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.”
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?
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.
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”.
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’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.
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.
…because “toxic masculinity” has a very particular definition.
Toxic masculinity has a very particular definition. 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.
Then don’t tell them they are wrong!
There is no “double standard.”
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?
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’m sorry: but what advertisement are you talking about? In what way did the Gillette ad angrily rebuke anyone? This advert does portray men in a positive light. What advert did you watch?
In the case of the Washington NFL Franchise the intention doesn’t matter. Why would you think that it does?
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.
The advertisement is supposed to be troubling. Its supposed to be challenging. That’s the entire point.
But in this case it isn’t.
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?
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.
What I’ve noticed is men asking if those offended doubt these things happen.
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’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.
^^ 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!”.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
It’s possible to show more than one stereotype. It’s not like they cancel each other out.
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.
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.