Gillette Ad - what the buggery hell?

I think it’s a good ad, and it addresses a a legitimate problem. That’s my first impression.

But Granth’s point I think is valid… If the target of this criticism were someone other than men (and really, somewhat specifically white men), I agree with him that the message would be almost certainly considered offensive.

I hadn’t thought of it that way when I first saw it, but I can’t articulate exactly what the difference would be.

I mean, I can see that the group being criticized is one which traditionally holds the most power, but that alone doesn’t logically imply that one is right and one is wrong, I don’t think.

Personally, one thing about the description as being against “toxic masculinity”, I kind of expected that we were going to get folks fighting against it, for exactly the reasons Granth laid out. That it would be spun into an attack against men (which Granth is not suggesting).

On some level, it seems like this is less about masculinity, and more about “being a piece of shit asshole.”

It may be counter productive to tie “being a piece of shit asshole” to a gender.

I didn’t see anything offensive about the ad.

A point that many women have raised on social media: pretty much every ad aimed at them tells them they’re not good enough.

Also, @Granath, I re-watched the ad a couple of times and I have to say I don’t see how you can reasonably read it as “white men doing bad things, black men doing good things”. To my eyes it looks pretty racially diverse down the line. There’s a group of black men intervening in a fight midway through, and then the white dude who leaves the barbecue line at the end to stop a fight. And there are black dudes in the barbecue line watching the fight and not intervening.

I just don’t think it’s there. I think you’re seeing things.

Only if you think it’s fair to say this ad is “against” men. I don’t think it is. I think that’s fucking ludicrous.

Yeah, but it’s picking out one specific group, and criticizing them specifically for this.

I mean, men certainly aren’t the only ones that foster this kind of behavior in our society. I think that’s part of the problem. There are tons of women who throw out the exact same kinds of justifications.

Like I said, I didn’t find this ad offensive at all, although I did predict that folks would take it as being “anti-men”, although I also suspected that most of those folks were the kinds of folks who were already looking for that fight (as Granth mentioned himself).

But I also hadn’t really considered if a similar kind of thing had chosen some other, less powerful target for the criticism.

Well, of course. Self-criticism is generally received much better than criticism of others. And Gillette represents men, not only as a corporate entity (most of which are run by men) but as a purveyor of products aimed mostly at men.

That’s why we would be much more annoyed if Gillette aimed its criticism at (say) Catholics than if the exact same message were delivered by Pope Francis. Likewise the self-critical Muslim video I posted, which was rather well-received.

I thank Gillette for inventing yet another way to identify trash people.

On some level, this makes sense… but it also strikes me as weird, since I just think of Gilette as a faceless corporation. I don’t really think of it as “A group of men.” But I guess it is in some real sense. It’s still a little weird.

In this sense, it could be considered similar to how a lot of criticism of say, muslims, can be interpreted differently when coming from outside the religion, vs. from within.

Although, if we do accept this criticism as being ok, we should accept similar criticism even if not self directed. Criticism’s validity is not logically contingent upon it being introspective.

It’s about which direction you’re punching, up or down.

I think part of it is hypocrisy.

Take, for example, the infamous ‘avocado toast’ financial advise from a few years back. The problem wasn’t the particular advice. It was that the message came from someone who has no god damn clue what it is to be in that financial situation. It’s tone deaf at best, condescending at worst. When you’re a millionaire and telling some broke 20 something with 6 figure college debt that they needed to get a barely above minimum wage entry level job that the solution to their financial ills is some trite ‘spend less money on food’ advice? It comes across way differently than someone in the churn just getting by sharing secrets of how they save money through judicious use of coupons/ buying out of season clothing etc, and a list of quick to prepare meals that are healthier and cheaper than buying prepackaged meal kits and frozen pizzas.

So sometimes it really is the messenger is wrong.

It is a good explanation and I appreciate the detailed response. I would gladly hold my track record up for inspection on this issue. Very few people have quit their jobs because they merely witnessed sexual and religious harassment in the workplace. I did not have to be subjected to it. Just the presence was enough to have me walk out. It all worked out in the end as the culprit was fired (and ultimately I got his job) but I quit without having any safety net because of the actions of a harasser. I am sensitive to this issue. This is not a matter of “I have a good friend that is black” as I have been and remain a social activist.

Where I disagree with many is that I cannot agree with the premise that bigotry only can be committed by those who have the power to do so. I am a minority and I have still always rejected that assertion. I believe it is a matter how how you look at people, as individuals or as groups. Someone may say that men or whites have had the power and therefore should be held to a higher standard. I do not agree. I say that anyone who has the power should be held to the same standard. I do not believe in collective guilt or punishment. I agree there is a fuckload of shitty male behavior. There is a fuckload of shitty female behavior. There is fuckload of shitty behavior from all creeds - white, black, Christian, Muslim, Atheist, straight, gay, etc. I believe it is up to the individual to act accordingly. I feel no collective guilt because historically my people punished those of darker skin in a lower caste (this is not America). I feel no collective guilt because Harvey Weinstein or Bill Cosby acted inappropriately. I condemn their behavior as I equally condemn the actions of black and white separatists.

I expect equal treatment, not just of the group but the individual. Anything less than that is bigotry defined. My son applied to a number of colleges a few years ago. We know, for a fact, that those who had worse qualifications were admitted to a couple of schools that he was not. Why? Because he was a male and applying to engineering programs. I believe that is bigotry defined. I will not apologize for him being male and I have no desire for my daughter to be rewarded if she follows that same path - or punished if she decides to go into nursing. I do not feel that he should be punished in a “he said/she said” sexual charge in college any more than I feel my daughter’s word should carry any more weight because she is female. I simply will never agree with that premise. I would believe her in such a charge as much as I would believe my son and I expect the same would apply to me if I ever had the unfortunate (and unlikely) situation of being in such a position.

This also applies to groups. As you admitted, something like this would not comes out to any other race, religion or gender in this country. If so, then things are not equal. So while I can see why some people think it is a great message, regardless of the intent its very existence is bigotry defined to me. I would be no less inclined to say so for any other group. Equality is exactly that. Nothing more and nothing less and that is all I ever want.

No, that’s not a valid justification one way or the other.

Criticism’s validity is not dependent upon that.

The “punching up/down” is just a common way to handwave away hypocrisy.

Criticism is either logical and based in fact, or it is not. It doesn’t matter who is being criticized, and it doesn’t matter who the critic is.

It’s even more real now. By criticizing men, Gillette in a subtle way cements its role as the voice of men. Which was probably their intention.

External criticism may be equally valid, but it’s far more obnoxious. And most media are not meant as academic debate societies, they are meant to foster relationships between individuals and groups. Perception counts. A lot.

Well, sure. Sometimes criticism is dumb, and not well founded.

How much rape by women is there? How much sexual harassment and attempted humiliation? How much murder or violent crime, for that matter? Is the incidence of that anything like that perpetrated by men?

I mean, they’re not the same. You know that, right? It’s a problem of a different magnitude. Don’t treat them the same.

Watch again. Quite literally every single bad action is perpetrated by a Caucasian. The good actions are mixed in race but not the bad. I am not white and I quickly noticed this. I thought it was my imagination and thought I had to be incorrect but I am not. The worse minority action is the statement “boys will be boys” but that is a reaction to two white kids fighting.

You are wrong. Again.

I think you’re right about all of this, although what you’re making here is mainly an argument for why it is a smart marketing move.