So have you seen the Gillette ad

[hoot1]

I found this definition of masculinity and rather liked it.

Masculinity (also called manhood or manliness) is a set of attributes, behaviors, and roles associated with boys and men. As a social construct, it is distinct from the definition of the male biological sex. Standards of manliness or masculinity vary across different cultures and historical periods.​

Could it be the Gillette ad is about a company whose products are purchased by mostly men making a case for setting a standard for our current historical time? Could it also be possible our childhood experiences and outlooks on masculinity were set in a different time frame ?

Personally, if I were a Gillette stockholder I would question the ad as it relates to improving market share.

Nevertheless, I've come to realize standards of either masculinity or femininity as set by our culture have changed in my lifetime and are continuing to change. Just watch a Hollywood film from past decades and you will get my drift. Hopefully change will be for the better.

 

[IUCrazy2]

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.

What is he supposed to do mashnut, jump off the bus? Do you even read the posts you respond to. 2 times I went to the school and asked to have them step in, move his assigned seat. They would not do it until I let them know that the next time the kid does it that I instructed my son to punch him back.

Again, you live in fantasyland and your pacifist judgmental bullshit does not work in all situations. I instruct my children to avoid conflict if they can but if they cannot get out, I am completely fine with them fighting back. Weak and giving in is getting beat on and never offering a defense. You are setting your boy up to be a target in a world where sometimes you gotta fight.

And you know what, he never had to throw a punch after I merely made the threat that he could retaliate.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

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.

I am using traditional physical strength and power, brute force. There are many types of strength, but most are gender neutral. Men and women can be intellectually and emotionally strong. Women can be physically strong, but testosterone gives men a different ceiling.

I recall an old question, would you rather your son be the starting QB or valedictorian. As I recall, QB was the primary choice among men. Now sure, there is a very rare shot the high school QB will end up in the NFL, but the vast majority do not. Given that, I'm not sure why QB would be the choice.

 

[IUCrazy2]

I am using traditional physical strength and power, brute force. There are many types of strength, but most are gender neutral. Men and women can be intellectually and emotionally strong. Women can be physically strong, but testosterone gives men a different ceiling.

I recall an old question, would you rather your son be the starting QB or valedictorian. As I recall, QB was the primary choice among men. Now sure, there is a very rare shot the high school QB will end up in the NFL, but the vast majority do not. Given that, I'm not sure why QB would be the choice.

Guess I am weird. I would prefer the valedictorian. The chances of that turning into something really useful in the future are far greater.

 

[iuwclurker]

What is he supposed to do mashnut, jump off the bus? Do you even read the posts you respond to. 2 times I went to the school and asked to have them step in, move his assigned seat. They would not do it until I let them know that the next time the kid does it that I instructed my son to punch him back.

Again, you live in fantasyland and your pacifist judgmental bullshit does not work in all situations. I instruct my children to avoid conflict if they can but if they cannot get out, I am completely fine with them fighting back. Weak and giving in is getting beat on and never offering a defense. You are setting your boy up to be a target in a world where sometimes you gotta fight.

And you know what, he never had to throw a punch after I merely made the threat that he could retaliate.

You're living in yesterday. Today, of course a person has to defend oneself as best as possible. The question is, what about tomorrow? How can we create a tomorrow such that your child is free to exist normally on a bus?

 

[IUCrazy2]

You're living in yesterday. Today, of course a person has to defend oneself as best as possible. The question is, what about tomorrow? How can we create a tomorrow such that your child is free to exist normally on a bus?

Change human nature from birth? Change parenting?

I think we do what we can and what I do. I have 4 boys, if I feel they are picking on their brothers, I come down on them. I have a special needs child, my other children have it drilled into them to never be involved with treating kids poorly for things like that. I cannot control other houses but I can control mine. Part of that also means that your children need to learn that they have boundaries that others should not cross either and when they do, effective and smart ways to deal with it.

I do not think most parents tell kids to go out and punch out anyone who gets in their way. Sticks and stones and all that but if you get cornered, go ahead and fight if you have no good alternative.

 

[iuwclurker]

Change human nature from birth? Change parenting?

I think we do what we can and what I do. I have 4 boys, if I feel they are picking on their brothers, I come down on them. I have a special needs child, my other children have it drilled into them to never be involved with treating kids poorly for things like that. I cannot control other houses but I can control mine. Part of that also means that your children need to learn that they have boundaries that others should not cross either and when they do, effective and smart ways to deal with it.

I do not think most parents tell kids to go out and punch out anyone who gets in their way. Sticks and stones and all that but if you get cornered, go ahead and fight if you have no good alternative.

So what's your issue with an ad that urges all people to be considerate and responsible as you teach your children? Or do you even have an issue with the ad?

The ad is just one more opinion. What's the big deal? Do you own P&G stock?

 

[IUCrazy2]

So what's your issue with an ad that urges all people to be considerate and responsible as you teach your children? Or do you even have an issue with the ad?

The ad is just one more opinion. What's the big deal? Do you own P&G stock?

Part of me was like, "so what" and honestly I think part of me reacts because of who it is coming from and a bit of how I think it is framed. I know this may seem odd to some who are in the Church of Progress, but just like people get annoyed with proselytizing from religious people, people are kind of tired of it from Progressives as well. Even good messages are viewed through a lens where the person delivering the message (or perceived to be delivering the message) can cause an adverse reaction.

I am not Mormon and do not agree with their theology, but with a few changes in framing and a "From the Church of Latter Day Saints" added at the end, I bet you get a different reaction. Sometimes the messenger really matters and there is a perception that many Progressives are not our friends. So the motive of the ad is viewed thusly.

 

[iuwclurker]

Part of me was like, "so what" and honestly I think part of me reacts because of who it is coming from and a bit of how I think it is framed. I know this may seem odd to some who are in the Church of Progress, but just like people get annoyed with proselytizing from religious people, people are kind of tired of it from Progressives as well. Even good messages are viewed through a lens where the person delivering the message (or perceived to be delivering the message) can cause an adverse reaction.

I am not Mormon and do not agree with their theology, but with a few changes in framing and a "From the Church of Latter Day Saints" added at the end, I bet you get a different reaction. Sometimes the messenger really matters and there is a perception that many Progressives are not our friends. So the motive of the ad is viewed thusly.

As twenty showed, the ad was poorly done relative to the Nike ad. But I think there's more to it than proselytizing. Kaepernick was demonized really for no good reason. He wasn't proselytizing. The reaction here is similar to the reaction to Kaepernick kneeling.

In any case, if you have an allergic reaction, then it's you who has an allergy. Pollen's just a part of nature.

 

[mashnut]

What is he supposed to do mashnut, jump off the bus? Do you even read the posts you respond to. 2 times I went to the school and asked to have them step in, move his assigned seat. They would not do it until I let them know that the next time the kid does it that I instructed my son to punch him back.

Again, you live in fantasyland and your pacifist judgmental bullshit does not work in all situations. I instruct my children to avoid conflict if they can but if they cannot get out, I am completely fine with them fighting back. Weak and giving in is getting beat on and never offering a defense. You are setting your boy up to be a target in a world where sometimes you gotta fight.

And you know what, he never had to throw a punch after I merely made the threat that he could retaliate.

So you insisted your kid follow the directions of an adult who wouldn't help him? My first thought would be to tell the kid to insist on sitting on in a different seat away from the bully regardless of what the bus driver says. Now you're going to have a conversation escalated to you about why that's happening and you get to approach it from the point of view of your kid peacefully solving his own problem instead of threatening more violence.

 

[IUCrazy2]

So you insisted your kid follow the directions of an adult who wouldn't help him? My first thought would be to tell the kid to insist on sitting on in a different seat away from the bully regardless of what the bus driver says. Now you're going to have a conversation escalated to you about why that's happening and you get to approach it from the point of view of your kid peacefully solving his own problem instead of threatening more violence.

He was 6 at the time. Asking a 6 year old to stand up to an adult with no support around is asking alot. And again, my approach ended in a punch never being thrown.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So what's your issue with an ad that urges all people to be considerate and responsible as you teach your children? Or do you even have an issue with the ad?

The ad is just one more opinion. What's the big deal? Do you own P&G stock?

There is a toxicity here, but it isn't toxic masculinity. It is toxic grievance searching. This toxicity is tearing us apart. This thread is a perfect example.

My problem with the ad is not the message you describe, but the message that boys and men are a problem. We are coming to the point where many of us feel the need to stigmatize others in order to make a worthwhile point. "White privilege" is another example. No, this isn't the way to provide a message.

We can do better.

Here is better:



IF this ad were the subject of a thread, there would be no divisiveness.

 

[hoosboot]

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?

One of the many problems in the situation your son was facing is that nobody else stood up and said, "Yo, leave the guy alone." That's what I talk to my kids about and, IMHO, that's part of the message of the ad (which I agree was produced in a messy fashion). It's not that violence is verboten or that men need to stop being buillies. It's that when you see bad behavior, be a part of the solution, not part of the problem.

There's a kid at my son's school that has a name that a couple of other guys have turned into a homosexual slur as a way to needle and tease the kid. They are all friends and the kid who is teased tries to act like it's all in good fun, but it's pretty obvious that it's not. I spoke with my son and a friend of his who hang with all of those guys and were a little uncomfortable about it. They spoke up and found positive ways to go to the guys who were doing the teasing to stop. Nobody had to fight, but the boys had to be strong - mentally, emotionally, and physically - to stand up for what they felt was right.

So, that's how I frame the conversation and avoid looking for political things to get riled up about...particularly when it comes to TV ads. :>)

 

[iuwclurker]

He was 6 at the time. Asking a 6 year old to stand up to an adult with no support around is asking alot. And again, my approach ended in a punch never being thrown.

On the day my first child was born I decided that she could understand anything I wanted to communicate but it was my responsibility to figure out how to communicate it. In other words, she was a person in a small body.

When my son had a problem with a bully at the age of 7 or 8 (a bit older than 6), he explained the situation and it involved his teacher. I explained that he had to be respectful to others but also true to his own beliefs and understandings even with his teacher. I'm not sure exactly how that played out but he was more confident after that and never had problems he couldn't solve. I also know that the teacher later that year accused me of teaming up with him against her. I thought that was funny. Made me proud of him.

 

[CradleofBasketball]

That is drawing cheers, criticism , and threatens of boycotts? https://www.apnews.com/752f3d102a8142d98106ceb22139200b

Thanks for posting. Seems like I saw a quick blurb on this ad somewhere, and that there was some criticism of it, but I hadn't personally watched it, yet.

I generally like the messaging in the ad and I think it aligns well with what I consider two core tenets of maintaining traditional American Republicanism:

1. Citizens have a responsibility to be virtuous in their civic duties
2. Citizens have a responsibility to denounce corruption wherever it's found

There's also an older version of this civic responsibility, or golden rule, to be found in Matt. 7:12: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The only reason I can think of to dislike Gillette is that it's a namesake for that stadium where evil, godless New Englanders gather for Sunday football games.

 

[iu_a_att]

There is a toxicity here, but it isn't toxic masculinity. It is toxic grievance searching. This toxicity is tearing us apart. This thread is a perfect example.

Your post above and your response to the ad perfectly illustrates the real toxic grievance searching that so characterizes the right these days. There is no real grievance, just an aggressive posture of being aggrieved that is useful to avoid addressing real grievances.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Your post above and your response to the ad perfectly illustrates the real toxic grievance searching that so characterizes the right these days. There is no real grievance, just an aggressive posture of being aggrieved that is useful to avoid addressing real grievances.

Is it just me or do we often hear how blacks need to stop having out of wedlock babies, they need to get jobs, education, etc. But the moment someone suggests men as a whole can do better we are told we can't call out groups like this. I am curious why it is right to call out blacks but wrong to call out men?

 

[Rockfish1]

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".

The board’s conservatives couldn’t imagine how the “good” Muslims would possibly be offended by loose talk about Islamofascism, but here they are triggered by a commercial that suggests men shouldn’t be bullies.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The board’s conservatives couldn’t imagine how the “good” Muslims would possibly be offended by loose talk about Islamofascism, but here they are triggered by a commercial that suggests men shouldn’t be bullies.

Even a better example than mine.

 

[iu_a_att]

The Unmanning of Conservatism

There was a time, not long ago, when I thought I knew what sort of masculinity conservatives revered. It was captured most memorably in the movie American Sniper. The film, which tells the story of the legendary Navy SEAL Chris Kyle’s life and death, has a short scene in which Kyle’s father delivers what’s known as the “sheepdog speech,” cut with images of Chris defending his brother from a playground attack.

The sheepdog speech had been circulating for years, mainly in military circles, and it conveys a simple idea: There are three kinds of people in the world—the sheep who need protection, the wolves who seek to devour the sheep, and the sheepdogs, those blessed with a “gift of aggression [and] an overpowering need to protect the flock.” Kyle’s father’s words frame the whole rest of the movie. “You know who you are. You know your purpose.”

Of all the disorienting and disturbing cultural effects of Trump’s ascension to the presidency, few are as disorienting and disturbing as the redefinition of ideal masculinity in the hearts of many of his biggest fans. The sheepdog has been replaced by the wolf.

Cheap shots have replaced bravery. A certain kind of animal cunning has replaced honor. Libertine aggression has replaced fidelity. It’s as if the movie was remade from the bully’s perspective, and the bully became the hero. The man who evaded his generation’s war, who compared the dangers of his sex life to serving in Vietnam, is honored beyond the warrior.



​

 

[iu_a_att]

Mona Charen in the National Review finds a lot to like in the Gillette ad.

There were a couple of undercurrents in the Gillette ad that suggested feminist influence — the term “toxic masculinity” should itself be toxic — but overall the ad is pretty tame, even valuable. I have no idea if it’s the best way to sell razors, but as social commentary, it’s not offensive. “The Best Men Can Be” begins by showing men looking the other way as boys fight, shrugging “boys will be boys.” It shows men laughing at a comedy portraying a lout pantomiming a lunge at a woman’s behind. It shows kids teasing a boy for being a “freak” or a “sissy.” These are followed by more-uplifting images of men breaking up fights, interfering with men who are harassing women, and being loving fathers to daughters. We hear a quote from former NFL star Terry Crews, saying “Men need to hold other men accountable.” These images didn’t strike me as a reproof of masculinity per se but rather as a critique of bullying, boorishness, and sexual misconduct.​

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Your post above and your response to the ad perfectly illustrates the real toxic grievance searching that so characterizes the right these days. There is no real grievance, just an aggressive posture of being aggrieved that is useful to avoid addressing real grievances.[/QUOT

I have no frickin’ idea how you think your post responds to anything. I think you are aggrieved at me being aggrieved by an ad based on a gratuitous grievance to make a point about the woke du jur.

 

[iu_a_att]

I have no frickin’ idea how you think your post responds to anything. I think you are aggrieved at me being aggrieved by an ad based on a gratuitous grievance to make a point about the woke du jur.

My point is that your claimed grievance against the ad is BS and, ironically, illustrates quite well your idea of toxic grievance searching. It also illustrates how BS claimed grievances are used to distract attention from real grievances.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

My point is that your claimed grievance against the ad is BS and, ironically, illustrates quite well your idea of toxic grievance searching. It also illustrates how BS claimed grievances are used to distract attention from real grievances.

Lol. My grievance is about an ad. The grievances I’m talking about stigmatize a discrete group of people. THAT is useless and nonproductive. You fit right in to that. So do many who think that Gillette has a winning ad. As I showed, there are better ways to make the point.

 

[Hoopsdoc1978]

Is it just me or do we often hear how blacks need to stop having out of wedlock babies, they need to get jobs, education, etc. But the moment someone suggests men as a whole can do better we are told we can't call out groups like this. I am curious why it is right to call out blacks but wrong to call out men?

To you and Rockfish-so, you wouldn’t have a problem with Gillette making an ad telling blacks to commit less crime or Muslims to commit less terrorism?

Same thing, amirite?

 

[Rockfish1]

To you and Rockfish-so, you wouldn’t have a problem with Gillette making an ad telling blacks to commit less crime or Muslims to commit less terrorism?

Same thing, amirite?

Right. Because this is exactly the same as an ad playing to invidious racial and ethnic stereotypes against disfavored minority groups. You really are a piece of work.

 

[iu_a_att]

Lol. My grievance is about an ad. The grievances I’m talking about stigmatize a discrete group of people. THAT is useless and nonproductive. You fit right in to that. So do many who think that Gillette has a winning ad. As I showed, there are better ways to make the point.

Bullies, abusers and their enablers merit stigmatization. It is useful and productive to stigmatize bad behavior because people will engage in less of the bad behavior to avoid being stigmatized. I am surprised that you and the conservatives seem to believe that most men do engage in the bad behavior...that they engage in this behavior because that is what boys and men do. As Mona Charen and the other article I linked above indicates...conservatives didn't used to think this way.

 

[iuwclurker]

Bullies, abusers and their enablers merit stigmatization. It is useful and productive to stigmatize bad behavior because people will engage in less of the bad behavior to avoid being stigmatized. I am surprised that you and the conservatives seem to believe that most men do engage in the bad behavior...that they engage in this behavior because that is what boys and men do. As Mona Charen and the other article I linked above indicates...conservatives didn't used to think this way.

Good luck getting anything along these lines across to CoH. He voted for and continually justifies the most egregious role model to ever get elected POTUS. That 75% of Evangelicals strongly support Trump is beyond fathomable. CoH has zero credibility at best. He's a farce of what he once was here. What's interesting is how Buzz123 (R.I.P.) and CoH both evolved but it starkly opposite directions, Buzz in the direction of conscience (not to suggest he didn't have one all along), COH, bitter, jaded, disingenuous insensitivity masquerading as rational.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Bullies, abusers and their enablers merit stigmatization. It is useful and productive to stigmatize bad behavior because people will engage in less of the bad behavior to avoid being stigmatized. I am surprised that you and the conservatives seem to believe that most men do engage in the bad behavior...that they engage in this behavior because that is what boys and men do. As Mona Charen and the other article I linked above indicates...conservatives didn't used to think this way.

Do you really want to make this about liberals and conservatives? This board is ample evidence that a liberal cannot make a point without including language that belittles or stigmatizes others. This isn’t about how much the other should be stigmatized. Instead it’s about behaving like adults and being able to convey a bit of morality without belittling somebody else. Try it sometime.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Good luck getting anything along these lines across to CoH. He voted for and continually justifies the most egregious role model to ever get elected POTUS. That 75% of Evangelicals strongly support Trump is beyond fathomable. CoH has zero credibility at best. He's a farce of what he once was here. What's interesting is how Buzz123 (R.I.P.) and CoH both evolved but it starkly opposite directions, Buzz in the direction of conscience (not to suggest he didn't have one all along), COH, bitter, jaded, disingenuous insensitivity masquerading as rational.

I rest my case.

 

[iuwclurker]

I rest my case.

May your case rest in peace.

 

[iuwclurker]

Do you really want to make this about liberals and conservatives? This board is ample evidence that a liberal cannot make a point without including language that belittles or stigmatizes others. This isn’t about how much the other should be stigmatized. Instead it’s about behaving like adults and being able to convey a bit of morality without belittling somebody else. Try it sometime.

lol

This entire thread had been butthurt conservatives whining about how they're not guilty. No ever said they were. The ad has nothing to do with political orientation. I've wondered from the OP why conservatives even have a problem with the ad. Maybe you can explain why you're making it a conservative issue.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Maybe you can explain why you're making it a conservative issue.

Lol. I’m a conservative and I think the Gellitte ad is itself toxic by stigmatizeing masculinity; therefore, I’ve made it a conservative issue? You lost me.

Next you’ll say the Coke ad I linked is a conservative ad because I like it.

You have no idea what you want to say so you bitched about Trump and evangelicals.

Carry on.

 

[iu_a_att]

Do you really want to make this about liberals and conservatives? This board is ample evidence that a liberal cannot make a point without including language that belittles or stigmatizes others. This isn’t about how much the other should be stigmatized. Instead it’s about behaving like adults and being able to convey a bit of morality without belittling somebody else. Try it sometime.

I was responding to your claim that stigmatization is useless and unproductive. Those who are bullies, abusers and their enablers will feel stigmatized by the ad. Is such stigmatization immature or inappropriate? I don't think so. Moreover, I don't think there is a difference between liberals and conservatives on this point. Both groups agree that some behaviors merit social sanction and stigma e.g., child and spouse abuse. However there are disagreements too. Liberal groups for example are adamant about not stigmatizing gender non-conformity while (particularly social) conservative groups want to stigmatize that behavior. Liberal groups want to stigmatize corporal punishment while conservative groups are adamant about not stigmatizing such behavior. What is bizarre is to see conservative groups opposing the stigmatization of bullying, abuse and the enabling of those abuses. That seems like a new development of sorts.

 

[twenty02]

I was responding to your claim that stigmatization is useless and unproductive. Those who are bullies, abusers and their enablers will feel stigmatized by the ad. Is such stigmatization immature or inappropriate? I don't think so. Moreover, I don't think there is a difference between liberals and conservatives on this point. Both groups agree that some behaviors merit social sanction and stigma e.g., child and spouse abuse. However there are disagreements too. Liberal groups for example are adamant about not stigmatizing gender non-conformity while (particularly social) conservative groups want to stigmatize that behavior. Liberal groups want to stigmatize corporal punishment while conservative groups are adamant about not stigmatizing such behavior. What is bizarre is to see conservative groups opposing the stigmatization of bullying, abuse and the enabling of those abuses. That seems like a new development of sorts.

Why do you think it's only "conservatives" that don't care for the ad?

Look at the You Tube votes....and compare that with the Kapernick ad.

It was a cartoonish stereotype of an entire gender that people are "thumbing down"

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I was responding to your claim that stigmatization is useless and unproductive. Those who are bullies, abusers and their enablers will feel stigmatized by the ad. Is such stigmatization immature or inappropriate? I don't think so. Moreover, I don't think there is a difference between liberals and conservatives on this point. Both groups agree that some behaviors merit social sanction and stigma e.g., child and spouse abuse. However there are disagreements too. Liberal groups for example are adamant about not stigmatizing gender non-conformity while (particularly social) conservative groups want to stigmatize that behavior. Liberal groups want to stigmatize corporal punishment while conservative groups are adamant about not stigmatizing such behavior. What is bizarre is to see conservative groups opposing the stigmatization of bullying, abuse and the enabling of those abuses. That seems like a new development of sorts.

There are a number of reasons why the stigmatization in this ad is useless and unproductive.

I already said that I think the phrase "toxic masculinity" is simply a contrivance to normalize general male bashing. Not only that, but it is used to bash boys in their formative years. But if you must use that phrase it is about gangs, illegal drug trade, sexual exploitation, and the violence that accompanies all of that. It's about school boys, who say "f*ck you" to teachers when asked to not disrupt a class or to do their work. It's about bringing knives and guns to pickup basket ball games in the park. It's about protecting your drug dealing territory with weapons. It's about drive by shootings where innocent youngsters are shot and maybe killed. It's about beating up snitches or raping their sisters.

Toxic masculinity is not about a bunch of white fathers grilling burgers. As I've said, eleventy times in this thread, I have no quarrel with the positive message in the ad. But I also think calling out the bad people in the manner they did is meaningless virtue signaling. They do that because white guys with grills are a safe target. If they depicted toxic masculinity in the manner I described above, the social justice crowd would climb all over them for stereotyping minorities as much of that criminal activity is found in the minority communities.

So yeah, I don't like the ad. I'll take the Coke ad I linked any day for a positive message.

 

[twenty02]

The board’s conservatives couldn’t imagine how the “good” Muslims would possibly be offended by loose talk about Islamofascism, but here they are triggered by a commercial that suggests men shouldn’t be bullies.

Well, I don't know if you are including me in that group...since I posted last night negatively about it. And I have no issue with you pointing out hypocrisy, but I staunchly oppose stereotyping of groups in every form, and think I'm just being consistent in that with my criticism of this example.

My bigger critique is that the ad is poor business and marketing, but that's P&Gs problem, not any of ours.

As a culture....if we have to rely on Fortune 100 multinationals to lead our national conscience, we are all ****ed anyway.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The board’s conservatives couldn’t imagine how the “good” Muslims would possibly be offended by loose talk about Islamofascism, but here they are triggered by a commercial that suggests men shouldn’t be bullies.

Bad analogy. The "good" Muslims were (and are) the most frequent targets of Islamofascism. There is no analogous point in the ad.

 

[iu_a_att]

Why do you think it's only "conservatives" that don't care for the ad?

Look at the You Tube votes....and compare that with the Kapernick ad.

It was a cartoonish stereotype of an entire gender that people are "thumbing down"

I think Mona Charen has the right starting point which doesn't ask whether the ad is effective marketing. Rather, she asks whether the images and meaning of the ad are some attack on men and masculinity. I think her take on what is going on in the ad is basically right (forgetting about the other conservative virtue signalling she launches into about toxic masculinity). Mona Charen is definitely a conservative and she is not offended. So...the class of people taking offense does not include all conservatives and may include some liberals too. It is not like there aren't gender issues on the left too.

There are a number of reasons why the stigmatization in this ad is useless and unproductive.

I already said that I think the phrase "toxic masculinity" is simply a contrivance to normalize general male bashing. Not only that, but it is used to bash boys in their formative years. But if you must use that phrase it is about gangs, illegal drug trade, sexual exploitation, and the violence that accompanies all of that. It's about school boys, who say "f*ck you" to teachers when asked to not disrupt a class or to do their work. It's about bringing knives and guns to pickup basket ball games in the park. It's about protecting your drug dealing territory with weapons. It's about drive by shootings where innocent youngsters are shot and maybe killed. It's about beating up snitches or raping their sisters.

Toxic masculinity is not about a bunch of white fathers grilling burgers. As I've said, eleventy times in this thread, I have no quarrel with the positive message in the ad. But I also think calling out the bad people in the manner they did is meaningless virtue signaling. They do that because white guys with grills are a safe target. If they depicted toxic masculinity in the manner I described above, the social justice crowd would climb all over them for stereotyping minorities as much of that criminal activity is found in the minority communities.

So yeah, I don't like the ad. I'll take the Coke ad I linked any day for a positive message.

You are definitely saying the same stuff over and over. White guys with grills are a "safe target"? LOL!!! The true toxic masculinity is restricted to criminals or minority groups. LOLOLOL!!!! Nope.

The culprits are wealthy, powerful, mostly guys who take advantage of dramatic power imbalances to sexually abuse, humiliate and bully subordinates. Weinstein, Trump, Moonvies, 1000s of Catholic priests, Jeffrey Epstein, O'Reilly, Bill Clinton et plus. The other culprits are all the people who work under or around these bullies and abusers who said and say nothing. This toxic abuse of power permeates our culture to the detriment of everyone who encounters it.

 

[zeke4ahs]

I wonder if men and women see this ad totally differently. I was with some friends tonight, a few conservative , and all of them liked the ad. They all thought it was positive and liked that it celebrated men as good role models. They seriously thought I was kidding when I said some men were insulted by it. But when I asked if their husbands had seen it and reacted none had.