Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

El_Duderino 09

Venom wrote: »

Is that hypocrisy better or worse than when a soulless profit-driven corporation with a long list of ethical and human rights abuse scandals behind them, does it?
https://prezi.com/xuanuq82zjqz/procter-gamble-scandals/
http://nwww.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20170207000697
https://www.zmescience.com/ecology/environmental-issues/pg-deforestation-indonesia-432/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/09/procter-gamble-bows-to-pressure-on-palm-oil-deforestation

Strange question. I don't really expect soulless corporations to behave morally. Their motive is to make money. There's a strange idea out there that corporations have a moral obligation. Capitalism doesn't demand ethical behaviour. It just just demands profit.

The harm done to people is probably a better way to measure it than hypocrisy.

You won't find me defending Gillette or anyone else who causes harm.

meeeeh

maccored wrote: »

and the worst thing is, is that in this day and age, some men need to be instructed in how to behave decently. too many people are watching that advert and getting offended in case it's aimed at them. that in itself says quite a lot about those getting offended. its an advert - not an issue of morality, and as an advert its doing its job quite well.

But it is aimed at them. It's aimed at all men.

hatrickpatrick

maccored wrote: »

and the worst thing is, is that in this day and age, some men need to be instructed in how to behave decently. too many people are watching that advert and getting offended in case it's aimed at them. that in itself says quite a lot about those getting offended. its an advert - not an issue of morality, and as an advert its doing its job quite well.

Do you think women need to be instructed in how to behave decently as well, and would you object to good women criticising an ad telling them that they're responsible for other womens' bad behaviour, because they happen to share the demographic attribute of being female?

maccored

meeeeh wrote: »

But it is aimed at them. It's aimed at all men.

so what? It can be aimed at men, but us men dont have to let that bother us

maccored

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Do you think women need to be instructed in how to behave decently as well, and would you object to good women criticising an ad telling them that they're responsible for other womens' bad behaviour, because they happen to share the demographic attribute of being female?

would that sell product and have people talking about it, since thats what makes an advert do its job? its a commercial advert - not a law

hatrickpatrick

maccored wrote: »

so what? It can be aimed at men, but us men dont have to let that bother us

For the record, if there wasn't a double standard about all this it wouldn't bother me nearly as much, I'd just see it and roll my eyes before moving on.

hatrickpatrick

maccored wrote: »

would that sell product and have people talking about it, since thats what makes an advert do its job? its a commercial advert - not a law

Well it's losing them customers. Let's see whether it ultimately costs them money or earns it.

maccored

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

For the record, if there wasn't a double standard about all this it wouldn't bother me nearly as much, I'd just see it and roll my eyes before moving on.

im look at it just as another advert. its a company selling product.

J. Marston

Billy Mays wrote: »

Just watched the ad

Imagine getting so wound up by that that you'd consider boycotting the company's products

47 pages ffs

If a company is implying that a large section of their customers are pieces of shìt when the vast majority of those customers are decent guys, then isn't that a solid basis to say "Nah, I'll spend my cash somewhere else?"

hatrickpatrick

maccored wrote: »

im look at it just as another advert. its a company selling product.

You're either deliberately or unwittingly missing the point here: There's a social context to this. What they've done is being praised by the same influential voices who would condemn it if the genders were reversed. They know that, ergo they would never make an ad with the genders reversed. That is a double standard. Double standards are always entirely unacceptable and should be condemned on sight.

maccored

maccored wrote: »

and the worst thing is, is that in this day and age, some men need to be instructed in how to behave decently. too many people are watching that advert and getting offended in case it's aimed at them. that in itself says quite a lot about those getting offended. its an advert - not an issue of morality, and as an advert its doing its job quite well.

Shouldn’t women get an ad like this for behaviors in family courts and other things

hatrickpatrick

Lance White Partridge wrote: »

Shouldn’t women get an ad like this for behaviors in family courts and other things

Someone posted this on Reddit last night. Only a minority of scumbag women behave this way, but if anyone made an ad suggesting that good women should feel bad about it because other people who happen to also have X chromosomes do it, there'd be absolute uproar.

• Toxic Feminity is when a woman tricks a man into raising a child that isn't his.
• Toxic Feminity is when a woman lies about physical or emotional abuse in court to gain custody of the children.
• Toxic Feminity is when a woman marries a man only for his money.
• Toxic Feminity is when a mother says bad things to her child about the father behind his back.
• Toxic Feminity is when a woman makes a false claim of sexual assault.
• Toxic Feminity is when women use social media to cyberbully boys into believing their gender is inherently evil.
• Toxic Feminity is when women expect a man to pay for everything.
• Toxic Feminity is when a woman hits a man and expects to get away with it because she's a woman.
• Toxic Feminity is when female teachers give better grades to female students, just because they are girls.
• Toxic Feminity is when women shut down the conversation about male homelessness and suicide because it doesn't fit their narrative.
• Toxic Feminity is when women say, "the future is female" right in the face of their sons.

This is what Toxic Feminity looks like.

Did that make you feel uncomfortable? Did you feel like that was a little bit of an over-generalization?

Good. Now you know how most men felt when they saw that Gillette ad.

maccored

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well it's losing them customers. Let's see whether it ultimately costs them money or earns it.

is it? the amount of publicity they're getting says otherwise. Plus many people are wondering what the fuss is about.

El_Duderino 09

meeeeh wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I dont get your point. I'm already responsible for my own behaviour. So are you responsible for your own behaviour even before Gillette told you so.

I'd disagree with anyone who says responsibly for other people.

Well Gillette are telling you how you should behave, what man you should be. You are saying it's about behaviour of others but it's not, it's aimed at all men including you. Gillette are telling YOU how you should behave.

OK but as I keep saying, I don't look to TV ads for my moral philosophy.

Lots of people and things might try to influence your behavior. It's really up to the individual to be responsible for the it own morals. Taking morals from ads is a really dodgy way to decide how to behave.

maccored

Lance White Partridge wrote: »

Shouldn’t women get an ad like this for behaviors in family courts and other things

off you go and make one - no-one is stopping anyone from doing that

hatrickpatrick

maccored wrote: »

off you go and make one - no-one is stopping anyone from doing that

And do you expect the mainstream societal reaction to be positive, as it has with this Gillette ad?

maccored

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You're either deliberately or unwittingly missing the point here: There's a social context to this. What they've done is being praised by the same influential voices who would condemn it if the genders were reversed. They know that, ergo they would never make an ad with the genders reversed. That is a double standard. Double standards are always entirely unacceptable and should be condemned on sight.

surely thats advertising though. its full of double standards. what about diet coke and women oogling a half naked man? Much complaining about that?

hatrickpatrick

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

OK but as I keep saying, I don't look to TV ads for my moral philosophy.

Lots of people and things might try to influence your behavior. It's really up to the individual to be responsible for the it own morals. Taking morals from ads is a really dodgy way to decide how to behave.

Nobody is actually taking morals from the ad, they're offended that Gillette is "allowed" to talk about men like this when society wouldn't tolerate an ad with the genders reversed.

This isn't so much about Gillette's own behaviour here as it society's reaction to it.

maccored

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And do you expect the mainstream societal reaction to be positive, as it has with this Gillette ad?

I dont care what the reaction is - as I say, its an advert on TV. Its not something I take life lessons from

hatrickpatrick

maccored wrote: »

surely thats advertising though. its full of double standards. what about diet coke and women oogling a half naked man? Much complaining about that?

No, but have you seen what happens when an ad allegedly "objectifies" women? I believe an Irish Hunky Dorys ad actually got BAI'd for that a few years ago. Again, double standards.

maccored

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No, but have you seen what happens when an ad allegedly "objectifies" women? I believe an Irish Hunky Dorys ad actually got BAI'd for that a few years ago. Again, double standards.

surely you should be taking that up with the people who control advertising - rather than advertising gillette even more?

hatrickpatrick

maccored wrote: »

I dont care what the reaction is - as I say, its an advert on TV. Its not something I take life lessons from

Then you're missing the point. This is not about the ad itself, it's about a culture which tolerates rampant man-hating while pushing the line that women in general are good people and how dare anyone suggest otherwise. This needs to change.

Augme

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Someone posted this on Reddit last night. Only a minority of scumbag women behave this way, but if anyone made an ad suggesting that good women should feel bad about it because other people who happen to also have X chromosomes do it, there'd be absolute uproar.

• Toxic Feminity is when a woman tricks a man into raising a child that isn't his.
• Toxic Feminity is when a woman lies about physical or emotional abuse in court to gain custody of the children.
• Toxic Feminity is when a woman marries a man only for his money.
• Toxic Feminity is when a mother says bad things to her child about the father behind his back.
• Toxic Feminity is when a woman makes a false claim of sexual assault.
• Toxic Feminity is when women use social media to cyberbully boys into believing their gender is inherently evil.
• Toxic Feminity is when women expect a man to pay for everything.
• Toxic Feminity is when a woman hits a man and expects to get away with it because she's a woman.
• Toxic Feminity is when female teachers give better grades to female students, just because they are girls.
• Toxic Feminity is when women shut down the conversation about male homelessness and suicide because it doesn't fit their narrative.
• Toxic Feminity is when women say, "the future is female" right in the face of their sons.

This is what Toxic Feminity looks like.

Did that make you feel uncomfortable? Did you feel like that was a little bit of an over-generalization?

Good. Now you know how most men felt when they saw that Gillette ad.

I'd actually be very surprised if most women felt personally insulted and offended by that list.

hatrickpatrick

maccored wrote: »

surely you should be taking that up with the people who control advertising - rather than advertising gillette even more?

No, I'm taking it up with the people who are criticising me for being angry that hatred of my demographic is considered ok, while hatred of any other demographic is not allowed in polite society.

professore

What amazes me is how many people don't see anything wrong with the ad. If a similar ad was made about women I would be equally horrified - and I'm well aware that back 50+ years ago similar ads were made about women ... but these are long consigned to the dustbin of history. I guess it shows that a lot of people only care about their own rights, not the rights of others.

hatrickpatrick

Augme wrote: »

I'd actually be very surprised if most women felt personally insulted and offended by that list.

You obviously haven't spent much time on social media lately

Do you think such an ad would be allowed by organisations such as the BAI? Do you doubt that the Irish Times, for example, would run articles outrightly condemning it for being sexist?

maccored

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Then you're missing the point. This is not about the ad itself, it's about a culture which tolerates rampant man-hating while pushing the line that women in general are good people and how dare anyone suggest otherwise. This needs to change.

none of this is new. unless you decide how you live by what you see on tv and adverts (which would be a sad state of affairs) then who gives a toss? If though they were making laws based on the same ideas, that would be a different story - but complaining about an advert and therefore advertising the company even more seems a bit silly to me.

Muckka

maccored wrote: »

surely thats advertising though. its full of double standards. what about diet coke and women oogling a half naked man? Much complaining about that?

Imagine a topless lady in cut denim shorts mowing a lawn, and some guys rolling a can over to her...

The sjw's and yolks would be horrified.

It's usually the ugly one's who are sjw's anyhow.
Overweight, abnormal hair dye and absolute brats.

I'd love to be a diet coke guy

maccored

professore wrote: »

What amazes me is how many people don't see anything wrong with the ad. If a similar ad was made about women I would be equally horrified - and I'm well aware that back 50+ years ago similar ads were made about women ... but these are long consigned to the dustbin of history. I guess it shows that a lot of people only care about their own rights, not the rights of others.

not too sure what that quote has to do with people being offended by an advert

maccored

Muckka wrote: »

Imagine a topless lady in cut denim shorts mowing a lawn, and some guys rolling a can over to her...

The sjw's and yolks would be horrified.

It's usually the ugly one's who are sjw's anyhow.
Overweight, abnormal hair dye and absolute brats.

I'd love to be a diet coke guy

google up some adverts from the 60s and 70s if you want sexism