New Gillette commercial "not an indictment on manhood"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

Something Amyss:

trunkage:
I would start with some American churches creating Youtube ads attacking people who are considering getting an abortion as evil as an example of this predatory practice and commodifing social issues already here

YouTube? That shit used to be on network.

And they deliberately target any channel that maybe construed as pro-LBGT. The creators were wondering why, due to the adpocalypse, advertisers could choose where their ads went, but creators couldnt pick (or remove) ads they dont like

trunkage:
I would start with some American churches creating Youtube ads attacking people who are considering getting an abortion as evil as an example of this predatory practice and commodifing social issues already here...

And, surprise, surprise, this behavior is driven out of the same motive as razor companies making ads about masculinity: profit. The problem is, the landscape of American courts right now is thus that even if the government were to start enforcing bans on political speech for (c)(3)'s -- most churches are incorporated as c3's and therefore enjoy tax-exempt status -- churches would sue, claiming First Amendment protection, and the courts would likely side with them. The rub is in the difference between "electioneering" and "issues advocacy", and it's one of the defining loopholes in how our justice system handles political speech -- advocating churchgoers to vote for or against a named candidate is electioneering, which is expressly forbidden, but advocating churchgoers vote "their conscience" with regards to a wedge issue is not.

Case in point, back in 2004 when the Bush administration led the charge for that stupid-ass marriage amendment. Evangelical churches then could say "vote to preserve the sanctity of marriage!" which was a dog whistle to vote for Bush, but because church leaders didn't (in most cases) name Bush, they weren't engaging in electioneering and therefore running afoul of non-prof bans on political speech. Yes, it is exactly as stupid as it sounds.

And yes, organizations on the left do it too. Case in point, when pro-environment groups such as the NRDC, EDF, or Sierra Club ramps up its "vote to protect the environment" messaging during election years. The message to vote Democratic is beyond clear, but since they don't name Democratic candidates they can engage in advocacy without endangering non-prof status.

What needs to happen, is revision to our tax code to treat issues advocacy during election years the same as electioneering, which it is by a degree of separation. But really, even if that were to happen (it's not), and even if the regulatory changes were to survive court review (they wouldn't), major organizations would simply create (c)(4) and 527 spin-offs through which to launder funds and engage in political activity anyways (this already happens).

Actually, sub in any time some says what freedom is.

...you mean the country that didn't so much abolish slavery, as take a century to figure out ways around those pesky 13th and 14th Amendments, doesn't have a monopoly on the definition of freedom?

Lil devils x:

I view the backlash against the ad as just another example of people trying to maintain the status quo and enable toxic behaviors to continue rather than wanting to address them and see them for what they are. I see it as what exactly has to happen to address this and get people talking, which Gillette did here. We need MORE people willing to speak up like Gillette did here and " The Rock" has done previously as well.

https://www.askmen.com/news/sports/the-rock-talks-mental-health-and-toxic-masculinity.html

People of course, have to be willing to listen to what is actually being said however, instead of just screaming "they are attacking men" and not actually understanding what is being said. Encouraging men to speak up when the bad behaviors happen is not in any way claiming all men behave in a toxic way, instead it is showing that the men speaking up and putting a stop to the bad behaviors are "the way men should be". Shouldn't that be seen as a good message rather than bad?

Imagine a version of this where we take a list of negative behaviors either largely perpetrated by or stereotypically associated with women. We draw attention to those things, then tell women that they need to hold other women responsible. To not gossip, commit infanticide, or have sex with underage boys, or take children away from their fathers. Women need to be better. Women need to tell other women to be better. Women need to make other women act better.

That ad would *never* get made. It would be shouted down as misogynistic in the extreme before the script was even finished.

Here Comes Tomorrow:
You can't be racist against white people. That's silly. You're silly.

You see, to the people who actually believe what you just wrote, Irish people didn't used to be white but now they are -- they acquired whiteness and thus went from oppressed minority to evil oppressor.

Interestingly, if you pay attention there's a racial element to this ad too. I can only assume it's so they appear more "woke", by painting "bad" men as generally white and "good" men as generally not white.

Avnger:
What, explicitly, does this add do that means it "targets a whole gender." Just because the some actions of some men were pointed out as wrong doesn't mean all men were being "targeted."

"Men have to hold other men accountable. To say the right thing. To act the right way."

Certainly sounds like they're saying that all men are responsible for how all other men behave.

There was also that fire station that got pressured into removing and apologizing for the sign they put up in response to the ad that read: "House fires are toxic, our masculinity isn't." A group of men asserting that their masculinity isn't toxic is offensive and needs to be stopped...huh, that's weird, isn't it?

Schadrach:

Lil devils x:

I view the backlash against the ad as just another example of people trying to maintain the status quo and enable toxic behaviors to continue rather than wanting to address them and see them for what they are. I see it as what exactly has to happen to address this and get people talking, which Gillette did here. We need MORE people willing to speak up like Gillette did here and " The Rock" has done previously as well.

https://www.askmen.com/news/sports/the-rock-talks-mental-health-and-toxic-masculinity.html

People of course, have to be willing to listen to what is actually being said however, instead of just screaming "they are attacking men" and not actually understanding what is being said. Encouraging men to speak up when the bad behaviors happen is not in any way claiming all men behave in a toxic way, instead it is showing that the men speaking up and putting a stop to the bad behaviors are "the way men should be". Shouldn't that be seen as a good message rather than bad?

snip

Your version isn't comparable.

Schadrach:

"Men have to hold other men accountable. To say the right thing. To act the right way."

Certainly sounds like they're saying that all men are responsible for how all other men behave.

Fuck responsibility! No one is going to arrest you for not stopping a friend of yours from being a douchebag towards someone else. If he isn't acting right, and you can tell him to stop, why wouldn't you tell him?

tstorm823:
The topic of that sounds like it's drunk driving, not bar owners and patrons. But even if it is a perfect parallel, that's not any of the videos that were linked in what I was responding to. Maybe they are the same? I don't know.

Ahhh, there's the goalpost shift. From it's different from other PSAs, to "it's not these specific ones so it doesn't count!"

The call to action was to an entire culture to deal with the problematic elements. That is the exact parallel here. It was the job of the patrons and owners to get the keys by any means necessary. Much like the ad that's causing the childish strop here, what it was about and who it called to action are different stories.

The PSAs were targeting patrons using your own definition of targeting. It was a call of action to them, but about drunk driving. Much like this is a call to action to men to do something about shitty behaviour.

You're imagining this exchange is way more confrontational than it really is.

Calling out special pleading, magical thinking, post-hoc rationalisation, plea bargaining and goalpost shifting isn't imagining confrontation. It's calling out bullshit. I gather, however, that you feel attacked, so I understand your assumption of confrontation.

The problem isn't that you're being confrontational, it's that you're being wrong and every time it's pointed out you're wrong, you change the goal. That's not confrontational. Petulant, maybe.

I mean, I didn't immediately find an example I was looking for, but this was the first hit on my search:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZSvNP2Sd90

It's an ad from the 80s, still, that puts the onus on others to dtop drunk drivers. Again, this goes beyond the "know when to say when": ads, which promoted a personal responsibility to not get drunk. If YOU, if you don't stop your friend from driving drunk....

This is different from old ads only in the sense that it's necessary to make a case of special pleading so we can take issue with it.

I await the next goalpost shift.

trunkage:
YouTube? That shit used to be on network.

And they deliberately target any channel that maybe construed as pro-LBGT. The creators were wondering why, due to the adpocalypse, advertisers could choose where their ads went, but creators couldnt pick (or remove) ads they dont like[/quote]

I didn't know they could pick. I assumed it was some sort of algorithm, the same way watching one video about something tangentially feminist will get you Sargon and Bearing videos. YouTube seems to have a very "both sides" mentality, to the point I started getting white supremacy videos because I was subscribed to a Jewish creator who decided to talk about Judaism specifically.

The white power vids disappeared when I started removing Jewish videos from my history, shock of shocks.

So I just kind of assumed that the way the ads were targeting consumers was the same way. Oh, you like LGBT topics? Well, we lump this into the "LGBT" category...enjoy your "gays are bad" ads!

I didn't know that sponsors could pick the videos, but creators couldn't skip certain sponsors. That's...kind of awful.

Something Amyss:

Ahhh, there's the goalpost shift. From it's different from other PSAs, to "it's not these specific ones so it doesn't count!"

It was always "it's not those specific ones." Exact quote: "No, it is different than all of those. All of those PSA's target a behavior that's bad." All of my posts referring to different PSA's say things like "those" and "those old" and "old". It may not have been clear to you, but speaking about the ones linked and similar things was always what I was addressing. This isn't the first controversial ad in the world, and it's not a first of its kind, so I would not say that this is different from other PSAs, but it is different than the list the other user presented. And when you presented other options, I was perfectly willing to accept you may have a comparable ad.

The call to action was to an entire culture to deal with the problematic elements. That is the exact parallel here. It was the job of the patrons and owners to get the keys by any means necessary. Much like the ad that's causing the childish strop here, what it was about and who it called to action are different stories.

The PSAs were targeting patrons using your own definition of targeting. It was a call of action to them, but about drunk driving. Much like this is a call to action to men to do something about shitty behaviour.

I agree, that is a lot more parallel that those listed before in that it hypothetically is calling on all bar-goers to account for the actions of one another, and not just awareness of their own actions or actions they might be a victim of. Consequently, it could upset a lot more people since it addresses more people than just those who drink and drive but also those who don't prevent it. It's much harder to distance yourself that way.

So if a PSA says don't drink and drive, anyone who doesn't drink and drive can disconnect that message from their own lives.
If a PSA says don't let other drinkers drive either, you have to not go out to drink at all to disconnect from it.

Likewise, if you say "don't sexually harass people at work", people can say "I don't sexually harass people at work."
If instead you say "don't let other people sexually harass people at work," someone would have to not work with others to disconnect.

And then on top of that broadening, which I do agree the drunk diving ad you linked parallels, this one also addresses a much wider scope of behavior.

So if you say "don't do bad actions typically associated with men," someone can say "I don't do those things."
If you say "don't let other men do bad actions typically associated with men," you can't avoid addressing that personally unless you aren't a man. I mean, I guess anyone can ignore anything if they really want to, but if you hear that message as a man and form an opinion on it, you can't disconnect your opinion from your own life.

That's not a bad thing. If well executed, that's a very powerful thing, to draw the personal investment of that many people and encourage them to have good behavior. But it is a very different message with an equally different result than if you just say "don't bully people.

And then if you've made an ad to draw widespread personal investment, but threw in a few buzzwords and political figures that upset certain public voices, everyone whose opinions are informed by those voices will suddenly have their very personal opinions informed by those voices, and you end up with this nonsense.

Calling out special pleading, magical thinking, post-hoc rationalisation, plea bargaining and goalpost shifting isn't imagining confrontation. It's calling out bullshit. I gather, however, that you feel attacked, so I understand your assumption of confrontation.

The problem isn't that you're being confrontational, it's that you're being wrong and every time it's pointed out you're wrong, you change the goal. That's not confrontational. Petulant, maybe.

I await the next goalpost shift.

I don't feel attacked personally. I feel you're attacking my rhetoric, which I'm generally not a fan of. I appreciate not wanting someone to pull a fast one on you with dishonest tactics, but there's no fake internet points to fight over here, and really not a very big audience to begin with, so there's not much incentive to try and deceive people. I've always liked this R&P forum for that reason. It's easiest here to assume that people are at least attempting to be truthful, and not worry so much about rhetorical slight of hand.

And if you were attacking just my claims, that's more than welcome. That's what I'm here for, to beat ideas against each other until all the weak bits get knocked off. So like, questions about my use of the word "target" were perfectly justified, that's my failing, but now I can communicate my position better. But I don't know what to do with "you're moving the goalposts" here, when all I've really done in this thread is express my same position in hopefully increasingly clear ways. Moving the goalposts is supposed to mean changing victory conditions to benefit myself, but not only do I not think that I've changed my position, I also don't think I've engaged in a game with winners and losers. If all we've done is just clarify ideas, it's still possible to reach an understanding and certain level of agreement without anyone necessarily being wrong about anything.

I have no investment in you being wrong. Unless we're staking logically contradicting positions, it's only to my benefit for you to be correct. And other than, I'm hoping, a misunderstanding about what I was addressing (admittedly, my post you first responded to was the vaguest in that regard), I feel like we're pretty close on this one. If we agree the drunk driving ad is closer to the Gillette ad than the other links were, I think we can agree that there is a real difference in the messages that contributes to this one being more controversial.

Moments like these make me glad my mother took the time to raise a man and not an oversized toddler.

Just growing up Mormon, this is something that's been said repeatedly and one that frankly my church has been waxing the proverbial baseball bat with the words "The Point" burned on it.

I like it, and think its nice to hear one of the main male grooming companies telling guys to grow up and grow a pair.

It goes too far. It does seem to send the message that all masculinity is bad. No, it's not. If it was, we'd adopt some sort of spay and neuter policy and all just get castrated at puberty like dogs. Reproduce from frozen sperm or DNA samples or something. But we don't. Because that's not what we want. We LIKE our masculinity. Just because some people don't have masculinity, don't understand it, and don't see a reason for it to exist, doesn't mean it's a good idea to get rid of it.

I mean, really, the video says two young boys wrestling is something that should be forbidden, even though that's an essential, healthy part of childhood development, as I understand it. It says a dude who sees a pretty girl can't get excited and go talk to her, even though women often dress the way they do and wear makeup precisely to elicit that sort of a reaction from men. For most people, that behavior is part of being human.

If some guys aren't masculine and don't want to be masculine, that's fine. You do you, and quit trying to force your non-masculinity on me, IMO.

Kerg3927:
It goes too far. It does seem to send the message that all masculinity is bad. No, it's not. If it was, we'd adopt some sort of spay and neuter policy and all just get castrated at puberty like dogs. Reproduce from frozen sperm or DNA samples or something. But we don't. Because that's not what we want. We LIKE our masculinity. Just because some people don't have masculinity, don't understand it, and don't see a reason for it to exist, doesn't mean it's a good idea to get rid of it.

I mean, really, the video says two young boys wrestling is something that should be forbidden, even though that's an essential, healthy part of childhood development, as I understand it. It says a dude who sees a pretty girl can't get excited and go talk to her, even though women often dress the way they do and wear makeup precisely to elicit that sort of a reaction from men. For most people, that behavior is part of being human.

If some guys aren't masculine and don't want to be masculine, that's fine. You do you, and quit trying to force your non-masculinity on me, IMO.

Thanks, you just helped me make my decision to make a thread.

Kerg3927:
It goes too far. It does seem to send the message that all masculinity is bad. No, it's not. If it was, we'd adopt some sort of spay and neuter policy and all just get castrated at puberty like dogs. Reproduce from frozen sperm or DNA samples or something. But we don't. Because that's not what we want. We LIKE our masculinity. Just because some people don't have masculinity, don't understand it, and don't see a reason for it to exist, doesn't mean it's a good idea to get rid of it.

I mean, really, the video says two young boys wrestling is something that should be forbidden, even though that's an essential, healthy part of childhood development, as I understand it. It says a dude who sees a pretty girl can't get excited and go talk to her, even though women often dress the way they do and wear makeup precisely to elicit that sort of a reaction from men. For most people, that behavior is part of being human.

If some guys aren't masculine and don't want to be masculine, that's fine. You do you, and quit trying to force your non-masculinity on me, IMO.

Maybe some of us see masculinity, our identity as a gender, as more than just a primalistic urge to fuck. (Because, you know, there are non heterosexual men, something people like you always seem to forget when this topic comes up) Some of us see masculinity as the strength to better ourselves and stand up to injustice. But let's get to the meat of the issue here. This is ad not critcizing men for being attracted to women. It's criticizing men who do not respect the boundaries of women, violate their personal space, give unwanted sexual advances, and talk down to them. Oh, and it also points out the problem of bullying and harassment. People like you go to bat about how men can be victims to, but when it comes to the very real problem that made my early high-school life a living hell? People like you don't give a single solitary fuck, because pointing out that teenage boys have a lot of bullying assholes, often with OTHER teenage boys as the victims, it's pointing out a problem with men and you don't want to hear it.

I mean, if that's your definition of masculinity, it deserves to be insulted.

I want to be a man. Not a little boy who refuses to grow the fuck up. I look in the comment section on the video and all I see is screaming little boys.

Kerg3927:
Just because some people don't have masculinity...

If some guys aren't masculine and don't want to be masculine, that's fine. You do you, and quit trying to force your non-masculinity on me, IMO.

Who the hell do you think you are to tell other people they aren't masculine if they differ from you? Nobody made you emperor of masculinity.

It seems like some people are just programmed by lame oversimplified internet politics to try and interpret everything in the worst possible way.

So suddenly "don't harass women" gets intepreted as "Never flirt ever and die alone you fucks while the feminists and Muslims dance upon the ashes of western society"

And weird opinion but I feel like its kinda unmasculine to talk so much about masculinity. Like its wasting time obsessing over details that are more philosophy than practical and to me traditional masculinity is about doing things. While you're wasting energy obsessing over whether you're a real man or if the booga boo feminists are somehow undermining that via harmless internet articles you could have spent that time doing some manly like bench pressing or building a fence and not thinking about that crap.

Fieldy409:
It seems like some people are just programmed by lame oversimplified internet politics to try and interpret everything in the worst possible way.

So suddenly "don't harass women" gets intepreted as "Never flirt ever and die alone you fucks while the feminists and Muslims dance upon the ashes of western society"

The worst part is the interpretation some guys will have to that idea. "I'm not Harassing! I'm Being Nice! She has a great rack! Why is noticing that a bad thing? I'm complimenting her!"

tstorm823:

It was always "it's not those specific ones."

*ahem*

tstorm823:
That's not a bad thing, but it is different than old PSAs. That's all I'm saying.

If you're going to lie, make sure you can't be directly quoted. Oh, if only I could follow back our conversation with links and quotes, or...click bback one whole page.

It's not different from old PSAs, the claim you made that I directly responded to, before you decided that it had to be specific ones. Funny how "all you're saying" changes in almost every instance where you say "that's all Im saying."

I take it back. I'm not interested in the next goalpost shift.

Something Amyss:

tstorm823:

It was always "it's not those specific ones."

*ahem*

tstorm823:
That's not a bad thing, but it is different than old PSAs. That's all I'm saying.

If you're going to lie, make sure you can't be directly quoted. Oh, if only I could follow back our conversation with links and quotes, or...click bback one whole page.

It's not different from old PSAs, the claim you made that I directly responded to, before you decided that it had to be specific ones. Funny how "all you're saying" changes in almost every instance where you say "that's all Im saying."

I take it back. I'm not interested in the next goalpost shift.

The one post I said something as vague as just "old PSAs" where you are quoting from is also a post where I used the phrasing "old PSAs against specific problems", so there is some context there. But you are right, the sentence you quoted does not say the same thing as my other posts both before and after that one. That's my fault, that's my failure to communicate clearly. But at this point, I believe it's clear my intentions were consistent the whole time, and I believe you probably understand what I was saying, and I'm interested to know if you actually disagree with me.

Kerg3927:
It goes too far. It does seem to send the message that all masculinity is bad. No, it's not. If it was, we'd adopt some sort of spay and neuter policy and all just get castrated at puberty like dogs. Reproduce from frozen sperm or DNA samples or something. But we don't. Because that's not what we want. We LIKE our masculinity. Just because some people don't have masculinity, don't understand it, and don't see a reason for it to exist, doesn't mean it's a good idea to get rid of it.

I mean, really, the video says two young boys wrestling is something that should be forbidden, even though that's an essential, healthy part of childhood development, as I understand it. It says a dude who sees a pretty girl can't get excited and go talk to her, even though women often dress the way they do and wear makeup precisely to elicit that sort of a reaction from men. For most people, that behavior is part of being human.

If some guys aren't masculine and don't want to be masculine, that's fine. You do you, and quit trying to force your non-masculinity on me, IMO.

WOW. Do you seriously think that is what Masculinity is? Part of the problem here is associating violence, harassment and ASSUMING what a woman wants due to how she is dressed is a part of masculinity at all, it isn't, and simply because all cultures or people do not agree with that being a part of masculinity does not make them any less masculine than any other guy. People thinking that in the first place is WHY this message is needed in the first place.

Not only is sibling violence not healthy, it can cause lifelong issues with violent behavior and relationships. It is better a person learn about violence being unacceptable before they cause serious harm or injury to themselves or others.

In large part, such behavior is rooted in the many harmful stereotypes that cloud parents? understanding of the boundary between healthy and unhealthy sibling relationships. Not only do many parents view altercations between children as minor, but some see them as a necessary and beneficial preparation for ?real life.? Mounting research contradicts this assumption, however. It is true that children can learn a great deal about how to resolve conflict as they interact with their brothers and sisters, but the necessary skills do not come automatically. When parents fail to set clear boundaries and intervene appropriately, ?ordinary? conflict can develop into chronic aggression, which in turn can escalate into violence.

Sibling violence includes a variety of abusive behaviors, and while it may not always be easy for parents to recognize the line between normal developmental conflict and abuse, researcher and psychologist John Caffaro offers a helpful guideline: ?Violent sibling conflict is a repeated pattern of physical or psychological aggression with the intent to inflict harm and motivated by the need for power and control,? he says, noting that psychological attacks are frequently at the core. ??Teasing? often precedes physical violence and may include ridiculing, insulting, threatening, and terrorizing as well as destroying a sibling?s personal property.? Often one sibling (not always the oldest or biggest) consistently dominates in these conflicts, and the weaker or more passive child, having failed at all attempts to stand up to the aggression, will cease to resist in what researchers call "learned helplessness."

Bullying perpetrated by brothers or sisters can be considerably more traumatic to children than peer bullying, because it occurs within the home on an ongoing basis and there is often no way of escape?and very little respite?for the sibling on the receiving end. According to family violence researcher David Finkelhor, such a situation can be every bit as harmful to a child?s well-being as other forms of abuse, elevating trauma symptoms and making children more susceptible to future victimization rather than preparing them for healthy peer relationships as parents may assume. The bullying sibling is also susceptible to a variety of negative outcomes, possibly in connection with the same lack of parental supervision that enables his or her negative behavior toward brothers or sisters. These have been found to include substance abuse, academic difficulties, anxiety, depression and continued violent relationships throughout life. Sadly, violence between siblings also sometimes turns deadly. When this happens, parents experience the loss of both children, not only the victim.

As one might expect, poor overall family functioning is highly associated with sibling conflict and violence. Researchers still have a long way to go in isolating all of the relevant family factors, but some of the most prevalent include parental conflict, parental neglect or abuse of children, and preferential treatment. The first two may seem more intuitive than the last. Certainly it would seem obvious that parents who lack constructive skills for resolving conflict are not going to be well prepared to either teach or model them to their children. And it?s easy to understand why children in abusive homes learn that aggression and violence are acceptable approaches to addressing problems. But can preferential treatment really be all that harmful? In fact, it is one of the most damaging of all the influences on sibling relationships, and one of the most common mistakes parents make

http://www.mom-psych.com/Articles/Family-Relationships/Child-Development/Sibling-Bullying-GS1006.html

In addition to allowing this to continue being "bad parenting", if a teacher or other school faculty, Physician or other healthcare worker, police officer, firefighter or anyone else who works with children finds out that a child was injured by their sibling they are required by law to report it to Child Protective Services. Depending on the injury or the amount of small injuries or other events reported, it will flag CPS to investigate the abuse. Depending on the results of the investigation, the parent may lose rights temporarily or possibly permanently and the children will be removed from the home. Children are not only abused by adults, they can be abused by other children as well, abuse is still abuse regardless of who is perpetrating it. It is the parents duty as a parent to stop it from happening and prevent their children from being abused even if that is from a sibling or other child. When CPS investigates a home, they have a checklist of things they check, not just interview the parties involved, which not only includes making sure there is no spoiled food in the fridge, or a kitchen full of junk food, they actually move the refrigerator out and make sure it is clean under it and check for the cleanliness of children's toys. Those investigations are quite thorough.

Couple of examples of events that triggered immediate CPS investigations are brothers wrestling on bed one fell off and broke their arm; bruises on a 2 year old from fighting with her 4 year old sister and girl with a broken ankle because brother pushed her out of a swing. Sometimes it does not take much to trigger an investigation, however, sometimes it can take more depending on the circumstances. The point is, yes, you could lose custody of your kids if you think " boys will be boys" and allow your kids to fight without beaking it up.

EDIT: IN addition, the whole idea that a man should assume that a woman is dressing a certain way because she wants to be harassed is offensive. Promoting androcentrism is in no way trying to even begin to understand what a woman thinks or wants. In fact, it is better not to assume in the first place. "When you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME".

Schadrach:

Lil devils x:

I view the backlash against the ad as just another example of people trying to maintain the status quo and enable toxic behaviors to continue rather than wanting to address them and see them for what they are. I see it as what exactly has to happen to address this and get people talking, which Gillette did here. We need MORE people willing to speak up like Gillette did here and " The Rock" has done previously as well.

https://www.askmen.com/news/sports/the-rock-talks-mental-health-and-toxic-masculinity.html

People of course, have to be willing to listen to what is actually being said however, instead of just screaming "they are attacking men" and not actually understanding what is being said. Encouraging men to speak up when the bad behaviors happen is not in any way claiming all men behave in a toxic way, instead it is showing that the men speaking up and putting a stop to the bad behaviors are "the way men should be". Shouldn't that be seen as a good message rather than bad?

Imagine a version of this where we take a list of negative behaviors either largely perpetrated by or stereotypically associated with women. We draw attention to those things, then tell women that they need to hold other women responsible. To not gossip, commit infanticide, or have sex with underage boys, or take children away from their fathers. Women need to be better. Women need to tell other women to be better. Women need to make other women act better.

That ad would *never* get made. It would be shouted down as misogynistic in the extreme before the script was even finished.

Here Comes Tomorrow:
You can't be racist against white people. That's silly. You're silly.

You see, to the people who actually believe what you just wrote, Irish people didn't used to be white but now they are -- they acquired whiteness and thus went from oppressed minority to evil oppressor.

Interestingly, if you pay attention there's a racial element to this ad too. I can only assume it's so they appear more "woke", by painting "bad" men as generally white and "good" men as generally not white.

Avnger:
What, explicitly, does this add do that means it "targets a whole gender." Just because the some actions of some men were pointed out as wrong doesn't mean all men were being "targeted."

"Men have to hold other men accountable. To say the right thing. To act the right way."

Certainly sounds like they're saying that all men are responsible for how all other men behave.

There was also that fire station that got pressured into removing and apologizing for the sign they put up in response to the ad that read: "House fires are toxic, our masculinity isn't." A group of men asserting that their masculinity isn't toxic is offensive and needs to be stopped...huh, that's weird, isn't it?

First of all, pregnant women and new mothers ARE handed out pamphlets informing them of the warning signs of postpartum depression and what to do if they notice signs so they can prevent something tragic ( including but not limited to infanticide) from happening. That does not in any way mean they are saying that all mothers do these things. What this ad did was similar to that. It is showing that this does not have to be this way and that men can help put a stop to this by stepping in and trying to actively change this. The AD shows men stepping in and stopping it from happening, that this is something that can be changed and that is what makes Men the "best" man they can be, not unlike the pregnancy and motherhood pamphlets women receive to help them be the best Mom they can be.

The first time I learned about post postpartum depression as actually when they taught us about pregnancy and parenthood in school, they are also teaching children not to bully and condemn violence in school, but it seems that is not enough because the behavior persists on a large scale. Male violence is far more widespread than women committing infanticide BTW.

EDIT: I specifically did not address the other issues you brought up because suggesting they are women's issues is ignorant on the issues involved. Men have been known to gossip more than women, more adult males have raped children than females, In fact, more males rape males than females rape males and males are more likely to hold others against their will and kidnap children.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/5082866/Men-spend-more-time-gossiping-than-women-poll-finds.html
https://healthresearchfunding.org/40-uncommon-parental-child-abduction-statistics/
http://victimsofcrime.org/media/reporting-on-child-sexual-abuse/statistics-on-perpetrators-of-csa

Maybe Gillette should add those to their next ad for men too?

Kerg3927:
It goes too far. It does seem to send the message that all masculinity is bad.

No it doesn't. Just what the knuckledraggers consider "masculinity". Unless you think people like Henry Rollins or Terry Crews aren't masculine.

We LIKE our masculinity. Just because some people don't have masculinity, don't understand it, and don't see a reason for it to exist, doesn't mean it's a good idea to get rid of it.

If you consider sexual harassment and violence "masculine" you do you man but it's not and you're not.

I mean, really, the video says two young boys wrestling is something that should be forbidden, even though that's an essential, healthy part of childhood development, as I understand it.

Then you don't understand it. Just because something always was a certain way doesn't mean that that way was right. Refusing to consider your actions or move forward with the times isn't masculine. It's ignorant.

It says a dude who sees a pretty girl can't get excited and go talk to her,

No it doesn't.

even though women often dress the way they do and wear makeup precisely to elicit that sort of a reaction from men.

So you're an expert in what real men AND women really want?

If some guys aren't masculine and don't want to be masculine, that's fine. You do you, and quit trying to force your non-masculinity on me, IMO.

If you're so sensitive that this ad triggered you then you've not got much masculinity to begin with.

I personally felt like it was a bunch of unnecessary liberal Propaganda. Like, sell the product and get out of politics gillette.

Shadowstar38:
I personally felt like it was a bunch of unnecessary liberal Propaganda. Like, sell the product and get out of politics gillette.

Since when is it " liberal" to condemn violence and sexual assault and harassment? I was under the impression that conservatives have always condemned violence and assaults on women, at least they have done so until Trump came along, but then again, Trump is no conservative. Christians are well known to be conservative and you cannot be a Christian and promote violence and sexual harassment or assault. Condemning violence and sexual assault and harassment up till now has not been considered "controversial" and has been unanimously condemned by both Liberals and Conservatives. No wonder even Reagan's own family says he would be appalled at the GOP of today. Considering Nancy Reagan was the queen of PSA's and having them intertwined into commercials, sports and everything else for that matter, you would think they would be a conservative staple by now.

PSA's are what Conservatives were most known for...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-0OeOFuNXs
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1272021/Mr-T-says-no-drugs-PSA-1980s.html

some of these are just priceless

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=15&v=hnHuz1XnlG8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=11&v=5JlnTEzyPcc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifW9LIGabQM

Lil devils x:

Shadowstar38:
I personally felt like it was a bunch of unnecessary liberal Propaganda. Like, sell the product and get out of politics gillette.

Since when is it " liberal" to condemn violence and sexual assault and harassment? I was under the impression that conservatives have always condemned violence and assaults on women, at least they have done so until Trump came along, but then again, Trump is no conservative. Christians are well known to be conservative and you cannot be a Christian and promote violence and sexual harassment or assault. Condemning violence and sexual assault and harassment up till now has not been considered "controversial" and has been unanimously condemned by both Liberals and Conservatives. No wonder even Reagan's own family says he would be appalled at the GOP of today.

Mentioning the MeToo movement in the first couple of seconds, which is a pretty disastrous thing on its own that I won't get into. That and making the young turks the first news reel before they show the whole assortment. This might be having a hyper-awareness of news-media but there yo go.

So they're setting up that on one side and the comical male chauvinist stereotypes along with the most blatantly fucked up abuse scenario to sway the emotions of the viewer. It feels rather manipulative.

Shadowstar38:

Lil devils x:

Shadowstar38:
I personally felt like it was a bunch of unnecessary liberal Propaganda. Like, sell the product and get out of politics gillette.

Since when is it " liberal" to condemn violence and sexual assault and harassment? I was under the impression that conservatives have always condemned violence and assaults on women, at least they have done so until Trump came along, but then again, Trump is no conservative. Christians are well known to be conservative and you cannot be a Christian and promote violence and sexual harassment or assault. Condemning violence and sexual assault and harassment up till now has not been considered "controversial" and has been unanimously condemned by both Liberals and Conservatives. No wonder even Reagan's own family says he would be appalled at the GOP of today.

Mentioning the MeToo movement in the first couple of seconds, which is a pretty disastrous thing on its own that I won't get into. That and making the young turks the first news reel before they show the whole assortment. This might be having a hyper-awareness of news-media but there yo go.

So they're setting up that on one side and the comical male chauvinist stereotypes along with the most blatantly fucked up abuse scenario to sway the emotions of the viewer. It feels rather manipulative.

I added the Conservative PSA's from Reagan's administration to the post above. This has nothing to do with "liberal vs conservative". Christian Conservative PSA's are even far worse...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=utC5o9xh_dE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnxyzAviaRw

PSA's are supposed to comical stereotypes. This is how this works...

It is like people forgot about these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=30&v=l2FAyWX4F0I

Shadowstar38:
I personally felt like it was a bunch of unnecessary liberal Propaganda. Like, sell the product and get out of politics gillette.

'liberal propaganda' 'get your politics out of x'

You make a convincing argument that it IS absolutely necessary.

Saelune:

Shadowstar38:
I personally felt like it was a bunch of unnecessary liberal Propaganda. Like, sell the product and get out of politics gillette.

'liberal propaganda' 'get your politics out of x'

You make a convincing argument that it IS absolutely necessary.

This is your brain on alt right propaganda:
image

The very idea that people think that a PSA being against violence and sexual assualt and harrassment is now "liberal" is pretty funny when you look at the conservative PSA's from the 80's and like every Conservative Christian PSA ever made.

Lil devils x:

Shadowstar38:

Lil devils x:
Since when is it " liberal" to condemn violence and sexual assault and harassment? I was under the impression that conservatives have always condemned violence and assaults on women, at least they have done so until Trump came along, but then again, Trump is no conservative. Christians are well known to be conservative and you cannot be a Christian and promote violence and sexual harassment or assault. Condemning violence and sexual assault and harassment up till now has not been considered "controversial" and has been unanimously condemned by both Liberals and Conservatives. No wonder even Reagan's own family says he would be appalled at the GOP of today.

Mentioning the MeToo movement in the first couple of seconds, which is a pretty disastrous thing on its own that I won't get into. That and making the young turks the first news reel before they show the whole assortment. This might be having a hyper-awareness of news-media but there yo go.

So they're setting up that on one side and the comical male chauvinist stereotypes along with the most blatantly fucked up abuse scenario to sway the emotions of the viewer. It feels rather manipulative.

I added the Conservative PSA's from Reagan's administration to the post above. This has nothing to do with "liberal vs conservative". Christian Conservative PSA's are even far worse...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=utC5o9xh_dE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnxyzAviaRw

PSA's are supposed to comical stereotypes. This is how this works...

It is like people forgot about these:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=30&v=l2FAyWX4F0I

I agree with you so far as these are all quite terrible

Lil devils x:

Saelune:

Shadowstar38:
I personally felt like it was a bunch of unnecessary liberal Propaganda. Like, sell the product and get out of politics gillette.

'liberal propaganda' 'get your politics out of x'

You make a convincing argument that it IS absolutely necessary.

This is your brain on alt right propaganda:
image

The very idea that people think that a PSA being against violence and sexual assualt and harrassment is now "liberal" is pretty funny when you look at the conservative PSA's from the 80's and like every Conservative Christian PSA ever made.

Right-wingers literally think dancing is a negative trait.

A comment on the morning radio show the other day made a good point that people who are most offended are likely also the crux of the problem. And from the looks of it the problem is still big and foolish.

What's sad is the attitude starts at a young age through various factors and so ingrained in behavior, passed down through generations like a disease. You'd think we'd be further ahead by now, but in some cases all things considered one could argue it's only gotten worse because it shows our general incapacity for learning from history.

Having said that, our history is so muddled and full of half-truths it's no wonder there's so much dissonance. Our moral compass has also been a part of the collateral damage, and the needle wasn't exactly holding steady to begin with.

Welcome to the most advanced species on the planet: the Human race!

Saelune:

Lil devils x:

Saelune:
'liberal propaganda' 'get your politics out of x'

You make a convincing argument that it IS absolutely necessary.

This is your brain on alt right propaganda:
image

The very idea that people think that a PSA being against violence and sexual assualt and harrassment is now "liberal" is pretty funny when you look at the conservative PSA's from the 80's and like every Conservative Christian PSA ever made.

Right-wingers literally think dancing is a negative trait.

Has everything bad that's ever happened to you been because of right wingers to think this way? I've been to quite a few conservative-Catholic weddings and they all had pretty much every generation on the dance floor; even for contemporary pop music (because their kids still grow up with it, of course).

True, if there are people who think dancing is negative they're far more likely to be right wing (or more specifically ascribed to certain branches of religion), but white washing it is no different than saying all liberals are a bunch of lazy America-hating immoral degenerates. Point is, there is a broad spectrum of each, both good and bad. The thread about labels applies here pretty well.

Saelune:

Lil devils x:

Saelune:
'liberal propaganda' 'get your politics out of x'

You make a convincing argument that it IS absolutely necessary.

This is your brain on alt right propaganda:
image

The very idea that people think that a PSA being against violence and sexual assualt and harrassment is now "liberal" is pretty funny when you look at the conservative PSA's from the 80's and like every Conservative Christian PSA ever made.

Right-wingers literally think dancing is a negative trait.

Conservatives like dancing, but you have to dance like Reagan or Rick Perry or this guy who thinks chasing terrorists with his arse screaming "USA!" will win the war on terror.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb0H9RG3wv8
Dancing like this is perfectly acceptable, just doing any dancing that is not white is too " liberal".

hanselthecaretaker:

Saelune:

Lil devils x:

This is your brain on alt right propaganda:
image

The very idea that people think that a PSA being against violence and sexual assualt and harrassment is now "liberal" is pretty funny when you look at the conservative PSA's from the 80's and like every Conservative Christian PSA ever made.

Right-wingers literally think dancing is a negative trait.

Has everything bad that?s ever happened to you been because of right wingers to think this way? I?ve been to quite a few conservative-Catholic weddings and they all had pretty much every generation on the dance floor; even for contemporary pop music (because their kids still grow up with it, of course).

True, if there are people who think dancing is negative they?re far more likely to be right wing (or more specifically ascribed to certain branches of religion), but white washing it is no different than saying all liberals are a bunch of lazy America-hating immoral degenerates. Point is, there is a broad spectrum of each, both good and bad. The thread about labels applies here pretty well.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was part of a music video she and a bunch of other people made in college and a bunch of Republicans condemned her for it (though they condemn her everytime she breathes)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot1etonOf_M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qj2Xald7NYQ - The actual video

'Don't judge all Republicans'

Meanwhile Trump and his Supreme Court cronies just reminded me I am subhuman to them.

hanselthecaretaker:
but white washing it is no different than saying all liberals are a bunch of lazy America-hating immoral degenerates. Point is, there is a broad spectrum of each, both good and bad. The thread about labels applies here pretty well.

"white washing" IS exactly part of the problem with " conservative approved" dancing. Dancing is okay with conservatives if it is considered appropriate to " white culture" standards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YIO_dxyJio
The woman gets a good twerk going on about 38:07 you can watch.
There are a good number of conservatives that find other cultures dances offensive and have even gone as far to outlaw them repeatedly throughout our History.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Zw7PCVGYr4
https://newsone.com/3833341/gop-mayor-twerking-pool-ban/
They forced many Native American Tribes to have to Dance in secret as well so they were not killed for doing so.
https://timeline.com/ghost-dance-wounded-knee-71926e23cf3b
https://www.legendsofamerica.com/na-dances/
http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/380

Satinavian:
It is an ad.

Trying to convince people that the company is somehow on the side of the good guys and thus deserving your money. Without actually having something to do for it.

Silentpony:
The politics aside, its just a bad ad. Like if you didn't know its from Gillette, you'd never guess its a shaving razor ad.

These. At the end of the day, they used their tag line to make a "bigger" statement hoping to capitalize on it.

hanselthecaretaker:

Satinavian:
It is an ad.

Trying to convince people that the company is somehow on the side of the good guys and thus deserving your money. Without actually having something to do for it.

Silentpony:
The politics aside, its just a bad ad. Like if you didn't know its from Gillette, you'd never guess its a shaving razor ad.

These. At the end of the day, they used their tag line to make a ?bigger? statement hoping to capitalize on it.

Doesn't change that their point is still valid.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here