Gilette makes anti-male commercial

[Stratovarious]

Hilarious Updated narrative for Gillette's Ad.

19k likes and less than 170 (2%) dislikes, that's 8% less dislikes than 'your' average youtube clip.
The official Gillette clip that I saw right away had somewhere around 45k 'hates' and 1600 likes',
not doing too well Gillette, I'm still buying BIC .

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I think Gillette's epic marketing failure is that Gillette equated objectification, bullying and aggressive violence as masculinity - that masculinity is "toxic".
The normal concept of masculinity is the opposite - provider, protector, father, reliable, hard worker, rationale, maturity, loyalty, family, etc. Of course it would backfire. The Gillette folks were complete idiots.

Yeah, I agree with that.

I didn't see the ad as an attack on how real men view masculinity, which is how you describe it. I saw it as an attack on the crappy man-boy culture that has become marginally accepted as "masculinity", which real men reject, but far too many males accept as "manliness". Do we need that lecture from a freaking toiletries company? NO. But it WAS NOT an attack on masculinity.

And I get the subtext here: Men are bad, mkay? But I didn't associate any of those bad characteristics with actual masculinity... Maybe that's just me. Maybe I was just raised right - to not objectify women, nor to brawl, etc.

I think that opposing this ad as an attack on men is a strategic mistake in the culture war - none of the characteristics they portray are "masculine". They're right - that's not how men behave. Granted, we don't need the lecture... but opposing the ad as an attack on masculinity is asinine.

Imagine if they a company did an ad campaign that said beware toxic feminity and equated femininity with gossiping, mean girls, clicks, obsessing over makeup, bad driving, obsessed with finding rich Mr. Alpha, gold digging, compulsive shopping, spending hours in the bathroom, etc. - Gillette would be buried alive in days with such a reciprocal ad campaign.

Gillette is taking an a$$-whooping over this ad.

And - to me - femininity is nurturing, motherliness, caring, dignity... so if Gillette portrayed femininity as you describe they'd be rightly strung up for it.

 

[dannno]

Yeah, I agree with that.

I didn't see the ad as an attack on how real men view masculinity, which is how you describe it. I saw it as an attack on the crappy man-boy culture that has become marginally accepted as "masculinity", which real men reject, but far too many males accept as "manliness". Do we need that lecture from a freaking toiletries company? NO. But it WAS NOT an attack on masculinity.

And I get the subtext here: Men are bad, mkay? But I didn't associate any of those bad characteristics with actual masculinity... Maybe that's just me. Maybe I was just raised right - to not objectify women, nor to brawl, etc.

I think that opposing this ad as an attack on men is a strategic mistake in the culture war - none of the characteristics they portray are "masculine". They're right - that's not how men behave. Granted, we don't need the lecture... but opposing the ad as an attack on masculinity is asinine.



Gillette is taking an a$$-whooping over this ad.

And - to me - femininity is nurturing, motherliness, caring, dignity... so if Gillette portrayed femininity as you describe they'd be rightly strung up for it.

They were blaming men who didn't break up a kids' playfight for causing violence in society.. these were men raising their sons.

Boys who are raised without father, on the other hand, are 10 times more likely to end up in prison for a violent crime than children who grow up with a father. They are 20 times more likely to rape.

So why are we blaming fathers who stick around for violence? We would probably have 90% less violence if we had more fathers like them, if the statistics hold.

And you are completely wrong about the ad not being an attack on masculinity. Again, you are just totally clueless what it is and who it is that we are up against here. You should not be defending them at all. They want more women in charge of raising kids, less fathers in the household, more welfare for single moms.. all of which leads to more violence, more rape, more all kinds of bad stuff.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

They were blaming men who didn't break up a kids' playfight for causing violence in society.. these were men raising their sons.

Boys who are raised without father, on the other hand, are 10 times more likely to end up in prison for a violent crime than children who grow up with a father. They are 20 times more likely to rape.

So why are we blaming fathers who stick around for violence? We would probably have 90% less violence if we had more fathers like them, if the statistics hold.

And you are completely wrong about the ad not being an attack on masculinity. Again, you are just totally clueless what it is and who it is that we are up against here. You should not be defending them at all. They want more women in charge of raising kids, less fathers in the household, more welfare for single moms.. all of which leads to more violence, more rape, more all kinds of bad stuff.

What masculine characteristics were specifically attacked in the ad?

ETA: I see an ad opposing brawling, objectification of women and bullying. THESE ARE NOT MASCULINE CHARACTERISTICS.

I agree 100% that we do not need this lecture from a company selling toiletries. I agree that this is an attempt to placate the Woke crowd. IT IS NOT AN ATTACK ON MASCULINITY. If you view it as an attack on masculinity, you have a warped sense of masculinity.

 

[Stratovarious]

What masculine characteristics were specifically attacked in the ad?

ETA: I see an ad opposing brawling, objectification of women and bullying. THESE ARE NOT MASCULINE CHARACTERISTICS.

I agree 100% that we do not need this lecture from a company selling toiletries. I agree that this is an attempt to placate the Woke crowd. IT IS NOT AN ATTACK ON MASCULINITY. If you view it as an attack on masculinity, you have a warped sense of masculinity.

And you didn't notice that the villains were white males
The heroes were blacks
The blacks didn't get in fights , the whites did

Toxic masculinity if we want entertain that meme accounts for less than
1% of our male populations, it would be the classification of 'bully' , they are
rare.
The rest of this idiotic Gillette farce is imaginative, agenda laden blsht,
everyone knows it, everyone was able to see through it.

 

[dannno]

What masculine characteristics were specifically attacked in the ad?

ETA: I see an ad opposing brawling, objectification of women and bullying. THESE ARE NOT MASCULINE CHARACTERISTICS.

I agree 100% that we do not need this lecture from a company selling toiletries. I agree that this is an attempt to placate the Woke crowd. IT IS NOT AN ATTACK ON MASCULINITY. If you view it as an attack on masculinity, you have a warped sense of masculinity.

Dude, do you know how to fucking read?!! I am against fighting. I am against harassing women. I'm against all that shit. I am probably better at it than you. So stop lecturing me about how I'm supposed to act and listen to what I am saying..

I just told you that violence in society is caused almost exclusively by absentee fathers. It is NOT caused by dads looking the other way as their son play fights. It is not the extent to which men ENGAGE with their sons that causes violence and rape.. it is the extent to which women choose bad men to have kids with, or to the extent that they are such horrible women that they drive good men away so that they can't raise their kids.

PLEASE DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND READ MY LAST POST. Slowly. Carefully. You are so fucking clueless it is approaching insanity territory. You've had all this explained to you 100 times, why don't you get it? Are you being purposely obtuse?

Like the poster above said, they are attacking men in this video, blaming violence on fathers.. but they are the ones who are holding society together. It is because of them that we have less violence.. yet they are getting completely shafted throughout the ad..

 

[RJB]

Don't sweat it, Dannno. If reading a response goes past an NPC program, SJW talking points get rebooted.

 

[Stratovarious]

Dude, do you know how to $#@!ing read?!! I am against fighting. I am against harassing women. I'm against all that $#@!. I am probably better at it than you. So stop lecturing me about how I'm supposed to act and listen to what I am saying..

I just told you that violence in society is caused almost exclusively by absentee fathers. It is NOT caused by dads looking the other way as their son play fights. It is not the extent to which men ENGAGE with their sons that causes violence and rape.. it is the extent to which women choose bad men to have kids with, or to the extent that they are such horrible women that they drive good men away so that they can't raise their kids.

PLEASE DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND READ MY LAST POST. Slowly. Carefully. You are so $#@!ing clueless it is approaching insanity territory. You've had all this explained to you 100 times, why don't you get it? Are you being purposely obtuse?

Like the poster above said, they are attacking men in this video, blaming violence on fathers.. but they are the ones who are holding society together. It is because of them that we have less violence.. yet they are getting completely shafted throughout the ad..

...and don't discount 'career welfare' women, they are paid provided they kick
the father out of the house, and if they keep breeding they are rewarded further.

 

[dannno]

...and don't discount 'career welfare' women, they are paid provided they kick
the father out of the house, and if they keep breeding they are rewarded further.

Ya, the government basically incentivizes women to stop having sex with their husband, and to nag the shit out of them until they leave. Then they get welfare, child support and they get to go fuck whoever they want.


..but ya, it's all men's fault according to Son of Liberty. We need to work on ourselves

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Dude, do you know how to $#@!ing read?!! I am against fighting. I am against harassing women. I'm against all that $#@!.

dannno, the ad opposed fighting... the ad opposed harassing women.

I am probably better at it than you. So stop lecturing me about how I'm supposed to act and listen to what I am saying..

I haven't once lectured you, nor told you how to act. I have said - simply - that I have seen nothing in the ad which attacks masculinity.

I have agreed that none of us need a lecture from a company selling toiletries about how men should behave.

I just told you that violence in society is caused almost exclusively by absentee fathers.

Here is me listening to you: Agreed on this point.

It is NOT caused by dads looking the other way as their son play fights.

You saw play fights. I saw brawling. Fine. I have no issue with boys 'rasslin'... I do oppose initiating violence to resolve conflict. That is a libertarian principle, by the way. You may have seen the ad as opposing play-fights. I may have seen the ad as objecting to resolving conflict through the initiation of violence. Let's move on...

It is not the extent to which men ENGAGE with their sons that causes violence and rape.. it is the extent to which women choose bad men to have kids with, or to the extent that they are such horrible women that they drive good men away so that they can't raise their kids.

Huh? Where do I suggest that there is a problem with men engaging with their sons? ANOTHER POSSIBLE TAKEAWAY is that men shouldn't be BAD MEN.

Let's not be snowflakes ourselves.

PLEASE DO YOURSELF A FAVOR AND READ MY LAST POST. Slowly. Carefully. You are so $#@!ing clueless it is approaching insanity territory. You've had all this explained to you 100 times, why don't you get it? Are you being purposely obtuse?

Like the poster above said, they are attacking men in this video, blaming violence on fathers.. but they are the ones who are holding society together. It is because of them that we have less violence.. yet they are getting completely shafted throughout the ad..

Unless you believe that men are defined by brawling, cat-calling women, and bullying, they are NOT attacking men. If you believe that those are characteristics of men, then - yes, they are attacking men.

I'm not sure how much more clearly I can make myself here.

And before you emotionally fly off the handle yet again, I do understand that this is occurring within the cultural subtext of an anti-male climate. I just consider it - AGAIN - a strategic mistake to attack this ad on the grounds that it is anti-masculine.

The proper response here is - first - to oppose the ad on it's merits: why would a toiletries company be trying to hawk it's wares with such a message? Second - to oppose it on principle: REAL men do not act the way the ad suggests... in other words, they're making a point no one is contesting... men - rightly understood - don't behave that way.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Ya, the government basically incentivizes women to stop having sex with their husband, and to nag the $#@! out of them until they leave. Then they get welfare, child support and they get to go $#@! whoever they want.


..but ya, it's all men's fault according to Son of Liberty. We need to work on ourselves

JFC... THAT IS NOT AT ALL WHAT I'M SAYING.

What is wrong with you!?

 

[Stratovarious]

Ya, the government basically incentivizes women to stop having sex with their husband, and to nag the $#@! out of them until they leave. Then they get welfare, child support and they get to go $#@! whoever they want.


..but ya, it's all men's fault according to Son of Liberty. We need to work on ourselves

-
I agree, and you realize that this s o l (sht outa luck) dude is much like SM (I don't remember his full moniker) , they
aren't interested in any kind of debate, they are just practicing deflection and great ways to
argue idiotic, nonsensical views, my guess is that its a pair of alts.
You already won the debate, way way back..........

 

[Stratovarious]

JFC... THAT IS NOT AT ALL WHAT I'M SAYING.

What is wrong with you!?

Good Lord dude, what are you saying............

 

[A Son of Liberty]

Good Lord dude, what are you saying............

Maybe we aren't speaking the same language... I'm just not sure how much more plainly I can say it... maybe someone can help me here...

I'm simply saying that:

1. The fucking ad purports to object to certain characteristics which have lately become commonly associated with males in our society, namely brawling, cat-calling women and bullying.

2. Those characteristics (brawling, cat-calling and bullying) are NOT TO BE ASSOCIATED with masculinity; ACTUAL masculine characteristics are those which protect, provide and shelter women and children, treating them with dignity and respect, working hard, stoicism, etc. For clarities sake, NONE OF THESE TRADITIONALLY ACCEPTED CHARACTERISTICS OF MASCULINITY WERE ATTACKED IN THE AD. TO BE PRECISE, THE AD DID NOT ATTACK PROTECTING, SHELTERING AND TREATING WITH RESPECT WOMEN AND CHILDREN, NOR STOICISM, HARD WORK, ETC. Thus, my view that "masculinity" (rightly understood) was NOT under attack in the ad.

3. None of us who rightly understand masculinity should feel as though masculinity was under attack in the ad.

4. It is a strategic mistake to declare that masculinity is under attack in the ad, because we would thus grant that the projected conception of masculinity (brawling, cat-calling, bullying) in the ad is in fact "masculinity" (AGAIN - it is clearly not).

 

[Stratovarious]

Maybe we aren't speaking the same language... I'm just not sure how much more plainly I can say it... maybe someone can help me here...

I'm simply saying that:

1. The $#@!ing ad purports to object to certain characteristics which have lately become commonly associated with males in our society, namely brawling, cat-calling women and bullying.

2. Those characteristics (brawling, cat-calling and bullying) are NOT TO BE ASSOCIATED with masculinity; ACTUAL masculine characteristics are those which protect, provide and shelter women and children, treating them with dignity and respect, working hard, stoicism, etc. For clarities sake, NONE OF THESE TRADITIONALLY ACCEPTED CHARACTERISTICS OF MASCULINITY WERE ATTACKED IN THE AD. Thus, my view that "masculinity" (rightly understood) was NOT under attack in the ad.

3. None of us who rightly understand masculinity should feel as though masculinity was under attack in the ad.

4. It is a strategic mistake to declare that masculinity is under attack in the ad, because we would thus grant that the projected conception of masculinity (brawling, cat-calling, bullying) in the ad is in fact "masculinity" (AGAIN - it is clearly not).

''that depends on what the meaning of is is''

 

[A Son of Liberty]

''that depends on what the meaning of is is''

You've got to be kidding me...

 

[TheTexan]

So much toxic masculinity in this thread.

 

[DamianTV]

Maybe we aren't speaking the same language... I'm just not sure how much more plainly I can say it... maybe someone can help me here...

I'm simply saying that:

1. The fucking ad purports to object to certain characteristics which have lately become commonly associated with males in our society, namely brawling, cat-calling women and bullying.

2. Those characteristics (brawling, cat-calling and bullying) are NOT TO BE ASSOCIATED with masculinity; ACTUAL masculine characteristics are those which protect, provide and shelter women and children, treating them with dignity and respect, working hard, stoicism, etc. For clarities sake, NONE OF THESE TRADITIONALLY ACCEPTED CHARACTERISTICS OF MASCULINITY WERE ATTACKED IN THE AD. TO BE PRECISE, THE AD DID NOT ATTACK PROTECTING, SHELTERING AND TREATING WITH RESPECT WOMEN AND CHILDREN, NOR STOICISM, HARD WORK, ETC. Thus, my view that "masculinity" (rightly understood) was NOT under attack in the ad.

3. None of us who rightly understand masculinity should feel as though masculinity was under attack in the ad.

4. It is a strategic mistake to declare that masculinity is under attack in the ad, because we would thus grant that the projected conception of masculinity (brawling, cat-calling, bullying) in the ad is in fact "masculinity" (AGAIN - it is clearly not).

Both sides of this are being manipulated.

We are aware that the Image of Traditional Men is under attack. It causes Feminists to attack ANY man, not just those that show Traditional Male behavior. The Ad in and of itself is only representative of "Triggering" the males to have just as much disdain toward women, because that is useful to the elite.

Take a group of honest traditional men. They have families, homes, work, and love what they have. If those same men are reduced to breeding machines then turn their own families and homes against them, they will abandon an abusive exploitative manipulative home than a man that has a loving home and a purpose in life. Basically, its a continued effort of the destruction of the WHOLE FAMILY, not just Men or Women, traditional or otherwise. They WANT violence, and they WANT abandonment. Isolated people are much easier to manipulate and control than those without.

The Ad itself is a reflection of the persons mind that created the video, not the true nature of Traditional Masculinity, but rather how the person that produced the ad feels about Traditional Masculinity, if that makes any sense...

 

[A Son of Liberty]

The thread title is "Gillette Makes Anti-Male Commercial".

Gillette did not make an anti-male commercial, unless you think that it is appropriate for males to engage in cat-calling, brawling, bullying.

Gillette made a pointless commercial. Gillette was virtue signaling.

Intimating that Gillette made an anti-male commercial by objecting to the characteristics they portrayed is to agree that those characteristics are "male" and/or "masculine". You've lost the argument already, if that is your position.

 

[dannno]

dannno, the ad opposed fighting... the ad opposed harassing women.

No, it didn't... that is what you don't get. The ad opposed men, it opposed fathers, it opposed all masculine behavior. It opposed men who are physically attracted to women.

If the ad wanted to oppose fighting and harassing women, then they should say what causes that. What causes that is fathers not being involved in their son's lives. It is because they are raised too much by women - at home, in the schools, etc..

Instead they make men out to be these horribly nasty people who should do what moms do and break up the play fights and coddle their children.. but single moms are what cause violence.

There is another issue, though.. men act the way they act in large part to get laid. Women are attracted to men who behave horribly. That is who they want to have sex with. If they want to change the way men act, it's really easy. I've been saying it for almost 20 years now. If women want men to not fight, they need to do two things: fuck men who don't fight and don't fuck guys who fight. Literally, overnight, male fighting will cease to exist. I guarantee it.