I can’t believe the gullible millennials spending $4 a blade in 2012. I shudder to think what they cost now. People are joining shaving clubs just to save money on over priced blades.
One of the joys of being a man, unless you grow a beard.
I stocked up on a few hundred Wilkinson double edged blades a few years ago.
My razor is a Gillette safety razor but it was purchased from them in the 1930s.
Progress. Maybe their 5 times better, or cost 5 times as much to produce. Or maybe they bought up all the competition and can charge what they want. Of all the problems in the world, the price of razor blades doesn’t hit my radar.
Our faces are visible and a two day old beard can get male employees a warning from their Supervisor. (depends on the workplace). The military and public oriented businesses are very strict. Slobs at JC Penney make a bad impression.
Hairy legs & pits are usually covered with clothing. Dresses at work are pretty rare these days.
Grooming choices very widely from person to person and by age. Some men and women shave daily.
I got written up once for not shaving. Had a pager call at 1 AM. Went into operations, fixed the problem, and got payroll running again. Got home around 2:30 and it always took an hour to get back to sleep. Our asshole supervisor still expected us at our desk by 8. I was exhausted and didn’t take time to shave or shower.
Telling men what they are like and how they think is not 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.
Good. But responding to illustrations of toxic masculinity with “there are toxic women also” is just avoidance.
They showed men behaving badly, since that’s the point and women don’t behave badly in that way. If they ended the ad there, I’d have an issue with it also. But they ended the ad with illustrations of men behaving well.
So I suppose the question for everyone is, which of these groups do you identify with, and which are role models for you?
Specifically it can be considered a version of a “Tu quoque”
Or more general, working to solve one problem doesn’t depend on simultaneously solving all other related problems. The culture effects on males is related to but not dependent on the cultural impacts on females or non-binary needs. It is not that all problems are exclusively restricted to males to focus on very real issues that do impact those who identify as male.
When I started shaving, 50 years ago, double edge safety blades were all there were. Paying a bit more for the stuff they have today is well worth it to me. Plus one of the cartridges lasts a long time for me.
I use Schick, but I’m sure Gillette is the same.
Glad the cheap alternative works for you. It’s nice we have a market that serves all kinds of customers. Some like disposables, but I’ve never seen the benefit of them.
Another example of a more controversial ad (I don’t think many guys had the stones to say in public under their own names they’d rather all the women in commercials be hot, though I think most would, that’s natural not ‘toxic’ if you’re straight) that was pitched more positively was the Kaepernick one(s). The campaign was presented as a ‘person doing what they believe in regardless’ and I think that gets a much less negative response, especially in the longer run, even from people with a big difference in opinion with Kaepernick and his views and methods, than calling out those people.
It was, predictably, ‘explained’ how this is ‘completely different’ but I agree with you in not seeing how it is completely different. A ‘stereotype’ is virtually always something ‘some of that group do’, usually something an arguably disproportionate share do, if there’s a fair comparison to establish disproportion. So for example the violent crime rate among Africans Americans in the US is distinctly higher than among whites (especially not including ‘white Hispanics’) and Asians. The question is whether that’s a fair comparison given the overall social situation and history. Many men are obnoxious to women, running the gamut from relatively benign ways to murderous ways. But compared to what? To how women act? Women and men are different (whether by nature or nurture, as a generalization it’s obvious IMO). Compared to the past? It’s probably less so now but that’s not an excuse for individual bad actions. US compared to other countries? Again probably favorable on the whole worldwide, and v many other rich countries AFAIK, though again not an excuse for individual bad action. Compared to an ideal world?
What’s a ‘stereotype’ is left in the eye of the beholder, and particularly members of the group in question, in almost every other case. So it just seems inconsistent IMO not to do the same when the group is ‘men’ (or American men, straight men, or whatever). ‘Stereotype’ does not mean ‘supposed characteristic of a group completely without foundation but imagined or created purely out fear and hatred’. Fear and hatred is often a factor, not absent in ‘wokeness’ either AFAICS, but stereotype does not mean ‘totally untrue’, nor that purveyors of the stereotype insist it applies to every single member of the group.
Yep, like Nike when the Kaepernick ad ran, Gillette must be loving the controversy.
Personally, I don’t see why anyone is up in arms. The commercial says some men have already stepped up (“Some men already are.”), which anyone whose fragile ego needs an out to find one there.
“Men need to hold other men accountable.” Who’d argue with that? And doesn’t that make it clear the commercial isn’t saying all men are misogynists?
And stepping up is not the same as assuming guilt. You can help clean up a mess you didn’t make. Enough with the umbrage already. Though Gillette would be delighted if the controversy continues.
I don’t agree. The difference in Kaepernick case is that it’s playing up a positive thing ‘this guy stood up for what he believed’ which people are more willing to accept, even about guys who believe very differently than they do, then something they perceive as ‘hey you’ calling them out for their shortcomings, again especially given as both ‘left’ and ‘right’ would seem to generally agree, the credibility problem of for profit organizations telling people how to act ethically. Nothing inherently unethical about profit making IMO (though some on the far left might disagree with that) but it’s still not a position from which to preach, a merchant basically.
Nor do I agree it necessarily fits into the formula of ‘no such thing as bad publicity’. A Fox or MSNBC host for example can say something ‘the other side’ really finds offensive and benefit from it. They aren’t directly appealing to anyone on the other side of the chasm. They are only constrained by where people on their side say stop saying ‘yeah you tell em’ and start saying ‘wait a minute, you’ve gone too far’ (and their own ethics etc to the extent that’s relevant).
A mass market consumer company does not benefit by making some people say ‘yeah you tell em’, while others respond ‘fuck you’, especially when the latter are at least comparable in number to the former, and seems they might heavily outnumber them actually.
These are the reasons I don’t think any type of publicity for this necessarily helps Gillette/P&G regardless of what kind of publicity. Although, mistaken ad concepts happen all the time and don’t typically bring down gigantic companies, especially if they are dropped which this one might well be. How many people think in contrast this theme will become the backbone of Gillette ads for the next several years? I really doubt it. By the same token, it’s superficial to correlate Nike’s stock price with that one ad campaign mainly in one country, for a huge global brand, besides which again I see a real difference in the pitch between those two cases.
You’re rewriting history. The right very much did freak out completely about the Kaepernick ad. They were offended by having him stand up for what he believes in. They started burning their Nike shoes over it. Maybe this will eventually blow up more, but, right now, the Nike thing was just as bad, if not worse.
And it is those who are offended who are adding things. I’ve not seen a single person object to the actual content of the ad. It always involves adding something so they can get a sexist message out of the ad. They have to create the idea that there is some anti-male discrimination in the ad.
There’s a reason that the only people who are offended are the same people who keep on pushing this nonsense idea that men are being persecuted in our society. They are specifically looking for proof of their position. Since they can’t provide it, they have to shoehorn something else into it.
The reason I make longer posts is not to make excuses. It’s that I’m trying to explain something that I and most men intuitively get to people who don’t understand, so I go back to basics, and start from the ground up.
Oh, and not being a sexist, violent asshole isn’t a left/right thing. Why the hell does the right want to claim the bad guys? When I was right wing, I still would have thought I was one of the guys coming in and standing up against the bad stuff. It’s like the right wing wants to be Goofus.
I literally argued against this earlier in the thread. These are not male stereotypes. There is not a single anti-male stereotype in the ad. I tire of explaining it, so just read my reply to Mr Nyquist.
And if you’re going to try to do the “replace the word” gambit, you do need to know what the concepts mean. What you describe as “toxic blackness” is not analogous to toxic masculinity. Toxic masculinity is about beliefs men have about themselves. Black people do not believe that “robbing, doing drugs, stealing cars” are part of what it means to be black.
To find offense, you guys have to make an analogy that adds something to the original. You have to add the anti-black stereotypes. You have to add ideas that racists believe about black people. Then, yes, it would be offensive.
But this ad does none of that. It shows actual common things certain men say and do, shows them using their own arguments, and shows them in a negative light. And that is what is offensive: we don’t let the “boys will be boys” excuse work anymore.
It is, in a nutshell, the same reaction to #metoo (which this ad clearly references). People object because they are being told not to do things they themselves think are okay. They find themselves identifying with the bad guy.
Of course Gillette didn’t suddenly grow a conscience. They are, after all, a for profit company. Of course the purpose of their ad, above all else, is to sell more of their products.
But that doesn’t make all ads the same. When a company does something that is good, we have every reason to support them in doing so, so they will continue to do the good thing. It’s not about whether they actually believe what they say, because of course they don’t.
The question is, would we rather support Gillette when they run the sexist ads of the past (as shown at the beginning of the commercial), or when they run these ads that get it right? Do we want this move to be a net positive for Gillette, or a net negative?
I mean, if we don’t say it’s good, and the people who hate the ad (because it challenges their ideas of masculinity) win, then Gillette is going to go back to appealing to them. Is that what we want?
Don’t we want a world where appealing to the better nature of humans is also the most profitable way to run a company?
