Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

Muckka

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.

I would hardly walk on the same side of the street if I seen a woman walking in the dark.

I'd cross the road and not even look at her.
What guy in his right mind would approach a woman when it's dark, seriously.

I seen some z list surf model who's living in Clare write a blog suggesting how men should walk and hold their posture around women who are walking alone, so as to not look threatening.
I find that suggestion more threatening than what her idealogy is in the first place.

Anyone who's afraid of walking alone should have the common sense to get a taxi or stay in wherever they came from untill it's safe enough to travel.

I don't approach women myself, I just leave it up to them if they want to approach me.
Why ?

Because I don't feel compelled to go out for the night, with the intention of flirting with someone who I know nothing about.

There's a lot of borderlines out there guy's, just be wide....

El_Duderino 09

joe40 wrote: »

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"

It's interesting that lots of posters complained early in the thread about 'boys will be boys' as the men stood by the barbecue and condoned one boy thumping the other. And a few pages back, other posters were promoting the virtue of boys knocking the sh1t out of each other.

An interesting point on the virtues of rough and tumble play came up in a documentary about gorillas recently. They said the alpha of the group will often do rough and tumble play with young members but he will often take on the role of the weaker party.

So it's about playing and exercise and coordination and bonding. It's not about the stronger one knocking the sh1t out of the other one.

So while boys will be boys, if it goes beyond rough and tumble play and turns into children fighting over nothing except dominance, then of course someone should break if up. That sort of thing is completely lost in these discussions unfortunately.

Tell me how

Undividual wrote: »

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

Advertisement and marketing since the dawn of time has been focused on affecting behaviour. Some show this effect through deliberate decisions to buy a product, some through less deliberate intent to mimic behaviour.

It happens ergo the marketing spend worldwide is huge. Look at the Guinness Christmas ad which now doesn't include the actual image of the pint or people drinking but which inculcates a sense which people subconsciously associate with the product.

Seanachai

Undividual wrote: »

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

Basically decent guys with cop-on are being lumped in with the dickheads, while the dickheads will keep doing what they do irregardless. They may just become more discreet about their antics, street angel, house devil and all that.

Tell me how

Seanachai wrote: »

Basically decent guys with cop-on are being lumped in with the dickheads, while the dickheads will keep doing what they do irregardless. They may just become more discreet about their antics, street angel, house devil and all that.

You have completely missed the point of the ad. It actually showed 'decent guys'being different from the d*ckheads being mentioned so if you think that is the same as 'being lumped in' with them, so be it.

In your post, you are acknowledging that untoward behaviour goes on. If it is removed from happening publicly, how is that a bad thing?

Riskymove

Gillette has masterfully used marketing again . I always wonder why people keep falling for this nonsense

Just like Bennetton in the 80s Gillette are getting exactly what they want...lots of publicity, free 24/7 publicity

Muckka

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It's interesting that lots of posters complained early in the thread about 'boys will be boys' as the men stood by the barbecue and condoned one boy thumping the other. And a few pages back, other posters were promoting the virtue of boys knocking the sh1t out of each other.

An interesting point on the virtues of rough and tumble play came up in a documentary about gorillas recently. They said the alpha of the group will often do rough and tumble play with young members but he will often take on the role of the weaker party.

So it's about playing and exercise and coordination and bonding. It's not about the stronger one knocking the sh1t out of the other one.

So while boys will be boys, if it goes beyond rough and tumble play and turns into children fighting over nothing except dominance, then of course someone should break if up. That sort of thing is completely lost in these discussions unfortunately.

There's no point in wrestling with a pig and thinking you'll win.

Because the pigs love wrestling.

Is that a good answer for you ?

El_Duderino 09

Seanachai wrote: »

Basically decent guys with cop-on are being lumped in with the dickheads, while the dickheads will keep doing what they do irregardless. They may just become more discreet about their antics, street angel, house devil and all that.

So what if it did that? Do you not believe in decent guys or go you not believe in dickheads? Or do you not believe decent guys and dickheads can be in the same group?

Personally I thought the ad was portraying as decent guys and dickheads as clearly different but that they are often in the same company which I'd say is actually fairly normal.

More to the point I think it's more likely that the "dickheads" aren't necessarily dickheads as much as they're behaving like a dickheads in that moment. Personally I think real people make some good decisions and done bad decisions.

El_Duderino 09

Muckka wrote: »

There's no point in wrestling with a pig and thinking you'll win.

Because the pigs love wrestling.

Is that a good answer for you ?

I'm not sure it's an answer at all, good or bad.

According to your own account so did you love wrestling or "knocking sh1t out of each other" while your dad approved.

Muckka

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I'm not sure it's an answer at all, good or bad.

According to your own account so did you love wrestling or "knocking sh1t out of each other" while your dad approved.

My dad approved of the shaking hands afterwards.
I did enjoy the fight yes, I was 15 or something.
30 year's on we bump into each other and have a chat and coffee now and again and have a laugh.

I was never wrapped up in cotton wool.

Zorya

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxJJw63UwAAInoe.jpg

Muckka

Zorya wrote: »

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxJJw63UwAAInoe.jpg

If you shave with Gillette one of these lovely ladies will approach you..

py2006

Muckka wrote: »

I would hardly walk on the same side of the street if I seen a woman walking in the dark.

I'd cross the road and not even look at her.
What guy in his right mind would approach a woman when it's dark, seriously.

I'm the same, I cross the road or stare at the ground. I am a fast walker so I often pass people out so I am conscious that some people may feel wary hearing somebody walking up behind them at speed.

skooterblue2

Riskymove wrote: »

Gillette has masterfully used marketing again . I always wonder why people keep falling for this nonsense

Just like Bennetton in the 80s Gillette are getting exactly what they want...lots of publicity, free 24/7 publicity

Bennetton were trying to gain market share, Gillette more or less have their market share sewn up. I am all about the blades and damned about the cost. I dont mind a guy with a beard or a guy clean shaven but never inbetween.

skooterblue2

Zorya wrote: »

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxJJw63UwAAInoe.jpg

I was wondering how do they get them suits so shiny?

El_Duderino 09

py2006 wrote: »

Muckka wrote: »

I would hardly walk on the same side of the street if I seen a woman walking in the dark.

I'd cross the road and not even look at her.
What guy in his right mind would approach a woman when it's dark, seriously.

I'm the same, I cross the road or stare at the ground. I am a fast walker so I often pass people out so I am conscious that some people may feel wary hearing somebody walking up behind them at speed.

I can't tell if these are parody or not. Do you seriously spend that much time worrying about women? I find it hard to believe when there's the obvious solution if just minding your own business and keep walking.

Question for any women reading. What do you think?

Zorya

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I was wondering how do they get them suits so shiny?

PVC, innit. For all types of favourite wet-look gear.

Mrsmum

Undividual wrote: »

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.

Did you read my other post at all. I specifically said it's not that we want or think bystanders should act at all. In fact it would be somewhat arrogant to think busy people going about their own lives would even see certain things happening to someone else. I said it would be better if people checked themselves.

An Ri rua

TomSweeney wrote: »

Ninthlife wrote: »

I woupdnt be surprised if their tagline of 'the best a man can get' is changed to the best an individual can get

Be terrible if we upset soneone sonewhere by targeting a male shaving product to its target audience of men

Hopefully Tampax follow suit

Yes hopefully, men can have periods too you know ?

We do already. Once we pass 40, we have a grumpy time of the month. It last between 28 and 31 days.

Muckka

Mrsmum wrote: »

Did you read my other post at all. I specifically said it's not that we want or think bystanders should act at all. In fact it would be somewhat arrogant to think busy people going about their own lives would even see certain things happening to someone else. I said it would be better if people checked themselves.

I'm Not undermining your post.
But a lot of guy's got right beatings trying to break up a fight between a man and a woman.

Usually the women are worse, it wasn't unknown during the 90's for a guy to get a high heel in the head for being such a white knight.

Actually I think guy had his eye gouged out with a heel one night off Patrick Street in Cork.
Poor guy was trying to save her, then herself and himself turned on him...

Muckka

skooterblue2 wrote: »

I was wondering how do they get them suits so shiny?

Never mind the suits, just look how attractive those women look.

I'd say that was before third wave femminism.

No way could they get away with that now.

They'ed be accused of fat shaming or somefink....

DEFTLEFTHAND

What a picture.

This was the only reason anyone watched F1. :pac:

Muckka

An Ri rua wrote: »

We do already. Once we pass 40, we have a grumpy time of the month. It last between 28 and 31 days.

Lol I concur, if you read my posts you'll see how miserable I am

lbc2019

joe40 wrote: »

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.

Whoever posted about being a great lad protecting the pansies in the group

Venom

Muckka wrote: »

If you shave with Gillette one of these lovely ladies will approach you..

The usual folks who thought the Gillette ad was stunning, brave and a great idea pretty much got those grid girls sacked!



https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/22/motorsport/grid-girls-australian-grand-prix-spt/index.html


But I'm sure everyone is happier nowadays except maybe those unemployed models.

Muckka

Venom wrote: »

The usual folks who thought the Gillette ad was stunning, brave and a great idea pretty much got those grid girls sacked!



https://edition.cnn.com/2018/03/22/motorsport/grid-girls-australian-grand-prix-spt/index.html


But I'm sure everyone is happier nowadays except maybe those unemployed models.

Well here you go, third wave femminists have even hijacked men's sport's now.

They don't care who their agenda's effects, as long as the focus is on them and not any other women.

Deep down it's all about getting attention and ruining the party

Third wave Feminism doesn't just effect men it also effects women who want to get a career...

In other extremes you'll hear "it's my body I'll do what I like" but then they have the audosity to tell other women what to do.

Seanachai

Tell me how wrote: »

You have completely missed the point of the ad. It actually showed 'decent guys'being different from the d*ckheads being mentioned so if you think that is the same as 'being lumped in' with them, so be it.

In your post, you are acknowledging that untoward behaviour goes on. If it is removed from happening publicly, how is that a bad thing?

You're not picking up the subtext in the ad, it's not like the director doesn't have a rep. The message of the ad is that 'we' need to change, inferring that the good guys need to 'up their game' to curtail unacceptable behaviour. As if we're partly to blame for the jerks getting out of control in the first place.



It's a subtle form of gaslighting that implies that there's a deficit with us to begin with, which in fairness is how advertising has worked since the beginning.

professore

Riskymove wrote: »

Gillette has masterfully used marketing again . I always wonder why people keep falling for this nonsense

Just like Bennetton in the 80s Gillette are getting exactly what they want...lots of publicity, free 24/7 publicity

Masterfully? Anyone who copped on to it won't buy their products again.

Sure why not go the whole hog and call for a second holocaust? That would generate tons of publicity.

Riskymove

professore wrote: »

Masterfully? Anyone who copped on to it won't buy their products again.

well lets see how their sales/turnover go

Sure why not go the whole hog and call for a second holocaust? That would generate tons of publicity.

that's quite a leap to suggest

there's quite a distance between making noise and going insane

Lumen

Muckka wrote: »

Third wave Feminism doesn't just effect men it also effects women who want to get a career...

I'm sure those rubber-clad Gillette women will be able to find other employment.

Attractive people generally benefit from positive discrimination, they'll be fine.

btw, the word is "affect". Effect as a verb means "to cause", so "effecting men and women" means either making women pregnant or doing gender reassignment surgery.