Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

hatrickpatrick

gozunda wrote: »

An advert which could just as legitimately talk of toxic femininity. Of bullying psychotic women who attack other women and whose behaviour can be worse than that depicted in this advert. Does that get a mention? Does it feck...

Don't you know that because of 'systemic privilege', women can't be toxic or sexist and it's only men who can be (and usually are) bad people?

Silentcorner

Reati wrote: »

Toxic males do care. They are getting very excited about this video in this thread and all across the internet It's funny to read all the comments actually.

Can you define a toxic male please, without using a series of buzzwords that you gullibly chomped on over the last few years?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Reati wrote: »

Toxic males do care. They are getting very excited about this video in this thread and all across the internet It's funny to read all the comments actually.

Well they aren’t going to buy more Gillette which you’d think would be the aim of an advertising campaign.

hatrickpatrick

Reati wrote: »

Toxic males do care. They are getting very excited about this video in this thread and all across the internet It's funny to read all the comments actually.

Is a toxic man simply anyone who finds sexism unacceptable and objects to double standards regarding the societal rejection of generalisation for almost every demographic?

conorhal

Silentcorner wrote: »

Can you define a toxic male please, without using a series of buzzwords that you gullibly chomped on over the last few years?

I'd back away slowly for the troll... or if you must engage, point her in Gillette's direction by pointing out that Gillette's ad is profoundly transphobic, I mean 'today's boys will grow up to be tomorrow's men', oh, will they indeed!

Panthro

Ivanna Ashy Sinus wrote: »

Same here, Gillette Co have already had a very poor years trading, now they've just gone and kicked themselves in whatever balls they had.

Wilkinson Sword GmbH isn't publically traded (pvt co), but there are a host of alternative start-ups that have already jumped on the overpriced razor gravy train.

I hear an advert on the radio for a Dollar Shave Club. (I'm in the UK mind)
They send out blades every month or so.
Ah who am I kidding, Aldi finest!

Franz Von Peppercorn

don’t know about Aldi but got some blades from Dealz once which basically ripped my skin off.

They looked like Gillette two blades but were absolutely useless. Dangerous.

4068ac1elhodqr

Panthro wrote: »

I hear an advert on the radio for a Dollar Shave Club. (I'm in the UK mind)
They send out blades every month or so.
Ah who am I kidding, Aldi finest!

When in the uk, you can visit the local £1 shop for choice of a pack of 12 disp razors. As long as ones face doesn't have similaraties to the lunar surface can't see any issues.

Will be interesting to see [NSE:GILLETTE] opening stock price in the morning.

hatrickpatrick

conorhal wrote: »

I'd back away slowly for the troll... or if you must engage, point her in Gillette's direction by pointing out that Gillette's ad is profoundly transphobic, I mean 'today's boys will grow up to be tomorrow's men', oh, will they indeed!

That could be a fun backlash to watch, it certainly seemed to spook the Repeal campaign last year when some eejits objected to their use of the word "women" :D:D

eyerer

I buy cheap/stolen/fake Gillette blades off ebay. There is no way I would pay full price for them.
There's no Aldi shops here so I can't try those.

I hate this advert and I fail to see how it's advertising razors to men. I'd love to see an ad campaign condemn women, in which they are trying to sell things to women.. :wassat:

Society is fcked

Reati

Silentcorner wrote: »

Can you define a toxic male please, without using a series of buzzwords that you gullibly chomped on over the last few years?

No, no, no. That's simply not the way you ask the question. You've shown your hand and exposed your set viewpoint with that thinly vailed insult. You probably don't even notice yourself doing it. It's ok. Try again and don't be premature. Build up to it this time.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Is a toxic man simply anyone who finds sexism unacceptable and objects to double standards regarding the societal rejection of generalisation for almost every demographic?

Is that a statement of your belief or s question asking if you're get the definition right or something else. It's hard to tell. Can you clear that up for me?

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Well they aren’t going to buy more Gillette which you’d think would be the aim of an advertising campaign.

Toxic males or males in general? I'm not sure this ad was ever going to make people suddenly go out and buy Gillette but if nothing, they have managed to get themselves well talked about today. Any coverage is good coverage one could say. Just look at how Ryanair used to do it

givyjoe

Reati wrote: »

Toxic females do care. They are getting very excited about this video in this thread and all across the internet It's funny to read all the comments actually.

Fixed that for you.

Augme

All this talk of boycotting gillette. Genuiley, how sensitive can people be?

hatrickpatrick

Reati wrote: »

Is that a statement of your belief or s question asking if you're get the definition right or something else. It's hard to tell. Can you clear that up for me?

You stated that the toxic males were the ones objecting to this ad, on this thread. Which to me means you're saying that men who object to sexist double standards and anti-male propaganda are toxic. I'm just clarifying if that is in fact what you mean?

4068ac1elhodqr

Reati wrote: »

Any coverage is good coverage one could say.

Like the Ratners jewelery chap that briefly described his products as crap, then found himself in the papers the next day, and the company in the skip not long after?

Ryanair is different, there are no quick easy alternatives. Unless someone shows up with hundreds upon hundred of new aircraft and flights to anywhere in Europe at discounted prices.

sydthebeat

Toxic masculinity is a fraud.
That culture died out in the 60s

hatrickpatrick

Augme wrote: »

All this talk of boycotting gillette. Genuiley, how sensitive can you be?

Objecting to propaganda which attacks your very identity isn't "sensitive" FFS. If someone made an ad saying "women, you're bad people and you need to change", women would rightly be pissed off and nobody mainstream would be criticising them for it.

Muckka

I've no time for the emasculation of men.
No time what so ever.
Men are men and we're not all equal in emotional intelligence, financial security, looks, strength and durability.
We're not all equal in what we can put on the table.

Women are not equal to men full stop.

They're all different too, in looks, physical appearance, earning potential and all of the above.

If anyone can honestly say I'm wrong, well you can't really.

Equality is a social engineered makey up thing.

I think there's men and women, better looking, stronger, fitter, wealthier and more professional than I

Thant doesn't make us equal.

Men are men and women are women.

Gay is gay, Trans are trans.....

Gay's and straight people are not equal either.
My gay friend would knock ten shades of shoite out of me in a brawl, and he's wealthier and better looking... therefore we're not equal.

The sooner we let go of equality the better....

I'm not posting this to be strident, call a spade a spade..

Reati

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You stated that the toxic males were the ones objecting to this ad, on this thread. Which to me means you're saying that men who object to sexist double standards and anti-male propaganda are toxic. I'm just clarifying if that is in fact what you mean?

Hmmm...

Reati wrote: »

Toxic males do care. They are getting very excited about this video in this thread and all across the internet It's funny to read all the comments actually.

You must have strong legs to make such great leaps.

py2006

The gas thing is, the equivalent ad targeting women and attacking femininity wouldn't even get to the point where it is released and they could get it banned.

It wouldn't get passed the suggestion table in marketing and the guy who suggested it would at best be boycotted by female colleagues and at worst fired.

Silentcorner

Reati wrote: »

No, no, no. That's simply not the way you ask the question. You've shown your hand and exposed your set viewpoint with that thinly vailed insult. You probably don't even notice yourself doing it. It's ok. Try again and don't be premature. Build up to it this time.



Put down the cherry and concentrate in defining the toxic male please, without borrowing the language of a tweeny feminist.

hatrickpatrick

Reati wrote: »

Hmmm...



You must have strong legs to make such great leaps.

You're implying that the men who are getting excited about this video are "toxic males", are you not?

El_Duderino 09

Zorya wrote: »

It has long been known that mass media advertising has a very strong propaganda effect. We are not so sophisticated nowadays as to imagine we are unaffected. If that were the case advertising worldwide would not have a budget of 558 billion dollars, a figure which grows steadily, year on year.

Take it up with the other poster they reckon the ad is actually telling men what to do. I don’t doubt ads have an effect on people’s attitudes. Attitude is the “unit” that psychology uses to measure the impact of an ad campaign or education or whatever.

I was just wondering how far the other poster would go to make out that this ad is different from all others which are created to sell a product.

Gillette doesn’t care about metoo or feminism or having a pop at men. It’s just selling Gillette products. And like every other product it uses ads to sell more. Gillette doesn’t care about men or women at anything except sales. It’s a capitalist thing, not a feminism thing or an anti man thing.

Reati

Ivanna Ashy Sinus wrote: »

Like the Ratners jewelery chap that briefly described his products as crap, then found himself in the papers the next day, and the company in the skip not long after?

Ryanair is different, there are no quick easy alternatives. Unless someone shows up with hundreds upon hundred of new aircraft and flights to anywhere in Europe at discounted prices.

I don't think Gillette have any fear of going bankrupt over this, no matter how many people they have triggered

Hasn't effected the stock price anyway - 91.90 USD +0.73 (0.80%)

Reati

Silentcorner wrote: »

Reati wrote: »

No, no, no. That's simply not the way you ask the question. You've shown your hand and exposed your set viewpoint with that thinly vailed insult. You probably don't even notice yourself doing it. It's ok. Try again and don't be premature. Build up to it this time.

Put down the cherry and concentrate in defining the toxic male please, without borrowing the language of a tweeny feminist.

It's Sherry, not cherry

You are still doing it wrong. When you learn how to ask the question correctly, I'll gladly answer it for you.

4068ac1elhodqr

Reati wrote: »

I don't think Gillette have any fear of going bankrupt over this, no matter how many people they have triggered

Hasn't effected the stock price anyway - 91.90 USD +0.73 (0.80%)

(Yet).

You do realise in the US they've went from 70% market share in the last decade, down to 54% in 2016?

Likely they're into sub 45% for 2019, and on the way down further after this ad-turd. Why pay more for the same product others will post out to your door for less.

El_Duderino 09

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

I assume Gillette, under Procter and Gamble - however those fine Bildebergers are spelled - are no longer using questionably aged workers and employing 60% temporary workers to undercut local third-world communities into keeping wages down, right?

I mean them making an advert like that tells me they're obviously now employing 50/50 gender-wise, and at 12 or 13 quid an hour..

Would you say so? I’d say it’s just like any other huge company trying to sell its products as cheaply as possible. I’m really confused about why people are pretending not to understand that.

Some people are keen to see a special hypocrisy where Gillette is pretending to be woke but actually they’re just capitalist.

The faux outrage is a strange reaction. It’s just an ad for a company trying to sell stuff. Gillette is not actually a woke company. It’s just a company.

Reati

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You're implying that the men who are getting excited about this video are "toxic males", are you not?

I didn't imply anything. I in fact stated Toxic males are getting excited about the video.

Once again, you make the leap to a different conclusion. You seem to think the only men getting excited about the video are toxic or at least you continue to push that undertone. Tell me more about why you feel you are being attacked?

hatrickpatrick

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Would you say so? I’d say it’s just like any other huge company trying to sell its products as cheaply as possible. I’m really confused about why people are pretending not to understand that.

Some people are keen to see a special hypocrisy where Gillette is pretending to be woke but actually they’re just capitalist.

The faux outrage is a strange reaction. It’s just an ad for a company trying to sell stuff. Gillette is not actually a woke company. It’s just a company.

The hypocrisy is that society tolerates this where it wouldn't tolerate a similar as attacking women, and the fact that Gilette chose to make an ad condescendingly telling men what to do, because we're not good enough as we are, while it did not (and would not) create any comparable ad attacking womens' behaviour and lifestyles as not being good enough.

Silentcorner

Reati wrote: »

It's Sherry, not cherry

You are still doing it wrong. When you learn how to ask the question correctly, I'll gladly answer it for you.

You don't have a definition of a toxic male outside of the usual drivel that passes for ideology do you!