Gillette: Men Are Toxic

[jamil]

Having gone as far as they can with adding more blades and everything else that actually has to do with the products themselves, Gillette is going with the 2019 version of "it's toasted".

It's probably more than a gamble than toasted tobacco. This campaign then equates to "it's social justice." Well, not a majority of people are down with jsw. The gamble is that they'll have the social justice edge on their competitors. Maybe it'll work. But it seems to be driving many people to Schick.

I don't completely buy that it's all just marketing. If it were just marketing, why be divisive? Surely they knew this would be divisive. And if not, fair enough. That would explain the decision I suppose. But if they didn't know, oh jeez what horrible market research they did. They had to know. And if they did know, they could have tweaked the ad to make it more inclusive of everyone's position. The problems most people seemed to have with it boil down to 3.

1. It's too preachy.
2. It does not respect the individual choices of most men to be good people. The ad implies a much greater portion of men who are the problem.
3. It wrongfully identifies masculinity as the problem.

All of these things could have been removed for a message which still virtue-signals to the millennials without alienating the sane people.

Maybe virtue-signaling will bring in more than it loses. So it's a gamble.

 

[actaeon277]

that was painful.

Muting makes it better.

 

[actaeon277]

Having gone as far as they can with adding more blades and everything else that actually has to do with the products themselves, Gillette is going with the 2019 version of "it's toasted".

[video=youtube;QKcneQ6N50Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKcneQ6N50Q&t=57s[/video]

All the extra blades did was make it so they kept clogging up on me.
I like my one blade safety razor better. I can loosen it up and wash the hair out. Gets better cuts.
I do bleed a more. But I make plenty of blood. No problem there.

 

[Beowulf]

Glad to see this thread is still moving in circles.

 

[Route 45]

Glad to see this thread is still moving in circles.

View attachment 73913

I thought you exiled yourself from this thread because you felt yourself becoming toxic.

Should have learned to post images on INGO during your little tantrum/time-out.

Triggered, eh? Methinks thou doth protest too much.

 

[Ark]

The whole point was to get their name in the news and get eyeballs by triggering as many people as possible.

 

[jsharmon7]

I support their message, but I do see how one could take issue with the delivery.

Imagine this new commercial from Springfield Armory:

*Images of mothers crying, while emergency lights flash outside an elementary school*

”Gun owners, it’s time we take a stand. We must vow to stop knowingly selling firearms to felons and the mentally unstable. We must stop opening fire on schools, churches, and malls. And we must stop resolving minor arguments with gunfire. It’s our responsibility to stop this wave of gun violence.”

Clearly, we would agree those things are wrong, while simultaneously feeling blamed for things we have no hand in. I think some here feel like Gillette is blaming all men for the bad actions of the minority.

ETA: I will echo the others who have not seen the type of behavior Gillette mentions on a routine basis.

 

[HoughMade]

It's probably more than a gamble than toasted tobacco. This campaign then equates to "it's social justice." Well, not a majority of people are down with jsw. The gamble is that they'll have the social justice edge on their competitors. Maybe it'll work. But it seems to be driving many people to Schick.

I don't completely buy that it's all just marketing. If it were just marketing, why be divisive? Surely they knew this would be divisive. And if not, fair enough. That would explain the decision I suppose. But if they didn't know, oh jeez what horrible market research they did. They had to know. And if they did know, they could have tweaked the ad to make it more inclusive of everyone's position. The problems most people seemed to have with it boil down to 3.

1. It's too preachy.
2. It does not respect the individual choices of most men to be good people. The ad implies a much greater portion of men who are the problem.
3. It wrongfully identifies masculinity as the problem.

All of these things could have been removed for a message which still virtue-signals to the millennials without alienating the sane people.

Maybe virtue-signaling will bring in more than it loses. So it's a gamble.

Sure it’s a gamble, but let’s never forget, this is always and completely about $$$. There is no core belief beyond this. Social justice is the flavor of the month in advertising. We’re talking about them which is exactly what they wanted.

 

[Expat]

The whole point was to get their name in the news and get eyeballs by triggering as many people as possible.

Interesting though that a lot of the liberal women on TV seem to be butthurt that they put this ad out while at the same time, charging women more for their feminized versions of razors and shaving cream.

 

[HoughMade]

Seems like some people need to look up what “trigger” means....’cause it doesn’t mean simply reacting negatively to a message.

 

[Expat]

I know, I know... it was Roy Rogers' horse.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I know, I know... it was Roy Rogers' horse.

That, and the little lever-thingy on my guns that makes them go boom.

 

[PaulF]

Thought I'd opine on the idea of Christian values. It's true enough that Enlightenment borrowed heavily from Judeo-Christian values. And it has made our society more successful than it would have been without. And I'd like to qualify that. It's the evolved values that I'm talking about. The dark ages were dark for a reason. Not much societal value came from that. But once a view of Christianity reformed to something usable, and of value to society, those values don't become obsolete just because we found another way to explain our existence. I'm saying that pragmatically, it should not be important how we developed the values which has made the West successful, for the freest, most peaceful and successful societies. Doesn't matter if you have a Christian view of it, A Petersonian view of it, an atheistic view of it. What's important is that we retain the values which are useful to keeping society free and moral, and makes peace between disparate tribes possible.

Monogomy is useful. Two parents in the home is useful. A father in the home is useful. It doesn't matter that those things happen to be mostly advocated by Christians. It works. The concept of what it means to be a man may be mostly a social construct, or more likely, it is evolved traits which helped make humans successful. But regardless, if what it means to be a man maximizes the best benefits men have to offer, while minimizing the worst, it doesn't matter if people believe the source of that is from God, or the source evolved. We've learned to maximize and minimize the right things. Not perfectly, but it's a work in progress. Pragmatically it's beneficial. We should care less about origins in terms of what works and what doesn't.

I'm not sure what the point of contention is here. I agree with you, and I don't think my argument is dissonant with yours.

For the sake of clarity (not to be argumentative), let me take another swing at this.

The part I bolded...are you referring to the US specifically, or to humanity together? The things you mentioned are basically universal human values. Monogamy, thrift, generational growth...these values are virtuous, and (by and large) get labeled as "Christian" values here in the west...but those same values were foundational throughout the East, as well. Even in places where the Abrahamic narrative is unknown love, kindness, loyalty, family, honor, thrift, bravery...these are all held up as ideologically superior. I think that is because they are pragmatically better options for a successful life than competing options.

I guess I'm setting up a chicken/egg analogy here. In my view "Christian" values are essentially human values (maybe family values would be a better way to put it? There are competing value sets, after all). If these things were uniquely Christian, I think we would see a much larger divide in behavior when comparing Christian parts of the world to the others...but that just isn't true. Christian areas are just as prone to violence and poverty as the ignorant are.

"Strong families breed strong cultures" is not biblical wisdom, it is a foundational truth evidenced by the failures and successes of countless societies across the entirety of the human landscape.

I'm not arguing that Christian Values are bad, or outdated, or will lead to failure...I'm saying Christian Values work because they draw directly from a deeper basic human truth.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Thought I'd opine on the idea of Christian values. It's true enough that Enlightenment borrowed heavily from Judeo-Christian values. And it has made our society more successful than it would have been without. And I'd like to qualify that. It's the evolved values that I'm talking about. The dark ages were dark for a reason. Not much societal value came from that. But once a view of Christianity reformed to something usable, and of value to society, those values don't become obsolete just because we found another way to explain our existence. I'm saying that pragmatically, it should not be important how we developed the values which has made the West successful, for the freest, most peaceful and successful societies. Doesn't matter if you have a Christian view of it, A Petersonian view of it, an atheistic view of it. What's important is that we retain the values which are useful to keeping society free and moral, and makes peace between disparate tribes possible.

Monogomy is useful. Two parents in the home is useful. A father in the home is useful. It doesn't matter that those things happen to be mostly advocated by Christians. It works. The concept of what it means to be a man may be mostly a social construct, or more likely, it is evolved traits which helped make humans successful. But regardless, if what it means to be a man maximizes the best benefits men have to offer, while minimizing the worst, it doesn't matter if people believe the source of that is from God, or the source evolved. We've learned to maximize and minimize the right things. Not perfectly, but it's a work in progress. Pragmatically it's beneficial. We should care less about origins in terms of what works and what doesn't.

I would agree with the sentiment. However, it is important to remember how we developed these values. We did not just borrow from Christianity. Christians lead the way in literacy, law, science, math, and philosophy. Oxford, Cambridge, Princeton, Yale, Temple, Brown, Rutgers, Dartmouth, etc etc etc were all founded as Seminary colleges and Universities. That is why that coat of arms of each is an open bible with scripture. Most of them have 3 crowns to denote the Christian trinity.

Even dear old IU was first opened as a Seminary.

I don't think it defies logic to say that if Christianity established these values in our culture, then Christianity is also necessary to maintain them. Just like it was necessary for a farmer to plant an orchard, it is also necessary to have a farmer maintain it.

Is it coincidence that traditional values have declined at the same rate as those who identify as Christian?

 

[ATOMonkey]

I'm not sure what the point of contention is here. I agree with you, and I don't think my argument is dissonant with yours.

For the sake of clarity (not to be argumentative), let me take another swing at this.

The part I bolded...are you referring to the US specifically, or to humanity together? The things you mentioned are basically universal human values. Monogamy, thrift, generational growth...these values are virtuous, and (by and large) get labeled as "Christian" values here in the west...but those same values were foundational throughout the East, as well. Even in places where the Abrahamic narrative is unknown love, kindness, loyalty, family, honor, thrift, bravery...these are all held up as ideologically superior. I think that is because they are pragmatically better options for a successful life than competing options.

I guess I'm setting up a chicken/egg analogy here. In my view "Christian" values are essentially human values (maybe family values would be a better way to put it? There are competing value sets, after all). If these things were uniquely Christian, I think we would see a much larger divide in behavior when comparing Christian parts of the world to the others...but that just isn't true. Christian areas are just as prone to violence and poverty as the ignorant are.

"Strong families breed strong cultures" is not biblical wisdom, it is a foundational truth evidenced by the failures and successes of countless societies across the entirety of the human landscape.

I'm not arguing that Christian Values are bad, or outdated, or will lead to failure...I'm saying Christian Values work because they draw directly from a deeper basic human truth.

I would have to disagree with the bold. Christian areas of the world are by and large MUCH more wealthy and free. There is a large disparity between the West and rest of the world.

What we are experiencing in the West right now is a historical anomaly. At no other time in history, under any other ideology have people been more free and prosperous.

 

[eldirector]

I would have to disagree with the bold. Christian areas of the world are by and large MUCH more wealthy and free. There is a large disparity between the West and rest of the world.

What we are experiencing in the West right now is a historical aberration. At no other time in history, under any other ideology have people been more free and prosperous.

Funny enough, I believe that THAT is exactly the problem, and why we see so much non-standard behavior. Folks have all of their basic needs easily met, and so have the free time and resources to pursue non-essential things. I need to go back and find the research... Read several papers back in the day about resource availability and behavior. Both in "animals" and in humans. Basically, more competition for resources leads to less leisure time and stricter adherence to societal norms. Less competition for resources allows for more leisure time and less strict adherence to norms.

 

[PaulF]

I would have to disagree with the bold. Christian areas of the world are by and large MUCH more wealthy and free. There is a large disparity between the West and rest of the world.

What we are experiencing in the West right now is a historical aberration. At no other time in history, under any other ideology have people been more free and prosperous.

Respectfully, I would also disagree with the bolded point, in particular. Please consider South America and the Caribbean in evidence. I'll argue that Secular Capitalism is the ideology that pushed The US and Western Europe to thrive and become the engine of the industrial revolution, not Christianity. To my read, Jesus would be horrified at the corporate idolatry that accompanied the industrial revolution.

I will fully and exuberantly agree that Christianity was a part of what produced the modern west. I don't think you and I are likely to agree on how large a part that ever was, or to what degree that same packaging (ie: Christianity) is necessary to carry those values forward into the future.

 

[PaulF]

Funny enough, I believe that THAT is exactly the problem, and why we see so much non-standard behavior. Folks have all of their basic needs easily met, and so have the free time and resources to pursue non-essential things. I need to go back and find the research... Read several papers back in the day about resource availability and behavior. Both in "animals" and in humans. Basically, more competition for resources leads to less leisure time and stricter adherence to societal norms. Less competition for resources allows for more leisure time and less strict adherence to norms.

[video=youtube;NgGLFozNM2o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgGLFozNM2o[/video]

 

[BugI02]

"You who are on the road must have a code that you can live by"

 

[Beowulf]

I thought you exiled yourself from this thread because you felt yourself becoming toxic.

Should have learned to post images on INGO during your little tantrum/time-out.

Triggered, eh? Methinks thou doth protest too much.

Now that's a laugh. You have proven to be one of the most fragile ego posters on this thread. You are so threatened by a razor commercial that you've become apoplectic. You are terrorized by the idea of "radical feminists".

Thank God you are retired and off the streets. I'd hate for some victimized woman to have to rely on an officer of your temperament for help.