You really baffle me with your quibbling.
I can only refer you again to the second paragraph of my original post.
Gillette's marketing has always been conscious of whatever is the current high-status representation of masculinity. They aren't going to cling to yesterday's ideal if it's now out-of-favour. If being a high-status idealised male now means being a bit 'woke' (ugh, hate that term) then that's what they will go with.
But that's the cynical take. One could be more charitable about it and assume there's some genuine belief behind it. I dunno, and it's not that important.
Why can't people treat OP with kindness and understanding? Hypocrisy?Goodness. If that one ad has so triggered the OP's concern, he must be paralyzed by consternation over the ones below. Oh No! It's everywhere!
"Apple concluded a recent ad with a call to “open your heart to everyone.” Starbucks capped its “Year of Good” TV spot—a commercial that quantifies all the social good the company did over the year 2016, from the hiring of 8,000 veterans to the funding of more than 300,000 ethically sourced farms—with an entreaty to “Be Good to Each Other.” Amazon touted the human-connective capabilities of its vast warehouse (and the religious pragmatism of kneepads) by featuring a priest and an imam playing out a wordless, piano-tracked version of a modern-day O. Henry story. Hyatt featured scenes of people initially divided, suspicious of each other, until, as the tempo of “What the World Needs Now Is Love” crescendos, they come together, joyously, as the tagline “For a World of Understanding” pops up onscreen.
It’s a sentiment shared by another recent ad, one whose voiceover insists to its viewers, “We can be one. And all it takes is the willingness to dare.” It was an ad for Cadillac.
But when InterContinental summons the InterPersonal to sell its hotel rooms (or when Cadillac summons the same to sell cars; or when Expedia airs ads celebrating the aiding of refugees; or when Honey Maid, maker of graham crackers, airs spots promoting cross-cultural understanding; or when Panera, the fast-casual purveyor of Bacon Turkey Bravo® Sandwiches, adopts as its tagline, “Food as It Should Be”), what is being invoked is not merely blithe aspiration, cultural ideals fit to be transformed into corporate profits. The ads are, instead, profoundly political. And they are explicitly moral. They are making claims not just about what we should buy, but about what we should be."
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/03/selling-what-they-preach/519156/
I think it is vaguely relevant, because Gillette's advertising has always strongly emphasized masculinity.
Why can't people treat OP with kindness and understanding? Hypocrisy?
The OP has dug his own hole there with his chronic dishonesty.Why can't people treat OP with kindness and understanding? Hypocrisy?
Why can't people treat OP with kindness and understanding? Hypocrisy?
Oh great one, how can we better show our understanding of the OP? What should our response be to his concerns about an ad campaign?
This is why I asked you, rather than putting words in your mouth. But, all you did was the Bible defense. Yes, you said the part you quoted, but, you also said more.
Promoting equality and anti-sexism is fine. Why do you feel its relevant to target a demographic that is masculine?
I have no idea what you are on about. What do you mean 'a target that is masculine'? You mean 'men'? I guess it's because that's Gillette's target market. That's who they sell these razors to.
Nor do I have a clue what you mean by 'the Bible defense'.
"I think it is vaguely relevant, because Gillette's advertising has always strongly emphasized masculinity."
Why is it relevant? Are you saying its relevant because Gillette's angle is an appeal to masculinity?
Because it tends to base its marketing on selling images of certain ideals of masculinty. Whatever is currently the high-status form. Advertisers are rarely very far ahead-of-the-curve or inclined to go against mainstream values, advertising is a conservative activity by necessity.
Recently there's been a bit of attention paid to the bad side of what has been traditional masculinity, and values seem to have shifted rather.
As I said already, to what degree this ad is just trying to keep up with changing ideas about what makes a modern aspirational man, or is genuinely trying to do something good beyond usual marketing, is up to individuals to judge. I dunno, myself. Don't really care. Don't have a TV and re-use the same razor blades a lot more times than I probably should.
My point, on the other hand, was that a rational deconstruction of the issue can reveal sufficient complexity in points of view that should give pause to your conclusion. Thus I would say that while anybody easily offended by anything might have a problem, anybody who takes that to mean no problem exists whatsoever, may, him or herself, be suffer from blindness.If anyone is easily offended by this ad then you are part of the problem.
So the answer was yes, that you think inherent to traditional masculinity is embedded sexism.
I assume you have seen some of the depictions of acceptable, mainstream forms of masculinity from past eras? Adverts have been particularly illustrative of it.
Though I don't see where I made the claim you say I did here. What I said was, the pointed 'wokeness' of the current ad may be what Gillette now see as part of aspirational masculinity. Are you claiming such values were always part of traditional msculinity? If so, why did past adverts not incorporate it?
Agreed. It was a bit heavy handed and the claim that only “some” men do the right thing is absurd. I know far more men who exhibit the desired behaviors. The core message is fine, the presentation was lacking, relied on tired stereotypes and was just lazy marketing.I wholeheartedly agree with the message -- I just think it comes across as arbitrary when presented by Gillette, at least in the way it was done. Nike could at least point to Kaepernick as an athlete and celebrate the spirit of what he was doing (persevering in the face of daunting odds). Here, you can practically see the executives calculating the potential profit from referencing #metoo.
The most worrying thing is that this might dilute the cause by giving the misogynists some fodder ("it's not a real campaign, it's just trendy!"). I hope it doesn't, though.
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
Why am I not surprised a little broflake like you would find a commercial advocating no longer accepting assholes and bullies as "normal male behavior" offensive?
Really? I wonder just how you got that from this:
"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 "
You sound triggered to me. Whatever conclusions you may have drawn about UglyCasanova's objectivity and as often as I find it suspect, I don't really think this kind of putting words in his mouth that his OP actually refutes amounts, itself, to objective fair play. His OP is couched in concern for the moral wisdom of allowing morality to issue from corporations, it clearly seems to me. What you want to read into his motivations for pointing that out, 'broflake', strikes me as symptomatic of triggered ideological rage. You justify your attempt to silence his concern based on your certainty that he is a moral evil and does not deserve fair play. You have become what you fear, it would seem.
Goodness. If that one ad has so triggered the OP's concern, he must be paralyzed by consternation over the ones below. Oh No! It's everywhere!
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2017/03/selling-what-they-preach/519156/
No, it's not enough said. I am not outraged by his audacity to question the value of such an obvious moral good. I have a brain for a reason, I think, and that is to use it. Is there a down side to moral signaling, and in particular by commercial interests that want to cuddle up to the prevaliling moral winds to make a buck. Is there absolutely no room in the universe to suspect their motives or question their moral sincerity?"Virtue signaling." He used that about a commercial that asks people to stop being bullies and assholes.
Enough said.
As for you, who the fuck cares where the right message comes from when it's right? Who is the one moralizing now? A company can't promote kindness and humanity? Fuck that.