living-in-close-quarters sibling tension release.

All my female friends scrapped similarly with their close-in-age siblings, not always sisters either. It’s not a gendered thing.

Ah, but didn't you know it's not a 'problem' when sisters do it, because reasons! #equality2.0

J. Marston

No reasonable guy will have a problem with the message.

I think it's just some mega-corporation implying we're mostly all pieces of shít who need to be tut-tutted and finger-wagged at is what annoys some, justifiably

givyjoe

J. Marston wrote: »

No reasonable guy will have a problem with the message.

I think it's just some mega-corporation implying we're mostly all pieces of shít who need to be tut-tutted and finger-wagged at is what annoys some, justifiably

Hmmm, somewhat contradictory points there...

Plopsu

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

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.

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

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

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

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.

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

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

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

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.

No, you didn't but you were using it as part of your definition of whinging. In case you'd forgotten, that's what your first post was about. Maybe you should read back (people can get confused with all the cross posting (not to mention irrelevantly referencing other threads)).
BTW according to the definition of whinging you're using, women who complain about sexual harassment without organising against it are just whinging.

if Maurice Pratt and quinsworth gave us ads lecturing about consent, Larry Murphy could've been avoided....

J. Marston

J. Marston wrote: »

No reasonable guy will have a problem with the message.

I think it's just some mega-corporation implying we're mostly all pieces of shít who need to be tut-tutted and finger-wagged at is what annoys some, justifiably

This x10

Outlaw Pete

https://twitter.com/CHSommers/status/1085021841792684032