UKC

Apparently Gillettes advert criticising toxic masculinity has provoked a furious response amongst some "men".

What is wrong with these people? 

I’m just surprised they haven’t released a yellow razor in France this year.

Sales of the ‘Gillette Jaune’ would, I suspect, have been strong...

I quite like the advert and thought it was very on point. So naturally people get offended because the way they have acted gets shown as being not okay, and people love outrage. Remember it wasn't long ago people were kicking off about a fricking vegan sausage roll, so I take no notice of people that get furious, or outraged etc about sod all.

The only issue I have with it is the hypocrisy.

A company that charges its female customers nearly 50% more for the same products because they are pink shouldn't be lecturing anyone on gender issues

Why don't people get rebel against the real problem with Gillette - the cost of replacement blades!

If I'd known women only pay half as much as men I'd have been buying their stuff for years.

(or have you missed a crucial word?)

Yes now corrected

I saw the outrage first, then the 'be' advert last night and thought "is that it?". I was expecting some hardline stop being a tw@t message by the anger it had created.

I can't say I ever bought into the 'get' adverts anyway.... chiselled man looking smug at his smooth finish whilst his six pack is glowing in the moody light.   The reality is: walk into the bathroom looking and feeling knackered, trying to figure out which of the three S's to do first, before deciding that the stubble look will do and plonking yourself down on the loo and falling asleep whilst having a crap.   

I think outrage is a bit strong but I suspect many men were a bit pissed off at the implication that we've all spent decades acting like boorish pricks up until the latest 'enlightened' generation which has taken on the heroic task of re-educating us all.

Most men were never boorish pricks and in any case, is gender stereotyping suddenly OK? 

No, it's mandatory 

Indeed.  Bin the Gillette, chaps.  Get a decent double-edged razor like your dad had and save loads of money.  The initial outlay is pretty steep - razor, blades, brush, shaving cream - but it will pay for itself in no time.  A decent razor will last 10 years easily, shaving cream goes a long way (I get 6 months out of a pot costing £12) and a pack of 10 blades lasts me 10 weeks and costs £3.20.  Yes, I am buying the super-expensive ones.

Not only will you save money compared to those awful Mach6 27-blade things, but whiskers will glide off your face rather than being scraped off.  Shaving will be a pleasure rather than an uncomfortable chore, and you'll get a closer shave.

Special bonus: once you become proficient, you will be legally entitled to shake your head gently and say, "Ee, when I were a lad..."

So things are not better now than 40 - 50 years ago? Also it might not be the majority of men, but it is effecting the majority of women, so we have to do better, and we should be calling people out for saying shit to other people. My other half worked in pubs the way some of the customers spoke to her was disgraceful (young and old but all men). I am glad she is a strong character and just refused to serve them afterwards (even in the face of the landlord telling her to serve them she refused). Maybe the re-education isn't not saying the stuff, it is about calling people out when they do. It shows that we are not boorish pricks, and are not accepting of them.

I think the advert is actually saying we are not all boorish pricks, but it is time to stand up to those that are. 

I think the word is "broflakes".

As I said in my original post, the adverts implication is that we all were boorish pricks, not are.

Personally, I'd rather not be lectured on gender politics by a company that has projected crude gender stereotyping through its advertising for decades, over charges women for the same product it sells to men and has no senior women executives...

https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/people.asp?privcapId=2900...

...but hey, if you want to applaud a bunch of hypocrites for promoting the blindingly obvious message, 'don't be a dick', go ahead, fill your boots.

Yeah thats how I read the advert. Its not all men but its enough that its a problem.

Several of my female friends use dating sites and seeing what blokes text them is appalling. Apparently it's very common. I despair.

Well, quite.  Though I must admit I don't understand why female customers fall for that and don't just buy the identical unisex[1] product.

[1] While the slogan is "the best a man can get", standard ones don't exactly have "male branding" on the physical item, they are pretty generic.

Okay so your problem is with the company rather than the advert?

I would applaud any advert that says "don't be a dick", but then I think about the advert not the company. (I still won't be buying their products but it is a good message to be putting out there).

... but hey, if you want to let your opinions on a brand blinker you of a blinding obvious social issue, go ahead, fill your boots.

I have a double-edged safety razor but there is absolutely no need to spend a fortune on blades - if you are spending £3.20 for 10 you are frankly being ripped off by someone with an expensive brand name, even if it is cheaper than Gillette.  Tesco ones aren't great, but Derby blades are and can be obtained in large packs very cheaply from Amazon etc.  You do need to replace pretty frequently though with any kind of double-edge blade as they dull fairly quickly - weekly is about right as you say.

I'm less traditional on the lather - I find shaving *oil* works best for me.  Have a nice hot shower (softens the hair nicely) then while still wet get it on (rubbed in well) and get shaving.  The shower is important, without it I rip my face to shreds whatever kind of razor I use.

Is that not reserved for using a cut-throat?  I don't have the patience to shave slowly enough to use one of those, sadly, but with skill they are meant to offer the best shave possible.

The main driver for me having a beard is come I hate shelling out on razors.

Set of clippers to trim the head and face once every couple of weeks.  Boom.  Up yours Gilette!

Excellent work ...... I don't think we should ever have had enough of the fight to deal with extensive sexual harrassment and sexual assault, especially worrying when abusing positions of power. The likes of Weinstein should all have been outed by the late 20th century. It's also not just men doing this to women. 

....plus as a bonus, anything that pisses off Piers Morgan has got to be good.

Hey ThunderDiplomaticCat, please dont drop your standards

For the third time; the advert represents yet more crude gender stereotyping from Gillette. It's a bullshit message from a company that derives a sizeable chunk of its income from convincing women that they must have hair free armpits and legs to be truly feminine. 

I don't appreciate any advertising that seeks to paper over some pretty antediluvian company attitudes to gender by the pretence that its leading some sort of 'right on' crusade.

If you'd read my posts you'd see that rather than being blind to the problem, I'm very aware of it, and unlike you, I'm aware that the Gillette company is part of that problem, despite what its adverts might imply.

Do you always take adverts at face value? Gullible much?

"Tesco ones aren't great, but Derby blades are and can be obtained in large packs very cheaply from Amazon etc.  You do need to replace pretty frequently though with any kind of double-edge blade as they dull fairly quickly - weekly is about right as you say."

Astra blades are cheaper, sharper and keep their edge better.

Clearly we are not going to agree on if the advert is good or bad. I think it is an important message to get out there, you think it is stereotyping men (despite it being men in the advert saying don't do that shit).

Again like I said, I am looking past who the company that makes it is, I won't be buying their stuff regardless and appreciating it as an important message to get out there.

I am aware of some of the issue with the company (maybe no as much as you) but I am just not letting that get in the way of my opinion of the advert (like the actual advert and the message in it, not the company that is is advertising).

You really are not getting that I don't care who the company is?

It's absolutely stereotyping. It starts with the message that in the past all men acted like arseholes towards women (untrue) and then goes on to imply that a few courageous men are trying to change things (err, hello? decades of courageous women fighting for equality!). Perhaps a few strong women standing up to the boorish pricks in the advert may have negated the stereotyping but then Gillette as a company is pretty invested in maintaining stereotypes like 'nice feminine women shave body hair'.

The message is already out there. Gillette promoting it is like Harvey Weinstein spouting off to the rest of us about respecting women's personal space.

Just a bit weird that you think it's a great advert despite it being blatantly hypocritical and leaving you unmoved as to purchasing the product.

If I'm in the market for something I'll look at an advert, if I want educating about something, adverts are the last place I'll look.

Okay, you have worn me down. It is a crap advert. I am tapping out.

I've tried Astra, Derby, Shark, Gillette, Wilkinson Sword, Personna, Feather, and some Russian brand I can't remember the name of.  They all felt uncomfortable to varying degrees and some of them cut me, with the exception of the pricey Feathers, which have a reputation for being the sharpest on the market.  A lot of people say they're too sharp and require great care, but I find them smooth and easy.  I suspect this is because I have a tough beard but very sensitive skin, which is not a great combination.  So, I don't think I'm being ripped off, but I am in a slightly unfortunate situation.  I'd agree that if Derbys or any other cheaper brand work for you then just go with it.

Completely different for me, I found it had no effect at all.  Shaving with just oil was horrendous for blade drag and all round discomfort, shaving with soap over oil felt like shaving with just soap.

I tried one years ago but didn't persevere long enough to master it.  I've thought about going back for another try but it requires too much time and attention for my liking.  With a DE, I can stand in the shower semi-conscious with my eyes shut, wipe the razor around my face twice, and I'm done.

The DE route can sound like a lot of faff - finding the right razor, the right blade, and the right soap for you - but I think that's part of the fun.  And once you do find it, you'll be getting a great shave.

I'll wager because the degree to which it categorises just about anything as "toxic" masculinity - from kids wrestling on the grass at a BBQ, to 3 chaps sat on a sofa watching a music video that features girls dancing in bikinis.  It really seems to go over the top in its caricatures too.

Or perhaps its because it appears to make the case that, prior to MeToo, males were pretty much universally monsters and that this only changed after MeToo.

Or maybe because, at around the 50 second mark, it makes the statement that men need to "act" and "talk" correctly and that luckily "SOME" men already do.  That's a relief.  To know that some of us are already ok.  Presumably though that leaves a few billion people of just one sex who are seriously remiss.

Always worth swapping the subject of this sort of advert and see if it still passes the sniff test.  Perhaps one that says "some" Muslims aren't terrorists, perhaps featuring a few Arabic-looking gents wearing a suicide vest, and a line of Muslims cooking some halal food giving approving nods.  Or perhaps a "some" women don't kill their children, or "some" blacks don't commit crime.

All a bit ironic really.  Gilette want males to be a bit more soft, sensitive and open with their feelings?  Yet they seem to feel an advert that would likely be deemed unacceptable if aimed at any other group in society should just be taken on the chin without criticism or complaint. 

I just think it's a cynical hijack by Gillette to try and sell more stuff.

To be fair, the purchase of clippers started for the head hair.  Having my hair cut at the barbers was one of my least favourite things.  

But tightness is now the driving reason.

TDC

To be fair, they don’t.  They *market* some razors to female customers but they don’t prevent female customers from buying male marketed razors.

I’ve been on record here before with my loathing disgust for what marketing has done to society and mental health, especially with females, but razors are low down my list of concerns...  Then again it all contributes to the underlying marketing machines promotion of gender division.

In most cases I'd agree - all publicity being good publicity.

But in this case the backlash appears to be immense, with a direct "I won't be buying your products again" approach in response.  Though even that seems to be taken as further evidence of toxic masculinity in action though.  Real witch-dunking stuff.

To be fair to Gillette: they make razors!  They would cease to exist as a company if people (both male and female) stopped scraping unwanted  hair off with their products.  They are just as keen on telling men that a clean shaven face is masculine.  

Personally, I find the advert (and the way it is presented) to be a little bit alienating, but I can't really find the energy to get worked up about it.  Lots of free media (and social media) coverage for the company.  People who like to be outraged are outraged and people who like to be offended by the outrage are also happy.  Plus it doesn't seem to have done their share price any harm, so I'm sure (nearly) everyone wins.

I find the double standard infuriating.

Any nuance, subtext, stereotype, inference or potential offense in advertising routinely raises the heckles of the socially liberal media.

Whether a "beach-bod" or the implication of an unfair division of labour, you can expect condemnations, retractions and apologies.

The usual suspects seem remarkably unconcerned in this case though. 

I finally watched it last night, had to see what all the fuss was about. Yes, it is nauseatingly cringey and embarrassingly haughty, though actually pretty amusing when viewed in the context of the fact that they're trying to sell you shaving products.

I really do wonder though if there is anyone out there that cannot see that ads like this, or that Nike one from not too long ago, are solely about making money. If P&G thought they would make a penny more with a "put women back in the kitchen" campaign they would do it.

I think most men agree with the underlying message but equally are probably irritated that it was supremely patronising - the narrator states “ some men are already doing the right thing, acting the right way.. but some is not enough” the overwhelming majority of men and women are good decent folk not just ‘some’.. why does the modern narrative hold all men responsible for changing the behaviour of the few when it wouldn’t dream of suggesting that all women or a particular racial group are responsible for the bad apples in their grouping?

Finally, I also think we need to throw out the phrase "Toxic Masculinity" because of the ambiguity within it. Some claim it simply means "toxic elements of masculinity" but a lot of talk revolves around masculinity per se being toxic. This latter I imagine is behind a lot of the gut responses that reject it the advert.

Company swaps old-fashioned insipid patronising twaddle for more modern insipid patronising twaddle. And there's outrage! 

I thought it was meant to be the snowflakes who were offended by everything, not the (cringe) manosphere?

I couldn’t give much of a shit and haven’t actually watched the advert, but I find being preached at irritating, even if I agree with the message but especially when it’s being done cynically as a marketing exercise. Gillette couldn’t give a f*ck about anything but selling razors. 

To be fair, there is pretty much no such thing as an advert that isn't irritating, which is one reason why almost all my TV viewing and radio listening is via the BBC.

Real men don't buy disposable razors anyway, they use the axe they have just been chopping logs with.

I use fire. 

This. It's just marketing bollocks.

Not content with persuading women they need to remove all their body hair in order to be feminine, they're also trying to persuade men they need to remove their body hair to be masculine (hence all the ads with footballers shaving their chests).

Likewise the makeup and moisturisers, also increasingly targetted at men (well, not so much the makeup...yet...).

Anything to increase product sales.

I’m not particularly offended by this advert (helps that I’ve not watched it), though it does sound a bit patronising and nauseatingly bandwagon-jumping.

its a curious choice as well. Which demographic do they think is going to switch to buying their men’s razors as a result of this campaign? 

It’s like if a product purchased by women was advertised with a campaign built around the message ‘Women! Stop parking like tw*ts outside schools!’. You might get some cheering from the sidelines but surely there’s a much greater risk of annoying your existing customers.

The main result of the fuss about this advert for me is to make me realise that I’ve been buying, without question, the same Gillette razor blades for over 25 years now. Maybe some of the others are just as good?

Gillette might be about to realise that their product is a bit more interchangeable with their competitors than they realised. 

Maybe it fits your preconceptions if you think Me Too attacks men, instead of the common sense attitude its outed a few sick men who abused their power, and the organisations that covered for them and made it harder for future abusers.

The advert is a cynical marketting spin on this. Controversy sells and nearly all publicity is good publicity.. Gillette probably don't give a shit if many men stop buying it, as many other men and more women might do the opposite and the hot air makes the brand more visible. They are no Me To hereos: they use stuff to sell stuff.

Surely there's a bit more to this change in advertising style than it simply being as "bad" as usual Gilette adverts but in a different way?

My recollections of Gilette commercials has been that they make no negative claims about men's or woman's moral compass or virtues, and simply portrayed them in accordance with classic masculine or feminine aesthetic qualities, and to look vaguely aspirational.  Don't see that as objectionable or negative.

The current advert seems more or line with a reversed version of what Gilette adverts in the 1960s might have looked like.  Like a modern version of Harry Enfield's "Know Your Limits" sketch ( youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w&) but aimed at males....and with no hint of irony.

Negative reaction is surely justified if pointing to inconsistent standards?  Is that snowflakism?  Asking that grossly inaccurate, damning and accusatory stereotypes should be considered as wrong when aimed at males as they are at females, or any minority?  Gilette can screen this one all they want.... so long as equally sexist and inaccurate adverts are also permitted.  How likely is that? 

Have you actually listened to the ad?

Granted, its a bit all over the place, the way the narration combines with the images can seems intentionally disjointed, and it has an almost surreal syle.

But if you run through it a few times, it goes from just being vague and implicit to utterly explicit in its statements - directly linking everything to MeToo (all apart from "some" of us apparently complicit where we saw Harvey Weinstein behaviour), that MeToo was some kind of watershed moment in men's development, a 2001 monolith where everything that preceded was presumably marked by predatory, abusive or threatening behaviour.

Are disposable razors really best thought of as a product or are they more like a sharpening service? I've always assumed the pink razors are priced higher because women buy fewer, they use them less frequently and they cut finer hair. I assume the per unit price is different but the price of being hair free is similar.

jk

Cracking advert just seen it

I think it is absolutely bang on. I can see nothing wrong with it at all. It does not in my opinion condemn men only some behaviours, which it is quite clear about

I get the impression(1) that borish pricks are offended at the advert because they think it stereotypes them as borish(2) pricks.

(1) Obviously, I’ve not seen the advert, I don’t want to dilute my prejudices.

(2) When I write borish, my phone tries to autocorrect to “Boris” strikes me as a very smart phone.

Listen to it again starting at, I think, the 50 second mark. 

It makes a very explicit statement about "some" men - and not saying "some" men are bad, but the opposite, that "some" men are good.

That's pretty out of order for advertising in this day-in-age isn't it?

Try typing Booris and see what happens

Except with a minor difference of no deaths.

I don't recall anyone being killed in the "Are You Beach Body Ready" advert either.  

In both cases though, be it arguing against the hypocrisy in the Gilette add, or making the case that there is nothing sexist in a girl wearing a bikini, its easy to end up labelled a misogynist.  Hence the reference to witch dunking.  But you knew that.

To me that's like saying some men like football or some women like shopping. It seems a minor quibble to me

I'm assuming that wasn't their intent and they thought that latching onto the 'Me Too' movement would have people proclaiming how wonderful and aware Gillette are as a company and have them rush out to buy their products. 

Seriously?

Here's a closer comparison to what is said in the advert.  Are you really saying these are minor differences? 

1. Some Muslims aren't terrorists. 

2. Some Muslims are terrorists.

It actually said "some already are"

Seems fine to me I don't see the problem.

Rubbish. Using old school razors is for people who want to feel macho while they're shaving. If you just want a decent shave then modern kit is far superior.

I tried this, I really did. I forked out for a DE razor, the creams and lotions and a selection of blades. I kept at it for four months. I got to the point where I could get a decent shave in about 10 minutes, but it was always fiddly, tedious and left my face feeling scraped raw. I went back to a Mach 3. I can get a perfect shave in 4 minutes flat, never a nick and never feel sore, no need for any lotions. Pissing about with old fashioned razors was a huge waste of time and money, the only thing I've gained from the experience is that I don't moan about the price of Mach 3 blades any more. They are so far superior to DE razors that they are worth the cost.

I'm genuinely surprised we're disagreeing on this.

Are you really saying that the statement "some men are already good/ok/doing-the-right-thing" (eg. some Muslims aren't terrorists) is the same as, or even only marginally different, from "some men are bad" (eg. some Muslims are terrorists)?  

That both are comparable, carry no substantive difference in what they imply, and neither is a problematic statement?

From where I'm sitting there is a massive frigging chasm between the two statements.  One is routinely, and rightly, rounded on as a gross, pejorative, inaccurate, and potentially dangerous, generalisation about an entire population.  The other is entirely accurate, reasonable and fair.

Likewise.  It pains me that I brought in to the hipster classic-razor-is-better hype.  Granted, it can give a closer shave. But that's probably more on account of the shaving experience requiring 10x the time, care, effort and caution, with a high chance of carnage being caused regardless.

But it is a hell of a lot cheaper.  And I'd rather not be paying for Gilette's advertising campaigns if they unapologetically produce this sort of guff.  

I thought I would loose an "o" because they get overused elsewhere.

I clearly need to work on my gazing into the middle distance thinking deep profound poignant thoughts I'm not a toxic male look.

What a steaming pile of American shite.

Worse.  It's apparently produced in the UK.  Nowhere is safe.

I guess some people could concoct a way to find promoting "classic masculine qualities" objectionable - cementing ideas about those qualities being superior when equally fine people don't posses them? But it would be pointless whinging.

Not really. "Know your limits" is about men denying the equal status of women. The cheesy gillette thing is about "good men" versus "bad men", it's completely different.

Minority? You seem to be approaching the issue that men are some kind of oppressed minority who are suffering at the hands of...advertising execs who are probably men! As much as you may want to be part of a poor maligned minority, the reality is that you are not.

The way men are portrayed in the ad isn't about men as a homogenous group being inferior to...some other group (women, gays?). It's about "good men" and "bad men". The good ones aren't the rare breed that aren't constantly sexually harassing every woman within groping distance, it's the few who intervene - this is the second place where your analogy with Muslims fails (the first is that the Muslim example would be stereotyping by non-Muslims).  

It's not sexist or offensive because it's not cementing attitudes that men are inferior - it's jumping on a bandwagon about challenging bullying and sexual harassment, and its crime is that it's cheesy as f*ck and deeply patronising.

I think the use of the Muslim thing is a bit over dramatic. It is more like saying some cats are litter trained and some aren't

I think it should have said 'many men' rather than 'some men' about men being better, but because I don't bully people for being sensitive etc, I figured it didn't apply to me and forgot about it*. 

I think the 'some men' bit was misjudged, but that the points it's making are pretty fair ones (albeit from an American perspective, I don't think I've come across 'boys will be boys' about fighting in the UK?).

*I don't think I'm without fault as a person!

My 2p's worth.

Women are encouraged to shave much larger areas of their bodies than men have conventionally been. I suspect that (more than) makes up for any frequency differences.

Anyway, cost depends on manufacture and distribution cost, surely, not how often the product is used? Unless they have a strange pricing model. Given the size of the market, I doubt economies of scale are very different between men's and women's razors.

I think it's very much an individual thing.  Personally I find a single blade better than 3 blades, I find dragging 3 blades over tends to rip my skin to bits.  I can cope with twin blade ones though, I just never quite went for the "more blades is better" argument.

I don't bother with the rest of the faff like brush and old style soap, though.

In particular I tend to be quite lazy, not shaving quite every day when I work from home.  I also find a classic razor deals better with a couple of days' beard growth than a cartridge razor which tends to cack up with hair somewhat if I don't shave strictly daily.

They do have very strange pricing models, razors seem to be like trainers, you can get perfectly good cheap ones but the expensive stuff is priced and sells more on brand than performance.

I haven't shaved for many years but when I did I'd blunt a modern double or triple blade razor in three or four uses, my partner seems to get weeks of use from hers.

jk

Is that due to toxic masculinity, do you think...?

ICBA to shave, so haven't done for 15 years or so.

O really?

Finally seen the advert.

To me it clearly states that men have always been boorish misogynists, but only now have things 'begun' to improve. Finally 'some men', with the aid of Gillette, have 'started' to change. TBH although it's stereotypical bollocks I'm not going to start frothing about it.

When does really grate is the cynical use of the abuse of women and the #metoo campaign to flog their 'rugged Mach(o) triple blade turbo razor with go faster stripes' to the handsome, chiselled men. (Sparkly pink and girly pastel shades still available at extra cost to the beautiful ladies).

Good heavens, you are a confrontational fellow.  And on such a trivial issue, too.  I can't say I've ever felt 'macho' about shaving.  And if modern kit works for you, then by all means use it.  I and many others, however, find we get a much smoother and closer shave with DE razors.  I used the Mach3s for years and found that they scraped stubble off, rather than cutting it.  They were uncomfortable, didn't shave me very closely, and often cut me.  With a DE, I almost never get cut and the razor glides through stubble.  

I shave at a leisurely pace with a DE.  Two passes takes about 3 minutes, cuts are very rare, and I get no skin irritation.  It did feel fiddly when I first started, but I got more adept quite quickly, and it's now an almost thoughtless process.

Cool, I'm glad they work for you.

Here, I entirely disagree, and I have a possible explanation for why we differ.  I recently bought a second razor.  It's pricey, it's beautifully engineered, it's very nicely balanced, and it's made by Muehle who are renowned for quality kit.  It gave me a very close shave.  It also cut me quite a bit, even though I took time and care.  The manufacturer suggested I drop the Feather blades and use Muehle blades (and was kind enough to send me a pack of 10 for free).  These helped a lot - no more cuts - but I still find the razor a little aggressive for my taste.  I do have very sensitive skin.  So, I need to sell the Muehle and get a milder razor. 

What I'm getting at, is that you (the general 'you', not you personally) need to find a razor and blade combination that works for you; not all razors and blades are alike.  Rather than DE shaving being macho rubbish, I think it's more likely that you were simply unfortunate in not finding a combination that worked for you.

Missing my point. Both are extreme caricatures of the worst aspects of males, emphasised by both the imagery and the language.  But at least one is a joke aimed at a previous generation.  The other is dead serious and accusing every male alive, or who has ever lived.  If it was about anyone other than males, or perhaps with the exception of being an extreme party-political attack ad, it would be considered completely unacceptable in both tone and implication.  

Again, not my claim. I'm saying the rules we stridently apply when other groups (women, minorities) are portrayed in a negative light are being ignored here.  Essentially advertisers saying, here are the rules, I expect you to live by them, but don't expect me to live by them.  I don't feel oppressed.  I do feel an entirely different set of standards appear to be applied to my gender than others. 

If you listen to the advert it is saying the good ones ARE a rare breed. 

Can you name a single advert ever that has said something similar about any group of people?  This one isn't just subtly out of order.  It's so far out of order with expected norms that its mind-boggling.

I've never seen a case of workplace intimidation of women.  Or to be a bit clearer, I've never seen an instance of workplace intimidation specifically by men against women.  I expect it is rare to see.  Likewise repeated unwelcome advances by males on females.  At least not to a point were stepping in to intervene would be remotely appropriate or called for.  I imagine it would be very rare for men to be required to do so.

Yet the advert makes out that not having done so is a major shortcoming in males.  Basically, the sins that took place in the rarified heights of the film industry are replicated all the way down through society and are witnessed by all of us.  Presumably, if we aren't seeing them then its further proof we are wilfully turning a blind eye to them.

Lost me there.

I would have thought that saying men are mostly predatory animals and silent about the transgressions they witness is doing exactly that.

How does Gillette promote toxic masculinity along the lines of what is covered in their advert?

Edit: I can't help but be cynical when banks come out as championing LGTB rights, wonder if it's 'all about goodness' and might be about image shaping too, other than promoting certain ways of looking, and charging women  more for razors, I don't quite see how Gillette promote anything they've critiqued in their advert.

I've been pondering the backlash, and I thought of this, if there was something about men and homophobia, for instance, I can't see anybody being triggered by it, other than homophobic men, because any straight men who weren't would agree with it.

It didn't say all men have toxic masculinity, and there's men on here who don't feel unfairly targeted by it....

Yes, it didn't say all men are toxic. That would be blatantly ridiculous. 

It says some men aren't toxic. That's pretty close to being blatantly absurd as the first statement.

The backlash is about a stark lack of consistency from the very people who bang on about unfair treatment. What's surprising is that this ad isn't even subtle or nuanced in its delivery of that message. It states it outright over an extended duration.

The backlash isn't odd. The surprise and lack of backlash from some quarters is...though maybe not if it is usually agenda driven. 

Yes.

It probably should have said 'many' - I think.

I think the backlash is from men who 'are' toxic as it were, as well as for more thought out reasons. 

I'm either oddly unconcerned (as you might see it) or sometimes not so affected by external things, but I don't have an agenda, people can be just different in how they respond to things (note to self - considering the post you've responded to). 

Edit: When I think about it, applying suspicions of there being an agenda to people to don't respond as oneself would, almost seems like what somebody with an agenda might do.......?

I don't feel accused by it. I think you're choosing to feel attacked. 

I can't think of anything equivalent - the problem the ad is criticising is one that's very specifically about men who've been brought up culture that hasn't demanded decent behaviour. The problem is unique to those who *aren't* a minority. 

And I'm saying that's because it matters who's stereotyping whom, and with what intention. Some rich white advertising execs stereotyping working class Muslims so that their target audience of Jim Davidson fans can laugh at them, would be a completely different kettle of fish, but you seem to be making out that it's the same. 

My interpretation was that there are bad men, heroes who intervene, and presumably everyone else in between who doesn't feature in the drama. That's where I see myself, I just don't feel like it's speaking to me. 

I think that's your "I want to be offended" interpretation. I don't feel like I'm being attacked at all. 

Not because of the ad, but because of the thread, which got me thinking about the amount of dosh I gave over for my disposables: I just purchased my first ever double-edged razor. Cheers!

I think some men (and women to be fair) feel there's an agenda to undermine men and masculinity, and for those people the advert confirms that perception. 

Also tired of being lectured to not do the things we are already not doing.

I find it difficult not to feel targeted by the ad, given that it's targeted towards men.

The message "Is this the best men can get?" inherently includes the message that generally men are not good enough

I didn't say they promoted toxic masculinity. I said they promoted fallacy and stereotyping.

The Gillette advert is a crass attempt to cash in on the me too movement, except where me too was about women standing up to male abusers, in the advert it's the men fighting back and the women relegated to passive on-lookers. This combined with the fact that the ad implies that the majority of men are the problem with only the brave few taking a stand (clean shaven and Gillette wielding presumably) just leaves a bad taste in the mouth.After blatantly exploiting the Me Too movement to sell more razors Gillette don't even have the decency to reach for the usual corporate fig leaf of a small percentage donation to women's charities.

So to sum up, they've managed to mildly belittle women, slightly insult men, patronise everybody and still remain true to their devotion to cheesy adverts. I just hope Wilkinson Sword don't black up for their next ads, at least before I buy my next pack of razors.

Probably?  It's a pretty big difference surely? 

Even "many" seems weak.  Is it really just the case that just "many" men are ok?  What would the reaction likely be if the single sentence "Many Muslims aren't terrorists" was said on TV?  A collective shrug of the shoulders with an entirely acceptable response being that Muslims who complain about it are probably just terrorists anyway or should simply get over themselves?

I find it more than odd that the sort of language which, when expressed in far more moderated terms, regularly raises the heckles of all and sundry, is treated with indifference.  There's a parallel with the Brexit "Nazi" cries - where any Brexiteer Tory is considered fair game for being called a Nazi, but when it was aimed at Soubry the reaction was different. 

It's an unpopular view I know, but this is EXACTLY why I bang on about identity politics and when I say the left, Remainers, and liberal idealists are repelling otherwise fellow travellers.  Why they are no better than the deplorables they point at on the other side of the fence.  Their actions do nothing to dispell suspicions that vocal activism, ostensibly aimed at securing equality and fair treatment, is actually about defending some people and attacking others.  Its got all the aromas of where the wonderful ideas of communism went wrong, where fairness for all becomes some people ending up in gulags.

Most likely.  But how can you separate them if the backlash is correct?  Just because someone's a Nazi, doesn't make them wrong when they say 1+1=2. 

Wouldn't those delivering high minded social messages be far better off getting their facts straight and avoiding lazy sweeping generalisations?  And wouldn't those who normally speak out against inaccurate sweeping generalisations draw a few more people to their side if they called them out here?  

Maybe.  Perhaps though this might be a good test case to check your own motivations though.  It's a perfect counter-example to the usual issues that animate people, so a great test-case for consistency in your own beliefs.  If I'm ready to stand up against certain types of language being used, why might I not care in this case?  Shouldn't I be as concerned about language when it is used against people I don't like as people I do?  

Even people who consider themselves to be paragons of socially conscious activism should check themselves for implicit bias surely?  As this Gilette ad uses such unequivocal language, with little subtlety and nuance, you'll find few better opportunities to do so.

That's kinda my point further up, I didn't feel lectured to because I'm not doing it. Chill out if you not I guess*.

Edit: * Save that annoyance for relationships with nutty people - ha.  (It's a long story)

Oh no, you've got me googling, to see if I can save money and get a better shave.

What's the difference between the muhle r41 open combe, r89 closed Combe, r106 safety?

I'm liking the idea though, £25 or £35 for the razor then £10 for 100 blades, that would last me 2 years and cut down on a lot of plastic cartridge waste.

The unused  blades don't dull when they have been sitting in your bathroom cabinet for 2 years?

I went over to Harry's razors by post this year and find these better and cheaper than the big brands, but double edge seems considerably cheaper again, so I'm bang up for it if you get as good a shave.

Again, my issue isn't really about anyone being attacked.  They can screen this garbage all day if they want - though I don't think million-pound adverting campaigns that spread blatant lies and fear are a healthy thing.

What gets me is the inconsistency in the reaction.  And the reaction of people to those who point out that inconsistency.  It's the spade that keeps digging.

Nothing equivalent?  Ads are so regularly pulled, or stir a media outcry, for being sexist or racist that its almost an expected part of the news.  The black kid in the H&M advert wearing "The Coolest Monkey in the Zoo", the "Beach Bod Ready" ad, a "Ride me all day for £3" ad for Welsh busses, Boris saying the naqib makes people look like letterboxes.  I mean, this is enough to get adverts pulled: https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/09/can-you-see-whats-sexist-about-this-advert-f...

Its a never ending stream of outrage usually aimed at comments or statements that are, at best, only subjectively racist or sexist and far from emphatic in their delivery.

And here we are with an advert that has gone out of its way to portray and state that only a handful of men aren't monsters or complicit in abuse, rape and sexism....and those who are usually so vocal about these sorts of things are....crickets....or even defending it.

Anyway, I'm still not getting you there.  The problem is surely unique to a minority isn't it?

At last we've got to the nub of it.  Thanks for stating it outright. 

Some people are allowed to say racist, sexist, or bigoted and inaccurate things.  Some aren't.  

And you wonder why people don't trust this liberal ideal that claims to be about equality and fairness.

I'm sure everyone can just think "I don't feel like it's speaking to me".  Easy reaction to have when its telling you and everyone else is an arsehole.  Rather kills the message and a bit of a shame it leaves you thinking intervening is "heroic".  

Point well and truly missed there.

In reply to Timmd:

...and mine.

....since adverts which "include gender stereotypes that are likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence" will be banned from July 2019, I suspect the makers of this one have tried to squeeze as much BS as possible in before it becomes illegal to do so.  

They've done a pretty good job at that.

Maybe when Gillete bring out the 'Smoothmuff 3' advert with 'Finally some women have stopped parking like tw*ts outside the infants school' tagline?

I take the point, but also subscribe to the 'two wrongs don't make a right' philosophy. Yes, the power imbalance clearly matters if it's rich and powerful boss abusing the sinle mother in the office, but then we end up with the privately educated and independently wealthy black Barrister feeling entitled to look down on the white working class because of some perceived historical oppression.

That potentially then leads to the LBGTQ+ vs TERF bollocks and self identifying as what you feel like in order to get in the pecking order of who's oppressing who this week that seems to be cropping up in the US.

As per my previous post, the cynical advertising on the back of #metoo is the thing that I find most disturbing about the ad.

I bought one of these https://www.boots.com/wilkinson-sword-classic-double-edge-razor-10057058 for the price of a couple of packs of disposables to see if I would get on with it as an alternative. ( I’m trying to cut down on pointless plastic waste.)

I thought I might get a fancier one if I liked it, but actually it’s so good I might keep it.  I thought it would be difficult but it wasn’t and so far I’ve managed not to cut myself (I’m fairly clumsy).  

I’m not in it for the “macho” I’ve always used men’s razors as I’m not paying extra for pink.  

Very much agree.  

I think they have managed to trample all over masculinity in general by making it difficult to argue with the main message - be a better man. 

The play fighting scene - there is nothing wrong with building bonds with your peers and building your own self confidence at the same time by play fighting when young (or martial arts at any age).  It also helps you stand up for yourself and the people you love when you need to.  BUT it could lead to real fighting and that is bad bad bad.  Toxic masculinity.

Flirting with girls at parties.  Approaching people you're attracted to.  Its probably the reason you were born in the first place..  BUT!  You could turn into a sex pest. Toxic.

How about standing up for yourself in business?  Helps pay the mortgage, feed your kids and puts you in a position to help society in general.  But can turn into mansplaining.  Bad bad bad.

I thought women liked men who are self confident, make the first move and can speakup for themselves and their families.  How many mothers would actively teach their sons not to have these qualities?

Glad it's working for you    And you raise an interesting point: DE razors aren't just for men. My good lady has borrowed my razor to do her legs and even her armpits - a particularly soft and sensitive area - with absolutely zero problems. No cuts, no skin irritation, and a very clean shave.  Come on gals, join the DE Revolution!

Well done, sir. You will achieve both. 

I'm afraid I have no idea, as I've never used any of them. I do know that open comb razors are considerably more aggressive than the 'normal' closed comb variety. 

I haven't had any for quite that long, but I do buy 100 at a time, get through one blade week, and have never noticed blades dulling.

If you're amenable to stretching your budget just a little, the razor I referred to earlier that I'd like to sell is a Muehle Rocca. Stainless steel, so with a little care it should last a lifetime. I've used it four times. Cost me £72, yours for £45 including postage. I will, of course, include the pack of Muehle blades (9 remaining).

Sorry to get commercial, I hope you don't mind. If you are interested, please PM me.

Those adverts are either harmless or genuine mistakes. But make no mistake Boris Johnson is a vicious demagogue who knew exactly what he was doing when he invited ridicule on an already ostracised group.

I'd avoid open comb types when starting out with safety razors. Models which fit in the "good and easy to use" category include the Edwin Jagger DE89, Merkur 34C and Muhle R89. The Indian firm Parker also makes a wide range of middle of the road razors and they're usually quite a bit cheaper.

Almost all DE blades available in the UK are stainless steel and will last for decades as long as they're kept in a reasonably dry environment. If your bathroom is very damp then just keep the pack of 10 you're using in there and put the rest in a sock drawer.

Just remember that DE razors aren't the same as cartridge ones. With a DE razor you just need to glide it over your face, with the blade edge just to say touching the skin. Don't press down.

You seem to prize a perfect symmetry in the reaction to different messages about different groups as the moral ideal we should strive for - and it seems to be an affront to you when there is some asymmetry. I don't value the idea of that symmetry at all. I don't strive for it, I don't feel upset when I don't get it. I don't want it. For me, such a symmetry would be inappropriate, because when I consider a moral or policy issue, what I care about is consequences.

The "beach body ready" is a good example to look at. I saw the ad and just thought, huh, sex sells. It didn't provoke any reaction in me, because it's so normal. Those who didn't like it had reasons though: they felt that it was promoting a message that women *should* look this way - if they don't, they are valued less in our society. There is an argument against "beach body ready" which is that this type of message contributes to misery, unrealistic expectations of body image, eating disorders, and poor mental health in young women. It's an argument about the consequences of the message. (My personal take on this is, "yeah, try to fight the sex sells technique in advertising...good luck with that!")

In contrast the gillette thing is a clumsy attempt at a positive message: the world has noticed that bullying and sexual harrassment are the bad side of masculinity - so don't be a dick, act with decency and moral courage.

I agree with most of the scorn that's been poured on this, and I do see that it's unreasonably making out that being a dick is normal for men, and being the ever-so-woke hero is achieved only by a few. As I said, it's patronising drivel, and I absolutely sympathise with all those who refuse to be lectured in this way by f*cking Gillette. The insincerity is indeed stomach turning.

Yes. So are you happy to commit to your position that  some rich white advertising execs stereotyping working class Muslims so that their target audience of Jim Davidson fans can laugh at them is the same as gillette stereotyping men as cat-calling, bullying louts.

When you stereotype against men, it makes a crap, patronising advert. But there are no serious consequences in society. It just doesn't matter. I'm not looking for symmetry as moral objective; I'm bothered about consequences. If you stereotype Muslims, you have deeper alienation and division in society. If a (male-run) company hamfistedly attempts to put out a positive message about calling out bullying and sexual harrassment, it just doesn't have any bad consequences in society.

The fact that you can't distinguish between harmful stereotyping that cements attitudes that make society a shit place to live, and something like the gillette ad, shows a lack of any real attempt to understand what the problem with stereotyping is. 

I wonder how I'm meant to swallow the idea that "discrimination" against men is equivalent to discrimination against minorities. I wonder why you care so much about this desire for symmetry, while not giving a second's thought to consequences for people's lives.

If you're willing to buy secondhand shaving kit (don't think I would), I've got a complete DE starter kit gathering dust that you can have for £20 including postage. Razor, brush, half a pot of soap, about 30 blades including some of the highly praised feathers. 

No logical reason not to use someone's shaving stuff as long as you don't reuse an old blade. 

That's a really good deal.

If only stereotyping men was consequence free. If only spreading the idea that your average males default setting was sexually predatory bully, didn’t have real life implications.

Talking to my Father, that men can’t approach a lost child in a park, that a male teacher can’t comfort a crying pupil or male medical professionals might not be safe to treat a female patient without other staff present....all relatively new phenomena, unaccompanied by a sudden upsurge in male deviancy.

Used to be accepted that the bad guys were a tiny minority. The likes of Gillette seem to be reinforcing that it’s actually the good guys that are in the minority.

We’re increasingly living in an age of unfounded fears. You’re quick to call out unsubstantiated fear mongering when aimed at minorities like the Muslim community, do you really think it’s less damaging just because the target is bigger?

Firstly, the pedo issue is not relevant here, let's scratch that.

Secondly - what has changed in the medical profession since 'me too?' And what has the negative impact been?

Thirdly, there needn't be an increase in male deviancy for it to be worth changing attitudes towards sexual harassment. Addressing the level that exists is the point.

Looks to me like you're trying to find negative consequences of the message in the ad, but there's nothing there. The consequences of a general modernising of attitudes about sexual harassment are surely a net gain. 

Maybe try to find some more examples of negative stereotyping of men and how it has bad consequences. I'm sure if you google "war on boys" you'll find something that's a bit more compelling that the cheesy gillette ad.

I've been quick to call out fear mongering against Muslims by non-Muslims because I think it's divisive and leads to a worse society in which people won't trust their Muslim colleagues and neighbours. The gillette ad is not "fear mongering" about the dangers of men. It's one group of men (the gillette corp) saying to another group of men (their customers) "don't be like these bad men, be like these good men". Other than men feeling like they're being criticised unfairly - which, given the awful patronising tone, is quite understandable - I don't see the harmful consequences.

It's an attempt at a positive message. Upsetting Piers Morgan and people who take the same view is not a harmful consequence worth considering.

Why scratch the paedo issue? It's indicative of the current social climate, so is relevant to the debate, ie. the general attitude (which you support) that it's consequence free to unfairly cast men in the role of villain. This hasn't suddenly come about as a consequence of 'Me Too', it was already in full flow. 

Edit: the Gillette advert could never have been produced without the groundwork already being in place that men are now to be considered suspect until they prove otherwise. Can you think of any other group you'd be happy to apply this premise to? I'm not saying this attitude is universal, but this ad is another small step in pushing attitudes in that direction.

Never said I want symmetry.  Would simply be nice to see the same people who get animated about stereotypes not defending this ad or pretending theres little wrong with it. 

Predictably, that's not the case and shines a light on their true motives.

How do you come to the conclusion there are no negative consequences of stereotyping men as defaultly having bad behaviors?

Edit: the video has been watched 21 million times so far on YouTube

I think it's entirely irrelevant to the Gillette ad, and entirely irrelevant to the me too movement. Concerns about paedos exist for entirely obvious reasons that have nothing at all to do with negative stereotyping of men. I think that idea is frankly ridiculous. 

I don't accept that it's true. The message of the ad isn't "stay away from men, they can't be trusted", it's "don't be bad man, be a good man". I don't think you understand what negative stereotyping is. 

The equivalent, if it was about Muslims, wouldn't be a message from non-Muslims about how they're all terrorists. It would be a film aimed at Muslims, endorsed by Muslims, about the risk of radicalisation, showing nobel Muslims intervening to stop jihadis.

The equivalent isn't a film that just paints Muslims as ISIS. That would be the type of negative stereotyping that has bad consequences in society.

If you can show me an example of negative stereotyping of men that has negative consequences, maybe I'll realise what harm is being done. But even if there's examples out there, the Gillette ad, with its (patronising) positive message, ain't one of 'em. 

I think the reaction is driven by the irritation of being patronised, but you're trying to make out that there's some wider political reason to justify outrage, when there's just nothing there. 

Just the usual philosophical skepticism: something only exists when you have reasons to think it exists. 

To illustrate this, I contrasted the Gillette ad with "beach body ready". I understand the argument that says the latter has bad consequences. I don't understand the reasons to believe that negative stereotyping of men in the Gillette ad (or any other example) has negative consequences. Maybe you can explain to me what the consequences (other than feeling patronised and irritated) are? 

It's relevant because the current paedo hysteria hasn't been accompanied by a rise in the number of kiddy fiddlers and is aimed at men, not women.

The wording and imagery suggests most men hold shitty attitudes and only a brave few are changing this. A particularly screwed up assertion compounded by the fact that 'Me Too' was led by women, but the women in the add are portrayed as passive victims. If my wife had a patronising hand laid on her in a board meeting, the offending party would end up looking like he'd had a visit from Abu Hamza's manicurist. 

Really? You're making the assumption that all men are endorsing the Gillette add.

Well I've already given you examples but you've decided to discount them because they don't fit your narrative. Couple more for you to discount out of hand.... when my kids were younger, as a shift worker in a leafier part of Cheshire I'd take the kids to mid-week toddler play groups where I'd often be the only male and the atmosphere would be decidedly frostier than if accompanied by the Mrs. Similarly as Dad to 2 young girls, taking them into the ladies would be a complete non-starter, so they had to endure smelly gents toilets and men with cocks out at their head height. Later on in life, taking observations from a sick teenage girl in her bedroom, trying to assess if her raised heart and respiration rate, in conjunction with a temperature, are a result of sepsis or just the fact that she's got to unknown males in her bedroom and Gillette seems to be telling her that most men are leering neanderthals. All real life consequences of society's slow drift towards viewing men as suspicious. Now I'm white, articulate, fluent in English and fairly presentable, imagine trying to negotiate life if you were none of those things and already facing automatic societal suspicion because of your gender.

I've not brought politics into it, I just think society is becoming more fearful in general and this is just another unjustified manifestation. No outrage from me, just slightly exasperated weariness.

Since the distinction matters:

Snowflakeism isn't about disagreeing with something or being offended by it.  That's normal.  We'll all encounter ideas we find offensive.  And we're free to point that out and argue against whatever ideas we're offended by. 

Snowflakeism is reacting to being offended by demanding censorship,  demanding "safe spaces", demanding that the authorities protect people from such ideas, demanding that one should be able to go through life without encountering those offensive ideas. 

Thanks for clarifying. So the only examples of snowflakeism that actually exist are the shouty student activists then and its use should be confined to that?

So you need evidence that there are negative consequences?  The fact that millions of people have watched and will watch a commercial from a men's shaving brand, bracketing all men (other than the chosen 'some') into inherently having bad behaviors built into them is not enough?

The negative consequences are that viewers, mostly women but also some men, come to agree with Gillette's stereotyping, taring view of men and their 'default' behaviours, cementing in their minds that most men are bad unless they make a conscious effort to not do those things and also to look out and actively prevent them in others.  

This is the message and it is simply not true.

The evidence exists whenever you witness someone watch and agree with the advert, which, fortunately if you believe the reaction of YouTube, the majority do not.  But there is a surprising and disappointing amount who seem to.

It's irrelevant because paedomania was driven by the tabloid press whipping up hysteria on the issue to sell papers. It's got nothing to do with negative stereotyping.

I've agreed that it's patronising, unreasonable and annoying. What I disagree with is that it's negative stereotyping with bad consequences, equivalent to portraying Muslims as terrorists, or gays as AIDS-ridden sex addicts, or blacks as gang members, etc. Those are negative stereotypes which are meaningfully harmful, the gillette ad is merely patronising guff.

To clarify: the gillette ad is put out by a corp which (I'm assuming, safely) is run more by men than women. It's not an attack on men by some other group. Men put out the ad.

I don't see how you can say the "frosty atmosphere" was caused by negative stereotyping of men. Taking the kids into the ladies is something I can't take a view on - I don't know how women would respond and whether/how/why that's changed.

Half my patients are female (actually probably more, men are more likely to bother going for an eye test). Every day women come into my office, close the door behind them and let me have a really close look at their eyes, touching their eyelids, maybe putting drops or contact lenses in their eyes, etc. About once a year I have someone with serious issues say they don't want to be seen by a man or want to be accompanied by a woman. These people are always actual victims of assault, and it's quite understandable. In my job, which involves being in a private office with female strangers, getting closer most people are normally comfortable with, seems to be completely normal and unaffected by the fear of men you think is endemic and harmful. It just doesn't match my experience, and I would surely be baring the biggest brunt of it out of pretty much anyone, if it was real.

Seems to me much like the general "anti-political correctness" argument. We used to live in a world which was completely shit for anyone in a minority, they just had to put up with abuse all day and didn't have rights. Social change happened and improved society immeasurably for minorities, but there was a tiny little downside: people who used to make fairly innocuous but slightly bigoted remarks suddenly felt alienated and under attack. "This is terrible!" they scream, "the PC thought police are after me!". In the context of the social change they're unhappy about, their loss is insignificant compared to the gain for the minorities who've got equal rights under the law and workplaces where they're not abused.

Here, there's been a recent rise in awareness about sexual harassment, and it's changing what's regarded as acceptable, particularly in the workplace. Some people are being caught up in that "telling off" and they don't like it. Compared to what we gain by making sexual harassment unacceptable in society, feeling patronised by a gillette ad is a very small price indeed.

I have no doubt that the advert is annoying. And no, this is not enough of a negative consequence for me to view it as harmful stereotyping equivalent to portraying muslims as terrorists.

The reason I don't care is because unlike minorities, we all come into contact with men, within our families in almost all cases. It's impossible to present them as a dangerous "other" in the same way that you can breed distrust towards people you never actually have to speak to.

I refer you back to the contrast with the "beach body ready" argument. That references specific outcomes, e.g. eating disorders, which result from exposure to the "harmful message". That's the type of evidence or argument I'm looking for to convince me that there's something to be worried about in the gillette ad, and I'm not seeing it.

Ha! We get to play the Coel special word definition game again.

From wikipedia (and having checked a few other web definitions they all seem similar)

"Snowflake is a 2010s derogatory slang term for a person, implying that they have an inflated sense of uniqueness, an unwarranted sense of entitlement, or are over-emotional, easily offended, and unable to deal with opposing opinions"

The anti 'Me Too' movements seem to me to share those defined characteristics.

Can you dust off your tome and share with us your full version of the Oxford truth (ignoring the inconvenient bits).

Viewers will, (sometimes unconsciously) take in and agree with implied messages (most men are defaulty bad) when agreeing to a verbal message that men should try harder.  Is there any evidence this hasn't happened here?

So the innocent being unduly suspect on the basis of gender has nothing to do with negative stereotyping and societal attitudes are altered by the press in isolation of wider cultural influences? Come on , you know that's just bollocks. 

You're seeking to draw parallels here between wider negative cultural attitudes and one advert in isolation. Of course there's no comparative effect. It's a ridiculous analogy at a similar mis-match of scale as comparing the cultural impact of that picture of dogs playing pool with the renaissance.

ISIS put out beheading videos. I think we can safely say that had a negative impact on 99.9999% of other Muslims.

So you'll discount my personal experience because you have no personal experience in this area. Doesn't seem to stop you throwing around ISIS and Muslim analogies despite (I'm assuming) you being neither terrorist nor a Muslim.

I wasn't talking about women not wanting to be attended by male clinicians, I was talking about flight or fight responses being triggered because adverts like Gillette's frame men as a threat unless proven otherwise. This is a concrete example of one of the consequences of societal fear-mongering (ie. potential mis-diagnosis). But you knew this and are just seeking to side step the point.

Political correctness? Where did PC suddenly come into this? If anything Gillette's portrayal of women as meek little victims in it's ad, is the opposite of PC.

Are you really contending that the Gillette ad is a positive step in protecting women from sexual harassment? I'd say it's a ham fisted attempt to sell razors by selling men short and relegating women to victims and bystanders.

Edit:typo.

Wrong burden of proof. And still no practical consequences. And realistically, whose life experience of encountering thousands of men is going to be over-written by a f*cking advert?

Practical consequences are an increase in the negative view of men in general, by both women who decide to agree with it and also men who watch it and change their view of themselves.  Just because you can't yet easily measure it doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

Disappointing. We're obviously talking about the ad as symptomatic of wider societal attitudes. You're displaying a level of sophistry in this thread which goes against honest debate. I'd expect this of many on here but it's not your usual MO.

Indeed.  

Why is evidence of changes to attitudes required  about an anti-male video viewed by millions and has been all over the media?

I'm not quite sure what we're arguing about here. I'm saying that paedomania whipped up by the tabloids a couple decades back, with lasting consequences, has nothing to do with gillette and me too. They're different issues, although I will concede that both affect men.

The argument I'm making is against PanRon's "it's the same as negative stereotyping of Muslims". I think he's wrong, it's not equivalent. Maybe your position is different to his - you seem to be concerned about something much more broad that goes far beyond the argument I'm making about the gillette advert (which is, that it's not equivalent to negative stereotyping of minorities, that it's annoying but no more).

1. You can blame PanRon for the Muslim thing (not the actual beheadings), not me.

2. I'm not discounting your experience. I'm saying that you can't any show any causality about what's behind the "frosty atmosphere", you can only speculate. And I have nothing to add on female toilets because I don't know what it's like from either the female or fatherly perspective. 

I was saying that if there was a widespread fear of men as predators, caused by negative messaging e.g. in advertising and the press, then surely in my job, I would be the first to notice it. And I don't. This is why I struggle to believe it's a real problem that I should care about.

Again, I don't think you can draw a conclusion about broad societal trends from from that data point. I tried to counter that by my 10-a-day data of women acting totally normal in a potentially threatening situation, and I think my evidence is much, much more compelling by virtue of its volume and consistency.

By analogy. A positive change has a small and harmless element of over-reach which is railed against. It's an aside, not crucial to the argument.

No, I'm saying that the me too movement is a positive step, and that the gillette ad is a

which I don't find worrying, because it has no consequences.

I don't accept that for a minute.

There is one argument that I'm making here, I've stated it many times, and I'll state it again:

The gillette ad is rubbish, but it is not harmful negative stereotyping equivalent to that seen against minorities. 

The point I'm making above is that unlike stereotyping against say, Muslims or gays, you can't treat men as a dangerous "other" because we all have too much first hand experience of men for it to stick. When you stereotype against minorities, it changes perceptions within the mainstream against the out-group, which is why it's bad. It's just impossible to do this with men, because they simply cannot be an out-group who can be demonsised. 

This strikes me as an entirely valid, honestly held point, and I don't see why you think it's "sophistry" or "dishonest". It's neither.

But most women are still going to get married to a man! They've been brought up by a father and many grown up with borthers.

If you're talking about a small subset of girls who don't have huge life experience of men, I can kind of see the point, they might be vulnerable to misleading messages e.g. in the media. But that's not the point being made, as far as I've understood. 

[Edit]. And as for men being so thin-skinned that they're losing self-esteem by being presented as dickheads in the media, I'm sorry I just don't believe it. Where men are suffering depression and anxiety (the "cash value" of low self-esteem), I would look at the substantive circumstances of their lives: can they get a job, a girlfriend, do they have friends, etc? Blaming the woes of people who are probably getting shat on in far more serious ways (e.g. lack of economic opportunity) on this anti-man stuff seems to be counterproductive to say the least.

The fact that men make up 50% of the population and have greater control over the media, the job market, policy, etc etc etc (evidence: proportion of women in the top positions, fact not conspiracy, reasons perfectly debatable), means that I cannot find it in me to worry that they are getting a raw deal when it comes to how society thinks of them. Or if they are, then it's their own fault!

No, the 90 seconds of a Gillette advert isn't equivalent to the negative stereotyping seen against minorities, but taken in isolation, neither is 90 seconds of 'It ain't half hot Mum'. It doesn't follow that 'It ain't half hot Mum' doesn't promote negative stereotypes.

Right, you'd better have a word with the feminist movement then because you might have noticed that they've had quite the battle with negative stereotyping the last few decades and I can't quite see how you'd frame women as an out group either.

Because I might be biased, but you seem to keep brushing aside valid argument instead of engaging directly. 

I'm glad that you're starting to see my point.  I am not arguing that men are overwhelming being victimized or that the impact is on the same scale as if a minority were being singled out.

What I am trying to convey is the change in attitudes of a significant percentage of the viewers of the ad. All viewers will have been aware of some bad behavior from a small minority of men.  Having watched it, that view could easily have been changed (as intended) to now include: men in general are bad.  Men need to conciously manage their behaviours in order to be decent.  Men actively need to watch other men to stop then stepping over the line.  Men should not engage in typically masculine things as they lead to toxic masculinity.  Men should not be overly confident.  Etc etc.  

Those changes in the perception of men are negative and will have happened in both male and female viewers.  

My argument doesn't take the gillette ad out of context. The reason I don't find the ad a problem is

1. The ad doesn't simply present a negative stereotype, it has a cheesy "good versus bad" message.

2. The poor maligned group being slagged off are men - because they make up 50% of the population and have more control over the media, policy, blah blah than anything else, they're not vulnerable to negative stereotyping because it's not going to stop them getting on in life.

I think there's much more a debate to be had about whether negative stereotyping of men is taking a "two wrongs to make a right" approach to gender issues, and I think it is. That said, the reason I don't feel worried about it is that negative stereotypes of women serve to keep women subjugated in terms of influence, e.g. as housewives and mothers rather than prime ministers and CEOs; whereas the "wrong" against men is never going to reverse the tables. Its consequences are much milder - although that doesn't make it right, just less wrong than negative stereotyping of women.

You repeatedly ignore that the ad explicitly frames most men as 'bad' and the heroic few as 'good'. That's the crux of my problem with it.

That's just short sighted bollocks. It's not going to stop nice middle class white men getting on in life but it's constructing yet another hurdle for working class and minority background men to surmount. 

What decade are you currently experiencing Jon? To take examples solely from inside the capital, current prime minister, head of the fire brigade, Metropolitan police and chair of the ambulance service...all women. 

You keep saying stereotyping is fine, but only against men. My position is that stereotyping is not fine, it's unfair, clouds judgement and warps societal attitudes. 

That's bollocks and you know it.  Men are increasingly viewed as dangerous, to the point that it is entirely acceptable for a commercial to state outright that only some men aren't and to have most of the population nodding along in agreement, if not defending the statement.  The very fact that "male" itself can be an accusation, that mandatory "consent training" can be a serious suggestion for all new university students, that the term "toxic masculinity" in this case gets attached to everything from music videos to kids fighting, that their example of bullying text messages is made to look exclusively male, that "rape culture" is even considered a "culture", as if this is all normal and to be accepted.  Repeat something often enough and it becomes true.

Again, there is nothing subtle in Gilette's message.  It is a statement made with absolute conviction, clarity and no mincing of words

Women aren't a minority.  Is it ok then if we stereotype them?  Or is the reality that you get to pick and choose who receives equal treatment and who doesn't?

Yes, I think we're starting to identify the common ground and the area where our views differ - which is what I think the point of debate is, it makes you think through your position more carefully, which (believe it or not) I am doing.

I estimate the effect to be much less than you. Most people watching the ad at first hated it (I think it started out 10 dislikes to 1 like) presumably because people hate being preached at and moralised over - especially by Gillette. The clicking (as applies to UKC too) is a visceral, emotional reaction rather than a rationally weighed up "do I think this is, considering all its pros and cons, overall a good or a bad thing". But some people will identify with the "hero" characters in the ad, and feel validation of their "new man/woke" (pick your decade) credentials, and they'll click the thumbs up. It's pitting one type of self-image (the manly man, under attack in the ad) against another (the sensitive but courageous hero) and the viewer's response will probably correlate to which more closely matches their self-image.

As for how women see it, I would assume they'd be more positive than the men, as although it's patronising them too (is nobody safe - at least there's no gay character in it), it's generally aligned with their interests of not getting harassed.

I don't believe that given the very modern and topical message, it's going to seep into the psyches of its audience, shaping their self-image. I think you need to spend your whole childhood growing up with negative stereotypes to have that kind of effect, and then they only really take hold if you don't have real-life experience of the group being stereotyped.

Actually the opposite.  As women are typically seen as the primary care-givers and will almost always win out on custody cases, and as most school teachers are women, most men and women are raised by women and have women as their reference points.  Where do they get their understandings about men from then?

You can't see a link?

And men's homelessness, incarceration and suicide rates? Lifespans? Access to their children? Workplace fatalities?  Women's higher education entrance rates and earnings on graduation?  That fewer men than women actually pass their genes on?  That men are still expected to be breadwinners?  To "make the first move" despite making the first move being a far riskier endeavour than it has ever been before?

Equality between men and women, when looked at in a developed world context is nothing like it was a few decades ago and nothing like the rest of the world.  A recent survey (whose introduction was a pretty damning indictment on the metrics used to quantify gender equality) pointed towards women today in most of the Western world having greater advantages than men.

When you talk about men having it better than women, that's not the full story.  Yes, the top end of bell curve do.  But there is greater variance in males so there is a massive amount of men at the bottom end of the bell curve too.

You won't see that in the Guardian though.  There's an acceptable narrative and an unacceptable narrative.

Its sad that even mentioning all this makes me cringe and feel like some sort of men's rights activist.  Simply presenting the other side of the coin, challenging a one-sided narrative, marks you out as an extreme oddball.

I've agreed that this makes it unreasonable and annoying. But when it's described as portraying a negative stereotype of men, that's ignoring the whole "good versus bad" narrative which is completely central.

I'm arguing that the economic hurdles are real and important, but the stereotyping one is flimsy and unimportant.

I'm referring to the negative stereotypes that the feminist movement has sought to bring down. I'm not arguing about the extent to which equality has been achieved. I am well aware that the current prime minister is a woman.

I said: Its consequences are much milder - although that doesn't make it right, just less wrong than negative stereotyping of women. 

I'm not promoting the negative stereotyping of men, I'm saying it doesn't worry me the way stereotyping of minorities does. While I agree two wrongs don't make a right in the domain of gender, the two wrongs are not of equal magnitude. (And yes, you have to wind back a few decades to see the widespread negative stereotyping of women that would make them less likely to attain positions of influence, although inevitably some tail-end still exists here and there, while the negative stereotyping of men is only relevant in the current context).

But 50% of the population *are* men. Are we frightened of ourselves? Are wives becoming afraid of their husbands, sons of their fathers, because of this messaging in the media? Or is the issue that women that are becoming increasingly fearful and this is doing harm in society? Is there less sex and relationships going on than there used to be, now that men are to be feared? An increase in lesbianism driven by a hatred of men?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

eh?

A lot of this stuff is a reaction to problems e.g. date rape. Are you arguing that the problems never existed and don't need solutions, or that the solutions just aren't very good and have negative aspects? Do these negative aspects outwiegh the intended positive effects?

See above discussion. As I say, there's a valid "two wrongs don't make a right" argument here, and a much greater degree of equivalence than with, say, Muslims.

I've explained in great detail why I see picking on men as very very different to picking on muslims or indeed women. To sum up in one word: context.

I don't worry about littering as much as climate change but I'm not about to shrug my shoulders and ignore the next prat who chucks a burger wrapper on the floor. Further, societal acceptance of minor transgressions re-calibrates everyones scaling and encouraging a blindness to faulty thinking does no-one any favours.

As I said above, in a world full of negative stereotypes of men (which I don't see as the case, there's still all the normal positive role models around like in the old days), girls in female households could indeed lose out. I think it would be best for kids to grow up with good role models, male and female, and without negative stereotypes. I don't think the gillette ad, nor the me too movement, promote negative stereotypes that will harm such girls' development.

That looks a lot like pointing at evidence caused by innate biological differences averaged over a population (higher risk taking and violence) and saying it must be caused by discrimination. Somewhat reminiscent of a certain C. Newman... 

Fascinating!

I can't get into this debate about who has it best and why. The point I made was that in the past, negative stereotypes served to keep women's expectations low and thus out of positions of influence. I'm not saying that this is still true now, but I am saying that men still occupy more of the influence in the media, policy, etc, because that is a fact.

Yes, I understand. I'm not arguing that women are oppressed, that's not my point.

Maybe.  But isn't it enough that its simply socially acceptable to portray men as deeply, institutionally, flawed and dangerous with no mention of how those flaws may be entirely independent of gender? 

If you were to ask anyone in the street the proportion of domestic violence perpetrated against men or women what do you think they would come up with? 1:10? 1:100?  Probably not 2:3 though.  Spousal murder?  1:10?  1:100?  Again, probably not 2:3.  Who is most at risk of assault or random acts of violence?  The narrative is entirely males attack females, despite men being twice as likely to be on the receiving end of violence.

The level of public debate and the apparent freedom to give a one-sided narrative doesn't come across to you as even slightly problematic?  I'm sure it would be if it were so one-sided about any other group in society.

Old...white...men.  You may not have heard the term used.  Its not one of endearment.  "White male" was the two word response I got on Facebook reasonably recently when discussing a similar issue.   

What positive effect?  We all seem to be agreeing that the advert will do nothing to impact pussy-grabbing, mansplaining, rapers and pillagers.  They're not going to stop because Gilette told them.  All it delivers is a message to one and all that men are mostly monsters.  

Seems context is EXACTLY what is missing here then.  Adverts like this are allowed to run because males lives are never contextualised.  That just because 1% of men dominate at the top of society, or are violent, that they represent men in general.  Never mind that the remaining 99% probably have lives that are every bit as shit as a woman's, and a substantial percentage (the homeless, the incarcerated, those coming in to contact with the legal system, those denied access to their children, currently going through the education system or entering the workforce) are likely doing measurably worse than women. 

That context is only delivered, to much derision, by the flakes at the Torygraph or Daily Mail or who dress in Batman costumes and climb monuments.

I'm fine with that.  So long as we're allowed to point to innate biological differences in women as well.

And true.

Operative words: in the past.

You're right though, its a pointless debate because it will never end.  However, its never presented as a debate.  Its presented as current fact that can only be argued from one side and which uses historical evidence to decide what is permissible today.

Isn't that your point about "context" though?  The context is their relative position in society, which makes certain narratives (one's which would otherwise not be permitted) acceptable.

I'm struggling to take this seriously because I live my life as a man in our society and don't feel even a tiny bit picked on. I don't feel like there's a problem, because I'm not affected in any way and I've never heard any of my male friends complain about the way they're treated due to their gender. It all just rings totally hollow to me.

The reason people would assume men attack women more is because men, factually, commit the lion's share of violence in the world - that's a natural biological sex difference. It's a sensible assumption extrapolating from the facts of the world, not a conspiracy of negative stereotyping against men.

I was talking about the "consent training" as a response to a date-rape problem, etc. The question was, are you arguing that the problems (date rape, bullying) never existed and don't need solutions, or that the solutions just aren't very good and have negative aspects? Do these negative aspects outwiegh the intended positive effects?

As I said, I'm struggling to identify with this - I look at the TV and everything that's put out by business, government and media and find it all utterly alienating regardless of any gender angle. But luckily, we've got youtube, where I can see all the niche, creative, brilliant, incisive content I like from people who see the world the way I do. We no longer live in world where the likes of Gillette have much influence on how we see ourselves and each other - thank god (but this has its own dangers too).

youtube.com/watch?v=AwDCN_wZLyw&

the world is full of negative male stereotypes, I’m not sure a shaving product advert is going to make much headway. Good to see the debate though and anything that winds piers Morgan up can only be a good thing.

My point about context is that feminism hated (and still hates) negative female stereotypes, because they were instrumental in keeping women out of positions of influence. This context is what made the stereotyping harmful. In contrast, the negative stereotyping against men in the gillette ad is a hamfisted attempt to do something positive - it's not a way to lower people's expectations so that they don't attain success and influence. 

I haven't commented on whether I think negative stereotyping against women is still much of a concern today, I don't really know. But I do know that it's the context of the stereotyping that made it harmful in the past; and the context of anti-men stereotyping is totally different, making the consequences totally different - and far milder.

You're welcome.

Even your definition largely agrees with what I said.  Simply being "offended" or "easily offended" is not sufficient to be a "snowflake" -- that also requires being "unable to deal with" being offended, being "... unable to deal with opposing opinions" such that one demands censorship and "safe spaces" in which one does not encounter those opinions. 

Does it? Well, I'm not particularly familiar with "anti 'Me Too' movements".

However, the characteristic ideology of the snowflake -- that any opinion that someone finds offensive is "violence" that causes real "harm" and so is "hate speech" that needs to be prohibited -- seems more prevalent elsewhere.

Indeed the concept is being advanced and developed further.  To the pure and true snowflake, expressing any opinion at all that they disagree with amounts to "invalidating their existence" and is thus "hate speech".