New ad from Gillette:
- Thread starter demlion
- Start date
What I have found that people who exhibit these types of behaviors in the Ad are generally a-holes in all facets of their lives and it's not just that they are bullies or sexist that are equal opportunity d-bags.
The “We Believe in the Best in Men” video is a negative depiction of men and in my opinion Gillette is going to have a very difficult time back peddling away from this mess it created. Right now comments on Youtube are running negative by a devastating margin of ten to one. A disproportionate number of dislikes includes many men who are saying the ad is insulting and full of stereotypes. What is perhaps most dangerous for Gillette is the large number of posters who are threatening to never buy the product again. You see, in the real world, in real Board rooms, when a CEO and CFO are enraged and furious and forced to explain a 20% reduction in Market Share and the negative publicity of this video is when the real abuse begins. TERMINATION!!
Can you give me a quick list of female mass murderers, serial killers, violent domestic abusers, despotic dictators, rapists, child molesters, drug gangs etc?
I am sorry, but no.
He said "Maybe feminists should stop trying to drive wedges between men and women". He is defining feminists strictly in the box that he wants to put them in. Yeah, there are crazies out there on all sides, but feminism in and of itself, should not be polarizing at all. It isn't a "mic drop" because he is basically watching fox news all day and seeing it that way. Again "Modern feminism = masculinity bad, femininity good". This just isn't true for many many many people. Feminism for most is equality. Plain and simple.
I live and work in NYC and know many people are roll their eyes at the identity politics out there, but ya know what, that goes both ways. Being offended about a commercial that you think was made in reaction to others being offended, well, you can see the absurdity.
Are there people who are feminists who are all the things Howie and yourself want to believe they are? Yes, of course, and they happen to be the loudest and most obnoxious. But there are many more people who consider themselves feminists who roll their eyes at those people.
Again, most just want equality. Now, say what you will, we aren't there yet and look no further than the president. No, I am not talking about Trump, I am talking about the office of the presidency. We have had 45 presidents and not one, has been a woman. (I despised Hillary and Trump both, this isn't about her) How can you say things are equal when literally half of the country has never been represented in the highest office.
Of course, things haven't always been like they are now and of course, I have no judgement of earlier times as that was the way things were. Meaning, I would never judge the founding fathers not including women in the vote as they were men of their times. HOWEVER, only a blind men couldn't see that their wasn't equality then as there isn't now.
That being said, there are loudmouths who come out and swing way too far in the direction that Howie is talking about. But, they are the minority of feminists and that wasn't a mic drop. It was an echo chamber.
(also, I like Howie on here, but like George Washington, he is a man of his time
)
And? You saying women are more virtuous than men? The VAST majority of men are not mass muderers, serial killers, violent domestic abusers, despotic dictators, rapists, child molesters, drug gangs etc.
And there are examples of women serial killers, women violent domestic abusers, despotic dictators, rapists, child molesters, and in drug gangs.
You haven't scored a single point with that argument which is highly specious.
I suppose your TV drug of choice is MSNBC or CNN. I don't really know and maybe that's not fair, but what you said isn't quite fair either. You haven't a clue what I watch and I can think for myself, thank you very much. And absolutely many modern feminists are driving wedges between the sexes. You can't practically criminalize masculinity for propaganda purposes and then say that doesn't drive a wedge. It most certainly does. To think otherwise is not reasonable. By the way, when someone comes up with a good definition of equality, I'll listen, but I haven't seen one. First and foremost, men and women are born, even conceived, as different. Not just physically. People who study these things will tell you that men and women don't even process things in the same way. Any married couple can tell you that without a second's thought. I think the only way to look at it is that both sexes have equal value, but that in no way implies they are the same.I am sorry, but no.
He said "Maybe feminists should stop trying to drive wedges between men and women". He is defining feminists strictly in the box that he wants to put them in. Yeah, there are crazies out there on all sides, but feminism in and of itself, should not be polarizing at all. It isn't a "mic drop" because he is basically watching fox news all day and seeing it that way. Again "Modern feminism = masculinity bad, femininity good". This just isn't true for many many many people. Feminism for most is equality. Plain and simple.
I live and work in NYC and know many people are roll their eyes at the identity politics out there, but ya know what, that goes both ways. Being offended about a commercial that you think was made in reaction to others being offended, well, you can see the absurdity.
Are there people who are feminists who are all the things Howie and yourself want to believe they are? Yes, of course, and they happen to be the loudest and most obnoxious. But there are many more people who consider themselves feminists who roll their eyes at those people.
Again, most just want equality. Now, say what you will, we aren't there yet and look no further than the president. No, I am not talking about Trump, I am talking about the office of the presidency. We have had 45 presidents and not one, has been a woman. (I despised Hillary and Trump both, this isn't about her) How can you say things are equal when literally half of the country has never been represented in the highest office.
Of course, things haven't always been like they are now and of course, I have no judgement of earlier times as that was the way things were. Meaning, I would never judge the founding fathers not including women in the vote as they were men of their times. HOWEVER, only a blind men couldn't see that their wasn't equality then as there isn't now.
That being said, there are loudmouths who come out and swing way too far in the direction that Howie is talking about. But, they are the minority of feminists and that wasn't a mic drop. It was an echo chamber.
(also, I like Howie on here, but like George Washington, he is a man of his time
EDIT: In fact, I'll go a step further. Rather than promoting these gender wars, how about accepting the differences between the sexes and learn from one another, helping and motivating one another, making life better for everyone.
LOL. I just looked at a list of known American serial killers 340 total, 4 women. Looks about even.
I'm sure Demlion could give you some stats about domestic violence.
You use the word virtuous because it is so vague. Men are exponentially more violent than women.
340 serial killers among men, eh? Well, the lot of the billions of us be cursed and damned.
Plus you miss the point. The point is quite simple. Given the right situation, women can be all the things you listed. You do realize the qualities that make men who they are, are also the qualities that enable them to fight in places like Iwo Jima. Some women are into that, but I don't think most are.
Howie said "equally ruthless". You aren't going to find more female serial killers or dictators. Here, however, is a list of 50 famous female rapists.
http://www.zimbio.com/The+50+Most+Infamous+Female+Teacher+Sex+Scandals
As for women being more ruthless, check out this article (written by a woman, by the way):
Basically, in shock experiments, women have been shown to participate to the same level as men. Women are not prosecuted to the same extent as men, and therefore, aren't perceived as being as "ruthless". Men have had to use violence and take risks, whereas women have not.
So, does this mean that Gillette is saying can the "Who's the Hottest" contests? As a new world man, trying to limit "Toxic Masculinity" we should now push back on that? Or, do we just support Toxic Masculinity when we enjoy it?
Decisions decisions.
Men or more violent than women. Not a controversial point there. But...so what? Does a razor company pointing that out make you more likely to buy their razors???? That's the part I don't get. It seems they'll lose more business than gain by this - not including the costs of the ultimately harmful advertising. If I were a P&G stockholder - I'd be pissed. Actually, I probably am via a mutual fund or two...so I suppose I should be pissed. I don't buy that whole "any publicity is good publicity" cliche. Maybe true if you're a professional wrestler.
340 serial killers among men, eh? Well, the lot of the billions of us be cursed and damned.
Plus you miss the point. The point is quite simple. Given the right situation, women can be all the things you listed. You do realize the qualities that make men who they are, are also the qualities that enable them to fight in places like Iwo Jima. Some women are into that, but I don't think most are.
And they're fighting in Iwo Jima because other asshole men started the war.
I never said women are more honest or virtuous. I said men are more violent. FACT It's not just a small list of serial killers. It's all violent crime. Men are the undisputed champs of violent crime.
You're saying the same thing all the haters said about Nike's Kaepernick ad. They were all wrong.
Men are also the undisputed champions of inventions, building things, providing structure, etc., etc. Give it up.
I had a similar thought. I have sig pics turned off, because well I don't need that stuff popping up on a sports message board at work. But I was wondering how many people were arguing for women's rights while objectifying one in their sig pics?
FWIW, I just scanned a list of about 340 American serial killers on Wikipedia and found somewhere around 45 or 50 women on that list. The list is a little odd (some of the names go back to the late 1800s) but there were definitely more than 4 women.
Tampax should do a commercial about all of the "men" crying about their hurt feelings in this thread.
I seem to remember the same reaction to Kaepernick, but Nike has beat the market and their segment since the release of their ad. No doubt there is a loud contingent that will come out and say they will boycott.
Agreed....and the commercial is suggesting we be proactive in tamping out what WE think is wrong. Good luck with that. If this board is any measure, you'll get punched in the mouth. At the same time, there is a sub-market of women that enjoy using their sexuality.
Well, for me, I like the message. i don't like the preaching and insinuation that men, solely, are the only problem. It is a nuanced issue...and I don't want any business selling their version of morality as part of their model.
Good. So why is it offensive to encourage others to do so? When Edmund Burke (debatably) said "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing," was it cause for offense because so many good men were doing something? Or was it an appropriate call to action for those who aren't?
You are correct. I saw only a partial list and in my haste did not click on the full link.
Wake me up when all evil has been eliminated from the world. We're not talking about fighting the Nazis here.
It wasn't offensive to me. It was kind of boring and trite, but at the same time a bit humorous. As if P&G is the new arbiter of morality and social justice, and will change someone's behavior......
Yep. If ever there was a collection of poster children for declining masculinity, I can think of none better than the patriots.
So I'll be looking for your rebuke on the next who's the hottest thread?
My problem with it is that it is a nuanced issue. What is acceptable in one family/region is not acceptable in another. Many people complain about the religious and i wonder if they want Gilette preaching to them as well.
Finally, it creates a 'brand' problem. It suggests that men are bad. And, it suggests that men should assist in things like taking care of children....but that may not be OK for an individual's family. I simply don't want Gilette getting involved in that decision. Case in point, I have a female friend that calls me for career advice often. But she chose her profession so she could take care of their four children. it always comes down to one sentence "Cindy, you chose this career for a reason, until you can travel freely, I can't help you." That is between her and her husband.
dynamite messaging
I applaud Gillette.
You don't like it? Too bad. Change the channel. Surf thru the ad. Don't buy their products.
Neither was Burke. Also, the point was the analogy between the quotes to highlight the absurdity of taking offense. You're smart enough to recognize that.
And that's fine, I certainly don't think anyone should start looking to Gillette as their moral compass, that's obviously nonsensical. I just don't get why some are lighting the torches over it.
Of course I won't, in fact I'll vote and comment, happily, and without a hint of hypocrisy. Because I won't equate weighing in on the attractiveness of women with abusing them sexually, physically, or mentally.
Do you think the bans on international travel to certain countries suggests all people from those countries are bad? Of course not. Of course you recognize that those comments and actions are directed at a certain subset. Why are you incapable of applying the same reasoning here?
