Gillette: Men Are Toxic

[KJQ6945]

 

[Beowulf]

The real problem with that false equivalency, is that the statistics prove the left hand side false in it's starting premise:

During 2012-15, the rate of white-on-white violent crime(12.0 per 1,000 white persons) was about four times higherthan black-on-white violent crime (3.1 per 1,000). The rate of black-on-black violent crime (16.5 per 1,000 black persons) was more than five times higher than white-on-black violent crime (2.8 per 1,000). The rate of Hispanic-on-Hispanic violent crime (8.3 per 1,000 Hispanic persons) was about double the rate of white-on-Hispanic (4.1 per 1,000) and black-on-Hispanic (4.2 per 1,000) violent crime. As with violent crime, the rates of serious violent crime and simple assault were higher for intraracial victimizations than interracial victimizations.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rhovo1215_sum.pdf

 

[Snapdragon]

But the commercial was not so much about saying "don't bully and harass women" as it was about saying "do not stand by and allow it to happen", so not really relevant.

 

[jamil]

The real problem with that false equivalency, is that the statistics prove the left hand side false in it's starting premise:

During 2012-15, the rate of white-on-white violent crime(12.0 per 1,000 white persons) was about four times higherthan black-on-white violent crime (3.1 per 1,000). The rate of black-on-black violent crime (16.5 per 1,000 black persons) was more than five times higher than white-on-black violent crime (2.8 per 1,000). The rate of Hispanic-on-Hispanic violent crime (8.3 per 1,000 Hispanic persons) was about double the rate of white-on-Hispanic (4.1 per 1,000) and black-on-Hispanic (4.2 per 1,000) violent crime. As with violent crime, the rates of serious violent crime and simple assault were higher for intraracial victimizations than interracial victimizations.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rhovo1215_sum.pdf

Fine. Reword the left side with black on black crime then.

So let me ask, how many of the countless interactions between men and women, result in the right side being true. You really think most? You really think it's a male problem? Or, I think it's better explained as an ******* problem. Too many boys learned to be *******s from childhood instead of gentlemen. So I think that's the real problem with the catcalling. Now let's look at why you see it happen so much more often than others.

So, if in your world, you think it's so prevalent, and, the people who don't see it much must live in Mayberry, perhaps it's an issue of relativity. Maybe it's not that we live in Maybarry. Maybe it's that you live in a ****hole, where such a high percentage of men in the community are of such poor moral character that they've never learned how to treat people. But then if you live in a really ****hole area, and so many men never learned how not to be *******s, it's very likely the women aren't going to be proportionally of much better moral character. Well, unless the ****hole is disproportionately teaching girls morals, while leaving boys to grow up *******s. You think that's it maybe?

So given that, I guess what I've been hearing from you all night is that the people who've been raised with traditional values, like treating both men and women with respect, can pretty much ignore the commercial because it only applies to ****holes around the country where most people never learned anything other than catcalling and and groping women. So maybe you're right. Maybe the commercial does apply to men as generally in ****hole areas as the commercial implies.

If you want a conversation filled with vinegar, okay. I'll play. Or if you would like to discuss it rationally, and try to leave your vivid imagination of straw monsters under your bed, and understand what the other side is actually saying, that may be more productive. I like productive way better.

 

[Mongo59]

The audio of the ad says "some", but "some" is difficult to quantify.

The visual in the ad has "one", a single man, out of a line of men in a yard or on a crowded street acting responsibly.

I am just guessing here, but I don't think the inference was lost to the creators of the ad. Likewise, it was just as obvious to the company executives that commissioned and approved the ad. Why? Why go there? Even if you are deluded enough to think you have a dog in that fight, what possible benefit would you hope for from an unmeasurable statement trying to sway an unmeasurable outcome? To sell razors? To who?

Personally, I need ad executives from some razor company to adjust my morals no more than I need the Dixie Chicks to tell me how to vote. They have a roll, they are compensated for their time and that should be the end of the story.

Does anyone think American big business spends money to produce (and purchases the broadcast time to air) these ads solely to be seen as their unselfish desire to go tilting with windmills?

If they are, then they have to answer to their stockholders.

If they aren't, then they are just playing to (and preying on) the consumers, society as a whole and men specifically.

Just stop with all the "yeah for me and crap on you" mentality. Cut out all the "I'm going to tolerate it just to get a few swings in on someone who just might be guilty". It is just a redo on the "lynch mob mentality" of yesteryear.

How is this different from blaming anyone of Japanese or German heritage for WWII? Because you can't finger the bad guy or get your hands on them then they should all be held responsible? BULL!

It makes as much sense as holding women responsible for sin.

I give these as examples of what should not be despite them from having happened. It is not an attempt to say, "Hey, he/she/they did it before so lets all just pile on..."

There is enough bad in the world without having to invent new ways to shame or blame the innocent. It is a fools errand to think any of us can perform delicate surgery with a broad ax. We march into battle under the banner of "Unity" and meander home having alienated most if not all.

This ad IS, and was designed to be divisive and insulting. To think it to still have merit beyond that would be like saying, "Well yes, Mrs Lincoln, but despite that... how did you like the play?"

 

[jamil]

Nope, I'm not saying it doesn't deserve to be talked about.

But what I get from most of the protestations over the Gillette ad are simple but-what-about-isms, as if you can't call out the bad behavior of some men, without addressing every single other social in the same breath. How does the fact that some men are abused by women negate the fact that much larger number of women are abused by men?

Let me answer that, it doesn't. If you are really concerned about the number of men abused by women, then please open a shelter to help them out. Though, there are some shelters right here in Indy that do in fact help abused men. The Julian Center is one such place and it is one that I wholeheartedly support and have done volunteer work with. So I encourage everyone on the forum, regardless of gender, orientation, political inclination, and favorite sports team to open your wallets and support the fantastic work they do. https://www.juliancenter.org/donate/

Back to the fragile male egos and the Gillette ad. If you don't like getting preached to by a cynical corporation, then do something about it. Volunteer, join the Big Brothers or other such groups, help out the Boy Scouts, become a foster family, work with many of the groups out there trying to end the school to prison pipeline. What I'm seeing instead is that because some of you feel targeted by the ad and other such statements, you want to shut down any discussion and hide in a corner. If you don't like the conversation, get out there and change it. Prove that they are wrong about most men.

I will tell you what won't work to convince anyone... *****ing and moaning about a Feminist anti-male agenda and complaining that no one is highlighting all the terrible things that women do. That simply will get you ignore or lumped in with the (hopefully) small percentage of men who are being called out.

As to the point of comparing this to the anti-gun rhetoric that is thrown around, my point above applies just the same. We can sit here and complain about anti-gunners making up lies and violating the constitution, but if all we do is sit here and complain about it, they'll win. We need to get out there and contact our congressmen and senators, work to recruit pro-gun candidates for whatever party you are member of, take family members/neighbors/co-workers to the range and teach them that shooting is fun hobby and how to be safe. If we do that, we'll convince most people that we are right and the anti-gunners are wrong.

Is your response to anti-gun lies to point out that knives are just as dangerous and why isn't anyone trying to ban them? I hope not, since that doesn't do anything but make things worse.

1) If you're not saying it doesn't deserve to be talked about, maybe try not spending so much time posting statistics making that case.

2) If that's what you get out of the protestations, maybe it's your imagination of what people are meaning. It's not what-about-isms. I've said, I dont' know how many times, what the 2 or 3 main objections are about it. Your characterizations don't come close to that. Maybe try to get where people are coming from instead of assuming the worst. Like you saying JK was blaming just women for having kids out of wedlock. He said no such thing in the text you quoted.

3) About men getting abused by women. It doesn't negate women being abused by men. But it's fair to talk about both issues in a conversation like this. I don't think I read the entire context of how the abuse of men was brought into the topic. I was just commenting on what you did with it. My entry into that part of the discussion was not to support what-about-ism. But just to address your apparent dismissal. You may not have intended to dismiss it, but you did use language that would make one suspect you were.

4) Fragile male egos? See, this is why I don't think you're being an honest broker in this discussion. This makes me not take you seriously. In fact, it makes me think you're being intentionally hostile. If this is what you really think, it seems most evident that you're not thinking it through with sufficient depth to learn the nuance of the opposing point of view. That's the charitable assessment. The blunt assessment is that it's the kind of the dumb ass facile bull**** that trendy progressives say when it's easier than comprehending an opposing point of view that could possibly not be literally Hitler.

5) Feminist anti-male agenda. Well, I've not said that the Gillette ad is part of a Feminist anti-male agenda. I honestly don't think most feminists are anti-male. I do think a lot of the feminist influencers are anti-male, because, you know. I can read. And I'd kinda like the sane feminists without an anti-male agenda to call out the bat-**** crazy ones. Call-outs are trendy these days among the Millennial, so... Well. I digress. Speaking of call-outs, I agree with Hough that the primary motivation for Gillette was not to call out male behavior, but to signal "wokeness" because that's it sells well to superficial Millennials.

6) Anti gun people and what we're doing about it. All we do is not sit here and complain about it. Maybe you've missed the threads where we organize letter writing campaigns to state and federal legislators and whatnot. But, we get to complain about it too. And who says we're all sitting? I have one of those standing desk thingies. But currently I'm relining. Technically not sitting. But anyway, as I said, my objection to your bit about abuse of men had nothing to do with what-about-ism, and everything to do with what seemed like an attempt to dismiss it. If you think that discussion doesn't belong in this conversation, it's fair to say that. Probably should have said that rather than trotting out the statistics.

 

[mark40sw]

 

[DataGeek19]

A guy named King Camp Gillette was the founder of the company in 1901. Interesting enough he was against capitalism. A liberal over a century ago...

[FONT=&quot]“King Gillette had always been an opponent of capitalism. He wrote a number of books promoting a socialist utopia, beginning with "The Human Drift" (1894), in which he declared competition to be the root of all evil. He even presented plans for efficient, pollution-free cities contained in single gigantic, glass-domed, beehive-like communal complexes. Gillette hoped that these would replace the monstrous, sprawling cities that the Industrial Revolution had created.”
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“King Gillette's social engineering efforts never made much headway. In addition, his personal fortune was ruined by the stock market crash of 1929, patent battles, and corporate infighting. Gillette died a frustrated man in 1932.”[/FONT]

 

[DoggyDaddy]

A guy named King Camp Gillette was the founder of the company in 1901. Interesting enough he was against capitalism. A liberal over a century ago...

[FONT=&amp]“King Gillette had always been an opponent of capitalism. He wrote a number of books promoting a socialist utopia, beginning with "The Human Drift" (1894), in which he declared competition to be the root of all evil. He even presented plans for efficient, pollution-free cities contained in single gigantic, glass-domed, beehive-like communal complexes. Gillette hoped that these would replace the monstrous, sprawling cities that the Industrial Revolution had created.”
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]“King Gillette's social engineering efforts never made much headway. In addition, his personal fortune was ruined by the stock market crash of 1929, patent battles, and corporate infighting. Gillette died a frustrated man in 1932.”[/FONT]

"I'm going to create beautiful, pollution-free utopian glass-domed cities! Eh, screw it. Let's just make razor blades and shave cream."

 

[DataGeek19]

"I'm going to create beautiful, pollution-free utopian glass-domed cities! Eh, screw it. Let's just make razor blades and shave cream."

He did die a broke man! That should be a lesson to any young socialists!

 

[mmpsteve]

He did die a broke man! That should be a lesson to any young socialists!

I know I can google it, but how did Gillette rise from the ashes to become the giant it is today?

.

 

[DataGeek19]

I know I can google it, but how did Gillette rise from the ashes to become the giant it is today?

.

His ideas for razor improvement lived on managed by those better equipped to handle the business. In other words “capitalists”! The company is now owned by Procter and Gamble.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/social...r/businesses-and-occupations/gillette-company

 

[indiucky]

I know I can google it, but how did Gillette rise from the ashes to become the giant it is today?

.

When abusing their men, women were pulling the beards to get them in close for a punch...Men, being unable to strike back and seeking a solution, went to the Indigenous men of this nation for an answer....The answer was a clean shaven face....Gillette heard of this and capitalized on it to bring peace to the sexes....

And now you know....The rest of the story.....

 

[Leadeye]

You must spread some rep around before giving it to Indiucky again.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Just went to get some lunch. On the way home, there was a pickup truck with a sticker in the rear window that said, "Ditch the *****! Let's Go Hunting!"

That seemed disrespectful towards women. So I shot him. Am I doing this right?

 

[Double T]

Apparently the watch company CEO edited that ad against the views of the board, and is responding personally to emails. I'm not in the market for a watch, but I shared the video to social media just because.

 

[Ziggidy]

When and how did masculinity become the excuse for violence, rape, crime, white privilege, sexual harassment, bullying and so much more.

Is femininity the excuse for LGBTTQIAA and 2/T and more?

What is the defining difference?

Should men be protesting the "women's" march?

I am so confused.....

 

[mmpsteve]

When abusing their men, women were pulling the beards to get them in close for a punch...Men, being unable to strike back and seeking a solution, went to the Indigenous men of this nation for an answer....The answer was a clean shaven face....Gillette heard of this and capitalized on it to bring peace to the sexes....

And now you know....The rest of the story.....

You river dwellars are so smart. Also you're a fine figure of a man.
Aye.

.

 

[indiucky]

You river dwellars are so smart. Also you're a fine figure of a man.
Aye.

.

Thanks...I lift tumblers of whiskey on a regular basis........

 

[Mongo59]

Just went to get some lunch. On the way home, there was a pickup truck with a sticker in the rear window that said, "Ditch the *****! Let's Go Hunting!"

That seemed disrespectful towards women. So I shot him. Am I doing this right?

Shot him kill him or shoot em in the goobers to keep him humble?