Gillette lost 8 billion over the toxic masculinity ad

D

Deleted member 1

Guest
I have a serious question for you, Realm. Were you involved in the 'Boycott Hobby Lobby' and 'Boycott Chick-Fil-A' movements over the years?


I really think they have the best chicken, though I can only get it when on business in Mississippi or flying through the Delta hub at DTW.

Hobby lobby on the other hand was involved in a cabal of international antiquities laundering...
 

Realm

Well-known member
I have a serious question for you, Realm. Were you involved in the 'Boycott Hobby Lobby' and 'Boycott Chick-Fil-A' movements over the years?

U didn't tag me.

Also, meh, who gives a shit. Individual consumers literally have jack shit control over the economic outcomes of corporations, and anyone telling you otherwise is lying.

And also a liberal.
 

Big Steve

For the Republic!
Founder
Toxic masculinity as used and applied is to say that societally masculinity is toxic and responsible for a whole host of societal ills. That is just not true. Individuals can have unhealthy ideas and opinions but it serves as an argument that masculinity is entirely a social construct and a bad one.

My experience is that it's been used to describe the idea of taking masculinity so far it becomes toxic. To not just encourage things like stoicism or being able to fight, but to demand it, and to demand you let you get your ass kicked without getting help, and that to refuse to be such is proof one is not a "proper man". That one's a "sissy".

I mean, obviously there's benefit in personal self-control. In what you called stoicism. The idea of masculinity is not inherently bad. There's a lot to it. I'd even say the ad doesn't claim masculinity is bad, it's trying to promote the idea of masculinity, just with different focuses. Virtues of charity, kindness, and the showing of respect toward others, which also have history in the behavior of men toward each other.

The concepts of chivalry (romanticized at least), for instance. A man lending his coat to a lady, or escorting an elderly person across a busy street. Holding doors open for others. Stopping to help someone with a disabled vehicle. Intervening in a fight that's unfairly lopsided. Those kinds of things. Wouldn't you consider that masculine behavior as well?
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
I did the same. Bought myself a good quality double safety razor handle and enough blades to last me two years if I swap them out once a week. I much prefer it to the mach 3's I used to use.

So good job on losing a customer Gillette :p
To clarify... I did not switch because of this ad, I'd switched long before this ad came out when I figured out how ridiculously cheaper using a safety razor was and how much I'd save over time. The ad and all the mess that surrounded it just made me amused that it had happened.

As to toxic masculinity, I have an essay about that floating around if people are curious, but, suffice to say, I think there is such a thing as "toxic masculinity", but it is a result of the progressive movements of the 20th century esp. the the Sexual Revolution, and the conflicts surrounding it are due to the conflation of traditional family-oriented masculinity with post sexual revolution sex-oriented masculinity.
 

Nitramy

The Umbrella that Smites Evil
To clarify... I did not switch because of this ad, I'd switched long before this ad came out when I figured out how ridiculously cheaper using a safety razor was and how much I'd save over time. The ad and all the mess that surrounded it just made me amused that it had happened.

As to toxic masculinity, I have an essay about that floating around if people are curious, but, suffice to say, I think there is such a thing as "toxic masculinity", but it is a result of the progressive movements of the 20th century esp. the the Sexual Revolution, and the conflicts surrounding it are due to the conflation of traditional family-oriented masculinity with post sexual revolution sex-oriented masculinity.

Oh, there is no conflation.

Feminists and Marxists want both types of masculinity STOMPED OUT OF THE HUMAN EXPERIENCE.
 

Rocinante

Russian Bot
Founder
Gillette is not entitled to my money, or the money of any one.

If some one feels insulted by the company then their under no obligation to buy their product.
Indeed.

I think it's rather rude to call it pathetic as realm has decided to do.

You know what happened? They released an ad that made people angry, so tons of other razor companies jumped in and released their own ads. Perfect timing. People just switched companies. Most of us had only been using gillette because of name recognition.

Some people got really bent out of shape, yes. I was one of them. It pissed me off. Most people just switched companies.

Which is what you do when a company pisses you off. Realm is calling this pathetic, and saying just change the channel. Others are just...buying other products. Seeing as they lost 8 billion dollars and plan to discontinue social justice marketing, I'd say it worked pretty damn well. Pathetic? Hardly. It was an effective message sent by the consumers. They didn't just shut up and change channels. They said "you want to insult your customer base? Fine, I'll shop elsewhere."

One of the joys of capitalism and choice. You DO have a voice. This voice cost them 8 billion dollars.

It was monumentally stupid of Gillette anyways. They lead the market by name alone. Their quality isn't anything special, and their prices are high. They opened up the floodgates for other companies. They had a very loose hold in their market dominance. Shaking things up was not the right move.

Also, as I mentioned, it was the timing of this ad. At the same time this ad came out, the APA was calling "traditional masculinity" harmful. This amplified the ad for a lot of people. Me, for example. I might have just changed the channel or shrugged it off. The timing made me see it as just another attack on the assault of men in which society is engaging.

Can masculine traits taken too far be toxic? Sure. Anything can. Does an ad that features nearly every bad guy being a white male, a line of men chanting and the narrator saying "things have changed" help the situation? Absolutely not.

I mean, what was with that? Black people and such are involved, but they're all the good guys.

It's so easy to see through this as just an attack on men, and white men if you want to be specific. This ad is simply pushing an anti straight white male agenda.

It's further amplified when you look at who made the ad. It was a radical feminist. It's not a stretch to claim this was an attack on men, indicating most of us are toxic and that it's time to change.

Which gets us to the main point of disagreement: was this aimed at men in general or at only "toxic" men? I don't think we are going to come to an agreement on this. I perceived it as being aimed at toxic men, but also calling most men toxic.
 
Last edited:

7 Gold Eye Heals the Wise

The First Weeaboo
Founder
As to toxic masculinity, I have an essay about that floating around if people are curious, but, suffice to say, I think there is such a thing as "toxic masculinity", but it is a result of the progressive movements of the 20th century esp. the the Sexual Revolution, and the conflicts surrounding it are due to the conflation of traditional family-oriented masculinity with post sexual revolution sex-oriented masculinity.
It's literally the most common symptoms of depression in men, that's what "toxic masculinity" is.
OTOH, calling for guys to be careful of not letting things get toxic, of not ignoring the boy pushing another one down and just calling it "Boys will be boys", I don't see that as "we're all a part of the problem", I see that as encouraging people to not be complacent about these things. There is such a thing as toxic masculinity, and it should be watched for.

That is just me, of course, and clearly others felt the video was being condescending to them.
If Gillette made an ad telling all black men to stop murdering people (seeing as they are roughly committing 50% of murders in the U.S. every year despite being like 6% of the population, and responsible for a little under 30% of rapes), which of these three things could it be perceived as attacking: black men, "toxic blackness", or black crime?

I mean, the message is not simply "This is a bad thing, don't do it.", but "Most of you are doing these bad things, start doing these good things."

Which is a curious message, since it doesn't explain why the bad stuff is bad, which implies the creator believes the audience already knows it is bad, something that shouldn't be possible if "it's always been like this" like the ad claims.

An interesting assumption to make, given that men raised in single-parent households(80% of which are single-mother) account for 70% of prison inmates, and it probably is no coincidence that over 50% of black children are living in single-parent(again, predominantly single-mother) households while black men commit roughly 50% of murders(and violent crimes in general) in the US.

But maybe they get infected with "toxic masculinity" by male authority figures outside the home? Like for example, School, that bastion of machismo where an entire quarter(one fourth!) of the teachers are male.

...

Maybe they get it from all of those male counselors(almost 30%), or assorted types of social workers(18%)?

Someone can say to a demographics "Stop raping and pillaging all over the coast while wearing your stupid horned helmets! You're setting a bad example for your kids by engaging and condoning this aspect of your culture!", and if you were to reply with "Raping and pillaging is indeed bad, and horned helmets are not only stupid, but impractical! So this is definitely a message the demographic should hear!", most people wouldn't see anything wrong with it, until someone notices that members of the demographic raised by the previous generation of said demographic are considerably less likely to rape, pillage and wear horned helmets, as opposed to those members that have been raised without the influence of said demographics' previous generations in their personal life.

The message of the ad rests on the premise of there being an issue with current masculinity that men should not pass to next generation, when the issue seems to be that men aren't being passed current masculinity in the first place.


This is the opening to the ad:
*overheard by men on the radio while they do things, or by watching TV*
"Bullying"
"The #MeToo movement against sexual harrassment"
"Toxic Masculinity"

*Narrator*
"Is this the best a man can get?"

*Skipping a little, after a bunch bullying and abuse happening to the backdrop of 'traditional families' as envisioned in thr 1950s *
"Something finally changed."
This seems like it's blaming almost all men for the problem.

Which is bullshit, since it's not most men's fault that boys without decent masculine role models in their personal lifes turn to the delusions peddled by the maladjusted drug-addled perverts in entertainment media for examples of proper masculine behavior.
 

Big Steve

For the Republic!
Founder
It's literally the most common symptoms of depression in men, that's what "toxic masculinity" is.

Could you elaborate?

If Gillette made an ad telling all black men to stop murdering people (seeing as they are roughly committing 50% of murders in the U.S. every year despite being like 6% of the population, and responsible for a little under 30% of rapes), which of these three things could it be perceived as attacking: black men, "toxic blackness", or black crime?

Interesting that you went to that example instead of, say, Gillette making a commercial encouraging black men to start families and live law-abiding lives, given the complaints about the single-parent issue you raise further down and,honestly, the fact that it would fit the issue better than actual crime statistics. Or did Gillette sneak in a reference to male criminality rates I missed?

I mean, the message is not simply "This is a bad thing, don't do it.", but "Most of you are doing these bad things, start doing these good things."

Which is a curious message, since it doesn't explain why the bad stuff is bad, which implies the creator believes the audience already knows it is bad, something that shouldn't be possible if "it's always been like this" like the ad claims.

I'd say the creator would obviously expect why the audience would think ignoring unfair fights and treating women as sex objects that exist for the pleasure of men are supposed to be bad things. But yet I can see the "boys will be boys" excuse actually being used in those cases. "Boys will sometimes fight, you just need to learn to suck it up and not be a sissy". "So what's wrong with whistling at the pretty girl, guys are always interested in pretty girls." (In that case it'd be situational, I grant.)

I'd be more concerned the ad was exaggerating a remaining problem than the actual message behind it.

An interesting assumption to make, given that men raised in single-parent households(80% of which are single-mother) account for 70% of prison inmates, and it probably is no coincidence that over 50% of black children are living in single-parent(again, predominantly single-mother) households while black men commit roughly 50% of murders(and violent crimes in general) in the US.

But maybe they get infected with "toxic masculinity" by male authority figures outside the home? Like for example, School, that bastion of machismo where an entire quarter(one fourth!) of the teachers are male.

...

Maybe they get it from all of those male counselors(almost 30%), or assorted types of social workers(18%)?

Someone can say to a demographics "Stop raping and pillaging all over the coast while wearing your stupid horned helmets! You're setting a bad example for your kids by engaging and condoning this aspect of your culture!", and if you were to reply with "Raping and pillaging is indeed bad, and horned helmets are not only stupid, but impractical! So this is definitely a message the demographic should hear!", most people wouldn't see anything wrong with it, until someone notices that members of the demographic raised by the previous generation of said demographic are considerably less likely to rape, pillage and wear horned helmets, as opposed to those members that have been raised without the influence of said demographics' previous generations in their personal life.

The message of the ad rests on the premise of there being an issue with current masculinity that men should not pass to next generation, when the issue seems to be that men aren't being passed current masculinity in the first place.

It's fun that in all of those examples, you forgot the most likely influences at home: male family figures and neighbors who are not their father. Uncles, older siblings or cousins, the big kid next door, the neighborhood authority figure (even if it's illegal authority like a gang leader or drug pusher), etc.

It's also fun that you're again going for the crime example when the ad aimed at non-criminal stuff.

This is the opening to the ad:

This seems like it's blaming almost all men for the problem.

Which is bullshit, since it's not most men's fault that boys without decent masculine role models in their personal lifes turn to the delusions peddled by the maladjusted drug-addled perverts in entertainment media for examples of proper masculine behavior.

Ah, so this was building up to some rant about Hollywood and/or the music industry.

I mean, I agree with you that the biggest problem facing the black community in America, or at least the urbanized community, is the case of fathers not raising their children. And your example should have been about that, and whether such an ad would come off as racist as the Gillette ad comes off as misandrist.

Or maybe something like this ad.



Found it while I was looking to see if an ad I remember from childhood was around - it wasn't - that depicts a black father deciding not to join his minor league/amateur sports team for a day and enduring some heckling from them so he could be with his infant son, with a montage of the two going through the day playing, the baby being fed, naptime, etc. It ended with something like "Anyone can be a father. It takes a real man to be a dad."

Come to think of it, Gillette would've been far better off with an ad like that. It gets the message across with some humor and isn't heavy-handed.

But to return from my tangent, I question your example, and while I agree the Gillette ad was heavy-handed, I do think some of the fuss is overstated.

Of course, Gillette doesn't matter to me anyway. I use a Phillips electric razor. :p
 

7 Gold Eye Heals the Wise

The First Weeaboo
Founder
Could you elaborate?
Hypersexuality, increased risk-taking, anger, irritability, lowered empathy etc.. are the most common symptoms of depression in men.
It's fun that in all of those examples, you forgot the most likely influences at home: male family figures and neighbors who are not their father. Uncles, older siblings or cousins, the big kid next door, the neighborhood authority figure (even if it's illegal authority like a gang leader or drug pusher), etc.
Which are unlikely to be seen as often as teachers, for example.
It's also fun that you're again going for the crime example when the ad aimed at non-criminal stuff.
Pretty sure that sexual assault & harassment are both crimes, do recall #MeToo being mentioned in the opening of the ad. You focus on the bullying, when the first thing the ad does is call out men as being sexual predators.
Ah, so this was building up to some rant about Hollywood and/or the music industry.
It's a kaleidoscope of issues.
 

Big Steve

For the Republic!
Founder
Hypersexuality, increased risk-taking, anger, irritability, lowered empathy etc.. are the most common symptoms of depression in men.

That I wasn't aware of.

Which are unlikely to be seen as often as teachers, for example.

Except as you argued, teachers are mostly female. So their exposure to masculine figures are more likely to be the ones I mentioned, and you have a greater chance of those figures promoting negative behavior.

Pretty sure that sexual assault & harassment are both crimes, do recall #MeToo being mentioned in the opening of the ad. You focus on the bullying, when the first thing the ad does is call out men as being sexual predators.

The ad opens with the montage of guys shaving, segues into an old Gillette ad with their slogan "The Best a Man Can Get", then goes into a montage about physical and emotional bullying (a boy being chased by other boys and then a kid crying in a woman's arms as texts calling him a loser and sissy). So you might understand why I noticed the bullying issue so prominently.

Yes, sexual harassment and #MeToo do eventually get mentioned, but it's clearly meant to be part of a wider array of problems, not "men are sexual predators". One of the clips about the movement is about Terry Crews, the ex-NFL player who's called out the existence of sexual harrassment. The ad itself talks about believing in "the best in men" and then we get a montage of such (including the bit I mentioned a few posts ago about the guy approaching the woman getting stopped, which I agreed was not properly presented), and prominently, two older men coming to the rescue of boys being overpowered or bullied.

I'm not saying it's not heavy-handed at times, and it certainly needed someone to give it a critical examination before being produced, but I don't see it as what you're claiming. It sounds like you're making it something else based off your perceptions of what was shown.

It's a kaleidoscope of issues.

It always is.
 

Realm

Well-known member
Gillette is not entitled to my money, or the money of any one.

If some one feels insulted by the company then their under no obligation to buy their product.

Sure

"I don't need to buy their product" does not logically equal the sentence "I don't need to buy their product and I'm going to incessantly bitch on the internet about it"
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Sure

"I don't need to buy their product" does not logically equal the sentence "I don't need to buy their product and I'm going to incessantly bitch on the internet about it"

If your doing a boycott incessantly bitching about said product is how you maintain an effective boycott. similar tactics were used on California grapes when cheazar chavas was trying to unionize the farms here.
 

Realm

Well-known member
If your doing a boycott incessantly bitching about said product is how you maintain an effective boycott. similar tactics were used on California grapes when cheazar chavas was trying to unionize the farms here.

Ya'll didn't organize a boycott, you organized a culture war hissy fit which forced people to stan for Gillette just because they disagreed with your politics.
 

Cherico

Well-known member
Ya'll didn't organize a boycott, you organized a culture war hissy fit which forced people to stan for Gillette just because they disagreed with your politics.

Liberals have been doing the same thing litterally for decades now, generations now.

Either its a tactic that every one can use or its a tactic that no one can use. Pick one of these two options Realm and be consistant.
 

Realm

Well-known member
Liberals have been doing the same thing litterally for decades now, generations now.

Either its a tactic that every one can use or its a tactic that no one can use. Pick one of these two options Realm and be consistant.

Read my posts in this thread, I think it's stupid lib shit no matter who's doing it lol
 

GooseActual

We go hard on Earth!
Didn’t axe release a fantastic ad that encouraged men to just be themselves and do it their way because they shouldn’t be anyone else but them.

An ad that showed men as drag queens, disabled, fat, nerdy etc and it was 100% positive and uplifting for men without being clobberfisted with political messaging?

Yes they did.

Stop bringing politics Into my spending habits. By default anyone who gets even a little political these days I tend to give a wide berth.
 

FriedCFour

PunishedCFour
Founder
Isn't capitalism competition typified? Strong moral opinions, if unprofitable, should be outcompeted in the market, should they not?
No, because there are a shitload of variables in play. And strong moral opinions aren't necessarily unprofitable, they can give you profit or they can take away from it. In the case of something like YouTube their moral opinions are making bitchute into a competitor. But as a competitor they have sliver of the market share. When you've got a monopoly, you can then exercise your view of society and your strong moral opinions with your company and at least see little problem initially.
 

Realm

Well-known member
No, because there are a shitload of variables in play. And strong moral opinions aren't necessarily unprofitable, they can give you profit or they can take away from it. In the case of something like YouTube their moral opinions are making bitchute into a competitor. But as a competitor they have sliver of the market share. When you've got a monopoly, you can then exercise your view of society and your strong moral opinions with your company and at least see little problem initially.

You, somehow manage to have a more pessimistic view on the capitalist market than I do, good show.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top