Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

The Hill Billy

Seanachai wrote: »

Your tone seems kind of dismissive, I think annoyance and frustration gets conflated with over-sensitivity, I'm seeing a lot of annoyance, anger and frustration against the ad, but the ad is the tip of the iceberg. Being honest about it, there's also a genuine fear and worry that I feel is completely warranted given the agendas that are being played out by certain academics, politicians, celebrities etc. It's not being over-sensitive to see something bad coming down the tracks.

There's a lot of people I know who have serious issues with being guilted and shoe-horned into 1) Believing that there is something wrong with their views and how they live and 2) That if they don't change to the prescribed adjustment, they will be at a disadvantage in society, finding a partner, career, social standing etc. This ad is gas-lighting, it's lame and shabby as hell, but it's creeping into culture more and more.

I was being dismissive. It is an advertisement. Whether one likes it or loathes it - I couldn't care less. Man or woman - people shouldn't be dicks.

There'll be another thing to be offended by along in a minute.

Mrsmum

Remember when there was that advertising health campaign specifically telling women to 'Mind our Men' due to increasing suicide rates. Women were told specifically and I quote - "We want you to take responsibility for the men in your lives and mind them. Look out for them. Cherish them. Men are suffering, and often turning to suicide as an option". I never heard one woman saying any of the following -how dare you try and put the blame/responsibility on us - it's not our fault - we're already minding them, don't you dare say otherwise - where's the campaign for men to mind women - women attempt suicide more than men- can they not mind themselves - we've enough to be doing minding ourselves - but, but , but ... .

But an ad campaign asking men to stand tall & look out for those who are vulnerable and all hell breaks loose.

freshpopcorn

Mrsmum wrote: »

Remember when there was that advertising health campaign specifically telling women to 'Mind our Men' due to increasing suicide rates. Women were told specifically and I quote - "We want you to take responsibility for the men in your lives and mind them. Look out for them. Cherish them. Men are suffering, and often turning to suicide as an option". I never heard one woman saying any of the following -how dare you try and put the blame/responsibility on us - it's not our fault - we're already minding them, don't you dare say otherwise - where's the campaign for men to mind women - women attempt suicide more than men- can they not mind themselves - we've enough to be doing minding ourselves - but, but , but ... .

But an ad campaign asking men to stand tall & look out for those who are more vulnerable and all hell breaks loose.

There was loads of ads telling men to look out for other men and women to look out for men regarding mental health in the last few years.

Mrsmum

freshpopcorn wrote: »

There was loads of ads telling men to look out for other men and women to look out for men regarding mental health in the last few years.

So is it only regarding harassment and violence where men have a problem being asked to look out for other men, women and children ?

freshpopcorn

Mrsmum wrote: »

So is it only regarding harassment and violence where men have a problem being asked to look out for other men, women and children ?

From the ad campaign I remember it was about looking after men and mental health.
It had both men and women looking out for men in there lives. So that's why you didn't hear women saying.

Mrsmum wrote: »

I never heard one woman saying any of the following -how dare you try and put the blame/responsibility on us - it's not our fault - we're already minding them, don't you dare say otherwise - where's the campaign for men to mind women - women attempt suicide more than men- can they not mind themselves - we've enough to be doing minding ourselves - but, but , but ... .

Mrsmum

freshpopcorn wrote: »

From the ad campaign I remember it was about looking after men and mental health.
It had both men and women looking out for men in there lives. So that's why you didn't hear women saying.

But why is it so bad to be asked to look out for other people ? Over and over on this thread men who are annoyed with the ad have said it's none of their business what the next man gets up to but imagine if someone said in answer to the other campaign if X man won't go to the doctor, that's basically tough. Just seems a very mé féin attitude to me.

hatrickpatrick

Mrsmum wrote: »

Remember when there was that advertising health campaign specifically telling women to 'Mind our Men' due to increasing suicide rates. Women were told specifically and I quote - "We want you to take responsibility for the men in your lives and mind them. Look out for them. Cherish them. Men are suffering, and often turning to suicide as an option". I never heard one woman saying any of the following -how dare you try and put the blame/responsibility on us - it's not our fault - we're already minding them, don't you dare say otherwise - where's the campaign for men to mind women - women attempt suicide more than men- can they not mind themselves - we've enough to be doing minding ourselves - but, but , but ... .

But an ad campaign asking men to stand tall & look out for those who are vulnerable and all hell breaks loose.

When was this, and was there a mainstream backlash against it? Do you think it could happen today without a mainstream backlash?

hatrickpatrick

Mrsmum wrote: »

But why is it so bad to be asked to look out for other people ? Over and over on this thread men who are annoyed with the ad have said it's none of their business what the next man gets up to but imagine if someone said in answer to the other campaign if X man won't go to the doctor, that's basically tough. Just seems a very mé féin attitude to me.

Because it's only men who are being asked to call out bad behaviour from other men. If the ad asked people to call out bad behaviour from other people without any gender based collectivism (or any collectivism at all for that matter), it wouldn't be a problem. By doing so, it implies that

(a) Bad behaviour is a specifically male trait, and
(b) that men are a "group" with implicit "connection" to other men just by virtue of being men.

Mrsmum

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

When was this, and was there a mainstream backlash against it? Do you think it could happen today without a mainstream backlash?

This was a year or two ago only. There was no backlash. Why would there have been, it was a necessary & caring message.

hatrickpatrick

Mrsmum wrote: »

This was a year or two ago only. There was no backlash. Why would there have been, it was a necessary & caring message.

I'd have objected to it if I'd heard about it. Gender based behavioural messaging is simply not ok, as it implies that certain behaviours are inherent to the genders and that demographic matters more than individuality in predicting one's personality or behaviour. Once you accept that, you essentially open the door to saying "stereotyping is ok in some circumstances", and as a society we know exactly what that ultimately results in.

freshpopcorn

Mrsmum wrote: »

But why is it so bad to be asked to look out for other people ? Over and over on this thread men who are annoyed with the ad have said it's none of their business what the next man gets up to but imagine if someone said in answer to the other campaign if X man won't go to the doctor, that's basically tough. Just seems a very mé féin attitude to me.

It's not bad in my opinion telling people to look out for one another but in my honest opinion I think Gilette could have done an ad featuring both men and women and them being pulled upon their bad behaviors because they now produce products for both men and women.
People also wonders if the ad only featured women pull other women up on their bad behavior.What the reaction would be.

Undividual

Mrsmum wrote: »

But why is it so bad to be asked to look out for other people ? Over and over on this thread men who are annoyed with the ad have said it's none of their business what the next man gets up to but imagine if someone said in answer to the other campaign if X man won't go to the doctor, that's basically tough. Just seems a very mé féin attitude to me.

I understand what you're saying but if it was my friend who wouldnt go to the doctor, I'd certainly intervene. If its a stranger, its not my business.

Also, its incredibly difficult to actually help people. If solving homelessness, for example, was a matter of providing housing we could end it tomorrow. Even modern genuine poverty is incredibly rare in Ireland. The poor don't starve to death in Ireland.

To 'help' someone who is being bullied is not always as simple as saving them. Ideally its far better that they learn to fight their own battles. Maybe that's the essence of tough love.

Tell me how

Mrsmum wrote: »

This was a year or two ago only. There was no backlash. Why would there have been, it was a necessary & caring message.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'd have objected to it if I'd heard about it. Gender based behavioural messaging is simply not ok, as it implies that certain behaviours are inherent to the genders and that demographic matters more than individuality in predicting one's personality or behaviour. Once you accept that, you essentially open the door to saying "stereotyping is ok in some circumstances", and as a society we know exactly what that ultimately results in.

Read the points in bold above from both messages and ask yourself what you, or anyone else would have gained by objecting.

You are interpreting that the implication is that such behaviour, one way or another is inherent. There are common traits which appear within groups which are focused on in various mediums, fashion, sport, music etc, and always have been, but it does not follow that everyone has to fall in to that category.

Undividual

Mrsmum wrote: »

This was a year or two ago only. There was no backlash. Why would there have been, it was a necessary & caring message.

Is it a caring message to a grieving mother? The last thing people who know someone who's killed themselves need is a potential reason for self-blame ("Could I have done more?...").

hatrickpatrick

Tell me how wrote: »

Read the points in bold above from both messages and ask yourself what you, or anyone else would have gained by objecting.

How do you bring about social change if you don't object to things you find objectionable?

You are interpreting that the implication is that such behaviour, one way or another is inherent. There are common traits which appear within groups which are focused on in various mediums, fashion, sport, music etc, and always have been, but it does not follow that everyone has to fall in to that category.

A gender does not count as a "group". That's the whole point. Two people can be the same gender and have literally nothing in common except that they both either do or don't have a bollocks. To imply otherwise is to accept that generalisation is acceptable - and it isn't. Because once it's accepted, innocent people get profiled because of who they are and not what they do.

Mrsmum

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'd have objected to it if I'd heard about it. Gender based behavioural messaging is simply not ok, as it implies that certain behaviours are inherent to the genders and that demographic matters more than individuality in predicting one's personality or behaviour. Once you accept that, you essentially open the door to saying "stereotyping is ok in some circumstances", and as a society we know exactly what that ultimately results in.

You clearly didn't hear about it simply because there was no brouhaha about it. And it was a very well known campaign. We'll have to agree to differ about men and women being basically the same. I don't believe that for a second.

I'm trying to understand your position on the ad. maybe I'm all wrong and not understanding you at all but is it that women got off scott free you feel and if half of the men in the ad were women, you'd be fine with the message. Is that right.

Tell me how

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How do you bring about social change if you don't object to things you find objectionable?



A gender does not count as a "group". That's the whole point. Two people can be the same gender and have literally nothing in common except that they both either do or don't have a bollocks. To imply otherwise is to accept that generalisation is acceptable - and it isn't. Because once it's accepted, innocent people get profiled because of who they are and not what they do.

If you object to a message which is promoting caring then surely you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Why does a gender count as a group in every other instance of advertising but it can't in this one?

Many gambling ads focus solely on male participation. That is generalising and is much more harmful than a suggestion of acting positively.

hatrickpatrick

Mrsmum wrote: »

You clearly didn't hear about it simply because there was no brouhaha about it. And it was a very well known campaign. We'll have to agree to differ about men and women being basically the same. I don't believe that for a second.

In my view, that kind of thinking opens the door to profiling and that's why I oppose it. To state that you can look at an individual and infer negative things about his or her personality based on what gender they are, what colour they are, etc leads to utterly horrific outcomes. Everyone should be judged as an individual and assumed to be decent unless proven otherwise.

I'm trying to understand your position on the ad. maybe I'm all wrong and not understanding you at all but is it that women got off scott free you feel and if half of the men in the ad were women, you'd be fine with the message. Is that right.

That'd be fine with me because it wouldn't be gender-based. Obviously men and women are both capable of bad behaviour so if the ad was evenly split depicting toxic behaviour by people of both genders towards other people of both genders, I'd be ok with it - although I'd still have an issue with the idea that people have specific obligations to police other peoples' behaviour just because they're the same gender. In such an ad, I'd also want to see women calling out bad behaviour by male friends and men calling out bad behaviour by female friends.

Also as I stated the other day, I object to the idea that approaching someone in public is inherently wrong (it's how many, many good relationships have begun throughout history). The idea that harassment can be once-off is, in my view, an absolute oxymoron. Harassment requires persistence. Trying to initiate a social interaction once is how humans meet new humans, to limit it to "designated areas or venues" is moronic.

hatrickpatrick

Tell me how wrote: »

If you object to a message which is promoting caring then surely you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Why does a gender count as a group in every other instance of advertising but it can't in this one?

Many gambling ads focus solely on male participation. That is generalising and is much more harmful than a suggestion of actively positively.

I never said it could count in every other instance, I have an issue with a lot of advertising, but if it's preaching to people that they "have to" change their behaviour (IE, issuing an order or instruction to people) then having it be gender based is incredibly sexist.

Undividual

Tell me how wrote: »

If you object to a message which is promoting caring then surely you are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Why does a gender count as a group in every other instance of advertising but it can't in this one?

Many gambling ads focus solely on male participation. That is generalising and is much more harmful than a suggestion of actively positively.

To say that women should take responsibility for men's mental health is to say that women are at least partially responsible when men kill themselves. Do you agree with that?

Gambling is intrinsically dangerous behavior. Shaving is also, but for a different reason.

Mrsmum

Undividual wrote: »

Is it a caring message to a grieving mother? The last thing people who know someone who's killed themselves need is a potential reason for self-blame ("Could I have done more?...").

Well the message came from Pieta House and they are kinda the experts in this area. It was really about taking mental health in men seriously because intervention can save lives. But no one can stop someone who hides it or is determined sadly.

hatrickpatrick

Undividual wrote: »

Gambling is intrinsically dangerous behavior. Shaving is also, but for a different reason.

Especially if we're talking about more southerly areas than usual :pac:

hatrickpatrick

@Mrsmum I can simplify my objection a little: I object to being told how to behave socially, and I especially object to being told what to do because of my gender, in the sense that if I was a woman, the aforementioned order or instruction wouldn't apply to me. It implies that our demographic doesn't know how to behave already, but because there's no similar ad for women, they don't need to be told. This feeds into the "women are already great, but men need to be corralled or pushed in the right direction to become great" trope which has been so utterly endemic in the media for several years now. The message is very clearly "men, without intervention you're naturally inclined to behave like uncivilised savages. Be more like women, who are not naturally inclined to behave like uncivilised savages."

It's similar to the idea that at the school level, girls are seen as the gold standard and boys are treated as defective girls - hence over-medication for ADHD and other such things because maturing girls happen to be better at sitting still. Why should female behaviour be seen as the "right" way to behave and not male behaviour instead? Or better yet, why don't we just accept that individuals are individuals, and target exclusively the bad individuals in society without reference to their demographic?

Mrsmum

Undividual wrote: »

To say that women should take responsibility for men's mental health is to say that women are at least partially responsible when men kill themselves. Do you agree with that?

Gambling is intrinsically dangerous behavior. Shaving is also, but for a different reason.

No, No, No, It's saying that women have unique access & closeness with the men in their lives, their husbands, their sons, brothers, fathers and might see signs if they know what to look for. That's all. No need to search deep for something to be offended about. A bit of maturity is called for.

Undividual

Mrsmum wrote: »

No, No, No, It's saying that women have unique access & closeness with the men in their lives, their husbands, their sons, brothers, fathers and might see signs if they know what to look for. That's all. No need to search deep for something to be offended about. A bit of maturity is called for.

You're cherry picking now I'm afraid. You said that Pieta House advocated that women take some responsibility for their men. Logically therefore, women should take some responsibility if men kill themselves. Which is why I would object to such targeting.

If the ad said "Here's the warning signs" only, then fair enough. We need to be very clear about what we can control and what we cant.

Wibbs

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why should female behaviour be seen as the "right" way to behave and not male behaviour instead?

One could think on it like this HP? Which suite of behaviours is seen as easier to control? Which suite of behaviours is better suited to the modern world, particularly the modern business world? At least at the level below upper management. One might also argue which suite of behaviours are more likely to consume, be less reactive, less forthright, less troublesome?

Like I mused way back, society seeks to "tame" adolescents, both men and women, into whatever is most useful for the society of the time. In an imperial martial type society aggressive men are much more encouraged. You can see an extreme of that in 1930's fascist educations. the boys were raised as hardened soldiers to die for the fatherland, the girls were raised as baby makers to produce more soldiers and baby makers for the fatherland. People are flexible creatures so can be moulded to some degree to suit the society at large. In times of peace and prosperity the society goes in a different direction, more economic and well, peaceful. You can see these two worlds butt into each other in modern times. EG take the US involvement in the Vietnam war. Back in the US it was the 60's and going much more progressive, civil rights, gender rights etc, yet you had a section of US society that were encouraged and trained to be more gung ho and aggressive. Look what happened to many of those men when they returned from war. How so many found it hard to fit into a world they were essentially not "trained" for, where there was nobody to fight. Similar still happens to guys and now more gals coming back from the "War on Terror".

conorhal

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

@Mrsmum I can simplify my objection a little: I object to being told how to behave socially, and I especially object to being told what to do because of my gender, in the sense that if I was a woman, the aforementioned order or instruction wouldn't apply to me. It implies that our demographic doesn't know how to behave already, but because there's no similar ad for women, they don't need to be told. This feeds into the "women are already great, but men need to be corralled or pushed in the right direction to become great" trope which has been so utterly endemic in the media for several years now. The message is very clearly "men, without intervention you're naturally inclined to behave like uncivilised savages. Be more like women, who are not naturally inclined to behave like uncivilised savages."

It's similar to the idea that at the school level, girls are seen as the gold standard and boys are treated as defective girls - hence over-medication for ADHD and other such things because maturing girls happen to be better at sitting still. Why should female behaviour be seen as the "right" way to behave and not male behaviour instead? Or better yet, why don't we just accept that individuals are individuals, and target exclusively the bad individuals in society without reference to their demographic?

That's pretty much how I feel.
Remember when companies used to advertise their products worthiness for you?
Why does it feel like these days they advertise to convince you to be worthy of them?
This I think is the nub of a lot of irritation with the ad. It's tone. Nobody wants to sit down to listen to a smug SJW lecture from somebody asking you for your money. People of just tired of the schoolmarmish lecturing.

Mrsmum

Undividual wrote: »

You're cherry picking now I'm afraid. You said that Pieta House advocated that women take some responsibility for their men. Logically therefore, women should take some responsibility if men kill themselves. Which is why I would object to such targeting.

If the ad said "Here's the warning signs" only, then fair enough. We need to be very clear about what we can control and what we cant.

I think you should stop saying what you're saying. It could be very hurtful to grieving people. You didn't even hear anything about the whole campaign and if I haven't explained it fully, the fault is mine.

El_Duderino 09

Muckka wrote: »

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.

You're right. Because all women everywhere are all ygd same and speak with one voice. Just like the way men who harass others quite rightly are lumped in with decent men.

Christ this thread is beginning to look like a parody of itself.

El_Duderino 09

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Tell me how wrote: »

Read the points in bold above from both messages and ask yourself what you, or anyone else would have gained by objecting.

How do you bring about social change if you don't object to things you find objectionable?

That's the entire premise of the ad. Whether you agree with the objectionable behaviours or not.