# The new Gillette ad **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [January 16, 2019, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873 "2019-01-16T16:05:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [January 17, 2019, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/121 "2019-01-17T23:56:07Z")
I don’t own a TV so I was spared from seeing this ad along with thousands of other dumb ads. I find the amount of discourse that’s been devoted to this topic depressing when there are plenty of major issues that should be getting more attention. But if the powers that be have decided that the nation will debate a Gillette ad while climate change gets ignored for another week, so be it. There’s plentiful reason why people dislike the ad that has nothing to do with being sexist or approving of others being sexist. Who uses the phrase “toxic masculinity” and takes it seriously? Corporate stooges, university professors, journalists, and other representatives of the ruling class. Who doesn’t? Farmers, factory workers, truck drivers, homeless people, and others from the opposite end of the social spectrum. In my experience. Perhaps someone will dig up one or two counter-examples, but there aren’t many. So if one of the world’s biggest corporations is making this ad, the basic message is “Hey, you working class men, you’re not good enough to make your own decisions, but luckily us wealthy corporate executives are here to wag our fingers at you.” ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/122 "2019-01-18T00:01:33Z")
> [@aceplace57](#): > > The free market worked and gave men inexpensive blades for almost a hundred years. My grandfather used the double edge safety blades. > > You can still buy a 10 pack for 92 cents. > [https://ship.kroger.com/p/011110796202/kroger-stainless-steel-double-edge-blades?gclsrc=aw.ds&&cid=shp\_adw\_0000.ship.Delta+Ship+-+Shaving&gclid=Cj0KCQiA7IDiBRCLARIsABIPohg9rnnuI8Z0bcqess8Zx9iE6JRk85rmw00OX4mPfRsHPLQ6kSzGKMkaAvFgEALw\_wcB](https://ship.kroger.com/p/011110796202/kroger-stainless-steel-double-edge-blades?gclsrc=aw.ds&&cid=shp_adw_0000.ship.Delta+Ship+-+Shaving&gclid=Cj0KCQiA7IDiBRCLARIsABIPohg9rnnuI8Z0bcqess8Zx9iE6JRk85rmw00OX4mPfRsHPLQ6kSzGKMkaAvFgEALw_wcB) > > That changed about 15 years ago. The manufacturers went to these elaborate multi blade cartridges and charge 5 times as much. Just a note that cartridge razors came out in the 1960’s; when I shaved off my beard finally in the late 70’s, 3-blade cartridges were already common. So let’s say 40 years ago for that. And the free market is still working, or haven’t you heard of Harry’s and the other razors by mail? ---
**Author:** ![Roderick\_Femm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/roderick_femm/32/14875_2.png) [@Roderick\_Femm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Roderick_Femm)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/123 "2019-01-18T00:08:40Z")
More on point for the thread topic: the commercial seems to me to be saying: some men (and boys) behave badly; other men tend to look the other way or make excuses. It is the second group they are really trying to reach with this ad, to get them to be more active in promoting good behavior in those men and boys who do behave badly. I was pleased at the inclusion of bullying as an undesirable behavior to actively discourage, although I thought two of the three depictions of bullying (that I remember) were poorly presented and easy to mistake for kids being kids. Based on this idea, the commercial strongly implies that the bad actors are in the minority, and that things can be turned around if the majority takes action. Whether this whole idea is realistic or not I can’t say, nor can I say what Gillette’s motives were for airing this ad. On balance, though, I think it is a good thing, if for no other reason than it has people talking and thinking about these kinds of issues. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/124 "2019-01-18T00:16:14Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Who uses the phrase “toxic masculinity” and takes it seriously? Corporate stooges, university professors, journalists, and other representatives of the ruling class. Who doesn’t? Farmers, factory workers, truck drivers, homeless people, and others from the opposite end of the social spectrum. In my experience. Perhaps someone will dig up one or two counter-examples, but there aren’t many. I know tons of working class (and poorer) people who take the concept of toxic masculinity seriously. They’re mostly queer, though, so I don’t know you’d consider them “real” people or not. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/125 "2019-01-18T02:38:29Z")
> [@Poysyn](#): > > Often, when women stand up against it, they are accused of “being too sensitive” or “not getting the joke”. If they don’t stand up against it, it becomes a victim-blaming exercise of “why didn’t you say/do something?” ignoring the fact that if you are already in a position of less power, it can be almost impossible to make a difference. > > No. Men are not the only ones that turn a blind eye, but when men step in on behalf of victims, it is often more powerful. > > Toxic masculinity - using narrow stereotypes (like the BBQ scenario) to define men - is grossly unfair to men. Why wouldn’t anyone want to whatever they could to stop it? If it bothers you to see it portrayed, then there is a reason. > > Men are so much more than BBQs and “boys will be boys”. It should make you angry to see it narrowed that much. And it should make you want to do something about it. It seems to me that several people in this thread are already angry about the depiction of men in this ad. The response to them is roughly akin to “you’re too sensitive” and “don’t you get the joke”. > [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > “Handwaving” is not toxic masculinity. > > Telling men what they are like and how they think is not toxic masculinity. You seem to use a very particular definition of “toxic masculinity”. If a man turns a blind eye to bullying, or tries to tell a woman what women think, are those toxic masculinity? > [@](#): > > I’m a man. I’m not offended by my portrayal in this ad. If I did happen to find it offensive, I would not be offended if a woman dared to express an opinion that disagreed with mine. > > Are you a man who was offended by your portrayal in this ad? Please explain exactly what it was that you found offensive. Are you a man who would get upset if (as you characterize it) a “woman explained to you why you are wrong?” Please explain why this would upset you. I’d have to say that my reaction to the ad is complicated. I’ve read several insightful comments about it in this very thread, on both sides. I wouldn’t say I felt personally offended, but if other men are I don’t feel like I’m in a position to tell them they’re wrong. What I do notice is the reaction to the ad, and what seems to me to be a double standard. I think this ad does portray negative stereotypes of men, and that a similar ad about some other group would be considered unacceptable. I’ve noticed more positive and professional portrayals of women in commercials over the years; why do ads try to inspire women with role models and try to change men by scolding them? I remember a conversation I had with a friend many years ago. We were discussing whether the name of the Washington NFL franchise was offensive. I said that I didn’t think it was intended to be, and my friend said that didn’t matter. If you want to know if something is offensive, ask people if they were offended; that’s all the answer that’s needed. So why doesn’t that apply here? If some men are troubled by this commercial, that ought to be enough. And I think for most groups it would be. Instead, everyone seems to be twisting themselves in knots (“the ad is about other men, not you”, “it’s not a stereotype because…”, “that part doesn’t count as ‘toxic masculinity’”) to avoid addressing something they’d rather not confront. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/126 "2019-01-18T03:02:23Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Who uses the phrase “toxic masculinity” and takes it seriously? Corporate stooges, university professors, journalists, and other representatives of the ruling class. Who doesn’t? Farmers, factory workers, truck drivers, homeless people, and others from the opposite end of the social spectrum. In my experience. Perhaps someone will dig up one or two counter-examples, but there aren’t many. So if one of the world’s biggest corporations is making this ad, the basic message is “Hey, you working class men, you’re not good enough to make your own decisions, but luckily us wealthy corporate executives are here to wag our fingers at you.” This. What company talks like this to it’s customers? It’s this kind of toxic corporate behavior that makes us question the wisdom of our beloved Hollywood elite. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/127 "2019-01-18T03:33:43Z")
What Hollywood Elite? It’s ad people, FFS. And in the back of their minds I assume they didn’t expect anybody to take it personally, especially the jerks it’s trying to offend because of their assumed lack of self-awareness. It turns out that some figured it out that they should be offended but they are not introspective enough to say, "Yeah, that’s a jerk move that I probably shouldn’t do. Some claim that the friend stopping the guy from following a woman means that Gillette doesn’t want them to meet new people. No, Gillette doesn’t want guys coming up from behind and making creepy asses of themselves. “Hey, baby, you lookin’ FINE. Let’s fuck.” (Yes, I know a time that worked and they stayed married for 30 years before she got fed up with him.) Maybe the ad will reduce Gillette’s sales to men, but maybe men weren’t the only target and some women will appreciate it. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/128 "2019-01-18T03:37:53Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > You seem to use a very particular definition of “toxic masculinity”. …because “toxic masculinity” has a very particular definition. > [@](#): > > If a man turns a blind eye to bullying, or tries to tell a woman what women think, are those toxic masculinity? Toxic masculinity has a very [particular definition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_masculinity#Toxic_masculinity). It isn’t necessarily the easiest of concepts to explain. But the two examples you give, absent any surrounding context, aren’t inherently examples of toxic masculinity IMHO, but if you disagree then please feel free to make that case. > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t say I felt personally offended, but if other men are I don’t feel like I’m in a position to tell them they’re wrong. Then don’t tell them they are wrong! > [@](#): > > What I do notice is the reaction to the ad, and what seems to me to be a double standard. There is no “double standard.” > [@](#): > > I think this ad does portray negative stereotypes of men, A stereotype is defined as “a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.” A stereotype isn’t necessarily inaccurate, or wrong, and if at times the ad does present a negative, but oversimplified image of men: why is that a wrong thing to do? > [@](#): > > and that a similar ad about some other group would be considered unacceptable. Context is everything. A similar ad about another group may well be considered unacceptable. But that fact by itself doesn’t make this ad unacceptable: if you want to make a case that this particular ad is unacceptable then make that argument here. > [@](#): > > I’ve noticed more positive and professional portrayals of women in commercials over the years; why do ads try to inspire women with role models and try to change men by scolding them? I’m sorry: but what advertisement are you talking about? In what way did the Gillette ad [angrily rebuke anyone](https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/scold)? This advert does portray men in a positive light. What advert did you watch? > [@](#): > > I remember a conversation I had with a friend many years ago. We were discussing whether the name of the Washington NFL franchise was offensive. I said that I didn’t think it was intended to be, and my friend said that didn’t matter. If you want to know if something is offensive, ask people if they were offended; that’s all the answer that’s needed. In the case of the Washington NFL Franchise the intention doesn’t matter. Why would you think that it does? > [@](#): > > So why doesn’t that apply here? Because its a strawman argument. I’m not your friend. I’ve never claimed “if something is offensive, ask people if they were offended; that’s all the answer that’s needed.” If you want to argue this point: argue it with your friend. > [@](#): > > If some men are troubled by this commercial, that ought to be enough. The advertisement is supposed to be troubling. Its supposed to be challenging. That’s the entire point. > [@](#): > > And I think for most groups it would be. But in this case it isn’t. > [@](#): > > Instead, everyone seems to be twisting themselves in knots (“the ad is about other men, not you”, “it’s not a stereotype because…”, “that part doesn’t count as ‘toxic masculinity’”) to avoid addressing something they’d rather not confront. It is pretty fucking clear that there is a group of people here that don’t want to confront a pretty fucking serious issue by twisting themselves into knots with strawman arguments, appeals to emotion, and a lack of understanding of the issues at play. Why are you working so hard to not confront the issues that this advertisement is talking about? You admit it didn’t personally offend you. Do you think the advert raised any issue that we, as a society, should be talking about? And if not then why not? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/129 "2019-01-18T03:55:14Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > What Hollywood Elite? the ones fondly mentioned by the #Metoo movement. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/130 "2019-01-18T04:34:11Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > the ones fondly mentioned by the #Metoo movement. I wasn’t paying attention. Were they in the ad? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/131 "2019-01-18T04:43:15Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > I wasn’t paying attention. Were they in the ad? correct, you weren’t paying attention. Go back to whatever you were doing. ---
**Author:** ![Covfefe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ee7513/32.png) [@Covfefe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Covfefe)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/132 "2019-01-18T04:52:13Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > I saw a great tweet from some woman about this, paraphrased: As a woman, I can’t imagine how it would feel to see an ad that implies I could improve. > > (For the sarcasm deficient, many, many commercials geared toward women exhort them to improve themselves) Good point. That is a very widespread occurrence, one that subtly often distorts self-image and hampers self-esteem of young women especially. I’m not sure any of that relates to the models of ignoble and virtuous behaviors discussed here, but it is at least helpful to keep in the pocket as a counterpoint to those who think advertisers nowadays would only demean one gender. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/133 "2019-01-18T04:58:13Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > It seems to me that several people in this thread are already angry about the depiction of men in this ad. The response to them is roughly akin to “you’re too sensitive” and “don’t you get the joke”. What I’ve noticed is men asking if those offended doubt these things happen. > [@](#): > > You seem to use a very particular definition of “toxic masculinity”. If a man turns a blind eye to bullying, or tries to tell a woman what women think, are those toxic masculinity? The ad doesn’t involve anyone saying what he things women in general think. It does show one man telling a woman what she thinks. Is that okay with you? > [@](#): > > I wouldn’t say I felt personally offended, but if other men are I don’t feel like I’m in a position to tell them they’re wrong. What I do notice is the reaction to the ad, and what seems to me to be a double standard. I think this ad does portray negative stereotypes of men, and that a similar ad about some other group would be considered unacceptable. I’ve noticed more positive and professional portrayals of women in commercials over the years; why do ads try to inspire women with role models and try to change men by scolding them? I’m confused. The ad shows men doing what I think are bad things in the beginning, and men reacting against these bad things in the end. If the ad shows a wide range of male behavior, how is it portraying male stereotypes? If a movie about the civil rights movement showed both white KKKers and white civil rights workers, is it stereotyping white men? (White Southern men, maybe.) I’m curious as to whether men who are offended by the ad identify with the men in the beginning of the ad or the men at the end. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/134 "2019-01-18T04:59:46Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > the ones fondly mentioned by the #Metoo movement. Right, those are the ones who wrote and produced this ad. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/135 "2019-01-18T05:08:38Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Right, those are the ones who wrote and produced this ad. sailed over your head too. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/136 "2019-01-18T07:54:52Z")
> [@Mr.Nylock](#): > > You don’t have to associate any particular behavior with any particular group of people. You can just condemn the behavior itself, it’s really that simple. Anyone who has trouble wrapping their mind around this concept more often than not tends to view the world in simpleminded tribalistic and bigoted ways in my experience. > > Most of the historic evils that have happened in the past that we now condemn stem from such people considering it a virtue to eliminate bad behavior by mindlessly attacking large numbers of people grouped into one “bad” category or another. ^^ That ^^ As for the ad, I think this is a form of trolling I see in news media a lot, essentially instilling controversy in order to generate views, of course that trolling creates a confrontational environment that drives people against each other. So in one hand there’s doing things that damage society by pitching groups of people against each other and in the other there’s profit… and the corporate machine goes “well, duh!”. ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/137 "2019-01-18T08:52:04Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > sailed over your head too. When several people don’t get your point a lotta guys would say, “Maybe I didn’t explain it well.” ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 9:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/138 "2019-01-18T09:14:23Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > Toxic masculinity has a very [particular definition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_masculinity#Toxic_masculinity). It isn’t necessarily the easiest of concepts to explain. But the two examples you give, absent any surrounding context, aren’t inherently examples of toxic masculinity IMHO, but if you disagree then please feel free to make that case. I followed your link and found three definitions of “toxic masculinity”. If I just take the third, > [@](#): > > “the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia and wanton violence”. …then I would say that turning a blind eye to bullying, letting one child seek to harm, intimidate, or coerce another, falls under the category of fostering domination. > [@](#): > > Then don’t tell them they are wrong! Let me rephrase. I wouldn’t say I felt personally offended, but if other men are I don’t feel like I’m in a position to tell them they’re wrong, and I don’t think anyone else is in that position, either. > [@](#): > > A stereotype is defined as “a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.” A stereotype isn’t necessarily inaccurate, or wrong, and if at times the ad does present a negative, but oversimplified image of men: why is that a wrong thing to do? Why is it a wrong thing to present a negative stereotype of a class of people? I’ve been hearing that it’s wrong for my entire life. I’ve never heard anybody challenged to explain why it’s wrong until just now. > [@](#): > > Context is everything. A similar ad about another group may well be considered unacceptable. But that fact by itself doesn’t make this ad unacceptable: That’s the double standard. I couldn’t have said it better myself. If this ad had been about any other group I don’t think people would be searching for some context to make it acceptable. > [@](#): > > In the case of the Washington NFL Franchise the intention doesn’t matter. Why would you think that it does? I don’t think the intention matters. If Native Americans are offended by the name of a football team, it doesn’t matter if the team owner was trying to offend them or not. I wouldn’t try to explain to them why they’re wrong. I’m just trying to apply that rule consistently > [@](#): > > Why are you working so hard to not confront the issues that this advertisement is talking about? You admit it didn’t personally offend you. Do you think the advert raised any issue that we, as a society, should be talking about? And if not then why not? Who says I’m not trying to confront the issues that this advertisement is talking about? We, as a society, should be talking about these issues. We already were, and I hope we continue to. I also try to offer some understanding to the people who don’t like that ad. It’s possible to like the message but dislike the messenger and the way it’s delivered. > [@Voyager](#): > > The ad doesn’t involve anyone saying what he things women in general think. It does show one man telling a woman what she thinks. Is that okay with you? I think it’s condescending and belittling when either gender does it to the other. When men do it to women it becomes a cause célèbre and gets its own work in the dictionary; when women do it to men it goes unnoticed. > [@](#): > > If the ad shows a wide range of male behavior, how is it portraying male stereotypes? It’s possible to show more than one stereotype. It’s not like they cancel each other out. > [@](#): > > I’m curious as to whether men who are offended by the ad identify with the men in the beginning of the ad or the men at the end. How about men just identify with other men? There was a series of beer commercials years ago that featured a group of women in bathing suits called the Swedish Bikini Team. According to Wikipedia, the ads were dropped after protests from the National Organization for Women and female employees of the brewer. Good. If they were offended, they should speak up. Apparently some people tried to defend the ads as a parody of traditional beer ads. But I don’t remember anyone saying “which one of the women do you identify with, the one on the left or the one on the right? Besides, it’s not even about you, you’re not Swedish.” For decades I’ve heard that negative stereotypes are hurtful and shouldn’t be perpetuated, that even casual portrayals in mass media can have lasting consequences, and that when people express concerns about such things they should be listened to and their feelings acknowledged. I’m just trying to apply those rules to everybody. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/139 "2019-01-18T09:58:21Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > I saw a great tweet from some woman about this, paraphrased: As a woman, I can’t imagine how it would feel to see an ad that implies I could improve. > > (For the sarcasm deficient, many, many commercials geared toward women exhort them to improve themselves) [You don’t say](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85HT4Om6JT4). > [@griffen2](#): > > I don’t want a fucking razor company to tell me to stop being an asshole. Especially since I know for a fact that that same company would tell me to be an even bigger asshole in a heartbeat if they thought doing so would have a 0.001% chance of boosting their bottom line. It’s not the message, it’s the messenger. Whom would you prefer to tell you? ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/140 "2019-01-18T10:15:14Z")
> [@AK84](#): > > Speaking of toxic, Gillette is owned by the guys whose tampons gave hundreds of women Toxic Shock Syndrome. And who tried their hardest to avoid liability,p. > > Yeah, not buying their sudden embrace of feminism. > [@Scumpup](#): > > No, the commercial has one message “If you buy our products, you are a good person.” I’m an _anti-capitalist_ and I find this brand of cynicism absurd. You guys realize Procter and Gamble isn’t like… some dude in a chair, right? It’s a collection of people? Corporations are a collective entity, and **as corporations** yes, they act entirely in the service of profits and margins. And I’m sure any number of the owners and C-suite are largely motivated by profit. Overall though, that’s just an absurd lens to view anything produced by them through. This ad was devised and pitched by a marketing team, directed by someone, with a large number of actors, and okayed by a bunch of suits. There was a writer, graphics designers, and so on. You don’t think **any** of them, not a one, believed in their message and wanted to try to use their job to do some good? Staff, especially key staff, but anybody involved with it, can have visions and values they’re passionate about that have huge effects, better or worse, on the company and what it produces. Watch any video on the history of whoever’s time as CEO of Disney, for instance. Yes, there are always justifications and intentions to turn a profit, or statements that running a business “on values” will result in higher profits (Eisner claimed Disney would be more profitable if it was run from “a creative perspective instead of a business perspective” for instance… he was bad at his job but he DID say that), but agendas are absolutely pushed through a company. I fully believe many, many people involved in making this believed in the message and wanted to do something good with their job. I believe many of the suits who approved it thought it was a good message, I also fully believe many didn’t care and just thought it was a shrewd move. I fully believe whoever pitched this idea both fully believed in it and also had 30 slides of market research. Yes, this commercial does serve many purposes – it cultivates a brand identity and tries to get those with feminist values to identify themselves with Gillette, it tries to sell a product, it arguably tries to mask some dodgy stuff the company has done… but a work can serve many purposes and it’s unbelievably cynical and disrespectful of the people who put their soul into this to boil it down to a purely soulless cash grab. Sure, maybe I’m wrong in this case, maybe there’s a hot mic out there where the director and actors and guffawing about how the sjw beta cucks are gonna eat this shit up. But I find it somewhat unreasonable to suspect absolutely every campaign like this, and every actor involved is some automata in service of profit. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873.md?page=8)