Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

Tell me how

Mad_maxx wrote: »

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

First bolded part - Would Rupert Murdoch and Denis O'Brien be considered as left wing ideologues? Between them, they likely control a lot of the media which we consume in Ireland.

Second bolded part - Try it and see what happens. And if there is pushback. Flag it.

Wibbs

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Oh, gawd, a reading pissing contest, really?

OK...

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?

*bladder voided*

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.

Well this just went a tad meta. If trout were so eager to chase down lures, my creel would be fuller than it usually is.

Tell me how

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

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.

Where did you get the "to help women" from their post?

Would it relate back to your misconceptions about the ad?

Silentcorner

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.

... and white men specifically!

nullzero

Silentcorner wrote: »

... and white men specifically!

Black guys always have to keep those feral white men in check around women.

Undividual

Tell me how wrote: »

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.

How do you know I am not already setting a good example?
Isnt there an expression about assuming?

Or do I just need to be perfect? Personally, I think busy-bodies who try to dictate other peoples' behavior should set better examples, preferably through silence.

Tell me how

Undividual wrote: »

How do you know I am not already setting a good example?
Isnt there an expression about assuming?

Or do I just need to be perfect? Personally, I think busy-bodies who try to dictate other peoples' behavior should set better examples, preferably through silence.

You must really have a long list of advertisements you are going to be posting about so.


Also, if you are setting a good example, why do you care if the ad is suggesting others do the same?

Wibbs

Tell me how wrote: »

First bolded part - Would Rupert Murdoch and Denis O'Brien be considered as left wing ideologues? Between them, they likely control a lot of the media which we consume in Ireland.

Indeed. And I would agree T. Thing is all such people care about is the greasy till. They're 24Kt businessmen. If fascism/communism/whateverism sold they'd sell it. They give two jots about the current politic, so long as it makes bank. Their personal politics are almost moot. Unlike past figures like Hearst, current media moguls have learned to avoid getting high on their own supply. Makes sound business sense and they're very clever individuals.

And what sells in the west currently? Polarisation. "Outrage". Clickbait. There is deep vein to be mined from the outrageous and the outraged on both sides. The You GO Girl! sector is a solid market and a massive one. Like I noted earlier the largest transfer of wealth in US history has been from men to women in the last 40 years. They account for the majority of the household purchases and I would bet the remaining household purchases are heavily influenced by them. Plus there is already a century of advertising and marketing nous aimed at, honed and frankly exploitative of women over that time. And before some guy comes back with men are just as body shamed. wah wah. No, no they're not. Not even close.

Women™ look like the perfect customer. As I also noted earlier as an example many of the loudest "feminist" mouthpieces in media, online and off today, are happy to regard themselves as fashionistas. An irony that would be delicious, if it weren't so bloody shabby and damaging to women. "Equal" and "feminist" women of today have never been more aware of the invented shortcomings and the invented solutions to same. Women of today have never been so bombarded with bullshit about how to look and feel and what to think and never have bought so many of the "solutions" offered. So guff like this Gilette ad and the Audi ad are just singing to the already primed choir. The former just got a bit too obvious and backfired. The Audi ad was almost entirely comprised of utter bullshit, aired on the most expensive and one of the most viewed slots on world TV and where was the outrage?

All this talk about "toxic masculinity"? Think about it this way, the West today is about the least "toxic masculine" it has ever been and is far more "feminine", yet there's a push for even less?

In many ways and if you step back a bit, much of this mainstream advertised media "feminism" is worse for women than men.

Undividual

Tell me how wrote: »

You must really have a long list of advertisements you are going to be posting about so.


Also, if you are setting a good example, why do you care if the ad is suggesting others do the same?

Forgive me for caring about an ad which I think will do more damage than good, likely affecting how women see men and how men see each other.

I care whether this ad tars men with the same brush. Look at the scene where the men are standing behind the barbecues. It implies that men in general hold outdated views.

Tell me how

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed. And I would agree T. Thing is all such people care about is the greasy till. They're 24Kt businessmen. If fascism/communism/whateverism sold they'd sell it. They give two jots about the current politic, so long as it makes bank. Their personal politics are almost moot. Unlike past figures like Hearst, current media moguls have learned to avoid getting high on their own supply. Makes sound business sense and they're very clever individuals.

And what sells in the west currently? Polarisation. "Outrage". Clickbait. There is deep vein to be mined from the outrageous and the outraged on both sides. The You GO Girl! sector is a solid market and a massive one. Like I noted earlier the largest transfer of wealth in US history has been from men to women in the last 40 years. They account for the majority of the household purchases and I would bet the remaining household purchases are heavily influenced by them. Plus there is already a century of advertising and marketing nous aimed at, honed and frankly exploitative of women over that time. And before some guy comes back with men are just as body shamed. wah wah. No, no they're not. Not even close.

Women™ look like the perfect customer. As I also noted earlier as an example many of the loudest "feminist" mouthpieces in media, online and off today, are happy to regard themselves as fashionistas. An irony that would be delicious, if it weren't so bloody shabby and damaging to women. "Equal" and "feminist" women of today have never been more aware of the invented shortcomings and the invented solutions to same. Women of today have never been so bombarded with bullshit about how to look and feel and what to think and never have bought so many of the "solutions" offered. So guff like this Gilette ad and the Audi ad are just singing to the already primed choir. The former just got a bit too obvious and backfired. The Audi ad was almost entirely comprised of utter bullshit, aired on the most expensive and one of the most viewed slots on world TV and where was the outrage?

All this talk about "toxic masculinity"? Think about it this way, the West today is about the least "toxic masculine" it has ever been and is far more "feminine", yet there's a push for even less?

In many ways and if you step back a bit, much of this mainstream advertised media "feminism" is worse for women than men.

I don't disagree with all of this per say.

I do disagree that this ad was motivated by advancing a feminine cause. It utilised feminine causes which have been in the media but it, as I see communicated what should be seen as a positive message.

Wibbs

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.

It wasn't an argument, I was stating facts and ones that can be backed up one by one.

And some (but not all) of these points are true.

The vast majority are and again I can go through each point in that advert and at worst question them and at best and in the majority refute them.

I disagree completely with the expendable sex thing.

You may diaagree all you want T, but the facts will also disagree with you. In the west, in Ireland today, which gender has fewer societal supports, more addiction, more individual poverty, more unemployment, less education, less pay before kids, more options to be "traditional" or "modern", longer prison sentences, less equality in family law, more deaths, earlier deaths, more assaults(outside sexual as adults), more deaths and injuries at work, more suicides? It's not women. About the only stat women beat men out in is sexual assault.

Consider the Boko Haram story a few years back. When girls were kidnapped and taken away, the west lost its shit over it. All the usual political baby and arse kissers were shouting bring our girls back. The back story is another thing. The same group had attacked the same village previously. They had rounded up the men and the ones they hadn't shot or machete'd they stuck in a house and burnt them to death. They pretty much let the women, girls and kids under ten go. As devout Muslims in war that's what you do. Nothing happened. The next time, they did the same to the men they found, but took the women. Ohhhh boy, that got the west's attention. When it was reported about the killing of the men, "men" was usually replaced with "people". That's all too common. When you read or hear of "innocent civilians" killed in war, it refers to women and kids and the old. Men, especially "fighting aged" men dying in war is well, what happens. The Clinton speech where she said women are the real victims of war is akin to claiming black is white, a complete verifiable nonsense. Like my example of the hijack negotiation, they have never asked to release the men and children first, have they? And you still can believe men™ are the less expendable sex?

I haven't read through the entire thread but my opinion is that is a very badly judged. advert which paints men (especially white men) in a bad light. If this advert portrayed any other ethnicity or gender in such a bad light it would rightfully be scrutinized and ridiculed. I'm not offended, I just see it as absurd. When I find myself agreeing with piers Morgan, I worry a little for society

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

I haven't read through the entire thread but my opinion is that is a very badly judged. advert which paints men (especially white men) in a bad light. If this advert portrayed any other ethnicity or gender in such a bad light it would rightfully be scrutinized and ridiculed. I'm not offended, I just see it as absurd. When I find myself agreeing with piers Morgan, I worry a little for society

Don't feel too bad...Carol Volderman agreed with him too!!

Tell me how

Wibbs wrote: »

It wasn't an argument, I was stating facts and ones that can be backed up one by one. The vast majority are and again I can go through each point in that advert and at worst question them and at best and in the majority refute them. You may agree all you want T, but the facts will disagree with you. In the west, in Ireland today, which gender has fewer societal supports, more addiction, more individual poverty, more unemployment, less education, less pay before kids, more options to be "traditional" or "modern", longer prison sentences, less equality in family law, more deaths, earlier deaths, more assaults(outside sexual as adults), more deaths and injuries at work, more suicides? It's not women. About the only stat women beat men out in is sexual assault.

Consider the Boko Haram story a few years back. When girls were kidnapped and taken away, the west lost its shit over it. All the usual political baby and arse kissers were shouting bring our girls back. The back story is another thing. The same group had attacked the same village previously. They had rounded up the men and the ones they hadn't shot or machete'd they stuck in a house and burnt them to death. They pretty much let the women, girls and kids under ten go. As devout Muslims in war that's what you do. Nothing happened. The next time, they did the same to the men they found, but took the women. Ohhhh boy, that got the west's attention. When it was reported about the killing of the men, "men" was usually replaced with "people". That's all too common. When you read or hear of "innocent civilians" killed in war, it refers to women and kids and the old. Men, especially "fighting aged" men dying in war is well, what happens. The Clinton speech where she said women are the real victims of war is akin to claiming black is white, a complete verifiable nonsense. Like my example of the hijack negotiation, they have never asked to release the men and children first, have they? And you still can believe men™ are the less expendable sex?

Surprised I have to point this out. I'm not suggesting men don't suffer or that they don't suffer more than women in many ways.

I'm suggesting that this ad had a central positive message which everyone in society would benefit from if it was considered but there is more interest in just getting outraged. I don't see the value in that.

Undividual

Tell me how wrote: »

I don't disagree with all of this per say.

I do disagree that this ad was motivated by advancing a feminine cause. It utilised feminine causes which have been in the media but it, as I see communicated what should be seen as a positive message.

You keep saying that its a positive message.

Sounds like my boss telling me that I should see the items I need to work on as 'opportunities to improve'.

It's one thing having my boss tell me to improve, its quite another when an advertising team think they know my faults and those of all the men I know.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wibbs wrote: »

OK...

*bladder voided*

Well this just went a tad meta. If trout were so eager to chase down lures, my creel would be fuller than it usually is.

Okay, indeed.

You made the generalisation that people who enjoy Blindboy’s podcasts must not be readers. Another poster (me) countering that prompted you to post what you were currently reading (whilst apparently knowing what I do and don’t read. There’s not one poster on this forum that I would make a comment like that about because I don’t know any poster well enough to make that judgement. How could I? Or how could you?). What was the purpose of you telling me the title of the book you are currently reading? Could you elaborate? What was the relevance?

The above-quoted post of yours didn’t help much.

Wibbs

Tell me how wrote: »

I do disagree that this ad was motivated by advancing a feminine cause. It utilised feminine causes which have been in the media but it, as I see communicated what should be seen as a positive message.

No T, it was motivated by advancing exposure and interest in and to further sales of Gillette products. End of. Using what some marketing execs(almost certainly blokes at the top level) with the usual hubris of the breed see as the current zeitgeist that can be exploited. And in this case it went tits up. In one way, but in another... Yeah you'll have lads and lasses boycotting the products, but how long will that last, how many will change habits in the first place and if they do "keep the faith" they'll buy another Procter and Gamble product in its place. Even if they go to another conglomerate that hasn't yet gone "a bit retard" for their razors bugger all will actually change. And Gillette will still have the biggest exposure for shaving products ever.

And yet in another room...

Silentcorner

Tell me how wrote: »

Surprised I have to point this out. I'm not suggesting men don't suffer or that they don't suffer more than women in many ways.

I'm suggesting that this ad had a central positive message which everyone in society would benefit from if it was considered but there is more interest in just getting outraged. I don't see the value in that.

You sound like that "if you have a problem with the ad you are part of the problem" brigade.

The message was not a positive one, Nikes Ad was a positive (and controversial) advert, this listed off a bunch of male behaviours it bundled together as toxic masculinity.

You do know, just because media ram a narrative down your throat doesn't mean you have to unflinchingly swallow it. (ie The Gender Pay Gap)

Boys messing about is not toxic behaviour.
Boys asking out girls is not toxic behaviour.

Mansplaining is a passive aggressive term used by a half wit out of her depth.

lbc2019

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

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.

Ye. Cos the post was 100% serious on this bs thread.

Undividual

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd buy that for a dollar!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

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.

I read that other post as a joke myself.

lbc2019

Undividual wrote: »

I'd buy that for a dollar!

$5

lbc2019

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I read that other post as a joke myself.

He gets it.

Wibbs

Undividual wrote: »

I'd buy that for a dollar!

Save for her face that pretty clearly says "WTF am I doing here, holding up an effin razor. Meh the money's welcome, keep smiling".

Tell me how

Wibbs wrote: »

No T, it was motivated by advancing exposure and interest in and to further sales of Gillette products. End of. Using what some marketing execs(almost certainly blokes at the top level) with the usual hubris of the breed see as the current zeitgeist that can be exploited. And in this case it went tits up. In one way, but in another... Yeah you'll have lads and lasses boycotting the products, but how long will that last, how many will change habits in the first place and if they do "keep the faith" they'll buy another Procter and Gamble product in its place. Even if they go to another conglomerate that hasn't yet gone "a bit retard" for their razors bugger all will actually change. And Gillette will still have the biggest exposure for shaving products ever.

Well, yes. I know. That is what ads do. All corporations do this and I have already said about the hipocracy in Gillette, no need to post the girls again to illustrate this but I do thank you for it.

What motivated an ad and what was the central message are still too separate things though.

Motivation = Brand image/social media trend/subconcious recognition/purchase decision
Message = Acting positively to intervene where appropriate sets a good example

Wibbs

Silentcorner wrote: »

You sound like that "if you have a problem with the ad you are part of the problem" brigade.

To be fair to T, I'm not so sure. T is open to back and forth and open to considering opposing viewpoints. T's certainly not within an asses roar of the early in the game poster that suggested - to a level of WTF I'd not honestly often associate with them - that if you had a problem with the ad you were likely associated with and one step removed from a man who kidnaps and rapes teenage girls.

Undividual

Tell me how wrote: »

Well, yes. I know. That is what ads do. All corporations do this and I have already said about the hipocracy in Gillette, no need to post the girls again to illustrate this but I do thank you for it.

:pac:

More.... MORE!!!!

I NEED TO SEE HOT WOMEN NOW!!!

MAN-SMASH!!! MAN-****!!!

... Don't make me horny, you wouldn't like me when I'm horny.

Wibbs

Tell me how wrote: »

Motivation = Brand image/social media trend/subconcious recognition/purchase decision
Message = Acting positively to intervene where appropriate sets a good example

More like: Message = men™, you've a problem. Men™, you should be personally responsible for not just your own behaviour, but the behaviour of other men™ and the protection of women™, who are apparently weak, permanent victims and voiceless. The joke is, rather than being "feminist" this narrative is far more "victorian" in basic tenets.

PhiloCypher

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I haven't read through the entire thread but my opinion is that is a very badly judged. advert which paints men (especially white men) in a bad light. If this advert portrayed any other ethnicity or gender in such a bad light it would rightfully be scrutinized and ridiculed. I'm not offended, I just see it as absurd. When I find myself agreeing with piers Morgan, I worry a little for society

If that was the case the 'make boards great' crowd would insist it was 'PC' gone mad, that if you weren't the type of person they were targeting with the Ad, why are you getting offended. People(libs) getting offended on other people's behalf is one of their pet hates. It's what makes this whole Gillette thing so hilarious, when minorities are targeted in ads ,we're told they should grow a thicker skin. But when an ad targets white men these same same people prove they have even thinner skin then Trump.

Silentcorner

PhiloCypher wrote: »

If that was the case the 'make boards great' crowd would insist it was 'PC' gone mad, that if you weren't the type of person they were targeting with the Ad, why are you getting offended. People(libs) getting offended on other people's behalf is one of their pet hates. It's what makes this whole Gillette thing so hilarious, when minorities are targeted in ads ,we're told they should grow a thicker skin. But when an ad targets white men these same same people prove they have even thinner skin then Trump.

Would you mind showing me one ad, that takes the toxic elements of a race or minority people and presents them to a population of people in an ad.

That isn't from 1930s Germany that is!