Gillette: Men Are Toxic

[actaeon277]

Violence is Golden ? Jack Donovan

But that was a good article. I wasn't knocking it.
I was merely making commentary.

 

[actaeon277]

I guess that depends on "what it means to be a man."

If we are talking holding doors open for women, not letting them walk on the side of the sidewalk close to the street, etc...then I honestly don't know who influenced me on that stuff. My grandpa, probably, but I dont remember any instruction along the lines of "this is what men do..."

If we are talking "women's work" vs "men's work" like doing laundry vs cutting the grass, well then my mom influenced me on that because I do my own laundry and dishes.

I think it's more of a "percentage" thing. Just like the "millennial" thing.
Not everyone in the group is the same. Many, maybe even "most", do not meet what society is saying.
But 1 parent homes increase the chances of drugs, crime, and poverty.
It is not guaranteed though.
For instance, staying with a drunk abusive man would in most cases, be worse.
And I've met many single moms that did an AWESOME job. They were the shoulder to cry on, and they were the disciplinarian.

But many women don't.
Of course, the same goes for men running a single parent home.
Many can do the job.
Many can't.

Odds are on a 2 parent home.
But that is no guarantee at all. It often fails at the individual level.


Having 2 parents, I was lucky to get 2 different viewpoints. I was also able to see them argue (quite loudly), and still work things out.
Had one been a drunk, or druggie, that may have shifted things though.

 

[eldirector]

Research has been pretty clear that at the aggregate, strong nuclear families produce children that are more successful, have less drug/alcohol use, lower incidence of mental illness, and are involved in less crime.

Also interesting: this is across countries, continents, and cultures.

Not guaranteed, of course. But, a strong statistical correlation.

 

[indiucky]

 

[HoughMade]

Research has been pretty clear that at the aggregate, strong nuclear families produce children that are more successful, have less drug/alcohol use, lower incidence of mental illness, and are involved in less crime.

Also interesting: this is across countries, continents, and cultures.

Not guaranteed, of course. But, a strong statistical correlation.

There are exceptions to every "rule", but that doesn't mean the "rule" is meaningless. Rather, the "rule" describes the best chance at success. That some people do quite well apart from the "rule" is a testament to them personally, not an indictment of the "rule".

 

[Route 45]

I expect that the obverse is equally true, my friend

No doubt. And that's something that is very hard for me to wrap my head around. How one can be completely reasonable in most things, yet cling to what is objectively ridiculous from a logical standpoint. I may be a bit abrasive and harsh sometimes, but I would never fathom to proclaim that I know the "secret to immortality," as one poster put it. I do understand how it would give one comfort to think that, but I just can't believe something that makes no sense to me.

But enough of the off-topic banter.

Gillette sucks.

 

[Ziggidy]

A female friend of mine had this to say:

"Masculinity and sinful behavior are not synonymous. Masculinity is a gift from God, and we honor Him when we acknowledge and celebrate this gift. There is incredible goodness and value in both masculinity and femininity. They are both needed, and both of them reflect things about God’s character. The sin lies in our choices, not in our God-given differences. Perhaps we should call the sin, not masculinity itself, toxic. Perhaps we should reject the behavior that stems from a culture without Christ but not reject masculinity itself."

 

[mmpsteve]

A female friend of mine had this to say:

"Masculinity and sinful behavior are not synonymous. Masculinity is a gift from God, and we honor Him when we acknowledge and celebrate this gift. There is incredible goodness and value in both masculinity and femininity. They are both needed, and both of them reflect things about God’s character. The sin lies in our choices, not in our God-given differences. Perhaps we should call the sin, not masculinity itself, toxic. Perhaps we should reject the behavior that stems from a culture without Christ but not reject masculinity itself."

I concur with your female friend. Rep inbound.

.

 

[bwframe]

What is the prediction for Gillette's sales in the upcoming year?

 

[KJQ6945]

Can there be such a a thing as "toxic masculinity"? Sure, we've all seen it, experienced it to varying degrees. There is a saying, Everything I needed to know in life, I learned in kindergarten. If you didn't go to kindergarten, you learned it, or were at least taught it. It's called be a decent, productive member of society. If your religious, let's call it the Golden Rule.

To me, and maybe only me, here lies the rub. Masculinity is no more toxic, than is Feminity. Some guys are just dicks. Some women are just *****es. Choose your friends and mates carefully. Ever heard of "toxic feminity", I didn't think so. Some people just suck, that's life.

Here on INGO, we have some that will turn any thread TOXIC, at the drop of a hat. Most get banned, but there are some still here, and there will be more that show up. They play the game like pros. A "Toxic Troll" is as real as toxic masculinity, or toxic feminity. Toxic is the key. Toxic is bad. Like you learned by kindergarten, don't be bad, or in 2019 SJW speak, TOXIC.


And, one last thing, **** Gillette, My parents raised me right, I don't need your help.

 

[Ziggidy]

And, one last thing, **** Gillette, My parents raised me right, I don't need your help.

Bingo, and we have a winner.

 

[Route 45]

No agenda here.

 

[Phase2]

 

[Phase2]

 

[indiucky]

I don't know if posted but Egard Watches responds to Gillette.....

[video=youtube;x_HL0wiK4Zc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_HL0wiK4Zc[/video]

 

[HoughMade]

I don't know if posted but Egard Watches responds to Gillette.....

[video=youtube;x_HL0wiK4Zc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_HL0wiK4Zc[/video]

I like most of what they are doing there. Their heart is in the right place...as much as it can be when the ultimate goal is selling stuff.

...but this stat is nothing to brag about:

 

[indiucky]

I like most of what they are doing there. Their heart is in the right place...as much as it can be when the ultimate goal is selling stuff.

...but this stat is nothing to brag about:

Jordan Peterson was on Swedish TV and he was talking about the effect no fault divorces have on society...The panel began questioning him about this and said why is he all of a sudden interested in the courts getting involved in reason for a divorce between consenting adults?

I'm paraphrasing here but his response was, "Children.....Isn't that the job of a court to step up for those who have no voice???? Don't you think the lives that are going to be most affected by this divorce should have a champion in their corner???"

It kind of took them back and one of them asked Jordan, "Well then what is the perfect age for a divorce?" Jordan paused, grinned and said, "Forty-five...But you get my point eh?"

 

[HoughMade]

What do executives at Gillette believe? Despite the ad, no one knows and no one should care.

Let's be clear. This is advertising. They are trying to sell a product.

"What about the backlash?"

- You mean from all the guys with beards and those who have been leaving companies like Gillette for Dollar Shave Club and the like?

Gillette doesn't care about them. They are lost.

There is backlash to the backlash and that is one place Gillette will see gains. This is not strictly the so-called millenial generation (because people who view themselves as "progressive" never want to admit they aren't young). Rather, this is geared towards people (not just men, maybe not even primarily men) who want to view themselves as "good people" and "on the right side of history" and one way they do this, as odd as it sounds, is in the products they buy. I've always found this odd.

However, it's not odd at all and permeates all corners of the political landscape. "I won't buy anything from Dicks". "I am boycotting Nike." etc., etc.- if you boycott someone, you are choosing someone else and your politics are influencing your buying decisions. Advertising is manipulation and we are all the targets of it. Have you bought an products because "a portion of the proceeds go to" some cause you think you like (even though the charity is largely a mechanism for high salaries while a bit of the money goes to the cause)?

Gillette is marketing to the "right side of history" crowd and in the process getting EVERYONE to talk about them. I predict that much like Nike and their Kaepernick ad, there will not be an immediate sales decrease because at least as many people as dislike the ad will like it. The progressives may even flock to it just to anger those who dislike the ad and increase the sales. What about 6 months or 12 months from now? Who knows.

Never forget this. Gillette has no core beliefs that are unrelated to profit. Few companies do. The companies you like probably don't, but they take the right positions and say the right things to make you happy.

This is an interesting article that talks about the mindset behind these social justice ads from an advertising writer who sees this as the future.

https://www.prweek.com/article/1492939/why-brands-will-follow-nike-social-justice

Even benign advertising campaigns prey upon the desire of people to see themselves as "good" though their purchases. They are selling "good vibes" to people who can't be bothered to try to differentiate one product from another with stats and objective measures:

- Subaru- Love
- Burger King- Net Neutrality
- Dominos- filling potholes
- Kiwi shoe polish (for pete's sake) Greatness starts with the first step

...and on and on.
-

 

[jamil]

I like most of what they are doing there. Their heart is in the right place...as much as it can be when the ultimate goal is selling stuff.

...but this stat is nothing to brag about:

I don't think bragging was the entire point. Suicide rates aren't anything to brag about. Nor homelessness. This is just one of many statistics that doesn't fit the mostly one-sided message of the Gillette ad.

The truth is. Some men are horrible. Some men are great. Most are in between. We're individuals as are every member of every possible grouping. Women haven't escaped existence without some pretty horrible examples either. Or greatness. Or just in between.

Both ads I think are signals. One signals virtue to sell razors. The other signals maybe some solidarity with the counternarrative to sell watches.

 

[HoughMade]

You are right. They are both designed to sell.

Just because one is designed to sell to "them" and the other designed to sell to "us", doesn't change that they are fundamentally pursing the same goal.

Nor would I assume that a company who capitalizes on the viral nature of the Gillette ad has any particular good intentions.