Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

Tell me how

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe. I'm not so sure. The fight back is pretty evident too and gaining traction. The extreme right wing has a following now it didn't have ten years ago. What is certainly happening is a hardening of polarised opinions on all sides.

I would also argue that the progressive for the want of a better word direction isn't the panacea many feel it to be. Like I noted earlier: The countries with the highest number or women executives, CEO's and company owners? It isn't the Scandinavian type "right on gender equality" nations, it's countries like Russia, Brazil, China, India and a few in Africa. Nations and cultures that are very much of the more masculine/feminine defined roles and not a quota in sight. Norway brought in one of the first quota systems for jobs and yet you can count the number of top executives and CEO's in Norway on the fingers of one hand. After an unfortunate accident with a lawnmower.

This polarisation does seem to be good for business, or at least the keyholders of business seem to think so. And it makes a lot of sense to target the "you go girl!" market, either directly or indirectly like this Gillette ad, as women have never had so much spending money and choice and industry has already a century of practice at targeting women. The largest transfer of capital in US history has been from men to women over the last four decades. It's all about the ringing tills and The Money™ will follow and foster whatever keeps them ringing.

Business does influence but is more lead by society than it does the leading. Certainly in terms of brand marketing. Some drive a narrative for a few years such as Apple but in all cases, once the market turns, businesses are powerless to change it The successful ones adapt which is why they continue to be successful more so than they correct the position society is adopting.

Industry in terms of Google, Facebook and Media outlets etc is where the true societal manipulation is happening I suspect.

El_Duderino 09

py2006 wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Such a shame that it takes feminism to bring men together.

You are renowned at this stage for posting questionable comments in various threads. This is ONE of your worst.

Ignoring the entire rest of the post about men having a go at other men. I suppose you focused on the sentence that hot your attention. Why are some people so obsessed with feminism. If derogatory comments about men or helping other men was what got you excited it would be a different situation.

Tell me how

kildare lad wrote: »

What causes though?? most men agree that men who sexually harass and assault women should get locked up and for a lot longer that they do here. I've always been a left leaning guy regarding politics, but the PC bullcrap and fake outrage at jokes and comments. Its no wonder right wing politics is on the rise across the globe. Normal people are getting sick and tired of PC crap everywhere now and the Left are driving people to the Right and they've only themselves to blame. The result of that is an idiot like Donald Trump in power.

Not all causes which are aiming to be for the betterment of society originate in the outreaches of the far left where there are men and women who think all men are responsible for all the worlds problems both current and historic. It is not the case.

Suggesting that this is responsible for the likes of Trump is an excuse to try to either save having to explore what is actually being said or to hide a preference for what is now seen as largely a poor choice for president.

Tell me how

SMC92Ian wrote: »

Well from my experiences the last year, women are far more cruel and vindictive than men, they rarely show remorse or sorrow for anything they do and it's always the mans fault, even when evidence points at them, it's still somehow all and only the mens fault. They can just switch off because somehow they feel above it all "queen" and all that nonsense with their equally awful "bad bitches" friends. Obviously not all women, but when they're bad they're bad, yet that's never really talked about, it's always men are bastards, women are great, be like women, men.

First off, this is not in any way a judgement on your situation or experience.

Is it not the case that if men (as a group) feel they are castigated and unfairly treated and portrayed that they should look to form advocacy groups to support each other. And look for media coverage, and public money support and everything that it might be said female groups get.

And if it is difficult, if they find the media ignores them, they don't get support, they lose out to a women's shelter for example and so on, that they broadcast this, start facebook groups, get it trending on Twitter, have a protest and so on. Because, is that not women did? Did they not push and push to get to where they are now? (And I say that Like I think they have it easy which is not the case either)

I think women now enjoy advantages in these areas because of the efforts they, as a group/gender put in to creating, supporting and fighting for them.

Please don't misunderstand me here, I'm not saying it is easy or that such groups are not necessary, I just think a better reaction to an ad promoting positivity would be to try to fulfil a need than to lament that men are being targeted.

El_Duderino 09

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ignoring the entire rest of the post about men having a go at other men. I suppose you focused on the sentence that hot your attention. Why are some people so obsessed with feminism. If derogatory comments about men or helping other men was what got you excited it would be a different situation.

Why are feminists obsessed with trying to eliminate masculinity (and before you start - harassment assult and being a d*ck isn’t masculinity) changing men ,allowed spots in media to bash men (Louise o Neill/una mullaly/majority of opinion pieces in the guardian) and blaming their own shirt comings on men, ‘I didn’t get the job must be men’

Tell me how

Lance White Partridge wrote: »

Why are feminists obsessed with changing men ,allowed spots in media to bash men (Louise o Neill/una mullaly/majority of opinion pieces in the guardian) and blaming their own shirt comings on men, ‘I didn’t get the job must be men’

Have you heard of Jonathan Waters, Rod Liddle, Piers Morgan? They all work in the media don't they.
Would you consider the Sun as focusing on men bashing? Or the Daily Mail?
Or Fox News?

The Sun has 10 times the circulation the Guardian has.

Marengo

Just saw it on YouTube for the first time. Pathetic and laughable.

I'm going back to Wilkinson Sword blades!

Bannasidhe

Lance White Partridge wrote: »

Why are feminists obsessed with trying to eliminate masculinity (and before you start - harassment assult and being a d*ck isn’t masculinity) changing men ,allowed spots in media to bash men (Louise o Neill/una mullaly/majority of opinion pieces in the guardian) and blaming their own shirt comings on men, ‘I didn’t get the job must be men’

And again in general no one is responsible for others actions so stop lumping one gender for the actions of a minority

Why, in the thread where posters are complaining all men are being tarred with the same brush, are people complaining about what all feminists are apparently doing?

Are all feminists responsible for each others actions?

Not according to your final comment. Which I see you deleted. Did you notice the contradiction then?

Muckka

I don't like femminism, it does nothing to contribute to society and slowly and steadily it's on the wane.

I remember a woman telling me men can be femminists too, same woman thinks she's a cat.
But that's another story.

Talking to one of those femminist is like asking a 25 year old, why can't she be 60 ?

Third wave femminism, is actually like the Gillette advert, it's actually making women wake up and realise they're being sold a red herring.

py2006

Muckka wrote: »

Third wave femminism, is actually like the Gillette advert, it's actually making women wake up and realise they're being sold a red herring.

I really hope thats true.

El_Duderino 09

Lance White Partridge wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ignoring the entire rest of the post about men having a go at other men. I suppose you focused on the sentence that hot your attention. Why are some people so obsessed with feminism. If derogatory comments about men or helping other men was what got you excited it would be a different situation.

Why are feminists obsessed with trying to eliminate masculinity (and before you start - harassment assult and being a d*ck isn’t masculinity) changing men ,allowed spots in media to bash men (Louise o Neill/una mullaly/majority of opinion pieces in the guardian) and blaming their own shirt comings on men, ‘I didn’t get the job must be men’

I'm not sure why youreasking me. Not sure why you quoted my post to ask that question.

My question is why do the usual posters only get upset about negative commentary about men if they feel it's been perpetrated by feminists?

Muckka

py2006 wrote: »

I really hope thats true.

So do I not for my sake as I'm not worthy of assimilation.
But for the young men and women of today who are listening to absolute rubbish.

Go on YouTube, search for SJW fails, femminists fail..
There's a lot of women agreeing with the fact third wave femminism is just like Marxism or a cult.

Men are worse, I heard of some guy wearing a tampon once a month in solidarity with women.

Then you'll get these people making your life hell if you don't agree with them, they call people racist's without any proof the people are a racists.

I had one on here, call me a dick I wasn't offended.
As I know she's just a wind bag and always embroiled in anything that goes against masculinity.


An intolerant social justice warrior, probably called Billy or somefink....

Charmeleon

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why, in the thread where posters are complaining all men are being tarred with the same brush, are people complaining about what all feminists are apparently doing?

Are all feminists responsible for each others actions?

Not according to your final comment. Which I see you deleted. Did you notice the contradiction then?

If a guest on a programme is introduced as a man they could literally say anything and have a very wide spectrum of opinions. If a person is introduced as a feminist (male or female) you could type out exactly what they will say on any particular topic, who will be held accountable and who will be immune from criticism. It’s like having any particular Catholic priest in a discussion. They have their doctrine and they will not budge a single inch from this ideology.

Bannasidhe

Charmeleon wrote: »

If a guest on a programme is introduced as a man they could literally say anything and have a very wide spectrum of opinions. If a person is introduced as a feminist (male or female) you could type out exactly what they will say on any particular topic, who will be held accountable and who will be immune from criticism. It’s like having any particular Catholic priest in a discussion. They have their doctrine and they will not budge a single inch from this ideology.

No. They wouldn't.

You are just showing you do not understand feminism if you think there are not many many disagreements.

Fact remains - this thread is descending into a feminist bashing thread which, frankly, has feck all to do with whether or not men agree or disagree with the content of the Gillette ad.

joe swanson

In fairness , We should have boycotted Gillette after the biggest and most disgusting scandal of our times -thierry Henry's handball they ploughed a lot of sponsorship into him at the time.

conorhal

Tell me how wrote: »

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.

.
Nike, despite what some might think are not a trainer company (they don't even own a single factory or make a single shoe), they're a marketing company, and they're very, very good at it.
You can bet they did their market research regards their Kapernack ad and understood full well that alienated urban youth, who practically never wear anything but trainers, is a much more marketable target then middle aged white men, who don't.
In other words, they used controversy to reach their core market rather then controversy that attacks their core market.
Beneton, one of the originators of this sort of marketing did the same with their controversial ads in the 80's, knowing full well that the outraged Mary Whitehouse types are not the 18-25yr old demographic actually buying their overpriced chinos and jumpers.

Gillette however has directly slighted their target market. The equivalent would be a Nike ad with allusions to street crime and single parenthood asking black men to be better, something tells me that would not have been wise.

I doubt the outrage bubble will have a huge impact, but their unwise decision to double down on insulting their target market in the wake of controversy just might.There are certain things you should never say to your customer like: 'if you don't like it, don't buy it, we don't want your type's custom anyway'.

Sorry Gillette, but green is a colour that doesn't care how woke you are and I can't see this ad doing anything to enhance their market share. As 'woke Coke' found out with their Kyle Jenner ad which got slammed across the political divide, not all publicity is good publicity and 'wokevertising' is best left to marketing departments that have some clue what they're talking about and most importantly who they're talking to.

SMC92Ian

Tell me how wrote: »

First off, this is not in any way a judgement on your situation or experience.

Is it not the case that if men (as a group) feel they are castigated and unfairly treated and portrayed that they should look to form advocacy groups to support each other. And look for media coverage, and public money support and everything that it might be said female groups get.

And if it is difficult, if they find the media ignores them, they don't get support, they lose out to a women's shelter for example and so on, that they broadcast this, start facebook groups, get it trending on Twitter, have a protest and so on. Because, is that not women did? Did they not push and push to get to where they are now? (And I say that Like I think they have it easy which is not the case either)

I think women now enjoy advantages in these areas because of the efforts they, as a group/gender put in to creating, supporting and fighting for them.

Please don't misunderstand me here, I'm not saying it is easy or that such groups are not necessary, I just think a better reaction to an ad promoting positivity would be to try to fulfil a need than to lament that men are being targeted.

If we men tried a protest or something we'd be berated because "what have men to complain about? Men have it all"

Charmeleon

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No. They wouldn't.

You are just showing you do not understand feminism if you think there are not many many disagreements.

Fact remains - this thread is descending into a feminist bashing thread which, frankly, has feck all to do with whether or not men agree or disagree with the content of the Gillette ad.

Perhaps within narrow matters of academic dogma there are disagreements, but when it comes to social issues and popular culture there is extraordinary little diversity of opinion among third wave feminists. The only changes are while catching up with the latest applications of feminist theory into ever more obscure and insignificant aspects of daily life.

py2006

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Fact remains - this thread is descending into a feminist bashing thread which, frankly, has feck all to do with whether or not men agree or disagree with the content of the Gillette ad.

That ad is very much feminist influenced and represents a lot of the criticism of modern day feminism. Hence the discussion here.

Muckka

SMC92Ian wrote: »

If we men tried a protest or something we'd be berated because "what have men to complain about? Men have it all"

I wouldn't worry about that to be honest, because men are getting tired femminists and sjw's.

Living in reality is hard enough, so these people try to mould reality to suit their lack of reality.

It's quite interesting really, I know a few recovering femminists and sjw's and seriously they're glad to get out.

I'm sure Gillette Will cover up this **** up of a marketing ploy in order not to offend the perpetrators.

If they stood up and said, we messed up here, and we're firing our marketing team.

But they're such cucks, they'll prefer to loose a billion rather than offended someone.

But yet have the audosity to offend their loyal customers.

So where is it Ending ?

Gillette - 1 billion dollars

Muckka

py2006 wrote: »

That ad is very much feminist influenced and represents a lot of the criticism of modern day feminism. Hence the discussion here.

As a man I wouldn't even bother debating with a femminist here, you'll be going round and round until you capitulate, wear a tampon at her time of the month to show you care.

Get blue hair, and shell treat you like her mare....

py2006

I love to see the sale stats for this week for Gillette.

As repulsive as that ad is, I don't think it will affect sales that much, not in the long term anyway.

4068ac1elhodqr

py2006 wrote: »

That ad is very much feminist influenced and represents a lot of the criticism of modern day feminism. Hence the discussion here.

Agree the Ad Agency Director of this advert is a prominent femminist.

When folks say it has 'split reviews', they really mean a 80:20 spilt whereby 80% of men hate the advert.

According to YouGov BrandIndex, Gillette’s buzz score – which is a balance of the positive and negative things people have heard about a brand – has fallen by 5.8 points over the past week to -3.4.

py2006

Ivanna Ashy Sinus wrote: »

Agree the Ad Agency Director of this advert is a prominent femminist.

Do we know who she is?

Wibbs

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You are just showing you do not understand feminism if you think there are not many many disagreements.

Oh there are disagreements, mostly over the how far it's taken, but show me a mainstream "feminist" that disagrees with this basic credo: women are agentless victims/oppressed and men/the patriarchy are to blame. Good luck in finding any mouthpiece feminists that do. Like pretty much any political movement, for that is what it is, the oppressor/oppressed narrative is at its core. Women = oppressed, men = oppressors. And even if a man is somehow considered oppressed because it would be wilfully moronic to deny it, it's never blamed on women, or a woman, it's still the patriarchy.

Fact remains - this thread is descending into a feminist bashing thread which, frankly, has feck all to do with whether or not men agree or disagree with the content of the Gillette ad

This advert would simply not exist without feminism of the last twenty years. The advert was directed by an avowed and loud feminist, firmly stuck in the "third wave". Not discussing feminism in the context of this advert would be akin to not discussing world war two in a documentary about the Manhattan Project.

4068ac1elhodqr

py2006 wrote: »

Do we know who she is?

Kim Gehrig from the UK-based agency Somesuch.

Wibbs

py2006 wrote: »

Do we know who she is?

The director? Kim Gehrig is her name. Her entire opus to date is rooted from a position of "feminism". And more power to her. On the other hand being lectured in polarised new wave gender politics shouldn't be the remit of flogging a commercial product. It can be, but hopefully the buying public will say nope.

conorhal

py2006 wrote: »

Do we know who she is?

The person that brought you this Audi ad for the superbowl last year....if you look hard enough.. you might just sense a theme... ;-)

4068ac1elhodqr

conorhal wrote: »

The person that brought you this Audi ad for the superbowl last year....

Countless others too:

• Her ad for feminine hygiene firm Libresse - known as Bodyform in the UK - 'featured singing female genitals'
• Other work includes a short film 'suggesting Australian men turned to bodybuilding because of bullying'

Wibbs

conorhal wrote: »

The person that brought you this Audi ad for the superbowl last year....

Pretty much Every. Single. Line. in that advert/party political broadcast is a lie. But too many people buy into these lies. Not surprising as they're bombarded with this political message on a near daily basis.

Women are less valued eh? Then how come men die younger, suffer more from addiction, homelessness, suicide, murder and assault, deaths and injuries on the job, lower qualifications, poverty, unemployment and a host of other things. If a hijack is going down they don't ask to release the men and children first do they? Men are the expendable sex by quite a distance. This feminist bollocks is a nasty business and when big business sniffs any profit and backs this guff up it's a greasy business indeed.