Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

Baggly

professore wrote: »

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.

So its purely the sexism of the ad?

TBH to be sexist it has to stereotype ALL men as displaying a behaviour, and it doesnt do that. It clearly shows a man not showcasing 'toxic' behaviour. So on a technicaility its not exactly sexist.

Im pretty sure i can find you a more sexist ad if you would like. I genuinely will go dig up a few hum dingers if you would like professore....

Hector Savage

Still waters wrote: »

Why does it show one guy actively stopping another from pursuing a woman as she walks past ? Isn't that how we've come so far as a species, are men not supposed to actively pursue women in what is basically the desire to get laid, When did it become so wrong for men to approach women, how does she know when a potential partner is interested if the guy can't even approach her. Men should know when to back off but shouldn't he at least get the chance to try and make an impression

The traditional ways are sexist and enable rape culture.
We need to do what this lad in black does, he's guaranteed to get laid tonight!

https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1048700993553268737?s=20

Wibbs

Pter wrote: »

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



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

Like nearly all politics, especially in their early days there is almost always a oppressed/oppressor narrative. Pick any ism and you'll see it. In an increasingly polarised world you see it more and more. With feminism, particularly in and around the 80's early 90's this was revved up within the movement. The male was the oppressor, the female the oppressed(this has been linked by some to "post modernism" and "marxism" which is bollocks as like I say it's a thing with politics in general).

Now the problem with that in any politic is, well, it's never that black and white. But that tends to be ignored or still blamed on the overarching oppressor. Taking that further, within this neofeminism the feminine is oppressed and the masculine is the oppressor, hence you get toxic masculinity but toxic femininity isn't even a term. It's another political term that suits the politic in question. That its gone mainstream just shows how the politic itself has gone more mainstream.

Baggly

Silentcorner wrote: »

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!!!

But it shows OTHER MEN as being the ones to solve the problem. Its not saying 'men need to change, and being more like women is the way to do it'. Its saying some of the more outmoded male behaviours around respect for women & use and attitudes towards violence should be changed. Im waiting for someone to tell me why that isnt worth considering.

Wibbs

Pter wrote: »

So its purely the sexism of the ad?

TBH to be sexist it has to stereotype ALL men as displaying a behaviour, and it doesnt do that. It clearly shows a man not showcasing 'toxic' behaviour. So on a technicaility its not exactly sexist.

Ah I dunno P. If I were to say "not all men are sexist neandertals but most of them are" Or "not all women are ditzy bints, but most of them are", they'd be both extremely sexist statements.

Baggly

Wibbs wrote: »

Ah I dunno P. If I were to say "not all men are sexist neandertals but most of them are" Or "not all women are ditzy bints, but most of them are", they'd be both extremely sexist statements.

Thats great and all, but the ad isnt saying that.

Its saying some men are toxic, which you cant disagree with. SOME MEN ARE. Not most. Some.

7aubzxk43m2sni

Pter wrote: »

So its purely the sexism of the ad?

TBH to be sexist it has to stereotype ALL men as displaying a behaviour, and it doesnt do that. It clearly shows a man not showcasing 'toxic' behaviour. So on a technicaility its not exactly sexist.

Im pretty sure i can find you a more sexist ad if you would like. I genuinely will go dig up a few hum dingers if you would like professore....

Do you not see the issue?

"Some muslims are ok. But some are not enough. Muslims need to step up and tell other muslims what they're doing is wrong." Que footage of terrorist attacks, beheadings etc."

"Some black people are ok. but some is not enough. Blacks need to step up and tell other blacks what they're doing is wrong." Que footage of gang violence, drug dealing, etc.

The issue is collectivism. The way I see it, there are people who do bad things, and people who don't. This ad groups all men together. According to the ad, we're all at risk of succumbing to toxic masculinity, but some of us are ok so we should tell the others to stop being bad too. Since when am I responsible for the actions of other men?

7aubzxk43m2sni

Pter wrote: »

Thats great and all, but the ad isnt saying that.

Its saying some men are toxic, which you cant disagree with. SOME MEN ARE. Not most. Some.

Some men behave badly. The ad says that other men need to step up and solve this problem. Why can't their mothers, sisters, female friends equally speak up?

Baggly

Cassandra Shapely Snag wrote: »

Do you not see the issue?

"Some muslims are ok. But some are not enough. Muslims need to step up and tell other muslims what they're doing is wrong." Que footage of terrorist attacks, beheadings etc."

"Some black people are ok. but some is not enough. Blacks need to step up and tell other blacks what they're doing is wrong." Que footage of gang violence, drug dealing, etc.

The issue is collectivism. The way I see it, there are people who do bad things, and people who don't. This ad groups all men together. According to the ad, we're all at risk of succumbing to toxic masculinity, but some of us are ok so we should tell the others to stop being bad too. Since when am I responsible for the actions of other men?

Right so lets get this down on paper from me.

There ARE a lot of muslims who do distance themselves from terrorist acts that come from compatriots. They do decry such horrific acts. It happens.

There ARE a lot of African Americans who do distance themselves from gang warefare, drug dealing and the etc that come from other African americans. They do decry such horrific acts. It happens.

The reason you dont see these things in ads is because they are self evident at this stage. You have Muslim leaders decrying terrorism and you have luminaries going back to Martin Luther King Jr. decrying some of the violence associated with African Americans (to perhaps wrongly use the American example to cover all 'black' issues).

The idea that men would look at their behaviour and see if there are aspects of it that need improvement.....well look at your own reactions. Im not seeing anyone else here now really say 'yeah look i dont like that term (toxic masculinity) but some of the things in the ads arent on so maybe fair point on some of it'. So its not self evident. There is, imo, no harm in at least starting such a discussion (like the one we are having now). If ONE man tries to improve his behaviour with regards to attitudes to violence and their attitudes towards women, then thats a win in my book.

Baggly

Cassandra Shapely Snag wrote: »

Some men behave badly. The ad says that other men need to step up and solve this problem. Why can't their mothers, sisters, female friends equally speak up?

Because they need to showcase the negative behaviour in men and positive behaviour in men in the ad, for it to land with its target audience.

Men more easily identify with other men, i should think.

tritium

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.

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

There’s really two separate elements to that first point though, firstly, people don’t like being told they’re wrong, secondly, is it justified to claim they’re “wrong” in the first place.

If you look at the history of the term “toxic masculinity”, it’s been used as a catch all for what’s been attributed as “bad” male traits. Included in here is for example homophobia. That would be fine except homophobia isn’t exclusively male. Then the question becomes whether a woman who is homophobic is actually just displaying a masculine trait. However when you extend that it starts to look like any negative trait just get dumped in there. In reality most of us are somewhere on the spectrum of any given trait, with significant overlap between the genders. Any statement about a trait re gender is essentially only true on average.

That’s likely part of the reason for the pushback. Essentially it’s a term that’s been used to assign a negative view to men and boys rather than holding all people generally accountable for their behaviour. Typically where something can be isolated to male specific it is, e.g. misogyny rather than sexism or misandry is conflated with toxic masculinity, without any comment on where those elements sit. The net result is to damn one gender for behaviours that are prevalent across the spectrum of human endeavor.

I actually think btw that a far better result would be achieved by “raising men up” to borrow your phrase. For some reason it seems that while it’s ok to celebrate women as a group it’s not acceptable to celebrate men, focusing instead on concepts like “toxic masculinity”. In my view the net effect of that is immensely damaging to young males, and that what’s being pushed back against in the reaction to this ad

Baggly

Wolf.

No but really there are lots of examples throughout media of characteristics perceived to be more predominant in females being pillaried. Bitchiness is one.

In lots of female hygiene ads you will see the bitchy female characters using the wrong product and the confident, strong, together woman using the right product. It's a fairly common trope.

So celebrating women is a thing, putting women down is a thing. Much like it is for men. I'd suggest we are just a little further down the line in accepting this trope for women compared to men.

That's not to say it's not wrong to do it for both groups...it probably is...I just don't accept it's a one rule for them, one rule for us type of thing.

tritium

Pter wrote: »

Wolf.

No but really there are lots of examples throughout media of characteristics perceived to be more predominant in females being pillaried. Bitchiness is one.

In lots of female hygiene ads you will see the bitchy female characters using the wrong product and the confident, strong, together woman using the right product. It's a fairly common trope.

So celebrating women is a thing, putting women down is a thing. Must like it is for men. I'd suggest we are just a little further down the line in accepting this trope for women compared to men.

That's not to say it's wrong to so it for both groups...it probably is...I just don't accept it's a one rule for them, one rule for us type of thing.

Knew you were the seer...,,,

The point isn’t about traits that are seen as “more male” though, it’s about inherently assigning nagative traits to males and labeling them toxic.

To take the example in my post, homophobia isn’t a particularly male trait ( actually there is a gender difference but research is relatively new and limited). Yet it’s been conflated with the definition of toxic masculinity. What about homophobic women so. Are they toxically masculine? Should men have a word with them about this male trait?

It might seem a bit glib. I mean, what harm if for example young men and women are equally likely to get hammered on a night out and make a tit of themselves but we call one empowered and the other toxic.

Where it matters however is in terms of accountability. When men can’t report domestic violence by a female partner for example, because were wedded to the notion that men are the violent gender. Or when we dismiss the educational disadvantages boys face as “they’re just uninterested” or boys just don’t work as hard.

That’s why this lazy fallback to use terms like toxic masculinity is immensely damaging and dangerous.

Bannasidhe

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...

Genuine question - who is looking after their children?

Playboy

Pter wrote: »

Thats great and all, but the ad isn't saying that.

It's saying some men are toxic, which you can't disagree with. SOME MEN ARE. Not most. Some.

Watch the ad again. Go to 1.06... "Some already are" and then a few seconds later "but some is not enough". I don't know what version of the English language you speak but when you say only 'some men' are ok then this also implies that most men are not.

Zorya

Pter wrote: »

Wolf.

No but really there are lots of examples throughout media of characteristics perceived to be more predominant in females being pillaried. Bitchiness is one.

In lots of female hygiene ads you will see the bitchy female characters using the wrong product and the confident, strong, together woman using the right product. It's a fairly common trope.

So celebrating women is a thing, putting women down is a thing. Much like it is for men. I'd suggest we are just a little further down the line in accepting this trope for women compared to men.

That's not to say it's not wrong to do it for both groups...it probably is...I just don't accept it's a one rule for them, one rule for us type of thing.

Women being bitchy is a trope, probably - I'm going to accept that even though I cannot think of an advert off the top of my head where bitchy females are using the wrong product, but it's likely, I guess.

Bitchy, however, is fairly tame compared to the tropes in the advert.

We have bullying hordes of boys running aggressively.
We have a man aggressively grabbing maid's bottom. Power imbalance.
We have men laughing uproariously at sexist TV program. Group guilt.
We have condescending man put hand on woman's shoulder and speak over her.
We have chorus of barbequeing men say ''Boys will be boys'' as they watch boys scrap.
We have reportage of sexual assault by men. (ie rape mentioned subliminally and multiple times as images branch)
We have dickhead saying ''smile, sweetie.''
We have (supposedly) not cool street admiration.


None of these are tame.
If there was equivalent tropes directed at females in an advert, there might be woman in court presenting false evidence to prevent father's custody.
There might be Munchausen's Mom making kid sick.
There might be protest chick on women's march grabbing a guy's dick and laughing on camera. (happened recently)
We might have women laughing at guys pics on social media and calling them derogatory names.
We might have group of girls mercilessly stalk and tease another girl in anonymous chat room driving her to suicidal thoughts.

You get the idea.

These kind of tropes in an advert directed at women asking other women to call out and intervene in these reprehensible and real life behaviours of some small numbers of their fellow gender would rightly result in an appalled reaction from women, and hopefully from men too.

Baggly

With respect, we have absolutely no evidence to suggest the rise of the term will affect reports of abuse on males, nor how seriously they would be taken. with the greatest amount of respect to you Trit, that is conjecture.

If any idea is taken to it's extreme then the group it affects will lose out, but you can't stall self reflection on men's parts in case people start to use what men may need to reflect on against them.

If the idea is this ad is one of the first stepping stones to a world where men are ignored, not believed or victimised because of our gender then TBH I can't see it ever getting that extreme.

Playboy

Other companies capitalizing on Gilette's horrible mistake. Its become a meme at this stage. I can honestly see it destroying the brand as it will become a symbol for everything that isn't masculine and this will put men off. Hilariously that is the kind of attitude the ad is trying to prevent. Toxic masculinity ended Gilette... I can see the headline now

Baggly

Playboy wrote:

Watch the ad again. Go to 1.06... "Some already are" and then a few seconds later "but some is not enough". I don't know what version of the English language you speak but when you say only 'some men' are ok then this also implies that most men are not.

Some doesn't = less than 50%. Some can be 90%.

'Some few already are'....yeah if it said that I'd be on board.

And TBH, if one is inclined to agree with the logic of the ad, then 90% wouldn't be enough. If you knew 10% of men were being toxic and agreed with the tone and impetus of the ad ( again using that terminology for lack of a better alternative) then of course 90% wouldn't be enough.

Playboy

Pter wrote: »

Some doesn't = less than 50%. Some can be 90%.

'Some few already are'....yeah if it said that I'd be on board.

And TBH, if one is inclined to agree with the logic of the ad, then 90% wouldn't be enough. If you knew 10% of men were being toxic and agreed with the tone and impetus of the ad ( again using that terminology for lack of a better alternative) then of course 90% wouldn't be enough.

Stop it now, you are going to stupid lengths to rationalize the ridiculous. 'Some' in this context implies a minority, 'some' native English speakers will agree with me (oh sorry I meant most) :rolleyes:

Baggly

Zorya wrote:

These kind of tropes in an advert directed at women asking other women to call out and intervene in these reprehensible and real life behaviours of some small numbers of their fellow gender would rightly result in an appalled reaction from women, and hopefully from men too.

Well TBH those ars might come for women! I haven't really seen a brand capitalize on the culture wars like this before. I'd imagine there is a marketing director firing their agency somewhere and yet secretly delighting in the KPI boost their social media platforms are getting at the same time.

It could just be this is a front runner in terms of using current culture wars terminology to excite people into engaging with a brand.

Baggly

Playboy wrote:

Stop it now, you are going to stupid lengths to rationalize the ridiculous. 'Some' in this context implies a minority, 'some' native English speakers will agree with me (oh sorry I meant most)

Literally the definition of some;

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/some

Outlaw Pete

This hot chick tells the truth homie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0nJ6T86utA

tritium

Pter wrote: »

With respect, we have absolutely no evidence to suggest the rise of the term will affect reports of abuse on males, nor how seriously they would be taken. with the greatest amount of respect to you Trit, that is conjecture.

If any idea is taken to it's extreme then the group it affects will lose out, but you can't stall self reflection on men's parts in case people start to use what men may need to reflect on against them.

If the idea is this ad is one of the first stepping stones to a world where men are ignored, not believed or victimised because of our gender then TBH I can't see it ever getting that extreme.

This is exactly the point!

This is not something “ men need to reflect on”. The behaviors aren’t male specific or so limited In women to not matter. For example bullying is as prevalent in boys and girls (physical force in bullying being more prevalent in boys perhaps unsurprisingly). So why is it conflated with ltoxic masculinity”. We can extend this to other traits lumped in there. And it’s not just conjecture and it’s not just males who are impacted. Granted we already have evidence of how hard it is for male abuse victims to come forward and the challenge they face in societal acceptance of the issue. However we’re also already seeing the impact in lung cancer and liver disease in women as their drinking and smoking habits rise. Because lad culture is apparently a thing but ladette culture isn’t. There’s real evidence that women are engaging in damaging behavior while key messages and admonition are reserved for those naughty boys.

smilerf

Can't see a problem with it. The World is so messed up right now as well as people finding offence in bloody everything

Baggly

tritium wrote:

This is not something “ men need to reflect onâ€. The behaviors aren’t male specific or so limited I’m women to not matter. For example bullying is as prevalent in boys and girls (physical force in bullying being more prevalent in boys perhaps unsurprisingly). So why is it conflated with ltoxic masculinityâ€. We can extend this to other traits lumped in there. And it’s not just conjecture and it’s not just males who are impacted. Granted we already have evidence of how hard it is for male abuse victims tocome forward and the challenge they face in societal acceptance of the issue. However We’re also already seeing the impact in lung cancer and liver disease in women as their drinking and smoking habits rise. Because lad culture is apparently a thing but ladette culture isn’t. There’s real evidence that women are engaging in damaging behavior while key messages and admonition are reserved for those naughty boys.

I'm sorry Trit but you have lost me.

The ad says physical bullying by boys is to be challenged, and your post above says that's probably something boys are more likely to do.

I'd also dispute ladette culture isn't a thing! I'd also dispute that the same diseases aren't present in men.

These things aren't down to labels that exorcise people's ire. They are down to modern consumption patterns and consumerism, imo.

Playboy

Pter wrote: »

Literally the definition of some;

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/some

oh ok, you are coming across as ridiculous and disingenuous. If you fail to concede on such a basic and obvious point then there is literally no point debating you, sense left long ago.

Baggly

Playboy wrote:

oh ok, you are coming across as ridiculous and disingenuous. If you fail to concede on such a basic and obvious point then there is literally no point debating you, sense left long ago.

Sorry about coming across like that. I am genuinely being earnest. You contested me using a definition of some and I backed up where I got it from. I can't really do more than that.

Zorya

Pter wrote: »

Well TBH those ars might come for women! I haven't really seen a brand capitalize on the culture wars like this before. I'd imagine there is a marketing director firing their agency somewhere and yet secretly delighting in the KPI boost their social media platforms are getting at the same time.

It could just be this is a front runner in terms of using current culture wars terminology to excite people into engaging with a brand.

Could be.

Playboy

Pter wrote: »

Sorry about coming across like that. I am genuinely being earnest. You contested me using a definition of some and I backed up where I got it from. I can't really do more than that.

Some people are assholes. Tell me how you interpret that statement in terms of quantity? Do you honestly think it implies a majority of people or would it more realistically imply a minority or small subset? If they had meant 'most' then they would have said 'most'. The absence of the obvious word (most) is evidence of what they meant.