Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

hatrickpatrick

Reati wrote: »

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?

Can you show us examples of some of the toxic ones so?

I feel I'm being attacked because I'm a man, a company has just made an ad - which would not be tolerated if it targeted women in this manner - telling me that I'm a bad person, I'm not good enough and that I should change my lifestyle for the benefit of others, and many in society, including people who are allegedly committed to equality, are welcoming and cheering that ad. It's that simple.

There are literally no circumstances whatsoever in which double standards are acceptable. Ever.

Rezident

Captain Obvious wrote: »

I'll stick with the Aldi blades. If Gillette want my business again they need to look at their price tag, not their message.

+1 I bought the ALDI blades there and they are totally fine. Very pleasantly surprised. And they are so cheap!

Reati

Ivanna Ashy Sinus wrote: »

(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.

They still have 65% world wide market share. Their market share was hit by lower cost alternatives. Like everything, price speaks the loudest.

Reati

Silentcorner wrote: »

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

When you ask the question correctly, I will gladly give it to you. You have now replied three times with three similarly boring "insults". If you actually wanted the answer, you'd ask the question the right way.

Your call.

El_Duderino 09

Augme wrote: »

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

Very sensitive. Very sensitive indeed.

Maybe Gillette could do another ad for Gillette sensitive products which features sensitive men getting upset about how oppressed they are.

Rezident

Deleted User wrote: »

Where's the 'boys of today will be the girls of tomorrow' line coming from?

Ad obviously says 'men of tomorrow' and I honestly don't see what the fuss appears to be about? Seems like a decent ad to me, although im unsure how it'll sell razors. More a 'this is our progressive stance' video, rather than advertisement. But again, can't see any issue with it. Maybe I'm lost?

Yes you must be lost. So what happened? Some degenarate attacked a women or groped a woman somewhere in the world, but who's to blame? Not the individual, oh no, (he was from a socially disadvantaged area and has 73 previous convictions so it's not his fault) the real criminal is . . . masculinity!


Yes, ALL men are to blame for what some individual did. You are perpetuating this myth and some fools will believe it. You are literally making the world a worse place, as is anyone who uses deception like "toxic masculinity".

joe40

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

Do you think the ad should be banned

Silentcorner

Reati wrote: »

When you ask the question correctly, I will gladly give it to you. You have now replied three times with three similarly boring "insults". If you actually wanted the answer, you'd ask the question the right way.

Your call.

IF i thought it would be worth it I would!

El_Duderino 09

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

It’s almost as if women’s rights groups spend decades highlighting the issues that are important to them. And now people take women’s issues seriously.

Imagine if men were interested doing something similar. Or they could sit around and whine about how it hasn’t happened already.

4068ac1elhodqr

Reati wrote: »

They still have 65% world wide market share. Their market share was hit by lower cost alternatives. Like everything, price speaks the loudest.

In the developing world, most likely knock-offs.

Last year they dropped below the 50% share in their primary (US) market, and that's even with a 12% price discount.

A company clearly in steady decline. If you think this advert will help them recover from an ever reducing market share, maybe don't go into business, marketing or advertising.

Instead expect further growth from the Dollar Shave Club, Harry's or own brand/discount stores.

hatrickpatrick

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s almost as if women’s rights groups spend decades highlighting the issues that are important to them. And now people take women’s issues seriously.

Imagine if men were interested doing something similar. Or they could sit around and whine about how it hasn’t happened already.

Feminists claim to be about "equality" and they attack groups which attempt to highlight men's issues as unnecessary and sexist. We're not allowed to have our own movement by mainstream society because "feminism fights for equality for everyone". And yet as the reaction to this sexist as has shown, this is blatantly untrue.

Reati

Silentcorner wrote: »

IF i thought it would be worth it I would!

So you wanted a definition, you asked for it several times but no it's not worth asking for it without the undertones. Scooby doo is less confused than you Silentcorner.

How about you tell me, what do you think toxic masculinity is defined as. No Googling now :")

Silentcorner

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s almost as if women’s rights groups spend decades highlighting the issues that are important to them. And now people take women’s issues seriously.

Imagine if men were interested doing something similar. Or they could sit around and whine about how it hasn’t happened already.

And can you point out how these successes have worked out for women?

You do realise that attempted suicide, depression, self harming, anxiety disorders, bullying are skyrocketing amongst young women...

Could it be, that after one or two generations of pursing a liberal agenda, the liberals do not want to look at themselves to blame for the difficulties faced by everyone in society these days? Lets blame the men sure...white men at that!

RandomName2

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Wry sensitive. Very sensitive indeed.

Maybe Gillette could do another ad for Gillette sensitive products which features sensitive men getting upset about how oppressed they are.

Doesn't part of the booklet of left-wing positions that you ascribe to say that part of toxic masculinity is not accepting men's sensitivity? How toxic male of you.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

Yes, but it's odd in the extreme. What if McDonalds said that they support Trump? Or IBM in Dublin said "vote no to abortion"? Or Whiskas said "vegans should be boycotted"? What business is it of large multinational corporations getting involved in politics or societal affairs -there's way too much of that already. It's bad enough that we already have the Fox News, CNNs and Russia Todays of the media world without this short of shít infecting everyday consumer products.

hatrickpatrick

Reati wrote: »

So you wanted a definition, you asked for it several times but no it's not worth asking for it without the undertones. Scooby doo is less confused than you Silentcorner.

How about you tell me, what do you think toxic masculinity is defined as. No Googling now :")

I can answer this one. Do you want the honest definition or the definition misandrists use to pretend it means something different to what it actually means in practical usage?

Silentcorner

Reati wrote: »

So you wanted a definition, you asked for it several times but no it's not worth asking for it without the undertones. Scooby doo is less confused than you Silentcorner.

How about you tell me, what do you think toxic masculinity is defined as. No Googling now :")

I suspected you didn't have a definition outside of what your twitter feed dictated to you...I was right it seems.

Reati

Ivanna Ashy Sinus wrote: »

In the developing world, most likely knock-offs.

Last year they dropped below the 50% share in their primary (US) market, and that's even with a 12% price discount.

A company clearly in steady decline. If you think this advert will help them recover from an ever reducing market share, maybe don't go into business, marketing or advertising.

Instead expect further growth from the Dollar Shave Club, Harry's or own brand/discount stores.

Boards needs to do some eye tests or reading exams when people log in. It's almost like people see what they want to see.

I never said this advert would do anything for their sales or to stop a reducing market share. I'd be surprised if anyone working there thinks that either.

Cockford Ollie

People using the word snowflake in this context don't know the meaning of the word.

It's like using a racial slur against a race it's not intended for. Makes no sense.

Reati

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I can answer this one. Do you want the honest definition or the definition misandrists use to pretend it means something different to what it actually means in practical usage?

Well, you have already shown your bias. Debating really needs to be a compulsory subject

There is no such thing as an "honest" definition. There is a agreed definition and then disputed definition(s). I'm not sure which one you have but I'd love to hear it.

Renegade Mechanic

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.

... "woke"? I'm afraid that's not a term I'm familiar with
At any rate, it's all hypocritical. Everything. Even me.

So I'm less "outrage" and more "take the piss", personally.
It reminds me of the "this is what a feminist looks like" t-shirts that lard arses stuffed themselves into for social virtue points while hungry Asians living in boxes made more, or U.S presidents crying about kids eating lead in America while kids in the M.E ate phosphorus shur it's a funny aul world really. Why not have a laugh?

hatrickpatrick

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yes, but it's odd in the extreme. What if McDonalds said that they support Trump? Or IBM in Dublin said "vote no to abortion"? Or Whiskas said "vegans should be boycotted"?

They would be attacked by the mainstream media, mainstream politicians and the same SJWs who are lauding this video, because men, straight and white ones in particular, are mainstream society's only acceptable punching bag. Talk this way about literally any other demographic and the mainstream world will relentlessly attack you for it.

Reati

Silentcorner wrote: »

I suspected you didn't have a definition outside of what your twitter feed dictated to you...I was right it seems.

I do have a definition. You have decided that you don't want it because you can't ask the question without the undertone of an insult. You can continue to try to bait it out of me. If you want the definition, you need only ask properly.

Alas, I don't use twitter but good assumption. It's almost like you have your mind set on the type of person you want me to be

Renegade Mechanic

Cockford Ollie wrote: »

People using the word snowflake in this context don't know the meaning of the word.

It's like using a racial slur against a race it's not intended for. Makes no sense.

I must admit chuckling at "broflake". That's going right next to "brodozer"..

El_Duderino 09

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Feminists claim to be about "equality" and they attack groups which attempt to highlight men's issues as unnecessary and sexist. We're not allowed to have our own movement by mainstream society because "feminism fights for equality for everyone". And yet as the reaction to this sexist as has shown, this is blatantly untrue.

Oh this faux innocence has to stop. The women’s rights movement was ridiculed from a height for decades. That’s what happens to movements before they’re taken seriously.

How easy do you think it should be? If there was no opposition there wouldn’t be A need for the movement.

Seriously I wish you could see how defeatist it looks to say ‘they won’t let us have what we want’. Of course they won’t just give it to you. If they just gave you what you want then you would t need to fight for it.

This should be so obvious it shouldn’t really need to be articulated.

SharpshooterTom

We're living in a world where we're encouraging men to become more like women, and encouraging women to become more like men.

Better start getting used to it folks.

Silentcorner

Reati wrote: »

I do have a definition. You have decided that you don't want it because you can't ask the question without the undertone of an insult. You can continue to try to bait it out of me. If you want the definition, you need only ask properly.

Alas, I don't use twitter but good assumption. It's almost like you have your mind set on the type of person you want me to be

Toxic male is an insult and you meant it as an insult...you have avoided defining it in your own words because you can't.

hatrickpatrick

Reati wrote: »

Well, you have already shown your bias. Debating really needs to be a compulsory subject

There is no such thing as an "honest" definition. There is a agreed definition and then disputed definition(s). I'm not sure which one you have but I'd love to hear it.

I'm obviously biased, I have strong opinions on this subject as should be obvious, and I'm here to argue it from that point of view rather than an objective one. As is almost everyone.

The definition of toxic masculinity as used by SJWs and radical regressive "leftists" is any self-serving behaviour by men which doesn't put everyone else before himself in a self-sacrificing way, because male utilitarianism is "in", and a man's purpose in life is to be useful to others while a woman's purpose in life is to make sure she does what makes her happy.

That's the message I've had shoved down my throat by the mainstream media for my entire life anyway. It's always the man's job to change, to prove himself, to become a better person. Women are perfect the way they are. Women are the ideal, men are merely defective women. Female behaviour, sexuality, attitudes, etc are the "right" and "good" ways to live, whereas male ones, where they diverge, are the undesirable ones which should be pushed out of mainstream society and shunned.

Toxic masculinity is a buzz phrases used to attack men for refusing to see themselves as facilitators for others' enjoyment of life rather than independent, free human beings in and of themselves. If I don't believe that my role in life is to serve others, I'm a "toxic male". In contrast, those same sources bombard women with the message that they owe nobody anything and should put themselves first.

I fully agree with the latter message - women do indeed owe nobody anything and they absolutely should put themselves first. The problem arises when I apply that same ideology to men as well. Then suddenly I have a toxicity problem.

hatrickpatrick

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Oh this faux innocence has to stop. The women’s rights movement was ridiculed from a height for decades. That’s what happens to movements before they’re taken seriously.

How easy do you think it should be? If there was no opposition there wouldn’t be A need for the movement.

Seriously I wish you could see how defeatist it looks to say ‘they won’t let us have what we want’. Of course they won’t just give it to you. If they just gave you what you want then you would t need to fight for it.

This should be so obvious it shouldn’t really need to be articulated.

That's the point though. They're hypocrites and liars, and as liars they obviously pretend not to be. That's why I regard them as scumbags. They pretend to be something they are not, and they use that false definition to attack anyone who criticises them.

Reati

RandomName2 wrote: »

Don't you love people who play fast and loose with the truth?

So here we have the outraged person, outraged at peoples' outrage, asking repeatedly for a definition for something which cannot be defined, because it is a made up term which has been independently used by different sociologists to describe something they want to describe.

Your post makes little sense without annotation of your thoughts as you wrote it. It requires clarifications.

1. Who is the outraged person?
2. Who are the outraged people?
3. Every term is made up. That's how a definition gets made.

El_Duderino 09

Silentcorner wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It’s almost as if women’s rights groups spend decades highlighting the issues that are important to them. And now people take women’s issues seriously.

Imagine if men were interested doing something similar. Or they could sit around and whine about how it hasn’t happened already.

And can you point out how these successes have worked out for women?

Then post you quoted was a response to a poster complaining that companies don’t make ads “attacking” women. Because of decades of feminist work, women’s issues are in the public consciousness and are taken seriously. That’s the most obvious success of the decades of work that went before.