I don't have a solution. Do you? Does anyone? Is it a lot different than our day or is there more of it because there are more people? It's seriously not my area of my expertise.
So have you seen the Gillette ad
- Thread starter zeke4ahs
- Start date
Van: People don’t like to be lectured to.
Van also: Proceeds to lecture.
I think that is a good point, Nike's ad really was about lifting up. I think it is the better ad, but I think this one still serves a purpose.
The ad is an attempt to contribute to the solution. If this ad pre-empts one suicide, that's something. Something is more than nothing.
YouTube likes are running four-to-one against Gillette’s new ad; for comparison, the YouTube response to Nike’s controversial ad with Colin Kaepernick runs seven-to-one in favor. What should worry Gillette is not so much the rebukes from the set of commentators you might expect (like Piers Morgan and Brian Kilmeade) but the lack of an apparent groundswell of positive reaction that Nike got for its campaign with Kaepernick.
THE TOP LINE JAN. 15, 2019
Why Nike’s Woke Ad Campaign Works and Gillette’s Doesn’t
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/why-nikes-woke-ad-campaign-works-and-gillettes-doesnt.html
This is a damn good ad....
Whatever the hell Gillette was attempting is a massive faceplant. Almost cartoonish. I've never seen an adult in my lifetime sit back and let little boys beat up on each other in a real fight. And apparently only asshole men would approach a pretty girl on a street.
Last edited:
The ad is an attempt to sell more of a product actually. If you think it might contribute to a solution, why? How would it do that? I don't know.
YouTube likes are running four-to-one against Gillette’s new ad; for comparison, the YouTube response to Nike’s controversial ad with Colin Kaepernick runs seven-to-one in favor. What should worry Gillette is not so much the rebukes from the set of commentators you might expect (like Piers Morgan and Brian Kilmeade) but the lack of an apparent groundswell of positive reaction that Nike got for its campaign with Kaepernick.
THE TOP LINE JAN. 15, 2019
Why Nike’s Woke Ad Campaign Works and Gillette’s Doesn’t
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/why-nikes-woke-ad-campaign-works-and-gillettes-doesnt.html
This is a damn good ad....
Whatever the hell Gillette was attempting is a massive faceplant. Almost cartoonish. I've never seen an adult in my lifetime sit back and let little boys beat up on each other in a real fight. And apparently only asshole men would approach a pretty girl on a street.
Play fight: I am Batman and I just punched the Joker. (Swing fist at your playmate and make a punch noise like they hear on TV shows). The person getting punched falls down like they are knocked out.
Isn't this just another part of the "consent" conversation? If both parties willingly consent to the "play", it's cool. But, if one of the parties isn't onboard with it, it's not. Doesn't seem complicated to me. Don't know why so many of my conservative brethren here are getting so defensive about the ad. That "play fight" bit is four shots out of about 70 (I don't think those shots are well-executed, but that's just me). So, while I guess someone can quibble and obsess over that small part if they're dead set on quibbling, there's a much larger valid point being made that I think you're missing.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Lol. Ok. Guess what eventually happened to the small-and-unable-to-defend-themselves-physically kids named Harris and Klebold?
It’s easy for internet tough guys to say “go settle it outside!” like a badass, when one of the party’s may be completely unable to defend themselves against a bigger and stronger foe. Or, is it bad parenting if one’s kid isn’t a naturally born strongman?
“The better man wins...”. Unreal. Life must be very simple Farva.
Boys "fight" as a natural tendency. At a very young age. And this includes the tendency to "shoot" at each other with fake, makeshift "guns".... Or whatever. My 3 yr old son is in a co-op preschool twice a week where the parents assist the full time teacher. It's a real 'granola' group of families, for lack of a better term....One of the moms (of a girl) was horrified (I think she actually used the term triggered) that the boys were taking toys and pretending to "blast" each other. The moms of boys tried to explain that it's what happens and isn't a damn thing you can do about it.
And boys will get into physical fights too....I don't know a guy that didn't have some kinds of tusseles with other kids growing up. I was not a fighter or troublemaker whatsoever, but still had brawls with friends and other kids at points in time. Almost always revolving around some kind of competition....be it playing pick-up basketball, video games, or when a little older some kind of female dynamic.
Yeah that's absurd. It's the adults job to talk sense into kids.... separate them and let them chill out. 9/10 times just cooling kids off for 30 mins ends whatever confrontation was brewing. Have no clue what world Farva lived in...but I've never seen adults take an attitude like that. That's what's so absurd about that ad....like that isn't what that vast majority of men already do....don't need it preached to us by freaking P&G.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
It’s the most moronic statement in a thread where a lot of moronic statements were made. People who think like this are the problem with our society and are the reason I have to put up with garbage ads like the Gillette one.
These people do exist, I just choose to think there aren’t that many of them and there sure aren’t enough of them to warrant a dumbass ad.
Honestly, I am not that bent about the ad. I don't think there is anything wrong with the message per se, I am just not a big fan about how they went about it. I think they make some incorrect assumptions about what men think is masculinity and I believe that much of the ad is stereotyping. And there is an interesting racial component to the advertisement as well.
There are things there not to like. I think if some of the assumptions that the ad makes about what it means to be a man would be offensive if it were applied to others. But since the barrels are aimed at guys (white guys in particular) then people do not see a problem with it.
I am not losing any sleep but there are quite a few non-toxic, non-conservative, and non-white men who I have anecdotally seen say that the ad rubbed them the wrong way too.
Last edited:
Devil's advocate, have either of you had a child bullied at school yet? My oldest was getting picked on while riding the bus to and from school. They had assigned seats and the kid next to him was bullying him, like physically grabbing and messing with him. We said something to the bus driver. Still continued. Said something to the teacher and asked that he have a different assigned seat, still continued. It took calling into the school and letting them know that since they were not doing anything that I gave my child the ok to fight back, that finally got their attention.
I do not expect any kid to be the punching bag, particularly when some of our schools are absolutely terrible about having the adults step in. There is a reason for the old stories about standing up for yourself to bullies, because sometimes it works. And that is a real life lesson. You should not go right to the violent response, but in some cases, it is the only response left to you. That's reality. That was basically your job at one point Ranger. You were the last option (or should be) when all avenues of diplomacy have ended.
Last edited:
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I agree with nearly everything you say. Bullied kids make me go ballistic and I want to knock the teeth out of the bullies’ fathers mouths. But I don’t. Because I’m not a complete asshole.
Yes, in the case of repeated bullying, sometimes somebody has to get knocked out. But the way some simpletons look at it, we should be at fisticuffs after one word is uttered in anger. Violence is a last resort, whether you be a boy or girl.
School busses are the worst place on earth outside of war zones.
Awesome, let’s punch the bullies, that’ll show ‘em. Or maybe it just keeps reinforcing the idea that violence is an acceptable way to interact as long as you can punch harder than the other guy. You did t teach the bully a lesson other than picking weaker targets.
I watched the video and I'm not sure who they were speaking to. It couldn't be women; they already know that there are far to many men who are misogynistic a$$holes. I couldn't be the misogynistic a$$holes because they don't think they are doing anything wrong, otherwise they'd stop. I don't think it was the vast majority of guys who are trying to be decent human beings and (hopefully) helping to raise their kids to be the same.
Overall it was just kind of "meh" and rather cartoonish compared to the Nike ad which seemed to be trying to inspirational.
Overall it was just kind of "meh" and rather cartoonish compared to the Nike ad which seemed to be trying to inspirational.
You do not live in the real world.
If someone is picking on you and you have asked for help from the adults and no action was taken and you find yourself in a situation where the bully is hitting on you, you have 2 choices, take a beating or fight back. After my children have turned the cheek on multiple occasions, they have my permission to fight back as a last resort.
Not fighting back can have deadly consequences.
The adults who do nothing in this example, aren't they the problem that the commercial is talking about? And yes, some of them may well have been women but I'm not convinced there aren't women who don't accept toxic masculinity.
They are the problem but this is a problem that impacts both genders. I just happen to have boys. For those whose girls are bullied by another girl, they tend to get the same response. The schools are terrible about stepping in until it is too late.
I do not want my kids fighting. That is why we went to the school 3 times. Even when I gave permission to fight back I still went to the school in hopes that one of the adults would finally step in and handle the situation before it came to the more violent response. My child is smaller as well, I let them know he was told exactly where to hit a bigger guy to stop him long enough to get away.
I live in the real world where people like you continue to perpetuate the cycle of violence generation after generation. I strongly disagree that there are no other choices in the majority of situations, I think people who use that reasoning are typically looking for a way to excuse turning to a violent resolution of their problems.
The world is not sunshine and rainbows. You live in fantasy land.
I also notice that you said the majority of situations do not require a violent response. Even you are willing to admit that sometimes you have to do it. You neanderthal.
Also, just curious, how many boys are you currently raising?
This is a bad ad that has triggered worse takes. Between AOC and this, the right has been uber triggered. I believe the right is acting triggered because it gives them a distraction to the much more significant issues they don’t want to acknowledge. Yet again, we have outrage in bad faith.
1 at the moment, not that it’s particularly relevant. Like I said, there are almost always other options. I’m willing to bet that telling your kid to just remove themself from the situation isn’t something you considered because that would be weak and giving in, but I’d rather that every time than a situation escalate and that’s how my child is raised.
How does a kid remove themselves from a situation on a freaking school bus? He was clear that they tried talking to the bus driver and the school to no avail.
I don't have at hand a verified assessment of the exact percentage of toxic males in the USA or even a precise definition of it. I'd readily admit that the toxicity referenced in the commercial isn't limited to males. I think it's fair to say that some horseplay is certainly fine and that there's no need to vilify each and every rough interaction among humans.
But I think a lot of that is quibbling to the extent that the numbers are greater than you choose to think. On that note, I think the ad took on some of the more obvious manifestations of the behaviors that are labeled toxic, but there are other lesser behaviors that are on the same chain and have some of the same impact. Many engaging in those behaviors are oblivious to them and to their impact and some of that obliviousness is due to unconscious bias and lack of perspective (one of the main bases for diversity and inclusion initiatives).
That the POTUS (with full-throated support from 90% of what remains of the Republican Party) is a prime example of all the commercial talks about should be a clear indicator that it's not a problem with just a few bad apples. The Kavanaugh hearings are another example; I think it's a fair point to say that the allegations were too old to have an impact today, but that wasn't the only heated response. Much of it really was "boys will be boys" even if people were victimized. A fuller reading of Kavanaugh, including his "I'm going to start at an 11" blow up in front of the Judiciary Committee, paint a pretty unflattering picture. Now he's on the Supreme Court. It's unfortunate that those examples come out of politics because (1) that's very likely not our gravest concern and (2) those issues get wrapped up in partisanship and thus ignored.
To my point above, it's not just about bullying or harassment per se. For example, assertiveness in the workplace easily converts to aggression in the workplace (manifested in a number of different ways); that aggression in turn gets valued because it gets confused with assertiveness and it pushes outcomes where all too often cliques form, pointless power struggles ensue, and marginalized groups get pushed to the side (having nothing really to do with merit). Those most focused on and comfortable with gathering and then manipulating power in a number of ways absolutely do get traction and that often leads to those results. There are many examples of outcomes like that where underlying bad behavior gets overlooked as a leading culprit (and mostly because that unproductive bad behavior isn't recognized as such).
Again, I can't quantify it, but I think some of the behaviors (and their impact) are more pronounced and extensive and pervasive than you recognize and even if it's not a fully exclusive circle, it's predominantly an issue with men. Poll some more folks who've been impacted; they likely have a very different take than those who are dismissive of the ad.
I agree with this. Defending oneself as a last resort is imperative. I also agree that the child should seek out trusted adults to help with a recurring situation. That means that the child has to understand that adults can be expected to intervene in bullying and abusive situations. So, in practice what do we disagree about? It seems we both agree that adults should not bully or abuse and shouldn't tolerate it in others. This is exactly the dictum Aloha articulated.
It is the message of the Gillette ad that we adult men too often fail in abiding by this simple dictum. We should do better. That this is controversial is amazing.
Do you believe that traditional masculinity is the same as “toxic” masculinity, as Mr Skillings here does?
Of course he liked the ad, in his mind traditional masculinity is the enemy.
I think we would need to define the terms. I will suggest this, a lot has changed over the years. Being the biggest and strongest had a great deal of relevance when we didn't have power tools and had bears. That's all been changing, except for sports. There are even drawbacks to big and strong in the military, our adversaries in Korea and Vietnam needed a small fraction of the food we needed. So they could march farther, quieter and were not road bound. So the masculinity that says strength and power dominates (expressed by Farva in this thread) is probably out of touch with the modern world. Not that there is anything wrong with being strong, until/unless one tries to use it intimidate or bully.
Your last paragraph is where the quibble is. I don't think the majority of adult men do fail at that. That is the problem I think people had with the ad. The idea that men are just prone to be toxic assholes is not reality. I do not think the majority of males fall into that. I think most males see themselves in the more traditional roles of males. Husband, protector, provider, etc. The idea that the ad implies that men's default is being brutes is what annoyed people from the complaints I have seen.
Define strength and power though. I think you are only using the physical description of strength. Strength comes in other forms as well. Intellectual, emotional, etc. That is why I love the (general) differences between males and females. When you put that human pair together, you often have the perfect ying and yang when properly matched.
No one gender has a grip on all of the strengths that are available to humans.
How about we talk about power in business, in government and in symbolic image-making.* Arguably, those three are among the three most determinative spots to evaluate power for change.
And that's only about gender, just one of many demographics we should be thinking about.
*I can't vouch for those numbers, but they're along the lines of what I'd understood.
You act as though there isn't anything negative baked into those. My marriage is a partnership. We both work, currently I make more but that hasn't always been true and it was never a problem when one or the other of us played more the role of "provider". My wife is absolutely capable of "protecting" herself, she doesn't need me hanging over her shoulder looking for times where she "needs a man", we just both ask for help when there's something in life that the other person is more equipped to take on.
The concept of the man being in those protector/provider roles is exactly what leads to relationships where the man feels ownership over the woman and over the relationship. I'm not saying that's what it means to you, but I also think you're minimizing how often that kind of (dare I say) toxic dynamic develops when men feel the need to be in "traditional roles".
You're using the broad brush, not the ad. The message is bullying is bad whether you're the bully, the victim, or the person on the side witnessing it, so whoever you are, take responsibility for bullying. You're saying most are on the side and the ad is offensive to them. Why? The message to them is not that they're bullies but to do something about it if and when they see it.
In short, you're implying men on the side are wimps (because they take offense to this ad). The ad is saying (poorly or well) that strong men on the side take responsibility for bullying. If you're strong, kudos, if you're not, man up.
The ad does not assert that "the majority of men" are toxic assholes. The ad implies that toxic assholes are a serious problem and that men should do a better job of responding to toxic assholery when they see it. The ad implies that men need to do a better job of confronting and opposing brutality. The ad implies that men tolerate, ignore and downplay much too much. The ad implies that we should start by not trying to minimize the amount of toxic assholery that is out there nor minimizing just how toxic it is.
One problem, I think, is that very many men have themselves been brutalized by toxic assholes. A central tactic abusers and bullies use is to "stoogify" bystanders effectively turning them into accomplices. The tactic plays on the fear of the bystander that, if he doesn't support the bully, the bully and his stooges will turn on the bystander. The stooge necessarily downplays the toxicity of the abuser as a way to minimize his own guilt. The message of the ad might be reduced to "don't be a stooge".
