Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

Muckka

Zorya wrote: »

Ah, come on Jim, it's a nice advert. The company owner did the script, narration and editing himself in a short time. Give him a break, cost a lot less that Kim Gehrig's.

Cannot believe her Viva la Vulva advert hasn't cropped up here yet (as far as I saw)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-_4WloY6Y

Sīle ní gig was well ahead of her time
Although I can see the femminists chizzeling away at her next...

Our very own goddess...

Zorya

Muckka wrote: »

Sīle ní gig was well ahead of her time
Although I can see the femminists chizzeling away at her next...

Our very own goddess...

The Great Ma(w)

El_Duderino 09

Muckka wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Imagine reducing the entire enterprise of building a relationship, forming a family unit and supporting each other, to "pussy".

I don't use the term toxic masculinity because I don't know what it means. But the attitude shown above is clearly indicative of something that's not great.

I'm grateful for your response.

I think you know what I mean.

If all a man's interested in is getting laid, and forgets about himself and his responsibility. Then he's lost all accountability and respect for himself...

I do know what you're saying. Buy to be fair if all someone is interested in is getting laid then they're really unlikely to stumble into a healthy or happy relationship.

I'd imagine if a man forgets about himself and his responsibility. Then he's lost all accountability and respect for himself and his potential partners.

Being only interested in getting laid appears to be the problem in your scenario. But Id imagine nobody will pin the blame on the man who is only interested in getting laid. I'm sure it the usual suspects who are to blame.

Muckka

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I do know what you're saying. Buy to be fair if all someone is interested in is getting laid then they're really unlikely to stumble into a healthy or happy relationship.

I'd imagine if a man forgets about himself and his responsibility. Then he's lost all accountability and respect for himself and his potential partners.

Being only interested in getting laid appears to be the problem in your scenario. But Id imagine nobody will pin the blame on the man who is only interested in getting laid. I'm sure it the usual suspects who are to blame.

Exactly, a healthy relationship needs to be healthy in every way.

I sometimes come across as a devil's advocate, and maybe it's not savoury.

I know what's a healthy relationship is about and all the variables involved, it's hard work but my hats off to anyone who is in a healthy relationship.

tedpan

Over 1200 posts and hundreds of thousands of views on boards in 3 days alone. Those Gillette people really know how to advertise...

Rory28

tedpan wrote: »

Over 1200 posts and hundreds of thousands of views on boards in 3 days alone. Those Gillette people really know how to advertise...

Remains to be seen if the attention is for good or ill. This could cost them a lot of money.

Tell me how

Wibbs wrote: »

I have overwhelmingly found that observing what Men™ Women™ actually go for is far more informative than what they say they want in a Man™.

For a start women tend to simply be more kind than men, less direct, more consensus driven and much more likely to tell others what they think they want to hear out of that kindness. And not just on this topic.

TBH regardless of gender I find it generally more useful to observe what people do rather than what they say.

As for appearance, it would be my opinion that women are just as into appearance as men, they're just less overt about it, just as they are less overt when checking men out. Outside of a minority of men with influencing factors like wealth/power/more than usual levels of charisma couples are consistently around the same levels of attractiveness as each other. While I dislike the 1-10 scale nonsense, but for illustrative purposes; 5's are nearly always with 5's, 8's with 8's etc. Research backs this up, not just opinion.

Now no doubt some will claim that their GF(less so BF) is way better looking than them and so on, but that's very subjective and people tend to downplay their own attractiveness for a few reasons(not appearing to be an egotistical eejit being the main one). Plus when you're in love you do see your partner as being special and "out of your league" and all that. Rightfully so.

I've read this a few times Wibbs and am still somewhat confused over what point you are making as a response to my post.

Maybe it wasn't clear that I meant that the poster I was responding to should listen to the individual woman in terms of attraction as opposed to buying in to a trope that all women want the same thing.

PhiloCypher

I generally agree with the sentiment of the ad but my God is it as subtle as a bag of hammers. They should have just stuck with one analogy, rather then the badly edited greatest/worst hits package we got.

Also I saw a Gillette ad yesterday encouraging men to not be afraid of commitment so this isn't Gillette's first rodeo, just it's most hamfisted one(imo). There hasn't been a squeek about that, which tells me it's as much people wanting to get on the outrage train and virtue signal how "independent minded" they are as it is being personally offended or hating being told how to behave.

Getting my popcorn and soft drink ready for when the first videos of Gillette boycotters stubbings there fingers or setting there hands on fire trying to destroy gillete products that they either already paid for or had to go out and pay for, start to roll in .

Wibbs

Tell me how wrote: »

Maybe it wasn't clear that I meant that the poster I was responding to should listen to the individual woman in terms of attraction as opposed to buying in to a trope that all women want the same thing.

Gotcha T. I'd still say that generally speaking observing what Men an individual Woman actually goes for is far more informative than what she says she want in a Man.

Rigor Mortis

I have less of a problem with the ad than i thought i would.
My biggest issue is that they excuse their on position in all of this with a hat tip to one old ad at the start.
If you want to genuinely discuss genuine gender stereotyping, Gilette and their parent company, p & G have been involved in gender re-inforcement for decades and continue to be so across many of their brands. Only mums parent according to many of their ads. Only women can be trusted to do the most basic of tasks, men are blithering idiots. On the other side, they have continued to downgrade the role of women.
While i quite like this ad, it reeks of hypocracy.

Tell me how

Wibbs wrote: »

Gotcha T. I'd still say that generally speaking observing what Men an individual Woman actually goes for is far more informative than what she says she want in a Man.

Maybe we are getting too conflated here but also, maybe it is part of the problem.

If a guy is trying to get with a woman and she says 'sorry, you are not my type', he needs to listen to that rather than respond 'but you went out with Joe Soap and I'm no different to them.'

Tell me how

Rigor Mortis wrote: »

I have less of a problem with the ad than i thought i would.
My biggest issue is that they excuse their on position in all of this with a hat tip to one old ad at the start.
If you want to genuinely discuss genuine gender stereotyping, Gilette and their parent company, p & G have been involved in gender re-inforcement for decades and continue to be so across many of their brands. Only mums parent according to many of their ads. Only women can be trusted to do the most basic of tasks, men are blithering idiots. On the other side, they have continued to downgrade the role of women.
While i quite like this ad, it reeks of hypocracy.

I agree with this, which is partly why I think the reaction is over the top. Several people had no problem with the portrayal of stereotypes but now that it is being suggested that the stereotype of which they may be a part of could improve in some ways, they are throwing their razors in the toilet so they can then stick their hand in and pull them out again.

Some probably use the toilet first to enforce their point without seeing the irony in it.

joe40

Muckka wrote: »

I had to look up what gas lighting is, it certainly is that.

Absolute emasculation going on there.

It's aimed at the sort of men who'll more than likely end up on the seperation or divorce statistics to be honest.

The second best kind of guy's, it totally goes against the spirit of being a man.

While the guy who's confident, a bit of an ass and has chizzeled look's will always be more attractive in the long run.....

A lot of the complaints I have heard about the ad is that it stereotypes men, saying we all behave in a certain way when we don't. I likewise dislike those stereotypes.

But are you not just stereotyping in the same way.

What do you mean by emasculation? Does it mean to be a real man I must behave in a certain way otherwise I'm below par as a Man.

There was a discussion earlier about lack of shelters for male victims of abuse which was a good point.
However according to your definition of manliness if I was been physically assaulted by a woman it would represent a decrease in manliness. I would be emasculated. How would any man admit to that.
Do you not see how that could be damaging for men.

Look, I do see where you are coming from and I try to teach my own kids resilience and ability to stand up for themselves, but this talk of emasculation, I'm not sure about.

Been strong and self confident are attractive qualities and useful for getting on in life but being a Man has to more than been a "bit of an ass" with "chizzeled looks"

lbc2019

Glad I’ve the hard chaws of Boards to look out for this pansy. I think I’d fare better on my own

joe40

lbc2019 wrote: »

Glad I’ve the hard chaws of Boards to look out for this pansy. I think I’d fare better on my own

What does this post mean. Directly below mine so do I presume you are calling me a "pansy" surely not.

Undividual

As someone who did intervene on (what I thought was) the side of a girl in a physically abusive relationship, I can only say I'd think twice about doing it again. She immediately went back to the guy and ended up going to the debs with him, or at least would have if he didn't try to choke her in the limo. I saw him a couple of times over the years in gyms and we just ignored each other.

Dont think they'll be making that into an ad anytime soon. Life is not as straightforward as vine commercials try to portray.

Irish Guitarist

professore wrote: »

The 6 billion dollar question - regardless what you thought of the ad, would it make you buy razors? For me it's a no.

Many of the female commentators on here suggested that advertising aimed at women is designed to make them feel bad about themselves so they will buy stuff. I don't think that works with men. It certainly doesn't work with me. I want an ad to make me feel good. Like the one where the guy keeps the pig. Gets me every time.

A few tweaks to the tone of the ad showing men doing good stuff for women and society in general and it would have been a rip roaring success - there are NO ads out there like that for men. They all show one dimensional sporting celebrities devoid of character, and some of them wouldn't have the best track record with women.

As it stands it comes across as men really are **** and portrays women as ultra sensitive snowflakes. Most of us are really trying to make the world a better place, and Gillette ****s all over us.

One thing I learned very young is that as a male you get virtually no encouragement from anyone. Plenty of people will put you down. You have to do it for yourself. There are exceptions like the spoilt brat but most guys I know were raised like that. It's probably different now.

So a little bit of encouragement would go a long way in advertising. Women are told how great and wonderful they are 24/7 in the media.

And ad making trying to make men feel bad might work if it was related to the product. For instance show a man shaving with a cheap razor then going out to a nightclub and trying to chat up a woman, then show the woman laughing at him because his face is covered in bloody nicks and bits of hair that the cheap razor missed. Then show another man walking over, buying the woman a drink, then walking off with the woman while looking back at the frst man and calling him a loser.

Telling men they're 'toxic' for reasons that have nothing to do with the product in the ad makes absolutely no sense.

I don't think much of touchy feely ads that say nothing about the product either. For instance that Dove razor ad that someone posted elsewhere on the thread. Having said that it does make more marketing sense. It will sell more Dove razors, most likely to women that use Dove soap and deodorant that are looking for a present for fathers day. People seem to think women will buy Gillette razors for men after seeing this ad but I'm not so sure. If there was a perfume ad that said "women, they're shit aren't they"? I don't think many men would watch it and say "I'll have to buy a bottle of that for the wife".

Grayson

Undividual wrote: »

As someone who did intervene on (what I thought was) the side of a girl in a physically abusive relationship, I can only say I'd think twice about doing it again. She immediately went back to the guy and ended up going to the debs with him, or at least would have if he didn't try to choke her in the limo. I saw him a couple of times over the years in gyms and we just ignored each other.

Dont think they'll be making that into an ad anytime soon. Life is not as straightforward as vine commercials try to portray.

Helping someone in an abusive relationship is the right thing to do. Just because someone took it badly doesn't mean you shouldn't do it again. Plus there's the fact that people in abusive relationships are quite often under the sway of the abuser. Unfortunately it's not a simple matter of just walking away.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't help or keep trying.

Skullface McGubbin

How Gillette ads used to be...

(Aplologies if this was posted already, i couldn't be arsed trawling through 70+ pages.)

valoren

I take toxic masculinity to be something like adhering to beliefs like "No pain, no gain" or "Go hard or go home" or "Second is first loser"HU-WUH type nonsense. The toxic aspect being that you shouldn't take it easy so in spite of not being physically capable yet you end up going too hard and just end up hurting yourself or suffer from over training. You think that's the way a man should do it. Perhaps they'd have been better focusing on something like that instead.

Rory28

valoren wrote: »

I take toxic masculinity to be something like adhering to beliefs like "No pain, no gain" or "Go hard or go home" or "Second is first loser"HU-WUH type nonsense. The toxic aspect being that you shouldn't take it easy so despite being physically incapable of going hard that you just end up hurting yourself because you think that's the way a man should do it. Perhaps they'd have been better focusing on something like that.

No pain no gain is true. Go hard or go home is the same as saying give 100% or dont bother and if I remember 1st is the worst, 2nd is the best and third was the one with the hairy chest.

PhiloCypher

I think whenever a subject like this comes up we should all pause and think. Would I have been offended enough to start a thread on this if I hadn't read an article pushing the narrative that I should be offended. If the answer is no then you should probably stop contributing to the outrage culture and take a chill pill. If the answer is yes you are likely the very thing you hate, a virtue signalling snowflake.

Whatever about anywhere else , If theres a "culture war" tinged topic being discussed in AH you can nearly always guarantee it's been started by someone on the right outraged over something. Now that's not to say left leaning boardsies dont love getting on their hobby horse, they absolutely do, but generally it's in response to another whiney thread about how we're not allowed to be assholes anymore AND NOT to defend a lefty thread pushing for a ban on Gingerbread men started by a tweet by a vegan with 2 followers.

Undividual

Grayson wrote: »

Helping someone in an abusive relationship is the right thing to do. Just because someone took it badly doesn't mean you shouldn't do it again. Plus there's the fact that people in abusive relationships are quite often under the sway of the abuser. Unfortunately it's not a simple matter of just walking away.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't help or keep trying.

Oh yeah?

And if I did the same today, caught a hiding and had permanent life-altering injuries, would that make it the right thing to do? I have a family to support, and I will prioritize myself in order to care for them.

Mrsmum

Undividual wrote: »

As someone who did intervene on (what I thought was) the side of a girl in a physically abusive relationship, I can only say I'd think twice about doing it again. She immediately went back to the guy and ended up going to the debs with him, or at least would have if he didn't try to choke her in the limo. I saw him a couple of times over the years in gyms and we just ignored each other.

Dont think they'll be making that into an ad anytime soon. Life is not as straightforward as vine commercials try to portray.

Another way of looking at the message is that the intension is for men to check their own behaviour rather than to stop another man. So that street cat-calling and following women would generally become a thing that is very much frowned upon in the same way as naked girl calendar etc in workplaces. So you could see the second man as the conscience of the first man iykwim, that little voice in his head telling him no. Tbh I think most women would die of embarrassment to see two men getting into a fight in the street over a situation like this and that would probably be the end result. Men who are not very nice usually don't take "no mate" any better from a man than they do from a woman. Maybe worse. We don't want men stepping in to save us so much as wanting the initial behaviour not to happen in the first place. And some of you will say nonsense, the world would end if men didn't approach women but you're not taking into account that men approach women when it's late, when it's dark. then there is no one else around and that can be frightening because how are you supposed to know what kind of person they are.

Undividual

Mrsmum wrote: »

Another way of looking at the message is that the intension is for men to check their own behaviour rather than to stop another man. So that street cat-calling and following women would generally become a thing that is very much frowned upon in the same way as naked girl calendar etc in workplaces. So you could see the second man as the conscience of the first man iykwim, that little voice in his head telling him no. Tbh I think most women would die of embarrassment to see two men getting into a fight in the street over a situation like this and that would probably be the end result. Men who are not very nice usually don't take "no mate" any better from a man than they do from a woman. Maybe worse. We don't want men stepping in to save us so much as wanting the initial behaviour not to happen in the first place. And some of you will say nonsense, the world would end if men didn't approach women but you're not taking into account that men approach women when it's late, when it's dark. then there is no one else around and that can be frightening because how are you supposed to know what kind of person they are.

Show me one example of a person who saw an ad and decided as a result of that not to be abusive any more

Mrsmum

Undividual wrote: »

Show me one example of a person who saw an ad and decided as a result of that not to be abusive any more

It's more that somethings are regarded ok at one point in time and then all of a sudden there's a shift and even the greatest fool knows it's no longer on. I'm not saying the ad alone does that but look at the conversation around it now. There may even be people on here that genuinely thought certain things were ok and now might think again because they are actually nice people. Abusive people are highly crafty, they totally pick up tone and they also will get the message all right. Because it's often the lesser behaviour of the nice people they hide behind. Take that away and they have no hiding place.

Sam Quentin

Look it's all about preparation measure twice cut once etc etc.
So if you prepare your face properly,. hot towel until it cools tight on your face(do this twice)will soften the hair, then add shaving gel(I do think a good gel makes a difference tho)..... You will find most blades give a very good shave.
Thank you you're welcome :-))

Undividual

Mrsmum wrote: »

It's more that somethings are regarded ok at one point in time and then all of a sudden there's a shift and even the greatest fool knows it's no longer on. I'm not saying the ad alone does that but look at the conversation around it now. There may even be people on here that genuinely thought certain things were ok and now might think again because they are actually nice people. Abusive people are highly crafty, they totally pick up tone and they also will get the message all right. Because it's often the lesser behaviour of the nice people they hide behind. Take that away and they have no hiding place.

Do you think most men currently regard abuse/harassment as ok or acceptable?

Its amazing to me for the message to put any responsibility on bystanders to act specifically because of their gender. I cant think of one female equivalent. Surely as a bystander, you have the right not to act. Existentially, I am not responsible for anyone else's wellbeing except my partner's (arguably) and my offspring.

Also, apparently what liberated women need are men coming to their rescue.

Tell me how

Undividual wrote: »

Show me one example of a person who saw an ad and decided as a result of that not to be abusive any more

Do you really think anyone is going to put their hand up and say 'I was a dick' but I'm not going to anymore?

But, some, as MrsMum said might consciously (or subconciously) think before the act.

Undividual

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you really think anyone is going to put their hand up and say 'I was a dick' but I'm not going to anymore?

But, some, as MrsMum said might consciously (or subconciously) think before the act.

No, what I think is that no one learns anything new from these kind of ads. Show me anything to indicate otherwise.