Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

citytillidie

Video telling woman to be better

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X94TPrzWsI

PhiloCypher

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.

My point proven.

Irish Guitarist

You'd have to be a moron to throw away expensive blades and razor handles that you've already paid for and then tweet a picture of them in the bin to Gillette. They've already gotten your money so they don't give a shite.

What might piss them off is if you got an Aldi blade or something and got it to fit on a Gillette handle.

CrankyHaus

Is there any data on how succesful this Ad has been in selling Gillete products?
And I don't mean "we've risen to the top 30 trending brand names on Twitter" nonsense, I mean actual sales.

Muckka

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

You'd have to be a moron to throw away expensive blades and razor handles that you've already paid for and then tweet a picture of them in the bin to Gillette. They've already gotten your money so they don't give a shite.

What might piss them off is if you got an Aldi blade or something and got it to fit on a Gillette handle.

Although I have a beard, I use Gillette to shave my nuts and bolts.

And have a groomer for the beard.

But you're right there's no point in throwing away good blades.

But I'm seriously thinking of another brand.
I used to buy Gillette in bulk.
So it'll be a while before I use up this stash.

take everything

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.

As usual, what you say is the truth.

It's depressing that it is true but that's another story.

A lot of deluded folk around.
And I can see why you got pissed off with the other poster who is normally an insightful guy as well but a bit off on this one.

Anyway, lads and lassies, please don't let a razor company tell ye how to act and see this ad for what it is.

kildare lad

I ended up buying 20 disposable wilkenson razor, that were on sale for 6 quid yesterday. Havent tried them yet but gillette have lost a customer with me anyway. If any of the other razor companies had a bit of sense they should lower their prices for the next few weeks and try and get a many new customers as they can.

Fr_Dougal

Gillette are getting slated on the Amazon reviews.

Muckka

I'd be wary posting here, some one who's said she's not into running with telling tales to moderator's went running with tales to the mods .
Basically she suggested I was a dick and then went crying to the mods when I called her out on it.

Some people here have nothing better to be doing than get offended.

Supposedly I'm causing stress to others, leftism at it again trying to shut down anyone who's opinions differ... bullies

Reporting something I said two days ago, like a dog with a bone...
Couldn't let it go..

Absolute narcissm

...Ghost...

Sonics2k wrote: »

Lmao, the state of the lads getting triggered in this thread is amazing.

The ad's basic message is "Don't be a racist, sexist dickhead. Be decent to other people" and yet people are getting upset about it a commercial for razor blades.

I can see why a certain cohort would want to claim that the message is as basic as you say. However, the ad with all its inclusivity manages to target only white males in all the examples it gives of "toxic masculinity".

Did you see any razor blades in the advert? I didn't.

Tell me how

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

I think when people believe so much that the Men™/women™ thing exists, they see only what they want to see (or at least in many situations).

As I said previously, I think it must be wanting certain things to stay as they are, so suggesting men are being attacked looks righteous and will motivate the grass roots to be outraged without maybe having to say that they just don't want change (progress).

I must repeat the point that I wish men would get motivated to improve the areas where they think they suffer most just 10% as vocally as they are decrying how men need support the most but can't get it and are being effectively culled.

Mad_maxx

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.

An add which focuses on the alleged negative traits of minorities would never get off the cutting room floor

It's funny how those who speak about "toxic masculinity" exclusively ( and carefully) refer to white Caucasian males

No self respecting cultural leftist who enthusiastically welcomes this add would do anything but condemn any attempt to shine a light on bare knuckle fights as a way of solving disputes within the traveller community, for fear of looking racist or at least ethnic stereotyping

Good stereotyping v bad stereotypeing

Muckka

Mad_maxx wrote: »

An add which focuses on the alleged negative traits of minorities would never get off the cutting room floor

It's funny how those who speak about "toxic masculinity" exclusively ( and carefully) refer to white Caucasian males

No self respecting cultural leftist who enthusiastically welcomes this add would do anything but condemn any attempt to shine a light on bare knuckle fights as a way of solving disputes within the traveller community, for fear of looking racist or at least ethnic stereotyping

Good stereotyping v bad stereotypeing

They'll tell you it's a cultural thing, and at the same time they'll pee on your back and tell you it's raining.

Social justice warriors...The best society can eject...

py2006

Another helping from this Kim Gehrig character...

Director Kim Gehrig explores shifting aspects of Australian masculinity in this beautiful short film, soundtracked by Kirin J Callinan...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDu0ay24Wio

Zorya

py2006 wrote: »

Another helping from this Kim Gehrig character...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDu0ay24Wio

That woman is some merchant of bullsh!t. I cannot even articulate further on her incredibly patronising (ironically) approach to 50% of the human species. I hope she never is in the position of rearing sons.

Zorya

https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/1087394392770560001


Ye just can't get a break, lads :pac:

JMNolan

'Traditional' Masculinity is dead

What do people think when they write this stuff?

One eyed Jack

Zorya wrote: »

https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/1087394392770560001


Ye just can't get a break, lads :pac:

I’m not sure which is worse - the idea of men weaving vegetables from their privates (I imagined knitting plush toy veg with their pube hair :pac:), or the actual wearing of veg on their privates. Either way, that advert certainly fills fits the brief(s)...


I’ll make my own way out

Muckka

Zorya wrote: »

https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/1087394392770560001


Ye just can't get a break, lads :pac:

Nooooooooo turn off the machines, hit the reset button.

Venom

Zorya wrote: »

https://twitter.com/RT_com/status/1087394392770560001


Ye just can't get a break, lads :pac:

Meh, it's just PETA. The difference between them and those flat earth types is getting smaller and smaller.

freshpopcorn

JMNolan wrote: »

What do people think when they write this stuff?

I think it's lads that don't wear socks are coming up with some of this stuff. The cold ankles must be doing something to them!

Dakotabigone

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I think it's lads that don't wear socks are coming up with some of this stuff. The cold ankles must be doing something to them!

Or the lads who wear their other half’s ski pants.

lbc2019

Dakotabigone wrote: »

Or the lads who wear their other half’s ski pants.

feels like I'm wearing nothing at all...

Wibbs

JMNolan wrote: »

What do people think when they write this stuff?

The word "think" is the important word J. I'm not sure they do. I mean on the one hand "traditional masculinity" is dead - whatever "traditional masculinity" is. That's seems confusing and usually at cross purposes, on the other hand there's never been more "toxic masculinity" - which seems to mainly consist of being not like some ideal of Women™. I'd wish these social media screeching harpies would make their bloody mind up. Then again they're usually the cliche of those types who are never bloody happy, always on a whinge, always looking for the next drama fix. Every soul reading this, man or woman, knows the type and they're more often women than men.

Never mind that in the western world in general the majority of school teachers are women and last time I looked average families(trigger warning) consist of a mother and father so boys are 50% raised by women in the home(single parent families are mostly women which notches that percentage up) and majority schooled by women, so who exactly has been fostering this "toxic masculinity"? The tooth fairy? Then you have the thundering morons that suggest what men need is more feminism?

And some wonder why a subset of men, particularly younger men are seeking out the PUA/Red pill stuff? Or that suicide rates are high and climbing in some male demographics? Seems to me what is lacking and what society actually needs more of is masculinity.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

I mean on the one hand "traditional masculinity" is dead - whatever "traditional masculinity" is. That's seems confusing and usually at cross purposes, on the other hand there's never been more "toxic masculinity" - which seems to mainly consist of being not like some ideal of Women™.
Then you have the thundering morons that suggest what men need is more feminism?

And some wonder why a subset of men, particularly younger men are seeking out the PUA/Red pill stuff? Or that suicide rates are high and climbing in some male demographics? Seems to me what is lacking and what society actually needs more of is masculinity.

LOL. And I'm ridiculed for saying men need more organisation to shape the world the way they want it.

I know you've no idea what masculinity. In other threads I've chased posters for days looking for their definition of masculinity, Yourself inclyded abs the honest ones admitted eventually that they can't actually define masculinity. The less honest ones pretend it's so simple that it doesn't need defining.

The feminists have control of the narrative right now because they organised and put in the legwork

Zorya

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

The feminists have control of the narrative right now because they organised and put in the legwork

Yo, I'm gonna go all conspiracy on your ass briefly.
It might look like the feminists have control of the narrative now but that's just because anyone spouting identity politics of any ilk is a useful lowly apparatchik to the ones actually driving the narrative, useful for the moment as mere cogs in the game of division and ultimately dissolution that will have all units sucking on the state / globalist teat, asking them to form committees to tell us our human rights and define what it means to be human. Soon as those apparatchiks are not necessary the next supposedly grass roots movement will be co opted. First just for reasons of filthy dirty lucre. Control. Power. Ultimately for the dissolution of the essence of what it is to be a human being. All under the cover of freedom.

But don't mind me. Crazy old lady alert. :pac:

Baggly

Wibbs wrote: »

The word "think" is the important word J. I'm not sure they do. I mean on the one hand "traditional masculinity" is dead - whatever "traditional masculinity" is. That's seems confusing and usually at cross purposes, on the other hand there's never been more "toxic masculinity" - which seems to mainly consist of being not like some ideal of Women™. I'd wish these social media screeching harpies would make their bloody mind up. Then again they're usually the cliche of those types who are never bloody happy, always on a whinge, always looking for the next drama fix. Every soul reading this, man or woman, knows the type and they're more often women than men.

Never mind that in the western world in general the majority of school teachers are women and last time I looked average families(trigger warning) consist of a mother and father so boys are 50% raised by women in the home(single parent families are mostly women which notches that percentage up) and majority schooled by women, so who exactly has been fostering this "toxic masculinity"? The tooth fairy? Then you have the thundering morons that suggest what men need is more feminism?

And some wonder why a subset of men, particularly younger men are seeking out the PUA/Red pill stuff? Or that suicide rates are high and climbing in some male demographics? Seems to me what is lacking and what society actually needs more of is masculinity.

Whether you have intended to or not, you have attributed suicide rates with the idea that toxic masculinity is being talked about, as well as a lack of 'masculinity'.

If that is indeed what you are saying, are you honest to god sure about that Wibbs?

animaal

It's only an ad, I'm not bitter about it. It's a fairly badly-made and patronising ad, and it leaves me cold, but it's the product group-think and it's not aimed at me personally. I figure I'm just not the target market for their goods and I won't be buying them.

It comes down to the old adage that good advertising is about selling a dream or a myth as much as selling a product. I can see when the "dream" isn't one to which I aspire. Remember those "Guy without a shirt" Diet Coke ads some years ago? I have no objection to good-looking lads taking their shirts off, but it does nothing for me. I don't feel like I'm the target market. I could be mistaken, but I don't think I'm alone. I don't see many men buying Diet Coke, despite men generally being relatively health conscious these days. In the same way, I wouldn't be surprised if Gillette's core market (men) shifts away.

Advertising does work and I'm not so misguided as to claim I'm less influenced than the average Joe. But that's subconscious influence. When I have a conscious reaction to advertising, it's always *away* from the product being advertised. It's not personal, it's just the flip side of how advertising works. I suppose we'll see.

Red Lightning

Great to see awareness raised for how poor women are treated and how toxic masculinity negatively affects men. It does seem disingenuous cos it's an advert but I'm definitely for the message they are putting out.

Wibbs

Masculinity:

Emotional strength and consistency.

Protector of the weak. Both Physical and mental strength involved, with an element of expendability going on.

Provider of the above.

Internal struggle to improve oneself. There's a reason why the "hero's journey" in narratives is almost exclusively male throughout history and when it's dropped onto a female character it tends to work less well. Women have a slightly different "hero's journey" throughout history. Usually built around her being the fully formed heroine that is held back by others, until things change, often externally that let her shine. It's not "sexism back then either", we see it today. The Disney Princess is a perfect example of the "heroine's journey". IMO where outraged eejits on the net got it wrong over the latest Star Wars heroine was not that she's a "Mary Sue", but that she's a Disney Princess. Awesome out of the box, but the universe has to catch up in realising this.

"Oh women are the same and have all those traits!!". OK, next time you hear noises downstairs in the middle of the night, send your girlfriend down to investigate. See how that's received. As I noted show me just one example where hostage negotiators have ever asked for the "men and children" to be released. That would be never. Same deal with the into the lifeboats scenario. Ditto for the example of the Boko Haram story. Women are and always have been the more "valued" a gender. For extremely logical reasons. If in a group all but a few of the women are lost, that group is facing extinction, whereas in the reverse it's not. That's rarely a positive or negative overall, but it's a consistent fact of history.

As far as differences go men are adapted for fighting and physical struggle more than women. Higher body strength, particularly upper body, more resistant to injury and have faster recovery rates after injury too. Women are physically weaker, more sensitive to the emotions of others and are more likely to have negative emotional responses to negative stress. The personality trait that women score highest in is neuroticism, along with conscientiousness. In men openness to novel ideas and assertiveness were the standouts.

While different traits are shared to one degree or other, it’s where certain traits are focussed is what makes for the differences. Men and women are different. Now of course there’s a sliding scale, but given literally millions of years of different selection pressures on the genders it would be beyond incredible if men and women reacted and experienced the world the same way. And those selection pressures were strong if the differences between us and our closest cousins among the great apes goes. In reproductive strategies and differences alone the gulf is wide.

These differences remain remain constant across cultures and time, but interestingly the masculine/feminine differences are more expressed the more egalitarian a society becomes. One hypothesis is that in prehistory and for hundreds of thousands of years societies were generally more egalitarian and viewed the input of women and men equally(though with more defined roles) and as some societies move towards the more egalitarian these natural differences are more expressed. As I noted earlier in this thread the societies with the highest percentage of women in CEO positions and even STEM studies(EG in the Middle Eastern countries there are more women than men in computer sciences) are not the "right on" Scandinavian style setups, but the more traditional cultures, with more clearly defined ideas of masculinity and femininity.