Really? No threads about the Gillette ad yet?

[Sparagmos]

Men don't like to be told what and what not to do ...

A lot of men LOVE to be told what to do, in my experience.

 

[Sparagmos]

The reason this is getting so much in the way of negative reaction is because many of the buzzwords tossed around in the ad have been given rather negative meanings and connotations due to the so-called "culture war". As such, the ad comes off as Gillette dissing all forms of masculinity that aren't kosher with today's progressive crowd.

Hence people throwing out their Gillette products and looking for other alternatives.

It's even become a meme for people to post messages on Twitter telling Gillette that they're switching to another brand - usually Dollar Shave Club - and posting a macho gif or other image.


As for me, Schick works just fine.

Funny, they only depict/diss negative behavior in that ad, so why would people think they are dissing positive “masculine” traits?

 

[Sparagmos]

I'm pretty shocked that this hasn't made it onto here yet.

I liked it. The only part that feels a bit "iffy" to me is that I cannot really decipher why those two boys are fighting at the bbq. If it is just horseplay and rough housing, I'm cool with that. If it is using violence to solve a conflict, I very much have a problem with that.

Otherwise, 100% agreement for me.

I'm surprised at how difficult it has been for some men to take a moment and reflect on how they treat women. More than a few just seem to be all up in arms about an advert that suggests grabbing womens' butts or speaking condescendingly towards them is not some inaliienable right.

I've been on this forum long enough to know there will be some opinions on it so...let's here it!

TBH I will prob but Gillette next time after seeing that ad. I switch around on razor brands anyway. Even a slight chance that they take sexual harassment and gender equality more seriously than other companies is reason enough for me.

 

[dgiharris]

I saw the ad and really have luke warm feelings about it.

There's nothing in it I hate, there are a few things in it that I like, my favorite part is when the father is with the daughter and he tells her to say "I am strong". I like that positivity.

I'm not a big fan of the sentiment that fighting in and of itself is wrong. It is my belief that the purpose of men in regards to raising boys is to teach them to be men and prepare them for the real world.

And in life, there are times when you need to fight. There are times when you need to use physical violence and there are times when you need to "fight" for your property, business, or livelihood. Real life is not an After School Special on TV.

In any event, I'm meh about the commercial, I dont' consider it anything earth shattering tbh. *shrug*

 

[rambot]

TBH I will prob but Gillette next time after seeing that ad. I switch around on razor brands anyway. Even a slight chance that they take sexual harassment and gender equality more seriously than other companies is reason enough for me.

But their product is a rip off and super wasteful.

If it's something you could be open to, you should DEFINITELY look into a safety razor. SOOOO much less waste and way cheaper. My razor was 45ish and my blades were 20$/100. Possibly won't be buying new blades for about 4 or 5 years (rarely shaving in the winter helps with that.).
https://www.amazon.ca/s?k=safety+razor&ref=nb_sb_noss_2

It's, most importantly, a really awesome shave and nice and sharp. Takes a bit to figure out angles but then it's great.

 

[Sparagmos]

But their product is a rip off and super wasteful.

If it's something you could be open to, you should DEFINITELY look into a safety razor. SOOOO much less waste and way cheaper. My razor was 45ish and my blades were 20$/100. Possibly won't be buying new blades for about 4 or 5 years (rarely shaving in the winter helps with that.).
Amazon.ca: safety razor

It's, most importantly, a really awesome shave and nice and sharp. Takes a bit to figure out angles but then it's great.

Wow, well I’ll have to check it out. Yes disposable razors are such a rip off.

 

[rambot]

Wow, well I’ll have to check it out. Yes disposable razors are such a rip off.

Do it! I felt like such a chump paying like, 9 dollars per cartridge that could NOT have cost more than 80c to manufacture.

 

[Sparagmos]

But their product is a rip off and super wasteful.

If it's something you could be open to, you should DEFINITELY look into a safety razor. SOOOO much less waste and way cheaper. My razor was 45ish and my blades were 20$/100. Possibly won't be buying new blades for about 4 or 5 years (rarely shaving in the winter helps with that.).
Amazon.ca: safety razor

It's, most importantly, a really awesome shave and nice and sharp. Takes a bit to figure out angles but then it's great.

Ooh there’s one with s bamboo handle! Might be a nice gift for my hubby!

 

[rambot]

Ooh there’s one with s bamboo handle! Might be a nice gift for my hubby!

I can't rightly say if my wife uses my razor. I don't know for sure but I wouldn't be too surprised. And if she just changed out the blade I wouldn't care anyways.

But yeah. a poignant ad for gilette.

 

[trunks2k]

Some have already been whining about it in another thread. I said there and will repeat: the only ones who have a problem with this ad are either entitled and thin-skinned or have #MeToo demons of their own.
Ringo

Well, I have a problem with it. Not because I disagree or have an issue with the message, but because I don't like it when companies latch on to serious issues in blatant ways in order to promote their product.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The "overly PC" themes being forced on everyone is why I fear we're going to end up with more Trumps before we get a decent president again. While some of us can just call it out for what it is, many folks are driven into the arms of people like Trump when they get fed up with a bunch of ultra-left college kids dictating what they can and can't do/say.

...and maybe I'm the only one who noticed, but did anyone else see in the ads that they specifically picked the white guys to be the bad guys? Perhaps in their quest for ultimate PC-ness, they were afraid of portraying the black guys as the bad guys in those scenarios out of fear of being called racist.

So, when the white guy is making cat calls at the woman, hero to the rescue:

Terry Crews:

Then this guy stopping the white guy from getting grabby at a pool party:

...and when the two white kids are fighting at the BBQ:

I don't think it was an anti-white sentiment intentionally...but I do think they new exactly what audience they were trying to play to, and that audience most certainly would've twisted a "white guy stops black guy from grabbing woman" or "black kid tackles white kid" scenario into accusations of "racism in the media"

 

[trunks2k]

...and when the two white kids are fighting at the BBQ:

... a fight that was stopped by a white guy... I think you are looking a little too much into this.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

... a fight that was stopped by a white guy... I think you are looking a little too much into this.

Given the audience they were playing to, I think they made a conscience decision to make the "grabby guys who needed to be stopped by someone else" white out of fear of being accused of racism.

Personally, their ad has no influence on my decision of what to buy...I'm a Braun 7-series man myself

...I just found it peculiar that they seemed to be making some very specific selections in order to not offend the "overly-PC" crowd.

 

[Ringo84]

Well, I have a problem with it. Not because I disagree or have an issue with the message, but because I don't like it when companies latch on to serious issues in blatant ways in order to promote their product.

That's a fair point. I want companies to be socially responsible, but I don't like the "let's pretend to care about something important to sell [product]" style of marketing either.
Ringo

 

[trunks2k]

That's a fair point. I want companies to be socially responsible, but I don't like the "let's pretend to care about something important to sell [product]" style of marketing either.
Ringo

Yeah, it's one thing to, say, put an interracial married couple in a Cheerios commercial. It's another thing for General Mills to say in the commercial "LOOK THERE'S AN INTERRACIAL COUPLE HERE!!!"

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm pretty shocked that this hasn't made it onto here yet.

I liked it.

I didn't.

The only part that feels a bit "iffy" to me is that I cannot really decipher why those two boys are fighting at the bbq. If it is just horseplay and rough housing, I'm cool with that. If it is using violence to solve a conflict, I very much have a problem with that.

Otherwise, 100% agreement for me.

I'm surprised at how difficult it has been for some men to take a moment and reflect on how they treat women. More than a few just seem to be all up in arms about an advert that suggests grabbing womens' butts or speaking condescendingly towards them is not some inaliienable right.

I've been on this forum long enough to know there will be some opinions on it so...let's here it!

The part that feels "iffy" to me is a company that sells shaving products is attempting to sermonize about proper behavior for half the population.

Can we agree that no one should really care what Gillette has to say about men's behavior? We're talking about a company that makes advertisements like this...

So forgive me if I find their lame attempts to pander to some feminist narrative....lame.

Beyond the simple fact that Gillette doesn't really have any relevance to the topic of male behavior....I find it rather condescending that they just depict men as violent sex crazed animals in need of restraint. It's the equivalent of depicting women as overly emotional/fragile. It's nothing more than one-dimensional stereotyping.

So I'd call this a cheap and desperate attempt to commoditize a rather shaky political narrative.

 

[SummerMadness]

I think the ad is fine, maybe a slight eye roll for a corporation trying to put on the mask of caring about social issues, but there is nothing wrong with the ad. The whiny reaction from some is unsurprising because they can't separate masculinity from toxic masculinity. They seem to miss the adjective that modifies masculinity; it's not that all masculinity is bad, just certain forms of it. For instance, berating a man for crying or having emotions. But we already know this will be another whiny campaign similar to the "War on Christmas" where a dumb idea about what it is to be a man is often pushed.

I see what you're getting at with the racial angle, but Terry Crews and the YouTube video of the father and daughter are really just a coincidence. If anything, the YouTube video was more reflective of disproving the narrative of the absent black father (a myth still perpetuated in some social circles) and the notion that African Americans have low self-esteem that needs to be boosted (which is actually a myth, although I'm not sure what the gender breakdown is).

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The whiny reaction from some is unsurprising because they can't separate masculinity from toxic masculinity.

They seem to miss the adjective that modifies masculinity; it's not that all masculinity is bad, just certain forms of it.

That may be the case for some people. However, for other people, the objection solely lies with the double-standard for which that adjective is used...or, indeed, the very low standard with which it gets invoked.

Let's take a look at this little bit from the ad.

An attractive woman walks by, and a guy says "wow" and starts to walk after her and the other guys says "c'mon man, not cool".

So vocalizing that you think someone's attractive, and making an attempt to approach them is "toxic"?


For the people who use that term, would they be using the term "toxic femininity" to describe the woman ogling and responding to "the hot guy", but completely ignoring the "the not guy"?

Now, there are times when it certainly applies, however, there is a certain pattern of behavior, that's more prevalent of among the left.

And that is, when they see a societal injustice that they see as being propogated or endorsed by the right, rather than just calling it out at face value, they water down the meaning of certain words as to use it for debate fodder to try to prove a point and thus, shoot themselves in the foot so that people don't take the word seriously anymore.

Similar thing happened with the topic of bigotry against Muslims. Now, obviously bigotry against Muslims, as people, and making wild assertions like "Muslims are terrorists" isn't something any intelligent person should be saying. However, many in the "PC" crowd went that extra step, and watered down the term "terrorism" to include things like hate letters and graffiti just for debate fodder so that when an ignorant anti-Muslim conservative said something online along those lines, they could respond with "Oh yeah, well the right wing actually has more terrorists! So there!"


I see the same thing happening here...and it's a real problem I have with many on the left (even though I'm much further left than right on the spectrum for many social issues). Expanding the meaning of the term to include more types of behavior, simply to "pad the stats" so that the "other side is worse" when you sum them up (like I said, for debate fodder) is a short-sighted strategy as that's not going to "win" any debates. A) if they didn't listen to all of the other stats on the topic, throwing one more stat (that they're going to ignore/reject) isn't going to change that, and B) it lessens the impact of the term so that people who are legitimate victims aren't taken seriously

 

[Ana the Ist]

The "overly PC" themes being forced on everyone is why I fear we're going to end up with more Trumps before we get a decent president again. While some of us can just call it out for what it is, many folks are driven into the arms of people like Trump when they get fed up with a bunch of ultra-left college kids dictating what they can and can't do/say.

...and maybe I'm the only one who noticed, but did anyone else see in the ads that they specifically picked the white guys to be the bad guys? Perhaps in their quest for ultimate PC-ness, they were afraid of portraying the black guys as the bad guys in those scenarios out of fear of being called racist.

So, when the white guy is making cat calls at the woman, hero to the rescue:
View attachment 249393

Terry Crews:
View attachment 249394

Then this guy stopping the white guy from getting grabby at a pool party:
View attachment 249395


...and when the two white kids are fighting at the BBQ:
View attachment 249396



I don't think it was an anti-white sentiment intentionally...but I do think they new exactly what audience they were trying to play to, and that audience most certainly would've twisted a "white guy stops black guy from grabbing woman" or "black kid tackles white kid" scenario into accusations of "racism in the media"

Yeah I noticed....

Then again, I've been noticing an increase in anti-white sentiment (why aren't we just calling it racism?) for some time now. White men are the only group they definitely wouldn't catch any flak for portraying negatively....and I think they knew that.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yeah I noticed....

Then again, I've been noticing an increase in anti-white sentiment (why aren't we just calling it racism?) for some time now. White men are the only group they definitely wouldn't catch any flak for portraying negatively....and I think they knew that.

Like I said in my post...I don't think they were trying to be "anti-white"...I think they were afraid of being viewed as "anti-black". Since they can't have a commercial without a mix of races (since the PC crowd will call that racist), and they can't have the black guys be the bad guys (since the PC crowd will call that racist), they went with the default option.

...and that's really the problem with the overly-PC crowd, no matter what, you'll never make them 100% happy. I think the ultimate display of that is when women (wearing the vagina hats at the marches) were chastised by the overly-PC people - who were supposed to be on there side - because "well, that's implying that all women have those, some trans women still have penises so those hats are offensive". If you go down the rabbit hole of trying to meet all of their standards, it'll be a never-ending quest.

I saw a FB group that's name really summed up my feelings on the matter
"Political Correctness is important, but let's not lose our <dang> minds" (substituting "dang" for a no-no word)