New ad from Gillette:
- Thread starter demlion
- Start date
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
I think it really depends on the definition of the word "some".
I didn't really take offense to the video, but then again, I thought it was an advertisement for a new season of the Jersey Shore.
EDIT: who knows what happened to my drafted (unposted) response to you and demlion this am. My recreated response is below. Thanks to both.
and BTW: i had no idea that was a clip of jersey shore, if it was.
Last edited by a moderator:
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
Sorry to you and Demlion. I tried to reply this morning and who knows what happened.
Anyway, I agree with you both. My problem DOES depend on the definition of the word "some." Viewing the ad as you did, I agree to the value of the message. But that hasn't changed from my original point. It's a great message and valiant effort but the ad itself (not the message) misses the mark in its delivery.
And viewing the polarizing effect it's had on this board, and especially some of the out of character responses by various posters, I think the ad folks could have made the message more palatable. Below
Seeing it how you and pandaczar12 seemed to, and after now viewing the ad 3+ times, I'm coming around on it. Your point about the bystander moment is an excellent one. I'm far less bothered than I was, not that I was very bothered until I saw the responses of many here. But for an ad with the right social message to have turned off so many of those it's [presumably] trying to reach, suggests to me they should have approached it different. Of course, with all this dialogue , maybe it achieved its purpose. But I fear it didn't
Thanks for weighing in, guys.
and note for clarification: my point about bullying was in direct response to the post I was replying to, not to suggest they should have addressed that in the same ad.
Fair points. Appreciate it. Also wonder about something else you said: do we convince more people if we just flat SAY the premise, OR can more people be convinced if they argue about it?
Last edited:
A
anon_1eeb2b426hv3y
Guest
I'm the wrong audience to answer that question. I agreed with the base message(s). And I thought it was a miss. That later sentiment grew to stronger regret re: the delivery when seeing offended responses of some who I otherwise would have expected a positive response from. But I wasn't focused on the third category you addressed. And maybe [EDIT: probably] I mistakenly assumed folk's offense was born of the broad negative light on men generally.Fair points. Appreciate it. Also wonder about something else you said: do we convince more people if we just flat SAY the premise, OR can more people be convinced if they argue about it?
More succinctly, how to convince more requires a study into those not already on-board. IMO, more who are wiling to be convinced are likely to be convinced if they argue about it. I think that's a given when one's mental status quo (whether assumptions, comfort zone, etc.) is challenged. So if they sought to push dialogue and reflection (especially on your point re: bystander action) in your third category, they may have nailed it.
Maybe I'd be able to give you a better answer by going back through the parts of this thread I'm avoiding (all I haven't seen before except for responses to me--call it the courtesy of the dialogue), but (1) it got so ugly that I don't want to and (2) I've already invested more time in this than I have to give.
"Tool" "Idiot". Gosh I love it when someone doesn't like anothers opinion and they attack because of it. Isn't that bullying? Hmmm...
This is, by far, the most eloquent thing I've read about this topic. If you can read it in its entirety - and I strongly encourage everyone to - and then come back to a sports message board to complain about a f*cking commercial, you seriously need to reevaluate your life: http://rolereboot.org/culture-and-p...oss-and-all-the-men-angry-at-the-gillette-ad/
Compensate? No compensation necessary. I'm a volunteer. I tell people how men should act because too many of them are beating, raping and killing women now, and I would like to see less of it.
Sorry, I read this first, and then all I could hear in my head was blah blah blah blah blah blah blah:
Amy Monticello is an assistant professor at Suffolk University. Her most recent collection of essays, How to Euthanize a Horse, won the 2016 Arcadia Press Chapbook Prize and can be purchased directly at amymonticellowriter.com. Other work has appeared in many literary journals, and at Salon, The Rumpus, and Brain, Child Magazine online. She currently lives in Boston with her husband and daughter.
Cool story bro. It's generally more productive to spend your time on things you can actually control, but you do you.
It must suck where you live to have that kind of rampant crime. Where is that... India?
I don't think it was, I was just making fun of New Jersey.
The basic message of the ad is fine: men should not victimize women. Wow! Never thought of that! Thanks, Gillette! Where would we be without you?!
But seriously, the real problem with the ad is the culture of political correctness underlying and inspiring it, which preaches that men and women are basically the same, their roles interchangeable, their identities as males and females amenable to switching at the drop of a hat, and sex between them nothing more than a pleasurable transaction having no significance beyond the physical.
All a lie -- doing much more damage to women than to men.
I raised four girls and two boys, all of whom grew up to be good husbands/fathers and wives/mothers. 20 grandchildren now (and counting).
All of my kids were raised to know the difference between men and women. Thankfully, they all married people with the same understanding.
Gillette, a company reflective of our diseased culture, a culture which is the main factor in the victimization of women, does not have this understanding and is therefore, ironically, a big part of the problem even as it (laughably) presumes to instruct the rest of us.
Anyway, that's my problem with the ad. And that's why I don't need this cheap-ass corporation of razor-blade hucksters to instruct me on how to treat women.
But seriously, the real problem with the ad is the culture of political correctness underlying and inspiring it, which preaches that men and women are basically the same, their roles interchangeable, their identities as males and females amenable to switching at the drop of a hat, and sex between them nothing more than a pleasurable transaction having no significance beyond the physical.
All a lie -- doing much more damage to women than to men.
I raised four girls and two boys, all of whom grew up to be good husbands/fathers and wives/mothers. 20 grandchildren now (and counting).
All of my kids were raised to know the difference between men and women. Thankfully, they all married people with the same understanding.
Gillette, a company reflective of our diseased culture, a culture which is the main factor in the victimization of women, does not have this understanding and is therefore, ironically, a big part of the problem even as it (laughably) presumes to instruct the rest of us.
Anyway, that's my problem with the ad. And that's why I don't need this cheap-ass corporation of razor-blade hucksters to instruct me on how to treat women.
Show me the part that says men and women are the same, that their roles are interchangeable, etc.
When did our culture become "diseased?" As I read what you say it appears that before the date that disease took hold, women were not victimized, right? I mean, since that diseased culture is the "main factor" in the victimization of women, there could not have been much victimization of women before it came along. When was this golden age when women were not victimized?
Last edited:
I doubt that.
Something like this, they knew it would be high-profile. So in order to get green-lighted, it goes up to the higher levels at P&G. And they aren't a dumb company when it comes to advertising: they spend A LOT of money in that space and have a lot of institutional knowledge of what works and what doesn't.
They're expecting this to pay out with a strong ROI and I bet it does.
What's your source for that? Interesting that you didn't post a link.
P&G isn't really a stock you own for stock price growth anyway. It's a dividend stock and it does very well (vs. its peers) at delivering returns to investors from that POV.
P&G has unlimited resources and a marvelous PR/Marketing group. My point? We are being played. Clearly, nobody without anger problems would condone violence against women under any circumstance outside of self defense. The rest? Well, here is one of their campaigns in Europe just a few years ago:
P&G has unlimited resources and a marvelous PR/Marketing group. My point? We are being played. Clearly, nobody without anger problems would condone violence against women under any circumstance outside of self defense. The rest? Well, here is one of their campaigns in Europe just a few years ago:
Uh duh, this was obvious from the get go. Companies don't have morals or values. They have the bottom line and nothing more. (in this case literally)
I totally understand. It is NOT something I'd probably read on my own, but my wife and I had a pretty intense discussion about this thread the other night, and she said I should read it. So I did. And you should, too. Or not.
You still can't find the ****ing test board, huh? I notice you didn't comment on Obli's picture w/ all the hot Gillette asses at the auto race. Why is that?
All politics all the time here (as long as you are a liberal democrat specializing in virtue signaling). This board is now a complete shit show - thanks for nothing Tom.
To the other prominent dopey liberal poster here who likes to post fake reviews on other poster's businesses' google, yelp, etc. pages - I'd watch your back. You know who you are.
All politics all the time here (as long as you are a liberal democrat specializing in virtue signaling). This board is now a complete shit show - thanks for nothing Tom.
To the other prominent dopey liberal poster here who likes to post fake reviews on other poster's businesses' google, yelp, etc. pages - I'd watch your back. You know who you are.
You joined TODAY (under this name). You have ONE POST.
Which one of the myriad crybabies are you? Did you think someone would care what you wrote even though you did not have the guts to post under your usual name? Lol.
Like I said, Dem, it's the culture of political correctness inspiring the ad that believes the roles of men and women are interchangeable.
Have you been paying attention at all? Do you follow the news?
As to your questions, our culture became diseased when we tossed off the concepts of God and sin. Look it up. You'll figure out the approximate date.
Right, women have been victimized from Day One. The point is that the victimization of women has not decreased in the modern supposedly enlightened post-Christian era. Quite the contrary. Check the statistics.
There was never any "golden age" when women were never victimized. Or men for that matter. The difference in our own day is that we deny the reality of Evil and seek to reduce it to a pathetic formula of political correctness -- as though that will fix things.
It hasn't and won't. Because human nature is not fixable by political slogans...or by the pathetic misguided ads of a razor-blade company.
You said this diseased culture was the main factor in the victimization of women. If it was the main factor, then before it existed there must have been very little or no victimization. This is not some theory or bluff, it is the natural meaning of the words you used. You are just ranting, it makes no sense.
Meanwhile, PC dominates your thinking. Was the reaction of so called conservatives to the NFL guys kneeling for the National Anthem political correctness? Yes or no? Sure seemed like they were offended by another person's expression of belief.
Lol.
They weren't offended by some person's expression of belief. They were offended that some person would disrespect the ceremony that honors our nation's flag. The flag that millions have died for while defending our nation with their "toxic masculinity". If we were in a sustained period of world peace, I think there wouldn't have been such a visceral reaction, but we aren't in a sustained period of world peace. We currently have men and women dying overseas in military conflict and they come back home with their caskets draped in that flag. It doesn't surprise that you don't understand that issue either.
Nope. Just political correctness. A first amendment-protected expression of belief that offended you, so you got all worked up. PC all the way.
PC is when I dont pay the proper deference to some thing you hold dear, and you complain about it. I dismiss and minimize your complaints by calling them PC. I know you guys want that to be ONLY about race and gender, so you can dismiss those concerns while still maintaining your fake patriotism, but the same thing applies. Too bad.
Last edited:
Think of all the things that different groups are "allowed" to be offended by in today's society.
But something that offends men, likely white men? Oh how dare you be offended!
But something that offends men, likely white men? Oh how dare you be offended!
It has always been my general practice to try not to offend people. As someone said, when someone tells me their name, I call them by it. If they point out I'm saying it wrong, I change it. Just politeness.
But if someone whines about PC all the time, they are signalling me that they are happy to offend me, then dismiss my concerns as meaningless.
MFer, I can play that game at least as well as most folks, and I guarantee that my contempt for your beliefs can get pretty thorough.
I was going to keep from chiming in on this Gillette ad but I can't keep my mouth shut about any longer. It rings hollow for me.
Has Gillette admitted fault for ads and marketing previously objectifying women?
Has Gillette acknowledged overcharging for their line of women's products?
Has Gillette been transparent about the equality of their female employees wages and positions vs their male counterparts here in the US?
Has Gillette been transparent about the wages they pay women in their factories in China, Brazil and Mexico?
Has Gillette provided money or programs to help battered women or women that have been discriminated against?
Has Gillette offered funding for programs to educate men that are guilty of "toxic masculinity"?
Sorry, I must conclude that Gillette doesn't really care, they just want to make it appear like they care. Gillette cares about market share and profit and not much else. Their commercial is just window dressing. They're doing this because they realize "woke" americans want to feel good for the spending choices without having to actually do anything out of their ordinary routine to help the causes they "care" for and without looking past the façade. (no dem, not referring to you here as you've shown your stance through your actions).
They're capitalizing on the (mostly) younger generations feelings without doing anything of substance, ingratiating themselves so they can sell more product in the foreseeable future.
Call me a cynic but until a corporations actions back up their PR, f**k off with your bulls**t. Same goes for the NFL and their "pink" profit and faux military appreciation.
Has Gillette admitted fault for ads and marketing previously objectifying women?
Has Gillette acknowledged overcharging for their line of women's products?
Has Gillette been transparent about the equality of their female employees wages and positions vs their male counterparts here in the US?
Has Gillette been transparent about the wages they pay women in their factories in China, Brazil and Mexico?
Has Gillette provided money or programs to help battered women or women that have been discriminated against?
Has Gillette offered funding for programs to educate men that are guilty of "toxic masculinity"?
Sorry, I must conclude that Gillette doesn't really care, they just want to make it appear like they care. Gillette cares about market share and profit and not much else. Their commercial is just window dressing. They're doing this because they realize "woke" americans want to feel good for the spending choices without having to actually do anything out of their ordinary routine to help the causes they "care" for and without looking past the façade. (no dem, not referring to you here as you've shown your stance through your actions).
They're capitalizing on the (mostly) younger generations feelings without doing anything of substance, ingratiating themselves so they can sell more product in the foreseeable future.
Call me a cynic but until a corporations actions back up their PR, f**k off with your bulls**t. Same goes for the NFL and their "pink" profit and faux military appreciation.
totally agree. the next time I look to a corporation for moral guidance will be the first time. I can say with 99.99% certainty a bunch of people sat in a room and discussed the financial benefits of running such an add. The decision was made to use it based on an excel spread sheet. If they thought they'd make money by producing a pro-ISIS commercial, that would be on halftime of the superbowl. They are playing people...simple as that.
Just like the movie WarGames, the only way to win this game is not to play.
I sure have not seen anyone here expressing their certainty the Gillette has a perfect record. And I dont care who brings up this topic so long as it gets brought up.
Certainly true, but men are often leaders and in a power position. With the situations brought up in the ad which represent real life, a man is often the culprit but another man is the possible solution. I just see the ad as a challenge to be better than we are currently as a group which obviously is what they're hoping to change their slogan into representing.. the best a man can get. Protect others if possible and obviously check yourself if you're heading towards being abusive in any way.
As for razors, I don't even know the brand I use.. I just want a multi-blade razor that can get through the thick hair on my face when I don't shave for a week without causing me to bleed.. what's the best available?
