Gillette's new #metoo advertisement

[Syne]

Kaepernick hadn't been a working athlete for quite some time, and Nike did "use" the suffering of others to profit.

So if Gillette becomes known for pushing the envelope, that kind of commercial will be fine with you?
How was Nike's ad not piggybacking on the BLM movement?
Do you agree more with the BLM movement than the #MeToo?

Doesn't the BLM movement have the ripple effects of lowering policing in black neighborhoods and making police second-guess themselves in deadly situations?


Sorry, I still fail to see how one ad is significantly better than the other, except insofar as anyone actually living under a rock might not know Kaepernick's cause and see Nike's pandering.

I don't care what you think, sorry not sorry.

So, as usual, you have zero interest in even answering a few simple questions that could clarify your opinion. What are you so afraid of? That your whole worldview may collapse? O_o

In lieu of clarity, assumptions must suffice.

Why even share such opinions if you have no interest in making them clear? You might as well just be posting to social media, if all you want is to be heard. Or does this forum provide more attention than you get there?

[RainbowUnicorn]

Nike capitalized on others' misfortunes too. Kaepernick wouldn't have a cause, or the notoriety and endorsement deal, if others didn't suffer misfortune. I assume Nike is profiting from it, and it has nothing to do with their product.

Nike sales booming after Colin Kaepernick ad

So is it really about any of that, or is it just that you agree more with Kaepernick than #MeToo? If you agree with both, what's the difference?


The Gillette ad is just stupid. It shows fathers being the cause of bad behavior when every study done has shown that it's the lack of fathers that is most correlated to the worst behaviors.

Not unusual for Nike to have an athlete represent its product line. In the case of Kaepernick, it just seemed like the perfect time to ''use'' what he was standing for, and weave it into a campaign. It works for me, because Nike thinks outside of the box, and often pushes the envelope. They've had campaigns directed solely at women, which I found to border on the inspiring. Of course, Nike is profiting off of Kaepernick's ''cause'' and while I see your point, they just managed to come across in a classy way.

Gillette's ad just feels disingenuous and is simply piggy backing on the #metoo movement, like so many others. I have my own #metoo stories, so I understand the ''hype'' behind the cause. The problem with the #metoo movement though (in my opinion), is it has created this wave of placing women on pedestals, in the work place. I want my work and worth to be judged solely on the value that my efforts bring to an organization, not that men at the top are now possibly timid to include me in meetings or feel pressure from the media frenzy, to promote me because they fear a potential backlash. I'm not saying this is happening, but I see the ripple effect of the #metoo movement, and friends of mine say it's been happening with them. True equality between the genders doesn't come in the form of men hoisting me up on a pedestal, and garnishing me with praise, simply because I'm a woman and they're trying to ''make up'' for the wayward ways of other men. Like all ''movements,'' it has a tendency to go off the rails, and marginalize another group, in order to promote its interests.


I'm not a socialist, Rainbow. lol I just feel that Gillette's commercial is a glaring example of unbridled capitalism.

I'm not a socialist, Rainbow. lol I just feel that Gillette's commercial is a glaring example of unbridled capitalism.

95% of the worlds self defining socialists would not have access to the open internet.(maybe a cell phone they have can connect but they would not use it to access message boards to discuss things)
the chance of you being one is around 12% to 15% with around an 80% chance if you were to be an American socialist.
rare breed. quite interesting people.
hence my sudden fascination.
independent thought has been under attack by intellectual genocidal maniacs in the usa for decades.


Hollywood(per-say) & the arts scene is the only true independent voice left so it seems.
steven colbert
the tonight show
saturday night live


im picturing Miley Cyrus singing happy birthday mr president by Marilyn Munroe while riding around on a ride-on-mower shaped like a giant Cock
with politicians walking around the lawn dressed like zombies(maybe even nazi zombies but that probably wont be allowed to air on tv).

[Leigha]

Kaepernick hadn't been a working athlete for quite some time, and Nike did "use" the suffering of others to profit.

So if Gillette becomes known for pushing the envelope, that kind of commercial will be fine with you?
How was Nike's ad not piggybacking on the BLM movement?
Do you agree more with the BLM movement than the #MeToo?

Doesn't the BLM movement have the ripple effects of lowering policing in black neighborhoods and making police second-guess themselves in deadly situations?


Sorry, I still fail to see how one ad is significantly better than the other, except insofar as anyone actually living under a rock might not know Kaepernick's cause and see Nike's pandering.

I don't care what you think, sorry not sorry.

So, as usual, you have zero interest in even answering a few simple questions that could clarify your opinion. What are you so afraid of? That your whole worldview may collapse? O_o

In lieu of clarity, assumptions must suffice.

Why even share such opinions if you have no interest in making them clear? You might as well just be posting to social media, if all you want is to be heard. Or does this forum provide more attention than you get there?

I just have zero interest in talking with YOU. There's a difference....deary.    You're incapable of having a healthy dialogue, and it's a boring, old scene. I reply to your questions, then you do the usual...add in things that I never said, and then counter argue them. lol!! You do it to everyone...pretty much because you're a bully. Peace out.

[Magical Realist]

Kaepernick hadn't been a working athlete for quite some time, and Nike did "use" the suffering of others to profit.

So if Gillette becomes known for pushing the envelope, that kind of commercial will be fine with you?
How was Nike's ad not piggybacking on the BLM movement?
Do you agree more with the BLM movement than the #MeToo?

Doesn't the BLM movement have the ripple effects of lowering policing in black neighborhoods and making police second-guess themselves in deadly situations?


Sorry, I still fail to see how one ad is significantly better than the other, except insofar as anyone actually living under a rock might not know Kaepernick's cause and see Nike's pandering.

I don't care what you think, sorry not sorry.

So, as usual, you have zero interest in even answering a few simple questions that could clarify your opinion. What are you so afraid of? That your whole worldview may collapse? O_o

In lieu of clarity, assumptions must suffice.

Why even share such opinions if you have no interest in making them clear? You might as well just be posting to social media, if all you want is to be heard. Or does this forum provide more attention than you get there?

I just have zero interest in talking with YOU. There's a difference....deary.    You're incapable of having a healthy dialogue, and it's a boring, old scene. I reply to your questions, then you do the usual...add in things that I never said, and then counter argue them. lol!! You do it to everyone...pretty much because you're a bully. Peace out.

Syne has the social skills of a spoiled 5 year old. I don't reply to him anymore.

[Leigha]

Kaepernick hadn't been a working athlete for quite some time, and Nike did "use" the suffering of others to profit.

So if Gillette becomes known for pushing the envelope, that kind of commercial will be fine with you?
How was Nike's ad not piggybacking on the BLM movement?
Do you agree more with the BLM movement than the #MeToo?

Doesn't the BLM movement have the ripple effects of lowering policing in black neighborhoods and making police second-guess themselves in deadly situations?


Sorry, I still fail to see how one ad is significantly better than the other, except insofar as anyone actually living under a rock might not know Kaepernick's cause and see Nike's pandering.

I don't care what you think, sorry not sorry.

So, as usual, you have zero interest in even answering a few simple questions that could clarify your opinion. What are you so afraid of? That your whole worldview may collapse? O_o

In lieu of clarity, assumptions must suffice.

Why even share such opinions if you have no interest in making them clear? You might as well just be posting to social media, if all you want is to be heard. Or does this forum provide more attention than you get there?

I just have zero interest in talking with YOU. There's a difference....deary.    You're incapable of having a healthy dialogue, and it's a boring, old scene. I reply to your questions, then you do the usual...add in things that I never said, and then counter argue them. lol!! You do it to everyone...pretty much because you're a bully. Peace out.

Syne has the social skills of a spoiled 5 year old.

The odd thing is, we all disagree with each other on various points, but we keep it classy. We stick with the topic, and don't insert arguments that don't exist, and then fight against those arguments. It's just boring. If he gets off on putting you and me and others down, it is what it is.  Let's just get the thread back on track.

---

... But, if they get a huge boost in sales from this ''campaign,'' is there really a victory in that? I say no. It just comes off as disingenuous, when the underlying motive of the ad is to gain awareness for Gillette.

Looks like outrage is driving them to other brands instead. Familiar twitter refrains of "being a man is not a disease nor a pathology" and “pathetic virtue-signalling”. Have to wonder about the soundness of preaching about the sin of "toxic masculinity" while standing on the soapbox of a product aimed primarily at male consumers.

I assume Pankaj Bhalla is originally from India, where there are a large number of rapes and crimes against women. Perhaps commodity activism is routine over there, maybe even a requirement in that dense population that adverts periodically double as public service messages. Whatever, it's a tad unexpected that this guy could have actually had semi- or quarter- honest motives for approving the commercial. But nevertheless completely misgauged the skeptical, warring political climate and reaction of the Manosphere in North America.

Making a commercial to win an award at the Emmys or be honorably mentioned at a Woke conference is arguably losing track of the primary purpose of a commercial. (OTOH, I've watched many a conventional commercial that was so wrapped-up in its cute or complex gimmick for hawking _X_ that afterwards I couldn't even recall what it was promoting, the latter was so thoroughly smothered by the former.)

In a perverse or mixed-signals sense, the Gillette Venus commercials have been accused of having a vintage sexist era or Mad Men like air about them.

Shifting back to cynical orientation: Procter & Gamble as a whole have opportunistically outputted other commercials in recent years that tried to score reputation points via issues.

~

These are great points, CC. I just see it as a disingenuous attempt at looking compassionate over victims within the #metoo movement. I've read that Bhalla's decision to move forward with the ad, was/is to promote a ''new generation of men.'' I don't even know what that means. There are men of all ages in the ad, but somehow, this ad will spark a misogynist to change his ways, or perhaps Harvey Weinstein will reform himself, after picking up a few razors, because he feels so inspired by Gillette. They completely miss the mark if they think that the problems of sexual harassment and gender discrimination, have a quick fix. I realize that these ''woke'' ads are meant to bring about positive discussion, albeit controversial, but it's still all about ...the money. Like I mentioned above, if Gillette were to give a percentage of their profits to worthy causes, that would be noble.

[Syne]

So, as usual, you have zero interest in even answering a few simple questions that could clarify your opinion. What are you so afraid of? That your whole worldview may collapse? O_o

In lieu of clarity, assumptions must suffice.

Why even share such opinions if you have no interest in making them clear? You might as well just be posting to social media, if all you want is to be heard. Or does this forum provide more attention than you get there?

I just have zero interest in talking with YOU. There's a difference....deary.    You're incapable of having a healthy dialogue, and it's a boring, old scene. I reply to your questions, then you do the usual...add in things that I never said, and then counter argue them. lol!! You do it to everyone...pretty much because you're a bully. Peace out.

So a health dialogue doesn't included asking pretty basic questions to avoid straw manning someone's opinion? O_o

No, as usual, you just can't justify your own opinions and whine about that somehow being someone else's fault. You avoid certain question, forcing people to make assumptions, and then, like a self-fulfilling prophecy, you claim they're straw manning you.

It's transparent and sad that you don't even seem to realize what you do.

The odd thing is, we all disagree with each other on various points, but we keep it classy. We stick with the topic, and don't insert arguments that don't exist, and then fight against those arguments. It's just boring. If he gets off on putting you and me and others down, it is what it is.  Let's just get the thread back on track.

You brought up Gillette, you brought up Nike, and you brought up companies profiting off the suffering of others. If you can't be bothered to clarify your own opinions, people can only make assumptions...like why you might find those two examples different when they are essentially the same.


For the umpteenth time, if you don't like the Socratic method, by all means, put me on ignore. Do you need a tutorial on how to do that?
Otherwise, quit whining, snowflake.

---

Syne has the social skills of a spoiled 5 year old. I don't reply to him anymore.

You just talk about me, like a passive aggressive teen girl.

[C C]

. . . I've read that Bhalla's decision to move forward with the ad, was/is to promote a ''new generation of men.'' I don't even know what that means. There are men of all ages in the ad, but somehow, this ad will spark a misogynist to change his ways, or perhaps Harvey Weinstein will reform himself, after picking up a few razors, because he feels so inspired by Gillette. They completely miss the mark if they think that the problems of sexual harassment and gender discrimination, have a quick fix. I realize that these ''woke'' ads are meant to bring about positive discussion, albeit controversial, but it's still all about ...the money. Like I mentioned above, if Gillette were to give a percentage of their profits to worthy causes, that would be noble.

Certainly wouldn't hurt in terms of deflecting the cynicism, though if a company/corporation still succeeds without coddling public relations in refined ways, then little incentive for the latter.

Capitalism inevitably prevails -- it adapts. Business has been annexing and remolding aspects of sociopolitical movements, religion, and assorted traditions for decades if not centuries. Take Christmas marketing and the watered-down version of MLK peddled around in January, for example. Or a retrospectively labeled "Atomic Blonde" approach to the action/adventure industry's iteration of feminism that accelerated in the '90s and 2000s.[*]

- - -

[*] Male viewers seem fine with being served that formula of high-kicking eye candy beating up heavyweight guys and tossing them around like linebacker-sized confetti. That, along with the lesbian quirks, is the kind of emasculation on screen which they'll pay for. The bizarre detour, of course, being the very idea that accommodating a projected fantasy of women desiring to physically punish men (in ways which they'd have much less success at in real life) is satisfying some need of social balance between the sexes. "This particular Hollywood genre is also doing its part to make things right!"

~

[Leigha]

. . . I've read that Bhalla's decision to move forward with the ad, was/is to promote a ''new generation of men.'' I don't even know what that means. There are men of all ages in the ad, but somehow, this ad will spark a misogynist to change his ways, or perhaps Harvey Weinstein will reform himself, after picking up a few razors, because he feels so inspired by Gillette. They completely miss the mark if they think that the problems of sexual harassment and gender discrimination, have a quick fix.  I realize that these ''woke'' ads are meant to bring about positive discussion, albeit controversial, but it's still all about ...the money. Like I mentioned above, if Gillette were to give a percentage of their profits to worthy causes, that would be noble.

Certainly wouldn't hurt in terms of deflecting the cynicism, though if a company/corporation still succeeds without coddling public relations in refined ways, then little incentive for the latter.  

Capitalism inevitably prevails -- it adapts. Business has been annexing and remolding aspects of sociopolitical movements, religion, and assorted traditions for decades if not centuries. Take Christmas marketing and the watered-down version of MLK peddled around in January, for example. Or a retrospectively labeled "Atomic Blonde" approach to the action/adventure industry's iteration of feminism that accelerated in the '90s and 2000s.
[*]

- - -

[*]Male viewers seem fine with being served that formula of high-kicking eye candy beating up heavyweight guys and tossing them around like linebacker-sized confetti. That, along with the lesbian quirks, is the kind of emasculation on screen which they'll pay for. The bizarre detour, of course, being the very idea that accommodating a projected fantasy of women desiring to physically punish men (in ways which they'd have much less success at in real life) is satisfying some need of social balance between the sexes. "This particular Hollywood genre is also doing its part to make things right!"

~

[*]

Valid points, and I'm not against capitalism, as long as it doesn't seek to corrupt, which we often see isn't the case. 

Something to note, misogyny and sexism in a broad sense, isn't something that men can be ''cured'' of, as adults. Like a 40 year old narcissistic man viewing this ad, is going to have a light bulb moment, and think ''wow, I should stop hitting on all of my assistants. That's really wrong.'' Men like Bill Cosby, and Harvey Weinstein - their disrespect and callous treatment of women most likely grew from childhood. A catchy ad, or even a course in ''how to treat women,'' isn't going to cure these types of men. Not even make a dent in their outlook. 

The garden variety sexist who is a player at the bars, he might be teachable, but it will still be an uphill battle. So, this ad in a way, seems to be mocking women. Mocking the #metoo movement. It is a theatrical attempt at getting us to see men as these misfits who need training up to behave better around women. As if it's all so simple.

My point is, most men who don't know how to converse with women on healthy levels, or believe that women only have ''sexual market value,'' and little else to offer - need psychotherapy at a deeper level. Frankly, types like Weinstein and Cosby are psychopaths if you ask me, and nothing will help them. But, they might fall at the extreme end of the #metoo movement. There are everyday men from all walks of life, who disrespect women, because it was ingrained in them since childhood. 

Most men who disrespect women, mock them, have a disdain for them...learned the behavior as a coping mechanism from childhood. Perhaps they have seen their own fathers strike their mothers, or emotionally abuse them. Perhaps, they were abused themselves and their mothers stood by, doing nothing...or their mothers were the abusers. Something traumatic in childhood usually creates this fragile mindset in young boys when it comes to women, and when left unchecked, those young boys become adult men who simply don't know how to interact with women on any positive or meaningful level. 

Long story short, this ad has a rah-rah-sis-boom-bah aspect to it, but in reality, it's a fail.

The best way to honestly respect women, is to just let us be. Stop putting us on pedestals, and pretending like you understand anything that we go through or have gone through. As a woman, I don't pretend to know men's struggles. Just treat us as equals, with kindness and respect.

[RainbowUnicorn]

i keep thinking of the old spice ad campaign that was really popular.

i have not seen the gillette advert. i feel more a compulsion to not watch it.

noting your comments that you think the advert is a condescending trend whore attempt
while keeping in mind the premise of how i like the idea of new shiny things. new beginnings. new experiences. etc etc...

brand statements...
do women buy mens razors or do men buy them ?
 im guessing around 60% bought by women.

can we postulate the comic idea of a women buying her male partner a gillette razor and throwing it to him across the room saying "its time for you to be a better man"

i doubt men buy womens razors for them.

[Secular Sanity]

i keep thinking of the old spice ad campaign that was really popular.

i have not seen the gillette advert. i feel more a compulsion to not watch it.

noting your comments that you think the advert is a condescending trend whore attempt
while keeping in mind the premise of how i like the idea of new shiny things. new beginnings. new experiences. etc etc...

brand statements...
do women buy mens razors or do men buy them ?
 im guessing around 60% bought by women.

can we postulate the comic idea of a women buying her male partner a gillette razor and throwing it to him across the room saying "its time for you to be a better man"

i doubt men buy womens razors for them.

I think you're on to something, RU.

Most ad campaigns have always been stereotypical. Ours directed towards beauty and theirs towards behavior.

"The best man a man can get"

"She's got it
Yeah baby, she's got it
Well, I'm your Venus
I'm your fire
At your desire"

But take a look at some of the old ads. They depict women thinking that their husbands no longer care about them because they’re not clean shaven. Men not getting a job because they’re not clean shaven. Men not being welcomed into homes, etc. One of them even says that woman is the great civilizer. 

If it were not for her man would revert to whiskers and carry a club. Woman does much for the Gillette because it is her presence, her influence that puts the emphasis on good cloths, clean linen, and a clean shave. She admires the clean, healthy skin of the man who uses a Gillette. She does not approve the ladylike massage-finish of the tonsorial artist. The massaged appearance ceased to be “class” largely because she said so.

This is true for the most part. We’ve always been the trend setters. We decide what’s sexy and what’s not. We even define our own beauty. Big boobs in—big boobs out. Skinny in—skinny out. We have more control than we think.

Women are more critical when it comes to appearances. I can wear worn out sweatpants and most men could care less but I dress to the nines when I’m in the company of other women.

I don’t see anything wrong with it. The new trend is, "If you want to get laid, don’t be a Harvey."