Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

Red Lightning

Zorya wrote:

This is not a comprehensive list. Look at the male dominated jobs. They require physical strength, endurance, they are often dangerous. Yes, they are MANY jobs.

I'm not debating that it's a reality. I'm just saying that it doesn't have to be like that. Women are well able to work in those fields and guys don't have to. There's very little jobs that require brute strength nowadays. Due to manual handling, people are told to not be doing things that may cause injury (Ie lifting really heavy objects)

branie2

I've always viewed the Gillette ads as examples of male bonding

tritium

Red Lightning wrote: »

VERY little of that has nothing to do with women though. Whereas a lot of women's problems is due to men whether it be physical assault, sexual assault, mysoginy, pay gaps etc. If you realise how careful woman have to be on a day to day basis then you'll realise it's definitely a man's world.
Most of the issues you raised are very real but also a lot is our own doing.
Less educated? Maybe try harder in school. More likely to kill themselves? Ladish behaviour of burying our feelings. 'Oh we can't show weakness'.
More likely to be unemployed?
Cant see how that is a gender issue.
More likely to be injured or killed? Be more careful or don't go for such dangerous sports or jobs.
More likely to be addicts? More likely to be homeless? Again how is that a gender issue.
Less social supports? More likely to die young. That's our own fault again of not being open with one another and seeking the help that is definitely there.

Of course my explanations there are very simple but ya get my point because as men we have to take responsibility for our actions that contribute to these issues.

Im a male and I've lots of female friends and the stories they have told me are horror stories in relation to men etc. I've also lots of guy friends and have never heard one story that matches the majority of the girls I know and we would be open with one another.

Now a massive problem is the toxic masculinity where us guys feel we can't cry, can't show weakness, have to hide our sensitive sides etc which is why I feel this message is appropriate. Now Gillette using it as an advert is a bit odd tbh but I certainly don't see any major issue with it or any reason for it to cause such an uproar.

Woah woah. How come we reduce this to men’s problems- all their own fault, women’s problems- all down to men/ society/ the patriarchy. Frankly that simply doesn’t stack up against the evidence. Let’s take some examples:

Education: research has indicated that the educational model actively promotes female learning approaches ahead of male approaches. In addition studies have shown that how (predominantly female) teachers consider male and female students differ, and that this difference impacts on educational outcomes.

Unemployment: it’s well established that the industries hit hardest in downturns (for example construction and trades) are also heavily dominated by males. This directly correlates to the education point btw, with a significant disadvantage in terms of numbers of males in many professional degree courses. In addition they are also still more likely to be the principal breadwinner and hence may have less employment flexibility

Pay gaps: women under the age of 35 actually outearn men by 17%. The pay gap only reverses when we look at later career progress, in itself linked directly to family choices. That by the way is directly reflective of the greater freedom women have in society to make those choices.

More likely to be killed or injured: be more careful? Jesus wept! Men currently dominate high risk jobs and there’s not exactly a rush to change that. Easy to say men should just stop doing the jobs, not so easy when there’s no fireman around to pull you out of a burning building. Hint; the appropriate response is to say thank you to the men who engage in those jobs that make your life easier and safer.

Men are also statistically more disposed to risky behaviour across the board. Knowing that why wouldn’t we target that to reduce deaths in the same way as we target gender specific points for women?

Homelessness and addiction.: how’s that a gender issue? Jesus where to start? We already touched on education. We also have the difference in available supports, for example supports for male victims of abuse are essentially slim to nothing. If they leave a home they’re likely on the streets. They’re also bottom of the pile for housing etc. that’s before we look at the evidence of how the justice system treats males versus females and the difference in access to rehabilitative options in prison etc. compare Dochas to Mountjoy men’s prison and tell me it’s a level pitch.

You say you’ve lots of male friends who’ve never had the issues women face. I’d suggest you need to either broaden your pool or ask properly. Coercive control is a huge issue in teenage relationships by girlfriends for example. Statistically domestic violence is a huge issue for men as victims: that’s the statistical evidence by the way, not opinion.

Frankly your view is just blinkered into a men bad women good world view. If anything is toxic it’s that mindset.

Muckka

Zorya wrote: »

I wrote a long reply to your full comment but it won't post, so I am accepting the omens

But for this one point - BECAUSE WE AINT STRONG ENOUGH - and I can put on my big girl pants and admit that cheerfully!

There's honesty in a nutshell.

Some times fact's can be offensive, but when it's a fact it's a fact.

Red Lightning

tritium wrote:

Frankly your view is just blinkered into a men bad women good world view. If anything is toxic it’s that mindset.

I didn't mean for it come across like that. I know men have a lot of struggles and I said numerous times my post was very simplistic to just cover some of the men. I'm not saying that it's all men's fault for our issues. I just mean it that some can change their fortunes with a change of mindset which the Gillette ad is trying to do.

Wibbs

Pter wrote: »

I know the procedure is to report the post but you would want to cop yourself on attacking the poster like that. You are better than that Wibbs.

Pter, the poster in plain black and white "victim blamed" an entire gender, then went onto state, again in plain black and white as a Special needs assistant that the boys who were failing were just "lazy" or "disinterested". I didn't attack him, I did attack a frankly worrying attitude he seems to hold, especially worrying in the role he's in and how the education gap is widening. And he continues to do the blame thing. Killed at work? Blame the individual man. Addiction and all the other examples given? Ditto. If that isn't victim blaming P, I truly dunno what is. Put it this way, if I victim blamed an entire demographic in a similar way the report post function would light up. Rightfully.

Zorya

Red Lightning wrote: »

I'm not debating that it's a reality. I'm just saying that it doesn't have to be like that. Women are well able to work in those fields and guys don't have to. There's very little jobs that require brute strength nowadays. Due to manual handling, people are told to not be doing things that may cause injury (Ie lifting really heavy objects)

Okay I give up. I'm signing up for this completely egalitarian Utopia and making an application for a North Sea Oil rig asap. I believe it's the safety hats that give one superhuman lifting power.

Me, sometime soon....

Red Lightning

Wibbs wrote:

Pter, the poster in plain black and white "victim blamed" an entire gender, then went onto state, again in plain black and white as a Special needs assistant that the boys who were failing were just "lazy" or "disinterested". I didn't attack him, I did attack a frankly worrying attitude he seems to hold, especially worrying in the role he's in and how the education gap is widening. And he continues to do the blame thing. Killed at work? Blame the individual man. Addiction and all the other examples given? Ditto. If that isn't victim blaming P, I truly dunno what is. Put it this way, if I victim blamed an entire demographic in a similar way the report post function would light up. Rightfully.

You are a sad individual. Trying to make me out to be a man hating, monster who treats the children that I work closely with like ****. Attack my livelihood like that. Hope it makes ya feel important.

tuxy

What do people think about greater equality leading to less women working in male dominated fields?

https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/

tritium

Red Lightning wrote: »

I didn't mean for it come across like that. I know men have a lot of struggles and I said numerous times my post was very simplistic to just cover some of the men. I'm not saying that it's all men's fault for our issues. I just mean it that some can change their fortunes with a change of mindset which the Gillette ad is trying to do.

Really, how do you change your mindset when you’re a male domestic abuse victim and less than 1.5% of funding for domestic violence support goes to services that will actually help you?

When you’re homeless but you’re bottom of the list to receive supports because of your gender?

When you’re actively told that you get ahead because of your gender but actually the evidence you see of support networks, salary if you’re under 35, options to fit work around you kids if your a father, all seem to disagree with that?

I mean technically, battered women for example can just “change their mindset”(tm) and leave - there’s actually support available. Even from a homelessness perspective, supports mean they’re less likely than men to be homeless (and far less to be homeless on the streets). Heck I could (badly and naively) apply that advice to pretty much any issue women face. But I doubt you’d be telling women they should just change their mindset to fix the problems they face, so where the hell do you get off telling it to men?

Wibbs

Red Lightning wrote: »

You are a sad individual. Trying to make me out to be a man hating, monster who treats the children that I work closely with like ****. Attack my livelihood like that. Hope it makes ya feel important.

Not once have I called you a "man hating, monster who treats the children that I work closely with like ****". Nor have I "attacked your livelihood". That's a massive over exaggeration. But please point out where I did, "sad individual" that I am.

I did point out how your multiple posts in your own words come across strongly of victim blaming. If there was any confusion on that, or how that came across I apologise, but I won't change my opinion of the victim blaming in your posts.

Red Lightning

Tritium I said 'some' none of the ones you mentioned I was aiming it at. For example, someone unemployed. There is jobs out there and if you're willing to work hard then you can get a job. That's the type of stuff I meant. When I said what I said, it was due to guys having problems that they can work on where women have to deal with problems relating to guys.

Red Lightning

Wibbs wrote:

Not once have I called you a "man hating, monster who treats the children that I work closely with like ****". Nor have I "attacked your livelihood". That's a massive over exaggeration. But please point out where I did. I did point out how your multiple posts in your own words come across strongly of victim blaming. If there was any confusion on that, or how that came across I apologise, but I won't change my opinion of the victim blaming in your posts

I said that it was some men. For example if a man breaks his leg on a construction site doing something he shouldn't be doing. Is that victim blaming. You're taking me up all wrong.

Baggly

Wibbs wrote: »

Pter, the poster in plain black and white "victim blamed" an entire gender, then went onto state, again in plain black and white as a Special needs assistant that the boys who were failing were just "lazy" or "disinterested". I didn't attack him, I did attack a frankly worrying attitude he seems to hold, especially worrying in the role he's in and how the education gap is widening. And he continues to do the blame thing. Killed at work? Blame the individual man. Addiction and all the other examples given? Ditto. If that isn't victim blaming P, I truly dunno what is. Put it this way, if I victim blamed an entire demographic in a similar way the report post function would light up. Rightfully.

The poster has clarified their comments and you have continued to pile on with the hyperbole. You cant say you attacked the post and then make the leap to criticising their suitability for their job, which is a personal attack.

You just cant. No-one asked you to make that jump and qualify if you think he is suitable for his role, even if he did bring up his experience in that role as evidence for his views (which you have either misunderstood or misrepresented).

Baggly

Threads a mess. I came in to talk about the ad and the wider interpretation of it, but that doesn't seem to be in the offing. Good luck to ye.

Wibbs

Red Lightning wrote: »

I said that it was some men. For example if a man breaks his leg on a construction site doing something he shouldn't be doing. Is that victim blaming. You're taking me up all wrong.

And again apologies if I am. Can you not see how I might though? Seriously, read them back and swap out "men" for "women". Would you write the same kinda thing? I doubt it.

To be fair Tritium outlined things better in his posts responding to yours.

Wibbs

Pter wrote: »

Threads a mess. I came in to talk about the ad and the wider interpretation of it, but that doesn't seem to be in the offing. Good luck to ye.

Eh that's what people are doing.

Baggly

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh that's what people are doing.

When was the last time you actually referenced the ad, Wibbs? How many posts ago?

ArchXStanton

Red Lightning wrote: »

VERY little of that has nothing to do with women though. Whereas a lot of women's problems is due to men whether it be physical assault, sexual assault, mysoginy, pay gaps etc. If you realise how careful woman have to be on a day to day basis then you'll realise it's definitely a man's world.
Most of the issues you raised are very real but also a lot is our own doing.
Less educated? Maybe try harder in school. More likely to kill themselves? Ladish behaviour of burying our feelings. 'Oh we can't show weakness'.
More likely to be unemployed?
Cant see how that is a gender issue.
More likely to be injured or killed? Be more careful or don't go for such dangerous sports or jobs.
More likely to be addicts? More likely to be homeless? Again how is that a gender issue.
Less social supports? More likely to die young. That's our own fault again of not being open with one another and seeking the help that is definitely there.

Of course my explanations there are very simple but ya get my point because as men we have to take responsibility for our actions that contribute to these issues.

Im a male and I've lots of female friends and the stories they have told me are horror stories in relation to men etc. I've also lots of guy friends and have never heard one story that matches the majority of the girls I know and we would be open with one another.

Now a massive problem is the toxic masculinity where us guys feel we can't cry, can't show weakness, have to hide our sensitive sides etc which is why I feel this message is appropriate. Now Gillette using it as an advert is a bit odd tbh but I certainly don't see any major issue with it or any reason for it to cause such an uproar.

Oh boy, I don't think you have any idea how devious and conniving women can be, by jesus I've seen some stuff down through the years shocking, and if you give them enough rope to hang themselves or catch them in a lie... Watch how quick the fangs come out

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Do traits have to be positive to be masculine? Or is it a coincidence that the traits you listed happen to be broadly positive?

Selective thinking on your part. As usual. You missed the part where I said women were more likely to be conscientiousness and aware of the emotions of others. They're positives. Unless you think they're not.

You're assuming a question which I ask. The question still stands. Do the traits have to be broadly positive to be considered masculine or is it just coincidence?

Wibbs

Pter wrote: »

When was the last time you actually referenced the ad, Wibbs? How many posts ago?

Two pages ago here chatting with yourself P.

Wibbs

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're assuming a question which I ask. The question still stands. Do the traits have to be broadly positive to be considered masculine or is it just coincidence?

Well if conscientiousness and being more aware of the emotions of others are more likely to be found in women than men and they're a positive, that's a negative against men where they're more likely to be lacking in those traits. But you knew that already.

Baggly

Thats fair enough, Wibbs; i cant deny you mention the ad there.

Would you care to stay on topic with it?

Because since then you have posted 7 more times and managed mutliple wider perspective pieces, but not mentioned the ad again since.

Its like there is a conscious effort to drag the thread OT and onto a much wider perspective to which you almost solely subscribe to. I could, of course, be wrong in that. Please correct me if so!

py2006

We are dealing with the subject matter of the ad, the influence of feminism on it etc. Naturally the discussion is going to expand on that.

Baggly

So an ad about toxic masculinity is actually about feminism? Does that summarise what people think?

Wibbs

Pter wrote: »

Thats fair enough, Wibbs; i cant deny you mention the ad there.

Would you care to stay on topic with it?

Because since then you have posted 7 more times and managed mutliple wider perspective pieces, but not mentioned the ad again since.

Its like there is a conscious effort to drag the thread OT and onto a much wider perspective to which you almost solely subscribe to. I could, of course, be wrong in that. Please correct me if so!

Eh P you just said a few posts back: I came in to talk about the ad and the wider interpretation of it[emphasis mine]. The thread is discussing the wider interpretation of it. How is that dragging things off topic? And any poster can add our own angle on that, as we have back and forth over the thread, coming back to the advert on the regular. That's what conversations look like.

El_Duderino 09

Wibbs wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

You're assuming a question which I ask. The question still stands. Do the traits have to be broadly positive to be considered masculine or is it just coincidence?

Well if conscientiousness and being more aware of the emotions of others are more likely to be found in women than men and they're a positive, that's a negative against men where they're more likely to be lacking in those traits. But you knew that already.

Why so evasive?

Are the traits, lack of conscientious and lack of awareness of emotions also part of masculinity according to your definition?

Wibbs

Pter wrote: »

So an ad about toxic masculinity is actually about feminism?

Where does the term "toxic masculinity" come from? A thread on the term proletariat would struggle to get to very many pages without communism coming up.

Does that summarise what people think?

"People" have various interpretations as we have seen across every single page of this thread. Some like the ad, some hate it, some reckon it doesn't affect them, some think the message is good, others don't. That's the better summary.

Baggly

Wibbs wrote: »

Eh P you just said a few posts back: I came in to talk about the ad and the wider interpretation of it[emphasis mine]. The thread is discussing the wider interpretation of it. How is that dragging things off topic? And any poster can add our own angle on that, as we have back and forth over the thread, coming back to the advert on the regular. That's what conversations look like.

You are really really really patronising sometimes Wibbs.

But to address the crux of your point which came before that frankly annoying end to your post, the thread has gone way way off the original topic. Far far off. And you are revelling in it; thats fine.

But while i brought the ad back up (and in fairness before going back to your ramble you did respond to my comment on the ad) you werent slow in getting back off topic.

How far do you want to go with the wider interpretation Wibbs? You have already tried to bring 1950s Ireland into it? Why stop there?

py2006

Pter wrote: »

So an ad about toxic masculinity is actually about feminism? Does that summarise what people think?

oh ffs.

For a lot of us the phrase toxic masculinity is a just a term coined by the toxic element of todays feminism.