Gillette Feminist Commercial Controversy

[+OverSword]

11 hours ago, Aquila King said:

The ad is basically just telling guys "Don't be a dick and then blame that behavior on 'well, that's just what guys do!'" 

No, this ad is portraying that this is the way most men act.  What is not happening is a few men acting unacceptably being brought into line or shamed for their behavior by the moral and correct acting majority of men. 

[+OverSword]

11 hours ago, Habitat said:

In my experience, any person who identifies strongly with their gender, is apt to be a ding-dong. The fact that it automatically discounts or undervalues half of humanity, tells you all you need to know about that attitude.

I identify strongly as male and I certainly don't discount, dislike, or am unappreciative of women.  Heck these day's more than half of the friends I do things with on a regular basis are female.  Maybe you're the ding dong?

Edited January 18, 2019 by OverSword

[+OverSword]

10 hours ago, thedutchiedutch said:

 It's an ad. Why take it serious ?

Companies pay big bucks for advertising because they are effective at influencing people.  That's a bit serious right there when the message being pushed is most men are bad and more so if you've committed the sin of being white on top of it.

[+OverSword]

8 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

Not sure what the deal is, really.

This Gillette ad encourages men to act like true gentlemen; not some annoying, macho douchebag. You know, the type that claims to represent masculanity..

No it doesn't.  It portrays most men as the annoying macho douchebags which is an insulting portrayal.  Rewatch the commercial and see how many men are not behaving unacceptably.

[spartan max2]

13 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I genuinely don't see what all the fuss is about.  The ad is basically just telling guys "Don't be a dick and then blame that behavior on 'well, that's just what guys do!'" 

So yeah, since you basically told us why you don't like it, I'll definitely be responding to you here in-depth.

Teaching young boys that certain negative character traits (such as: never be a victim, never show any weakness, suppress your emotions, encouraging violence, empathy and compassion are 'unmanly', etc.) are what it means to 'be a man' is psychologically unhealthy and unrealistic.

Toxic Masculinity does NOT mean 'all men are toxic', it means that certain character traits often associated with masculinity are not actually masculine, they're just hateful and inconsiderate. Why would anyone be against that?

White people clearly aren't the problem. The problem are men who call themselves 'masculine' when in reality they're just douchebags.

They were clearly speaking against objectifying women, treating women with respect and dignity, not grabbing them or doing anything sexual without their consent, and not bullying or being violent with others.

If you're actually for any of that then you're part of the problem here.

What the...?  Where on earth did you get that?

I've already explained most of this above, but they were singling out a few character traits that are falsely associated with 'masculinity'. 

I mean, to suggest that they were stereotyping anyone is such a baseless claim I can't help but think you intentionally made that up out of thin air.

Uh, the issue of 'toxic femininity' (while not addressed by that specific name) actually is addressed on the left.  The response to that is called feminism, and you conservatives make a point to s**t all over it every chance you get.

Granted, there are also some toxic forms of feminism that I too oppose, but the original overall form of feminism is a good thing for women.

Okay, veeeeeery big difference here. 

Masculinity and femininity are directly tied to gender biology, therefore to discuss what exactly defines those two terms is always in reference to that biological source.

Drugs and crime are not biologically linked to being a black person. BIG difference.

They did have a positive message. You were just apparently too triggered and insecure in your own manhood to hear it.

Apparently, anything even remotely negative regarding so-called 'masculinity' makes you conservatives melt like a bunch of special little snow flakes.

I was hoping you would reply to the thread, I have seen your post on other threads around similar topics and I often disagree with you but you tend to make good points.

First off we need to separate intention from effect. We can agree that they had good intentions. The negative traits you listed are a problem men face. However, parts of the video are things your probably disagree with. 

for example, the kids watching a music video with hot women in it then they turn it off because it is "bad". It is natural for teenage boys to want to look at women, it is shaming to boys to suggest otherwise. It is like telling a teenage boy that it is a sin to "pleasure yourself". Watch the video not for it's intentions but for what is actually portrayed. 

My problem is the way they delivered this message, the message got delivered in a way that basically sounded like "men are bad, men are bad, we have to be better". When in reality I can't think of anyone in my life who agrees with bullying, sexual assault, or violence. The video suggest that these behaviors are behaviors that men condone, how much people do you personally know that actually support these behaviors? 

A "toxic femininity" video would never happen, it would be considered sexist the moment it aired, do you actually believe opposite?

As for the part about you can make a video on masculinity because it's biological? I guess I do not understand your point, you can make a video like this is the traits are considered inherent? 

I just want to point out with the bolded part: I notice this all around the internet. The second a male critiques anything feminist the insult is instantly an attack on the persons masculinity, "you are insecure, a snowflake, fragile, etc". Because if a man complains about anything he is considered a baby or weak, all of a sudden that toxic masculinity that feminist have a problem with gets reinforced by feminist. 

Young boys do see these videos, and they see the actual message it portrays, not the intentions behind them. The message is that men are bad. You do not have to be better if you are not bad in the first place. Therefore saying we have to be better assumptively places the fact that you are bad as default. 

Edited January 18, 2019 by spartan max2

[spartan max2]

13 hours ago, Arbenol said:

Oh you poor little snowflakes.

As I said above, whenever males have a critique about something feminist he is a "snowflake, fragile, has a sensitive ego, or is a baby". Because if men complain or show any sign of being upset they are weak right. 

[Tatetopa]

8 hours ago, bee said:

but there is still the Social Engineering aspect of the ad...

Stefan Molyneux shares a searing and brilliant in depth analysis...

 

I did watch the video link bee, and here you are doing your own social engineering if I may say so.  You advertise Stefan Molyneux as searing and brilliant. This is not a critique of you, we all do it.  To some extent, we want other people to like the things we like and believe what we believe, or at least I do.  So when we describe of explain something, we sometimes use superlatives or hyperbole.  Those of us to whom that comes most naturally go into advertising.  

Advertising is all about social engineering.  It is the basis for it all.  Advertising wants people to change their habits or use a different product, or buy more.  From adding one word to a shampoo label, Lather, Rinse, Repeat, a brilliant advertising man doubled use of a product.  Do we really need to wash our hair twice?  We have been conditioned to believe we do and use conditioner too.

There is very little subtle advertising.  In the `15 seconds your attention is drawn they have to slap you in the face with the obvious or you switch channels. 

I surely admit that this advert is chock full of images calculated to grab your attention.  I am going to look at it not as a globalist plot, but as a capitalist corporation plot to sell more product.  White men may not be the expanding market for Gillette, so they pitch an add with a reversal of the usual stereotypes and show men of color being the masculine hero.  Maybe that is the huge market this ad is aimed at and the target market for Gillette growth.   Maybe they pitch toxic masculinity because that will also gain some favor with the group of men and women who do most of the shopping.  Adverts have to stay on the edge of  popular opinion  and social change or risk their product being obsolete and replaced by something newer and hipper.  Who does most of the shopping, follows trends, and to some degree wants to be a part of them?  Young people.   That is capitalism at its finest or darkest depending on your opinion. 

[aztek]

6 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

As I said above, whenever males have a critique about something feminist he is a "snowflake, fragile, has a sensitive ego, or is a baby". Because if men complain or show any sign of being upset they are weak right. 

yea, pretty much, but it mostly depend on what they complain about, and what makes them act that way, if a president in a country thousands of miles away, makes you deranged, and none stop  complain about it, then you are definitely a weak man, but it's the least of your problems, as for showing emotions, it's perfectly fine if it's justified, 

[Imaginarynumber1]

The only people who has a problem with this are all of a certain age and from an era when men acted like dicks all the time so they see it as acceptable behavior. They're just salty cause us youngsters are finally talking position of power and saying, "hey, that behavior is  not cool and it's not okay. ****ing stop."

[Tatetopa]

2 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

You do not have to be better if you are not bad in the first place. Therefore saying we have to be better assumptively places the fact that you are bad as default. 

I think this is a bridge too far spartan.

If an Olympic level gymnast comes in 4th in a meet and the coach says, "You have to work on your dismounts and develop a better form"; that does not imply the gymnast is bad.

Life is about learning, growing, training, repeating, and improving.  We practice what works and perfect it.  We abandon what doesn't work.  That is true for men and women.  

You were not a bad person before you were toilet trained, or before you could read, or ride a bike ,or drive a car.  We often claim that Humans are thinking animals and that separates us from all other creatures that rely more in instinct.  We learn by experience and can increase what works and reduce what doesn't work.  

I am not going to call it toxic masculinity because this is true of people of both sexes.  If you believe you cannot learn or improve or that you are bad because you are not the best, or even the best you can be, you put limits on yourself.  If a person is offended by the suggestion the he or she can be better, then likely, he or she never will.

I am not saying a word about the advert here, some of it I am not too keen on.  It is rather heavy handed. The ad is loaded with stuff designed to elicit a strong reaction.  That is purpose after all of advertising.  

[spartan max2]

20 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

I think this is a bridge too far spartan.

If an Olympic level gymnast comes in 4th in a meet and the coach says, "You have to work on your dismounts and develop a better form"; that does not imply the gymnast is bad.

Life is about learning, growing, training, repeating, and improving.  We practice what works and perfect it.  We abandon what doesn't work.  That is true for men and women.  

You were not a bad person before you were toilet trained, or before you could read, or ride a bike ,or drive a car.  We often claim that Humans are thinking animals and that separates us from all other creatures that rely more in instinct.  We learn by experience and can increase what works and reduce what doesn't work.  

I am not going to call it toxic masculinity because this is true of people of both sexes.  If you believe you cannot learn or improve or that you are bad because you are not the best, or even the best you can be, you put limits on yourself.  If a person is offended by the suggestion the he or she can be better, then likely, he or she never will.

I am not saying a word about the advert here, some of it I am not too keen on.  It is rather heavy handed. The ad is loaded with stuff designed to elicit a strong reaction.  That is purpose after all of advertising.  

You make a fair point, improvement is also good.

My impression from the video was more that it was saying you have to improve because the majority of you suck.

[+OverSword]

44 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

The only people who has a problem with this are all of a certain age and from an era when men acted like dicks all the time so they see it as acceptable behavior. They're just salty cause us youngsters are finally talking position of power and saying, "hey, that behavior is  not cool and it's not okay. ****ing stop."

I don't ever remember a time when it was okay for "men acted like dicks all the time so they see it as acceptable behavior. ": As a matter of fact I would go so far as to say young people are ill mannered compared to me.  I see it every day just in simple things like holding a door open or saying thank you or listening to the other person talk before you respond.  So could it be that the reason people are reacting negatively is the way that all men are portrayed as ill mannered enablers of sexual predation and violence and that is not reality nor has ever been outside of a movie or a TV show?

Edited January 18, 2019 by OverSword

[Tatetopa]

15 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

My impression from the video was more that it was saying you have to improve because the majority of you suck.

Yeah, it was heavy handed no doubt about it.  Advertising generally goes for maximum effect. I can only guess that the message is softened if the majority of us suck and need to change rather than  5% of us are hopeless di**wads and should be marginalized. 

[Imaginarynumber1]

14 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I don't ever remember a time when it was okay for "men acted like dicks all the time so they see it as acceptable behavior. ": As a matter of fact I would go so far as to say young people are ill mannered compared to me.  I see it every day just in simple things like holding a door open or saying thank you or listening to the other person talk before you respond.  So could it be that the reason people are reacting negatively is the way that all men are portrayed as ill mannered enablers of sexual predation and violence and that is not reality nor has ever been outside of a movie or a TV show?

You experience is not indicative of everyone elses 

[Imaginarynumber1]

This thread should just be folded into the one about toxic masculinity. The same people will just continue to not understand for the same reasons.

[Big Jim]

1 hour ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

The only people who has a problem with this are all of a certain age and from an era when men acted like dicks all the time so they see it as acceptable behavior. They're just salty cause us youngsters are finally talking position of power and saying, "hey, that behavior is  not cool and it's not okay. ****ing stop."

I am of that "certain age" and I don't remember a time "when men acted like dicks all the time".  We were the hippie generation.  Women's Lib was the movement of the day.  "Do your own thing" was our motto.  We were the youngsters with power.  "Don't trust anyone over 30" was our rallying cry.  We were also going to change the world, just as every generation thinks it will.  The problem we have with this ad is that it shames all men for things most of us don't do, and have never done.  Being falsely accused is unpleasant at any age.  There is a basic inborn attraction to manliness and each era has its icons.  This is what made stars of John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, back in the day; Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham today.  People go to see their movies because the type of men they portray are so rare.  As in so many cases, the people we admire from afar we wouldn't let into our homes.  Since you are young then it stands to reason that you have no first hand knowledge of how men used to be and your impression of how they acted comes from archival sources, namely, movies.  They no more reflected reality then than they do now.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Just now, Big Jim said:

I am of that "certain age" and I don't remember a time "when men acted like dicks all the time".  We were the hippie generation.  Women's Lib was the movement of the day.  "Do your own thing" was our motto.  We were the youngsters with power.  "Don't trust anyone over 30" was our rallying cry.  We were also going to change the world, just as every generation thinks it will.  The problem we have with this ad is that it shames all men for things most of us don't do, and have never done.  Being falsely accused is unpleasant at any age.  There is a basic inborn attraction to manliness and each era has its icons.  This is what made stars of John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, back in the day; Dwayne Johnson and Jason Statham today.  People go to see their movies because the type of men they portray are so rare.  As in so many cases, the people we admire from afar we wouldn't let into our homes.  Since you are young then it stands to reason that you have no first hand knowledge of how men used to be and your impression of how they acted comes from archival sources, namely, movies.  They no more reflected reality then than they do now.

You don't know how young i am. For sure a generation below you, but i still get called old man.
I'm not going to argue the point because it will be lost, just like in the thread about toxic masculinity. I'm just gonna continue to drink and make inappropriate comments in various threads. 

[Big Jim]

1 minute ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

You don't know how young i am. For sure a generation below you, but i still get called old man.
I'm not going to argue the point because it will be lost, just like in the thread about toxic masculinity. I'm just gonna continue to drink and make inappropriate comments in various threads. 

Sure, old man, but you identified yourself as  "us youngsters".  It's not my fault if that doesn't fit.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

4 hours ago, OverSword said:

No, this ad is portraying that this is the way most men act.  What is not happening is a few men acting unacceptably being brought into line or shamed for their behavior by the moral and correct acting majority of men. 

Just imagine Budweiser doing a commercial showing toxic "traits" in women.  A man sitting, watching a football game, asks his woman to get him a beer from the fridge. Instead, she comes in stomping her feet, yeling and complaining - aka byotching, and is held up as  and example of "toxic" behavior in a woman.  LOL.  

the liberal left would have a freekin' heart attack LOL

[Imaginarynumber1]

Just now, Big Jim said:

Sure, old man, but you identified yourself as  "us youngsters".  It's not my fault if that doesn't fit.

Compared to those that aren't "triggered" by this commercial.

[Aquila King]

2 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

I was hoping you would reply to the thread, I have seen your post on other threads around similar topics and I often disagree with you but you tend to make good points.

Well I'll say this much, though I disagree with your assessment on a number of things here, I will commend you on your delivery. As well as the fact that I think you do raise a few good points. So I put on a like on this post because of it. 

2 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

First off we need to separate intention from effect. We can agree that they had good intentions. The negative traits you listed are a problem men face. However, parts of the video are things your probably disagree with. 

for example, the kids watching a music video with hot women in it then they turn it off because it is "bad". It is natural for teenage boys to want to look at women, it is shaming to boys to suggest otherwise. It is like telling a teenage boy that it is a sin to "pleasure yourself". Watch the video not for it's intentions but for what is actually portrayed. 

I had to go rematch the video to see what you meant by that since I apparently missed it.  The only place I could see anything like what you describe was possibly at 0:23 in the video. It moves by for just a couple seconds, so it's kinda hard to make out exactly what's going on, but I'll break down what I could gather from it. 

So you basically see a TV screen that changes channels three times. From what I recall, one's of a cartoon and another in real life of men grabbing at women without their consent. The last one is likely a clip of a music video where a shirtless dude is dancing with a bunch of girls in swimwear, likely a clip form MTV in the 80's or 90's of college spring break or whatever. Then lastly we see a brief glimpse of some teen boys sitting on the couch watching this stuff looking basically flat and emotionless to any of it. I'm guessing they were trying to go for the whole "this stuff is normal for boys to watch and it shouldn't be" or something like that.

Now to me, that part of the ad can be at least somewhat ambiguous, so I can agree that it would indeed be debatable. If they were in fact going for the interpretation that you just described - that attraction and self pleasure to women is bad - then I would fully agree with you that they would be wrong there. Although it is kind of hard for me to make that interpretive leap given the fact that the kids clearly weren't pleasuring themselves, or even seemed the least bit excited about what they were watching really. Not to mention, the first two channels before the MTV one at the end were showing legitimate concerns, that essentially was warning against men giving unwanted sexual advances to women.

So essentially, I can see where you're coming from with this, but I think it's a bit of a stretch.  I think the overall message they were going for was to treat women with respect.

3 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

My problem is the way they delivered this message, the message got delivered in a way that basically sounded like "men are bad, men are bad, we have to be better". When in reality I can't think of anyone in my life who agrees with bullying, sexual assault, or violence. The video suggest that these behaviors are behaviors that men condone, how much people do you personally know that actually support these behaviors? 

Well first off, practically no one verbally proclaims their belief in such behaviors, yet some do it anyway regardless. I mean you could take someone like Matt Laur for instance, and find countless sound bites of him saying how he respects women and is against sexual assault, and he even at one point grilled Bill O'Reilly over his allegations of sexual misconduct, all while Matt was secretly being one of the worst celebrity sex offenders out there. I won't speak to the overall prevalence of this since I don't really know, but I can say confidently that just because the overwhelming majority of men publicly proclaim their opposition to such behaviors, doesn't mean they don't act on them.

Second, I never once got the impression from the video that 'men are all bad', just that these are issues that need to be addressed. If anything it was an indictment of certain behaviors, not people.

3 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

A "toxic femininity" video would never happen, it would be considered sexist the moment it aired, do you actually believe opposite?

Well again, the term 'toxic femininity' itself doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean that the general concept hasn't already been addressed before.

The original feminism movement that started in the 1920's with women's suffrage and worked it's way up through about the 1980's or 90's was littered with modern concepts of what it actually means to be a woman. Whether it's basic equal rights like voting, sex discrimination, equal pay, etc. Or more general ideas regarding how we define femininity, like such toxic concepts as female submissiveness, timidity, weakness, being 'too emotional', being dependent on a man, has to earn less money then their husband, etc.

Rather than define these traits as 'toxic femininity', we approached the problem from the position of what positive traits should define a woman, and called it 'feminism'. Whether that was a better approach or not, I suppose that's up for debate. But the overall goal is pretty much the same. The difference in method to me seems like a nominal difference.

Now again, I will point out that there is a current trend of women who call themselves 'feminists' on the left, who don't truly embody what the original definition of the term actually meant. Now these feminists are all about man-hating while trying to eliminate positive traits of femininity while ironically calling themselves 'feminist' in the process. I'm as much against them as conservatives are, I just don't see them however as what embodies the true essence of what feminism truly meant for the majority of it's history.

3 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

As for the part about you can make a video on masculinity because it's biological? I guess I do not understand your point, you can make a video like this is the traits are considered inherent? 

What I meant by that was that masculinity and femininity are essentially descriptions of psychological concepts and behaviors that are often linked to the biology of each gender. In other words, much like a person's own sexuality, we are all naturally born with a certain concept and identity that falls somewhere on this masculine-feminine line.

That doesn't mean that everything we consider masculine and feminine is indeed accurate or linked to our biology. It just means that these ideas and behaviors - while they are for the most part social constructs - they are in fact associated with real world biology, and we all identify as being for the most part one or the other.

Things like drugs and crime just are not. Nobody is naturally born a druggie or criminal. I suppose you could make an argument regarding genetic predisposition to addiction, or being born sociopathic or even generally aggressive, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that drugs and crime are biologically predetermined. That was my point.

3 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

I just want to point out with the bolded part: I notice this all around the internet. The second a male critiques anything feminist the insult is instantly an attack on the persons masculinity, "you are insecure, a snowflake, fragile, etc". Because if a man complains about anything he is considered a baby or weak, all of a sudden that toxic masculinity that feminist have a problem with gets reinforced by feminist. 

That's a perfectly fair point. And I don't in any way mean to make this sound condescending, so if it does I apologize; but I commend you for responding in such a mature and actually masculine way. 

I think that description does apply to a good portion of those who oppose the concept of toxic masculinity, but you appear after this post not to be one of them. So I do apologize for being so presumptuous here.

It just seems to be a trend that those who percieve some sort of personal indictment in this ad are most likely opposing this ad out of some sort of admission of guilt. In other words, they oppose toxic masculinity because they perpetuate these toxic traits themselves. Though again, you don't seem to be that type from your response here.

4 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

Young boys do see these videos, and they see the actual message it portrays, not the intentions behind them. The message is that men are bad. You do not have to be better if you are not bad in the first place. Therefore saying we have to be better assumptively places the fact that you are bad as default. 

Again, I don't know where you're getting the message that 'all men are bad' because I never got that impression at all. The message to me clearly singles out specific ideas and behaviors, not people. 

So that's that.

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

You don't know how young i am. For sure a generation below you, but i still get called old man.
I'm not going to argue the point because it will be lost, just like in the thread about toxic masculinity. I'm just gonna continue to drink and make inappropriate comments in various threads. 

Ahhhh....Judgment impaired.  That explains much.

[+OverSword]

One thing for sure about this add.  It's creating a lot of content for youtubers.  Half the videos they throw at me are commentaries about this stupid add.  The woman that directed it is a feminist who also has made videos about men taking steroids and beating their children, talking vaginas, and fat women that exercise and "kick balls"  I'm so shocked.

[Imaginarynumber1]

19 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Ahhhh....Judgment impaired.  That explains much.

Ik.alesys judgment impaired 

[SHaYap]

6 minutes ago, OverSword said:

One thing for sure about this add.  It's creating a lot of content for youtubers.  Half the videos they throw at me are commentaries about this stupid add.  The woman that directed it is a feminist who also has made videos about men taking steroids and beating their children, talking vaginas, and fat women that exercise and "kick balls"  I'm so shocked.

Mission accomplished ?

Love it or hate it, this is just an advert targeting a specific consumer bracket, so in the end, the advertisers did their homework. As for the other key points getting embroiled into the muck ... its actually old news

 

Quote

 

~

The Second Sex - Wikipedia

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Sex

The Second Sex (French: Le Deuxième Sexe) is a 1949 book by the French existentialist Simone de Beauvoir, in which the author discusses the treatment of ...

Language‎: ‎French

Subject‎: ‎Feminism

Published‎: ‎1949

Country‎: ‎France

‎Summary · ‎Reception and influence · ‎Cultural repercussions · ‎Translations

 

~

The Second Sex - Uberty

 

https://uberty.org/wp-content/uploads/.../1949_simone-de-beauvoir-the-second-sex.pdf

by S DE BEAUVOIR - ‎Cited by 13623 - ‎Related articles

Simone de Beauvoir was born in Paris in 1908. In 1929 she became the youngest person ever to obtain the agrégation in philosophy at the. Sorbonne, placing ...

 

~

 

Introduction to Simone de Beauvoir's 'The Second Sex' - The New ...

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/books/excerpt-introduction-second-sex.html

May 27, 2010 - In 1946, Simone de Beauvoir began to outline what she thought would be an autobiographical essay explaining why, when she had tried to ...

 

~