42 votes

A new "short film" by razor company Gillette has called for men to be the best they can be, sparking a significant backlash.

126 comments

  1. [83]
    dubteedub
    Link
    Thanks for sharing this Algernon. I was going to share this perspective in the new Gilette ad this morning as well. Gillette's new ad isn't about shaving. It's about men in the age of #metoo I...

    Thanks for sharing this Algernon. I was going to share this perspective in the new Gilette ad this morning as well.

    I really do not get the backlash here. If you look at the replies to Gilettes post of the video on Twitter it is the usual crowd of right wing reactionaries claiming that Gilette is now "cucked" or pushing some "SJW" view to feminize all men.

    This behavior is the exact description of what toxic masculinity. The ad calls for men to step up and stop toxic behavior when they see it like cat calling, excusing violence between boys, and bullying. If you feel threatened by someone saying these things are bad, then I am going to assume you are just a bad person.

    48 votes
    1. [6]
      somewaffles
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      My issue with the commercial is that it is clearly a PR stunt made in order to stir up controversy. They make these ad's because they know it will get people talking. There's no such thing as bad...

      My issue with the commercial is that it is clearly a PR stunt made in order to stir up controversy. They make these ad's because they know it will get people talking. There's no such thing as bad PR. After an initial response, these freakouts stop being about the ad themselves and about the perceived ideology of the company. All it takes is some a group of cat-calling weirdo's on r/t_d to feel threatened for the twitter fire to start. Then anyone who goes to catch up and watch it, if they do at all, they already have their viewpoint solidified in their mind. If you look at the comments on these sorts of videos, the outrage has literally nothing to do with the video itself. Gilette knows all of this and any marketing department who isn't taking notes on these sorts of incidents is falling behind. Anyone who is still blind to these advertising techniques is doing themselves a disservice because all it does is make people misguidedly angry towards each other. I am 100% down with the ACTUAL message of the ad, but when I see this kind of response to an advertisement for a fucking product, it feels very propaganda-y.

      quick edit: Meant to address your point directly. The backlash isn't the ad, and almost never is. It's a manufactured ideology that the public has built around the company. It's very basic marketing. The ad is almost literally saying "guys, don't be a creep, hold each other accountable, don't make excuses" but everyone is attaching #metoo, toxic masculinity, and whatever else to it. It's not a coincidence. Any company that releases ad's like this knows it.

      23 votes
      1. pleure
        Link Parent
        Exactly this. People need to make sure they don't start defending corporations and these kind of actions simply because they people they politically oppose are attacking them.

        Exactly this. People need to make sure they don't start defending corporations and these kind of actions simply because they people they politically oppose are attacking them.

        7 votes
      2. [4]
        papasquat
        Link Parent
        That's literally what a commercial is though. I think its stupid also, but I think virtually all advertising is stupid and exploitative. It doesn't really make sense to hone in on solely this...

        My issue with the commercial is that it is clearly a PR stunt

        That's literally what a commercial is though. I think its stupid also, but I think virtually all advertising is stupid and exploitative. It doesn't really make sense to hone in on solely this specific commercial with that complaint.

        5 votes
        1. [3]
          somewaffles
          Link Parent
          Advertising and a "PR stunt" are two different things. A normal commercial is created to sell a product using the product itself, advertisements like this are created using political divide and...

          Advertising and a "PR stunt" are two different things. A normal commercial is created to sell a product using the product itself, advertisements like this are created using political divide and viral marketing to build brand awareness. I agree wholeheartedly that all advertising is exploitative and ads like this take it a step further. Marketing with an appeal to emotion is not a new thing but utilizing viral marketing is and it is a whole new low in my opinion. They know they can depend on internet culture (only reading headlines, outrage blogs/tweets/whatever) and take advantage of the situation to create virtually free advertising that lasts for weeks. I'm not honing in on this commercial because it's been happening for years (eg pepsi, starbucks, nike) and it always plays out the same way. Nike sales went up 31% after the Kaepernick thing. It's a proven method that takes advantage of and strengthens political divides.

          6 votes
          1. [3]
            Comment deleted by author
            Link Parent
            1. [2]
              somewaffles
              Link Parent
              Sorry, I don't follow. The ad linked is pretty neutral as far as late 20th century gender roles are concerned. Why would there be outrage?

              Sorry, I don't follow. The ad linked is pretty neutral as far as late 20th century gender roles are concerned. Why would there be outrage?

              1 vote
              1. [2]
                Comment deleted by author
                Link Parent
                1. somewaffles
                  Link Parent
                  Just want to be clear: PR stunt is always an advertisement, an advertisement is not always a PR stunt. Anyway, as far as I can tell, the older ad's depicted positive aspects of masculinity ("the...

                  Just want to be clear: PR stunt is always an advertisement, an advertisement is not always a PR stunt. Anyway, as far as I can tell, the older ad's depicted positive aspects of masculinity ("the best a man can get"?) as opposed to the new ad which depicts the less-than desirable parts of societal masculinity.

                  Gillette released this ad at a time where the right is ultra focused on a perceived masculine presence in households and society at large. Instead of appealing to positive emotions (ie the old ads and most advertisements in general) they took a stand and condemned what 90% of guys know to be unacceptable behavior. To a normal person, this is not an attack on them personally. However, to insecure weirdo's who have a weird fixation on LGBTQ people and the "femminization" of america, this is saying all men are toxic because it took an honest look in saying not every guy is "the best a man can get."

                  From there, it's all down hill as i mentioned in my OP. Gillette knew this. They pay millions for these ads. They know they need to make a lasting impression in a world with cable cutters and ad-blocker. They know people only read headlines. Advertisers can't use traditional ad's anymore, it's just not viable and they can't justify spending millions of dollars on an ad that no one sees or hears about.

                  If this ad had aired the same time as your linked ad, I wouldn't really have had issue because the political climate was much different and internet culture was NO WHERE near what it is today. They are using these two things in order to sell a product while they created a wave that made people angry over something that 99% people would agree on. It's insane and damaging to everyone.

                  3 votes
    2. [27]
      Comment deleted by author
      Link Parent
      1. [5]
        dubteedub
        Link Parent
        That is just not true. You can go look at the responses on Twitter and YouTube yourself. The comments all against the ad are just calling it anti-male / misandrist SJW / feminazi / "insert...

        They are more reacting to the context of the message than the message itself. What many right wing reactionaries seek is authenticity. They see this ad for what it is - an ad. It is Gillette playing off culture wars for profit and virtue signaling.

        That is just not true. You can go look at the responses on Twitter and YouTube yourself. The comments all against the ad are just calling it anti-male / misandrist SJW / feminazi / "insert reactionary word of the day here" ad nasuem.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koPmuEyP3a0

        https://twitter.com/Gillette/status/1084850521196900352

        Here, I even went and screencapped 20 different shots of them here for you to look at.

        https://imgur.com/a/DrPXFGi

        Also, I am really sick of right-wing folks saying virtue signaling as some kind of insult. It is not an actual argument and just a way of saying caring about something is stupid. And if we really want to go that route, then all the people so outraged over an ad that says bullying is bad that felt the need to post themselves throwing away Gillette products and saying how evil feminazi this ad is are just virtue signaling themselves to show off to all their weird anti-sjw / altright buddies.

        The ad is titled "The Best Men Can Be", but the ad is more about showing bad behavior in men that's already been condemned for 2 decades. The best the ad does is a few seconds around the Terry Crews clip about how men need to hold other men accountable.

        The ad also shows men stepping up to call out bad behavior / catcalling, breaking up a fight between two boys when others are standing around, and stopping some bullies harassing some kid. Those are all positive examples of masculinity.

        13 votes
        1. [5]
          Comment deleted by author
          Link Parent
          1. [4]
            dubteedub
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            My point is that if this was an issue of authenticity then at least some of the hundreds of replies would be mentioning that instead of screeching about women, sjws, and soy boys. I don't think...

            what's your point?

            My point is that if this was an issue of authenticity then at least some of the hundreds of replies would be mentioning that instead of screeching about women, sjws, and soy boys.

            Gillette knew exactly what response they would be getting and how the result of their trolling would make it hard to criticize their pandering.

            I don't think that saying bullying is bad is trolling and anyone that feels so insecure about their masculinity to be offended by that probably should do some pretty deep soul searching as to why.

            Its more an indictment on the state of online conservatism / reactionaries that they feel threatened by this then Gillette for making an ad saying men can be better.

            The angry people in the comments aren't trying to make money off of you or burnish their reputation, that's why it's not appropriate to throw the same criticism back at them

            It is accurate to say they are virtue signaling. The entire point of posting a rant about feminists on YouTube or taking a picture throwing your old Gillette disposable razor away on Twitter is to show all your followers how "uncucked" you are. By the logic of "virtue signaling" if they didn't care what others in the reactionary movement thought, then they would keep their opinion to themselves.

            4 votes
            1. [3]
              Devin
              Link Parent
              I think colbert summed it up nicely when he thankfully stopped it. Because it was so cringe inducingly awful. It was tasteless. The message is good, but the ad was so overbearingly awful. And at...

              I think colbert summed it up nicely when he thankfully stopped it. Because it was so cringe inducingly awful. It was tasteless. The message is good, but the ad was so overbearingly awful.

              And at the end of the day, it worked for what it was intended for. Free controversial viral advertising, since we are here talking about it.

              It was akin to clorox telling people not to bath in bleach by having a group of mothers say that bathing children in bleach is bad parenting.

              1. [2]
                Gaywallet
                Link Parent
                How is this an apt analogy at all? No one bathes their children in bleach. This is not a problem that society is facing. Furthermore, where are the parents advocating that bathing children in...

                It was akin to clorox telling people not to bath in bleach by having a group of mothers say that bathing children in bleach is bad parenting.

                How is this an apt analogy at all? No one bathes their children in bleach. This is not a problem that society is facing.

                Furthermore, where are the parents advocating that bathing children in bleach is harmless? Or just a part of being a mother? Or just a feminine trait?

                1. Devin
                  (edited )
                  Link Parent
                  In a world where justice and the law are the same. You should be right. I wish you were. That is how this social contract is supposed to work. If you want to get mad at someone. Look at Gillette....

                  In a world where justice and the law are the same. You should be right. I wish you were. That is how this social contract is supposed to work.

                  If you want to get mad at someone. Look at Gillette. They just got more ad space then a super bowl ad times 10. For saying what we all know to be true. And set back anyone that is trying to raise awareness by a decade of funding. They did a great job, and you are defending a billion dollar company.

                  I understand. This is not easy. Yet, it changed no one's mind's and only made those that defend beating children have more support.

                  Maybe. In the short term. This humanity thing is a long game. And I hope you are right.

      2. [6]
        Algernon_Asimov
        Link Parent
        There's more to Gillette's campaign than just a virtue-signalling advertisement. They're putting their money where their mouth is:

        There's more to Gillette's campaign than just a virtue-signalling advertisement. They're putting their money where their mouth is:

        Gillette said it would be changing tack in its advertising campaigns and social media content as part of its campaign, which would see it donate $US3 million over three years to non-profit organisations in the United States that were trying to educate boys and men on the issues behind toxic masculinity.

        12 votes
        1. loto
          Link Parent
          I don't really have a concept for how big a company Gillette is, so I don't know if 3 million is really be a large quantity for them (so I'd take it with a grain of salt - it's a different message...

          I don't really have a concept for how big a company Gillette is, so I don't know if 3 million is really be a large quantity for them (so I'd take it with a grain of salt - it's a different message if it's a significant portion of their revenue or relatively tiny), but the gesture in itself is good for sure, and hopefully other companies will follow suit as education on these topics is not very widespread

          6 votes
        2. [4]
          figment
          Link Parent
          woo hoo tax write off to boot

          woo hoo tax write off to boot

          3 votes
          1. [3]
            Pilgrim
            Link Parent
            A tax write-off is rarely a good motivator for a business' financial decision. At most they might view the donations as advertising (internally that is) and so the write-off is a bit of an added...

            A tax write-off is rarely a good motivator for a business' financial decision. At most they might view the donations as advertising (internally that is) and so the write-off is a bit of an added bonus since they wouldn't normally write-off part of their advertising budget. However, for that to make sense you'd have to believe that the $3M in donations is more effective than $3M in a direct ad buy, which I doubt is the case.

            For those that are not aware, a tax write-off would just reduce your income by that amount, so Gillette would claim $3M less in profit and so would save on the taxes they otherwise would have paid on that $3M. I wanted to point that out because I've found that people sometimes think a $3M tax write-off means you pay $3M less in taxes, which is not the case at all.

            6 votes
            1. [2]
              figment
              Link Parent
              My point is that a tax write-off isn't really putting any skin into the game

              My point is that a tax write-off isn't really putting any skin into the game

              1 vote
              1. Pilgrim
                Link Parent
                Sure it is. They still spent $3M. They just don't pay taxes on that same amount of income. I don't think you can make the statement that you did and really understand what a write-off is so I'll...

                Sure it is. They still spent $3M. They just don't pay taxes on that same amount of income.

                I don't think you can make the statement that you did and really understand what a write-off is so I'll try again. If you "write-off" $1000 and your income tax rate is say 20% (just making that up) then you're not paying $200 of taxes, but you still spent that $1000, so the net expense in that case is $800.

                Also, what would you have them do? Donate it and not write it off? How would their shareholders feel about that?

      3. [15]
        Gaywallet
        Link Parent
        Let's step aside from the idea that all corporations are only pursuing profits and nothing else and consider for a moment the possibility that the CEO of Gillette decided that they wanted to use...

        Let's step aside from the idea that all corporations are only pursuing profits and nothing else and consider for a moment the possibility that the CEO of Gillette decided that they wanted to use their position and company to portray a message they found important to them.

        How would they go about doing this, aside from releasing an ad like this? What ad would show an authentic belief?

        There is the very real and quite probable possibility that this ad is doing exactly what you said, but what if it is not? What if it really is trying to release a message to better the world? Would it not be a disservice to the message to write it off as "lol capitalism"?

        4 votes
        1. [2]
          Comment deleted by author
          Link Parent
          1. Algernon_Asimov
            Link Parent
            It might not change anyone's mind about toxic masculinity, but it might change someone's behaviour when they see toxic masculinity in action. There are a few calls to action in this advertisement:...

            If you honestly believe that this ad will change someone's mind about toxic masculinity, then I guess that's where our root disagreement would lie, because I don't believe the ad will achieve any meaningful effect towards that purpose.

            It might not change anyone's mind about toxic masculinity, but it might change someone's behaviour when they see toxic masculinity in action.

            There are a few calls to action in this advertisement:

            • Terry Crews saying "men need to hold other men accountable".

            • The man at the pool party calling out another man for telling a woman to "Smile, sweetie."

            • The man stopping another man from following a woman down the street.

            • The father saving the boy from his bullies.

            • The man at the barbecue stopping one boy bullying another.

            These are low-key everyday ways in which men can call out toxic masculinity when they see it.

            There are ads like this put out by some governments here in Australia:

            Stop it at the Start - Detention

            Stop it at the Start - Museum

            Respect Women: Call It Out (Bar)

            The goal isn't to change people's minds. It's to encourage people who already disapprove of toxic masculinity to change their behaviour - to either stop inadvertently supporting toxic masculinity, or to step forward and call it out when they see it. It's that "be the change you want to see in the world" concept in different packaging.

            You're probably right: this ad probably won't change people's minds about toxic masculinity. But it might change some people's behaviour, which is just as important.

            8 votes
        2. [13]
          elcuello
          Link Parent
          This is always a good exercise and I applaud you for trying. Why the fuck should we give them the benefit of the doubt? If they really wanted to make a sincere campaigne with valuble goals and not...

          Let's step aside from the idea that all corporations are only pursuing profits and nothing else and consider for a moment the possibility that the CEO of Gillette decided that they wanted to use their position and company to portray a message they found important to them.

          This is always a good exercise and I applaud you for trying. Why the fuck should we give them the benefit of the doubt? If they really wanted to make a sincere campaigne with valuble goals and not just a predictable money grab it's actually not that hard and that's why we know this is bullshit too. They just have to show that money isn't their prime goal but they can't so it's not going to happen. Then people will say but that's just capitalism because they have to make money that's just the way it works. Well yeah, but if you want to be taken serious then you have to show us that money isn't the most important thing you care about. I have nothing against the message Gillette are sending but I am not kidding myself and don't for a second believe they are sincere.

          3 votes
          1. [7]
            Gaywallet
            Link Parent
            Because if we don't, and they were truly trying to send a message, we do nothing but water it down and signal to the world that society disagrees with this message. Because even if we don't, we're...

            Why the fuck should we give them the benefit of the doubt?

            Because if we don't, and they were truly trying to send a message, we do nothing but water it down and signal to the world that society disagrees with this message.

            Because even if we don't, we're still watering down the message it's sending by dismissing it. Societal norms are reinforced by media - if we send the message not to do this, we aren't going to see this message again for a while and instead we're going to see more of the messages that contribute to the problem.

            4 votes
            1. [6]
              elcuello
              Link Parent
              But they're not and it's so obvious. Just to underline there's nothing wrong with what they are trying to say just the reasoning behind. I'm honestly kind of appalled of the thought that we as a...

              But they're not and it's so obvious. Just to underline there's nothing wrong with what they are trying to say just the reasoning behind. I'm honestly kind of appalled of the thought that we as a society apparently have a responsibility to corporations to validate their half hearted attempts to high jack a trending topic to make a quick buck. I don't think that signals that we disagree with the message at all just that we think they're being insincere and not in it for the long run. Time and time again so many corporations have laminated that profit is the only thing that matters so fuck them.
              I see nothing wrong with sending them a message that says if you really wanted to speak up about something serious and important then put some real money where your mouth is because that's the only language I know they truly speak. And show some heart and not just some emotional drivel.

              2 votes
              1. [5]
                Gaywallet
                Link Parent
                Are you claiming that all corporations only care about profit and that they can have no other motives? It's quite possible to state "this is not enough" or "I'm not convinced the motivations were...

                Time and time again so many corporations have laminated that profit is the only thing that matters

                Are you claiming that all corporations only care about profit and that they can have no other motives?

                I see nothing wrong with sending them a message that says if you really wanted to speak up about something serious and important then put some real money where your mouth is

                It's quite possible to state "this is not enough" or "I'm not convinced the motivations were truly altruistic", but that's not what is happening here. All I am hearing in this thread is "they only did it to make money". The message is watered down and lost in a conversation about altruism and "fuck capitalism". The message is dismissed and the tone is hostile.

                If the goal is to truly make society better, we need to be careful about how we respond. If our response is "fuck you" to a message we agree with but are unsure of the intentions it sends the response that even if you intend well, we will spit in your face for even implying that this is okay and that intrinsically gets tied to the message itself - it colors the message as unwanted which just contributes to the problem.

                4 votes
                1. [2]
                  iiv
                  Link Parent
                  Yes. The sole purpose of a corporation is to maximize return on investment to shareholders.

                  all corporations only care about profit and that they can have no other motives?

                  Yes. The sole purpose of a corporation is to maximize return on investment to shareholders.

                  4 votes
                  1. Gaywallet
                    Link Parent
                    okay lol lets just ignore that people create companies for a variety of reasons, companies can be privately held, and companies are run by people and people may have ulterior motives to profit.

                    okay lol lets just ignore that people create companies for a variety of reasons, companies can be privately held, and companies are run by people and people may have ulterior motives to profit.

                2. [2]
                  elcuello
                  Link Parent
                  I get what your saying I just don't agree. Yes, the message might get watered down but who's fault is that? I blame the people trying to monetize a pretty serious problem with cheap effects and...

                  I get what your saying I just don't agree. Yes, the message might get watered down but who's fault is that? I blame the people trying to monetize a pretty serious problem with cheap effects and emotional porn and that's why I say fuck them. No, we don't meed these people to make society better but we need to tell these people that every little hot topic isn't theirs to water down to a pathetic commercial. I really think you're giving these people way too much credit.

                  2 votes
                  1. Gaywallet
                    Link Parent
                    This is an assumption. We work to the logic of what we should do by assuming that someone isn't just trying to monetize a problem, because that perspective is dismissed when assuming they are....

                    I blame the people trying to monetize a pretty serious problem

                    This is an assumption. We work to the logic of what we should do by assuming that someone isn't just trying to monetize a problem, because that perspective is dismissed when assuming they are.

                    No, we don't meed these people to make society better

                    Evidence points to the contrary. These are still problems today. If someone had been working on this message, they probably wouldn't be problems anymore or at the least they would be reduced in magnitude.

                    I really think you're giving these people way too much credit.

                    And I think you're letting your emotions cloud your judgement. There's a very real possibility someone wanted to send a social message and do some good. You're not even considering this as a possibility despite neither of us having any true insight into the company or the motivations behind this ad buy.

          2. [5]
            Pilgrim
            Link Parent
            I'd point out that publicly-owned companies are beholden to their shareholders legally to make money. I find the idea that you or @Rez are proposing that they should have some other motivation...

            They just have to show that money isn't their prime goal but they can't so it's not going to happen

            I'd point out that publicly-owned companies are beholden to their shareholders legally to make money. I find the idea that you or @Rez are proposing that they should have some other motivation interesting given the strong support that capitalism tends to get from the Right.

            2 votes
            1. [4]
              elcuello
              Link Parent
              I know that and I know that it may be wishful thinking on my part.

              I know that and I know that it may be wishful thinking on my part.

              1. [3]
                Pilgrim
                Link Parent
                Seems like a futile thing to wish that a dog is a cat when it's always going to be a dog

                Seems like a futile thing to wish that a dog is a cat when it's always going to be a dog

                1. [2]
                  elcuello
                  Link Parent
                  Well in this case the dog posses as a cat and wants to be treated like a cat so unless they genuinely are a cat I don't see the point of taking them serious.

                  Well in this case the dog posses as a cat and wants to be treated like a cat so unless they genuinely are a cat I don't see the point of taking them serious.

                  1. Pilgrim
                    Link Parent
                    So would your preference be that no companies give to charities? That would seem to be the implication of what you've been saying.

                    So would your preference be that no companies give to charities? That would seem to be the implication of what you've been saying.

    3. [50]
      Algernon_Asimov
      Link Parent
      I get it. I don't agree with it, but I get it. There are men who hold strong opinions about what being a man means and about what masculinity is. And these men feel threatened by the ongoing...

      I really do not get the backlash here.

      I get it. I don't agree with it, but I get it.

      There are men who hold strong opinions about what being a man means and about what masculinity is. And these men feel threatened by the ongoing changes in the world which are removing straight white men from their privileged position and placing them alongside other demographics as equals. They see messages like the one in this advertisement as attacks on them - personally and as part of a group. These messages directly say that the behaviour these men believe in is wrong... and noone likes being told they're wrong. So, like a lot of people do when they feel threatened, they counter-attack.

      19 votes
      1. [18]
        Gaywallet
        Link Parent
        Sorry but if you define yourself or your gender by behavior that negatively effects others, you're doing it wrong. I have zero sympathy for someone who thinks bullying is a part of "being a man"...

        Sorry but if you define yourself or your gender by behavior that negatively effects others, you're doing it wrong. I have zero sympathy for someone who thinks bullying is a part of "being a man" just like I have zero sympathy for someone who thinks backstabbing is part of "being a woman".

        We should never put bad behavior on a pedestal or excuse it. There are plenty of other "manly" things that I'm sure these individuals will agree with. Putting on a strong face in spite of difficult circumstances and providing for your family, for example. That's not being attacked here, because it's good behavior.

        17 votes
        1. [12]
          Catt
          Link Parent
          I agree with what you've written, but I believe the issue is that they don't see it as negative. It's not "bullying", it's being "strong".

          I agree with what you've written, but I believe the issue is that they don't see it as negative. It's not "bullying", it's being "strong".

          16 votes
          1. [11]
            Gaywallet
            Link Parent
            Yeah and raping a woman is just being assertive. 🙄 There is no strength in harming others simply because they do not share your viewpoint, ideals, or because it makes you feel better about yourself.

            Yeah and raping a woman is just being assertive. 🙄

            There is no strength in harming others simply because they do not share your viewpoint, ideals, or because it makes you feel better about yourself.

            6 votes
            1. [10]
              Hypersapien
              Link Parent
              Catt isn't excusing their behavior, but just trying to explain it. No one is suggesting we should have compassion for the people complaining about the ad, but trying to understand them is...

              Catt isn't excusing their behavior, but just trying to explain it. No one is suggesting we should have compassion for the people complaining about the ad, but trying to understand them is important so we can better figure out how to defuse these attitudes.

              20 votes
              1. [9]
                Gaywallet
                Link Parent
                I understand, it was just a bit triggering to leave it up without explaining why it's wrong, in case someone who thinks that way came by and thought it was a valid "excuse".

                I understand, it was just a bit triggering to leave it up without explaining why it's wrong, in case someone who thinks that way came by and thought it was a valid "excuse".

                2 votes
                1. [4]
                  Catt
                  Link Parent
                  I am pretty tired so hopefully this makes sense. I am not defending or excusing this toxic behaviour, but honestly watching the ad, I would not have seen an issue with every scenario shown. Again,...

                  I am pretty tired so hopefully this makes sense. I am not defending or excusing this toxic behaviour, but honestly watching the ad, I would not have seen an issue with every scenario shown. Again, not defending or excusing, but pointing out that maybe because I grew up with a very engrained idea of what it was to be a man (or woman), I want to recognized that I definitely contributed to toxic masculinity (and femininity). For example, the two kids beating on each other in the yard, honestly I saw two kids playing. I don't think of myself as a bad person, so when these messages are sent, I don't think of myself as the intended audience. But I should. So I don't think it's helpful equating rapist to anyone that contributes to toxic masculinity.

                  12 votes
                  1. [2]
                    Algernon_Asimov
                    Link Parent
                    Here are a few questions that might help you see this differently: What if that had been two girls beating on each other? Would you still see it as two kids playing? What if it had been a boy...

                    For example, the two kids beating on each other in the yard, honestly I saw two kids playing.

                    Here are a few questions that might help you see this differently:

                    • What if that had been two girls beating on each other? Would you still see it as two kids playing?

                    • What if it had been a boy beating on a girl? Would you still see it as two kids playing?

                    • Why does "playing" even include violence in the first place? Is it okay to "play" at beating up another person?

                    There's a strong culture that boys are expected to be violent when they play because "boys will be boys", but girls are not expected to be violent when they play. This just reinforces the idea that men are supposed to be violent, while women are not.

                    And we've all grown up in that culture. We're blind to it in many ways, which is why a message like this is important to point out what we normally don't see.

                    12 votes
                    1. Catt
                      Link Parent
                      Those are really good questions. I do try to apply them to my own writings and things I read and see. For me, I think the bigger issue is that there are toxic traits that I can't help but feel are...

                      Those are really good questions. I do try to apply them to my own writings and things I read and see. For me, I think the bigger issue is that there are toxic traits that I can't help but feel are "good" too. Penting up emotions is not mentally healthy, but it's guaranteed that I've never cried at work. I know lots of people who've broken down at work or in public and just have issues gaining respect from their peers. Of course, recognizing both my own feelings and that of others as valid is something I am now actively working on, but I'm sure there's lots more in my blindspot.

                      4 votes
                  2. Gaywallet
                    Link Parent
                    Well, I think that one is a lot more nuanced than the guy grabbing the woman's ass. Apologies I may have gone overboard because I was upset.

                    For example, the two kids beating on each other in the yard, honestly I saw two kids playing.

                    Well, I think that one is a lot more nuanced than the guy grabbing the woman's ass.

                    So I don't think it's helpful equating rapist to anyone that contributes to toxic masculinity.

                    Apologies I may have gone overboard because I was upset.

                    6 votes
                2. [4]
                  SunSpotter
                  Link Parent
                  Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but I really hope there's not many people on Tildes that would find that a valid excuse. I'm only here because I got tired of all the toxic personalities on...

                  Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but I really hope there's not many people on Tildes that would find that a valid excuse. I'm only here because I got tired of all the toxic personalities on Reddit, and I'd hate to feel like Tildes suffers from the same problem.

                  9 votes
                  1. [3]
                    Gaywallet
                    Link Parent
                    I mean, if this thread is any indicator, they are here.

                    I mean, if this thread is any indicator, they are here.

                    4 votes
                    1. [2]
                      Adys
                      Link Parent
                      I'm reading this thread every way I can and the only toxic behaviour I personally see is coming from you; you keep asserting that others are excusing behaviour when all they are doing is...

                      I'm reading this thread every way I can and the only toxic behaviour I personally see is coming from you; you keep asserting that others are excusing behaviour when all they are doing is explaining a mindset. Nobody here is excusing toxic masculinity. (If I missed it, please do link it to me)

                      Being able to dissociate the two, discuss one without excusing it, etc is a critical function of any forum where these discussions will happen. So please, do some introspection here, I'm saying this as nicely as possible.

                      17 votes
                      1. Gaywallet
                        (edited )
                        Link Parent
                        I didn't mean this comment thread, I meant other places in this post. Apologies for the wording. This comment thread has been civil.

                        I didn't mean this comment thread, I meant other places in this post. Apologies for the wording. This comment thread has been civil.

                        5 votes
        2. [5]
          unknown user
          Link Parent
          Youre looking at it backwards. Nobody's "defining their identity", men are born into this sort of identity, and things like bullying are innate tools of communities to punish who is a heretic to...

          Sorry but if you define yourself or your gender by behavior that negatively effects others, you're doing it wrong. I have zero sympathy for someone who thinks bullying is a part of "being a man" just like I have zero sympathy for someone who thinks backstabbing is part of "being a woman".

          Youre looking at it backwards. Nobody's "defining their identity", men are born into this sort of identity, and things like bullying are innate tools of communities to punish who is a heretic to such identity. Not that I try to imply it can't change (it will, it must, and it is destined to), but to think that these men are arriving at these lifestyles via thinking and conscious decisions is simply wrong.

          I am too sleepy to elaborate on this, but I will note that I think things like toxic masculinity are the negative effects of patriarchy on males. I came to hold that patriarchy is not embodies by men, it is a social institution that confines both genders to certain sets of stereotypes, and people need to become conscious of this and of themselves to change.

          I watched the ad, and it's nice, but it's also just too little. Only horrible people cat call or watch kids fight or partake in sexual offence. An ad like this will not reach them. In circles of these people, badness is a badge of honour. A person who's horrible enough to grope an unwilling person will not be affected by this. Also, these behaviours are extreme and not the more common versions of toxic masculinity at all. A more common instance of it is shaming a man for not being a womanizer, for example. Making a man's reservedness in relationships into a recurrent joke, or the search for emotional intimacy into a vulnerability. Or the incredibly prevalent idea that most men are ugly, and that male body, aesthetically, is ugly. Or the absurd stigma around men wearing more expressive items or grooming more thab their beard and their genitals. I am a male and have the unibrow, and that I remove it with tweezers and not let it grow is at times stigmatized, and sometimes I have been "accused" of being gay (I happen to be a heterosexual male). Or that I trim my body hair (as a middle eastern guy, I have quite a bit of it). These are just as important as those extreme cases. And the bits about grooming anf self care is quite a good fit for Gilette. The ad is not good per se, but I am a believer in slow gradual change over revolutions, for most people are incapable of the truly honest reflection that'd require. But, instead of this, if toxic masculinity was attacked from more sides than it's quite obvious relation to outright violence and sexual offence, and made unpopular, both in fashion, art and otherwise, that'd be more helpful.

          My two cents. I did not read about the backlash, I cannot take the random acts of idiocy of random Twitter users, so I am sorry if I am missing anything because of that.

          14 votes
          1. [2]
            papasquat
            Link Parent
            I think that this is the accepted academic view. It's called patriarchy because it puts men in a privileged role over women generally, not because it's enforced or even because it was created by...

            I came to hold that patriarchy is not embodies by men, it is a social institution that confines both genders to certain sets of stereotypes, and people need to become conscious of this and of themselves to change.

            I think that this is the accepted academic view. It's called patriarchy because it puts men in a privileged role over women generally, not because it's enforced or even because it was created by men.
            When a woman tells a guy to "man up" and settle down already, she's enforcing the patriarchy. When a woman bullies a guy for not acting masculine enough, she's enforcing the patriarchy, and when a woman tells another woman she's a slut because of what she's wearing or who she has sex with, she's enforcing the patriarchy. It's a societal problem, not a men problem; although to be fair, men have historically been the perpetrators of the majority of the most extreme and egregious tendencies that it encourages.

            7 votes
            1. unknown user
              Link Parent
              Thanks, that's nice to learn! I'm quite ignorant of feminist philosophy and academics, generally judge based off of what I see on the news. That's a major problem with me, I'm aware, but lack the...

              Thanks, that's nice to learn! I'm quite ignorant of feminist philosophy and academics, generally judge based off of what I see on the news. That's a major problem with me, I'm aware, but lack the time to really fix that for the coming bunch of months.

              I'd totally fancy a serious intro / overview of feminist theory in the context of it's diversity and history, btw. If anybody has suggestions, I'd really appreciate if you could tell me a few!

              2 votes
          2. [2]
            elcuello
            Link Parent
            Very good points especially about the more common instances of toxic masculinity which are the so important. I'm also glad you just ignored the backlash and twitter bullshit - we need to do this more.

            Very good points especially about the more common instances of toxic masculinity which are the so important. I'm also glad you just ignored the backlash and twitter bullshit - we need to do this more.

            4 votes
            1. unknown user
              Link Parent
              Thanks! I am more than glad to not use Twitter. The platform is made for this sort of absurd "old man yelling at cloud" style interactions. I'm kinda using Mastodon, but even there I quite quickly...

              Thanks! I am more than glad to not use Twitter. The platform is made for this sort of absurd "old man yelling at cloud" style interactions.

              I'm kinda using Mastodon, but even there I quite quickly learned to stay away from the global timeline (being on the SDF instance, the local timeline is fine, mostly hackers babbling hacky stuff). I wanted to use Twitter for following local events news from a few groups and theatres & stuff, but none of them are about announcing new stuff. It's constant publishing, same thing many times plus unrelated BS.

              Both platforms have a totally useless character limit on your messages which obstructs constructive communication. Mastodon should really remove it, you write three proper sentences and it's over the limit. The meaningless limit forces one into laconic self-expression, which is almost always misunderstood.

              3 votes
      2. [4]
        nothis
        Link Parent
        What I don't get is that the ad still shows fairly specific examples of men being assholes. Like, it's not about how you can't drink beer and watch football or whatever. It's very, very,...

        There are men who hold strong opinions about what being a man means and about what masculinity is.

        What I don't get is that the ad still shows fairly specific examples of men being assholes. Like, it's not about how you can't drink beer and watch football or whatever. It's very, very, specifically about bullying people, being inappropriate towards women, etc. So I don't get the excuse that this is "an attack on men" when it's, in fact, a very specific attack on very specific behavior.

        8 votes
        1. [2]
          Algernon_Asimov
          Link Parent
          You have to stop looking at this from your point of view, and look at it from their point of view. They think differently than you do. They believe that men are aggressors - violently towards...

          You have to stop looking at this from your point of view, and look at it from their point of view. They think differently than you do.

          They believe that men are aggressors - violently towards other men and sexually towards women. They believe this is natural and healthy behaviour for men.

          So, when an advertisement like this starts criticising so-called natural and healthy male behaviour, and telling men they need to behave more like stereotypical women, those certain men see this as an attack on themselves and their beliefs and masculinity as a while.

          Remember: those people are different to you. They do not think like you. You have one set of values and beliefs because you were raised a certain way and taught certain things. They have another set of values and beliefs because they were raised a different way and taught different things.

          8 votes
          1. papasquat
            Link Parent
            This is why I hate naturalistic arguments. They're always the weakest, flimsiest appeals to emotion. Sure, (some) vegetables are natural. That's not why you should eat them though. You should eat...

            This is why I hate naturalistic arguments. They're always the weakest, flimsiest appeals to emotion. Sure, (some) vegetables are natural. That's not why you should eat them though. You should eat them because they're good for you.
            Murder is natural. Rape is natural. Dying of brutality, famine, disease and poisoning are all natural as well.
            Flying in planes, using modern medicine, and wearing clothing are all "unnatural". Saying something is natural says absolutely zero about its morality or whether you should do it or not.

            7 votes
        2. Hypersapien
          Link Parent
          Because the people complaining view bullying and (what we see as) inappropriate behavior towards women as part of what defines a man. They, ridiculously, view any attempt to stop these behaviors...

          Because the people complaining view bullying and (what we see as) inappropriate behavior towards women as part of what defines a man. They, ridiculously, view any attempt to stop these behaviors as an attempt to "feminize" men.

          6 votes
      3. [26]
        FreakingPenguin
        Link Parent
        Some of the outrage can be partially explained by Gilette showing unconditional support for the #MeToo movement. Don't get me wrong, it has done wonderful things and given victims a voice. But...

        Some of the outrage can be partially explained by Gilette showing unconditional support for the #MeToo movement. Don't get me wrong, it has done wonderful things and given victims a voice. But there are justified concerns that it can ruin someone's reputation by baseless accusations. The thinking goes that a career built up over a lifetime can be torn down in an instant, solely by someone deciding to accuse a man of sexual harrassment, regardless of it its true. The court of public opinion does not care about innocent until proven guilty, and we would do well to consider that.

        5 votes
        1. [17]
          dubteedub
          Link Parent
          Do you have any examples of this being true? The only one that I think even comes close is the Aziz Ansari hitjob in babe.net that no one gave any real credence too and was widely reported as not...

          The thinking goes that a career built up over a lifetime can be torn down in an instant, solely by someone deciding to accuse a man of sexual harassment, regardless of it its true.

          Do you have any examples of this being true? The only one that I think even comes close is the Aziz Ansari hitjob in babe.net that no one gave any real credence too and was widely reported as not being a valid accusation.

          I mean Louis CK for years pulled his dick out in front of woman and masturbated in front of them and he is back doing comedy sets. It is not like most of these guys are now destitute or even without work in many cases.

          10 votes
          1. [11]
            Algernon_Asimov
            Link Parent
            Kevin Spacey (actor) lost a high-paying steady job in a high-rating television series, because of an accusation of sexual assault which has not been tested in court. R Kelly (rapper) has had some...

            a career built up over a lifetime can be torn down in an instant, solely by someone deciding to accuse a man of sexual harassment, regardless of it its true.

            Do you have any examples of this being true?

            Kevin Spacey (actor) lost a high-paying steady job in a high-rating television series, because of an accusation of sexual assault which has not been tested in court.

            R Kelly (rapper) has had some of his work pulled off streaming services by artists who collaborated with him on those songs, because of accusations of sexual assault which have not been tested in court.

            Craig McLachlan (actor) was removed from his lead role in an Australian television series, because of an accusation of sexual assault which has not been tested in court.

            Harvey Weinstein (movie producer) has been sacked from a number of high-profile professional organisations, because of accusations of sexual assault which have not been tested in court.

            A lot of men have been judged guilty without being convicted of any crime.

            I'm not supporting those men: I'm saying that they're not being presumed innocent until proven guilty.

            9 votes
            1. [6]
              papasquat
              Link Parent
              The thing about being fired or blacklisted is that it rightly has a much lower standard of evidence than a criminal case. In the vast, vast majority of cases like this, you will never be able to...

              The thing about being fired or blacklisted is that it rightly has a much lower standard of evidence than a criminal case.

              In the vast, vast majority of cases like this, you will never be able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that it happened. That's not because it didn't happen, it's because the nature of the crime is such that it tends to leave very little evidence. Sexual assault typically happens in private with two people, both of whom are impartial. So going to court would prove nothing, because these guys would never be found guilty. It's an unreasonable standard to set.

              If an employer hears an accusation which they thing is credible, they should by all means fire the guy. The standard of evidence is far, far lower. If I'm about to hire a guy and a few people tell me he smokes crack every day, and I look into it a bit, and it seems like that could be true, I'm not going to hire the guy. Is that unfair to him? I don't know, maybe. My job isn't really to be fair though, my job is to prevent crackheads from working in my office.

              Are some of these people being blacklisted without proper background research? I don't know, maybe, I haven't really looked at all these cases. It's not really the job of the casting director to launch a CSI investigation about all of these claims though. Their job is to provide the right person for the job and prevent all the other workers at that job from experiencing a hostile work environment. If there are enough credible people saying the guy is a scumbag, he's not going to get hired, and that's ok in my book.

              7 votes
              1. [3]
                JamesTeaKirk
                Link Parent
                That's fine but don't be surprised that men across the spectrum feel threatened by these attitudes, even if they agree with the intentions of said attitudes.

                That's fine but don't be surprised that men across the spectrum feel threatened by these attitudes, even if they agree with the intentions of said attitudes.

                3 votes
                1. [2]
                  papasquat
                  Link Parent
                  That's ok, because what's the alternative? You're not allowed to fire someone unless they're found guilty in a criminal court? That would be an obvious breach of rights. As unfair as it can be...

                  That's ok, because what's the alternative? You're not allowed to fire someone unless they're found guilty in a criminal court? That would be an obvious breach of rights.
                  As unfair as it can be sometimes, people aren't entitled to being successful and famous, even successful famous people.

                  2 votes
                  1. JamesTeaKirk
                    Link Parent
                    I would say the alternative is a case-by-case happy medium. I think people are entitled to benefit of the doubt, especially when It concerns tearing down a career and probably personal life. I'm...

                    I would say the alternative is a case-by-case happy medium. I think people are entitled to benefit of the doubt, especially when It concerns tearing down a career and probably personal life. I'm not just talking about privelged people, I'm talking about anyone.

                    2 votes
              2. [2]
                Algernon_Asimov
                (edited )
                Link Parent
                That wasn't the question I was answering, though. The question was "Do you have any examples of a career being torn down in an instant, solely by someone deciding to accuse a man of sexual...

                The thing about being fired or blacklisted is that it rightly has a much lower standard of evidence than a criminal case.

                That wasn't the question I was answering, though. The question was "Do you have any examples of a career being torn down in an instant, solely by someone deciding to accuse a man of sexual harassment?" So I provided examples of this. Right or wrong, this has happened, and I provided examples. I wasn't defending or attacking the practice, merely showing that it happens.


                However... seeing as you've decided to start a different discussion...

                Let's assume you have a job. Let's assume a woman you work with goes to a newspaper (not your boss!) and accuses you of sexually harassing her. Your boss reads the paper, and sees her accusation. Should your boss fire you on the basis of that article?

                Because that's what happened to those men. There was no internal investigation to determine the credibility of the accusation. There was no police investigation to obtain evidence for the accusation. A woman went to a reporter, accused a man of sexual assault, and the man was fired on the basis of that.

                Would you be okay with that happening to you? Or would you like your boss to make at least a token attempt to determine whether you're guilty before they fire you?

                If I'm about to hire a guy and a few people tell me he smokes crack every day, and I look into it a bit, and it seems like that could be true, I'm not going to hire the guy. Is that unfair to him? I don't know, maybe. My job isn't really to be fair though, my job is to prevent crackheads from working in my office.

                Would you fire an existing employee on the basis of these rumours?


                EDIT TO ADD:

                There is a larger issue here. The legal system in our western society has a presumption of innocence. People are supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. If we start acting on mere accusations without proof, we are undermining our own legal system.

                3 votes
                1. papasquat
                  Link Parent
                  That's a generalization. I know in some of these cases, there had been investigations by well respected journalists and internal investigations. Regarding your second point, there was no police...

                  Because that's what happened to those men. There was no internal investigation to determine the credibility of the accusation. There was no police investigation to obtain evidence for the accusation. A woman went to a reporter, accused a man of sexual assault, and the man was fired on the basis of that.

                  That's a generalization. I know in some of these cases, there had been investigations by well respected journalists and internal investigations. Regarding your second point, there was no police investigation in most of these cases because they were outside of the statute of limitations, or the victims knew there was virtually no point in bringing it to criminal proceedings since there was a very remote chance of a guilty verdict based on the nature of the events.
                  You have to realize that in almost all of these cases, especially in the entertainment industry, there wasn't some concerted, overarching mandate that these people get blacklisted. It was individual production companies, casting directors, and content producers deciding on their own that there was too many credible accusations against someone.
                  Would I be ok with it happening to me? No, of course not. That doesn't mean that these people didn't make the right decision though.

                  If I was an investor thinking of funding a new movie, I would absolutely not give it to Harvey Weinstein, lack of criminal proceedings be damned. The guy isn't entitled to my money or a job, and every person who gets fired for negative allegations certainly isn't entitled to a criminal trial before that happens.

                  Regarding your edit, you're once again conflating standards of evidence in criminal proceedings to individual judgements of character made by people. People don't, and shouldn't be required to have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to judge someone's character. If I invite someone over to my house and he shits on my floor and throws trash at my wife, I'm not going to have a court case to determine whether he's a dickhead or not. I'm just going to not invite him back to my home.

                  2 votes
            2. [3]
              unknown user
              Link Parent
              Wrinstein, picking him out b/c it is the only case I know of among these, is most probably guilty as heck, but personally I find it quite disturbing that all these accusations are made in public...

              Wrinstein, picking him out b/c it is the only case I know of among these, is most probably guilty as heck, but personally I find it quite disturbing that all these accusations are made in public and the decisions are made by the masses, by the media and by thr employers. That's primitive in the most fundamental sense of the word.

              5 votes
              1. [2]
                hungariantoast
                Link Parent
                This is, I think, going to be the biggest hurdle for sexual assault awareness to get over. Social media and word of mouth are by far the greatest methods of transporting accusations and forming...

                That's primitive in the most fundamental sense of the word.

                This is, I think, going to be the biggest hurdle for sexual assault awareness to get over.

                Social media and word of mouth are by far the greatest methods of transporting accusations and forming opinions and a mob mentality is very easily formed through these mediums. The decisions made by people that cause ramifications for the accused are made under precarious conditions, much as they would have been in more primitive times. The medium of the conveyance of opinions is largely the only thing that has changed.

                It's a human problem, amplified by our ability to communicate instantly, anywhere. I'm not sure how to solve it.

                That isn't to say that the accuser and potential victim should not come forward and bring forth their accusations, it just means that the situation is always going to be ugly.

                2 votes
                1. Deimos
                  Link Parent
                  This is one of my favorite articles about this topic: We live in fear of the online mobs Probably my favorite section:

                  This is one of my favorite articles about this topic: We live in fear of the online mobs

                  Probably my favorite section:

                  We now effectively live in a forager band filled with people we don’t know. It’s like the world’s biggest small town, replete with all the things that mid-century writers hated about small-town life: the constant gossip, the prying into your neighbor’s business, the small quarrels that blow up into lifelong feuds. We’ve replicated all of the worst features of those communities without any of the saving graces, like the mercy that one human being naturally offers another when you’re face to face and can see their suffering.

                  And, of course, you can’t move away. There’s only one internet, and we’re all stuck here for the rest of our lives.

                  4 votes
            3. dubteedub
              Link Parent
              Kevin Spacey is still a millionaire and is planning his comeback right now. His life is not ruined. Kevin Spacey is plotting a comeback — and ‘is still getting acting offers’ R Kelly is still a...

              Kevin Spacey is still a millionaire and is planning his comeback right now.

              His life is not ruined.

              Kevin Spacey is plotting a comeback — and ‘is still getting acting offers’

              R Kelly is still a millionaire making tons of money off streaming services despite a few artosts dropping him. His accusations also go back years and years and despite that has still continued to have a successful career.
              His life is not ruined.

              Craig and Harvey Weinstein are also plenty rich and also not in jail. There lives have not been ruined.

              Louis CK and others have shown its plenty easy to wait a bit for the public to forget about there actions accusations and then resune their work.

              2 votes
          2. [5]
            FreakingPenguin
            Link Parent
            Here's an article about a Swedish man who committed suicide after facing repeated accusations of sexual harrassment (and worse). The city had later done an investigation into these claims and...

            Here's an article about a Swedish man who committed suicide after facing repeated accusations of sexual harrassment (and worse). The city had later done an investigation into these claims and "found no evidence of sexual misconduct by Fredriksson".

            It's also apparently common enough for a law firm to dedicate part of their website to it. (Of course, that deals with officially being accused of the crime alongside a public accusation.)

            In regards to the public's reaction to this video, 57% of adults have said that the "#MeToo movement has made them equally concerned for young men facing false accusations".

            Edit: )

            6 votes
            1. [3]
              dubteedub
              (edited )
              Link Parent
              I don't think you can consider this to be a significant issue if the best examples is one guy from Sweden who I would assume that >90% of people who support the #metoo movement have never heard of...

              I don't think you can consider this to be a significant issue if the best examples is one guy from Sweden who I would assume that >90% of people who support the #metoo movement have never heard of and some law firm trying to hijack some outrage to gain clicks to their site.

              5 votes
              1. [2]
                FreakingPenguin
                (edited )
                Link Parent
                Source. Keep in mind this is for official police reports. With social media, where there's far lower barriers and a disconnect with reality, it is very very hard to argue that this would be lower....

                4% of cases of sexual violence reported to the UK police are found or suspected to be false. Studies carried out in Europe and in the US indicate rates of between 2% and 6%.

                Source. Keep in mind this is for official police reports. With social media, where there's far lower barriers and a disconnect with reality, it is very very hard to argue that this would be lower.

                You asked for an example of this happening. I gave a well documented and confirmed example where someone's livelihood was destroyed by repeated false sexual harassment claims from multiple people, and you say that's not enough? How many more do you think go unreported? Not everyone is a famous theater director. The ball is in your court, not mine.

                And besides, my original comment is talking about the public's perception and why it would cause such a backlash. I've shown that 57% of adults have reservations about the #MeToo movement, and as such why they might have similar reservations about a commercial that paints it in a positive light without acknowledging the potential pitfalls.

                Edit: Phrasing. I can never seem to type these right first try.

                4 votes
                1. dubteedub
                  (edited )
                  Link Parent
                  So that source you linked has a lot of issues with it and that the "no crime" distinction is not very clear. Here are a couple responses to that Home study specifically. What kind of person makes...

                  So that source you linked has a lot of issues with it and that the "no crime" distinction is not very clear. Here are a couple responses to that Home study specifically.

                  Furthermore, in the most detailed study ever conducted of sexual assault reports to police, undertaken for the British Home Office in the early 2000s, out of 216 complaints that were classified as false, only 126 had even gotten to the stage where the accuser lodged a formal complaint. Only 39 complainants named a suspect. Only six cases led to an arrest, and only two led to charges being brought before they were ultimately deemed false.

                  So from your study that cites 216 cases as part of that 4% range, the actual number of arrests was just 6. And the actual charges that were false was only 2.

                  That brings the stats down to somewhere between .1% and .03%.

                  Now you may ask why there were so many cases that were included in that 216 number, well let me tell you!

                  It’s important to recognise that even official statistics on false reporting can and have been inflated by other factors. Sometimes police record cases as “no crime” or “unfounded”. This can happen when it’s difficult to attain sufficient corroborating evidence. There is, however, a big difference between the inability to demonstrate in court that an offence has happened and claiming that these cases are false. These sorts of cases have nevertheless been conflated with false allegations.

                  False allegations have also been conflated with other kinds sexual violence complaints that have been logged as “no crime”. For example, sometimes people contact the police because they are worried that a crime might have been committed. Sometimes these concerns are raised with the police by a third party (a friend, relative or partner). Sometimes people contact the police because they have no memory of a period of time and are worried something may have been done to them. People often express relief when the results of medical examinations show no evidence of assault. These are not cases of false allegation. Despite this, there hasn’t always been a way of distinguishing these cases from false complaints when logging incidents as “no crime”.

                  So sometimes there was not enough evidence, sometimes it was just informal complaints, they may fear having to face their accuser again and try and move on, they may not want to relive the trauma, they may fear the hate they will get from folks that think they are lying, etc.

                  There are a huge range of issues that may cause that distinction of "no crime", however, that doesn't mean an assault or crime was not committed.

                  Now let's respond to the overall fear of "false rape / assault / harassment" accusations. I will start by saying, yes the cases where this happens are horrible, I hate them, and hate that it leads to a stigma that keeps actual victims from coming forward.

                  I will just add that the fear of false accusations is blown completely out of proportion online.

                  So that brings the number of actual men affected by this to be much much lower.

                  This also leaves out cases of rape / harassment that are unreported, which is very high. Sexual assaults are among the most under reported form of crime: a majority of rapes, attempted rapes, and other sexual assaults go unreported.

                  Estimates vary, but researchers have concluded that the percentage of rapes reported to formal agencies is “quite low, ranging from 5–33%.” This would suggest that the pool of victims in position to make credible claims is much larger than the pool of people included in analyses of false reporting.

                  7 votes
            2. TheJorro
              Link Parent
              People have been getting their lives ruined by false accusations long before #MeToo. I don't know why #MeToo is now the thing to blame when it happens now. Accusations and false claims are not the...

              People have been getting their lives ruined by false accusations long before #MeToo. I don't know why #MeToo is now the thing to blame when it happens now. Accusations and false claims are not the territory of the #MeToo movement at all, and ascribing them to it is a deliberate corruption of what the movement is actually about.

              One small legal outfit has a webpage advertisement about it? Big whoop. You'll find all sorts of wild shit if you take a survey of every law firm's website in the US. This isn't a good citation—you can find all sorts of wild shit in US legal firm webpages. And what does this have to do with invalidating the #MeToo movement? That page is basically just an ad for legal defense services, it's not pointing to it being a common occurrence or an actual result of the #MeToo movement. It's just bringing up the name for what basically amounts to marketing purposes.

              Also, that poll isn't good enough for the amount you're leaning on it. It's more interested in finding the difference between GOP voters and Dem voters, based on a sample size that is significantly smaller than the numbers the Gilette video is courting for likes, dislikes, and total views. And that's not even getting into the context of the poll, which is explicitly done in the post-Kavanaugh media blitz that was intentionally created to stir the sentiments of "but it could be false!"—which explains why the poll is so interested in tracking specifically how GOP members responded.

              4 votes
        2. [5]
          Gaywallet
          Link Parent
          Can you point out when in the ad it does this? I'm struggling to find this "unconditional support" but maybe I'm just missing it.

          Gilette showing unconditional support for the #MeToo movement

          Can you point out when in the ad it does this? I'm struggling to find this "unconditional support" but maybe I'm just missing it.

          6 votes
          1. [4]
            FreakingPenguin
            Link Parent
            The opening of the ad starts with fictional covering of a #MeToo movement. It's also being reported as supportive of #MeToo pretty much everywhere. (Business Insider, Forbes, WSJ) Maybe Gilette...

            The opening of the ad starts with fictional covering of a #MeToo movement. It's also being reported as supportive of #MeToo pretty much everywhere. (Business Insider, Forbes, WSJ) Maybe Gilette hadn't intended to link themselves so closely with #MeToo, but starting with a newscast and being reported as such does just that.

            Edit: ()

            6 votes
            1. [3]
              Gaywallet
              Link Parent
              So simply mentioning the movement is "unconditional support"?

              So simply mentioning the movement is "unconditional support"?

              7 votes
              1. [2]
                FreakingPenguin
                Link Parent
                It's not like they simply namedropped #MeToo partway through. Their commercial started out with it. This shows Gilette views it as a core part of the message their trying to get across.

                It's not like they simply namedropped #MeToo partway through. Their commercial started out with it. This shows Gilette views it as a core part of the message their trying to get across.

                9 votes
                1. Gaywallet
                  (edited )
                  Link Parent
                  It was in the beginning when a few men were staring contemplatively into a mirror with expressions on their face showing that they were upset. It was stated alongside other troubling "men"...

                  It was in the beginning when a few men were staring contemplatively into a mirror with expressions on their face showing that they were upset. It was stated alongside other troubling "men" behavior such as bullying (clearly framed as newscasters reporting on these troubling behaviors, I might add).

                  Just because there are some bad actors out there who use the #metoo movement maliciously doesn't mean that it's supporting them; I'm sure there are bad actors out there who claim they are being bullied when they are not. Why are we singling out #metoo?

                  Furthermore, why is the simple fact of it being mentioned early in the ad make it a 'core message'? The rest of the ad clearly explains (at least to me) that it's about poor behavior - all of the kinds of poor behavior are quite literally acted out in front of the viewers eyes over the course of the ad. The behavior that metoo is referring to expounded upon by men cat calling women, slapping asses, etc. One of the instances of bullying, for example, is just two kids fighting during a barbecue - it's not clear that bullying is going on, but a physical altercation is bad behavior that is thought about or associated loosely with the term bullying. Can not #metoo be used to make the viewer think about what kind of behavior shouldn't be done? Why must the simple mention of the words "me too" signify "unconditional support" of the message?

                  4 votes
        3. [2]
          Diet_Coke
          Link Parent
          Can you point to any actual instances of this happening?

          But there are justified concerns that it can ruin someone's reputation by baseless accusations.

          Can you point to any actual instances of this happening?

          4 votes
          1. FreakingPenguin
            (edited )
            Link Parent
            See above comment. Edit: Also see Algernon_Asimov's comment. It has a lot more examples.

            See above comment.

            Edit: Also see Algernon_Asimov's comment. It has a lot more examples.

            2 votes
        4. Eva
          Link Parent
          Conor Oberst is a perfect counterexample to your point.

          Conor Oberst is a perfect counterexample to your point.

          1 vote
      4. NaraVara
        Link Parent
        The weird part is that most of this stuff doesn't even benefit straight, white men in general. It gives you a theoretical leg-up, but at the cost of forcing you into an extremely restrictive mold...

        removing straight white men from their privileged position and placing them alongside other demographics as equals

        The weird part is that most of this stuff doesn't even benefit straight, white men in general. It gives you a theoretical leg-up, but at the cost of forcing you into an extremely restrictive mold for behavior and subjecting you to infantilization and domination by the structures you have to curry favor with. It is only ever a minority that truly gets to call the shots under this regime.

        One of the threads you see in all the various professional #MeToo cases is the extent to which the abuse and harassment of women was witnessed and not commented on by all the people around them. Everyone relied on "whisper-networks" advising each other about the abusers, but they were all too afraid for themselves to stand up to the abuse directly.

        It seems pretty clear that bad treatment of women is just a canary-in-the-coal-mine for a host of lesser abuses and toxic behaviors that were being heaped on everyone in these places. It's hard to argue against removing systems that allow people to act with impunity and violate other peoples' boundaries. Even if the worst of it isn't hitting you directly, it is definitely hitting you indirectly, probably in ways you can't even see.

        3 votes
  2. [18]
    nothis
    Link
    There I thought the "controversy" (we're using quotes for everything now, right?) was about this ad shamelessly using the metoo movement to advertise a valueless product, kinda like the Kendall...

    There I thought the "controversy" (we're using quotes for everything now, right?) was about this ad shamelessly using the metoo movement to advertise a valueless product, kinda like the Kendall Jenner Pepsi ad. But no. They're mad at the "radical" message, lol. Radical as in telling men not to be assholes.

    23 votes
    1. [17]
      hightrix
      (edited )
      Link Parent
      Removed. This is not the site to have this discussion. It is far too one sided.

      Removed.

      This is not the site to have this discussion. It is far too one sided.

      1 vote
      1. [2]
        papasquat
        Link Parent
        Because men commit the majority of rapes, murders, and aggravated assaults. That doesn't mean all men do it, but women don't rape people at nearly the same rate men do. Doesn't really make sense...

        So why target men

        Because men commit the majority of rapes, murders, and aggravated assaults. That doesn't mean all men do it, but women don't rape people at nearly the same rate men do. Doesn't really make sense to tell women not to rape people since they already don't do that for the most part.
        That doesn't mean men are bad or all men are rapists.

        The commercial is stupid, but getting so twisted up in a knot about it is ridiculous. Could you imagine a elementary school assembly where they were like "You should always share your toys with your classmates", and some kid stands up and screams "WHAT THIS IS SO UNFAIR I ALWAYS SHARE MY TOYS!" Like, obviously the message wasn't directed to you specifically.

        2 votes
      2. [14]
        dubteedub
        Link Parent
        Where did it call all men assholes? It called out toxic behavior among some men. It never said all men are evil. Isn't using the tagline "THE BEST MEN CAN BE" pretty much exactly that? It is a...

        It is more that this ad is calling all men assholes

        Where did it call all men assholes? It called out toxic behavior among some men. It never said all men are evil.

        Why not just say "we can all be better people" rather than targeting men.

        Isn't using the tagline "THE BEST MEN CAN BE" pretty much exactly that? It is a call for men to be the best versions of themselves.

        1 vote
        1. [14]
          Comment deleted by author
          Link Parent
          1. [3]
            TheJorro
            Link Parent
            I feel like this requires a logical leap or two to be the implication. It's quite clearly talking about toxic men. I don't feel I am toxic, but more importantly, I don't feel like this ad is...

            It didn't say that, explicitly, but it is implied through the entire commercial that men are a problem and men need to be better.

            I feel like this requires a logical leap or two to be the implication. It's quite clearly talking about toxic men. I don't feel I am toxic, but more importantly, I don't feel like this ad is addressing me because it is not talking about behaviours I engage in (letalone condone), so I do not feel opposed to its statements.

            If I claim to not be toxic, but then feel like this ad is referring to me with the stated behaviours, then I'd be wondering if I am toxic after all.

            3 votes
            1. [2]
              Algernon_Asimov
              Link Parent
              Do you call out these behaviours in your friends and colleagues? Because that's who I feel the main market for this ad is: men who don't engage in these behaviours, but who say or do nothing when...

              I don't feel like this ad is addressing me because it is not talking about behaviours I engage in (letalone condone), so I do not feel opposed to its statements.

              Do you call out these behaviours in your friends and colleagues? Because that's who I feel the main market for this ad is: men who don't engage in these behaviours, but who say or do nothing when they see other men engaging these behaviours. As I wrote elsewhere, there are lots of calls to action in this ad for men like you and me.

              2 votes
              1. TheJorro
                Link Parent
                I do, indeed! My Facebook friends list is smaller these days.

                I do, indeed!

                My Facebook friends list is smaller these days.

                4 votes
          2. [10]
            dubteedub
            Link Parent
            I disagree. It does not imply all men are evil, toxic, sexist, violent. It discusses some specific toxic behaviors engaged by some men. It is about some behaviors of toxic masculinity. Women are...

            It didn't say that, explicitly, but it is implied through the entire commercial that men are a problem and men need to be better.

            I disagree. It does not imply all men are evil, toxic, sexist, violent. It discusses some specific toxic behaviors engaged by some men.

            You just said it! It should be a call for everyone to be the best versions of themselves, instead of singling out men.

            It is about some behaviors of toxic masculinity. Women are not going around catcalling men in the street and promoting a misogynistic culture, some men are.

            Toxic masculinity is also not just something that affects women, it negatively affects men too.

            By reinforcing stereotypes that to be a man is to be emotionless and stoic is damaging to men's mental health and well being and prevents men from seeking help when they need it.

            The stereotype of men needing to be strong / never vulnerable helps reinforce bullying and harassment by leaving boys and young men to feel lesser if they are targeted and stop them from seeking help / speaking out to stop it.

            The societal pressure for men to be masculine also has an impact on homophobia. Boys feel like they can't express themselves for fear of being called gay. Gay boys and men feel that they have to hide who they are so that other men will not think less of them.

            The phrase "toxic masculinity" is not to saying that all expressions of masculinity is toxic. It is a way of categorizing certain behaviors and it is valuable to bring light these specific behaviors so that we can address them at a societal level.

            2 votes
            1. [2]
              iiv
              Link Parent
              But what expressions of masculinity would you say are positive?

              The phrase "toxic masculinity" is not to saying that all expressions of masculinity is toxic.

              But what expressions of masculinity would you say are positive?

              1 vote
              1. dubteedub
                Link Parent
                One thing I read that resonated with me is that a lot of areas of toxic masculinity are just positive aspects of masculinity that have gone to a toxic extreme. For example, being emotionless is...

                One thing I read that resonated with me is that a lot of areas of toxic masculinity are just positive aspects of masculinity that have gone to a toxic extreme.

                For example, being emotionless is extreme and toxic, but being independent and emotionally resilient can be a very positive trait.

                The stereotype I used of men feeling like they can never be vulnerable is toxic as it can prevent men seeking help when they need it, but being confident and secure in yourself is a positive trait traditionally coded as masculine.

                I think the ad also displayed some of positive aspects of masculinity. Using your strength to protect / standing up for others is positive. Using strength to bully / hurt others is toxic.

                2 votes
            2. [8]
              Comment deleted by author
              Link Parent
              1. Emerald_Knight
                Link Parent
                Disclaimer: I'm a man, so I'm not particularly biased here. The problem is that when we examine the issues of toxic behavior in men vs. toxic behavior in women, we have to consider power...

                Disclaimer: I'm a man, so I'm not particularly biased here.

                The problem is that when we examine the issues of toxic behavior in men vs. toxic behavior in women, we have to consider power structures. Men are, by far, the most powerful group of the two, and have been for a very, very long time. As such, many parts of society such as goods, services, different forms of care, expectations, standards, etc. are very much geared toward men. The toxic behavior of women is, at least from my own observations, derived from the way they work around male-dominated standards, e.g. using back-handed remarks and resorting to manipulation because they've been fed the idea that they can't be confrontational (otherwise they may be labelled as "crazy").

                In short, toxic masculinity is the toxic behavior that has been most normalized and tends to have a widespread impact on society at large. By tackling it we make it easier to address other forms of toxic behavior, by challenging the status quo instead of focusing on the obvious low-hanging fruit.

                3 votes
              2. [6]
                dubteedub
                Link Parent
                How many men do you know have been catcalled by women? How often do you think that happens? I have never been catcalled / sexually harassed. I know very very few men that have. By contrast, every...

                Some women are exhibiting toxic behavior

                How many men do you know have been catcalled by women? How often do you think that happens? I have never been catcalled / sexually harassed. I know very very few men that have.

                By contrast, every woman I know has experienced it and that is reflected in actual studies / data.

                Here is a survey that found of the women who responded, that over 99% of them had experienced street harassment (only 3 said they did not).

                Here are some more details:

                Ninety-five percent of female respondents were the target of leering or excessive staring at least once, and more than 68 percent reported being a target 26 times or more in their life.

                Nearly 95 percent of female respondents were honked at one or more times and 40 percent said they are honked at as frequently as monthly. Nearly 94 percent of female respondents were the target of whistling at least once and nearly 38 percent said it occurred at least monthly.

                Over 87 percent of women said they were the target of a sexist comment, and about 45 percent said they’ve been a target of a sexist comment in public at least 25 times in their life.

                Nearly 82 percent of female respondents were the target of a vulgar gesture at least once. About twenty percent said they had been a target at least 51 times.

                Nearly 82 percent of female respondents were the target of a vulgar gesture at least once. About twenty percent said they had been a target at least 51 times.

                You would have to be willfully ignorant to think that the levels of street harassment / catcalling is relatable between men and women.

                3 votes
                1. [3]
                  iiv
                  Link Parent
                  Street harassment isn't the only type of toxic behaviour. Do you think men are generally more awful than women?

                  Street harassment isn't the only type of toxic behaviour. Do you think men are generally more awful than women?

                  1 vote
                  1. [2]
                    dubteedub
                    Link Parent
                    Before @Hightrix deleted his comments, you could see that he was specifically responding to a quote earlier in this discussion on catcalling and then used that to jump off generally about how...

                    Before @Hightrix deleted his comments, you could see that he was specifically responding to a quote earlier in this discussion on catcalling and then used that to jump off generally about how women can be toxic too. I am pointing out that it is silly to equate male and female street harassment / catcalling when they happen at hugely different rates.

                    Do you think men are generally more awful than women?

                    No, and no where in my comments have I implied that.

                    1 vote
                    1. iiv
                      Link Parent
                      I can't remember what he said exactly, but I got the impression he wanted to switch the subject from toxic masculinity to toxic humanity. I agree, but I don't think that's what he meant. I...

                      I can't remember what he said exactly, but I got the impression he wanted to switch the subject from toxic masculinity to toxic humanity.

                      I am pointing out that it is silly to equate male and female street harassment / catcalling when they happen at hugely different rates.

                      I agree, but I don't think that's what he meant.

                      No, and no where in my comments have I implied that.

                      I inferred that from you (in my mind) trying to refute his point by bringing up examples of toxic masculinity.

                      But I see now that it's just a misunderstanding, I wasn't following the thread closely enough.

                      2 votes
                2. [2]
                  hightrix
                  Link Parent
                  Hello? Did you read my comment? I never said women catcall men. Women engage in different toxic behavior than men, obviously, but both groups engage in toxic behavior at approximately the same...

                  Hello? Did you read my comment?

                  their behavoirs are different but regardless of sex, gender, race, etc, there are toxic people in every group.

                  I never said women catcall men. Women engage in different toxic behavior than men, obviously, but both groups engage in toxic behavior at approximately the same rate,. Again, I don't have stats for that, but anecdotally I have seen terrible behavior in people of every race, gender, sex, etc....

                  1 vote
                  1. dubteedub
                    Link Parent
                    Yes, I did read your comment, though you you have now deleted it. You quoted this part of my comment about catcalling and then responded that women also exhibit that kind of toxic behavior. I am...

                    Yes, I did read your comment, though you you have now deleted it. You quoted this part of my comment about catcalling and then responded that women also exhibit that kind of toxic behavior. I am pointing out that its a bad argument to equate the male and female catcalling / street harassment.

                    We are discussing issues of toxic masculinity here specifically, one of which these behaviors is catcalling. It is important to make these kinds of distinctions.

                    Again, I don't have stats for that, but anecdotally I have seen terrible behavior in people of every race, gender, sex, etc....

                    Let's say we are having a discussion about the disproportionate effects of racism on black people in the United States. Do you think it would be appropriate to jump into the conversation and say, "yeah but all people face racism" and "we should stop discussing the effects of racism on black people because other people can experience racism too"?

                    That is how you are coming off here by trying to shift the discussion to general toxic behavior when we are having a discussions specifically on toxic masculinity and its effects.

                    2 votes
  3. [3]
    FreakingPenguin
    Link
    I think that the backlash that this ad receives shows that it failed at its purpose. It didn't spark a discussion, at least among those men who do exhibit some/all of these behaviors. Maybe you...

    I think that the backlash that this ad receives shows that it failed at its purpose. It didn't spark a discussion, at least among those men who do exhibit some/all of these behaviors. Maybe you might say "They're mad at the "radical" message, lol. Radical as in telling men not to be assholes", but I would say exactly! You can't get a message through to a group by insulting them. (Not to say that everyone who dislikes this message is an asshole. But I'd imagine that the assholes do dislike this ad. A square-rectangle deal.)

    This comment on Reddit does a better job at expressing my reservations than I seem to be able to write. Relevent snippet for the lazy.

    However, that simply defines good masculinity as not toxic masculinity. It doesn't mention male behaviour that isn't defined in these terms. It never mentions achievement, competency, healthy sexuality, brotherhood...all male-male interactions in the advert are portrayed negatively and in need of being called out. [...] given this over-focus on toxic masculinity, it inevitably loses men along the way. Male behaviour is to be challenged and changed constantly. Only some men are being good parents, only some men don't mansplain, only some men don't sexually harass...its infantilising.

    Edit: '

    10 votes
    1. Algernon_Asimov
      Link Parent
      But we're discussing it, right here, right now. And you linked to a discussion about it on Reddit. And it has certainly been discussed on Twitter. And news media around the world is sharing it,...

      I think that the backlash that this ad receives shows that it failed at its purpose. It didn't spark a discussion

      But we're discussing it, right here, right now. And you linked to a discussion about it on Reddit. And it has certainly been discussed on Twitter. And news media around the world is sharing it, and people are discussing it as a result of that.

      8 votes
    2. clerical_terrors
      Link Parent
      The explanation in that snippet seems to either willfully or unconsciously miss the entire point, the message mentions negatives because it is specifically about improving them, not giving the...

      The explanation in that snippet seems to either willfully or unconsciously miss the entire point, the message mentions negatives because it is specifically about improving them, not giving the final overall verdict with both pros and cons with regards to the question of masculinity.

      Moreover what does it say about a person or a group, when apparently every piece of criticism, must be accompanied by at least an equal amount of praise in order to be taken into consideration? I find that attitude more infantile than I can find this ad infantilising.

      3 votes
  4. brighteyes720
    Link
    The backslash is the dumbest one I've ever seen and kinda proves their point. Should Gillette take the high road, by assuming it's morally superior with P&G committing lots of horrible shit? No....

    The backslash is the dumbest one I've ever seen and kinda proves their point. Should Gillette take the high road, by assuming it's morally superior with P&G committing lots of horrible shit? No.

    But as far as advertisments are concerned, it's just an anti-bullying, anti-assault ad telling everyone to try and be better.

    Ads have always been emotionally manipulative and I'm a guy and I loved the ad. Yea, would wish it was not used to promote a capitalistic brand but ah well.

    And it was different than the Pepsi one which basically said Pepsi will bring world peace. This had nothing related to razors or anything so that's better I guess.

    11 votes
  5. [12]
    DonQuixote
    Link
    Dislikes abound, but I've seen this coming for some time. Remember that women buy Gillette products as well as men. It will be interesting to see how sales go. For the record, I think 'toxic...

    And while he admitted there was a "demand … for brands to be tackling tough issues in the moment", he warned that it could backfire.

    "Does the customer want to be told they're a naughty boy?" he asked.

    "Are you asking too much of your consumer to be having this conversation with them?"

    Nike found this out in September last year, when it made former NFL player Colin Kaepernick the face of its Dream Crazy campaign.

    The sportswear company received some hate online for including the controversial Kaepernick, who became known for kneeling during the national anthem before games towards the end of his time with the San Francisco 49ers, but Nike also received a sizable boost in stock prices and online sales immediately after his first ad was released.

    Dislikes abound, but I've seen this coming for some time. Remember that women buy Gillette products as well as men. It will be interesting to see how sales go. For the record, I think 'toxic masculinity' is definitely the wrong phrase to use. Thoughts?

    6 votes
    1. [5]
      dubteedub
      Link Parent
      Interesting that you mentioned the Nike / Kaep ad, since sales actually increased dramatically after that spot aired. Despite Outrage, Nike Sales Increased 31% After Kaepernick Ad I think...

      It will be interesting to see how sales go.

      Interesting that you mentioned the Nike / Kaep ad, since sales actually increased dramatically after that spot aired.

      I think particularly in the case of Nike, the execs understand that a bunch of angry Twitter trolls and faux-outraged boomers are probably not going to be the ones out there buying the new sneakers anyway. A saw plenty of folks online burning / throwing out their Nike shoes saying they were going to boycott them, but most of those sneakers looked old and beat up. It is not like they were their core buying demographic.

      I am sure that the folks at Proctor and Gamble / Gillette made a similar decision. Despite some angry jerks on Twitter whipping themselves into a frenzy, the majority of consumers probably appreciate these kinds of ads and support these decisions.

      Keep in mind that P&G ran a few similar ads to these already last year and they were very well received, including the Always "Like a Girl" campaign and Pantene's "Strong is Beautiful" campaign that shows NFL players braiding their daughter's hair. So these kinds of ads are not even outside of the normal realm for P&G.

      Always needed a way to appeal to a next generation of consumers in the face of growing competition from rivals that were gaining traction with Millennial girls via social media. The award-winning response was the Always #LikeAGirl campaign, that turned a phrase that had become an insult into an empowering message.


      For the record, I think 'toxic masculinity' is definitely the wrong phrase to use. Thoughts?

      I think it is a very appropriate word. Do you have another suggestion?

      6 votes
      1. cainunable
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        I think the difference here might be "Like a Girl" and "Strong is Beautiful" are both positive messages. It portrays good things and urges people to continue to do good things. When it shows...

        I think the difference here might be "Like a Girl" and "Strong is Beautiful" are both positive messages. It portrays good things and urges people to continue to do good things. When it shows people doing something wrong, it is the "other people" who are treating you unfairly. Do good in spite of them. You are already awesome.

        This campaign seems to come in at the angle that some men are doing bad things, and other men are just standing by and not helping. It also urges them to do good, but it implies that they aren't doing good to begin with.

        I believe the reaction to this is overblown, but I kinda understand where it is coming from.

        4 votes
      2. [3]
        DonQuixote
        Link Parent
        Toxic behavior. But if toxic masculinity persists as its label, so be it.

        Toxic behavior. But if toxic masculinity persists as its label, so be it.

        1. dubteedub
          Link Parent
          I think the distinction here is that it is toxic traits that are commonly attributed to men / stereotypes for what society typically associates with being a "real man". Things like having to act...

          I think the distinction here is that it is toxic traits that are commonly attributed to men / stereotypes for what society typically associates with being a "real man".

          Things like having to act tough, be emotionless, catcalling women, making excuses for aggressive behavior in boys, etc. are issues of toxic masculinity, and these attributes have a negative impact on men in particular.

          In my opinion, calling it simply toxic behavior does not really do justify to the men who are affected by it.

          5 votes
        2. clerical_terrors
          Link Parent
          If it is behavior that is presented both inherent to the condition of "being a man", ergo being defined as masculinity, and it is toxic then the terms seems more than apt.

          If it is behavior that is presented both inherent to the condition of "being a man", ergo being defined as masculinity, and it is toxic then the terms seems more than apt.

          3 votes
    2. [6]
      NaraVara
      Link Parent
      What do you think is wrong about it specifically?

      For the record, I think 'toxic masculinity' is definitely the wrong phrase to use. Thoughts?

      What do you think is wrong about it specifically?

      5 votes
      1. [5]
        DonQuixote
        Link Parent
        By association it vilifies everything masculine. As an alternative example, look at something like toxic femininity, or toxic lesbianism, or toxic homosexuality. Or toxic liberal. Or toxic...

        By association it vilifies everything masculine. As an alternative example, look at something like toxic femininity, or toxic lesbianism, or toxic homosexuality. Or toxic liberal. Or toxic conservative. You're alienating the same population you're trying to influence. Just my opinion.

        6 votes
        1. [3]
          NaraVara
          Link Parent
          I mean, those are all a thing. It just refers to a toxic iteration of the concept. I don't see why "toxic masculinity" should offend the masculine any more than the concept of a "rabid dog" should...

          I mean, those are all a thing. It just refers to a toxic iteration of the concept. I don't see why "toxic masculinity" should offend the masculine any more than the concept of a "rabid dog" should reflect on dogs as a whole.

          Yes, there is a subset that will recoil at any term that suggests they may be associated with and attached to something problematic but. . . that's just the way it is isn't it? Change doesn't happen without tension. Conflict aversion has rarely been a productive route to resolving deeply rooted injustices. There are productive and destructive ways to sparking and addressing conflicts, but there are no comfortable ways of doing so. Growth always requires some amount of pain.

          9 votes
          1. [2]
            Crespyl
            Link Parent
            I think the reaction is, to at least some extent, aggravated by the proportionality of the argument. How often do you see the word "masculinity" not immediately preceded by "toxic"? After hearing...

            I think the reaction is, to at least some extent, aggravated by the proportionality of the argument.

            How often do you see the word "masculinity" not immediately preceded by "toxic"? After hearing "toxic masculinity" bandied around enough times, it's understandable that it might start being perceived (even though we both know it's not the intent) as "masculinity is toxic".

            You're right that change doesn't happen without tension, and there are certainly things that our culture would be better off changing, but there's a tendency for the message to degenerate into "masculinity is toxic, you/reader are a bad person because of your maleness" rather than celebrating healthy models of positive masculine traits that we want to encourage.

            I often see advice on breaking addictions that it's almost impossible to quit a habit without having something to replace it, like chewing gum instead of cigarettes. I think something similar is true here, in that it's unproductive to allow yourself to be perceived as constantly berating someone without also taking some time to highlight the positive things you want to see more of.

            This particular ad (aside from being kind of off-topic for razors, but meh...) starts to get into some of this more positive perspective, but it's a late arrival to an already very heated conversation, and any good in its message is unlikely to reach the people who actually need to hear it.

            5 votes
            1. NaraVara
              Link Parent
              Honestly this is just the reality of social media. We have to learn to sift out that kind of noise. Formats like Twitter and Reddit are inherently going to descend into toxicity. Can you think of...

              You're right that change doesn't happen without tension, and there are certainly things that our culture would be better off changing, but there's a tendency for the message to degenerate into "masculinity is toxic, you/reader are a bad person because of your maleness"

              Honestly this is just the reality of social media. We have to learn to sift out that kind of noise. Formats like Twitter and Reddit are inherently going to descend into toxicity. Can you think of any hot-button issue that does not degenerate this way? We can't even compare iPhones and Androids without it turning into a shit-fest.

              In other words: the medium is the problem, not the jargon. Any phrasing is going to be subject to disingenuously malicious misreadings because of the voices who are amplified by the formats we use for discussing them.

              rather than celebrating healthy models of positive masculine traits that we want to encourage.

              We shouldn't be expecting feminists to occupy themselves with this. I would question whether a movement focused on securing respect and rights for women would have the right perspective or orientation to do a good job at developing norms for men that would encourage mens' own flourishing.

              It certainly behooves men, who are presumably interested in being good people and care about supporting the women in our lives, to listen to what they have to say. But the details of how to do that falls to us, who else would know?

              This particular ad (aside from being kind of off-topic for razors, but meh...) starts to get into some of this more positive perspective, but it's a late arrival to an already very heated conversation, and any good in its message is unlikely to reach the people who actually need to hear it.

              Is anything "off-topic" anymore? We can't even talk about video-games or Star Wars without this coming up haha.

              It is important to separate out the teeming millions of disinterested folks from the passionate arguers on the internet. I don't think most people are quite as dug in on this as the people who argue about it online are.

              Also, most people just don't think through their positions much and have opinions that are quite malleable. If not, advertising wouldn't work. Most of people's perspectives on this sort of thing are just people positioning themselves according to the societal view of a "good person." This already has a great deal of buy in from the younger generations.

              4 votes
        2. demifiend
          Link Parent
          How is this the case when the phrase "toxic masculinity" implies the existence of a non-toxic masculinity?

          By association it vilifies everything masculine.

          How is this the case when the phrase "toxic masculinity" implies the existence of a non-toxic masculinity?

          5 votes
  6. jgb
    Link
    I think this advert gets most of this stuff right (though are two kids play-wrestling really an example of toxic masculinity?) but this seems like a cynical attempt to pin the Gillette brand onto...

    I think this advert gets most of this stuff right (though are two kids play-wrestling really an example of toxic masculinity?) but this seems like a cynical attempt to pin the Gillette brand onto one of the biggest societal talking points of the day for the sake of boosting brand reach, and that's where I really take issue with it. I wish that these sorts of companies would stop being sanctimonious and just stick to talking about their revolutionary hydro-blade atomo-shave technologies - but then again, ironically, I must concede that if Gillette had simply made their advert about razors I would never have watched it.

    5 votes
  7. determinism
    Link
    Here I am thinking about Gillette for the first time since I stopped watching television. What an advertiser decides to put in their time slot doesn't matter to me. If people want to discuss...

    Here I am thinking about Gillette for the first time since I stopped watching television.

    What an advertiser decides to put in their time slot doesn't matter to me. If people want to discuss socioeconomic issues, wouldn't it be better to do it outside the context of Proctor and Gamble's commercial interests? They have literally no skin in the game, the motivation for taking one side or another can't be known by non-employees and can only be assumed to have been calculated to yield the greatest financial benefit to the corporation.

    4 votes
  8. asteroid
    Link
    Relevant, interesting analysis: "The difference in reaction to the two campaigns shows the limits of 'woke capital,' and helps us see what kinds of social change companies will and won’t be...

    Relevant, interesting analysis: "The difference in reaction to the two campaigns shows the limits of 'woke capital,' and helps us see what kinds of social change companies will and won’t be successful at pushing." http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/why-nikes-woke-ad-campaign-works-and-gillettes-doesnt.html

    3 votes
  9. [4]
    NeoTheFox
    Link
    Stepping aside from this exact case this trend of corporations exhibiting more and more political ambitions is something that scares me. I don't remember ever seeing this much willingness from a...

    Stepping aside from this exact case this trend of corporations exhibiting more and more political ambitions is something that scares me. I don't remember ever seeing this much willingness from a lot of sizable corporations to peddle certain political agenda, even to a point of hurting their bottomline. Fucking Activision has a nerv to tell the Dutch government that their interpretation of their own law is wrong. And just recently we've seen posts about Amazon wanting to have a key to your house, because spying on you using just a microphone is not enough. So yeah, the future looks interesting

    2 votes
    1. [2]
      Octofox
      Link Parent
      People are leaving tv and using adblockers. Outrage is the new way to advertise.

      People are leaving tv and using adblockers. Outrage is the new way to advertise.

      3 votes
      1. DonQuixote
        Link Parent
        Very good observation! I'm probably the last to learn of this connection. Even though new venues for marketing have been around for ages, I didn't catch how much pushing controversy/making a stand...

        Very good observation! I'm probably the last to learn of this connection. Even though new venues for marketing have been around for ages, I didn't catch how much pushing controversy/making a stand is a way to achieve virality in advertising too.

        Reflecting on this, I realize more and more how pervasive and really sneaky/subtle/manipulative marketing has become. Thanks for helping hone my cynicism, lol.

        2 votes
    2. Akir
      Link Parent
      It's not as nefarious as you make it to be. Corporations all know that they look more attractive to consumers if they have some sort of moral cause behind them. It's the same sham as always.

      It's not as nefarious as you make it to be. Corporations all know that they look more attractive to consumers if they have some sort of moral cause behind them. It's the same sham as always.

      2 votes
  10. Eva
    Link
    A friend of mine posted this thread on twitter, and I really think Visa managed to sum up my thoughts on the issue exactly: seeing some of the responses before watching this, I assumed this was...

    A friend of mine posted this thread on twitter, and I really think Visa managed to sum up my thoughts on the issue exactly:

    seeing some of the responses before watching this, I assumed this was going to have some bad/dumb shit in it, or maybe something like "no difference between genders"
    
    but I just watched it and it's basically saying "c'mon dudes we can do better"
    
    which is true
    
    we can do better
    
    2 votes
  11. nic
    Link
    a "short film." :/

    a "short film." :/

    3 votes