Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

hatrickpatrick

Milan Black Troll wrote: »

I dislike this Gillette ad and fully get where guys are coming from, but this meme isn't that effective - nobody tells boys that He Man's physique is the one to try and attain. If anything that physique is ridiculed (Arnie).

Not that there's that much pressure put on girls to attain a Barbie figure either. Maybe in the 80s there was.

Fairly stupid, dishonest meme either way.

You've got to be kidding, right? Most of advertising culture tells young lads that having huge muscles and a visible six pack is the only way a woman will ever even look at you.

givyjoe

Augme wrote: »

I assumed he was trying to be "subtley" serious by making a stupidly over the top point.

Humour me re: stupid 'points', you asked the question of why would you feel the need to touch a woman. Do you see a problem with the possible reason I gave you?

Zorya

Augme wrote: »

Why do you feel the need to put your hands on a women?

Because you're a friend of theirs and you are giving them a big squeezy hug to say hallo?
Because they have their back to you and you are holding a hot cup of coffee for them and you want to get their attention?
Because you are their doctor putting a plaster on them?
Because you are steadying yourself with their help instead of tripping down the steps?
Because you are their judo instructor and their stance could use a little work?
Because you are fond of them and give them a soft arm punch as you pass by?
Because you suddenly saw the maddest thing and you grab a person next to you saw, WTF is that? Are we going to be abducted by aliens? (and if so, any chance of panic sex? )

Jeekers, I hope we are not at the point where humans cannot touch each other.

citytillidie

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You've got to be kidding, right? Most of advertising culture tells young lads that having huge muscles and a visible six pack is the only way a woman will ever even look at you.

Sure look at soaps all guys who are not in shape are jokes or dead beats if they have any out of shape guys on them.

They can only get woman if rich.

fattymuatty

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Here's an analogy for you: There's a difference between deciding to get fit and seeking out advice on how to get fit, and having someone say to you "You. You're unfit. You shouldn't be. Do better." This "advice" for men is unsolicited - I didn't ask anyone for advice on becoming a better person because I'm perfectly happy with myself as I am, and making that advice demographic-based inherently means that the person giving the advice feels like the demographic in question in general isn't good enough. That's where the "this ad is telling men they're not good enough" thing is coming from.

Would you object to some random person saying to you "your outfit is hideous, make more of an effort next time"? Would you object to going about your day and listening to your mp3 player, when some random person comes up to you and says "your taste in music is sh!te, listen to better stuff"? Would you object to leaving a book shop with some of your favourite author's books under your arm, and having someone say "that author is crap. You must be intellectually deficient if you're willing to read their stuff"?

Self-improvement when it's chosen by the individual in question is of course a good thing. Unsolicited "you need to improve yourself, you're not good enough at the moment" advice is inherently offensive. "You need to improve yourself because you're a member of this demographic, and this demographic isn't good enough at the moment" is even more offensive.

Another analogous thought experiment: What if a UK television station ran ads directed towards Irish people specifically, saying "you can be a better Irish person", and using some stereotype such as one Irish person - male or female - seeing another order a pint with a couple of empty pint glasses beside them, and intervening to lecture them on drinking too much? You wouldn't regard that as inherently condescending?

Honestly, no I wouldn't care. I like how I dress, I am happy with the level at which I drink etc. Just like I didn't take offence to the examples of female toxicity or whatever that poster called it. Right now if someone questioned my ability to run a business that would sting because it is something I am questioning myself.

I understand things stinging when someone picks a sore spot but an ad saying some men are decent, some men aren't, why don't we work together to try and change things, I don't see why that would cut as deep as it seems to with you if you really are as happy with yourself as you purport to be.

Standman

fattymuatty wrote: »

I'm a woman and not offended by this list. And I have and would call out a friend if she was behaving in a manner which I thought wasn't on. Why wouldn't you? I may not be responsible for them but I have morals and it is important to me to stand by them. I don't think I am alone in that, I frequent a forum where the vast majority of posters are female and it is full of threads from women questioning morals, asking what they can do better next time to help more etc. Learning from each other how to be better people, not just saying I am fine as I am because truthfully most of us have areas we could do with working on.

That's what I don't understand, all this why should I look out for anyone other than myself stuff? You look out for people other than yourself because it's the decent thing to do.

I think the heart of it is that many men believe (rightly or wrongly) that they are being spoken down to by a group of people who don't like them just for being men, to put it simply.

If the list of male issues was presented to them in a different context from a source they trusted, I think they would be more open to consider them and discuss them as you describe above, because they wouldn't feel defensive.

When you scratch the surface a bit with some of these guys, you see that yes, they would call out that behaviour in their friends. What they're really reacting against is this perceived hidden agenda beneath it. When they're presented with this stuff, they're thinking of the type of folk online that throw around "white male" as if it's an insult, and that condescend to them and seem to get a perverse pleasure out of witnessing male indignation.

And maybe they have a point... but on the other hand, I think a lot of guys get addicted to this kind of outrage and actually enjoy it in a weird way. That's the internet, I suppose.

Gimme A Pound

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You've got to be kidding, right? Most of advertising culture tells young lads that having huge muscles and a visible six pack is the only way a woman will ever even look at you.

Not He-Man's/Arnie's bodybuilder physique - big difference between that and six-pack with muscles (not big bulging ones).

I absolutely agree there is pressure put on men too - but just that that meme is sh1t. It's like obese women using that "men prefer women with curves" thing which has pictures of curvy but slim women (as if these are supposed to be along the same lines as the obese women) beside emaciated catwalk models (as if anyone outside of fringe folk find that physique hot). I see the point both are making (men experience pressure too, you don't have to be super skinny to be attractive) but they're both going about it in a dishonest way.

hatrickpatrick

fattymuatty wrote: »

Honestly, no I wouldn't care. I like how I dress, I am happy with the level at which I drink etc. Just like I didn't take offence to the examples of female toxicity or whatever that poster called it. Right now if someone questioned my ability to run a business that would sting because it is something I am questioning myself.

I understand things stinging when someone picks a sore spot but an ad saying some men are decent, some men aren't, why don't we work together to try and change things, I don't see why that would cut as deep as it seems to with you if you really are as happy with yourself as you purport to be.

Because it's been relentless. The last four years have involved so many double standards being pedalled by the mainstream media and mainstream voices, all essentially boiling down to "men are kinda sh!t, women are good, men should be more like women" that at this point a lot of us are just reading these things and our brains are reacting with "Leave. Us. The. F*ck. Alone."

Here's a decent article summing this up:

https://menarehuman.com/the-worst-a-man-can-get


The Lecturing and Hatred of Men is Endless


Men, who have put up with adverts like this for decades, have finally snapped. Men are fed up with having their entire gender blamed for the actions of actual, literal, criminals – and they are angry that their own problems are being ignored. Men have finally hit breaking point – they are sick of being constantly lectured. Especially about attitudes that mainly exist in Hollywood and the heads of feminists.

Everyone – especially feminist woman – demand that women should be respected. But they refuse to respect men. They laugh at equality. And any attempt to rebuke their lecturing of men is met with accusations of ‘fragile masculinity!’ and ‘you must be a rapist!’ and ‘you must hate women!’. And yet, to do the reverse would be ‘mansplaining’! So many buzzwords made to control men.


And

So the question, really, is this:


If a man made a gender-reversed version of this film where he called out women for flagrant sexual assault, and patronizing of men, and bullying, and so on – what would the reaction be? Or, as Redditor EsraYmssik put it:

“Imagine an advert that went: “Muslims, stop blowing people up. It’s finger lickin’ good.” or “Women, stop murdering your children. Buy Maxi Pads instead.” – Redditor EsraYmssik

I personally think the reaction to any of these films would be marked on a scale ranging from ‘Nagasaki’ to ‘meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs’ – and all men would be group-blamed. Yet again.

Funny how it’s only ever men who get blamed for things that women also do. And how nice to wake up and hear your entire gender called out as monsters on the news. It’s like being black-out drunk every night.

It probably won’t surprise you at this point to hear that the film was created by a feminist marketing consultant. Or that the Proctor and Gamble 2015 SuperBowl message for girls went a little something like this:

Girls are great the way they are! Boys – don’t you dare shame the girls! Girls – don’t be ashamed!
Or that their 2019 SuperBowl message for boys went like this:

Some men are okay, but most won’t do or say the right things unless we shame them to. Boys need to change now so they don’t turn out to be horrible people like most men are today.
What a message for our children “boys are trash – girls are perfect” – both of which are hashtags, by the way. What a world we live in. Incidentally, the anonymous Redditor who supplied that analysis also had this to say:

“I’ve got two kids 4 years apart. I’m really supposed to be good with the negative messaging my son is getting at the same age my daughter got the positive messaging …”
This is by no means the first time we have covered this media trait of trying to demoralise boys on Men Are Human. And it won’t be the last. Not by a long shot. And the trend is even more staggering when you try to analyse the sexist train of logic behind it.

This is why this is being taken so personally. It's a double standard which has been going on in the mainstream for several years now - build girls and women up, tear men and boys down. Or more specifically, tell girls to reach for the stars, tell boys not to reach for anything without checking if anyone else wants to go in front of them.

Gimme A Pound

citytillidie wrote: »

Sure look at soaps all guys who are not in shape are jokes or dead beats if they have any out of shape guys on them.

They can only get woman if rich.

That's hardly always the case in soaps. Most of the time it isn't.

Massiveguganga

Owen MacDermott is getting massive air time on this.

citytillidie

Milan Black Troll wrote: »

That's hardly always the case in soaps. Most of the time it isn't.

It has been a long time since i watched one but last one i seen was Hollyoaks who had a heavier girl with some muscle guy, in fact don't think i even saw a heavy guy on that soap.

Silentcorner

fattymuatty wrote: »

Honestly, no I wouldn't care. I like how I dress, I am happy with the level at which I drink etc. Just like I didn't take offence to the examples of female toxicity or whatever that poster called it. Right now if someone questioned my ability to run a business that would sting because it is something I am questioning myself.

I understand things stinging when someone picks a sore spot but an ad saying some men are decent, some men aren't, why don't we work together to try and change things, I don't see why that would cut as deep as it seems to with you if you really are as happy with yourself as you purport to be.

But they specifically aimed their condescending message firmly at white men.

It is crystal clear, white men are the problem.

That is racism. The difficulty is it has become so normalised to target white males ad companies think they can get away with it.

Only last week, the American Psychology Association published a report that specifically states, traits associated with masculinity, stoicism, competitiveness, aggression are issues that need to be dealt with, I suppose we should be grateful they didn't single out white masculinity.

This is very disturbing.

There is a very unusual vibe in public discourse these days, we live in very intolerant and divisive times, adverts like this one throw fuel on the fire!

Some body of people somewhere, do not like white males and are ignoring the comfortable lifestyles most of us live in that are provided for them by those very white men they denigrade....what other part of the world would an ad company pull a stunt like this??

Silentcorner

Standman wrote: »

I think the heart of it is that many men believe (rightly or wrongly) that they are being spoken down to by a group of people who don't like them just for being men, to put it simply.

If the list of male issues was presented to them in a different context from a source they trusted, I think they would be more open to consider them and discuss them as you describe above, because they wouldn't feel defensive.

When you scratch the surface a bit with some of these guys, you see that yes, they would call out that behaviour in their friends. What they're really reacting against is this perceived hidden agenda beneath it. When they're presented with this stuff, they're thinking of the type of folk online that throw around "white male" as if it's an insult, and that condescend to them and seem to get a perverse pleasure out of witnessing male indignation.

And maybe they have a point... but on the other hand, I think a lot of guys get addicted to this kind of outrage and actually enjoy it in a weird way. That's the internet, I suppose.

I'm afraid it is not a mis perception, it is very real.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/15/opinions/traditional-masculinity-apa-berlatsky/index.html

eviltimeban

People going on about "if any other group was in this ad". But any other group wasn't, they made the ad with this group. So that argument is meaningless. This is something that has to be said - being a man isn't just being a tough guy, or a "man's man".

And moving forward, I'd like to see advertisers take this to the next step, showing men who are ironing or cooking or looking after their kids in the "traditional" female role. No more of this "mums know best" approach. Dads know best too. That's equality.

Standman

Silentcorner wrote: »

I'm afraid it is not a mis perception, it is very real.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/15/opinions/traditional-masculinity-apa-berlatsky/index.html

You added "mis", not me! :P

hatrickpatrick

eviltimeban wrote: »

People going on about "if any other group was in this ad". But any other group wasn't, they made the ad with this group. So that argument is meaningless.

How is it meaningless? The whole point is that they wouldn't be allowed away with it by the mainstream establishment if they did it with any other group. This is a problem because it means that men are not afforded the "protected status" from generalised hate and abuse that others are. Do I really need to explain why this is something which would make some men extremely angry?

This is something that has to be said - being a man isn't just being a tough guy, or a "man's man".

Absolutely. And there are ways to do this without the "men in general are a problem" undertones of this ad. You can do that in a positive way without the "men, you suck, it's your fault, and we command you to change. Do as your told."

And moving forward, I'd like to see advertisers take this to the next step, showing men who are ironing or cooking or looking after their kids in the "traditional" female role. No more of this "mums know best" approach. Dads know best too. That's equality.

100%. That would be absolutely fantastic. Again, it can be done in a positive way without any shaming or instruction a la "You're not good enough. Change. That's an order."

Seanachai

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How is it meaningless? The whole point is that they wouldn't be allowed away with it by the mainstream establishment if they did it with any other group. This is a problem because it means that men are not afforded the "protected status" from generalised hate and abuse that others are. Do I really need to explain why this is something which would make some men extremely angry?



Absolutely. And there are ways to do this without the "men in general are a problem" undertones of this ad. You can do that in a positive way without the "men, you suck, it's your fault, and we command you to change. Do as your told."



100%. That would be absolutely fantastic. Again, it can be done in a positive way without any shaming or instruction a la "You're not good enough. Change. That's an order."

It's not that bad over here, yet. What I see in the US is an agenda that has the power to completely stifle your career or social standing, if you're not seen to be on board with it. It's ironic that it's advocates see themselves as being warriors against the system, when their language and behaviour is actually quite authoritarian.

Chips Lovell

It's terrible Joe.

From now, I'll be using some other razor to shave my legs.

hatrickpatrick

Seanachai wrote: »

It's not that bad over here, yet. What I see in the US is an agenda that has the power to completely stifle your career or social standing, if you're not seen to be on board with it. It's ironic that it's advocates see themselves as being warriors against the system, when their language and behaviour is actually quite authoritarian.

This. And to those wondering "what's the point of making a fuss, it's only an ad", we're trying to make sure this man-shaming culture doesn't become more entrenched over here than it already has.

Lumen

I thought the whole point of advertising was to tell people what to do.

suicide_circus

Lumen wrote: »

I thought the whole point of advertising was to tell people what to do.

yeah, to buy razors, not how to behave in society.

hatrickpatrick

Lumen wrote: »

I thought the whole point of advertising was to tell people what to do.

It's to tell people to buy certain products. Not to tell them that they're probably bad people because of their demographic and they should be ashamed and change their behaviour, even when that has nothing whatsoever to do with the product at hand.

As others have said, imagine a Tampax ad which told women that gold digging is wrong, only "some" women don't do it, so they should make sure other women don't do it and become a "better" woman.

freshpopcorn

Lumen wrote: »

I thought the whole point of advertising was to tell people what to do.

I was wondering about this ad being aired in the UK.(but I don't think it will)
Before Christmas the Iceland ad wasn't allow to air due to it being political/push the message of not using palm oil.
Would this ad be considered the same?

Lumen

suicide_circus wrote: »

yeah, to buy razors, not how to behave in society.

Consumption is a social behaviour.

But in any case, you don't have to do either. It's not a telescreen broadcast from the thought police, it's an ad.

I don't get the rage.

Tired Gardener

Finding a video asking men to be kind to others as controversial is quite worrying to me.

The advert had a decent message, a far cry from the usual fighter jet or sports cars racing around we are used to seeing on razor adverts. Those were very silly.

citytillidie

eviltimeban wrote: »

People going on about "if any other group was in this ad". But any other group wasn't, they made the ad with this group. So that argument is meaningless. This is something that has to be said - being a man isn't just being a tough guy, or a "man's man".

And moving forward, I'd like to see advertisers take this to the next step, showing men who are ironing or cooking or looking after their kids in the "traditional" female role. No more of this "mums know best" approach. Dads know best too. That's equality.

Yea like the dove ad posted on here, showing dads in a better place playing with kids, brushing a girls hair as she moves about, more positive stuff than this Gillette one

suicide_circus

Lumen wrote: »

Consumption is a social behaviour.

But in any case, you don't have to do either. It's not a telescreen broadcast from the thought police, it's an ad.

I don't get the rage.

you're probably too woke to get the rage

freshpopcorn

Lumen wrote: »

Consumption is a social behaviour.

But in any case, you don't have to do either. It's not a telescreen broadcast from the thought police, it's an ad.

I don't get the rage.

I'm not really pushed about the ad.
I don't think it's a good ad.
The main message I get from people with it is that if the ad with women. What would the reaction be.

Chips Lovell

suicide_circus wrote: »

you're probably too woke to get the rage

What?

suicide_circus

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

What?

you know, woke. A state of being in which one enthusiastically and uncritically embraces the latest nonsensical trendy leftist theorem