Gillette | Toxic masculinity advert.

joe40

Wibbs wrote: »

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I did pet fostering whilst living in the UK for families fleeing violent home situations. It’s not really a whackadoo idea, it actually fulfills an immediate need, solves a pressing problem. People can’t bring their pets to the shelter they’re bunking at, it’d be absolute bedlam if everyone brought their pets. But they don’t want to give up their pets, especially if there’s children involved. The pet might be the one bright spot in their lives. So fosterers would mind them. A dedicated animal shelter for this purpose does the same job.

Which is fine and laudable OD, but when pets are being looked after over and above abused men that's a pretty good indicator that society has taken a blindingly stupid turn.

Part of the problem in dealing with abuse directed at men is the silence. Men are extremely reluctant to admit it is happening to them.
Part of the reason for that is according to our perceived notions of masculinity no man ( i'm very much including myself here) wants to appear weak.
I'm not totally knocking traditional masculinity but it is one example of where it can be harmful to men.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

seamus wrote: »

That's because there is no problem.

Just a group of people whose entire sense of identity is based on "manliness" and who foam at the mouth whenever anyone would dare to question whether traditional notions of manliness such as "boys will be boys" are actually a reasonable way to raise children who can be functional members of society that treat everyone else with respect.

You have to be the most constantly condescending poster on here. If it's not a problem for you, then it's not a problem at all. You lack compassion.

seamus wrote: »

Realistically the people who get worked up about this so-called "attack on men" are only one step removed from the same psychopath who kidnapped that 13 year old girl and kept her trapped for months.

Are you that detached from reality? You are trying to liken a criminal with somebody who dislikes an ad? Oh, I think I have had enough of your holier than thou, preachy crap. You have an opinion on everything. Is there a thread on boards you have not posted in with your moral projecting?

Tell me how

Phat Cat wrote: »

Men were demeaned in the Gillette ad, okay not as much as in the Done Deal ad that I posted, but men were condescendingly told how to behave and act in an advertisement endorsed by global conglomerate (that, rather ironically, profit from child and forced labour).

If you choose not to see that then that's your prerogative, but its there for everybody else to see and it's not really open to interpretation, especially since it was directed by radical feminist Kim Gehrig

Dare I ask how you feel it is that your view is the one which is correct and not open to interpretation.

Also, this ad actually told men to not accept the inappropriate actions of others. It didn't directly say that they should not act that way. (It is obviously implied of course that if more men react to inappropriate behaviour then less will be inclined to act that way.

freshpopcorn

One of the one's on Maura and Daithi said she didn't like it basically because it's still men who are doing the protecting and miding.

DEFTLEFTHAND

freshpopcorn wrote: »

One of the one's on Maura and Daithi said she didn't like it basically because it's still men who are doing the protecting and miding.

Sure jaysus that's what men are biologically programmed to do.

She can tell that to all the soldiers lying in graves across the continent.

Wibbs

Good Christ Obvious Desperate Breakfasts, your blinkers are set to kill. Its actually nearly beyond belief. Not quite, but nearly. And if there was ever an example of blinkers it's a pretty damned good one. Honestly, I don't blame you for it and I'm genuinely not having a go, it's a blindspot that is pretty endemic and you certainly wouldn't be alone in it.

Maybe to try and nudge the penny so it may drop I did some editing to your post:

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts(Edited by me) wrote: »

I disagree because, like I said, it’s just something that developed out a pressing need, namely “Sh what are we going to do with the abused men?”. It’s just problem-solving. More than likely an on-the-spot idea thought up by someone somewhere who was at the coalface. And I bet that person wasn’t even thinking about gender issues and screwing women over. They were probably just looking at an abused man and thinking “Hmmm, this is an issue, what the hell do we do about this?” and it likely snowballed from there.

And as for the people who volunteer at these Male abuse victim shelters, well, nobody can help every charitable cause so people pick the ones they are most drawn to and have an aptitude for. My helping men fleeing from abusive homes doesn’t mean I don’t give a shabout abused women. I just volunteered in a field where I thought I’d be of most use.

Would women be overlooked less if these specialist male shelters didn’t exist? I doubt it. The reason they came into existence isn’t stupid at all when you think about it. A problem presented itself and was solved. There’s nothing nefarious about it. And personally, I love the idea of children who had to flee an abusive environment having somewhere they can go to visit their dads.

Maybe now?...

Look, the stats are in and across the western world. Men and women suffer from similar levels of partner abuse(the highest rates of abuse are among lesbian couples, lowest are gay men). Broadly speaking women suffer more physical abuse and men more emotional. Nature of the beast. In non reciprocal violence male victims actually outnumber female. Yet in the face of that we do sweet fuck all about the male abuse, but shelters for women's pets are up and running. If we do decide to give a damn as night follows day it'll be the "patriarchy's fault" so still men's fault. And we wonder why male suicide rates and depression and anxiety are going up?

That's but one of the many reasons for that, but the over arching reason is quite simply that men are not valued as much as women in the western world. Just going on the example of shelters and avenues for help, it goes in descending order of value; children, women, dogs/cats, men.

If you're an average Irish woman today, you will do better at school, go further in education, be paid more until kids come along, be better served by medical science, be less likely to be homeless, less likely to be an addict, less likely to be unemployed, more likely to be able to return to work later in life, be treated far more leniently by the courts and if you do go to gaol, you'll serve your time in an "open" prison and you won't be sharing a cell and pissing and shitting in a bucket. You can be as "feminine" or not as you like and will get far less static for either position. Your gender is never "toxic", always blameless and always the victim. If someone hits you, far more people will come to your aid, if someone abuses you far more avenues of help are open to you and after all that you will live longer. These are facts, not "feminist" bullshit.

So I'm sorry, when a couple of hardline purple haired "feminists"* come out with something like this razor advert, there are enough of us, men and women, thinking fuck this, enough.






*It's worth having an oul google about the pair involved, one in particular has an "interesting" backstory, but she can play the Woman card so...

Wibbs

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Sure jaysus that's what men are biologically programmed to do.

She can tell that to all the soldiers lying in graves across the continent.

Well according to that nasty piece of work Hilary Clinton, women are the biggest victims of war. You could not make this shite up, yet her crowd applauded that. This is how deep and how mainstream this crap goes. The problem comes with an obvious and expected backlash against that level of nonsense. You get an equal level of nonsense kicking back and that's how a nasty piece of work like Trump gets elected. People figure fight fire with fire and insanity with insanity.

Wibbs

freshpopcorn wrote: »

One of the one's on Maura and Daithi said she didn't like it basically because it's still men who are doing the protecting and miding.

Though she makes a valid point IMHO. If she's suggesting that women™ aren't automatic members of the Church of the Most Holy Victimhood and god forbid are independently minded adults fully capable of calling out muppets and supporting victims of muppetry(which is pretty much every woman I've known and certainly chose to be around) then the Sisterhood won't like that. It would hurt their narrative and privileged position of cosseted victim.

snotboogie

joe40 wrote: »

Part of the problem in dealing with abuse directed at men is the silence. Men are extremely reluctant to admit it is happening to them.
Part of the reason for that is according to our perceived notions of masculinity no man ( i'm very much including myself here) wants to appear weak.
I'm not totally knocking traditional masculinity but it is one example of where it can be harmful to men.

I heard two women in charge of domestic violence policy in the UK on RTE radio one last week say that men could not be the victims of domestic violence unless they were gay because domestic violence fell under the umbrella of patriarchal abuse of power.

Tell me how

Wibbs wrote: »

Well according to that nasty piece of work Hilary Clinton, women are the biggest victims of war. You could not make this shite up, yet her crowd applauded that. This is how deep and how mainstream this crap goes. The problem comes with an obvious and expected backlash against that level of nonsense. You get an equal level of nonsense kicking back and that's how a nasty piece of work like Trump gets elected. People figure fight fire with fire and insanity with insanity.

Ok so, Trump is Hillary's fault and the fault of women who try to stand up to what has been ingrained prejudice against them? Trump got through a 12 person primary not because he would be best placed to beat Hillary but because of the cess pit that the Republican Party had become in allowing itself to remove all morals and let the one that would stoop the lowest go ahead and do it.

An equal level of nonsense....

Any wonder women feel they have a way to go if they are being told that Hillary is as nonsensical as Trump.

hatrickpatrick

To those women who suggest they wouldn't be offended by a political ad targeting and generalising women in the same way: Would this not upset you if you saw it on the telly during an ad break? Or if it had a message of "Women, make sure you stop your friends from doing this"?

Full disclosure: It would massively piss me off. I'd be first out of the trap to say that generalising women in this manner for something only a minority of scumbags engage in is unnecessarily insulting to the majority of women who are, in fact, decent human beings.

Do you think Gillette could run an ad like this without being attacked and condemned by every corner of the mainstream media and political establishment for being sexist?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Wibbs wrote: »

Good Christ Obvious Desperate Breakfasts, your blinkers are set to kill. Its actually nearly beyond belief. Not quite, but nearly. And if there was ever an example of blinkers it's a pretty damned good one. Honestly, I don't blame you for it and I'm genuinely not having a go, it's a blindspot that is pretty endemic and you certainly wouldn't be alone in it.

Maybe to try and nudge the penny so it may drop I did some editing to your post:


Maybe now?...

Look, the stats are in and across the western world. Men and women suffer from similar levels of partner abuse(the highest rates of abuse are among lesbian couples, lowest are gay men). Broadly speaking women suffer more physical abuse and men more emotional. Nature of the beast. In non reciprocal violence male victims actually outnumber female. Yet in the face of that we do sweet fuck all about the male abuse, but shelters for women's pets are up and running. If we do decide to give a damn as night follows day it'll be the "patriarchy's fault" so still men's fault. And we wonder why male suicide rates and depression and anxiety are going up?

That's but one of the many reasons for that, but the over arching reason is quite simply that men are not valued as much as women in the western world. Just going on the example of shelters and avenues for help, it goes in descending order of value; children, women, dogs/cats, men.

If you're an average Irish woman today, you will do better at school, go further in education, be paid more until kids come along, be better served by medical science, be less likely to be homeless, less likely to be an addict, less likely to be unemployed, more likely to be able to return to work later in life, be treated far more leniently by the courts and if you do go to gaol, you'll serve your time in an "open" prison and you won't be sharing a cell and pissing and shitting in a bucket. You can be as "feminine" or not as you like and will get far less static for either position. Your gender is never "toxic", always blameless and always the victim. If someone hits you, far more people will come to your aid, if someone abuses you far more avenues of help are open to you and after all that you will live longer. These are facts, not "feminist" bullshit.

So I'm sorry, when a couple of hardline purple haired "feminists"* come out with something like this razor advert, there are enough of us, men and women, thinking fuck this, enough.






*It's worth having an oul google about the pair involved, one in particular has an "interesting" backstory, but she can play the Woman card so...

Well, Wibbs, your response is wrapped in a bouquet of condescension. Not the best way to get anyone to read a wall of text post. I couldn’t get past the first third of your response.

You’ve buried a FYP of sorts in your response but it’s easily missed. So technically I can’t complain but changing my post to that extent is really not on. But you enjoy a certain stature around here so I guess that comes with privileges.

You have spectacularly missed my point. Pet shelters and fostering for fleeing families exist for prosaic reasons. You’re determined for that not to be the case but it is. I’m a former volunteer at such an initiative but it doesn’t mean that I value animals more than men. Very far from it. I just understand why they came into being and it’s not because of stupidity.

There are myriad reasons why men’s shelters are not really in existence. It’s such a complicated topic.

I’m really disgusted at your tinkering with my post. It’s really low behaviour and not something anyone should have to resort to.

If you have good points to make, you shouldn’t need to resort to condescension and gimmcky “post-fixing”. Put your points across succinctly. That’s all that required when there are good points to be made.

Fr_Dougal

Wibbs wrote: »

The problem comes with an obvious and expected backlash against that level of nonsense. You get an equal level of nonsense kicking back and that's how a nasty piece of work like Trump gets elected. People figure fight fire with fire and insanity with insanity.

This is exactly it.

Social media has given the crazies a mouthpiece, and lazy journalists are only too happy to publish this crap for online click revenue. It’s snowballing to such an extent that you have normal level headed people of all genders getting sucked in.

We’re at a point now where it’s a case of whoever shouts loudest is ‘right’.

joe40

I don't drink and drive but I don't get annoyed at ads telling me not to drink and drive.

freshpopcorn

snotboogie wrote: »

I heard two women in charge of domestic violence policy in the UK on RTE radio one last week say that men could not be the victims of domestic violence unless they were gay because domestic violence fell under the umbrella of patriarchal abuse of power.

I wasn't aware of this.
I did know a woman couldn't rape a man.(Legally)(Not sure if this is still the case)

Fr_Dougal

joe40 wrote: »

I don't drink and drive but I don't get annoyed at ads telling me not to drink and drive.

So what?

What are you doing to stop others from drinking and driving?

hatrickpatrick

joe40 wrote: »

I don't drink and drive but I don't get annoyed at ads telling me not to drink and drive.

How did you feel about the "slow down boys" ads which started with "men think they're great drivers, but..."? Or the myriad of incredibly smug "women can get cheaper car insurance, nyah-nyah" in the mid-2000s?

joe40

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

I don't drink and drive but I don't get annoyed at ads telling me not to drink and drive.

So what?

What are you doing to stop others from drinking and driving?

I would tell them they're been a dick. If I had keys would not give it too them.

Tell me how

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How did you feel about the "slow down boys" ads which started with "men think they're great drivers, but..."? Or the myriad of incredibly smug "women can get cheaper car insurance, nyah-nyah" in the mid-2000s?

How did you feel about them?

Did you feel emasculated even though statistics showed that more men drove at higher speeds and were involved in more accidents?

Bannasidhe

Wibbs wrote: »

Which is fine and laudable OD, but when pets are being looked after over and above abused men that's a pretty good indicator that society has taken a blindingly stupid turn.

Absolutely there should be shelters for abused men.
Absolutely there should be every possible support for abused men.

But in fairness - do you want women to organise this?

I'm old enough to remember the fight to get them for women - and funding is still an issue. It took serious graft and lobbying to just get legislation passed saying there was such a thing as marital rape and that only happened just under 30 years ago - as far as I know there has only been one successful prosecution and that was of a man whose previous prosecution for the same offence was overturned on appeal.
To get safe places for women (and children) fleeing violence was, and is, a continuing battle.

The same facilities should be available for men - but men need to make this happen. And the first step is victims need to come forward and speak about their experiences... and that is one of the areas where masculinity can be toxic - the shame men feel is effectively silencing them and that has to be addressed. They are the victims and that does not make them weak or lesser men - it means they had the misfortune to be in a relationship with an abusive bully.

hatrickpatrick

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I wasn't aware of this.

The basic ideology which started the 2014-present "culture war" was this nauseating redefining of racism and sexism from "discrimination or prejudice based on demographic" to "prejudice + power", or "discrimination or prejudice by a demographic with 'systemic privilege' against a demographic without it". That's where SJW types emerged and started tweeting things like #KillAllMen and #CancelWhitePeople, and then very immaturely, smugly, and gloatingly responding with "I can't be sexist or racist, and you can't be the victim of sexism of racism, because privilege. Shut up and take it. Ha ha ha".

Again, this wouldn't be a problem if it was confined to the loony bins of the internet, but it got to the stage at which a diversity officer in a UK university made some very bigoted comments and then stated "I can't be sexist or racist because I'm a woman of colour, and racism and sexism require a 'punching down' component or they're not racism or sexism".

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/goldsmiths-students-union-diversity-officer-says-she-cannot-be-racist-or-sexist-to-white-men-because-10244520.html

"I want to explain why this is false. I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describes structures of privilege based on race and gender.

"And therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist because we do not stand to benefit from such a system.

"In order for our actions to be deemed racist or sexist, the current system would have to be one that enables only people of colour and women to benefit economically and socially on such a large scale and to the systematic exclusion of white people and men, who for the past 400 years would have to have been subjected to block colonisation.

"We do not live in such a system, we do not know of such a history, reverse racism and reverse sexism are not real."

This is literally "sins of the father" style argument and it's utterly abhorrent, but this ideology forms the backdrop to why this culture battle has become so unbelievably bitter in recent years. These "feminists" who claim to represent equality, literally promote the idea that double standards and discrimination on the individual level are acceptable because of "macro" issues. It's again the whole collectivism thing, and it's toxic beyond belief.

hatrickpatrick

Bannasidhe wrote: »

But in fairness - do you want women to organise this?

Well according to the Gillette ad, good men have a responsibility to help women counteract bad men, so it shouldn't be unreasonable to suggest that good women have a responsibility to help good men counteract bad women... That's the basis of the argument here after all.

FWIW, I don't agree with the concept of gender-based services for non gender-based problems. Those resources should be divided equally. Homelessness seems to affect more men than women, but I would be utterly opposed to a drive to help homeless men specifically - if there have to be gender segregated services for whatever reason (and of course there can be very good reasons for this) then those providing them should split their resources equally and not prioritise one gender over the other.

Equality, after all - what feminism claims to be all about.

Tell me how

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The basic ideology which started the 2014-present "culture war" was this nauseating redefining of racism and sexism from "discrimination or prejudice based on demographic" to "prejudice + power", or "discrimination or prejudice by a demographic with 'systemic privilege' against a demographic without it". That's where SJW types emerged and started tweeting things like #KillAllMen and #CancelWhitePeople, and then very immaturely, smugly, and gloatingly responding with "I can't be sexist or racist, and you can't be the victim of sexism of racism, because privilege. Shut up and take it. Ha ha ha".

Again, this wouldn't be a problem if it was confined to the loony bins of the internet, but it got to the stage at which a diversity officer in a UK university made some very bigoted comments and then stated "I can't be sexist or racist because I'm a woman of colour, and racism and sexism require a 'punching down' component or they're not racism or sexism".

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/goldsmiths-students-union-diversity-officer-says-she-cannot-be-racist-or-sexist-to-white-men-because-10244520.html

"I want to explain why this is false. I, an ethnic minority woman, cannot be racist or sexist towards white men, because racism and sexism describes structures of privilege based on race and gender.

"And therefore women of colour and minority genders cannot be racist or sexist because we do not stand to benefit from such a system.

"In order for our actions to be deemed racist or sexist, the current system would have to be one that enables only people of colour and women to benefit economically and socially on such a large scale and to the systematic exclusion of white people and men, who for the past 400 years would have to have been subjected to block colonisation.

"We do not live in such a system, we do not know of such a history, reverse racism and reverse sexism are not real."

This is literally "sins of the father" style argument and it's utterly abhorrent, but this ideology forms the backdrop to why this culture battle has become so unbelievably bitter in recent years. These "feminists" who claim to represent equality, literally promote the idea that double standards and discrimination on the individual level are acceptable because of "macro" issues. It's again the whole collectivism thing, and it's toxic beyond belief.

Once more you have taken someone from the outskirts of the feminist bandwidth and suggested that their behaviour is indicative of all who in any way define themselves as feminist.

Their behaviour is radical but so too is saying that this is the common approach of any who are advocating for womens rights.

joe40

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

I don't drink and drive but I don't get annoyed at ads telling me not to drink and drive.

How did you feel about the "slow down boys" ads which started with "men think they're great drivers, but..."? Or the myriad of incredibly smug "women can get cheaper car insurance, nyah-nyah" in the mid-2000s?

No problem whatsoever. I live in a county blighted with boy racers, (admittedly not as bad as it used to be) and welcome any iniative. Some girls can be just as bad but it is predominantly young fellas.

Silentcorner

Fr_Dougal wrote: »

This is exactly it.

Social media has given the crazies a mouthpiece, and lazy journalists are only too happy to publish this crap for online click revenue. It’s snowballing to such an extent that you have normal level headed people of all genders getting sucked in.

We’re at a point now where it’s a case of whoever shouts loudest is ‘right’.

Consuming online media and social media is like hanging around with a complete sh#tstirrer...they'll cause consternation until everyone cops on that he is just an idiot.

It is only a matter of time, before social media and online news face a backlash all of their own!

hatrickpatrick

Tell me how wrote: »

How did you feel about them?

Did you feel emasculated even though statistics showed that more men drove at higher speeds and were involved in more accidents?

I didn't feel emasculated, I just felt targeted. Some men are sh!t drivers, and maybe more men than women, but without the word "some" involved, the word "men" by definition refers to us generally. And criticism based on demographics generally is something which is simply not acceptable.

Bannasidhe

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well according to the Gillette ad, good men have a responsibility to help women counteract bad men, so it shouldn't be unreasonable to suggest that good women have a responsibility to help good men counteract bad women... That's the basis of the argument here after all.

FWIW, I don't agree with the concept of gender-based services for non gender-based problems. Those resources should be divided equally. Homelessness seems to affect more men than women, but I would be utterly opposed to a drive to help homeless men specifically - if there have to be gender segregated services for whatever reason (and of course there can be very good reasons for this) then those providing them should split their resources equally and not prioritise one gender over the other.

Equality, after all - what feminism claims to be all about.

Who said any different?
I certainly didn't.
I not only agree with you, I have stepped in when I thought a woman was being out of line to a man. And I will continue to do so in the future.

splashuum

As bonkers as it sounds, this isn't the only propaganda type video that has ever been put out. We are constantly subject to (Force Fed) propaganda on our TV's, in our newspapers, on advertisements etc etc.
The mass "programming" as I like to call it is ongoing and I fear its getting alot worse.
I have noticed many people are now incapable of forming their own opinions, they just go along and agree with whatever rhetoric is fed to them by the media. Sheeple

retro:electro

Tell me how wrote: »

How did you feel about them?

Did you feel emasculated even though statistics showed that more men drove at higher speeds and were involved in more accidents?

Moot point. Those ads are aimed to encourage society as a whole, and tend not to target a specific gender. They’re also not trying to “sell” you anything, and don’t come off as twee and insincere.

Tell me how

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I didn't feel emasculated, I just felt targeted. Some men are sh!t drivers, and maybe more men than women, but without the word "some" involved, the word "men" by definition refers to us generally. And criticism based on demographics generally is something which is simply not acceptable.

But they 'were' suggesting men generally because all men needed to hear the ad.

Using the word some would have possibly given some people a subconscious sense that they were not being asked to consider was their speed acceptable.

retro:electro wrote: »

Moot point. Those ads are aimed to encourage society as a whole, and tend not to target a specific gender. They’re also not trying to “sell” you anything, and don’t come off as glib and insincere.

See why it wasn't moot?