ADVERTISEMENT

So have you seen the Gillette ad

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.
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.
They should redo the ad with Trump, Bill Clinton, Weinstein, Louis CK, Franken and others - that could be good, and powerful.
 
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.
Truth is neither a word in your vocabulary nor a concept in your mind.
 
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.
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.


No offense to Mona.....but she's a woman. I don't think this a conservative/liberal issue....but a gender issue.

If women were being stereotyped, and a liberal male came out and said what she said, women would rightly look at it with some rolled eyes.

I'm kinda done debating this at this point, because it's not really something I GAFF about, I didn't even bother to watch the stupid thing until late last night, and am certainly not going to waste any more thought on it than I have
 
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.
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.

Once again. I don’t defend or excuse anybody or any behavior on your list. But the ad isn’t so confined.

i heartily criticize the persuasive technique of imputing to all men and boys the undesirable behaviors the ad aims at. I think the ad is using TM as virtue signaling and it is itself toxic.
 
They should redo the ad with Trump, Bill Clinton, Weinstein, Louis CK, Franken and others - that could be good, and powerful.

Grin. This is a good place to post a thought I had yesterday.

Can a female engage in toxic masculinity? I’m thinking if HRC’s role in destroying the lives of females who accused Bill of sexual bullying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeke4ahs
Once again. I don’t defend or excuse anybody or any behavior on your list. But the ad isn’t so confined.

i heartily criticize the persuasive technique of imputing to all men and boys the undesirable behaviors the ad aims at. I think the ad is using TM as virtue signaling and it is itself toxic.
Once again, that you feel men and boys are somehow depreciated by the ad is YOUR feeling...it isn't reality. I am a man and I don't feel the way you feel. Mona Charen is a conservative and she doesn't feel the way you feel. Why don't you change your feelings to better align them with reality?
 
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.
I didn't specifically have you in mind, and I'm not really bitching about hypocrisy -- which is, after all, the compliment that vice pays to virtue. In the age of Trump, where he and his supporters no longer feel bound to give even that hypocritical nod, hypocrisy seems a failing from a more innocent time.

In the past, we've had debates about whether the government's terrorism messaging ought to expressly emphasize the Islamic nature of the threat. People like me said that was a bad idea, because (among other things) it would alienate the people we want to reach. People who are Real Americans told me this was stupid, and all the good Muslims would understand we didn't mean them. That group includes people now being triggered as white men by this silly Gillette ad. That seems less hypocritical than clueless to me. I'm a flawed fallible human like anyone, but I'll be pretty embarrassed when anyone catches me doing something so deeply unself-aware. Not that it couldn't happen. Just that it would (likely will) be really embarrassing.

I don't know whether this is an effective ad. Until I saw how powerful a trigger it was, I didn't care about it. But I think there's something in us white men that's frightened by the pace of social and demographic change. We're acting out like we used to make fun of The Special Interests for doing. We never understood how they could act so irrationally under perceived stress, and now we're acting out irrationally under perceived stress. The data say our life span is falling because of suicides and drug overdoses. Someone with a lot of irony in their diet might wonder if there's a problem with white culture.

This feels like it ought to be an occasion for introspection. Speaking as a white male (who's been reliably informed that he's emotionally unavailable), that might be the hardest possible thing for us to do. But it could be the best thing, especially for us.
 
Once again, that you feel men and boys are somehow depreciated by the ad is YOUR feeling...it isn't reality. I am a man and I don't feel the way you feel. Mona Charen is a conservative and she doesn't feel the way you feel. Why don't you change your feelings to better align them with reality?
This is a very good point. I'm a white man, and I'm not triggered either. By reference to the whole Islamophobia debate, this obviously means I'm one of the good white men.
 
Once again, that you feel men and boys are somehow depreciated by the ad is YOUR feeling...it isn't reality. I am a man and I don't feel the way you feel. Mona Charen is a conservative and she doesn't feel the way you feel. Why don't you change your feelings to better align them with reality?

I think you ave a point. The ad does depreciate men and boys—needlessly.

We would never see an ad for a leg razor that showed a line of white women folding laundry and lecturing them to not be gossipy. Such an ad would rightfully be seen as deprecating women.

Yeah, this ad does depreciate men. But I don’t think that is entirely why I object to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: glidresquirrel
I didn't specifically have you in mind, and I'm not really bitching about hypocrisy -- which is, after all, the compliment that vice pays to virtue. In the age of Trump, where he and his supporters no longer feel bound to give even that hypocritical nod, hypocrisy seems a failing from a more innocent time.

In the past, we've had debates about whether the government's terrorism messaging ought to expressly emphasize the Islamic nature of the threat. People like me said that was a bad idea, because (among other things) it would alienate the people we want to reach. People who are Real Americans told me this was stupid, and all the good Muslims would understand we didn't mean them. That group includes people now being triggered as white men by this silly Gillette ad. That seems less hypocritical than clueless to me. I'm a flawed fallible human like anyone, but I'll be pretty embarrassed when anyone catches me doing something so deeply unself-aware. Not that it couldn't happen. Just that it would (likely will) be really embarrassing.

I don't know whether this is an effective ad. Until I saw how powerful a trigger it was, I didn't care about it. But I think there's something in us white men that's frightened by the pace of social and demographic change. We're acting out like we used to make fun of The Special Interests for doing. We never understood how they could act so irrationally under perceived stress, and now we're acting out irrationally under perceived stress. The data say our life span is falling because of suicides and drug overdoses. Someone with a lot of irony in their diet might wonder if there's a problem with white culture.

This feels like it ought to be an occasion for introspection. Speaking as a white male (who's been reliably informed that he's emotionally unavailable), that might be the hardest possible thing for us to do. But it could be the best thing, especially for us.


Well I've long and always concurred with your position when it comes to the terrorism message. Hell, it was the position of the GWB admin fairly outwardly in the years right after 9/11. (Of course Bush is basically seen as an apostate of "conservatism" by the new wave of the right, but that's perhaps way beside the point).

I think people saw this via two very different lenses....and there is nothing wrong with that. Everyone sees life through different lenses:

1) it is good to strive to be a better person (a man in this case) and do the right thing. Any reminder or nudge to me is nothing but positive.

2) I was taught how to be a good person long ago - by parents, schools, mentors, employers, society, etc....and have always lived my life that way, and it's kind of belittling to talk down to me like this.


If nothing else, we share the common male trait of being "emotionally unavailable".....wow, have I heard that one as a common theme through several relationships. Because being anything other is so damn exhausting. I'm slowly getting to 'the best a man can get', in that regard.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rockfish1
Well I've long and always concurred with your position when it comes to the terrorism message. Hell, it was the position of the GWB admin fairly outwardly in the years right after 9/11. (Of course Bush is basically seen as an apostate of "conservatism" by the new wave of the right, but that's perhaps way beside the point).

I think people saw this via two very different lenses....and there is nothing wrong with that. Everyone sees life through different lenses:

1) it is good to strive to be a better person (a man in this case) and do the right thing. Any reminder or nudge to me is nothing but positive.

2) I was taught how to be a good person long ago - by parents, schools, mentors employers, society, etc....and have always lived my life that way, and it's kind of belittling to talk down to me like this.


If nothing else, we share the common male trait of being "emotionally unavailable".....wow, have I heard that one as a common theme through several relationships. Because being anything other is so damn exhausting. I'm slowly getting to 'the best a man can get', in that regard.
I'm working hard -- or at least as hard as I can -- to be available. I've come to understand it's vitally important. But from what I think I know of you, I don't understand how you could feel touched by some razor ad. In fairness, I say this as someone who could probably cry watching Bad Santa.
 
As a culture....if we have to rely on Fortune 100 multinationals to lead our national conscience, we are all ****ed anyway.
Drastic simplification of what's happening in society, which you know, but it's interesting. I think what's most noteworthy is the velocity of social change. The velocity is causing the push-back with older conservatives. Younger people aren't affected by the velocity. The velocity is driving companies to take risks to attract the young people. They're not driving our national conscience, their business demands they play the game. Just part of the new social order.
 
I'm working hard -- or at least as hard as I can -- to be available. I've come to understand it's vitally important. But from what I think I know of you, I don't understand how you could feel touched by some razor ad. In fairness, I say this as someone who could probably cry watching Bad Santa.


As I said earlier, I don't really care at all about the ad. But after it spawned into a multi page debate, I finally succumbed to actually watching it....then got sucked into the debate too, since it clearly had such different responses by different people. Then I got transported back to marketing classes at Kelley and got perturbed by what I saw as poor marketing strategy.....then I drank some bourbon and started pontificating. And here I am again the next night reading/discussing it. What's the meaning of life? What day is it?
 
Well I've long and always concurred with your position when it comes to the terrorism message. Hell, it was the position of the GWB admin fairly outwardly in the years right after 9/11. (Of course Bush is basically seen as an apostate of "conservatism" by the new wave of the right, but that's perhaps way beside the point).

I think people saw this via two very different lenses....and there is nothing wrong with that. Everyone sees life through different lenses:

1) it is good to strive to be a better person (a man in this case) and do the right thing. Any reminder or nudge to me is nothing but positive.

2) I was taught how to be a good person long ago - by parents, schools, mentors, employers, society, etc....and have always lived my life that way, and it's kind of belittling to talk down to me like this.


If nothing else, we share the common male trait of being "emotionally unavailable".....wow, have I heard that one as a common theme through several relationships. Because being anything other is so damn exhausting. I'm slowly getting to 'the best a man can get', in that regard.
My thing is I simply don't see this ad as talking down to men in general at all. "You can be masculine without being an asshole" seems to be the message of the ad. The only people who feel talked down to should be the assholes.

Obviously, I'm missing something here, since you take offense to the ad, and you're (as far as I can tell) not an asshole, but I just don't get it. The ad tells me I should try to do better. Since I'm already someone who wants to do better, I don't find that offensive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bulk VanderHuge
Drastic simplification of what's happening in society, which you know, but it's interesting. I think what's most noteworthy is the velocity of social change. The velocity is causing the push-back with older conservatives. Younger people aren't affected by the velocity. The velocity is driving companies to take risks to attract the young people. They're not driving our national conscience, their business demands they play the game. Just part of the new social order.

Agreed
 
As I said earlier, I don't really care at all about the ad. But after it spawned into a multi page debate, I finally succumbed to actually watching it....then got sucked into the debate too, since it clearly had such different responses by different people. Then I got transported back to marketing classes at Kelley and got perturbed by what I saw as poor marketing strategy.....then I drank some bourbon and started pontificating. And here I am again the next night reading/discussing it. What's the meaning of life? What day is it?
I hear you, brother.
 
  • Like
Reactions: twenty02
As I said earlier, I don't really care at all about the ad. But after it spawned into a multi page debate, I finally succumbed to actually watching it....then got sucked into the debate too, since it clearly had such different responses by different people. Then I got transported back to marketing classes at Kelley and got perturbed by what I saw as poor marketing strategy.....then I drank some bourbon and started pontificating. And here I am again the next night reading/discussing it. What's the meaning of life? What day is it?
My guess is that we can understand the Gillette ad by looking more closely at data like these. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019...llennials-on-key-social-and-political-issues/
For example
PSDT_1.17.19_generations-02.png
 
My thing is I simply don't see this ad as talking down to men in general at all. "You can be masculine without being an asshole" seems to be the message of the ad. The only people who feel talked down to should be the assholes.

Obviously, I'm missing something here, since you take offense to the ad, and you're (as far as I can tell) not an asshole, but I just don't get it. The ad tells me I should try to do better. Since I'm already someone who wants to do better, I don't find that offensive.


Don't sell yourself short.... You're a great asshole
 
CO is offended so it’s offensive
LOL. I said I didn't like the ad. I also don't like rum-raisin ice cream; but it doesn't offend me. I also don't like other ads; they don't offend me either.

I dunno, maybe you are more easily offended than me.
 
Ahh, so some stereotypes are good, some bad, depending on the socioeconomic status of the stereotyped group.

Got it.
It has been used in debates here by many conservatives that a problem in the black community is that males are not serving often enough as positive role models.

An ad runs to suggest some white males are not serving as positive role models and suddenly this is evil stereotyping.

If this ad dealt with black fathers, some of you would have had to love it as you have preached it for a long time. But you hate this ad. Are white fathers perfect, incapable of being improved? I cannot get the complaint. The ad in no way says all white dads suck.

Recently some crimes were committed by members of a group called incel. This group believes society should allow them their natural right to take whatever woman they want, forcibly. Would any of you count that as toxic masculinity? How about Harvey Weinstein?

I suspect the majority of sex abusers are male. The majority of serial killers are male. Is pointing that out stereotyping? Why do males walk into a school with high powered guns but not women?
 
It has been used in debates here by many conservatives that a problem in the black community is that males are not serving often enough as positive role models.

An ad runs to suggest some white males are not serving as positive role models and suddenly this is evil stereotyping.

If this ad dealt with black fathers, some of you would have had to love it as you have preached it for a long time. But you hate this ad. Are white fathers perfect, incapable of being improved? I cannot get the complaint. The ad in no way says all white dads suck.

Recently some crimes were committed by members of a group called incel. This group believes society should allow them their natural right to take whatever woman they want, forcibly. Would any of you count that as toxic masculinity? How about Harvey Weinstein?

I suspect the majority of sex abusers are male. The majority of serial killers are male. Is pointing that out stereotyping? Why do males walk into a school with high powered guns but not women?

Wait, I think this goes back to my thought about where the message is coming from more than the message itself. If Gillette had an ad about black men being better father's I would similarly be annoyed with it. Why? Because it is money of Gillette's business, who are they to preach? I think black men who maybe agreed with the intent would probably have the same reaction, particularly framed in a similar manner as the Gillette ad is to all men.

I guess I am getting old now? 49 is the tail end of Gen-X, but I believe my generation has always had a healthy distrust of advertising campaigns. I don't necessarily want companies virtue signaling to me to sell their product. It is not their place and their ulterior motives are to manipulate you into doing something. Gillette does not want you to be a better man, they want to tell all those younger people that they are "socially conscious" so they will run out and by their product.

We as a culture have a tendency to overvalue youth. If the kids are doing it, it must be cool and we should all jump on board. Well for kids today it is more important to signal that you are down with caused than it is to do. Hey Gillette, you want to make a difference? Take all the money you paid to make that ad and run it and put it towards the other money you say you are going to donate.
 
Wait, I think this goes back to my thought about where the message is coming from more than the message itself. If Gillette had an ad about black men being better father's I would similarly be annoyed with it. Why? Because it is money of Gillette's business, who are they to preach? I think black men who maybe agreed with the intent would probably have the same reaction, particularly framed in a similar manner as the Gillette ad is to all men.

I guess I am getting old now? 49 is the tail end of Gen-X, but I believe my generation has always had a healthy distrust of advertising campaigns. I don't necessarily want companies virtue signaling to me to sell their product. It is not their place and their ulterior motives are to manipulate you into doing something. Gillette does not want you to be a better man, they want to tell all those younger people that they are "socially conscious" so they will run out and by their product.

We as a culture have a tendency to overvalue youth. If the kids are doing it, it must be cool and we should all jump on board. Well for kids today it is more important to signal that you are down with caused than it is to do. Hey Gillette, you want to make a difference? Take all the money you paid to make that ad and run it and put it towards the other money you say you are going to donate.

How many television commercials have we sat through extolling the virtues of the American veteran? I am not complaining, but isn't that virtue signalling? Wasn't the classic "baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet" virtue signaling? Isn't even wishing us a merry Christmas virtue signaling? Have we had 6 page threads on why companies shouldn't virtue signal using veterans?

There is a point being missed, though I think it has been touched on around the edges. Which gender does more of the weekly shopping? Which gender might be more a victim of toxic masculinity? I think we may be missing who this aid is aimed at for sales.
 
How many television commercials have we sat through extolling the virtues of the American veteran? I am not complaining, but isn't that virtue signalling? Wasn't the classic "baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet" virtue signaling? Isn't even wishing us a merry Christmas virtue signaling? Have we had 6 page threads on why companies shouldn't virtue signal using veterans?

There is a point being missed, though I think it has been touched on around the edges. Which gender does more of the weekly shopping? Which gender might be more a victim of toxic masculinity? I think we may be missing who this aid is aimed at for sales.

It is all whose ox is getting gored I guess Marvin. Is that not the way things go. Take the ad for instance, all of the bad behavior is white people. Laughing at wrong jokes? White men and women. Being bullies? White kids. I think there was one minority in the line of grills that did not stop the "fight" in the backyard. Guy going after the girl? White. Now who were delivering the positive messages?

There are things that you all are willing to overlook because you are ingrained to look for a different set of wrongs. You start replacing some of that imagery with different colored faces and do you still feel warm and fuzzy about the message? Like the guy going after the girl in the street, anecdotally there is an app that women have that tracks where they get catcalled, surprisingly enough, it is usually not in areas considered "white". So same message but what if it is a white guy telling a hispanic guy that it is not cool to pursue a lady? And what if it is an ethnic guy grabbing the ass of a white lady that is portrayed negatively? Still the same warm and fuzzy feeling if it is not a white guy grabbing a minority female's butt? A mob of black kids chasing down another black kid until an African American father steps in? Still cool?

And if it is not still cool, why? It is the exact same message right? Why would anyone be offended by the message to be better?

When white women start catching flack for elections along with the white guys (particularly old ones) who you regularly see being told they need to die off and then you place it with that imagery, people notice. When you have a culture developing that goes out of it's way to sale male=bad, people notice. Girl Power shirts litter the clothing aisle for small girls. You think we could do that with boys? So forgive those of us who are raising young boys ourselves who get just a tad bit defensive over a cultural undercurrent that very much wants to tell them that they are all that is wrong with this world. "Well minorities were told that..." Yeah, they were and it was wrong. So what the **** makes it right to turn around and do it to someone else when we KNOW just how wrong and destructive it is?
 
Last edited:
Racesplaining.

Well that effectively ends that conversation. Which goes to my theory that when anyone says that we need to have a "discussion" on race, they really mean that we need to have a lecture on it, you know, because white people have nothing to offer on the topic. Also a nice dodge because you know if the advertisement were changed in the ways I mentioned that it would be viewed negatively by everyone extolling its virtues now.

So now that you put that topic to bed, shall we discuss the nasty weather heading towards Indiana or maybe the downward turn of the basketball team?
 
Well that effectively ends that conversation. Which goes to my theory that when anyone says that we need to have a "discussion" on race, they really mean that we need to have a lecture on it, you know, because white people have nothing to offer on the topic. Also a nice dodge because you know if the advertisement were changed in the ways I mentioned that it would be viewed negatively by everyone extolling its virtues now.

So now that you put that topic to bed, shall we discuss the nasty weather heading towards Indiana or maybe the downward turn of the basketball team?
IUCrazy's new math:

Sexism against women in society: 99.99% of all instances, normal
Sexism against men in society: 0.01% off all instances, unfair, needs to be corrected. Evidence: one advertisement.

Racism against non-whites in society: 99.9999% of all instances, normal
Racism against whites in society: 0.0001% off all instances, unfair, needs to be corrected. Evidence: one advertisement.
 
Last edited:
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?
It's OK to recognize that our community does have too many out of wedlock babies and that education for black men especially needs to be emphasized more than it is and that we NEED more jobs in the community. These are only facts we need to deal with. Some of us are trying to do our part to deal with them. People need to know that these are problems in other demographics too. Poor white people have a lot of these same problems for example. People might notice that the common factor is poor and blacks are disproportionately poor. Middle class and rich black people have less issues with out of wedlock babies and the men go to college and they have a better chance at good jobs. We lift the poor blacks and whites out of poverty and we'll have fewer of these problems But these problems make it harder to lift poor blacks and whites out of poverty. This is a hard problem to solve.
 
Last edited:
It has been used in debates here by many conservatives that a problem in the black community is that males are not serving often enough as positive role models.

An ad runs to suggest some white males are not serving as positive role models and suddenly this is evil stereotyping.

If this ad dealt with black fathers, some of you would have had to love it as you have preached it for a long time. But you hate this ad. Are white fathers perfect, incapable of being improved? I cannot get the complaint. The ad in no way says all white dads suck.

Recently some crimes were committed by members of a group called incel. This group believes society should allow them their natural right to take whatever woman they want, forcibly. Would any of you count that as toxic masculinity? How about Harvey Weinstein?

I suspect the majority of sex abusers are male. The majority of serial killers are male. Is pointing that out stereotyping? Why do males walk into a school with high powered guns but not women?
Male kids could use positive male role models and female kids need positive female role models. That's what Big Brothers Big Sisters of America does. I've been doing this for years and I think some of you would be good for the program too. Volunteer or donate today!

Kids need positive role models of both sexes. We can make a difference.

My recruiting pitch is over now. ;)
 
It is all whose ox is getting gored I guess Marvin. Is that not the way things go. Take the ad for instance, all of the bad behavior is white people. Laughing at wrong jokes? White men and women. Being bullies? White kids. I think there was one minority in the line of grills that did not stop the "fight" in the backyard. Guy going after the girl? White. Now who were delivering the positive messages?

There are things that you all are willing to overlook because you are ingrained to look for a different set of wrongs. You start replacing some of that imagery with different colored faces and do you still feel warm and fuzzy about the message? Like the guy going after the girl in the street, anecdotally there is an app that women have that tracks where they get catcalled, surprisingly enough, it is usually not in areas considered "white". So same message but what if it is a white guy telling a hispanic guy that it is not cool to pursue a lady? And what if it is an ethnic guy grabbing the ass of a white lady that is portrayed negatively? Still the same warm and fuzzy feeling if it is not a white guy grabbing a minority female's butt? A mob of black kids chasing down another black kid until an African American father steps in? Still cool?

And if it is not still cool, why? It is the exact same message right? Why would anyone be offended by the message to be better?

When white women start catching flack for elections along with the white guys (particularly old ones) who you regularly see being told they need to die off and then you place it with that imagery, people notice. When you have a culture developing that goes out of it's way to sale male=bad, people notice. Girl Power shirts litter the clothing aisle for small girls. You think we could do that with boys? So forgive those of us who are raising young boys ourselves who get just a tad bit defensive over a cultural undercurrent that very much wants to tell them that they are all that is wrong with this world. "Well minorities were told that..." Yeah, they were and it was wrong. So what the **** makes it right to turn around and do it to someone else when we KNOW just how wrong and destructive it is?

In the end it is about whose ox is being gored, I completely agree with that opening. In the history of America, how often has the white male ox been gored? Sure, I agree that the perfect ad should have included a sampling of races as male privilege exists. But in a world that white men have so clearly dominated for centuries, I'm not sure I should complain that one time someone holds us to task on something.

And we know the problems still exist. Larry Nasser is not a problem from our parent's generation. Harvey Weinstein was not a problem from our parent's generation. Donald Trump did not go brag about going into the dressing rooms of teen girls in our parent's generation. The incel message board is not from our parent's generation, nor 4-chan. All these school shootings by young white males have not happened in our parent's generation. A lot of us men have been good role models, I do not doubt that. But we are fooling ourselves if we don't thing there are undercurrents in America, yes in white America, where fathers are not being positive role models. Why is it wrong to have that discussion?

I've mentioned on here before a teacher friend told me they once had a parent-teacher conference where the teacher suggested the child is quite capable of doing better than the D they were getting. The father got angry, said he got Ds and his child is no better than he was. Why can't we call that out without all white males feeling like it is an attack on them? I never saw the Gillette ad as anything but an attack on bad parenting of which I do not believe I was one. As such, I am not upset as bad parenting should be attacked. I don't care if they are white, black, brown. And yes, it can include bad mothers but that easily can be another commercial for someone else to do.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT