Youre.entitled to your opinion, which all of this post is.
Im fine with the ad. I likely wouldn't even have seen the ad if conservatives didn't make a big ole hubbub about it.
Many men act exactly as depicted in the ad, and change is hard. Thus I give you the OP.
You clearly have not discovered the joy of wet shaving with a safety razor.
So, would it be fair to say that not all men are like this, but, its still a very relevant issue? Do you think that the reason they ran this ad was to try and associate their brand and razors to things like the metoo movement and vicariously associate its brand to the movement to sell razors?
You’re comment is triggering to my metrosexualityWhat kind of wimp uses a safety razor?
Yes, nobody said all.
And yes, whether or not mennen is sincere about their take on the issues, you can bet they want to sell more stuff.
Well great, then you agree with the OP, as that was his position as well. Neat stuff.
TIL new terms- 1: toxic masculinity. I read it and thought, WTF is that? Had to read up on that one. Seems to be a subset of 2: Hegemonic masculinity. Furthermore, I learned it is covered in gender studies courses. And finally, I learned it due to an advertisement creating controversy. Which made me think of the of show Mad Men, thus invoking a certain sense of irony.
I never said I didn't, but I don't share the same questioning of such matter as the OP. My thoughts allow for such things to be thought without posting a wtf? Thread on some tech forums p&n message board..
Oh, you are so above it all eh? You would not create a thread about companies trying to associate themselves to popular moral movements. No, instead you will comment about how pathetic it is to do that in the same forum. My my, how high up you must be?
glad to see all the totally-not-a-snowflake alphas are still whinging about a razor commercial
Yea, I was raised hardcore conservative. I can be condescending with the best of 'em.
In some instances, I agree. As it relates to this particular ad, I do not.
Some men can be @ssholes. Here are a few cliche and exaggerated gender stereotypes. Buy our razors.
It is possible to agree with the message while also dismissing the ad as a misfire.
So, you agree with the OP, but disagree with the OP. He is pathetic for creating a thread in this forum, but, you are not pathetic for posting in this thread about how you agree and disagree with him.
#1
What in the world? I know we all look for moral guidance from giant corporations so this is always welcome. And this is somehing that is completely relevant to their product, shaving and sexual harassment go hand in hand so it only makes sense. It’s obviously a calculated move to capitalize on #metoo but do people legitimately buy this? Nike at least had a history of not just child labor but also the idea of pushing oneself/making sacrifices/all that kind of stuff so it wasn’t so far out of left field. Gillette?
The message is the message, I agree a lot of men still to this day don’t treat women as equals. Not all certainly, but enough that it’s still a very relevant issue in the world. But thanks Gillette for virtue signaling that to me? I’ll be sure to buy your overpriced products now. Moralizing and virtue signaling as a marketing tool on something irrelevant to the product you’re selling. #sobrave
So, would it be fair to say that not all men are like this, but, its still a very relevant issue? Do you think that the reason they ran this ad was to try and associate their brand and razors to things like the metoo movement and vicariously associate its brand to the movement to sell razors?
....that we promoted and endorsed for 5 and more decades in order to sell our products. Our bad.
That is the message. Why is that wrong for them to call themselves out? They use their decades-long slogan in negative reference to themselves, to improve and redefine what this should mean, especially in a culture that is finally starting to address the very real abuse culture that we have all lived under and more or less tolerated. Why can't the company put forward whatever image they want to put forward, about themselves? I thought they were people, too?
Masculinity has toxic parts. The modern term, however, states that inherent to masculinity is something toxic.
Wowzers, do you ever stop and think about this stuff?
Let's go to the OP
The OP seemingly doesn't comprehend how this could come about. Nor does he offer the same insight and logic that you have.
I agreed with what you said, on both counts. Neither of which is addressed in the OP in the same manner. The context by the end is sarcasm. So I don't think him and I agree based on his level of sincerity.
Is the OP pathetic? Dunno. What we do know is his record of being overly concerned with any numbers of social topics that appear to be inconsequential but still difficult for him to process.
Whether I'm pathetic is certainly up for debate, it may just be true, which doesn't bother me either. It may be that the OP and I are BOTH pathetic, and maybe he DGAF just like me.
Now, when you're done trying to paint me into some corner youre attempting to build simultaneously, respond.
I think that they aren't condemning all men but that they are saying that "the better men" should be the example for all men. Here, let's take our very-well established brand and slogan and really define it for today.
Also, they are losing shittons of market share to those online razor-by-mail millennial app services. So:
1: they need to switch things up
2: they need to appeal to the people that are costing them market share and sales--so they use the language of this demographic.
What's the problem?
The masculine culture has many parts. What specifically did they promote that was bad. I don't know all of their history, and you are older than me, but, I cant recall anything specific.
The original ad depicts men as athletes, loving fathers, soldiers, astronauts, surfers, stock brokers, affectionate spouses and evokes professional sports, competition, camaraderie, overcoming obstacles and parenting.....that we promoted and endorsed for 5 and more decades in order to sell our products. Our bad.
That is the message. Why is that wrong for them to call themselves out? They use their decades-long slogan in negative reference to themselves, to improve and redefine what this should mean, especially in a culture that is finally starting to address the very real abuse culture that we have all lived under and more or less tolerated. Why can't the company put forward whatever image they want to put forward, about themselves? I thought they were people, too?
no. well, you are basically saying the same thing in both sentences here. Supporting the unalterable truth but then rejecting it through semantics.
"Masculinity has toxic parts" == "that thing is inherent to that thing." It's the same statement. If it has that, it is inherent. It is always part of it. Yes, it is also necessarily essential, but it doesn't mean it can't be addressed. It's the refusal to address these complications in society that leads to much un-found anger.
Capitalism has inherent complications, and absolutely must be regulated if it is to actually work. That doesn't mean capitalism is bad: it's simply addressing the very real pitfalls and complications, and understanding that these aren't simple issues.
If "the thing" is to work best for the majority of people, as intended, then the people need to understand and accept the inherent issues in order to properly address them, such that "the thing" can best work to the advantage of all.
I'm actually not sure if they really promoted any kind of hyper-masculine abuse. I don't see it off the top of my head. The slogan is the slogan, and on its own, I think you can't really fault the company for how they choose to advertise it themselves. But I think they want to capture its cultural resonance, because it really is a cultural brainworm at this point, and inject some specific meaning to it. That is probably very effective. Of course, as we see here, the angry incels of the world are angry about it. Corporations should have all of the powers and benefits of the people, but moreso because their ability to spend billions on shaping politics and culture is suddenly equal to a single person's because "some reasons," but wait--in this point, and whatever future undetermined issue comes about--they should just shut up because "how dare they!"
If they aren't allowed to control their brand, with their own messaging, to adapt to the culture and progress (isn't this what companies are supposed to do, to remain relevant?), then what is the purpose of the company? Basically, there are people stuck in the mud that simply refuse to accept that the world is moving beyond them. The things that are making them angry have been obvious to the majority of the world for many, many years now, and I think it's suddenly hitting them in the heads like a boulder. This makes them angry, because they are slow, unmovable people.
The OP is taking issue with how people look to corporations for moral guidance. He also takes issue with Gillette associating itself with an issue that he does not think that they are connected to. The goal in his mind is to associate the brand with a social movement so people will buy their product in a shallow way of trying to also associate themselves to that movement.
The OP understands that there are social issues to be addressed, he just takes issue with the idea that this company was trying to do the right thing, rather than just trying to make more money.
From that summary, what do you disagree with in terms of how I framed his position?