Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

Sabre0001

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?

I imagine if it was released today there would be some complaints filed. Like someone who filed a complaint against Dealz and its Harry the Hunk advert purely because it wouldn't be allowed if it was a woman: https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/discount-chain-falls-foul-advertising-15565389

:rolleyes:

hatrickpatrick

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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

Wouldn’t even leave the marketing meeting if that happened ... white straight males can be targeted no one else

maccored

Sabre0001 wrote: »

I imagine if it was released today there would be some complaints filed. Like someone who filed a complaint against Dealz and its Harry the Hunk advert purely because it wouldn't be allowed if it was a woman: https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/discount-chain-falls-foul-advertising-15565389

:rolleyes:

complain to the advertising standards people and get it banned if it makes you happier.

all I see is men thinking 'thats not me, Im offended!' and then making a massive furore about an advert, which in turn encourages other advertisers to make the same kinds of ads. not very smart thinking if you ask me.

El_Duderino 09

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

That list doesn't make me feel uncomfortable at all. It's a list of bad behaviours for anyone.

I don't use the terms toxic masculinity or toxic femininity so I wouldn't call it that.

Augme

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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?

No, I tend to keep most of my interactions for real life. Still, from my social media experiences I don't think most women would be personally insulted by that list either.

I mean, I think the large majority of things on that list most women wouldn't so. So why would they get insulted by something they don't do? Seems strange.

Muckka

maccored wrote: »

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

Remember the timotei advert.
That blonde lady was absolutely gorgeous....

hatrickpatrick

maccored wrote: »

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.

I care that there is a double standard around how men are allowed to be criticised and generalised as a group while women are not. And suggesting that people are not making laws based on the same ideas is questionable - SJW ideals are slowly being adopted into mainstream politics, and propaganda like this definitely plays a part.

maccored

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I care that there is a double standard around how men are allowed to be criticised and generalised as a group while women are not. And suggesting that people are not making laws based on the same ideas is questionable - SJW ideals are slowly being adopted into mainstream politics, and propaganda like this definitely plays a part.

then get the advert banned. theres avenues to do that. complaining on boards wont do anything

hatrickpatrick

Augme wrote: »

No, I tend to keep most of my interactions for real life. Still, from my social media experiences I don't think most women would be personally insulted by that list either.

I mean, I think the large majority of things on that list most women wouldn't so. So why would they get insulted by something they don't do? Seems strange.

In my own experience (most of my friends are mid-20s, maybe you're from a different generation?) they would absolutely lost their sh!t, and I wouldn't blame them. The reason they'd get insulted is because, by actually pushing a list like that, the ad is saying "most of you are guilty of some of these things" or "even if you're not guilty of it, you have a duty to stop others because you also happen to be female".

It's normalising the idea of judging people based on gender.

hatrickpatrick

maccored wrote: »

then get the advert banned. theres avenues to do that. complaining on boards wont do anything

I don't want it banned. I detest censorship. I am merely criticising the hypocritical reaction to it.

hatrickpatrick

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That list doesn't make me feel uncomfortable at all. It's a list of bad behaviours for anyone.

I don't use the terms toxic masculinity or toxic femininity so I wouldn't call it that.

I'm assuming you're a woman since you responded to this, wouldn't make a lot of sense if you weren't but apologies if I'm mistaken - if I told you that you are personally complicit or that you deserve your identity having a bad reputation because other women do behave like this, would you honestly not have a problem with it?

Let's take it a step further - if extremists such as MTGOW became mainstream and you therefore found it difficult to get a date, because men in general were avoiding women on the grounds that some women might f*ck them over, that wouldn't bother you? You wouldn't be angry that you were being judged because others who are bad people happen to share certain demographics with you?

Let's take gender out of the equation for a moment. Let's say you were moving to the UK back in the 70s or 80s. Would it not anger you if you were personally being judged or discriminated against because some other Irish people were terrorists? That wouldn't upset you or bother you at all? You'd be ok with being tarred with a negative brush just because you happen, by chance, to have been born in the same country as some other people who are murderers?

If it wouldn't bother you, that's fair enough. All I can say is that most humans would be upset at being treated that way.

For the record, if I saw an ad listing those horrible behaviours by a minority women and blaming other women for them, or suggesting that other women need to be "told" not to do them or they will by default, or that other women have a personal responsibility to stop other women behaving badly, I'd be the first person to make a thread condemning it. I'd find it utterly repulsive.

meeeeh

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.

I think a lit of people are giving Gillette one finger precisely for that.

maccored

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I don't want it banned. I detest censorship. I am merely criticising the hypocritical reaction to it.

but yet women would have anti female adverts banned ... thats the issue you are raising is it not? (personally i dont think its an anti male advert at all - its just talking common sense that all people - men and women - should already know). Cant blame women for complaining just because you wont

Venom

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

I remember the media getting bent out of shape over Hunky Dory ads.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/hunky-dory-ad-sparks-fury-ahead-of-camogie-final-26768897.html

hatrickpatrick

maccored wrote: »

but yet women would have anti female adverts banned ... thats the issue you are raising is it not? (personally i dont think its an anti male advert at all - its just talking common sense that all people - men and women - should already know). Cant blame women for complaining just because you wont

I'd rather everyone had freedom of speech, to be honest. But if we must have censorship, it should apply equally across the board. The current status quo of man-shaming being acceptable while woman-shaming is not, is worse than either other possibility (censorship of both sides or censorship of neither) because it involves different rules for different people based on gender, which is literally always and 100% unacceptable.

El_Duderino 09

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

Careful. You can't say people are offended or triggered or upset by the ad. You have to say they're just dispassionately pointing out an hypocrisy.

The difference in the way men's and women's concerns are dealt with by society is a direct result of decades if thankless work by women's interest groups. They did it in the face of opposition and the result is that an ad like this probably wouldn't be made about women.

Women are still targeted by ads about body image and other topics but I'm sure you'll see that as a completely different topic, right?

Muckka

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm assuming you're a woman since you responded to this, wouldn't make a lot of sense if you weren't but apologies if I'm mistaken - if I told you that you are personally complicit or that you deserve your identity having a bad reputation because other women do behave like this, would you honestly not have a problem with it?

Let's take it a step further - if extremists such as MTGOW became mainstream and you therefore found it difficult to get a date, because men in general were avoiding women on the grounds that some women might f*ck them over, that wouldn't bother you? You wouldn't be angry that you were being judged because others who are bad people happen to share certain demographics with you?

Let's take gender out of the equation for a moment. Let's say you were moving to the UK back in the 70s or 80s. Would it not anger you if you were personally being judged or discriminated against because some other Irish people were terrorists? That wouldn't upset you or bother you at all? You'd be ok with being tarred with a negative brush just because you happen, by chance, to have been born in the same country as some other people who are murderers?

If it wouldn't bother you, that's fair enough. All I can say is that most humans would be upset at being treated that way.

MGTOW is very powerful and gaining traction all over the world.

Men who've been fcked over by women and had enough.

I myself would be hitting towards MGTOW, as I've nothing to loose.
Men are getting tired of it all.

Just go onto a dating website and you'll see people in their mid 30's divorced, the men get the raw deal most of the time.

Guy's are starting to think, do I really want to be emasculated and punished for being a man.
Do I have to do what I'm told.

Some men are at monk status now.

They've had enough, and they're right.
If they don't want to get married, that's their conscious decision.

And I know women are treated badly by men, and most narcissists are men.
I would never like to see anyone treated badly.

Ironically any woman I know who've been with one of those gentle PC emasculated guy's, usually go for a more manly masculine guy the next time.

Let's face it women prefer a guy who's confident, strong and healthy.
Tall dark and handsome hand's down....

hatrickpatrick

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Careful. You can't say people are offended or triggered or update by the ad. You have to say they're just dispassionately pointing out an hypocrisy.

The difference in the way men's and women's concerns are dealt with by society is a direct result of decades if thankless work by women's interest groups. They did it in the face of opposition and the result is that an ad like this probably wouldn't be made about women.

And yet, feminists claim that they represent equality for both men and women, and they attack and try to shut down anyone who makes a movement exclusively to advocate for men in the face of discrimination.

Women are still targeted by ads about body image and other topics but I'm sure you'll see that as a completely different topic, right?

So are men, so no I don't see it as a different topic. There's no double standard there. Ads for anything from deodorant to drink feature lads with six pack abs and epic pecs. I don't have a problem with that, but it shouldn't be a problem when women are sexualised either. Free speech, etc. And if feminists object to women being sexualised but not men, then they are directly discriminating and attempting to create a double standard. That's when it becomes a problem. Gender based advocacy for issues which affect both genders is always wrong, because it's inherently discriminatory.

hatrickpatrick

Muckka wrote: »

MGTOW is very powerful and gaining traction all over the world.

Men who've been fcked over by women and had enough.

I myself would be hitting towards MGTOW, as I've nothing to loose.
Men are getting tired of it all.

Just go onto a dating website and you'll see people in their mid 30's divorced, the men get the raw deal most of the time.

Guy's are starting to think, do I really want to be emasculated and punished for being a man.
Do I have to do what I'm told.

Some men are at monk status now.

They've had enough, and they're right.
If they don't want to get married, that's their conscious decision.

And I know women are treated badly by men, and most narcissists are men.
I would never like to see anyone treated badly.

Ironically any woman I know who've been with one of those gentle PC emasculated guy's, usually go for a more manly masculine guy the next time.

Let's face it women prefer a guy who's confident, strong and healthy.
Tall dark and handsome hand's down....

But would you suggest that all women are responsible for what some of them have done? I don't blame people of either gender for swearing off relationships or sexuality if they've been burned one too many times, but when people start saying that everyone of a certain gender is responsible for the behaviour of a minority, that's when I personally get pissed off. I'm friends with a huge number of incredible women who are very nice people and many of them are in very happy relationships - while it's awful that some women f*ck guys over and that society is ok with it, it's not the fault of these nice individuals I mention, and if someone made an ad telling them that the bad behaviour of other people who happen to be women is somehow their responsibility, I'd be right alongside them declaring that that is an absolutely abhorrent message.

Venom

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Careful. You can't say people are offended or triggered or update by the ad. You have to say they're just dispassionately pointing out an hypocrisy.

The difference in the way men's and women's concerns are dealt with by society is a direct result of decades if thankless work by women's interest groups. They did it in the face of opposition and the result is that an ad like this probably wouldn't be made about women.

Women are still targeted by ads about body image and other topics but I'm sure you'll see that as a completely different topic, right?

Personally, I've always felt those sort of beauty ads, magazines and a large part of the fashion industry were extremely dangerous to women of all ages due to pushing unrealistic expectations and body image as being the norm.

Standman

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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.

The hypocrisy is not the only problem people have with it. From what I've seen, what people don't like about it are:

- It's condescending and tells men what they already know
- It displays a negative, generalised view of men
- Some of the specific things shown in the ad rarely happen/aren't even bad (e.g. "What, we can't even approach women anymore?", "As if fathers are going to just stand around and let their kids knock the shite of each other")

hatrickpatrick

Standman wrote: »

The hypocrisy is not the only problem people have with it. From what I've seen, what people don't like about it are:

- It's condescending and tells men what they already know
- It displays a negative, generalised view of men
- Some of the specific things shown in the ad rarely happen/aren't even bad (e.g. "What, we can't even approach women anymore?", "As if fathers are going to just stand around and let their kids knock the shite of each other")

Absolutely, but if women-hating was also mainstream and a similar ad targeting women would gain mainstream acceptance, I don't think people would be nearly as upset. I certainly wouldn't.

The way I see it, the backlash to this ad doesn't exist in a vacuum, it's more like a tipping point after several years of "man bad, woman good" messaging from the mainstream media with very little opposition from established and influential voices, and a lot of condemnation for men who spoke up against it. I think this ad is maybe just a step too far and has opened the floodgates of lads getting fed up being talked down to and lectured every day.

If this ad hadn't been created, another man-shaming thing by a mainstream voice would have generated the same kind of ire. The powder keg has existed for some time, this particular ad just happened to be the final straw which led to its ignition. If not this, it would have been something else in early 2019.

utyh2ikcq9z76b

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'd rather everyone had freedom of speech, to be honest. But if we must have censorship, it should apply equally across the board. The current status quo of man-shaming being acceptable while woman-shaming is not, is worse than either other possibility (censorship of both sides or censorship of neither) because it involves different rules for different people based on gender, which is literally always and 100% unacceptable.

Which is literally the definition of sexism.

Seems to a movement of people posting back their razors, P&G Ireland:

Calmount Park, 12, The Graan House Units E1 & E14, Ballymount, Dublin, D12 X854

hatrickpatrick

Daxton Deafening Fishbowl wrote: »

Which is literally the definition of sexism.

Exactly, and that's (IMO) the main reason this ad is causing so much resentment. EDIT: Although modern feminists of the same kind championing this ad and attacking those criticising it, insist that sexism can only go in one direction because of "privilege", so a woman saying "all men are pigs" cannot by definition be sexist. Asinine in the extreme.

Seems to a movement of people posting back their razors, P&G Ireland:

Calmount Park, 12, The Graan House Units E1 & E14, Ballymount, Dublin, D12 X854

Ah that'll be some craic I'm looking forward to trying out the Wilkinson ones next week, was going to use up my remaining supply of fushion in the meantime but if this is actually happening I'm totally getting on board. Who said activism couldn't be fun?

El_Duderino 09

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The difference in the way men's and women's concerns are dealt with by society is a direct result of decades if thankless work by women's interest groups. They did it in the face of opposition and the result is that an ad like this probably wouldn't be made about women.

And yet, feminists claim that they represent equality for both men and women, and they attack and try to shut down anyone who makes a movement exclusively to advocate for men in the face of discrimination.

Women are still targeted by ads about body image and other topics but I'm sure you'll see that as a completely different topic, right?

So are men, so no I don't see it as a different topic. There's no double standard there. Ads for anything from deodorant to drink feature lads with six pack abs and epic pecs. I don't have a problem with that, but it shouldn't be a problem when women are sexualised either. Free speech, etc. And if feminists object to women being sexualised but not men, then they are directly discriminating and attempting to create a double standard. That's when it becomes a problem. Gender based advocacy for issues which affect both genders is always wrong, because it's inherently discriminatory.[/quote]

Maybe you feel well represented by the feminists. If you don't then you're free to organise to air your concerns. Do t expect it to be easy. That's not how these things work.

A mare ofine worked hit a charity and it turns out their biggest opponents were other charities and organisations who worked in education but had slightly different focus.

That's how three things work. Being defeatist about it is a lazy cop out. The feminists and gay rights campaigners have endured decades of opposition. But that didn't stop them. It takes decades to change social attitude.

And the results are that society takes their concerns seriously. The options are clear. There a long road ahead whichever Road you take. But only one Road leads to improvement.

Muckka

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

But would you suggest that all women are responsible for what some of them have done? I don't blame people of either gender for swearing off relationships or sexuality if they've been burned one too many times, but when people start saying that everyone of a certain gender is responsible for the behaviour of a minority, that's when I personally get pissed off. I'm friends with a huge number of incredible women who are very nice people and many of them are in very happy relationships - while it's awful that some women f*ck guys over and that society is ok with it, it's not the fault of these nice individuals I mention, and if someone made an ad telling them that the bad behaviour of other people who happen to be women is somehow their responsibility, I'd be right alongside them declaring that that is an absolutely abhorrent message.

No I'd never suggest anything of women all being responsible for the behaviour of a small minority of women.

But unfortunately MGTOW is like an answer to femminism.
And sadly that's as a result of men being treated badly.

I've walked behind coffin's of young men who've lives have been destroyed by the lies of their ex wife and everything the guy loved and worked for gone.
He couldn't cope with the stress and the cliff's of moher was his answer.

A lot more young men take their lives after a breakup than women, that's for sure.

professore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Women are still targeted by ads about body image and other topics but I'm sure you'll see that as a completely different topic, right?

I'd say it's a completely different topic ....

Mrsmum

Daxton Deafening Fishbowl wrote: »

Which is literally the definition of sexism.

Seems to a movement of people posting back their razors, P&G Ireland:

Calmount Park, 12, The Graan House Units E1 & E14, Ballymount, Dublin, D12 X854

Bonus for An Post.

professore

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Maybe you feel well represented by the feminists. If you don't then you're free to organise to air your concerns. Do t expect it to be easy. That's not how these things work.

A mare ofine worked hit a charity and it turns out their biggest opponents were other charities and organisations who worked in education but had slightly different focus.

That's how three things work. Being defeatist about it is a lazy cop out. The feminists and gay rights campaigners have endured decades of opposition. But that didn't stop them. It takes decades to change social attitude.

And the results are that society takes their concerns seriously. The options are clear. There a long road ahead whichever Road you take. But only one Road leads to improvement.

The sexism against ALL men in the media has really gone into overdrive the last few years. Many men are only now waking up to it. I think there will be a big backlash, not least the fact that Trump is now a dead cert for 2020 in the US, especially if Elizabeth Warren or god forbid Hillary runs against him. This is an unfortunate side effect of all this.

I remember when feminists would go crazy if you said a woman was "a nag" (or "bossy" FFS ... that one isn't even gendered!!!) as that was gendered language. Now they have defined a whole new dictionary of negative terms to describe men specifically. It's crazy.

givyjoe

professore wrote: »

I'd say it's a completely different topic ....

Ha.

But, but, but, but.. man up :P