Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 22-01-2019 5:21pm

Pter wrote: »

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

The term toxic masculinity was created by feminists and is primarily used by feminists, so it's fairly closely related, yeah

Baggly · 22-01-2019 5:22pm

Wibbs wrote: »

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.

Im not sure if thats a genuine question or you teeing yourself up to make yourself look smart, but ill give you the benefit of the doubt.

I believe it was coined as a psychological term by Terry Kupers based on research done into violent and negative behaviour typically found and concentrated amongst the male populations of US prisons.

It may since have been adopted by the neo-feminist movement, but equally it has also been adopted by non-neofeminists such as myself.

You see you can, if you are so inclined, attribute ANYTHING you want to something else if you go back far enough. As long as the something else was at any stage linked to the anything, its easy enough to do.

Baggly · 22-01-2019 5:22pm

py2006 wrote: »

oh ffs.

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

Cassandra Shapely Snag wrote: »

The term toxic masculinity was created by feminists and is primarily used by feminists, so it's fairly closely related, yeah

Can you give me any sources or backup info for those views?

py2006 · 22-01-2019 5:23pm

Pter wrote: »

Can you give me any sources or backup info for those views?

Yes, the ad in question

Baggly · 22-01-2019 5:24pm

py2006 wrote: »

Yes, the ad in question

Could you elaborate on that a little for me? Not sure im following your line of though.

Muckka · 22-01-2019 5:28pm

Pter wrote: »

Could you elaborate on that a little for me? Not sure im following your line of though.

Not undermining you Pter but there's tonnes of post's explaing and exposing Third wave femminists on this thread.

py2006 · 22-01-2019 5:30pm

Pter wrote: »

Could you elaborate on that a little for me? Not sure im following your line of though.

Nope, if you are not going to google who uses that phrase or the creator of the ad and her history (if you read this thread you would know) then move on.

Toxic masculinity is a phrase thrown about to belittle men, to throw us all in with the same brush. I am not going to do the Googling for you.

Baggly · 22-01-2019 5:30pm

Muckka wrote: »

Not undermining you Pter but there's tonnes of post's explaing and exposing Third wave femminists on this thread.

I appreciate that. I would like to discuss with those here now. If py has covered this ground before ill go back and read his posts.

Wibbs · 22-01-2019 5:30pm

Pter wrote: »

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,

But that is how conversations go P. To be fair tone can get lost in text, apologies for that.

the thread has gone way way off the original topic. Far far off. And you are revelling in it; thats fine.

Revelling? OK.

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?

Eh the latter was an illustration in response to your posts on our debate about self worth and its origins. A debate that sprang from the ad as you noted it didn't affect you, because in simple terms you're not a dick and you have more self worth than that. With me coming back with a convo on how self worth is as much a part of our environments as anything and ads and a general "men kinda bad, women kinda great" like this could affect same.

_Kaiser_ · 22-01-2019 5:31pm

This came up on my YouTube earlier (apologies if already posted):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_HL0wiK4Zc

Good response to be fair.. even if it is an opportunistic marketing ploy.

Baggly · 22-01-2019 5:31pm

py2006 wrote: »

Nope, if you are not going to google who uses that phrase or the creator of the ad and her history (if you read this thread you would know) then move on.

Toxic masculinity is a phrase thrown about to belittle men, to throw us all in with the same brush. I am not going to do the Googling for you.

Is that not true of the word feminist as well?

Ill add, PY, that 'go google it' is a really bad argument. Google results are typical filtered by individual. So the results you get could be largely different to mine.

In addition to that, Google is a popularity machine, so the links that do come up, as well as being filtered, will largely reflect the popular wave of thought, rather than the considered wave of thought.

I come to boards for considered thought. I know where google is; if i wanted to google something, i will (and for all you would be aware, i have). What i want to know is your thoughts.

Fr_Dougal · 22-01-2019 5:32pm

Pter wrote: »

Can you give me any sources or backup info for those views?

https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/profiles/clementine-ford-feminist-toxic-masculinity-hurts-men-women/

A quick google will give you plenty of examples, Pter.

7aubzxk43m2sni · 22-01-2019 5:32pm

Pter wrote: »

Can you give me any sources or backup info for those views?

Sorry, I stand corrected, it was first coined by men. Source

However the same article details how it has been recently redefined by feminists

Psychology Today: Is Toxic Masculinity a valid concept? (Answer: no)

Baggly · 22-01-2019 5:35pm

Cassandra Shapely Snag wrote: »

Sorry, I stand corrected, it was first coined by men. Source

However the same article details how it has been recently redefined by feminists

Psychology Today: Is Toxic Masculinity a valid concept? (Answer: no)

To be clear, im not trying to gazzump you or correct you, i was looking to understand how you came to think the way you do, thats all!

If that article is it, thats fine; i can take a look at it.

Baggly · 22-01-2019 5:35pm

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/profiles/clementine-ford-feminist-toxic-masculinity-hurts-men-women/

A quick google will give you plenty of examples, Pter.

I ninja edited in a bit more to my post there.....

7aubzxk43m2sni · 22-01-2019 5:37pm

Pter wrote: »

Is that not true of the word feminist as well?

Yes and no. While the word itself has been poisoned by some of the extreme SJW types, you'll still see plenty of women describing themselves as feminists, while you'll never find a man claiming that he struggles with "toxic masculinity"

Baggly · 22-01-2019 5:37pm

Look me and Wibbs can and do disagree on things and he is right on at least one thing - tone can get lost here. I might disagree with his posting style sometimes but i genuinely am trying to understand other peoples POVs with regard to the OP, and even if i dont agree, i appreciate his and others input here.

I apologise if i got carried away and got away from myself making it seem like noone was discussing things relevant to the OP.

py2006 · 22-01-2019 5:39pm

Pter wrote: »

What i want to know is your thoughts.

Read the thread then

Zorya · 22-01-2019 5:42pm

Pter wrote: »

Is that not true of the word feminist as well?

Yes, that is true and ''red-pill'' people for want of a better phrase do damn women generally as feminists etc as a short hand for insult (more like feminazis). And that's ugly and boring, but marginal.
Personally I don't like what the word feminist has become (and loathe the whole pussy hat movement) but the word feminist has a positive interpretation in the general scheme of things - very much so. The future is feminist, we are told, etc.

There is no such positive interpretation of toxic masculinity, so the terms are not comparable, deep down.

Wibbs · 22-01-2019 5:42pm

But OK, back to the ad and the wider interpretation(Pter's gonna fcuking kill me now, it's been nice knowing y'all

), earlier in the thread I linked a previous advert from the same director and production house for Audi. One that was shown in a Super Bowl slot. Very expensive and as mainstream as one can get. That advert was even more into preaching the Neo-feminist(I'm nicking that

) credo and pretty much every single bullet point was either a massive misrepresentation of facts or an outright lie. And yet there was no "outrage". No Twitter storms, no Red pill types having a mini meltdown. It was a mostly "gender neutral" advert as women buy as many cars as men.

On the other hand the Gillette advert was for an exclusively male product(in this context) and a similar Neo-feminist was being preached and it went... well, here we are.

What interests me is why the difference and how these ideas are not fringe but fully mainstream, but there's still a mistake to be made if the party political broadcast becomes too obvious, or is aimed at the wrong demographic. QV the Gillette advert.

Muckka · 22-01-2019 5:42pm

Cassandra Shapely Snag wrote: »

Yes and no. While the word itself has been poisoned by some of the extreme SJW types, you'll still see plenty of women describing themselves as feminists, while you'll never find a man claiming that he struggles with "toxic masculinity"

Unless he's drinking or eating soya products.

professore · 22-01-2019 5:43pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

Women were the most fervent supporters of the church. It wasn't generally your dad pushing you to go to mass on Sunday.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

That is using your brain.

Baggly · 22-01-2019 5:44pm

py2006 wrote: »

Read the thread then

Right so here are your 25 posts in the thread: https://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=41908&thread=2057946476&sort=oldest&date_to=&date_from=&query=%2A%3A%2A&page=1

I assume your earlier assertion that the ad is basically a front to todays neo-feminism comes back to this post:

py2006 wrote: »

Kim Gehrig

ad produced by Sally Campbell's Somesuch production company.

Article here on this delightful pair

That doesnt actually explain how they coined the term (which they didnt, contrary to your claim).

Zorya · 22-01-2019 5:44pm

Pter wrote: »

Google is a popularity machine, so the links that do come up, as well as being filtered, will largely reflect the popular wave of thought, rather than the considered wave of thought.

.

Very true. And at the root of a lot of difficult things.

Wibbs · 22-01-2019 5:44pm

Pter wrote: »

Look me and Wibbs can and do disagree on things and he is right on at least one thing - tone can get lost here. I might disagree with his posting style sometimes but i genuinely am trying to understand other peoples POVs with regard to the OP, and even if i dont agree, i appreciate his and others input here.

I apologise if i got carried away and got away from myself making it seem like noone was discussing things relevant to the OP.

No need to apologise P, I am in fact a thundering cnut.

Baggly · 22-01-2019 5:47pm

Wibbs wrote: »

But OK, back to the ad and the wider interpretation(Pter's gonna fcuking kill me now, it's been nice knowing y'all ), earlier in the thread I linked a previous advert from the same director and production house for Audi. One that was shown in a Super Bowl slot. Very expensive and as mainstream as one can get. That advert was even more into preaching the Neo-feminist(I'm nicking that ) credo and pretty much every single bullet point was either a massive misrepresentation of facts or an outright lie. And yet there was no "outrage". No Twitter storms, no Red pill types having a mini meltdown. It was a mostly "gender neutral" advert as women buy as many cars as men.

On the other hand the Gillette advert was for an exclusively male product(in this context) and a similar Neo-feminist was being preached and it went... well, here we are.

What interests me is why the difference and how these ideas are not fringe but fully mainstream, but there's still a mistake to be made if the party political broadcast becomes too obvious, or is aimed at the wrong demographic. QV the Gillette advert.

My reading of the difference between the two is that some men dont like being told they are wrong (myself included sometimes) and thats what the Gillette ad has done for some.

The Audi ad was an ad targeted at 'raising up women' whereas the Gillette ad was seen by some to be 'putting men down'.

Baggly · 22-01-2019 5:47pm

Wibbs wrote: »

No need to apologise P, I am in fact a thundering cnut.

Oh, well, that goes without saying pal.

1800_Ladladlad · 22-01-2019 5:48pm

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.

Such nonsense. Wibbs has argued the posts quite articulately well from a personal perspective. You said the thread was a mess, I disagree. Im gaining a better perspective from people I agree with and people I dont. Thats including you.

professore · 22-01-2019 5:52pm

Pter wrote: »

My reading of the difference between the two is that some men dont like being told they are wrong (myself included sometimes) and thats what the Gillette ad has done for some.

How is this so hard for people to understand? Make the exact same ad about Islam and substitute terror attacks and beheadings and there would be meltdown. Its the most sexist ad I've ever seen.

Silentcorner · 22-01-2019 5:54pm

Wibbs wrote: »

But OK, back to the ad and the wider interpretation(Pter's gonna fcuking kill me now, it's been nice knowing y'all ), earlier in the thread I linked a previous advert from the same director and production house for Audi. One that was shown in a Super Bowl slot. Very expensive and as mainstream as one can get. That advert was even more into preaching the Neo-feminist(I'm nicking that ) credo and pretty much every single bullet point was either a massive misrepresentation of facts or an outright lie. And yet there was no "outrage". No Twitter storms, no Red pill types having a mini meltdown. It was a mostly "gender neutral" advert as women buy as many cars as men.

On the other hand the Gillette advert was for an exclusively male product(in this context) and a similar Neo-feminist was being preached and it went... well, here we are.

What interests me is why the difference and how these ideas are not fringe but fully mainstream, but there's still a mistake to be made if the party political broadcast becomes too obvious, or is aimed at the wrong demographic. QV the Gillette advert.

The creator has a fairly obvious issue with white men, that much cannot be denied.

The reaction on social media, Facebook and Twitter, is very mixed, but then both of those tend to be more liberal. The people who are most vexed are most likely to be men who use Gillette.

The reaction on Youtube is something else...this is the most male online space, this is one of the most unpopular adverts on Youtube...the dislikes (which are being manipulated) are off the charts, the comments of which there are over 350,00s and are being deleted as fast as they can are venomously negative by both men and women and are still pouring onto the page.

I'd imagine, that they are receiving that same Youtube reaction on their phone lines and email.

It was a depressing ad, there is no two ways about it...this narrative is so pervasive that people do not realise how sinister this ad actually is...they singled out white men...they were showing a kid getting chased by bullies...its like showing lambs being killed and being fed to people for dinner!!!

Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

Comments