Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

SMC92Ian

So Supergirl the TV show was on there, and some woman in it was going mad cause she had a one night stand... "ew, I'm horrible Kara, I'm a disgusting guy, I had a one night stand, I'm awful" I'm paraphrasing but yeah the show seems to say Women are GREAT, Men are SCUM.

Pac1Man

Muckka wrote: »

Did anyone use Gillette this morning ?

Yes. I used one on my jumper as a brooch on my way to the shops.

Nearly drowned in all the pussy.

gozunda

Pac1Man wrote: »

Yes. I used one on my jumper as a brooch on my way to the shops.

Nearly drowned in all the pussy.

Is that a thing? Or are you starting a new one

Silentcorner

Tiebreak wrote: »

You do realise this is just a chat forum and people are just discussing things. It's perfectly valid to point out the blatant hypocricy of modern feminism without being an activist.

3rd wave feminism is actually radical feminism gone viral, through the Universities in the developed world, assisted by the myriad of womens rights advocacy groups and cheered on by media an industry desperately trying (and failing) to remain relevant and viable...chasing the female audience by selling them outrage.

Radical feminism, which a lot of feminists do not subscribe to by the way, is rooted in hard left ideology with a pathological hatred of male culture.

Pac1Man

gozunda wrote: »

Is that a thing? Or are you starting a new one

Just a public show of solidarity.

Je suis rasoir.

Muckka

This is a great thread, is it the man who makes the shave, or is it the shave that makit the man.

I think my Gillette/ femminist hangover is nearly over.

Reading back through the thread I realize sure it's a great way to pass away a few hours.

I don't agree with a lot of third wave femminists, but it's their opinion they probably mean well.
Who's a man to tell women how to behave and go about their lives.

It's probably a social and cultural thing which has it's positive and negative like everything else.

Their bark is worse than their bite, meaning they give out a lot but they're not going to take over or anything, some men love them some hate them.
Ironically a few of my female friends are strident femminists and we have great banter, but none of it is taken personal.
They know if they needed help or visa Versa we'd all be there for one another.

Some guy's can rip the piss out of women and they find it funny, depends on the guy and the meaning behind it
Unfortunately a loveable rogue gets away with a lot more than a jock or creep.

I watched The last of the Mohicans and remember the guy who Daniel Day Lewis plays said something about never try to understand women....
That can have a lot of different meaning.
My interpretation is don't take them seriously, as in if they come across agressively or they confuse you, it's not because they're out to get you.
It's just their language and make up.
They're women, and men need to understand that.

Men and women think differently, I could say one thing to one woman and she'd read it backwards or topsy turvy, and a woman could do something similar with me.

Communication is the key..

branie2

It's been talked about on Sky News right now.

El_Duderino 09

Tiebreak wrote: »

You do realise this is just a chat forum and people are just discussing things. It's perfectly valid to point out the blatant hypocricy of modern feminism without being an activist.

I do.

And there comes a point when you see the same posters feign surprise and outrage time and again, that you have to say it's ridiculous. Complaining and feigning outrage is more of a hobby for some people than actually causing the problems to be solved.

freshpopcorn

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I do.

And there comes a point when you see the same posters feign surprise and outrage time and again, that you have to say it's ridiculous. Complaining and feigning outrage is more of a hobby for some people than actually causing the problems to be solved.

Some people just like having a chat and discussion about things. They may not be overly bothered to change things. This is a discussion forum after all.

El_Duderino 09

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Some people just like having a chat and discussion about things. They may not be overly bothered to change things. This is a discussion forum after all.

Oh don't get me wrong. I would never accuse any of the regulars of being interested in changing things. They seem perfectly happy with the the status quo where they get to be the victim of society and the feminists. Seems to suit them fine.

py2006

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Some people just like having a chat and discussion about things. They may not be overly bothered to change things. This is a discussion forum after all.

You're wasting your time trying to explain.

freshpopcorn

Even tough I already knew it i learnt over the past few days that some people dont know what out rage is. Any criticism or disagreement with the ad your an outraged fool.

py2006

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Even tough I already knew it i learnt over the past few days that some people dont know what out rage is. Any criticism or disagreement with the ad your an outraged fool.

We'd know all about OUTRAGE if the ad was about white women, what's wrong with them and how other white women should stop them as they are responsible.

Undividual

Tell me how wrote: »

First bolded part - Of course I would prefer if someone stopped. How would you not. Someone intervening would likely "stop it" (what's with the " ") because bullies/dicks don't usually (but not always, I know) like attention being drawn to dickish behaviour.


Second bolded part - :D Seriously? What age are you?
Are you suggesting that everyone who performs in any way inappropriately is also going to react by going straight to physical violence? If so, then there definitely needs to be action taken.

"Can we cool it with the domestic abuse guys?!?"

This reminds me of my brother's girlfriend years ago mouthing off to some scumbags and nearly getting him and his friends bashed. When the lads circled my brother's friends, she started saying "Peace!" hahaha

Glad he didnt end up with that muppet.

Undividual

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Even tough I already knew it i learnt over the past few days that some people dont know what out rage is. Any criticism or disagreement with the ad your an outraged fool.

Whats the matter? Are you TRIGGERED!?!?!

:rolleyes:

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Oh, gawd, a reading pissing contest, really? Well, let’s see, my current book is ‘The Emperor Of All Maladies’, my last one was ‘In Cold Blood’. Hubs is reading ‘One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest’. His last book was ‘The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test’. Highbrow enough? Who even is the arbiter of that?

Some people like his podcast and read books that aren’t the latest trashy chick lit or ghostwritten celebrity autobiography, believe it or not. You made a daft generalisation.

And with millions of book titles on thousands of topics to chose from, being confident that we read different things isn’t exactly a difficult conclusion to reach.

Undividual

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Oh, gawd, a reading pissing contest, really? Well, let’s see, my current book is ‘The Emperor Of All Maladies’, my last one was ‘In Cold Blood’. Hubs is reading ‘One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest’. His last book was ‘The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test’. Highbrow enough? Who even is the arbiter of that?

Some people like his podcast and read books that aren’t the latest trashy chick lit or ghostwritten celebrity autobiography, believe it or not. You made a daft generalisation.

And with millions of book titles on thousands of topics to chose from, being confident that we read different things isn’t exactly a difficult conclusion to reach.

I adore to read.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Mad_maxx wrote: »

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

My husband is not a feminist. He would be tickled at the thought of that, as would I. What would you like me to say? I’m not one either actually.

He enjoys Blindboy’s podcasts and has listened to more of them than me. Any he has told me about enthusiastically haven’t been on the topic of feminism - they’ve been on a broad range of topics. All kinds of things. And he doesn’t always agree with Blindboy, he just finds the podcasts to be frequently thought-provoking. So why would you think not being a feminist and enjoying his podcasts are incompatible? Do you think that that’s all he talks about?

And you are the second poster to assume that people who like listening to his podcasts aren’t the brightest pennies. It’s odd.

El_Duderino 09

py2006 wrote: »

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Even tough I already knew it i learnt over the past few days that some people dont know what out rage is. Any criticism or disagreement with the ad your an outraged fool.

We'd know all about OUTRAGE if the ad was about white women, what's wrong with them and how other white women should stop them as they are responsible.

This is it. Other people get outraged about trivial things. The clever bucks in this thread are simply pointing out XYZ.

WE point out things, OTHERS are outraged.

Charmeleon

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

This is it. Other people get outraged about trivial things. The clever bucks in this thread are simply pointing out XYZ.

WE point out things, OTHERS are outraged.

This is the crucial difference between old fashioned ‘being annoyed by something’ and the rise of the Snowflake Generation.

Being annoyed at something: ‘well I’m going to/not going to do x any more.
Snowflake: Someone(else) should sack/shut down/ostracise/boycott/de-platform x.

Tell me how

Wibbs wrote: »

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’ve been thinking about this post in the context of the ad and the wider type of debates we see on this subject on this forum. Any time there is suggestion for women's rights or access a large part of the counter argument is similar to the above. And some (but not all) of these points are true. I disagree completely with the expendable sex thing.

So, what is it that men who agree with the above want. I suspect it falls in to 2 categories. Category 1 is made up of those that really do feel isolated and suffering and that they are being targeted and that they wish they had similar advocates as whoever is flying whatever flag for womens rights. Will come to category 2 later.

In terms of men getting supports or creating awareness around these issues I posted on this thread a while back.

Tell me how wrote: »

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 what 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.

Only one poster responded to this post, with the following.

wrote:

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

One poster responded to them but immediately turned it to a point on feminazi’s.

So, why is that it seems many people on this thread have a problem with the perception that men suffering are ignored (evidenced by the thanks to the top post above), but have much less interest in advocating to change this for themselves or for people who they care about and who are suffering (evidenced by the absence of discussions in this direction on this forum)?

I don’t buy in to the ‘media this’ or the ‘government that’ for the most part because both are heavily influenced by the public. The media need to attract clicks, and views from the public. Government is influenced by elections. If these groups are moving in a particular direction, it is largely because society is moving that way. Same goes for corporations. They are focused on the bottom line and will try to present themselves in a way which will optimise this. Most corporations do this, most of the time.

As for category 2 mentioned above. I think men who fall in to this category actually see any change which results in better situations for women automatically meaning that they will lose out. They like the status quo and while it is quickly derided in most places if they say publicly what women should be kept in their place, they try to focus the conversation on how there's men suffering and being targeted knowing that that will be somewhat more acceptable to say but ultimately they probably aren’t that bothered about such men who do suffer either.

The point of the ad was about setting a positive example. For the betterment of everyone. I agree about the hypocrisy of corporations appearing to dictate when some of their practices are problematic and that there are some far our radicals advocating for women to the detriment of men but the message of this ad should be considered as to how men can benefit from setting a positive example more than trying to focus on a perception that all men are being demonised by the ad.

Silentcorner

Tell me how wrote: »

I’ve been thinking about this post in the context of the ad and the wider type of debates we see on this subject on this forum. Any time there is suggestion for women's rights or access a large part of the counter argument is similar to the above. And some (but not all) of these points are true. I disagree completely with the expendable sex thing.

So, what is it that men who agree with the above want. I suspect it falls in to 2 categories. Category 1 is made up of those that really do feel isolated and suffering and that they are being targeted and that they wish they had similar advocates as whoever is flying whatever flag for womens rights. Will come to category 2 later.

In terms of men getting supports or creating awareness around these issues I posted on this thread a while back.

Only one poster responded to this post, with the following.

One poster responded to them but immediately turned it to a point on feminazi’s.

So, why is that it seems many people on this thread have a problem with the perception that men suffering are ignored (evidenced by the thanks to the top post above), but have much less interest in advocating to change this for themselves or for people who they care about and who are suffering (evidenced by the absence of discussions in this direction on this forum)?

I don’t buy in to the ‘media this’ or the ‘government that’ for the most part because both are heavily influenced by the public. The media need to attract clicks, and views from the public. Government is influenced by elections. If these groups are moving in a particular direction, it is largely because society is moving that way. Same goes for corporations. They are focused on the bottom line and will try to present themselves in a way which will optimise this. Most corporations do this, most of the time.

As for category 2 mentioned above. I think men who fall in to this category actually see any change which results in better situations for women automatically meaning that they will lose out. They like the status quo and while it is quickly derided in most places if they say publicly what women should be kept in their place, they try to focus the conversation on how there's men suffering and being targeted knowing that that will be somewhat more acceptable to say but ultimately they probably aren’t that bothered about such men who do suffer either.

The point of the ad was about setting a positive example. For the betterment of everyone. I agree about the hypocrisy of corporations appearing to dictate when some of their practices are problematic and that there are some far our radicals advocating for women to the detriment of men but the message of this ad should be considered as to how men can benefit from setting a positive example more than trying to focus on a perception that all men are being demonised by the ad.

Men work longer hours, commute longer distances, men do a huge amount of unpaid community work in sports clubs around the country, most of my pals are dads, they haven't get a spare hour from one week to the next...all those healthy endeavors outside of work exist primarily because of the efforts of men.

It is not because men cannot work together to achieve a goal....on the contrary...men have a different approach to problem solving...men get over obstacles...I think most men have a healthy attitude to women's rights, but what is happening these days has gone way too far...when a state imposes gender quotas on private companies it is time to sound the alarm!

You are kidding yourself if you think media will advocate for men's rights...media companies are targeting female audiences on account of the much more powerful spend women dispence each week...which makes women the most attractive audience for advertisers.

It was a car crash advert...no matter what side of the argument you find yourself on this...you don't associate your brand with a load of negatives...this ad and the Nike ad (which it has been compared to) are miles apart for that reason alone, I strongly suspect the results of the campaign will reflect the differences between the two ads.

Tell me how

Silentcorner wrote: »

Men work longer hours, commute longer distances, men do a huge amount of unpaid community work in sports clubs around the country, most of my pals are dads, they haven't get a spare hour from one week to the next...all those healthy endeavors outside of work exist primarily because of the efforts of men.

It is not because men cannot work together to achieve a goal....on the contrary...men have a different approach to problem solving...men get over obstacles...I think most men have a healthy attitude to women's rights, but what is happening these days has gone way too far...when a state imposes gender quotas on private companies it is time to sound the alarm!

You are kidding yourself if you think media will advocate for men's rights...media companies are targeting female audiences on account of the much more powerful spend women dispence each week...which makes women the most attractive audience for advertisers.

It was a car crash advert...no matter what side of the argument you find yourself on this...you don't associate your brand with a load of negatives...this ad and the Nike ad (which it has been compared to) are miles apart for that reason alone, I strongly suspect the results of the campaign will reflect the differences between the two ads.

Try getting men to advocate for mens rights in a collective manner and see what way the media moves.

Or is it just easier to complain?

Silentcorner

Tell me how wrote: »

Try getting men to advocate for mens rights in a collective manner and see what way the media moves.

Or is it just easier to complain?

Men are boycotting Gilllette collectively...which you are complaining about.

Media is in crisis mode...because of industry toxic group think...they will not turn on their female audiences...they never have...it would be suicide turning on your customers.

Tell me how

Silentcorner wrote: »

Men are boycotting Gilllette collectively...which you are complaining about.

Media is in crisis mode...because of industry toxic group think...they will not turn on their female audiences...they never have...it would be suicide turning on your customers.

No. I'm not.

lbc2019

I don’t even shave and I bought Gillette stuff today to support the effort

Undividual

Tell me how wrote: »

The point of the ad was about setting a positive example. For the betterment of everyone. I agree about the hypocrisy of corporations appearing to dictate when some of their practices are problematic and that there are some far our radicals advocating for women to the detriment of men but the message of this ad should be considered as to how men can benefit from setting a positive example more than trying to focus on a perception that all men are being demonised by the ad.

I cant even begin to get my head around how you see the world.

Is it not patronizing (ironically) to tell men to set a positive example? Does this not imply that we currently generally are not setting enough positive examples?

In terms of comparing modern men to 2 generations ago, it would be difficult to argue that the current generation aren't more engaged fathers/husbands/boyfriends than years ago, the obvious exception being absentee fathers.

The vast majority of sexual assaults are committed by a tiny minority of men often offending repeatedly over years. If collectively this is over 5% of men, I'll buy a hat and eat it.

How does this ad make me care about setting a positive example? Simply because I will be judged badly by others? I'm comfortable enough in my own world-view that an advertisement does not change my fundamental beliefs.

The real problem with this ad is that it allows people to believe that men need to improve. The idea of young men watching these ads and believing that men regularly act like apes (and presumably need to be told how to behave by some women or 'progressive' males) is infuriating to me.

Fr_Dougal

lbc2019 wrote: »

I don’t even shave and I bought Gillette stuff today to support the effort

This has to be one of the dumbest posts I have *ever* read on boards, and I’ve been here since 2008.

To help women you have bought Gilette?!

Jesus wept.

Mad_maxx

Tell me how wrote: »

Try getting men to advocate for mens rights in a collective manner and see what way the media moves.

Or is it just easier to complain?

Media is populated by left wing ideologues to a large degree, more chance of getting Saudi Arabia to elect a female monarch than the likes of rte or the Irish Times getting behind anything that smells of a male centred rights movement.

They are barely comfortable with the existence of men's sheds

Tell me how

Undividual wrote: »

I cant even begin to get my head around how you see the world.

Is it not patronizing (ironically) to tell men to set a positive example? Does this not imply that we currently generally are not setting enough positive examples?

In terms of comparing modern men to 2 generations ago, it would be difficult to argue that the current generation aren't more engaged fathers/husbands/boyfriends than years ago, the obvious exception being absentee fathers.

The vast majority of sexual assaults are committed by a tiny minority of men often offending repeatedly over years. If collectively this is over 5% of men, I'll buy a hat and eat it.

How does this ad make me care about setting a positive example? Simply because I will be judged badly by others? I'm comfortable enough in my own world-view that an advertisement does not change my fundamental beliefs.

The real problem with this ad is that it allows people to believe that men need to improve. The idea of young men watching these ads and believing that men regularly act like apes (and presumably need to be told how to behave by some women or 'progressive' males) is infuriating to me.

First bolded part - Finally something we agree on.
Second bolded part - How about if you and others set a better example, you, or people you care about may benefit from that if not immediately then over time.