Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

Mrsmum

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?

And yet hatrickpatrick, I and women my age and older (late forties now) grew up with the phrase - Its a man's world -as the background tape in our minds. Then in the ninties it was Girl Power but before that it was a desert for women, Everything women did or were allowed to do was through the prism of how it suited men so I see all that's happening as catch up.

There is a problem with male violence that needs a conversation of it's own and it's because it's hurting men,women and children but actually men most of all. I know you're going to say women can be violent too but come on now not to be same degree by any measure.

Re school are you not going against your own rule when you say "maturing girls happen to be better at sitting still." Is that not gender stereotyping which you don't agree with. Are you saying boys need a different system to what we have now. Actually I agree with that but then again, unlike you, I believe that boys and girls are very different.

buried

Wibbs wrote: »

Similar still happens to guys and now more gals coming back from the "War on Terror".

Been thinking about this recently W, the timeline from when the whole "war on terror" ended, well ended with the majority of US and its coalition allies leaving in large numbers from Iraq and Afghanistan, the minute the majority of those western service forces came back from it, this whole SJW, men vs women, PC, Left vs Right cultural $hitshow really went into overdrive. Its a if a curse was brought back, the ghosts of aggro.

Its looks to me like there is huge collective guilt upon the part of western governments, corporations and mainstream media organisations, they sold everybody a huge lie and created a hugely destabilizing war still ongoing with potential for even further chaos. Now they are trying to make up for it/trying to deflect it by overly trying to create arguments among ourselves and force political duality/identity politics onto us, the ordinary citizens as if we were the ones who were guilty of something terrible that we, the ordinary people, were doing all along. Its very interesting IMO, the timeline and the recent history of our time really correlates to it.

El_Duderino 09

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

Careful now. If you claim gender doesn't count as a group youll have to answer to all the posters who call you out because they feel hen as a group are offended by the Gillette ad.

I'm sure it's difficult to keep up with what you're supposed to be offended about but I'm pretty sure it's been mentioned plenty of times that men as a group are being discriminated against.

Silentcorner

Mrsmum wrote: »

And yet hatrickpatrick, I and women my age and older (late forties now) grew up with the phrase - Its a man's world -as the background tape in our minds. Then in the ninties it was Girl Power but before that it was a desert for women, Everything women did or were allowed to do was through the prism of how it suited men so I see all that's happening as catch up.

There is a problem with male violence that needs a conversation of it's own and it's because it's hurting men,women and children but actually men most of all. I know you're going to say women can be violent too but come on now not to be same degree by any measure.

Re school are you not going against your own rule when you say "maturing girls happen to be better at sitting still." Is that not gender stereotyping which you don't agree with. Are you saying boys need a different system to what we have now. Actually I agree with that but then again, unlike you, I believe that boys and girls are very different.

Ah come off it...Madonna was empowering women in the 80s...and a few more in the 70s...

Empowering women is big business, they buy way more product, media know this, media chase the female audience...media give women what they want...the most profitable news organisation in the UK is the daily mail...becuase they are the only newspaper with a larger female audience than male.

Yes, there is a problem with toxic parenting that no one seems to want to talk about, toxic parenting produces toxic kids.

Female aggression does not come in the same physical form as male aggression...it is much more insidious, subtle and actually does more damage long term....it uses passive aggressive language to undermine an individual, it convinces a person there is something wrong with them...I'd prefer to be beaten up!

El_Duderino 09

Re breaking up a couple who are fighting and getting hit. I think this might be a class thing. I would have though t it was appropriate to stop a couple from fighting until I lived in a properly deprived area of the North East of England. I found out that's how some people communicate.

They would have stand up rows in the street. Shouting things down the street, personal information and they'd occasionally come to blows.

I heard so many blood curdling shouts outside my house at all hours of the day and night that I have learned that it's not sensible to intervene unless you have enough people to completely break up a fight.

I wouldn't hold it against a bloke who calls the police and waits until they arrive.

Mrsmum

Silentcorner wrote: »

Ah come off it...Madonna was empowering women in the 80s...and a few more in the 70s...

Empowering women is big business, they buy way more product, media know this, media chase the female audience...media give women what they want...the most profitable news organisation in the UK is the daily mail...becuase they are the only newspaper with a larger female audience than male.

Yes, there is a problem with toxic parenting that no one seems to want to talk about, toxic parenting produces toxic kids.

Female aggression does not come in the same physical form as male aggression...it is much more insidious, subtle and actually does more damage long term....it uses passive aggressive language to undermine an individual, it convinces a person there is something wrong with them...I'd prefer to be beaten up!

Your experiences are different from mine.
Madonna was a big deal precisely because she was different.
Parents are told off by the media and experts constantly, like literally all the time so more of it would just be more of the same. Toxic anything is not a term I use.
No problem with discussing female aggression although I've been really lucky to be reared by a wonderful mother and have very really positive friendships with women. Others I know are not so lucky.

El_Duderino 09

Mrsmum wrote: »

Toxic anything is not a term I use

Does anyone who reads this thread use the term toxic masculinity? Except the people who are most offended by the team seem to throw it around willy-nilly.

Pythagorean

I saw this nauseating piece of PC propaganda today for the first time, and my immediate reaction was " why are they alienating their target market" , ie. men. Then I realised that the whole purpose of the ad was to sell more razors to women. More guys are growing beards today, but women continue to be paranoid about their naturally occurring body hair, therefore this is now Gillettes target market. By targeting "Toxic masculinity" they are tapping in to the mass hysteria of the # MeToo movement. Its an advertisers dream !!

buried

Pythagorean wrote: »

I saw this nauseating piece of PC propaganda today for the first time, and my immediate reaction was " why are they alienating their target market" , ie. men. Then I realised that the whole purpose of the ad was to sell more razors to women. More guys are growing beards today, but women continue to be paranoid about their naturally occurring body hair, therefore this is now Gillettes target market. By targeting "Toxic masculinity" they are tapping in to the mass hysteria of the # MeToo movement. Its an advertisers dream !!

Gillette are f**ked. Women will soon forget the political message of this thing once they're actually in the shop and see the price of the products compared to other ones

Scoondal

Pythagorean wrote: »

I saw this nauseating piece of PC propaganda today for the first time, and my immediate reaction was " why are they alienating their target market" , ie. men. Then I realised that the whole purpose of the ad was to sell more razors to women. More guys are growing beards today, but women continue to be paranoid about their naturally occurring body hair, therefore this is now Gillettes target market. By targeting "Toxic masculinity" they are tapping in to the mass hysteria of the # MeToo movement. Its an advertisers dream !!

Perhaps. And they discriminate against women by charging more for their women's products. Gillette is a disgusting brand by pretending to promote respect for women while continuing to rip them off.
It's sickening behaviour by Gillette.

juice1304

Mrsmum wrote: »

I know you're going to say women can be violent too but come on now not to be same degree by any measure.

I disagree, I was in a relationship with someone who ended up being a nutjob.
she knew i would never hit a woman even if the woman were to hit me because i would obviously inflict much more serious damage and im not a scumbag.
I was hit with a hammer, had plates thrown at me, i was stabbed and choked and had a full bottle of wine thrown at my arm which was in plaster from a bad crash. i was scratched and bitten.
This all happened over the course of about a week. We were living in a foreign country so it took me several days to leave the apartment which i was paying for.
The reason was that i got a new job whereby i would make much more money when i finally finished my training and she was worried she wouldnt benefit from this as she felt entitled to my money.
When i went to leave because of this behavior she threatened to call the police with allegations of false rape and domestic abuse. Due to the nature of my job even an allegation would ban me from working.
She called the police but when they arrived i showed them what actually happened as i recorded it all and had evidence of the injuries she inflicted. which were still clearly visible.
Guess what happened though, absolutely nothing because she was a woman and i am a man.
Had i defended myself though who do you think would have been in prison and out of work. And if i had, it would have been used as a tool of manipulation to gain what she wanted.
Luckily though due to some act of god as up unto the point i obviously hadn't seen the virtue signaling add from Gillette. i was able to resist my apparent apish toxic masculine traits..
Im all for equality and women's rights but i think the law should hold both genders to account for their actions equally. Including sentences handed down.
Both men and women can be equally violent and manipulative.
I also think anyone who is found guilty of false allegations should rot in a cell for the maximum time the innocent would have, had they been wrongly imprisoned.

Scoondal

juice1304 wrote: »

I disagree, I was in a relationship with someone who ended up being a nutjob.
she knew i would never hit a woman even if the woman were to hit me because i would obviously inflict much more serious damage and im not a scumbag.
I was hit with a hammer, had plates thrown at me, i was stabbed and choked and had a full bottle of wine thrown at my arm which was in plaster from a bad crash. i was scratched and bitten.
This all happened over the course of about a week. We were living in a foreign country so it took me several days to leave the apartment which i was paying for.
The reason was that i got a new job whereby i would make much more money when i finally finished my training and she was worried she wouldnt benefit from this as she felt entitled to my money.
When i went to leave because of this behavior she threatened to call the police with allegations of false rape and domestic abuse. Due to the nature of my job even an allegation would ban me from working.
She called the police but when they arrived i showed them what actually happened as i recorded it all and had evidence of the injuries she inflicted. which were still clearly visible.
Guess what happened though, absolutely nothing because she was a woman and i was a man.
Had i defended myself though who do you think would have been in prison and out of work. And if i had, it would have been used as a tool of manipulation to gain what she wanted.
Luckily though due to some act of god as up unto the point i obviously hadnt seen the virtue signaling add from Gillette. i am able to resist my apparent apish toxic masculine traits..
Im all for equality and women's rights but i think the law should hold both genders to account for their actions equally. Including sentences handed down.
Both men and women can be equally violent and manipulative.
I also think anyone who is found guilty of false allagations should rot in a cell for the maximum time the innocent would have, had they been wrongly inprsoned.

Gender should be irrelevant. A person who commits physical, verbal or emotional abuse should be held accountable. We need to get away from stating the genders of people abusing or being abused.
Gender needs to be taken out of law and general conversation. People are people regardless of their gender.

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Re breaking up a couple who are fighting and getting hit. I think this might be a class thing. I would have though t it was appropriate to stop a couple from fighting until I lived in a properly deprived area of the North East of England. I found out that's how some people communicate.

They would have stand up rows in the street. Shouting things down the street, personal information and they'd occasionally come to blows.

I heard so many blood curdling shouts outside my house at all hours of the day and night that I have learned that it's not sensible to intervene unless you have enough people to completely break up a fight.

I wouldn't hold it against a bloke who calls the police and waits until they arrive.

Oh god I hear you, but TBH El D, I would be extremely reticent to intervene in any couple fight, even a disagreement. Certainly not as a one man operation. Down the years I've witnessed too many men and women, strangers, acquaintances and close friends, being turned on when they did so. And it was in my case anyway they were mostly staunchly "middle class" couples involved. When stuff gets visceral the veneer of respectability can all too easily go out the window.

Mad_maxx

Scoondal wrote: »

Gender should be irrelevant. A person who commits physical, verbal or emotional abuse should be held accountable. We need to get away from stating the genders of people abusing or being abused.
Gender needs to be taken out of law and general conversation. People are people regardless of their gender.

The very opposite of that egalitarian view you espouse is being prosecuted both legally, culturally and politically

This whole poisonous " toxic masculinity" meme seeks to pathologise nature, it is a rancid and inherently prejudicial excuse for a pseudo psychological theory.

Even at its most benign effect, You can immediately dismiss anyone using the dopey term as a bone fide wanker

Crock Rock

I stopped shaving with that muck a long time ago. I use double edge safety razors now. Pennies a shave.

Pythagorean

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh god I hear you, but TBH El D, I would be extremely reticent to intervene in any couple fight, even a disagreement. Certainly not as a one man operation. Down the years I've witnessed too many men and women, strangers, acquaintances and close friends, being turned on when they did so. And it was in my case anyway they were mostly staunchly "middle class" couples involved. When stuff gets visceral the veneer of respectability can all too easily go out the window.

Police dread domestic disputes above other emergency calls. The danger arises when two people are fighting, and when a third party tries to intervene, they suddenly find common cause, and turn their aggression on the unfortunate third party. The level of viciousness that can ensue is quite shocking.Leave them at it !! :eek:

eyerer

juice1304 wrote: »

Im all for equality and women's rights but i think the law should hold both genders to account for their actions equally. Including sentences handed down. 
Both men and women can be equally violent and manipulative.
I also think anyone who is found guilty of false allegations should rot in a cell for the maximum time the innocent would have, had they been wrongly imprisoned.

Agreed.

El_Duderino 09

Mad_maxx wrote: »

This whole poisonous " toxic masculinity" meme seeks to pathologise nature, it is a rancid and inherently prejudicial excuse for a pseudo psychological theory.

Even at its most benign effect, You can immediately dismiss anyone using the dopey term as a bone fide wanker

I can safely say I've only heard it used in a serious way a handful of tinez in my entire life. The number of times I've heard it used ironically dwarfs the times I've heard it used seriously. It's a term used sat more frequently by the people who supposedly despise it than those who take it seriously.

I'm a guy who hasn't had to worry about masculinity. I'm comfortable in my own skin as a man and I can safely say nobody has accused me of toxic masculinity.

I see normal politeness as being mostly about not making anyone feel uncomfortable. Somehow not making others uncomfortable has become an unreasonable expectation. I've no idea why it's seen by some as such a massive imposition but it's actually very easy.

Some of the men I admire the most are normal decent guys who are confident and are able to get the best out of others by making them feel at ease.

1800_Ladladlad

A watch company of some sort brought out this response to the ad. You can tell that its an amateur video and a bit hard to stomach the obvious attempts at the dramatics but the content is what makes it stand out I suppose. Just Facts included.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_HL0wiK4Zc

Jesus Christ. Just watched it. How did a bunch of adults in a boardroom decide that that was the direction a company should go?

silverharp

^^

it was a three pronged strategy

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

Jesus Christ. Just watched it. How did a bunch of adults in a boardroom decide that that was the direction a company should go?

The boardroom, the marketing department have probably embraced the gender equality koolaid program that is sweeping across Corporate America...the radical feminist managed to win the contract by virtue of the Free the Bid program, a program to allow female designers an opportunity at the big contracts, which heretofore, they were not winning.

They all only have themselves to blame.

This could very well cost Gillette €10 billion over the next ten years, P & G could well face a bit of contagion also. (it is quiet conceivable that Gillette sales could drop from €6 billion a year to €5 billion....it could be worse)

Kim Gehrig...the radical feminist designer, the marketing wrecking ball...has just done huge damage to all those programs that helped her get that contract.

Imagine the company, who would have ordinarily got this contract are feeling!

Tell me how

Silentcorner wrote: »

The boardroom, the marketing department have probably embraced the gender equality koolaid program that is sweeping across Corporate America...the radical feminist managed to win the contract by virtue of the Free the Bid program, a program to allow female designers an opportunity at the big contracts, which heretofore, they were not winning.

They all only have themselves to blame.

This could very well cost Gillette €10 billion over the next ten years, P & G could well face a bit of contagion also. (it is quiet conceivable that Gillette sales could drop from €6 billion a year to €5 billion....it could be worse)

Kim Gehrig...the radical feminist designer, the marketing wrecking ball...has just done huge damage to all those programs that helped her get that contract.

Imagine the company, who would have ordinarily got this contract are feeling!

This is pretty much exactly what was said in some quarters about Nike after they aired the Kaepernick ad. (supported by outraged people destroying Nike gear online as well)

They saw a 5% increase in value in the 4 months after the ad.

Is going to be interesting to see Gillette results.

gizmo555

Mrsmum wrote: »

I know you're going to say women can be violent too but come on now not to be same degree by any measure.

Woman (50) charged with murder of man in Foxrock

Body of Limbani Mzoma was discovered with some of his body parts removed

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crim...rock-1.3685824

(The "body parts removed" were his genitalia.)

Muckka

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

That's why I mentioned "extremes" but you didn't see that word did you.

I didn't say everyone...

professore

Tell me how wrote: »

Say your partner is in town, and two guys are harassing her (or two ladies for that matter). They are walking behind her on the footpath and making comments which she finds uncomfortable.

She has already asked them to stop but they told her they're only having a laugh and they know she really actually likes it.

Would you honestly not prefer if someone intervened to try to make that stop?

Or the same, your offspring is getting bullied at the bus stop? Would you rather someone stopped it or would you prefer they fought back even though it was 3 against 1 and they got badly beaten.

Would you?

How would someone else intervening "stop it"?

You would need 2 big guys at least and it's still 50/50 there would be a big fight, criminal record etc.

Or the parents of the bullies accuse you of being a paedo.

Have you ever been in an actual street fight?

professore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I can safely say I've only heard it used in a serious way a handful of tinez in my entire life. The number of times I've heard it used ironically dwarfs the times I've heard it used seriously. It's a term used sat more frequently by the people who supposedly despise it than those who take it seriously.

You can make the same argument for the N word or any other racist or sexist slur. Yet those are unacceptable in public discourse. Either allow everything or allow nothing. Some decent guy might be on the edge of killing himself and something like that could push him over the edge.

anewme

This ad was done by the same woman who did "This Woman Can" a while back. I can see the smilaries to this one.

I thought the bit where the camera panned out to all the news reporting in metoo was quite powerful. . However, the acting in general is very poor and when it started initially, I thought it was going to be a funny ad, as they looked like Daddies lining up for an egg n spoon race at Childrens school sports day. The bad actors then all saying boys will be boys makes it appear very patronising and a bit cheesy. Who needs to be told how to behave by a bad actor?

They could have got the message that boys don't have to be boys in the old stereotype way across much better and in a more positive way rather than focussing on the negative.

Given that Typically male Brands have in the past force fed us Brand Ambassadors based on competitiveness even some very bad examples, Tiger Woods, it's a bit of an about turn.

Muckka

Well according to some sources Gillette will loose up to a billion, and proctor and gamble as a whole are going to loose more.

All the other shaving companies are laughing after this, I'd say their boardrooms are high five each other.

Gillette, you're some Langer's

backspin.

I'm interested to see how this turns out. I normally buy those 2 blade blue razer's. Either Gillette or BIC. Now I will make sure to always buy the BIC ones.