Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

tritium

Pter wrote: »

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.

No my post says bullying is something boys and girls are pretty much equally likely to do, albeit in different ways. It may be toxic behaviour but it isn’t particularly masculine behaviour. Thats the point!

Of course ladette culture is a thing. That’s also the point! It’s a thing that’s ignored in the rush to shoehorn the masculinity in after the toxic. And it’s damaging young women, because we’re admonishing young men for behaviour were giving young women a pass for at the same time. And diseases that have in the past been predominantly male diseases are rising in women, including alcohol based diseases

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/health/sharp-rise-in-number-of-women-dying-from-alcohol-related-illness-1.2742383%3fmode=amp

Baggly

Playboy wrote:

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.

I interpret it that not everyone is an asshole but tbh I'd need a thread poll to determine the exact number.

I don't think it implies either. I think some marketing agency has been very clever in choosing an ambiguous word for this exact reason.

Baggly

tritium wrote:

No my post says bullying is something boys and girls are pretty much equally likely to do, albeit in different ways. It may be toxic behaviour but it isn’t particularly masculine behaviour. Thats the point!

We are saying similar things in so much as boys are maybe more likely to engage in hitting / physical fighting etc but, if I understand you, your issue is there isn't a corresponding ad suggesting girls aren't told to not do non-physical bullying? Yeah that's probably true. This is an ad targeting males from a male brand though, so I wouldn't really expect them to address both genders (whereas I'd expect the opposite approach from Gillette for women).

tritium wrote:

Of course ladette culture is a thing. That’s also the point! It’s a thing that’s ignored in the rush to shoehorn the masculinity in after the toxic. And it’s damaging young women, because we’re admonishing young men for behaviour were giving young women a pass for at the same time. And diseases that have in the past been predominantly male diseases are rising in women, including alcohol based diseases

Is it ignored? We are both aware of it? Who is ignoring it? Yes, rising due to increased consumption of alcohol....is that down to advertising?

Wibbs

smilerf wrote: »

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

I know this notion that the world is messed up is all too common, but actually, We've never had it so good™© And generally speaking better it's getting, with exceptions like the environment, rise in mental health issues and a couple of others, but in the West? We're sitting pretty for the most part.

Pter wrote: »

I don't think it implies either. I think some marketing agency has been very clever in choosing an ambiguous word for this exact reason.

Which is what it all boils down to really, increasing brand recognition. Maybe they were incredibly naive as far as the growth of the kickback to this kinda thing, or figured there's no such thing as bad publicity. Also wrong. It remains to be seen how it will actually affect the bottom dollar. People's memories are ever shorter and today's scandal and outrage usually blows over within a month. Maybe might get a mention in Reeling in the years in 2030.

I strongly suspect the identity politics that escaped US college campuses and spread to the world and the increasing polarisation of discourse today on many subjects will be seen as a definite "thing" of these years we're living through. And who would have guessed it would be? I remember reading Viz comic back in the 90's and the Millie Tant character, a massively exaggerated stereotype of a British hard core Labour voter feminist lesbian right on type and it was a joke. Read some of it back now and you will read similar online that's in deadly earnest and it has even crept more mainstream.

But it will pass and change as these things always do. What replaces it is the concern.

Wibbs

Pter wrote: »

whereas I'd expect the opposite approach from Gillette for women).

I will lay a bet now P, we will never see that advert or anything like it in the current climate.

tritium

Pter wrote: »

We are saying similar things in so much as boys are maybe more likely to engage in hitting / physical fighting etc but, if I understand you, your issue is there isn't a corresponding ad suggesting girls aren't told to not do non-physical bullying? Yeah that's probably true. This is an ad targeting males from a male brand though, so I wouldn't really expect them to address both genders (whereas I'd expect the opposite approach from Gillette for women).



Is it ignored? We are both aware of it? Who is ignoring it? Yes, rising due to increased consumption of alcohol....is that down to advertising?

We’re really not saying the same thing Pter. Consider it this way:

Why is bullying an example of toxic masculinity if boys and girls both do it


If lad/ ladette culture are essentially the same thing, why The need for toxic masculinity

Baggly

Wibbs wrote:

I will lay a bet now P, we will never see that advert or anything like it in the current climate.

True dat

Baggly

tritium wrote:

Why is bullying an example of toxic masculinity if boys and girls both do it

It's not. But why would they address female bullying in an ad about males?

It can be a non gendered trait and still be something they want men to tackle. I don't agree the absence of commentary on female bullying is them laying all blame of bullying at men's feet.

Its a male targeted brand and they have targeted a hot topic for men to generate awareness amongst men. I would imagine they have done it to either keep or recruit men who identify with the issue, as well as get the Gillette brand in the media.

I'd also imagine it's a new tack for them as a lot of their bankable sports stars are getting on and or aren't as reliable as they used to be.

Baggly

Trit if I'm not getting you then the fault is probably on my end for not being able to grasp what you have outlined. Been a long day so if we ever meet at a beers you can bring me through it. Thanks for the discussion folks!

Muckka

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

This hot chick tells the truth homie.

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

She's a keeper.
Toxic femminism, soy boy's the list goes on...
She's definitely right.

I'd like to see her debate a third wave femminist, she's good awareness...

You go girl...

Sonic Youth

The comments on the youtube page pure gold. My sides were last seen in orbit around Jupiter.

paleoperson

Muckka wrote: »

She's a keeper.
Toxic femminism, soy boy's the list goes on...
She's definitely right.

I'd like to see her debate a third wave femminist, she's good awareness...

You go girl...

Nah, I suggest you tread carefully. All is not as it first appears. There's this new wave of girls/women after starting up on youtube lately basically talking **** about women and talking up men as much as possible.

It's getting them tons and tons of views and thumbs up, particularly if they're young and attractive, many of them are earning a lot from it. It's nice to listen to sometimes and I often end up giving a thumbs up myself. But don't fall into the trap of something that's easy on the ear and nice to listen to as good points. All these women are doing almost all the time is saying very simple things. Putting down others and propping up your group - particularly effective when they're nominally IN the other group. It's extremely effective on the psyche so don't fall for it. Even if a lot of what they're saying is true, it's partly all just a big fake to get views.

Wibbs

Muckka wrote: »

She's a keeper.
Toxic femminism, soy boy's the list goes on...
She's definitely right.

I'd like to see her debate a third wave femminist, she's good awareness...

You go girl...

I wouldn't be so sure M, or least reserve your faith for better. As I wear out my keyboard being longwinded, I see paleoperson pretty much nails it. And in fewer words...

*me using too many words*
The problem with any polarisation and christ knows we're living through a period of it on a few subjects, is that where there are factions, you will get those looking to join such factions, looking for support from those factions and some wanting to control the narrative and even "lead" such factions. It's human nature.

One of the biggest currencies today is attention. The big online megabusinesess feed on it and specifically engineer their product to hit the lowest levels of the human brain to get it and to note what gets your particular attention. It's essentially their business model and that aforementioned human nature feeds into it. Part of that is that "echo chambers" feed into that same business model. They can pigeon hole you, check you into the box and that makes it easier to sell to you. And they don't care what attention you get. The message or any wisdom doesn't matter a jot. Consider this M, to them and their algorithms, your 100 likes for a moving Gif meme is far more weighted "important" than your most insightful post that you thought about and posted on your best day that only got 10 likes.

So for every faction there are voices that support it. For every one of her on "your side", there are just as many on "their side" championing The Cause, with us egging on whomever agrees with us. And being blind to the shortcomings of their argument. I learned early enough on that everyone who strongly disagrees with me is just as utterly convinced of their argument as I am. The trick is to reserve a little bit of you that might agree with their points. At least some of them. I've also learned to be wary of people who 100% agree with me. A) they're clearly daft. Cos it's me. I then ask why they agree with me, what good(or ill) does it do them to agree with me, what good(or ill) does it do me? In fairness and TBH M, I'm wired funny. Not funny haha either.

It's why M I like somewhere like Boards. We might at times be telling each other "you're wrong.... and you're a wanker with it" but at least we can see each others arguments and we can see the back and forth. This kinda space is slowly dying on the interwebs as up/down votes and being blocked and likes and invites etc have gained traction.

Naturally. There goes our oul human nature again, we are a social animal and a lot of that is the herding instinct and the comfort of being around people that agree with us. It's a good survival tactic after all, but that group isolation is a breeding ground for stagnation and ever more extremes of thought.

peckerhead

I feel strongly that the time is right for a Gillette ad/Peaky Blinders mashup. Anyone?

Undividual

Pter wrote: »

The over arching messaging of men being more considerate to others (whatever their age, gender or creed) is fine by me and something i tried to do before the ad, and will continue to try to do afterwards.

Do or do not. There is no try.

But seriously, show me one person that has ever been convinced to act differently because of an ad. I think more people will have negative stereotypes of men re-inforced by these kinds of ads than have their behaviors changed.

Undividual

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.

Only realized how terrifyingly authoritarian the "... but some is not enough." part is.

Enough for...?

Muckka

Wibbs wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure M, or least reserve your faith for better. As I wear out my keyboard being longwinded, I see paleoperson pretty much nails it. And in fewer words...

*me using too many words*
The problem with any polarisation and christ knows we're living through a period of it on a few subjects, is that where there are factions, you will get those looking to join such factions, looking for support from those factions and some wanting to control the narrative and even "lead" such factions. It's human nature.

One of the biggest currencies today is attention. The big online megabusinesess feed on it and specifically engineer their product to hit the lowest levels of the human brain to get it and to note what gets your particular attention. It's essentially their business model and that aforementioned human nature feeds into it. Part of that is that "echo chambers" feed into that same business model. They can pigeon hole you, check you into the box and that makes it easier to sell to you. And they don't care what attention you get. The message or any wisdom doesn't matter a jot. Consider this M, to them and their algorithms, your 100 likes for a moving Gif meme is far more weighted "important" than your most insightful post that you thought about and posted on your best day that only got 10 likes.

So for every faction there are voices that support it. For every one of her on "your side", there are just as many on "their side" championing The Cause, with us egging on whomever agrees with us. And being blind to the shortcomings of their argument. I learned early enough on that everyone who strongly disagrees with me is just as utterly convinced of their argument as I am. The trick is to reserve a little bit of you that might agree with their points. At least some of them. I've also learned to be wary of people who 100% agree with me. A) they're clearly daft. Cos it's me. I then ask why they agree with me, what good(or ill) does it do them to agree with me, what good(or ill) does it do me? In fairness and TBH M, I'm wired funny. Not funny haha either.

It's why M I like somewhere like Boards. We might at times be telling each other "you're wrong.... and you're a wanker with it" but at least we can see each others arguments and we can see the back and forth. This kinda space is slowly dying on the interwebs as up/down votes and being blocked and likes and invites etc have gained traction.

Naturally. There goes our oul human nature again, we are a social animal and a lot of that is the herding instinct and the comfort of being around people that agree with us. It's a good survival tactic after all, but that group isolation is a breeding ground for stagnation and ever more extremes of thought.

Thanks Wibbs, I read your post twice.
I've absorbed it well.
It's hard to get my head around all this third wave femminism etc

I don't think like they do, but sure they don't think like I do either.

The sky certainly isn't falling down, I've a feeling it'll all burn itself out and something good will come out of it.

professore

Pter wrote: »

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....

Off you go... OK you will find plenty of male ones actually... No female ones though.

1800_Ladladlad

Zorya wrote: »

There might be protest chick on women's march grabbing a guy's dick and laughing on camera. (happened recently)

Yes it actually happened

https://twitter.com/allidoisowen/status/1087483756460605440

vetinari

I think the ad is a little OTT but overall has a reasonable message.
I understand the viewpoint that there will probably not be a corresponding ad made about women.
That said, it's interesting to see the visceral reaction from some men to the idea of treating other people more nicely.

It brings out almost a primal element, that doing so would make you less of a man.
How dare someone tell you that you should be nicer to people?
Male fragility is very real.

vetinari

vetinari wrote: »

I think the ad is a little OTT but overall has a reasonable message.
I understand the viewpoint that there will probably not be a corresponding ad made about women.
That said, it's interesting to see the visceral reaction from some men to the idea of treating other people more nicely.

It brings out almost a primal element, that doing so would make you less of a man.
How dare someone tell you that you should be nicer to people?
Male fragility is very real.

Wtf are you on about? If you think that's why people have a problem with this ad, then you're comically stupid.

Silentcorner

Deleted User wrote: »

Wtf are you on about? If you think that's why people have a problem with this ad, then you're comically stupid.

You can see now why companies spend so much money on advertising.

You be convicted of price fixing.
You can be convicted of abusing young children

According to a 2016 report by Amnesty International, palm oil provider Wilmar International, the world's biggest palm oil grower in 2016 and supplier of raw materials to Procter & Gamble, profited from 8 to 14-year-old child labor and forced labor. Some workers were extorted, threatened, or not paid for work. Some workers also suffered severe injuries from toxic banned chemicals

You can charge women more for blades than you do men.

All that will be forgiven if you just tell em what they want to hear!!!

No body should be feeling too smug about this one....its ugly!

peckerhead

Actually, that's the serious point behind my Peaky Blinders quip above.

Those Shelby lads are fúcking choirboys by comparison with the likes of Procter & Gamble.

Gravelly

Gillette telling us not to objectify women :rolleyes:

Deebles McBeebles

How do you know that's not a man?

Gravelly

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

How do you know that's not a man?

If it is, he has an amazing arse.

As to vetinari's post, can you imagine if Gillette released an ad telling women to stop cheating on their husbands, and men then reacting to women's issue with it by asking them why they're upset since it's only telling them to be nicer people.

Muckka

[Deleted User] wrote: »

As to vetinari's post, can you imagine if Gillette released an ad telling women to stop cheating on their husbands, and men then reacting to women's issue with it by asking them why they're upset since it's only telling them to be nicer people.

Women never cheat, they only follow their heart's....

...Ghost...

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.

:rolleyes:

Come on now P. We all know what they intended when they used the word "some".

Gravelly wrote: »

Gillette telling us not to objectify women :rolleyes:

That could be a man

Deebles got there first

Gravelly

...Ghost... wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Come on now P. We all know what they intended when they used the word "some".



That could be a man

Deebles got there first

I don't think she's a man....