• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Gillette (Yes, the razor company) chastises men in new commercial highlighting #metoo movement

RSB

Member
Feb 15, 2009
1,761
115
820
Taken at face value, I thought this was interesting. Thread ban me if #Fakenews.


Found the CBS video with timestamp to the removed footage, so looks like Gilette really did remove it... (watch video from OP and you can't find this clip)

Can't show non-white men engaging in "toxic masculinity" you know? Removing that from the ad was the only way to achieve full wokeness.

The people denying the obvious anti-white agenda look (even more) stupid now though.
 
Nov 13, 2016
1,539
1,391
395
edit: That CBS vid segment was pretty good.

Now that CBS video, that was a good conversation and the critique at the end made sense. That was good stuff.
Why?

I watched the vid and thought it was awful. Their arguments are misguided and misrepresenting the issue to paint men as the problem and the source, even if they don't engage in any harmful behavior themselves. They're even going so far as to blame young boys(!) for behavior they and others may show later on. Umm, hello? Where's the parents in this story? It's been said multiple times already, but in terms of upbringing mothers and teachers (who happen to mostly be women) probably have the biggest influence on children. Just like Gillette's ad, they're pretending that toxic masculinity was carefully crafted by men to benefit themselves and keep women down. That's just not true. That's a fantasy.

"Women are men's property, they're less valuable" yeah sure, that's why men are sent off to the battlefield to die by the thousands. That's why women and children go first when a ship sinks or whatever, because they're second-rate citizens that men find expandable and have such hate for because they're so inferior. Those masculine traits men came up with that actually hurt themselves? Well, I guess men just really fucking hate themselves to keep showing that kind of behavior, huh?

The shit they're saying isn't even consistent with their own story and argument. How anyone can take imbeciles like them seriously is a mystery to me. So I'm really interested to know what you thought was good about that segment.
 

badblue

Member
Nov 25, 2012
819
586
675
Edmonton
Oh, right, they're just starting a conversation:
Sadly a lot of that conversation is stained with "If you disagree, you are wrong"

Now that CBS video, that was a good conversation and the critique at the end made sense. That was good stuff.
While I agree that the critique at the end was good, especially acknowledging that using the term "toxic masculinity" puts people on the defensive they just seemed to get people for the interview that would not challenge anything. Specifically Ted Bunch and A Call to Men.

I was not familiar with A Call to Men, and looking at their site.... Their Guiding Principals are quite telling.

#7: The majority of men don't perpetrate violence against women and girls. What they are responsible for is creating, maintaining and benefiting from a male dominating culture that is required for the violence to exist. Once educated to these realities we believe there is hope for men.
With that type of attitude I'm surprised they don't sell cat o' nine tails in their shop for the majority of men to self-flagellate as penance.

~~~

I haven't seen this linked here (I may have missed it, as this topic is already quite large), But I found a write up on Quora on this ad, it's quite detailed write up on why people disagree with how the ad is saying it's message, rather then the message it self.
Why are so many people bothered by the Gillette advert?
Why so many decent people hate the Gillette ad has nothing to do with the overt messaging, which can be summed up “men need to hold other men accountable” and “the boys of today are the men of the future”. These are truisms and irrefutable. One is just a blatant fact — every man was at one point a boy.
No one honestly even disagrees that bullying and sexual aggression are bad. Who would? Honestly, why does anyone pat themselves on the back for saying “I stand against sexual harassment”?
Congratulations. Now head to the back of the line behind everyone else who came to that conclusion first, but didn’t expect a trophy for having basic human decency.
It isn’t even the invocation of the extremely politicized and questionable nature of “toxic masculinity”. Even very conservative writers such as myself have written on the existence of toxic masculinity, though we disagree very much with what that means compared to the creators of this ad.
So it is hard to simply say, “I disagree with what Gillette is saying,” but…
But it is extremely easy to disagree with the way they said it.
As they say, the devil is in the details. The Gillette ad is a goldmine of devilish details that tell a very, very different story than they intended, and one which will cost them long, long into the future.
 

Kingwingin

Gold Member
Aug 12, 2014
3,486
1,092
695
32
Taken at face value, I thought this was interesting. Thread ban me if #Fakenews.


Found the CBS video with timestamp to the removed footage, so looks like Gilette really did remove it... (watch video from OP and you can't find this clip)

I like how toxic white media is a half century old sitcom while black media is stuff you see in present day.

This really exposes how anti white this add really is
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
13,571
21,318
1,300
Australia
Why?

I watched the vid and thought it was awful. Their arguments are misguided and misrepresenting the issue to paint men as the problem and the source, even if they don't engage in any harmful behavior themselves. They're even going so far as to blame young boys(!) for behavior they and others may show later on. Umm, hello? Where's the parents in this story? It's been said multiple times already, but in terms of upbringing mothers and teachers (who happen to mostly be women) probably have the biggest influence on children. Just like Gillette's ad, they're pretending that toxic masculinity was carefully crafted by men to benefit themselves and keep women down. That's just not true. That's a fantasy.

"Women are men's property, they're less valuable" yeah sure, that's why men are sent off to the battlefield to die by the thousands. That's why women and children go first when a ship sinks or whatever, because they're second-rate citizens that men find expandable and have such hate for because they're so inferior. Those masculine traits men came up with that actually hurt themselves? Well, I guess men just really fucking hate themselves to keep showing that kind of behavior, huh?

The shit they're saying isn't even consistent with their own story and argument. How anyone can take imbeciles like them seriously is a mystery to me. So I'm really interested to know what you thought was good about that segment.
👌
 

Grinchy

Member
Aug 3, 2010
21,825
4,603
1,025
In a cave outside of Whooville.
Taken at face value, I thought this was interesting. Thread ban me if #Fakenews.


Found the CBS video with timestamp to the removed footage, so looks like Gilette really did remove it... (watch video from OP and you can't find this clip)

lol wow, they were really scared as hell to show a black person doing anything wrong (not that grabbing women's asses seems all that wrong to me)
 
Jan 25, 2018
4,842
6,412
640
29
Southeastern USA
Taken at face value, I thought this was interesting. Thread ban me if #Fakenews.


Found the CBS video with timestamp to the removed footage, so looks like Gilette really did remove it... (watch video from OP and you can't find this clip)

They couldn't even show a single example of a black guy being sexist in the ad to balance it out?

What a load of total bullshit.
 

ssolitare

Banned
Jan 12, 2009
17,167
2,039
1,180
Why?

I watched the vid and thought it was awful. Their arguments are misguided and misrepresenting the issue to paint men as the problem and the source, even if they don't engage in any harmful behavior themselves. They're even going so far as to blame young boys(!) for behavior they and others may show later on. Umm, hello? Where's the parents in this story? It's been said multiple times already, but in terms of upbringing mothers and teachers (who happen to mostly be women) probably have the biggest influence on children. Just like Gillette's ad, they're pretending that toxic masculinity was carefully crafted by men to benefit themselves and keep women down. That's just not true. That's a fantasy.
We see this completely differently. They talk a lot about the developed norms of society to this point, and how it's now being disrupted, and pushed to change. This is where we are, and this is where we are going. It's not about blame or self hate.

"Women are men's property, they're less valuable" yeah sure, that's why men are sent off to the battlefield to die by the thousands. That's why women and children go first when a ship sinks or whatever, because they're second-rate citizens that men find expandable and have such hate for because they're so inferior. Those masculine traits men came up with that actually hurt themselves? Well, I guess men just really fucking hate themselves to keep showing that kind of behavior, huh?
This doesnt make any sense to me. It's not my kind of interpretation.
 
Nov 13, 2016
1,539
1,391
395
We see this completely differently. They talk a lot about the developed norms of society to this point, and how it's now being disrupted, and pushed to change. This is where we are, and this is where we are going. It's not about blame or self hate.
How and why did these societal norms come to be? That's a question that never seems to pop up. Even in that segment they're like "Boys see it on TV!" Well, why is it on TV then?

Why do these people and Gillette like to shift the blame onto men, while emphasizing how much women suffer under them? Why are women portrayed as victims when they themselves are part of society and have roughly the same amount of influence on societal norms as men?

Just from that segment, the things I can extract from it are:
  1. Men are responsible for toxic masculinity (women's role in this is ignored)
  2. Men benefit from toxic masculinity (which they contradict later on)
  3. Women suffer under toxic masculinity (the ways in which they benefit are ignored)
  4. Things are changing because women said it should (despite women being worthless in the patriarchal society they describe, somehow women are capable of forcing change like this on men)
I think that's blaming and hating.

This doesnt make any sense to me. It's not my kind of interpretation.
I don't even know how to respond to this. What is your interpretation then when people say women aren't valued and treated as property of men? You think they're right? What kind of behavior are you seeing in real life that supports those claims? I think most men fucking love women and pretty much everything they do is to appeal to them or care for them. I'm sure there's a group of assholes who abuse women to get what they want, but in general western society doesn't approve of such behavior, and hasn't for a long, long time.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
13,571
21,318
1,300
Australia
Thank you. A very thorough, reasoned and substantiated analysis.
The writer makes a good point that I don't think was covered much in this thread and which would go some way towards explaining Gillette's motivations (assuming they're competent and not stupid): the majority of household spending decisions are made by women. Men aren't the ones in the grocery aisle deciding which razor to buy; their wives are.

He also succinctly highlights how specious the bullying scenarios in the ad are. Online bullying / social manipulation are not the male domain; they are the female domain. Texting things like "FREAK!", "You're such a loser", "Everyone hates you" are not male bullying behaviours, they're female behaviours.
 
Last edited:

ssolitare

Banned
Jan 12, 2009
17,167
2,039
1,180
How and why did these societal norms come to be? That's a question that never seems to pop up. Even in that segment they're like "Boys see it on TV!" Well, why is it on TV then?

Why do these people and Gillette like to shift the blame onto men, while emphasizing how much women suffer under them? Why are women portrayed as victims when they themselves are part of society and have roughly the same amount of influence on societal norms as men?

Just from that segment, the things I can extract from it are:
  1. Men are responsible for toxic masculinity (women's role in this is ignored)
  2. Men benefit from toxic masculinity (which they contradict later on)
  3. Women suffer under toxic masculinity (the ways in which they benefit are ignored)
  4. Things are changing because women said it should (despite women being worthless in the patriarchal society they describe, somehow women are capable of forcing change like this on men)
I think that's blaming and hating.
You are pulling more worms into the can here, and I just want to remind you that you are outside the scope of the ad. If they were asked about the role women have in reinforcing toxic masculinity, they would definitely have an answer for you no problem. But lining up with the target audience and message of the ad, if the ad is basically saying that men should check men's bad behavior towards women and other men, and be a better example for future men, is that really a problem?

By the way, talking about a disadvantage is not negated by the presence of an advantage. Being disadvantaged and advantaged by one concept is not a contradiction, it's a feature. People are continuously moving forward, and no amount of current advantage will take away their desire to shed the disadvantage.

I don't even know how to respond to this. What is your interpretation then when people say women aren't valued and treated as property of men? You think they're right? What kind of behavior are you seeing in real life that supports those claims? I think most men fucking love women and pretty much everything they do is to appeal to them or care for them.
As good as this can be, it can also be part of the problem or create other problems.

There is a wide spectrum of behavior. Decent people mostly do good things while also doing some bad things at the same time. Not holding other men accountable when they see bad behavior is an important aspect of that. If one sees a blue-haired tattooed liberal woman, stop making sexist jokes because you don't like the way that she looks.

I'm sure there's a group of assholes who abuse women to get what they want, but in general western society doesn't approve of such behavior, and hasn't for a long, long time.
Society rewards bad behavior persistently everyday, and most of it comes from good people, the worst of it from bad people.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
13,571
21,318
1,300
Australia
You are pulling more worms into the can here, and I just want to remind you that you are outside the scope of the ad. If they were asked about the role women have in reinforcing toxic masculinity, they would definitely have an answer for you no problem. But lining up with the target audience and message of the ad, if the ad is basically saying that men should check men's bad behavior towards women and other men, and be a better example for future men, is that really a problem?

By the way, talking about a disadvantage is not negated by the presence of an advantage. Being disadvantaged and advantaged by one concept is not a contradiction, it's a feature. People are continuously moving forward, and no amount of current advantage will take away their desire to shed the disadvantage.



As good as this can be, it can also be part of the problem or create other problems.

There is a wide spectrum of behavior. Decent people mostly do good things while also doing some bad things at the same time. Not holding other men accountable when they see bad behavior is an important aspect of that. If one sees a blue-haired tattooed liberal woman, stop making sexist jokes because you don't like the way that she looks.



Society rewards bad behavior persistently everyday, and most of it comes from good people, the worst of it from bad people.
If you want to prescribe a treatment, you first need to make a diagnosis. The diagnosis put forth in this ad is utterly false as pointed out in the quora post above, though I suspect you haven't read it because you know it won't confirm your biases and you therefore would chalk it up as a "waste of time".

If so-called toxic masculinity is perpetuated by males for males, explain why the associated behaviours are more prevalent in boys raised without fathers.
 

ssolitare

Banned
Jan 12, 2009
17,167
2,039
1,180
If you want to prescribe a treatment, you first need to make a diagnosis. The diagnosis put forth in this ad is utterly false as pointed out in the quora post above, though I suspect you haven't read it because you know it won't confirm your biases and you therefore would chalk it up as a "waste of time".

If so-called toxic masculinity is perpetuated by males for males, explain why the associated behaviours are more prevalent in boys raised without fathers.
Are you bitching/whining at me, or attacking me, I can't tell.

YOU HAVENT READ THE QUORA POST DUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR@#O$%#@$$T!!

The AD.....television AD.....TV AD....GILLET AD COMMERCIAL is pretty narrow and simple in its immediate message.

This cat is bringing up single mothers and shit, good grief. Wana know something interesting?

That's according to a new study by researchers at BYU and Ball State University that finds entire families thrive as modern fathers move away from "toxic" aspects of "manliness" that limit men to being authority figures, breadwinners and disciplinarians, but not nurturers.

The study is published in the Journal of Marriage and Family.
So if you wanna have a comprehensive discussion we can do that. But don't confuse the ad with single mothers.
 
Last edited:
Nov 13, 2016
1,539
1,391
395
You are pulling more worms into the can here, and I just want to remind you that you are outside the scope of the ad.
That's because one of the more interesting aspects of both Gillette's ad, and this news segment, is what they choose not to say on the topic.

If they were asked about the role women have in reinforcing toxic masculinity, they would definitely have an answer for you no problem.
If these people are not capable of adding a bit of nuance to what they're saying unless explicitly asked, I don't know if they're just lazy, stupid or sneaky.

But lining up with the target audience and message of the ad, if the ad is basically saying that men should check men's bad behavior towards women and other men, and be a better example for future men, is that really a problem?
That depends. Do you think it's a problem when companies spread half-truths at best, or lies at worst? Because that's what Gillette is doing with their ad.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
13,571
21,318
1,300
Australia
Are you bitching/whining at me, or attacking me, I can't tell.

YOU HAVENT READ THE QUORA POST DUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR@#O$%#@$$T!!

The AD.....television AD.....TV AD....GILLET AD COMMERCIAL is pretty narrow and simple in its immediate message.

This cat is bringing up single mothers and shit, good grief. Wana know something interesting?



So if you wanna have a comprehensive discussion we can do that. But don't confuse the ad with single mothers.
Talking in circles and saying nothing as usual.

Don't link me to Gender Studies journal articles that you've only read the title of. Answer the question: if so-called toxic masculinity is perpetuated by males for males, why are the associated behaviours more prevalent in boys raised without fathers?

If you can't / won't answer the question, I think it's beyond question that you're only here to troll and misdirect.
 

ssolitare

Banned
Jan 12, 2009
17,167
2,039
1,180
Talking in circles and saying nothing as usual.

Don't link me to Gender Studies journal articles that you've only read the title of. Answer the question: if so-called toxic masculinity is perpetuated by males for males, why are the associated behaviours more prevalent in boys raised without fathers?

If you can't / won't answer the question, I think it's beyond question that you're only here to troll and misdirect.
Your question doesn't have anything to do with the conversation that I was having JORDAN. Thanks for bitching at me though, I appreciate it.
 

ssolitare

Banned
Jan 12, 2009
17,167
2,039
1,180
That's because one of the more interesting aspects of both Gillette's ad, and this news segment, is what they choose not to say on the topic.


If these people are not capable of adding a bit of nuance to what they're saying unless explicitly asked, I don't know if they're just lazy, stupid or sneaky.


That depends. Do you think it's a problem when companies spread half-truths at best, or lies at worst? Because that's what Gillette is doing with their ad.
Well, it is an ad.
 

matt404au

Gold Member
Apr 25, 2009
13,571
21,318
1,300
Australia
Your question doesn't have anything to do with the conversation that I was having JORDAN. Thanks for bitching at me though, I appreciate it.
It absolutely does, and you're now dodging and misdirecting because you know you're backed into a corner.

No more bullshit out of you until you answer the question: if so-called toxic masculinity is perpetuated by males for males, why are the associated behaviours more prevalent in boys raised without fathers?
 
Nov 13, 2016
1,539
1,391
395
Well, it is an ad.
Walked right into that one, didn't I?

Gonna point out the obvious anyway, Gillette isn't lying about their own product, but about something much broader, and much more impactful. That's why it carries more weight than your average advertisement. If you're going to address such an issue, you better damn well make sure you get it right. It seems that wasn't the priority here.
 

ssolitare

Banned
Jan 12, 2009
17,167
2,039
1,180
Walked right into that one, didn't I?

Gonna point out the obvious anyway, Gillette isn't lying about their own product, but about something much broader, and much more impactful. That's why it carries more weight than your average advertisement. If you're going to address such an issue, you better damn well make sure you get it right. It seems that wasn't the priority here.
They're also co-opting feminism for their own gain. And all of this is obvious too, that's why it's so questionable when companies pick up topics like this. That BLM trivializing Pepsi ad pissed everyone off too.
 

Soltype

Member
Mar 30, 2015
1,842
532
455
Taken at face value, I thought this was interesting. Thread ban me if #Fakenews.


Found the CBS video with timestamp to the removed footage, so looks like Gilette really did remove it... (watch video from OP and you can't find this clip)

Wow, this is some bullshit.
 
Dec 15, 2011
4,420
9,685
940
The writer makes a good point that I don't think was covered much in this thread and which would go some way towards explaining Gillette's motivations (assuming they're competent and not stupid): the majority of household spending decisions are made by women.
And herein lies the crux, and the hypocrisy.
A gross inequality between men and women.
But as it benefits the virtue signaller, the inequality is exploited and distorted rather than highlighted and addressed.
 

Lanrutcon

Member
Feb 19, 2014
8,199
1,655
575
Earlier in the thread I speculated that the marketing industry is probably hailing the ad as a masterpiece. Semi-related: my roommate works for a very large ad agency (communication/brand group) in my country, and I spoke to her about the ad. She immediately knew exactly which ad I was talking about, since her peers were applauding it as exceptionally effective and successful.
 
Jan 25, 2018
4,842
6,412
640
29
Southeastern USA
Earlier in the thread I speculated that the marketing industry is probably hailing the ad as a masterpiece. Semi-related: my roommate works for a very large ad agency (communication/brand group) in my country, and I spoke to her about the ad. She immediately knew exactly which ad I was talking about, since her peers were applauding it as exceptionally effective and successful.
So I guess we can expect a bunch more bullshit like this? Great.

It really fucking terrifies me just how wrongheaded mainstream American culture is becoming and yet so sure of it's own righteousness.

There are people who couldn't even begin to fathom why someone would dislike the ad for reasons that aren't sexism, it'd be like explaining quantum physics to a caveman, there comes a time when human beings become just a little less human when they are so unable to think outside their own worldview, you are more of a drone than a person when all you do is accept and believe what you're told by others without thinking.

I take no joy in being an outsider, to me this isn't about my ego or standing out from the crowd, I wish I could be comfortable with the mainstream school of thought, but I know enough to know when something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
 

MilkyJoe

Member
Jan 29, 2014
9,050
2,021
565
I don't see why everyone is getting so upset.

Surely this only bothers you if you are a man who beats women or is a sexist dick?
Man walks into bakers, he's shopped there for years

Baker: what can I get you?
Man: white farmhouse thanks
Baker: here you go. And a gentle reminder, maybe you could be a better person?
Man: I'll probably go to the bakers across town from now on.

It's really not difficult to see why people are annoyed. Unless you are thick, or virtue signalling.
 

hariseldon

Member
Aug 22, 2018
3,019
4,506
510
Does everyone who is thick virtue signal?

Note: I am only discussing this specific point, I do not agree with @MilkyJoe's general assessment.
Maybe my facetious post was a bit naughty, and for accuracy, if we're considering sets, we would argue that virtue signallers are a subset of thick people.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
3,884
4,798
380
It absolutely does, and you're now dodging and misdirecting because you know you're backed into a corner.

No more bullshit out of you until you answer the question: if so-called toxic masculinity is perpetuated by males for males, why are the associated behaviours more prevalent in boys raised without fathers?
I too, would like to see an answer to this
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
14,109
2,644
1,570
32
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Not everyone who is thick virtue signals.
But a lot of virtue signallers happen to be thick.

I hope I don't have to spell out to you what logical fallacy I'm referencing here. Or the irony of it.
I have no idea what you want to tell me. I have merely pointed out that it is not correct to state that "thick people" and "virtue signallers" are the same group. In fact, people exist in all four regions: Intersection, thick but not virtue signaller, virtue signaller but not thick, complement set.
 

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
7,365
6,950
665
Earlier in the thread I speculated that the marketing industry is probably hailing the ad as a masterpiece. Semi-related: my roommate works for a very large ad agency (communication/brand group) in my country, and I spoke to her about the ad. She immediately knew exactly which ad I was talking about, since her peers were applauding it as exceptionally effective and successful.
From which persepctive? Marketing perspective and visibility yeah sure.

Actually addressing the issue and start a conversation ? No. Right now instead of talking most people bitch about each other. All that this ad has caused is a more toxic atmosphere in this regard.


Also whe people bring up media I love how we totally ignore black gangster culture. In every song women are bitches and need to be banged. In every song there is some gangster shit going on etc but what we are talking about is about young white boys and men being toxic because they like Superheros or play on the schoolyard with rulers acting as swords....

But yeah this is something you are not allowed to mention or it is being completely ignored.


Also Note: I do not believe in Media influencing people that much but I was talking about people who ry to blame media, (movies, commercials, music etc) for toxic masculinity.
 

hariseldon

Member
Aug 22, 2018
3,019
4,506
510
I have no idea what you want to tell me. I have merely pointed out that it is not correct to state that "thick people" and "virtue signallers" are the same group. In fact, people exist in all four regions: Intersection, thick but not virtue signaller, virtue signaller but not thick, complement set.
Yeah I feel that a little post having a bit of fun may have got a bit out of hand here... It wasn't meant to be taken particularly seriously, just a bit of a jab.
 

JareBear

Gold Member
Nov 5, 2016
11,406
14,087
780
I don't care where (just far)
Not everyone who is thick virtue signals.
But a lot of virtue signallers happen to be thick.

I hope I don't have to spell out to you what logical fallacy I'm referencing here. Or the irony of it.
Spell it out for me, big boy. I want to be condescended further.

Let’s stay angry over a dumbass ad. Those damn outrage culture libs got nothin on us!

Try to shave away my manhood? NICE TRY WOKE CORPORATE HACKS!!



 
Last edited:

Lanrutcon

Member
Feb 19, 2014
8,199
1,655
575
From which persepctive? Marketing perspective and visibility yeah sure.

Actually addressing the issue and start a conversation ? No. Right now instead of talking most people bitch about each other. All that this ad has caused is a more toxic atmosphere in this regard.
Totally #1 on that count. I doubt Gillette actually give a crap about addressing the issue.
 
Last edited:

CatholicGamerGuy

Gold Member
Aug 15, 2018
1,137
1,113
490
Not everyone who is thicc virtue signals.
But a lot of virtue signallers happen to be thicc.

EDIT: My comment isn't making any point. I just thought the usage of the word "thick" was amusing as it also means an attractive full bodied woman in recent internet lingo ("thicc").
 
Last edited:
Dec 15, 2011
4,420
9,685
940
LOL. At this point I can't tell who is trolling, who thinks their latest hot-takes are adding anything of value and what the people who repeatedly come into a 1,900 comment thread to be dismissive of the discussion hope to achieve.

Also, if you're challenged by the logical fallacy I referenced earlier I have a bridge to sell you.
 

KarneeKarnay

Member
Mar 4, 2014
1,985
56
325
London, UK
www.markeenrw.com
Man walks into bakers, he's shopped there for years

Baker: what can I get you?
Man: white farmhouse thanks
Baker: here you go. And a gentle reminder, maybe you could be a better person?
Man: I'll probably go to the bakers across town from now on.

It's really not difficult to see why people are annoyed. Unless you are thick, or virtue signalling.
Not really. It's more like walking down the street and hearing some guy try to sell you something, but first bringing you in by talking about something you can agree on. It's a classic marketing technique. Back in the days of the Red Scare you had adverts that would talk about the bad Commies and how a man with the right brand of Smokes could stand up to them. This is better, because at the very least, it shows men solving the problem as well.

Within Media studies there is a term for intent and for the life of me I can't find it. Basically every piece of media has an intent, a message with it. In terms of advertisement most are, buy this product. How you communicate this message and how persuasive it is, is determined by how your package it.

It's not very effective to just say "Buy this product.". You usually need to tell some sort of story. This can be done in multiple ways. It's why the 1984 Apple Add is so iconic. The intent is, buy this product, but the packaging of it was how it stood out. Essentially it changed the message from buy this product, to "Break the mold! Be unique! Do this by buying Apple!" That's not to say it's the only message we can take. The athlete who breaks the mold, is an athlete. Their powerful, strong, they break the mold, the status quo. This tells you that buying Apple also make you like this person. It's a masterpiece of media and honestly I could talk all day about it, but I'm going to skip to one important concept. Once you release a piece of Media to the wild, you can't control who consumes it or how it is consumed. An environmentalist or authoritarian is going to get a very different reaction to the 1984 advert, than a tech enthusiast. That's why most successful adverts are bland in nature. They appeal to a large audience and they are packaged in such a way that the majority who consume it should have a similar response. The best of these are emotional responses, because if you associate an emotion with a piece of media, even as you forget the details, that emotion, that feeling will stick with you for a long time.

Onto Gillet. In my opinion there are two audiences of which this media is designed to get an emotions reaction from. The largest is men. Gillet is a brand that sells to majority men. Shavers are a fact of life for most men, so they've already got a link to us. The second is a smaller group, those that have been impacted or experienced toxic masculinity. How either of these groups consume this media is up to them. That said I can guess at how they can receive it.

1. Men in general: "Don't engage in aspects of Toxic Masculinity and stand up against those that do. Also buy our product."
2. Men who engage in aspects of Toxic Masculinity: "You are the problem. Don't buy from us."

I'm part of group 1. That's how I understood the media after consuming it. I'm not saying that there are only 2 ways to receive it. People can take offence about anything. The message here doesn't appear to be any different from what an anti-drug video might be. I hardly see people up in arms about the implication that people in hoodies are implied to all be selling you drugs.

Either you are in group 2, or there is a leap being made that I'm not following. It's like watching the JP interview. Where JP says "Hierarchies exist in nature." and then she takes offence. He didn't say that our society should be run like a hierarchy with women on the bottom. There is leap she made there and that's what I think is happening here. People are so ready to take offense that they are leaping to conclusions.

It's like when a show has a black guy selling drugs and people get outraged because they think the show is saying that all black guys sell drugs. It happens, but that's not what's being said. They're making a leap.
 
Sep 9, 2013
671
98
415
coal shed
www.youtube.com
I wouldn't know about this abomination if it weren't for the useless outrage which made spam this trash all over the media, and I find it sad that something a low quality ad as this got this kind of spotlight. No one is going to change their mindset towards the other sex just because of this, what this ad does is stirring people up on the internet without offering an actual solution for real life problems. It is common sense for me not harass other people at least by my standards, and if you need something like this to "open your eyes" then you are a lost cause. Be nice to girls, or boys, live your life, don't get offended every piece of shit media made garbage which is generated purposefully to make people outrage, and maybe next time I don't get a bad joke like this shoved down my throat forcefully, and before I get accused of being a sexist or anything else, let me remind you that these companies doesn't give a flying fuck about ethics, so don't be naive, what they really care about is money.

This ad was never about rising awareness, this was always about stirring people up, to get on every existing media platform, for free ad space.
 

njr

Member
Jan 26, 2009
891
111
800
Onto Gillet. In my opinion there are two audiences of which this media is designed to get an emotions reaction from. The largest is men. Gillet is a brand that sells to majority men. Shavers are a fact of life for most men, so they've already got a link to us. The second is a smaller group, those that have been impacted or experienced toxic masculinity. How either of these groups consume this media is up to them. That said I can guess at how they can receive it.

1. Men in general: "Don't engage in aspects of Toxic Masculinity and stand up against those that do. Also buy our product."
2. Men who engage in aspects of Toxic Masculinity: "You are the problem. Don't buy from us."

I'm part of group 1. That's how I understood the media after consuming it. I'm not saying that there are only 2 ways to receive it. People can take offence about anything. The message here doesn't appear to be any different from what an anti-drug video might be. I hardly see people up in arms about the implication that people in hoodies are implied to all be selling you drugs.

Either you are in group 2, or there is a leap being made that I'm not following. It's like watching the JP interview. Where JP says "Hierarchies exist in nature." and then she takes offence. He didn't say that our society should be run like a hierarchy with women on the bottom. There is leap she made there and that's what I think is happening here. People are so ready to take offense that they are leaping to conclusions.
This misses an audience that has been common in this thread. The best criticism of this is not that it’s offensive, it’s just embarrassing and wholly confusing that a razor company would think this would start a productive discussion that would change minds. After having learned who was involved in making the campaign, it makes sense. There’s elements of the video that seem to fall in line with the pathologized view of masculinity (and also some moments that look like they don’t follow their own standards on representation). Even further, it seems to be worrisome that many others can’t understand this argument and conflate that with identifying with the worst representations of males in this ad. It’s incredibly strange to see people that dislike the ad can understand the “you’re not who they’re talking about” argument, while those defending the ad have trouble unpacking the opposing argument.
 

MilkyJoe

Member
Jan 29, 2014
9,050
2,021
565
Not really. It's more like walking down the street and hearing some guy try to sell you something, but first bringing you in by talking about something you can agree on. It's a classic marketing technique. Back in the days of the Red Scare you had adverts that would talk about the bad Commies and how a man with the right brand of Smokes could stand up to them. This is better, because at the very least, it shows men solving the problem as well.

Within Media studies there is a term for intent and for the life of me I can't find it. Basically every piece of media has an intent, a message with it. In terms of advertisement most are, buy this product. How you communicate this message and how persuasive it is, is determined by how your package it.

It's not very effective to just say "Buy this product.". You usually need to tell some sort of story. This can be done in multiple ways. It's why the 1984 Apple Add is so iconic. The intent is, buy this product, but the packaging of it was how it stood out. Essentially it changed the message from buy this product, to "Break the mold! Be unique! Do this by buying Apple!" That's not to say it's the only message we can take. The athlete who breaks the mold, is an athlete. Their powerful, strong, they break the mold, the status quo. This tells you that buying Apple also make you like this person. It's a masterpiece of media and honestly I could talk all day about it, but I'm going to skip to one important concept. Once you release a piece of Media to the wild, you can't control who consumes it or how it is consumed. An environmentalist or authoritarian is going to get a very different reaction to the 1984 advert, than a tech enthusiast. That's why most successful adverts are bland in nature. They appeal to a large audience and they are packaged in such a way that the majority who consume it should have a similar response. The best of these are emotional responses, because if you associate an emotion with a piece of media, even as you forget the details, that emotion, that feeling will stick with you for a long time.

Onto Gillet. In my opinion there are two audiences of which this media is designed to get an emotions reaction from. The largest is men. Gillet is a brand that sells to majority men. Shavers are a fact of life for most men, so they've already got a link to us. The second is a smaller group, those that have been impacted or experienced toxic masculinity. How either of these groups consume this media is up to them. That said I can guess at how they can receive it.

1. Men in general: "Don't engage in aspects of Toxic Masculinity and stand up against those that do. Also buy our product."
2. Men who engage in aspects of Toxic Masculinity: "You are the problem. Don't buy from us."

I'm part of group 1. That's how I understood the media after consuming it. I'm not saying that there are only 2 ways to receive it. People can take offence about anything. The message here doesn't appear to be any different from what an anti-drug video might be. I hardly see people up in arms about the implication that people in hoodies are implied to all be selling you drugs.

Either you are in group 2, or there is a leap being made that I'm not following. It's like watching the JP interview. Where JP says "Hierarchies exist in nature." and then she takes offence. He didn't say that our society should be run like a hierarchy with women on the bottom. There is leap she made there and that's what I think is happening here. People are so ready to take offense that they are leaping to conclusions.

It's like when a show has a black guy selling drugs and people get outraged because they think the show is saying that all black guys sell drugs. It happens, but that's not what's being said. They're making a leap.
There execution was deliberately provocative. You know who the director is, I'm sure.

Don't lecture me in social politics and expect me to buy your wares. It's really that simple.
 

Dunki

Member
Oct 24, 2017
7,365
6,950
665
It's like when a show has a black guy selling drugs and people get outraged because they think the show is saying that all black guys sell drugs. It happens, but that's not what's being said. They're making a leap.
No it is not a leap because it fits the modern feminist ideology which stigmatized the withe men as problem of everything regarding sexism and racism. and here we do not have 1 white person. There are like 40 white people who are the bad example. And NOT ONE black Asian etc Person NOT ONE. It was not a coincidence. It was not a coincidence to use the sentence that SOME Men are good.

This commercial is utterly racist and sexist because it is based on generalization a shitty ideology (modern feminism) has. And it stigmatizes white men/boys even further.

There are already hundreds of articles on news sites how whiteness is causing everything.

Whiteness is a problem while hiking while eating, while dancing, while being on the Internet, using a bike, going rafting, drinking tee, teaching yoga basically just exist. And I will not support such a racist view and generalization in ANY way or FORM.

No one would have cried if they have just talking about toxic masculinity but the utterly generalization is what makes men and women mad.
 
Last edited:

KarneeKarnay

Member
Mar 4, 2014
1,985
56
325
London, UK
www.markeenrw.com
There execution was deliberately provocative. You know who the director is, I'm sure.

Don't lecture me in social politics and expect me to buy your wares. It's really that simple.
I've no idea who the director is and it is certainly provocative, but why is the controversial? The intended message appears to be good to me. Don't engage toxic behavior.

There's a leap being made from this, I'm not suggesting you engage in this behavior, but do just just very much dislike social politics? I hadn't considered that as a reason.