P&G Challenges Men to Shave Their ‘Toxic Masculinity’ in Gillette Ad

KT-B

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
17,331
It comes down to understanding the some of real differences between men and women. Men, in general have have physicality as offensive/defensive mechanisms which is why when things go badly between a man and woman, the nature of abuse dealt is physical.
Women do not, in general, have this physicality, so it's down to wit and words. Abuse of this nature comes down to reputational, emotional and image damage.

Further to this, No one person can know what it is to be another. However, men can more sympathise with being kicked in the nuts with other men, than women can. The exact same is true for experiences unique to women.

We can get buried in layers if experiential differentiation between experiences and empathy, I get that, but the point remains is that you won't know until you have experienced it first hand.

So, women are adept at verbal fencing and the misconception here is that because men are physically "tough" or are supposed to be, that men have the mental fortitude to absorb or deflect the damage that a woman's tongue brings forth. But those men that have not grown up with mothers or sisters, will have very little built-in defenses to mitigate it.
Let's equate it to men who shoulder punch each other as signs of affection. If a guy punches his girl on the shoulder for the first time in the same way, he's going to automatically punch as if she were a guy, because his friends would see it coming and brace for it. She doesn't and ends up off the path or in a bush, perhaps with a bruise.
If he wants to show that "affection" again, he's going to moderate it so that she's not going to end up in the vegetation.

Emjay pointed out that herself and sisters did that all the time and they're no worse for wear. I would point out that 3 martial artists who grew up together would know how to defend and attack each other without there being lasting damage.

To a woman who is adept a verbal sparring, a guy without the same abilities would seem to be "overly sensitive".

With the advent of social media, which is a communications based technology and therefore a verbal sparring enabling technology. This is a technology that empowers the verbal sparring of women and has far reaching consequences.

Get my point?
I do indeed. And I agree with you. There will always be the exceptions but on the whole we pretty much meet this mold. These days we really do have to be careful what we say. That is why I say words are important to me. I learnt from playing with my brother the damage they can do. So if I am to argue - I choose my words very carefully to try and convey exactly what I want to say and try and not leave any room for misinterpretation. But I am usually in a "discussion" with another human. Misinterpretation is the name of the game. They sometimes take meanings from what you say - and leave you wondering where they got that idea from. Communication is incredibly complex and we often read our fears / insecurities into the words that someone else is saying. eg. You might say "Is that what you are wearing today?" I hear "Are you really going to wear that? You really don't look good in it.". Not the message that was sent - but it is what is being received.
 

thestaggy

Honorary Master
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
12,729
:rolleyes:

Not sure I understand the point of this childish retort. Are there no actual 'notable celebs', or is it someone like Ted Nugent and that's why you're too embarrassed to name them?
Devil's advocate. With what is happening in Hollywood - #metoo; high profile producers and actors losing jobs and having their reputations destroyed - do you expect a relevant celeb to come out against Gillette?

*Please note, I am not saying that there are producers and celebs that do not deserve the flak they have received (Weinstein, Spacey) but Hollywood is pretty caught up in this #metoo stuff and allmenbad, so in the interest of self-preservation they're either going to support this or just be quiet.

The only ones that would will be the older actors that can't really make it anymore or have made their money.
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
2,669
I do indeed. And I agree with you. There will always be the exceptions but on the whole we pretty much meet this mold. These days we really do have to be careful what we say. That is why I say words are important to me. I learnt from playing with my brother the damage they can do. So if I am to argue - I choose my words very carefully to try and convey exactly what I want to say and try and not leave any room for misinterpretation. But I am usually in a "discussion" with another human. Misinterpretation is the name of the game. They sometimes take meanings from what you say - and leave you wondering where they got that idea from. Communication is incredibly complex and we often read our fears / insecurities into the words that someone else is saying. eg. You might say "Is that what you are wearing today?" I hear "Are you really going to wear that? You really don't look good in it.". Not the message that was sent - but it is what is being received.
Not to hammer home the point, but its pivotal to my uncomfortableness with the original advert.
Kim Gehrig is not only a woman and a staunch feminist, but has no "family" on record... least of all a son or husband.

Is it a wonder that she got "Boys will be Boys" about as wrong as a MRA/MGTOW man would a string joke during a Tampon advert.

Overall, the message is an undisputed good one but it is a veneer, because the message is lost with the sting of the bite and poison that is the black widow under the table called Kim Gehrig.
 

KT-B

Honorary Master
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
17,331
Not to hammer home the point, but its pivotal to my uncomfortableness with the original advert.
Kim Gehrig is not only a woman and a staunch feminist, but has no "family" on record... least of all a son or husband.

Is it a wonder that she got "Boys will be Boys" about as wrong as a MRA/MGTOW man would a string joke during a Tampon advert.

Overall, the message is an undisputed good one but it is a veneer, because the message is lost with the sting of the bite and poison that is the black widow under the table called Kim Gehrig.
I must admit that I know nothing of her. But will go and Google.
 

EADC

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
2,817
Not to hammer home the point, but its pivotal to my uncomfortableness with the original advert.
Kim Gehrig is not only a woman and a staunch feminist, but has no "family" on record... least of all a son or husband.

Is it a wonder that she got "Boys will be Boys" about as wrong as a MRA/MGTOW man would a string joke during a Tampon advert.

Overall, the message is an undisputed good one but it is a veneer, because the message is lost with the sting of the bite and poison that is the black widow under the table called Kim Gehrig.
Thats not how it works.

Would you then agree that men cant have an opinion on abortion since we cant get pregnant?
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
2,669
Thats not how it works.

Would you then agree that men cant have an opinion on abortion since we cant get pregnant?
That's not how what works specifically? And how is it relevant to the advert?
I don't see how you jumped from my post, to abortion.
 

EADC

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
2,817
That's not how what works specifically? And how is it relevant to the advert?
I don't see how you jumped from my post, to abortion.
Below is your quote which made you uncomfortable? What you trying to do is invalidate it, so I asked my question on abortion. Is your opinion the same?

Not to hammer home the point, but its pivotal to my uncomfortableness with the original advert.
Kim Gehrig is not only a woman and a staunch feminist, but has no "family" on record... least of all a son or husband.
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
2,669
Below is your quote which made you uncomfortable? What you trying to do is invalidate it, so I asked my question on abortion. Is your opinion the same?
In the larger context of "Walking a Mile in another persons shoes" which are discussed in the posts above, which I've assume you've missed based on your question and assertion.
Kim Gehrig has no son, or male partner, who is a father in anything that I can search or find and has observed anti-male sentiment in her works.
While not necessarily true, it puts a big question mark on her ability to understand the phrase in context.

Her credibility in producing media is not in dispute, but her ability to understand the proper context in the phrase "Boys will be Boys" most certainly is.
As an outsider, looking in, it is understandable that roughhousing on the lawn is seen as bullying anti-social behaviour by someone who has no context to frame it with, when it's actually proven to be the exact opposite...
Research involving showing people video recordings of boys engaged in real or play fights show that it’s sometimes hard to tell these apart. Eight- and eleven-year-old children were able to correctly identify the type of fighting about 85% of the time. Adult men were correct in classifying 70% if the scenes. Adult women who grew up with brothers were about as accurate as men, but women who hadn’t grown up with brothers mostly thought that all of the videos involved real fighting (e.g., Conner, 1989; see summary in Pellis & Pellis, 2012).
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...ips/201506/do-boys-need-rough-and-tumble-play
https://www.todaysparent.com/family/parenting/roughhousing-aggressive-or-constructive-behaviour/

Not only because she has no context from within to understand it, but that she demonstrably/purposefully got it wrong in the Gillette advert.

In can generously attribute this to simple ignorance from a lack of experience and context. Or maliciously attribute it to an underlying misandry.
I'd prefer the former, because that means that it's just a good person who made an honest mistake.
 

EADC

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
2,817
In the larger context of "Walking a Mile in another persons shoes" which are discussed in the posts above, which I've assume you've missed based on your question and assertion.
Kim Gehrig has no son, or male partner, who is a father in anything that I can search or find and has observed anti-male sentiment in her works.
While not necessarily true, it puts a big question mark on her ability to understand the phrase in context.

Her credibility in producing media is not in dispute, but her ability to understand the proper context in the phrase "Boys will be Boys" most certainly is.
As an outsider, looking in, it is understandable that roughhousing on the lawn is seen as bullying anti-social behaviour by someone who has no context to frame it with, when it's actually proven to be the exact opposite...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...ips/201506/do-boys-need-rough-and-tumble-play
https://www.todaysparent.com/family/parenting/roughhousing-aggressive-or-constructive-behaviour/

Not only because she has no context from within to understand it, but that she demonstrably/purposefully got it wrong in the Gillette advert.

In can generously attribute this to simple ignorance from a lack of experience and context. Or maliciously attribute it to an underlying misandry.
I'd prefer the former, because that means that it's just a good person who made an honest mistake.
I think she got it spot on with the context of the phrase, you are looking at it as the wholesome view of it but thats not the only context it has been used for a very long time.

Everyone has their own interpretation of that scene you can see two boys friends rough housing or you can see two boys who are not friends and one is being bullied.

I see the latter in the context of the add.

Me and my friends are grown ass adults but we still do that when we all in a group.
 

Emjay

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
5,078
I see the latter in the context of the add.

Me and my friends are grown ass adults but we still do that when we all in a group.
You need better friends, and you need a spine to stand up to them. My circle of friends don't behave anything like that. Because yours do, is not a reflection on society as a whole.
 

EADC

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
2,817
You need better friends, and you need a spine to stand up to them. My circle of friends don't behave anything like that. Because yours do, is not a reflection on society as a whole.
Not the bullying the rough housing is what we do, because boys will be boys.

So you guys dont have fun with each other? how sad.
 

Emjay

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
5,078
Not the bullying the rough housing is what we do, because boys will be boys.

So you guys dont have fun with each other? how sad.
The guys in my group rip each other up all the time, mainly verbally. It's a male bonding method. I think it would be odd for grown men to be rolling around on the ground wrestling. But if you tell me you think this validates the rest of the Gillette message, I am very confused. The men in my group don't display any other behaviours in the Gillette ad.
 
Last edited:

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
2,669
I think she got it spot on with the context of the phrase, you are looking at it as the wholesome view of it but thats not the only context it has been used for a very long time.

Everyone has their own interpretation of that scene you can see two boys friends rough housing or you can see two boys who are not friends and one is being bullied.

I see the latter in the context of the add.

Me and my friends are grown ass adults but we still do that when we all in a group.
No, I saw one bigger kid bullying a smaller kid. The smaller kid has an unhappy expression on his face in the tussle which is an indication of a fight, not roughhousing.
The "Boys will be boys" scene immediately followed as if to say "It's ok, they're boys doing boy things" which is not true. A responsible and observant adult will see it and immediately break it up because one child is clearly unhappy.
Which is precisely my point. Kim got it wrong. Did she purposefully put the two together like that? Her credibility markers indicates that its a strong possibility.

This is the definition of boys will be boys:
If you watch a group of boys playing outside, chances are, at some point, one boy is going to leap on top of another boy. There will be a lot of yelling and ferocious roars, but also lots of grins. Other boys will try to pull the first boy off or grab on, too, and they'll all end up in a pile on the ground.
I did this with my friends, I did this with my father and uncles. This is the healthy stuff which you build a good well adapted child.

Fighting is fighting, the difference are clear and the phrase "Boys will be boys" cannot be used in the context of physical anger.
It turns out there are very specific differences between play fighting and real fighting (Fry, 2005; Smith, 2010). In rough play, kids are smiling and having a good time; in real fights they’re angry or crying. In rough play, kids take turns “attacking” and being “attacked” and they’re careful not to push or hit too hard. In real fights, the kids are trying to hurt each other. In rough play, kids are smiling and having a good time; in real fights they’re angry or crying. In rough play, kids take turns “attacking” and being “attacked” and they’re careful not to push or hit too hard. In real fights, the kids are trying to hurt each other. Rough play often involves a whole group of kids, and they continue playing together happily afterwards. Real fights usually involve only two kids, and they don’t want to be together afterwards.
 

EADC

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
2,817
No, I saw one bigger kid bullying a smaller kid. The smaller kid has an unhappy expression on his face in the tussle which is an indication of a fight, not roughhousing.
The "Boys will be boys" scene immediately followed as if to say "It's ok, they're boys doing boy things" which is not true. A responsible and observant adult will see it and immediately break it up because one child is clearly unhappy.
Which is precisely my point. Kim got it wrong. Did she purposefully put the two together like that? Her credibility markers indicates that its a strong possibility.
Actually the ad is saying its not ok to just say boys will be boys and that the correct thing to do is to break it up.
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
2,669
*ugh* let me give you a timeline

0:33 "Making the same old excuses" Prefixing these scenes
1548337240460.png

Followed by: "Boys will be Boys"
1548337288430.png
"Boys will be Boys"
1548337323243.png
"Boys will be boys will be boys will be boys...."
1548337368198.png
Followed immediately by Ana Kasparian who is a feminist from The Young Turks who have been seen to be siding with SJW culture.
This clip referencing the #MeToo movement saying "Allegations regarding sexual assault and sexual harassment"
1548337803098.png
 

DMNknight

Expert Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2003
Messages
2,669
In the space of 10 seconds:

Making the same old excuses
Boys will be boys repeated 3 times...
Allegations regarding sexual assault and sexual harassment
 

EADC

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2018
Messages
2,817
In the space of 10 seconds:

Making the same old excuses
Boys will be boys repeated 3 times...
Allegations regarding sexual assault and sexual harassment
To me it all makes sense and fits in.

We agree on it all, we just differ on the interpretation.
 

Flanders

Executive Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2003
Messages
9,700
Followed immediately by Ana Kasparian who is a feminist from The Young Turks who have been seen to be siding with SJW culture.
This clip referencing the #MeToo movement saying "Allegations regarding sexual assault and sexual harassment"
View attachment 610110
The instant this psycho's mug appears is the instant where any sane person should realise there's a malicious agenda at play here (as though it wasn't confirmed from the start).
 
Top