It can be interpreted several ways, an attack on men or a call for being better.
I get the message but it's done pretty lame for a razor company. Looks like more PC correct bullshit to me!
And just when I was about to catcall a lady and let kids fight at a barbecue today, such a shame I can't do that now.
You found my inspiration piece
I've got a few more.
I liked the commercial. I think it does a good job telling men that they are welcome to become better men. I don't understand the issue of telling people that they should be better versions of themselves. I don't really understand why telling men that they are allowed to cry, that they shouldn't follow a girl on the street that they find attractive (because frankly that's kinda creepy), that they should break up bullying when a young boy is being attacked by other students, etc. is considered "political correctness" when it's really just the ethical thing to do. So be the best, good man that you can be!
How about telling you that you're inherently bad. You're bad sugar, you have toxic somethingninity, and you should change. (But I havent done anything <- that's you) It doesn't mater, you're bad and you should change
I don't think it was made to target you specifically, sunny_the_skeptic. It was meant to target this perfect idea of the men in this world. That men are supposed to be tough, that men are supposed to turn the blind eye to certain things because "oh, it's just normal," that men are not allowed to show emotion because it isn't "manly." You, Sunny, may not fit into this stereotypical mold of men but that doesn't mean that men around you also don't. Of the three major men in my life, my father and my two brothers, they don't fit in this mold. But of the men I encountered in college, a far majority would succumb to these downfalls.
That's what men had to be in the past, that's what men needed to do in order to thrive. Because life was tough and still is, in other circumstances the gentle, wimpy type of man would be useless. And some women in the US still depend on men being tough. It's true we're not animals anymore and we dont need to fight tigers and hunt boars to survive. The worst we face today is other people or cockroaches. But you know what the worst part is? That if there was such a commercial targeting women's bad qualities, putting them all in one bag and telling them to change the reaction would be even worse.
I don't think we're talking about "tough" in the same context. Yes, being tough by your definition in the past was important because men were mainly used to protect the family. However, what I'm talking about now is being "tough" instead of showing basic, human emotions. Being able to cry, being able to show compassion, being in tune with your emotions. That's what I mean about men feeling like they have to be tough. My maternal grandfather used to not give hugs to other men because it was seen as a manly thing. Other men I know who are afraid to tell their male friends that they love them because they don't want to be called "gay" or "feminine." My dad, however, doesn't care about that and he's a "tough" guy by your definition. He isn't "tough" by my definition because he is fine with sharing how he feels and showing sympathy. That's the mold that needs to be broken. Men can be tough (your definition) while ignoring being tough (my definition) and showing how they feel.
I'm an older guy Sugar. As to targeting the "perfect idea of a man", That's Hollywood, not reality. You said your Dad and two brothers don't fit into that mold. That's probably because they are just average guys, just like the rest of us. As to these stereotypes people refer to as celebrities, there are just as many women stereotypes who are predators and vicious as there are men.
Furthermore, saying an action of a male is bad does not always mean that same person is a bad person. For example: a child grows up with parents who are not good. This child never learned the difference between right and wrong. Some of the things the child did are considered "bad" within society, but the child doesn't know because they are naive to the problem. So, we start to give that child information showing why their actions are bad and give them a chance to change. If that child wants to change because the recognize that their actions are bad then I would totally argue that the child is good, just conditioned to do the bad thing. But if that child learns the difference between good and bad and still chooses to do the bad thing, then I would say that the child is a bad person.
Males as a whole have been conditioned to do certain things that may be inherently bad. So, we (as in the society) and Gillette are bringing it to the attention of the general male conditioning to change. How you specifically, Sunny, will be seen will depend on how you act based on this need for change. Will you strive to be a better male or fall back into a certain conditioning that may not be healthy for you.
What if I'm perfectly fine and dont exhibit those inherently bad things that I'm supposed to but I'm still treated as a bad one because those things are typical for my kind and I have the potential to be this way. How would you feel to be condemned just for the group you belong to despite never doing anything bad.
Also, you can't tell me I don't know what it feels like to be targeted for who I am beforehand. I identify as a Black, female woman (I say identify because I am multiracial but outwardly I look Black). I, and my ancestors, have been condemned since the day I was born. As a woman, I am constantly told I need to change myself: buy this makeup to look prettier, change your hair so you can fit in with the white standard of looks, make sure you hold yourself a certain way so people don't assume that you're going to steal something from a store. So, yes, I have been told that there may be inherently bad things that I need to change, but I think the goal is completely different.
People want me to change because they want me to fit into a certain stereotype of a standard person. I need to be pretty, I need to have straight hair, etc. But telling males a general to change to become better people is totally not comparable. You cannot say that telling a girl to wear makeup so someone will love her is the same as telling a men to change because they should strive to be better people in this world. That's comparing apples and oranges.
Your ancestors were condemned true, commercials dont tell you to look a certain way, that's up to you but they prey on your insecurities and tell you that you will look better with make up on, again that's your choice and you suffer at the hand of other females if you dont do it far more you'd suffer at the hands of males.
I understand that you, Sunny, may be perfectly fine. I'm doubt Gillette made this commercial to specifically target you and not every other male on this planet. Gillette cannot make a specific commercial to each and every individual bad male in the world; that would be way too many commercials. Going general is the next best way to get the message across and sparking this important conversation. And it's incredibly unfortunate that people may make this assumption about you without getting to know you as an individual. If someone does that, then that's completely on them and they probably don't deserve to have you their life anyway. You know who you are and you, as a male, are able to continue to be who you are and make a positive change to the males who may be doing these bad things.
What about the bad ones then? Look a commercial who talks about bad men I will stop being bad. How will this work? The only ones you can affect are the ones who don't do bad things, the bad ones dont care and wont stop.
I also wanted to add that I've really enjoyed the conversation we had today! I thoroughly appreciated you attacking my argument rather than attacking me as a user. I do believe that the conversation has run its course because I know I've said my piece to the best of my ability. You are more than welcome to respond, but I think I don't think I'll add anything more because it'll feel like we're beating the dead horse.
Again, I truly appreciate this back and forth and I hope anything I said didn't come off as me attacking you personally. If it did, I sincerely apologize as that was not my intention!
I would never attack you personally, that would be a pathetic as the cartoon Ed Edd n Eddy taught me "Insults are the calling card of the weak minded" And no, none of your words felt like attacking.
Man, what a show that was.
Glad you had fun
I think it’s more complicated than that. If we took that mindset, that bad men won’t care and won’t stop, then there are so many other things in history that we should’ve backed out of. By not saying anything it’s almost as if we’re condoning it. That’s such a failure mentality.
It’s wonderful, though, the fact that you brought up the good men who are watching and understand. Because those good men can be the ones who tell the bad men to stop doing bad things. Take for example the guy in the commercial who stopped the other guy from following the lady. He was a good man telling the bad man to stop doing the bad thing, i.e. chasing after a girl who most likely didn’t not want to be chased. Those good men are going to be the ones who squelch the bad actions. And this commercial put a little seed in their head to take those actions. Because, let’s face it, people are more likely to be called out and respond positively if it’s from their friends and not some stranger. Gillette created this commercial so good men, just like you Sunny, can spread the awareness to bad men. Otherwise, this will be a perpetual problem and nothing will be fixed. I, for one, am all for being optimistic and creating a positive discussion rather than letting something rot and praying the badness just goes away.
well what if Loreal made a commercial telling women to stop being promiscuous and close there legs and blanket stereotype all women as you know what, would you say thats a good commercial? yeah probably not, but your ok with a commercial demonizing all men, I will never ever buy gillette again PERIOD
I believe I called it laughable and pukable hypocrisy elsewhere. It is. Perhaps had the company begun their virtue-signaling by calling itself out, I might have a better take on it...something on the order of:
For decades corporations have employed advertising agencies to help us sell our products. We have used advertising that blatantly objectified and sexualized women and depicted men as little more than teenaged boys in the throes of puberty. This type of advertising belittles both women and men and we sincerely apologize. We will no longer be utilizing advertising that we now realize is destructive to how people view themselves, to your interpersonal relationships, and to society as a whole. From this point forward, we will strive to be better.
Buuuut...they didn't do that. Instead they blamed men for what years and years of advertising and entertainment has informed them they are, has effectively taught them to be...and which many men act out...at least publicly.
Privately, I don't find most to be that way. Having grown up with a house full of boys and men, and working almost exclusively with men most of my life, and with the majority of my friends having been men...I think I have more insight than many women. Certainly the caricatures depicted in advertising and entertainment are based on some truth, but they are, indeed, caricatures. Mostly, anyway. Unfortunately, there are those who have grown up without fathers, with TV and internet for babysitters, and without any real men as examples in their lives. Some have modeled themselves on the idiots depicted by advertisers and Hollywood. But not all men. Or even most.
And if Gillette, and any other corporations, wish to virtue signal...I suggest they pry the logs out of their own eyes before pointing out the specks in others. People learn best by example, not by chastisements.