Gillette ad furor

  • Thread starter Thread starter prayerrider
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Again, if Gillette had an ad targeting the many faults of women, I’d at least say they were looking to improve both genders.

But they don’t. So they lost my business. I doubt they care about one sale, but that’s not why I make choices with how to use my money.

Others can do as they wish.
 
As was pointed out and not commented on by Gillette’s defenders, your cute picture would work just as well for the people who objected to Tim Tebow’s super bowl ad. Who objects to an ad celebrating choosing life?

Rhetorical question, as we all know the kind of people who do.
 
You can’t make up a term that speaks poorly of women without defining it in a way that speaks poorly of men.

Yeah, that’s quite evenhanded of you. No gender bias at all.
 
blackforest said:
Masculinity can get extremely toxic. The ad shows how.

And yes, there’s such a thing as “toxic femininity.” I see it in women who believe it’s “feminine” and “womanly” to allow their husbands to treat them like dirt.

Gender roles don’t have to be toxic.
Click to expand...
It’s kinda amazing how you turn it around to be all about the oppressive male.
The advertisement just showed bad behavior that good parenting can train out of a child.
I don’t really think it was about ‘masculinity’ except for it only focusing on male bad behaviors.
 
Last edited:
Which shows it is a terrible ad, if a large portion of the intended audience missed the point.

So even if the ad does not bother, whoever thought it was effective is terrible at their job, if the audience doesnt get it.
 
If this was the norm for ads, you wouldn’t have men and women objecting to it en masse. Let’s not act like it is typical, when even Gillette acknowledges it isn’t.
 
Last edited:
My husband looks great in his beard. Just sayin.’ :smiling_face_with_three_hearts: Men could protest by going Amish. Or rabbinical.
 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
Also, why do you care? Why start the thread? Why is this ad so threatening to you?
Click to expand...
Why start the thread? Well, the title of the forum is “In the News,” for one thing. And the ad is very much “in the news.”
Please don’t feel obligated to participate. I will stop responding to your posts. I politely request you stop addressing me as well.
I do hope you find peace. God bless!
 
Last edited:
I will address you one last time in my defense. I’m genuinely interested in why this ad has provoked such an angry and visceral reaction instead of a shrug and an agreement to disagree, turn off the radio, grow a beard, use Schick instead, etc. I apologize for the question coming off as brusque.

I will no longer address you. There is a “mute” feature if you need to use it.

God bless you, as well.
 
Last edited:
Dr_Meinheimer said:
if Gillette had an ad targeting the many faults of women
Click to expand...
Do you think the current ad is targeting the many faults of men?
I think it is targeting faults of certain kinds of men who are not living up to an ideal that we should all promote.
 
prayerrider said:
And little boys roughhousing? I stop that in the classroom without running over and acting hysterical. If it’s outside, I’ll let it go, to a point. Any grown man can tell when horseplay is getting too heated. And here’s the thing: boys need to roughhouse and horseplay. It’s part of who they are.
Click to expand...
I suppose that there was some “need” for this sort of thing when we were hunter gatherers or relied on had to hand combat for defense. Not so much nowadays. Sad for some, I suppose.

And what “need” is there to catcall or grope women?
 
How would you feel about an ad that showed young black men committing crimes, and then young black men stopping them from committing crimes?

The reason that some people are upset with the ad is that it casts most men as bad guys, and a few “woke” guys as decent human beings.

It is not inspiring men to do better but browbeating them to do better.

Gillette could have done this soooooo much better.k But this way they caused a lot of furor, so maybe they planned it this way.
 
robertmidwest said:
???
Click to expand...
It was a feature for which you could select certain posters whose post you wanted filtered from your view. Once a user was put on this list you only saw a single line saying they had posted something. The content of their post only displayed when you specifically clicked on a button to show it.
 
ThinkingSapien said:
It was a feature for which you could select certain posters whose post you wanted filtered from your view. Once a user was put on this list you only saw a single line saying they had posted something. The content of their post only displayed when you specifically clicked on a button to show it.
Click to expand...
There is still a mute feature.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top