Latest Gillette ad suggests their customers are broken, toxic and need "fixing" through feminism

Hah even as I was posting that the dislikes went down by 7K but then shot up by 8K (putting it 1K above when I first loaded it up) weird not sure if that is just the system trying to keep up or dislikes being removed.
 
a28Zpqx.png


:D
 
Love the way the phrase "toxic masculinity" has been co-opted to mean how toxic masculinity is to women and society. It actually means the aspects of masculinity that are toxic to men, such as not being able to express our emotions, always expected to be "strong", always losing out during divorces, always being expected to be successful and be "the provider", etc.
 
Steampunk said:
Love the way the phrase "toxic masculinity" has been co-opted to mean how toxic masculinity is to women and society. It actually means the aspects of masculinity that are toxic to men, such as not being able to express our emotions, always expected to be "strong", always losing out during divorces, always being expected to be successful and be "the provider", etc.
Click to expand...

Sort of like how people claim "feminism actually means equality" when in reality it doesn't seem to.
 
Eliot said:
I find it amazing that people spill their packet noodles over their mum's keyboard this hard, over an advert.
Click to expand...

It isn't really so much about the ad itself it is just people getting fed up of aspersions cast indiscriminately at them strangely enough as a campaign that it partly against prejudice - to take something from the Worth A Buy video above - the short film makes out like certain behaviours are routine of a certain target group and smearing them all likewise when in reality it is an exception that few find acceptable or are complicit with.
 
Rroff said:
It isn't really so much about the ad itself it is just people getting fed up of aspersions cast indiscriminately at them strangely enough as a campaign that it partly against prejudice - to take something from the Worth A Buy video above - the short film makes out like certain behaviours are routine of a certain target group and smearing them all likewise when in reality it is an exception that few find acceptable or are complicit with.
Click to expand...
Are these aspersions cast at you indiscriminately? I don't feel they are to me? I can 'think' of people that perhaps they do apply to, but in actual fact those people are pretty much asses and are a minority of men, probably....

If your not complicit or don't find it acceptable, it's not aimed at you, so surely your lack of complicit-ness in some of the behaviour exhibited is a sign of your agreement in the content?
 
Eliot said:
Are these aspersions cast at you indiscriminately?
Click to expand...

The ad is aimed at men as a group. Again, I invite you to try the substitution test and swap in an advert aimed at Black people saying they need to get their act together and see if you'd be saying "no, no - it's only aimed at the criminal ones" or women and ask yourself honestly if you'd be saying "no, I'm totally fine with someone making an ad at women saying be more honest" or an ad aimed at Muslims saying "don't blow stuff up". Would you be here posting "I don't see why anyone should feel offended - it's only aimed at the terrorist muslims". I'm quite confident in saying no, you wouldn't be replying with any of those. But it's okay to lecture men as a group like that and that is our point. Men are made out to be bad people suitable to be lectured. It's now routine in society.
 
Eliot said:
Are these aspersions cast at you indiscriminately? I don't feel they are to me? I can 'think' of people that perhaps they do apply to, but in actual fact those people are pretty much asses and are a minority of men.
Click to expand...
They aren't directly. But they increasingly are, indirectly. For just one example a couple of years ago my son's school friend wanted to stay over to play on his XBox. We knew them, but not closely. My wife was going to be very late at work although I was home. I said to my wife that I'd happily collect him and bring him back for the night. But she pointed out that the parents might not be comfortable with their kid being 'alone' (albeit with my son too) with just the dad in the house. It's that sort of creeping sexism that's really starting to cheese people off now. Apparently it would have been fine for my wife to have their son over with just her. But not fine for their son to stay in a house with just a dad. Why should I be any less trustworthy than my wife?

Also have you seen how few male teachers there are nowadays? Very few men want to take the risk of any spurious allegations near school children now. I think that's going to have very long term implications as many young boys from single parent families no longer have any male role models in their life.

While I'm at it, why do dad's get called "absent fathers" when the mother gets custody, even if he actually wanted them?

The advert itself is nothing too significant. But it's yet another instance of this creeping sexism that many of us are calling out wherever we see it.
 
Yes quite a few feminists (and meninists) seem to have serious daddy issues. Would explain a lot about certain faux-smug emoticon abusers in this thread.
 
h4rm0ny said:
The ad is aimed at men as a group. Again, I invite you to try the substitution test and swap in an advert aimed at Black people saying they need to get their act together and see if you'd be saying "no, no - it's only aimed at the criminal ones" or women and ask yourself honestly if you'd be saying "no, I'm totally fine with someone making an ad at women saying be more honest" or an ad aimed at Muslims saying "don't blow stuff up". Would you be here posting "I don't see why anyone should feel offended - it's only aimed at the terrorist muslims". I'm quite confident in saying no, you wouldn't be replying with any of those. But it's okay to lecture men as a group like that and that is our point. Men are made out to be bad people suitable to be lectured. It's now routine in society.
Click to expand...

LOL.

So few things to unpick here, First of all, "Again", I don't think i've spoken to you here so not sure why you are acting like we have.

It is aimed at men yes, It's an advert for a shaving brand, which itself is aimed at men and make men's shavers, this does not mean that it's aimed at you specifically and that's basically where your whole point falls down.

Men that display the behaviour in the advert are quite obviously more a portion of overall men than, to use your examples, Criminals are of men, Terrorists are of muslims, as far as the black people getting their act together bit.... not sure I follow.

Men being made out to be bad people and lectured? Well it depends, do you think for example the classic "builder-type" (Stereotype) "Alright love i'd bang your back doors in" type behaviour is acceptable? I mean, it's part of what the advert is getting at and to me if you do think that's acceptable then you are due a lecturing....
 
Hades said:
They aren't directly. But they increasingly are, indirectly. For just one example a couple of years ago my son's school friend wanted to stay over to play on his XBox. We knew them, but not closely. My wife was going to be very late at work although I was home. I said to my wife that I'd happily collect him and bring him back for the night. But she pointed out that the parents might not be comfortable with their kid being 'alone' (albeit with my son too) with just the dad in the house. It's that sort of creeping sexism that's really starting to cheese people off now. Apparently it would have been fine for my wife to have their son over with just her. But not fine for their son to stay in a house with just a dad. Why should I be any less trustworthy than my wife?

Also have you seen how few male teachers there are nowadays? Very few men want to take the risk of any spurious allegations near school children now. I think that's going to have very long term implications as many young boys from single parent families no longer have any male role models in their life.

While I'm at it, why do dad's get called "absent fathers" when the mother gets custody, even if he actually wanted them?

The advert itself is nothing too significant. But it's yet another instance of this creeping sexism that many of us are calling out wherever we see it.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is in anyway related to the advert though is it?

As far as the "just the dad alone with the son and his male mate scenario..." I mean, thats just nonsense.... you should speak to your wife about it....

EDIT: Missed the bit about absent fathers.

Well i've seen example where it's a valid thing to say, I.E. I know of a couple, married 5 years ago, just had twins, Dad lost a bit of weight so has now decided he wants to dash off a **** everything under the son, leaving his now estranged wife to look after two 2 year olds.
In the meantime he's basically paying nothing towards the kids and on weekends not doing anything with them other than passing them off to his parents at nights.

That's an absent father surely.

If that isn't the case and theres no valid reason for it, then it's standard Mother vs Father post divorce/breakup BS usually spouted by the "Inbox me hun" types on Facebook
 
Last edited:
Eliot said:
It is aimed at men yes, It's an advert for a shaving brand, which itself is aimed at men and make men's shavers, this does not mean that it's aimed at you specifically and that's basically where your whole point falls down.

Men that display the behaviour in the advert are quite obviously more a portion of overall men than, to use your examples, Criminals are of men, Terrorists are of muslims, as far as the black people getting their act together bit.... not sure I follow.

Men being made out to be bad people and lectured? Well it depends, do you think for example the classic "builder-type" (Stereotype) "Alright love i'd bang your back doors in" type behaviour is acceptable? I mean, it's part of what the advert is getting at and to me if you do think that's acceptable then you are due a lecturing....
Click to expand...

Problem is the short tries to portray this behaviour as a routine feature of a specific target group, not just a minority like it really is, while championing certain other groups as the saviour of or an example the target group should follow - on its own it might need a bit of interpreting but it is quite plain in the light of an increasing campaign to push this agenda seen increasingly across society of late the stuff going on with EA being just one example of it. And slowly people are starting to push back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom