Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

Billy Mays

Just watched the ad

Imagine getting so wound up by that that you'd consider boycotting the company's products

47 pages ffs

maccored

advert certainly works as all people are talking about is gillette. like this thread, which is another big gillette advert

conorhal

Standman wrote: »

Leaving aside the wider question of whether we should be moralised to by multinational corporations and that this is a cynical ad by a razor company, is there anything that bad about encouraging guys to call out shite behaviour in their peers?

I've been in a few situations where I didn't, and it didn't sit right with me on reflection afterwards.

On the surface of it, no.
But let’s be honest here, that's not what the ad is about, it's not the intent of those behind it and it's not the hoped for result either.

This this ad is entirely political. Entirely, and that's not just my opinion, it's Proctor and Gamble's.

It's no coincidence that this ad was released at the start of the election cycle in the US when presidential campaigns begin to warm up and potential runners consider their chances.
An ad that includes references to the Me Too movement IS political, it also includes contributions from Anna (I’m better then you!) Kasparian, who is a prominent left wing activist and deranged Never Trumper. This all signals pretty hard the political stance of the ad, as does it’s choice of director.
The ad is directed by Kim Gehrig sought out directly by P&G through the activist group Free the Bid, a non-profit which tries to raise the profile of female and non-white advertising directors with socially active approach. P&G hired Gehrig specifically for her woke, intersection feminist take. Gehrig, you might remember, was the director that brought you the 'woke' Audi super bowl ad on the 'wage gap' last year.
This ad is dripping in politics of a very particular strain, intersectional feminism and deliberately so, it’s impossible to claim that the aim of the ad is just a message of ‘be nice to people message’ when it’s backed by a very specific ideology, one that treats CIS white men as a collectively responsible monolith and who's aim is the deconstruction of gender.

PR expert Mark Borkowski for the Guardian called the advert part of a “fantastically well-thought through campaign”, adding that it appealed to a younger generation that were very aware of the power of advertising and marketing on society.
“It is no longer enough for brands to simply sell a product, customers are demanding that they have a purpose – that they stand for something,” he said. “Masculinity is a huge part of Gillette’s brand, and there is a recognition in this ad that the new generation is reworking that concept of masculinity, and it is no longer the cliché is once was.”

Well perhaps those fawning over the ad might consider that:
1) A multinational corporation has no place 'reworking concepts of masculinity to influence society', that's society's job.
2) I don't think a tampon ad by a 40yr old man telling women how to be feminine would go down well, so perhaps they should have considered the possibility that an intersectional feminist with a nakedly political agenda is a rather insulting choice to assign to a campaign to tell men what being a man should amount to.
3) It's coded anti Trump propaganda for the election cycle, the narrative of the campaign is the narrative of all the negative stereotypes about Trump, and this time the narrative is being shaped early so that so they don't get caught on the hop by the 'pussy grabber' twice come election time.

El_Duderino 09

Parlopablo wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's an Important trigger for these types though. It's like their n-word. It's a surefire way to get them all excited about being the victim of society.

Why they think they have to take responsibility for all men is beyond me but it seems to be an important part of the persecution fantasy.

I don't expect to anyone else to take responsibility for me and I don't take responsibility for anyone else but they think they're responsible for all men.

As long as they're happy being miserable. Now't as queer as folk.

Why do you get so worked up about this stuff, what happened in your life to cause this?

I just dont feel the persecution that other posters are claiming is everywhere. Can't understand why some men take it so personally. I just don't feel responsible for other men.

El_Duderino 09

Cassandra Shapely Snag wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's an Important trigger for these types though. It's like their n-word. It's a surefire way to get them all excited about being the victim of society.

Why they think they have to take responsibility for all men is beyond me but it seems to be an important part of the persecution fantasy.

I don't expect to anyone else to take responsibility for me and I don't take responsibility for anyone else but they think they're responsible for all men.

As long as they're happy being miserable. Now't as queer as folk.

Except the ad literally says "Men need to hold other men accountable."

I disagree with the ad on that point. Maybe you Base your moral philosophy on ads for shaving products. I don't.

meeeeh

meeeeh wrote: »

He my be not but people are tarnished by behaviour of their friends. And yes I think good responsible friends would challenge bad behaviour.

If my friend went out and started assyalting people, I’m sorry I’m not responsible for his/her actions ,,, now if I was there I would try to stop them or get relevant authority involved ... And I’m sorry actions of a person solely lie on the person not his friends/family/what they saw on tv eyc

Augme

Augme wrote: »

Can you show me the stats were black men commit the above mentioned crimes to a massively higher percentage than white men?

What planet are you on?




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#/media/File:USA_2009._Percent_of_adult_males_incarcerated_by_race_and_ethnicity.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

Seanachai

conorhal wrote: »

On the surface of it, no.
But let’s be honest here, that's not what the ad is about, it's not the intent of those behind it and it's not the hoped for result either.

This this ad is entirely political. Entirely, and that's not just my opinion, it's Proctor and Gamble's.

It's no coincidence that this ad was released at the start of the election cycle in the US when presidential campaigns begin to warm up and potential runners consider their chances.
An ad that includes references to the Me Too movement, which is a political movement and includes contributions from like Anna (I’m better then you!) Kasparian, who is a prominent left wing activist and deranged Never Trumper, signal pretty hard the political stance of the ad, as does it’s choice of director.
The ad itself is directed by Kim Gehrig sought out directly by P&G through the activist group Free the Bid, a non-profit which tries to raise the profile of female and non-white advertising directors with socially active approach. P&G hired Gehrig specifically for her woke, intersection feminist take. Gehrig, you might remember, was the director that brought you the 'woke' Audi super bowl ad on the 'wage gap' last year.
This ad is dripping in politics of a very particular strain, intersectional feminism and deliberately so, it’s impossible to claim that the aim of the ad is just a message ‘be nice to people message’ when it’s backed by a very specific ideology, one that is rarely ‘nice to people’.

PR expert Mark Borkowski for the Guardian called the advert part of a “fantastically well-thought through campaign”, adding that it appealed to a younger generation that were very aware of the power of advertising and marketing on society.
“It is no longer enough for brands to simply sell a product, customers are demanding that they have a purpose – that they stand for something,” he said. “Masculinity is a huge part of Gillette’s brand, and there is a recognition in this ad that the new generation is reworking that concept of masculinity, and it is no longer the cliché is once was.”

Well perhaps those fawning over the ad might consider that:
1) A multinational corporation has no place 'reworking concepts of masculinity to influence society', that's society's job.
2) I don't think a tampon ad by a 40yr old man telling women how to be feminine would go down well, so perhaps they should have considered the possibility that an intersectional feminist with a nakedly political agenda is a rather insulting choice to assign to a campaign to tell men what being a man should amount to.
3) It's coded anti Trump propaganda for the election cycle, the narrative of the campaign is the narrative of all the negative stereotypes about Trump, and this time the narrative is being shaped early so that so they don't get caught on the hop by the 'pussy grabber' twice come election time.

I firmly believe that Trump's team will be sleeping soundly in their beds if this is the standard of propaganda from the new liberals. I don't want them to win, but if I was advising them I'd be suggesting that they create content that might actually appeal to the people they're at odds with, as opposed to just preaching to the converted.

People who dislike Trump on a personal level will still vote for him, such is their contempt for the new liberals. The only resort that the Clintons and their ilk would have to change their opponents positions would be coercion through law or force. Even the comedy of the American left is patronising and cringey.

hatrickpatrick

Mrsmum wrote: »

It's just that women are told all the time what they must do. Over and over girls are being told to get interested in STEM subjects for example, that until they conquer this area, they are not good enough. We call this encouragement.

Not by the mainstream, not anymore. The message to girls is "do what makes you happy and you owe nobody anything at all". Which by the way is a message I agree with. But the exact same applies to men. And by the way, I'd consider myself a good and generous person who actually does tend to tell people if I think they're being a dick - because that's the kind of person I am and I choose to be. The point is, nobody else has the right to tell me to be that person - it's entirely my own decision who I want to be. The same applies to women - the same should apply to everyone.

Right now, the same mainstream society which preaches "empowerment" for women to do anything they want, is also preaching "men, here's a list of rules for you to follow". That's a very f*cked up bit of hypocrisy and it's incredibly obvious to males, even very young boys, that they're being subjected to it.

hatrickpatrick

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I disagree with the ad on that point.

And that's all any of us are saying! But if you were to speak out about that disagreement publicly, you'd be accused of being a woman hating right winger.

Does the hypocrisy of it bother you though - that there would be no mainstream approval at all for an ad saying "women, you should be better people than you are"?

Another message this crap is putting out is that men cant approach or talk to women in public.

Internet dating will become the only way to meet if the young growing up begin to believe this kind of crap

Venom

maccored wrote: »

advert certainly works as all people are talking about is gillette. like this thread, which is another big gillette advert

Except the majority of people are either talking about the company in a very negative light or about never buying a Gillette product again. Gillette was already a household name so getting people talking about the company doesn't add much benefit to the brand unlike getting people to actually buy the product, which should be the goal of any business that's rapidly losing market share to cheaper competitors.

conorhal

Seanachai wrote: »

I firmly believe that Trump's team will be sleeping soundly in their beds if this is the standard of propaganda from the new liberals. I don't want them to win, but if I was advising them I'd be suggesting that they create content that might actually appeal to the people they're at odds with, as opposed to just preaching to the converted.

People who dislike Trump on a personal level will still vote for him, such is their contempt for the new liberals. The only resort that the Clintons and their ilk would have to change their opponents positions would be coercion through law or force. Even the comedy of the American left is patronising and cringey.

That sort of misses the point, the point is narrative building. Expect the key buzzwords words of 2020 to be #bullying #toxicmasculinity, and expect them to be slung around like mud until it sticks, probably to Trump.


Consider this, when you say the word 'masculinity', can you do so without the word 'toxic' almost immediately popping into your head these days?

El_Duderino 09

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I disagree with the ad on that point.

And that's all any of us are saying! But if you were to speak out about that disagreement publicly, you'd be accused of being a woman hating right winger.

Does the hypocrisy of it bother you though - that there would be no mainstream approval at all for an ad saying "women, you should be better people than you are"?

Is that really all any, of you are saying? Really?

The hypocrisy of complaining about how women's issues are taken more seriously than men's issues, and then discouraging others from doing something about it? Yes that hypocrisy bothers me.

Seanachai

conorhal wrote: »

That sort of misses the point, the point is narrative building. Expect the key buzzwords words of 2020 to be #bullying #toxicmasculinity, and expect them to be slung around like mud until it sticks, probably to Trump.


Consider this, when you say the word 'masculinity', can you do so without the word 'toxic' almost immediately popping into your head these days?

It does create a connection, my point is that people are more resilient to the conditioning than we give them credit for. There will be some people who are more vulnerable to being swayed, but generally I think we can see through this kind of stuff.

hatrickpatrick

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is that really all any, of you are saying? Really?

Pretty much. I'm a good person. I am not personally responsible for what a bad person does just because by sheer random chance we happen to share a demographic attribute with about three and a half billion other humans. Leave me alone. That's it.

The hypocrisy of complaining about how women's issues are taken more seriously than men's issues, and then discouraging others from doing something about it? Yes that hypocrisy bothers me.

Where is anyone discouraging others from doing something about it?

And are you not going to comment on the basic hypocrisy that telling women (as a "group") what to do is completely socially unacceptable now, while telling men what to do is apparently ok?

Augme

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What planet are you on?




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#/media/File:USA_2009._Percent_of_adult_males_incarcerated_by_race_and_ethnicity.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States

Fair point on what I said.

meeeeh

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I just dont feel the persecution that other posters are claiming is everywhere. Can't understand why some men take it so personally. I just don't feel responsible for other men.

But the ad is about all men not just other men. It's aimed at your behaviour too.

El_Duderino 09

Standman wrote: »

Lance White Partridge wrote: »

Your not responsible for your mates (male or female) behavior ...

That's true, but how does that translate to how we should behave in these situations? Is it OK to stand idly by in silence? It doesn't feel OK.

I think it's morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory. You're only responsible for your own behaviour but if you can influenced your friend or duly to do good or not do harm, then you probably should do it but you're not ultimately responsible for other people's behaviour

Augme

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Another message this crap is putting out is that men cant approach or talk to women in public.

Internet dating will become the only way to meet if the young growing up begin to believe this kind of crap

Or it's just saying don't run down the street after a women just because you fancy her.

Venom

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Is that really all any, of you are saying? Really?

The hypocrisy of complaining about how women's issues are taken more seriously than men's issues, and then discouraging others from doing something about it? Yes that hypocrisy bothers me.

Is that hypocrisy better or worse than when a soulless profit-driven corporation with a long list of ethical and human rights abuse scandals behind them, does it?
https://prezi.com/xuanuq82zjqz/procter-gamble-scandals/
http://nwww.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20170207000697
https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/environmental-issues/pg-deforestation-indonesia-432/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/09/procter-gamble-bows-to-pressure-on-palm-oil-deforestation

meeeeh

Lance White Partridge wrote: »

If my friend went out and started assyalting people, I’m sorry I’m not responsible for his/her actions ,,, now if I was there I would try to stop them or get relevant authority involved ... And I’m sorry actions of a person solely lie on the person not his friends/family/what they saw on tv eyc

If a group of friends is out and they behave like complete morons and two don't people will still think what a group of 5 arseholes.

I was talking about situations we are present at. Sometimes it affects us even if we are not there (friendship with drug dealers or something like that).

Standman

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I think it's morally praiseworthy but not morally obligatory. You're only responsible for your own behaviour but if you can influenced your friend or duly to do good or not do harm, then you probably should do it but you're not ultimately responsible for other people's behaviour

I'd agree - in other words, it's something that should be encouraged.

El_Duderino 09

meeeeh wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I just dont feel the persecution that other posters are claiming is everywhere. Can't understand why some men take it so personally. I just don't feel responsible for other men.

But the ad is about all men not just other men. It's aimed at your behaviour too.

I dont get your point. I'm already responsible for my own behaviour. So are you responsible for your own behaviour even before Gillette told you so.

I'd disagree with anyone who says responsibly for other people.

silverharp

I gather there was a race angle as well, all the scenes calling out men featured a white man/boy bar one and everyone being “non toxic” was black bar one, can anyone confirm?, cant be ars3d watching it again.

Seanachai

Augme wrote: »

Or it's just saying don't run down the street after a women just because you fancy her.

I thought they loved that kind of stuff!, there is a hunting element to both genders seeking out a mate. It is a primal thing that I wouldn't like to see go away.

Augme

Seanachai wrote: »

I thought they loved that kind of stuff!, there is a hunting element to both genders seeking out a mate. It is a primal thing that I wouldn't like to see go away.

I guess keep doing it then.

meeeeh

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I dont get your point. I'm already responsible for my own behaviour. So are you responsible for your own behaviour even before Gillette told you so.

I'd disagree with anyone who says responsibly for other people.

Well Gillette are telling you how you should behave, what man you should be. You are saying it's about behaviour of others but it's not, it's aimed at all men including you. Gillette are telling YOU how you should behave.

maccored

meeeeh wrote: »

Well Gillette are telling you how you should behave, what man you should be. You are saying it's about behaviour of others but it's not, it's aimed at all men including you. Gillette are telling YOU how you should behave.

and the worst thing is, is that in this day and age, some men need to be instructed in how to behave decently. too many people are watching that advert and getting offended in case it's aimed at them. that in itself says quite a lot about those getting offended. its an advert - not an issue of morality, and as an advert its doing its job quite well.

DEFTLEFTHAND

silverharp wrote: »

I gather there was a race angle as well, all the scenes calling out men featured a white man/boy bar one and everyone being “non toxic” was black bar one, can anyone confirm?, cant be ars3d watching it again.

Noticed that too.

Very creepy, almost sinister.

I wouldn't like to meet the people who devised this advert. Very weird folk I would imagine.