# 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:** 8
**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, 11:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/141 "2019-01-18T11:15:52Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > I followed your link and found three definitions of “toxic masculinity”. If I just take the third,…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. …you can’t just cherry pick “fostering domination” and ignore “the constellation of socially regressive male traits”. That isn’t how it works. > [@](#): > > 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. Then don’t tell them they are wrong! Just don’t tell me what to do, and don’t mis-characterize my position, and we are all good. > [@](#): > > 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. Well I’ve challenged you. Why is it wrong to show a few seconds of footage of a man doing something obnoxious like groping a woman or making a woman feel uncomfortable in an office meeting? Did that 2 seconds of footage represent the “entire class of men?” Are you not aware that these things really happen? What about all those men who said “no?” When they showed Terry Crews testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee: was that a negative portrayal? The version of the advert you are describing simply doesn’t match what I actually watched. > [@](#): > > 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. Nope. You can’t just claim that a double standard exist without providing examples of this double standard existing. It isn’t enough to just assert that a double standard exists. Context matters. If the ad had been about nazi’s, would it be wrong to call them evil because #notallnaziswereevilsomewerejustfollowingorders? This was a positive ad. It showed some men doing bad things. But so fucking what? We see men doing bad things on television and in movies and on advertisements all the fucking time. But it also showed men doing good things: doing the right things. It showed several examples of actual-real-life men doing good things, the message was that we set the example for the next generation that follows. The reality is that our generation (and generations before us) have fucked up and its time for us to fix it. And to fix it: we have to be \*\*the best a man can get. \*\* #thispostwasnotsponsored Its not a fucking subtle message. Its a powerful, positive one, and I have no idea why you continue to characterize the advert as something that it is not. Your position just doesn’t make any sense. > [@](#): > > Who says I’m not trying to confront the issues that this advertisement is talking about? Toxic masculinity is not “fostering domination.” You don’t actually understand the issues that the advertisement is talking about. You can’t confront toxic masculinity when you don’t even understand what toxic masculinity is. > [@](#): > > We, as a society, should be talking about these issues. **We already were** , and I hope we continue to. What we have discovered over the last few years is that we really aren’t talking about it enough. Goobergate, #metoo, the rise of the alt-right: we’ve been witnessing the weaponization of toxic masculinity and for plenty of women they are fighting for their lives. This isn’t a fucking game. This was a two minute advertisement that raised a few serious issues and ended on a positive note. If you can’t even handle that: then what hope do we have of having a conversation? > [@](#): > > 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. I actually doubt that many of the people who have been “loud and vocal” in their dislike of the ad have actually seen it. (I’m not including the participants in this thread in that regard.) And its okay not to like the message, and its okay not to like the messenger. But do you know what isn’t okay? Mischaracterizing the message. Re-inventing the narrative. Claiming this ad says and does things that it does not. We watched this during goobergate. Where the rants of a jilted ex-lover turned into a year-long-series of misogynistic attacks on women that were recontextualized by the goobers as really about “ethics in games journalism.” We watched this during the elections. We don’t need to do it here in this thread. ---
**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, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/142 "2019-01-18T14:16:18Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …you can’t just cherry pick “fostering domination” and ignore “the constellation of socially regressive male traits”. That isn’t how it works. You challenged me to make the case that either of the behaviors I described, one of which was turning a blind eye to bullying, fell within the definition of “toxic masculinity”. Using the definition at the link you provided, I believe I have done so. Turning a blind eye to bullying is a means of fostering domination. Fostering domination is an element of toxic masculinity. But if you disagree then please feel free to make that case. > [@](#): > > Just don’t tell me what to do,… > > …you can’t just cherry pick… > Nope. You can’t just claim… I got a nice chuckle out of that combination. > [@Robot Arm](#): > > 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. > [@Banquet Bear](#): > > Well I’ve challenged you. Hmm, well start [here](https://psychcentral.com/news/2010/08/11/long-term-effects-of-stereotyping/16675.html) > [@](#): > > Labeling people in a negative manner has a lasting detrimental impact on those who experience the prejudice, suggests a new study. > > “Past studies have shown that people perform poorly in situations where they feel they are being stereotyped,” says University of Toronto Scarborough’s Michael Inzlicht, who led the research. > > … > > The pattern remained the same, regardless of the test groups. People who felt they were discriminated against – whether based on gender, age, race or religion – all experienced significant impacts even after they were removed from the situation, says Inzlicht. > > “These lingering effects hurt people in a very real way, leaving them at a disadvantage,” says Inzlicht. > [@Baquest Bear](#): > > Its not a fucking subtle message. Its a powerful, positive one, and I have no idea why you continue to characterize the advert as something that it is not. Your position just doesn’t make any sense. I don’t believe I’ve categorized the advert at all. I’m talking about how some men have reacted to the ad, and the response to their reaction. Lots of advertisements used to show women in subservient and objectifying ways. Women complained. It didn’t happen overnight, but we’ve come to take those complaints seriously and I can’t remember the last time I saw a commercial like that. Now there’s a commercial that some men are complaining about. Do we take their complaints seriously, or do we attack with “you must be one of those neckbeard, incel, neanderthals who longs for the days when you could grope women with impunity”. That’s the double standard I’m trying to call out; it’s not in the ad, it’s in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Poysyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Poysyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poysyn)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/143 "2019-01-18T15:20:19Z")
> [@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”. Except, in my example, I am talking about someone in a minority position being victimized. That is not the same thing as being told “Some men are not being very good people and we know that men (in general) are awesome, so try to be better!” ---
**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, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/144 "2019-01-18T16:18:31Z")
> [@Poysyn](#): > > Except, in my example, I am talking about someone in a minority position being victimized. I know, and that’s the point. I’ve heard for years that negative stereotypes in the media are hurtful and destructive, and should be called out. Now it seems like people want to add a footnote, “negative stereotypes should be called out except this one.” I don’t accept that. And I understand the arguments about punching up vs. punching down. I just don’t see that a television commercial aired around the country by a company that’s #42 on the Fortune 500 is punching up at anybody. > [@](#): > > That is not the same thing as being told “Some men are not being very good people and we know that men (in general) are awesome, so try to be better!” Who’s saying that men (in general) are awesome, the commercial? If someone watched that and thought that the jerks were the rule, and the few stand-up guys at the end were the exception, I could see how someone would take that message from the commercial. ---
**Author:** ![Poysyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Poysyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Poysyn)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/145 "2019-01-18T17:17:54Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > I know, and that’s the point. I’ve heard for years that negative stereotypes in the media are hurtful and destructive, and should be called out. Now it seems like people want to add a footnote, “negative stereotypes should be called out except this one.” I don’t accept that. > > And I understand the arguments about punching up vs. punching down. I just don’t see that a television commercial aired around the country by a company that’s #42 on the Fortune 500 is punching up at anybody. > > Who’s saying that men (in general) are awesome, the commercial? If someone watched that and thought that the jerks were the rule, and the few stand-up guys at the end were the exception, I could see how someone would take that message from the commercial. Negative stereotypes **should** be called out. I kind of saw that as the point - the negative stereotypes currently associated with masculinity should be challenged…? I realize P&G is a Fortune 500, and maybe that is the only thing that has your nose out of joint, in which case, valid point, got it. The thing about toxic masculinity (or negative stereotypes of men, if you prefer) is that they are terribly unfair to men. They box up the idea of a man and are incredibly limiting. The men I know and love are better than that, and aspire to be more than that narrow definition. That is great. What I got from the ad is that it’s awesome if you are more than this shitty stereotype, but hey, while you are at it, maybe call it out if you see a guy being shitty…? Look beyond the messenger for a moment. Or not. We can continue to debate everything about the piece, but it doesn’t change the fact that those that embrace and live those stereotypes (and yes, they exist) are a threat - not just a threat to a way of life (for example someone giving up on a dream because of the systemic chipping away at their humanity by these people), but a physical, emotional and sexual threat to everyone around them - and it exists in everyone (particularly those they see as “peers”), the ability to take a stand and maybe stop someone from being victimized. I have seen it happen in a non-confrontational and powerful way. That is how minds are changed, and that is how stereotypes are challenged. That seems to me, anyway, of being concentrated good, regardless of the messenger. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/146 "2019-01-18T18:57:45Z")
> [@Poysyn](#): > > 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. Exactly right. It’s amazing to me so many men are offended by this ad. I do wonder if they’d accept it better if women were presented as antagonists, instead of showing toxic masculinity as something that men foist on each other. Which they do, don’t get me wrong. But the problem is societal and thus, men _and_ women are guilty of shoehorning boys/men into rigid and unhealthy gender roles. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/147 "2019-01-18T21:05:25Z")
Yes, I do believe they might accept it more if women said these things, but I’d be concerned it was due to misogyny. It also wouldn’t fit the message, which is that this is not the best a man can get. The ad is about men, and saying those who stand by or make excuses are not the best a man can get. Since those who are upset are the ones who do the things in the ad, I’m not sure there is any reason to try and appeal to them. This isn’t a “say what they already agree with” type of ad, but one that challenges these ideas and people. ---
**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, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/148 "2019-01-18T21:10:19Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > You challenged me to make the case that either of the behaviors I described, one of which was turning a blind eye to bullying, fell within the definition of “toxic masculinity”. Using the definition at the link you provided, I believe I have done so. …you believe wrong. > [@](#): > > Turning a blind eye to bullying is a means of fostering domination. Fostering domination is an element of toxic masculinity. But if you disagree then please feel free to make that case. I’ve already made the case. You’ve just ignored what I said. Toxic masculinity is not “fostering domination”. The entire quote: "“the constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia and wanton violence”. “The constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to” is an essential part of the definition. Without it you aren’t talking about toxic masculinity. You get what “serve to” means right? “Fostering domination” isn’t a trait of toxic masculinity. Its in service to those traits. Could an example of “fostering domination” be an expression of toxic masculinity? Sure. But without the surrounding context we cannot assume that it is. And your example had zero context. > [@](#): > > I got a nice chuckle out of that combination. You are obviously easily amused. > [@](#): > > Hmm, well start [here](https://psychcentral.com/news/2010/08/11/long-term-effects-of-stereotyping/16675.html) How about we start with the actual ad: and you explain which of the portrayals of men in that ad fit the characteristics of that definition? Why was it wrong to show some men as “bad guys?” Are you really equating a few seconds of a negative portrayal (which was clearly intended to show that “this behavior is wrong”) with a study that " subtly injecting stereotypes about women and math skills ‘into the air?" > [@](#): > > I don’t believe I’ve categorized the advert at all. I’m talking about how some men have reacted to the ad, and the response to their reaction. And the negative reactions to the ad have been both disproportionate and unreasonable. > [@](#): > > Lots of advertisements used to show women in subservient and objectifying ways. Women complained. It didn’t happen overnight, but we’ve come to take those complaints seriously and I can’t remember the last time I saw a commercial like that. Now there’s a commercial that some men are complaining about. Do we take their complaints seriously, or do we attack with “you must be one of those neckbeard, incel, neanderthals who longs for the days when you could grope women with impunity”. What the fuck was wrong with the ad? Forget about what others are saying about it. Stop using other men as a shield. What do you say about it? What was wrong with the way they portrayed men? Why should we take the complaints seriously? What obligates us to give both complaints equal weight? This is “bothsidesism.” It ignores the historical context of the different portrayals of men and women on TV, it ignores the studies that show the effect on society of the portrayals of women in subservient and objectifying ways, you are ignoring the intent of this particular ad, you are deliberately mis-characterizing the content of this ad. You are Donald Trump calling out Hillary Clinton for using the word “deplorable’s.” You are drawing an equivalence when no such equivalence exists. > [@](#): > > That’s the double standard I’m trying to call out; it’s not in the ad, it’s in this thread. There is no double standard: either in the ad or in this thread. ---
**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, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/149 "2019-01-18T23:07:33Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > 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. Do you think that both sides do it with equal frequency? I’ve not seen many (any that I remember, actually) women shutting down men - even when the woman was the boss. > [@](#): > > It’s possible to show more than one stereotype. It’s not like they cancel each other out. Opposite stereotypes for the same group? You might claim that hardly anyone does the things shown in the beginning of the ad. But if men do do those things, and we do, showing examples is not stereotyping unless there is a claim that everyone does it. Which isn’t the claim because of the end of the ad. > [@](#): > > How about men just identify with other men? What does that even mean in this context? Why would I want to identify with men doing the things in the beginning of the ad? And I don’t have to identify with men, I am one. > [@](#): > > 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.” Gee, if there was a major social issue involving women running around in bikinis at the time I must have missed it. I don’t recall non-objectified Swedish women in the ads at the end either. I’m betting men wrote that ad, by the way. Not ones I identify with. > [@](#): > > 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. Negative statements about who someone is, true. But not negative statements about actions. Or is an ad calling out actions by Nazis and KKKers wrong? We wouldn’t want to hurt their delicate little egos now, would we? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2019, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/150 "2019-01-18T23:30:01Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Yes, I do believe they might accept it more if women said these things, but I’d be concerned it was due to misogyny. I would share that concern too. ---
**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 19, 2019, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/151 "2019-01-19T06:47:31Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > They’re mostly queer, though, so I don’t know you’d consider them “real” people or not. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2019, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/152 "2019-01-19T19:30:11Z")
A company made a Gillette rebuttal ad: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/x_HL0wiK4Zc/maxresdefault.jpg "What is a man? A response to Gillette") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_HL0wiK4Zc) ---
**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 19, 2019, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/153 "2019-01-19T19:55:47Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > A company made a Gillette rebuttal ad: > > [https://www.youtube.com/watch?time\_continue=42&v=x\_HL0wiK4Zc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=42&v=x_HL0wiK4Zc) …you do understand what the word [rebuttal](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rebuttal)means right? The ad had essentially the same message of the Gillette ad. It didn’t rebut or refute anything. ---
**Author:** ![Anxious\_Squirrel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/anxious_squirrel/32/1083_2.png) [@Anxious\_Squirrel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anxious_Squirrel)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2019, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/154 "2019-01-19T20:21:10Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > …you do understand what the word [rebuttal](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rebuttal)means right? The ad had essentially the same message of the Gillette ad. It didn’t rebut or refute anything. It’s not a rebuttal to the actual content of the Gillette ad, but it is a rebuttal to the imaginary message that some men took from it. The watch people were meeting their prospects where they’re at in their heads, “Gilette just attacked all men and said we’re bad people. Waaah.” So the watch people saw an opportunity and jumped on it. The message the men who thought Gilette was attacking them got from it is, “see! Men are really nice and are victims, too!” And I assume it made them feel better. The ad didn’t refute anything Gilette actually said, of course. They didn’t say, “it’s okay for men to be assholes, and if they see other men being assholes they shouldn’t do anything about it.” So in reality, you’re right that it isn’t a rebuttal. But when has advertising ever been about reality? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2019, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/155 "2019-01-19T21:00:21Z")
I thought the “rebuttal but not really rebuttal” ad was good too. Including the stat about half of all fathers without visitation rights left me scratching my head, though. So these fathers pay child support. Okay. We don’t know if that is voluntarily or involuntarily, but ok. What conclusions are we supposed to draw about them not having visitation rights, though? Could there be a good reason for this? ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2019, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/156 "2019-01-19T21:39:51Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I thought the “rebuttal but not really rebuttal” ad was good too. Including the stat about half of all fathers without visitation rights left me scratching my head, though. So these fathers pay child support. Okay. We don’t know if that is voluntarily or involuntarily, but ok. What conclusions are we supposed to draw about them not having visitation rights, though? Could there be a good reason for this? Speaking from personal experience, the courts are all about making sure one pays one’s child support on time. They are right there to garnish paychecks and threaten arrest/incarceration., OTOH, they don’t give a wet shit how said monies are spent. There is no accountability whatsoever for them what collects child support. ---
**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 20, 2019, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/157 "2019-01-20T00:46:51Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > It’s amazing to me so many men are offended by this ad. Kinda depressing, ain’t it? It may not be so amazing if think about how you may have only one or two guys like that in your social circle, but that everybody has a social circle. Even discounting the duplicates that’s a lot of jerks > [@](#): > > I do wonder if they’d accept it better if women were presented as antagonists… They already believe women are the antagonists, so it would only reinforce their beliefs. > [@](#): > > … instead of showing toxic masculinity as something that men foist on each other. Which they do, don’t get me wrong. But the problem is societal and thus, men _and_ women are guilty of shoehorning boys/men into rigid and unhealthy gender roles. I believe that, for those guys, any female shoehorning ended by middle school. After that the jerks in the cool crowd were in charge. These kids didn’t have fully developed self images so they gravitated to the macho men. ---
**Author:** ![TroutMan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/troutman/32/6721_2.png) [@TroutMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TroutMan)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2019, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/158 "2019-01-20T02:23:05Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > A company made a Gillette rebuttal ad: > > [https://www.youtube.com/watch?time\_continue=42&v=x\_HL0wiK4Zc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=42&v=x_HL0wiK4Zc) This ad is like a participation trophy for fragile masculinity. Men get to feel good about themselves for doing absolutely nothing. ---
**Author:** ![vperry1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/ee7513/32.png) [@vperry1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vperry1)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2019, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/159 "2019-01-20T05:19:45Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > So shaving with Gillette will make me a better person, and with 50% less skin irritation. Works for me. > > “Buy our product. It will make you anti-bullying anti-misogynistic, and anti-toxic masculinity. And chicks love that.” > > Regards, > Shodan So do the “chicks” who use the same razors to shave their body parts do so because they’re being forced to by this toxic masculinity? Or do they do it because they like feeling feminine and pretty? Gillette should concentrate on the opportunity to help end the stereotypical, unshaven, lazy slob of a male portrayed on every tv show and commercial. Well, not all shows and ads. I’ve seen many commercials for business suits where the handsom models have a three day growth. Want to make more money, Gillette? Show that men DO care about appearance and actually know how to groom themselves. There’s your narration. It offends me as a male that we are all ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2019, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873/160 "2019-01-20T07:00:46Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > A company made a Gillette rebuttal ad: > > [https://www.youtube.com/watch?time\_continue=42&v=x\_HL0wiK4Zc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=42&v=x_HL0wiK4Zc) I shave with watches now. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-gillette-ad/827873.md?page=9)