Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

py2006

Kim Gehrig




ad produced by Sally Campbell's Somesuch production company.




Article here on this delightful pair

Bannasidhe

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

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.

But W - these people are, as you say "mouthpiece feminists" - that is how they earn their living. They are the equivalent of shock jocks.
Do they speak for every feminist - do they F.
No more than every soccer pundit speaks for every soccer fan.

They are wheeled out to be controversial. Back in the day it was Germaine Greer - I don't even know who the latest ones are tbh. They state something controversial, they get the book deal, they go on the chat shows, they sell books, they look for the next thing to be controversial about. But at the end of the day they speak only for themselves.

We have had men here write about truly terrible experiences with women. Well, I'm a feminist (note the small 'f') and I blame the women. They choose to act like scum. The Patriarchy didn't make them do it.

What is happening here is men are complaining about all men being branded as 'toxic' while at the same time all feminists are being branded as 'man haters' - do people really think that all those heterosexual women who would describe themselves as feminist hate all men?

I have no problem if a man hold a door open for me, just like I will hold the door open for a man. If someone wants to carry something heavy for me I don't give a flying what their gender is - I'm grateful.
I do have a problem if a man is having a 'conversation' with my tits rather than to my face (it's happened), I'd have a problem if a woman did that too (hasn't happened).

I do have an issue if my opinion is brushed off as being 'hysterical' or denigrated as 'feminist' therefore unworthy of consideration as the reader has pre-decided I am a man hater my opinion is null and void - as has happened in this thread.
That is a crude and shallow attempt, imo, to shut down alternative points of view.
Particularity as nothing I have said in this thread hasn't also been said by male posters.
Do I need to preface my comments with 'some of my best friends are big hairy bikers who play rugby'?

My reaction to these 'feminist mouthpieces' is generally to snort and roll my eyes.

Wibbs

py2006 wrote: »

Article here on this delightful pair

Bloody Daily Mail, but I quote the director herself:

Another film, produced in 2017 for Australian lingerie brand Berlei, featured a diverse selection of women ripping off their uncomfortable and ill-fitting bras.

The commercial, which was made to promote a new bra range called Womankind, described breasts as being 'lumped together, forced apart, poked, pressured, pushed, oppressed, restricted, exposed' before ending with the line: 'No more. It's time to be kind.'

Speaking to Muse after the ad won a Clio – an Australian award handed out for creativity – Gehrig said the film was 'about women finally doing what is right for them and their bodies' and not accepting 'the male gaze'.

She added: 'Not just accepting what has gone before, often for the male gaze, but thinking about what is right for them now. It is about being kind to their bodies, particularly their boobs.

'Treating them with respect rather than shoving them into positions that are unnatural. It is about comfort as well as beauty. It is about women doing it their way.'
No you silly woman, it's about flogging glorified sports bras to easily swung consumers. The "male gaze" has eff all to do with it. Never mind that the fashion industry is overwhelmingly run by, promoted, reported on and consumed by women, with a sprinkling of Gay men. Yep, clearly the fault of the "cisgender straight males"...

Then again, maybe she's not so daft. It's getting her gigs after all. Even with the backlash to her latest effort, she'll be hailed as a hero to wimminhood and likely get more gigs.

Wibbs

Oh I do hear you B.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We have had men here write about truly terrible experiences with women. Well, I'm a feminist (note the small 'f') and I blame the women. They choose to act like scum. The Patriarchy didn't make them do it.

The problem comes with the above underlined. By aligning yourself with that politic do you wonder why many will immediately align you with that politic and its publicly stated credo? The fact is and it's all around us, mainstream feminism, not just the cranks, constantly pushes the oppressors/oppressed manifesto. You don't buy into that, most women and men don't but the politic you align yourself with most certainly does.

If you had asked me twenty years ago if I was a feminist B, I would have likely replied to you in the positive, if nothing else as a shorthand, but not today, not after becoming more informed of the basic ethos of this political movement and their consistent mistruths, deflection and outright lies about men and women's place in the western world. Today I consider them in the same camp as extreme right wingers, extreme left wingers and see them as gender fascists. If the cap fits...

4068ac1elhodqr

The worrying thing is the more you push (unbalanced) one extreme, it can pull folks in another counter direction (push/pull).

How long before there is a re-emergence of 'lad culture' (also not good), and Loaded/Nuts magazine back up on the shelves?

Muckka

Ivanna Ashy Sinus wrote: »

The worrying thing is the more you push (unbalanced) one extreme, it can pull folks in another counter direction (push/pull).

How long before there is a re-emergence of 'lad culture' (also not good), and Loaded/Nuts magazine back up on the shelves?

I think it's too late for that, my son's generation are already starting to call out liberals and soy lads and their ilk.

The whole " we're all one" will crumble, and humanity will just get on with it.

Men may someday be able to be lads again, third wave femminists will go underground and more than likely get some therapy, MGTOW will dissapear and it'll be business as usual.

People will no longer identify as basketball's and cat's.

South Park will make a comeback.

Men will no longer be used for their hypergamy status.

Hopefully any country which is in termoil will readjust, people will be able to get back to their country of origin and live in peace.

Islamic countries will be able to sort out their differences without any western intervention.

Western culture is in a mess, because of the Liberal agenda.

We will never have a utopian society where everyone will agree.

Bannasidhe

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh I do hear you B.



The problem comes with the above underlined. By aligning yourself with that politic do you wonder why many will immediately align you with that politic and its publicly stated credo? The fact is and it's all around us, mainstream feminism, not just the cranks, constantly pushes the oppressors/oppressed manifesto. You don't buy into that, most women and men don't but the politic you align yourself with most certainly does.

If you had asked me twenty years ago if I was a feminist B, I would have likely replied to you in the positive, if nothing else as a shorthand, but not today, not after becoming more informed of the basic ethos of this political movement and their consistent mistruths, deflection and outright lies about men and women's place in the western world. Today I consider them in the same camp as extreme right wingers, extreme left wingers and see them as gender fascists. If the cap fits...

I hear you W.
I really do.

And if you had asked me 20 years ago was I a feminist I would have said hell no. Ironically, I only began to loosely align myself when I started posting here on Boards and reading some appalling comments about women and diatribes against feminists - when I know the reality is, my profound disagreements with many feminists aside, that what was being described is not the reality on the ground.

It's like the Unmarried Father's Rights Campaign. I am of the firm opinion that the father's name on a child's birth cert should give him absolutely equal rights to the Mother. End of.
That the person who should have the primary custody of children is the best parent - who is not necessarily the mother. That father's are treated appallingly in Irish courts. That the assumption that all children are better off with their mother is simply not true. Many children would be far better off with their father as primary carer, and to say otherwise is sexist.

But I also know that some men's rights activists are, quite frankly, misogynistic to the core. Screaming that feminists are responsible for unmarried fathers not getting to see their children when the reality is that it's the outdated 1964 Guardianship of Children Act that is responsible and no feminist had hand, part, or act in that legislation. They didn't even exist back then - the women's liberation movement barely existed.

Do I now not say I believe Unmarried Father's should be treated equally to the mother because it aligns me with the dodgier aspects of the Father's Rights Campaign?

I can't do that. I support the right of unmarried father's to fully parent their children.
Just like I can't say that I don't believe that men and women should be treated equally. And that makes me a feminist (I don't know what wave as I don't bother with that crap).

There are legacy issues that need to be addressed - both for men and women. We need to be able to discuss those issues openly without extremists - on both sides - being allowed to dominate the discourse... but then that wouldn't be clickbate and generate ratings.

Mad_maxx

Charmeleon wrote: »

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.

When does any sort of fundamentalist creed create diversity of opinion?

py2006

The racist side of the ad (as some have suggested) seems to be largely ignored. Or is it racist?

There does not appear to many Asian, Hispanic bad men.

If we are all that bad, surely there should some diversity?

conorhal

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

I suspect the answer you will get from certain quarters will be, yeah, the patriarchy is still to blame for all that, men just need more feminism to sort it all out, after all that's what Blindboy from the Rubberbandits was telling everyone on his podcast.

kildare lad

conorhal wrote: »

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

Jeez thats ridiculous, you'd swear men have never allowed women to step outside the kitchen. The victimhood is real with that woman. Does she live in the real world or in her little feminist bubble. I worked in Dunnes during the recession. Most of the managers in the shop were women, the store manager was a woman, a lot of the people in head office were women, the owner of Dunnes is a woman. And if you wanna bring up the Wage Gap,i earn 4 euro less than my female co workers, for doing the same work. It has to be sexism right?? No, i just started the job and they'd been in the company longer than me. My Doctor is a woman, my mother has a very good job with the HSE. We've had women presidents ,teachers , principles, taoisech, leaders of political parties the list is endless. But if you keep telling people they're victims they'll turn into one.

Dyr

kildare lad wrote: »

Jeez thats ridiculous, you'd swear men have never allowed women to step outside the kitchen. The victimhood is real with that woman. Does she live in the real world or in her little feminist bubble..

what you have now is a fairly small group waging a culture war on society in general as society must be a patriarchy.

Women and men overwhelmingly tend to like each other, it's how the species lasted this long. But you have people like your wan who really do not like men as a group, many of her ilk despise men and they despise the fact that their own gender don't feel the same way

They are dysfunctional and nihilistic at heart and I have feeling the worm is turning when it comes to indulging their bull****

Zorya

conorhal wrote: »

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

Lordy, that's even worse than the razor's advert. How patronising.

Wibbs

conorhal wrote: »

after all that's what Blindboy from the Rubberbandits was telling everyone on his podcast.

Let's face it C he's chock full of half baked second hand exaggerations of nonsense, that seems like sense to those who don't read or see much. While Rubberbandits was funny on occasion, listening to him or his podcasts and you can feel your IQ dropping.

Blindboy, a one trick pony with a moron in the saddle©.

Zorya wrote: »

Lordy, that's even worse than the razor's advert. How patronising.

And that's the problem I have with "feminism", not folks like Bannasidhe above who are measured egalitarians, but this lying propaganda nonsense is mainstream. How anybody can claim oh it's only the nutters and extremists on Tumblr. It's not. That was paid for by Audi and was a Super Bowl ad. One of the single most expensive advertising slots in the world. You couldn't get any more mainstream than that.

4068ac1elhodqr

py2006 wrote: »

The racist side of the ad (as some have suggested) seems to be largely ignored. Or is it racist?

There does not appear to many Asian, Hispanic bad men.

If we are all that bad, surely there should some diversity?

Perhaps this advert is racist against white folks, whereby it's the black fellow that is the figure of morality instructing his white buddy.

But in the US (where this ad is mainly broadcast) his demographic is more likely to be involved in crime or anti social activity leading to actual conviction.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wibbs wrote: »

Let's face it C he's chock full of half baked second hand exaggerations of nonsense, that seems like sense to those who don't read or see much. While Rubberbandits was funny on occasion, listening to him or his podcasts and you can feel your IQ dropping.

Blindboy, a one trick pony with a moron in the saddle©.


And that's the problem I have with "feminism", not folks like Bannasidhe above who are measured egalitarians, but this lying propaganda nonsense is mainstream. How anybody can claim oh it's only the nutters and extremists on Tumblr. It's not. That was paid for by Audi and was a Super Bowl ad. One of the single most expensive advertising slots in the world. You couldn't get any more mainstream than that.

My husband couldn’t be less of a feminist and really enjoys his podcasts. I’ve listened a bit too and enjoyed what I heard. He was engaging. He’s a boards.ie or least AH bête noire. With the state of AH these days, I’d treat that as an achievement if I was him, tbh. I’d suggest people have a listen for themselves and don’t disregard him without giving him a chance just because of the boards.ie contingent that denigrates him. Oh and hubs and I are both readers.

Zorya

Wibbs wrote: »

And that's the problem I have with "feminism", not folks like Bannasidhe above who are measured egalitarians, but this lying propaganda nonsense is mainstream. How anybody can claim oh it's only the nutters and extremists on Tumblr. It's not. That was paid for by Audi and was a Super Bowl ad. One of the single most expensive advertising slots in the world. You couldn't get any more mainstream than that.

It's terribly divisive.

I know exactly when it stopped making sense to me, and at the risk of it sounding like a sob story I will tell how it happened.

I was an ardent feminist from my pre-teen years. In my childhood bedroom I had painted in huge letters across the wall the words ''I myself have never been able to find out what feminism is; I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute.'' (Rebecca West). This is the truth. I was a very feisty girl child in a house full of tough boys. They used to perpetually tease me, my Dad and brothers, about what a feminist I was.

And I am still very feisty and think of myself as absolutely the equal of anyone, man or woman, but one evening the world of what is called 'feminism' now died stone cold dead for me.

I went with a group of women friends about 20 years ago to a cinema presentation of feminist films, some arty thing. And one short film was about a down-trodden women whose husband was the archetypal boor, a vest-clad, beer swilling, misogynist for whom she had to supply the dinner and sex etc. Then one night she had an epiphany, and went with her bolshie pals to a male strip club where she found her inner ''Grrrrrrrrl'' and was being all inhibited and raunchy and ended up with the strippers g-string in her teeth. Some such empowerment drivel.

The crowd in the cinema was clapping furiously with approval.
Anyways I stood up when it was over and said to my pals, You really think that is liberation??! I was in a state of extreme confusion. It was like a betrayal. And I suppose naturally enough they told me to shut up and sit down and have a laugh. I can see their point - I must have seemed like a total drip.

But because I had felt such strong commitment to my inner idea of feminism all my life I was profoundly offended that the narrative in this film could represent any form of 'freedom' and so I turned on my heels and walked out of the cinema. And thus out of a fair few friendships. And any group identity as a ''feminist''.

I am a commited egalitarian and will fight tooth and nail if there is ever discrimination against women or men, but I clench viscerally against the present narrative.
Sorry if that is a pathetic tale. But it's what happened.

Roger Hassenforder

https://spectator.us/open-letter-gillette-godfrey-elfwick/

Godfrey Elfwick puts pen to paper

Wibbs

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’d suggest people have a listen for themselves and don’t disregard him without giving him a chance just because of the boards.ie contingent that denigrates him. Oh and hubs and I are both readers.

Maybe we read different things, of that I'd be fairly confident. Currently I'm making my way through Meditations by one Marcus Aurelius, emperor of Rome. Defo worth a read. I did think much of the early Rubberbandits stuff funny and I don't have a problem with the bag over the head stuff. It's a gimmick but many commentators down the years have them and it's an interesting enough one. I just personally find him with few quivers in his podcast bow and what arrows he looses rarely hit the bullseye. It's all a tad studenty and obvious, which I suppose, like anything, finds its own audience.

And I never said people shouldn't make up their own mind. Indeed I would encourage it. I would especially encourage listening or reading stuff that specifically someone might disagree with, the more vehemently the better. It's how you change your mind.

Dyr

Wibbs wrote: »

Currently I'm making my way through Meditations by one Marcus Aurelius, emperor of Rome. Defo worth a read.

You want young men to know the score on manliness make em read the bould Marcus instead of listening to some tool in a tesco bag

Wibbs

Bambi wrote: »

You want young men to know the score on manliness make em read the bould Marcus instead of listening to some tool in a tesco bag

Well he came from the stoic school of things. In the philosophical sense of the word. His angle on being manly is mostly about self control, avoiding rage and being civil and kind and to not muse on what it is to be a good man, just be one. Which to be fair on oul Mark the latter is a bit bloody vague. His main vibe is life is short and you can do feck all about it, but savour it and live. On women I don't recall anything, though I've a bit to go. IIRC the general Roman thing about women was again calmness and self control with "virtue" being added profusely. That was more the rich bourgeois opinion, the more military guys idea of manliness was similar enough, with self control, avoiding rage and being civil featuring up there, with much added fcuk your enemies up with smiting and a gladius up the arse with extreme prejudice.

Marcus' writings were mostly to remind himself of what he thought, rather than for a wider audience. No mass book signings with queues going around the forum. Julius Caesar's diaries seem to have been written more with an audience in mind. There were a few Roman women who wrote stuff down. Must try and read more on that. To get the "other angle". Even though they were restricted compared to today, there certainly were very clued in Roman women, women who were heavy duty movers and shakers and thinkers. One of the richest people in Pompeii(or was it Herculaneum?) was a self made woman merchant, even though business was pretty much out of bounds for women. They were a very practical bunch mind you so if it worked it worked and you have a load of Roman women who were the widely acknowledged brains of the operation behind a daft husband, father or brother.

Dyr

Wibbs wrote: »

Marcus' writings were mostly to remind himself of what he thought, rather than for a wider audience.

I've always thought that might not be entirely true but the idea of it is really impressive, He was the most powerful man on the planet and he wrote tracts to remind himself that his own behaviour must be up to standard

professore

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.

Google Mens Rights Activists and see the kind of coverage the media gives them.

professore

conorhal wrote: »

.

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.].

Nail on the head.

professore

Bannasidhe wrote: »

They are wheeled out to be controversial. Back in the day it was Germaine Greer - I don't even know who the latest ones are tbh. They state something controversial, they get the book deal, they go on the chat shows, they sell books, they look for the next thing to be controversial about. But at the end of the day they speak only for themselves.

How do they sell so many books if no one takes them seriously? If a man was promoting a book saying women are **** that wouldn't sell very well at all.

It's like what others said - if you speak to a self proclaimed feminist you know what their answer is going to be to every question. There is no willingness to debate anything or even acknowledge any nuance, or that any women could ever be bad or wrong about anything. Exactly like the priests in the old Irish Catholic Church. In fact I think the same people who are ardent feminists now would have been the ones publicly shaming "fallen" girls back then and catching any escapees and dragging them back to the laundries.

People conveniently forget it was public shaming by the women of the parish that held that whole system together. I see thst same phenomenon in this Gillette ad. In fact the most ardent supporters of any dictatorial system are women. Men play along to get pussy.

If you don't have women's support as a politician you are doomed to fail - and that includes Trump, who has a huge female following.

Captain Obvious

SNL did their own version

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pW6192cgV8g

Mad_maxx

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

My husband couldn’t be less of a feminist and really enjoys his podcasts. I’ve listened a bit too and enjoyed what I heard. He was engaging. He’s a boards.ie or least AH bête noire. With the state of AH these days, I’d treat that as an achievement if I was him, tbh. I’d suggest people have a listen for themselves and don’t disregard him without giving him a chance just because of the boards.ie contingent that denigrates him. Oh and hubs and I are both readers.

Seriously, unless what blind boy is saying is going over your husbands head, your claim that he couldn't be less of a feminist, doesn't make sense

Bannasidhe

professore wrote: »

How do they sell so many books if no one takes them seriously? If a man was promoting a book saying women are **** that wouldn't sell very well at all.

It's like what others said - if you speak to a self proclaimed feminist you know what their answer is going to be to every question. There is no willingness to debate anything or even acknowledge any nuance, or that any women could ever be bad or wrong about anything. Exactly like the priests in the old Irish Catholic Church. In fact I think the same people who are ardent feminists now would have been the ones publicly shaming "fallen" girls back then and catching any escapees and dragging them back to the laundries.

People conveniently forget it was public shaming by the women of the parish that held that whole system together. I see thst same phenomenon in this Gillette ad. In fact the most ardent supporters of any dictatorial system are women. Men play along to get pussy.

If you don't have women's support as a politician you are doomed to fail - and that includes Trump, who has a huge female following.

Controversy sells. Some people will actually buy books so they can be outraged by the contents.

I am a self proclaimed feminist.
I am here debating.
I am reading constant digs at me personally but I have not responded in kind and I am still here. Debating.
Are you saying you know exactly what I am going to write before I write it?
Or are you like many others here who claim to know what I, as a self proclaimed feminist, am going to say but are far off the mark?

Nice bit of hyperbole comparing feminism to the RCC - yeah, the BVM is now Andrea Dworkin and woe betide any who do not attend the Sunday praise the vagina services. Our all female government (token man there because of quota) are planning a referendum to have the special place feminism plays in the State inserted into the Constitution as we speak. All schools will now be run by Feminist HQ.
It's rather telling (and disrespectful to those who genuinely suffered) that you chose to use as a comparison an organisation- with full State backing- that destroyed the lives of so many women for so many decades.

As for 'Men play along to get pussy' - If I said that there would be outrage. But I would never say that as I don't believe men are dominated by their penis. I believe men have brains and use them.

Muckka

Did anyone use Gillette this morning ?

El_Duderino 09

professore wrote: »

Google Mens Rights Activists and see the kind of coverage the media gives them.

This argument is so lazy and defeatist.

The women's rights movement is a century ahead of the men's rights side. I wonder what kind of coverage the media gave women's rights groups back then. I think even the best anti feminists in this thread will admit there were genuine inequalities against women 100 years ago but that doesn't mean the media was friendly to them when they started out.

How lazy is it to think that mens rights should simply be embraced by all and sundry without putting in the legwork to change public opinion.

In before "but feminists claim they take care of all equality issues". If you don't believe they represent your concerns, then you need to represent them yourself.

In before "but they won't let us have our groups". Nobody let's you have a group. You just set it up and advocate for your own concerns like the feminists did. You swim against the tide for as long as it takes to get your concerns understood.

In before "but you wouldn't get away with saying that about women". Women's rights groups worked hard for decades to have their concerns heard. If you're not willing to put in potentially decades of thankless work, then I suppose you could just have a bit of a whinge on an Internet fofum.

(I actually think it would be much quicker than other groups. Lot of other groups have paved the way. Ethnic minorities, women, gays, disabled etc.

But like I said, you're either willing to do it the proven way, or you're not.