Gillette ad furor

  • Thread starter Thread starter prayerrider
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
But it also touches on what boys experience. Boys who are bullied are often expected to fight back, not look for someone to help. I know I had to deal with that because the teachers wouldn’t care unless I did. Of course, we would both get in trouble, but it was the only way to get them to back off for a time.
I disagree, fighting back and taking action can mean telling a teacher or literally fighting back. When I was a kid, teachers didn’t pay attention so your options to resist were limited. Bullying generally doesn’t stop until you do fight back in some fashion. My first “fight” was in 8th grade with a bully, and it stopped the bullying, I didn’t even ‘win’ the fight.
 
That’s about the only place I’ve seen it. Including among high school boys, who I’m around often in my work.
 
Just curious, since I am not a woman, were you flattered by that attention when you got it?
No. And there’s no “right” way to respond. Flirt back and you’re easy. Look haughty and ignore them, and you’re gaslighted as a jerk. It feels cheap and objectifying.
How about a doing one for women?
Just curious - what would it say?
I think it’s odd how society is trying to promote pseudo-morality without mentioning or acknowledging God.
No ads on T.V. mention God unless they’re sponsored by a church.
I have witnessed the kind of behavior exhibited in this video…zero times.
Anecdotes aren’t evidence. I’m happy you know some decent guys. I hope they do what the commercial suggested and encourage other guys to do likewise.
A made up term used here to caricaturize…all men who barbecue, apparently. Imagine the uproar if they showed an endless line of women doing laundry.
That was the point of the BBQing, to show that men don’t necessarily have to live up to stereotypes. I love BBQ meals! 👩‍🍳
Pornography. Child molestation. Violations of indecency laws. Public bathroom hookups. Is this the best the male homosexual community can get?
It wouldn’t bother me, although it shouldn’t just target gay men. Heterosexuals do all of these things,including the last one.
What people object to is being put in the position of having to agree with some political or social position by buying a neutral commercial product that they need for a reason completely separate from politics or social issues.
When on earth did the prevention of bullying, rape, and harassment become “some political or social position?” It’s a moral position, and one that falls right in line with our Church’s stance of upholding the dignity and worth of the human person!

There are currently anti-bullying campaigns in schools encouraging bystanders to say, “Hey, that’s not cool!” How is that different from these ads? Fewer male egos getting offended?
For example, the Gilette ad could be interpreted to mean that most men excuse bullying or rape committed by other men.
Historically, this has been true. It took forever just to get domestic violence first illegal and later to enforce the law. While we’ve made great strides, cultural norms don’t change quickly.

Harassment and bullying are wrong. The men who do the majority of assaults on and harassment toward women should be held accountable. These are not a “controversial” or “social justice” statements.

And anyone who still gets their briefs or boxers in a crumple over an ad calling for human decency can buy Schick razors. It’s a free market, free country.
 
I don’t think ‘locker room’ talk is something that all men do. The term itself didn’t mean that all men in the locker room talk like that. Some men do talk like that. But I find in my experience most don’t. But the point in that situation was that it was just talk.
 
I often don’t personally see or hear bullying, which makes it a hearsay situation. In my opinion, girls are much more subtle and unlikely to be noticed by adults when they bully others.
News flash: girls do bully others. Just as much as boys.
 
Girls bully more from what I see. Girls tend to be more cliquish and verbally nasty. Guys tend to be more physical. But both are forms of bullying. In our feminized society we have the constant message that violence is not the answer. Well, being verbally abusive isn’t either, but that method gets a pass.
 
I don’t think ‘locker room’ talk is something that all men do. The term itself didn’t mean that all men in the locker room talk like that. Some men do talk like that. But I find in my experience most don’t. But the point in that situation was that it was just talk.
I’d say virtually all men have engaged in locker room talk at some point in their lives. Most grow out of it or do it rarely, some make it a habit though I think they are rare in the post metoo era. Even they are learning new acceptable behavior.
 
Yes. It depends who is shaping the “narrative.”
I’ve intervened in two physical fights between girls in the past ten years. They just, erupted out of nowhere. With boys, there’s a rather predictable escalation, and usually I can stop it with my bellowing “coach voice.” Not so with girls. They go someplace feral.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think ‘locker room’ talk is something that all men do. The term itself didn’t mean that all men in the locker room talk like that. Some men do talk like that. But I find in my experience most don’t. But the point in that situation was that it was just talk.
Yet you stated that you’ve never heard men speak crudely about women or objectify them sexually. It seems that isn’t true. Our POTUS did and we all saw it.
 
Yes. It depends who is shaping the “narrative.”
I’ve intervened in two physical fights between girls in the past ten years. They just, erupted out of nowhere. With boys, there’s a rather predictable escalation, and usually I can stop it with my bellowing “coach voice.” Not so with girls. They go someplace feral.
“Feral”? When women fight they become wild animals?
 
gracepoole . . . .
And yet when it was revealed that our president spoke of women this way, we were told it was “locker room talk” and “all guys do it.” Which is it?
Look. I am as against what President Trump did back in his Democrat days as much as you are (I’d be against it if he would have been a Republican doing it too).

But then criticize ONE man and don’t stereotype, blacks, Jewish people, Indians, Irish, or in this case . . . MEN.

This is playing on stereotypes to instill more bigotry pure and simple.

And because it is ANTI-MAN bigotry, people are attempting to defend the indefensible.

Why is it, that politically correct bigotry is acceptable?

If you think that about one man’s actions (you used the Democrat “Trump” as an example) I am all for such commercials if done in the right context.

But then make that commercial about one man. Make a commercial about Harvey Weinstein or whomever instead of about “men”.

I think this running with stereotypes in the manner Gillette did here . . . ENCOURAGES . . . people to . . . run with stereotypes.

And THAT bigotry eventually hurts all people and groups too. Not just men.
 
Last edited:
As opposed to those who support actual, violent aggression against the most defenseless of all like Clinton, Pelosi, Warren, etc.
 
I’m saying Trump engaged in very inappropriate bragadoccio. His female opponents in Congress (and many names too) are actively supporting infanticide.
 
But the ad acknowledges that not all men exhibit the behaviour that was shown in the first part. It’s not aimed at all men.

For what it’s worth, I understand that some don’t appreciate being “preached” to by companies and I have felt that way myself in the past. But I don’t really see it in this instance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top