Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fact is, ads tell people how to be better or happier in one way or another. That's why advertising effing exists - to try to convince people that this or that product is going to improve their lives. To suggest this is new, or only happening to men, is absurd.
I am not going to start cheerleading for P&G, but I truly do not understand why so many people are so deeply offended by an ad that portrays, as role models, men who break up or prevent fights, protect a child from a pack of bullies, or tell a friend that some random woman walking down the street may not want to be leered at or propositioned.
Also, I said it before, but will say it again: I watched the ad more than once, and did not hear the word "toxic." Last time I checked, my hearing was pretty good.
Ok.
What would you say about a bra company add that talks zilch about the quality of their bras, but lecturing women not to behave like sluts, not to be snakes at the work-place and to stop falsely accusing men of rape?
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,602,372 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by mash123
Can you imagine the screams from the SJWs if KFC would start to lecture blacks not to rob convenience stores?
I'm using gillette for 30 years, it ended yesterday.
I'll overlook the "fried chicken" stereotype and go to the rest.
KFC and it's ad agency would not use an all-black cast to start with. They would show criminals of all races engaging in crime. Historically, and echos remain even today, blacks were considered second-class human beings at best merely because they were black, not because of anything bad they did. Furthermore, blacks suffered from all kinds of pigeonholing and misassumptions of particularly degrading sorts in a way straight, cis-gendered, white males never were.
Males (especially the type I just mentioned), by contrast, were never considered second-class human beings. That means males were judged by "the content of their character". Therefore this commercial is just "speaking truth to power", the truth that bullying, misogyny, and other toxic masculinity needs addressing. In fact, what today is deemed "toxic masculinity" is even today very much celebrated by males higher up in the "masculinity" pecking order (though maybe not status per se). Even worse, males without those traits often are disparaged merely for lacking "manliness" alone.
All that is what makes your comparison of the Gillette ad and your hypothetical KFC ad baseless.
I'll overlook the "fried chicken" stereotype and go to the rest.
KFC and it's ad agency would not use an all-black cast to start with. They would show criminals of all races engaging in crime. Historically, and echos remain even today, blacks were considered second-class human beings at best merely because they were black, not because of anything bad they did. Furthermore, blacks suffered from all kinds of pigeonholing and misassumptions of particularly degrading sorts in a way straight, cis-gendered, white males never were.
Males (especially the type I just mentioned), by contrast, were never considered second-class human beings. That means males were judged by "the content of their character". Therefore this commercial is just "speaking truth to power", the truth that bullying, misogyny, and other toxic masculinity needs addressing. In fact, what today is deemed "toxic masculinity" is even today very much celebrated by males higher up in the "masculinity" pecking order (though maybe not status per se). Even worse, males without those traits often are disparaged merely for lacking "manliness" alone.
All that is what makes your comparison of the Gillette ad and your hypothetical KFC ad baseless.
For the KFC one, the Boondocks adressed that question with that fried chicken skit.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,602,372 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolom
And there's nothing that is "toxic" in that ad. They could have rerun that ad instead of the woke-scold of their latest campaign.
I'm sorry that culturally-determined "masculine traits" (the full suite of them, I mean) aren't oh so perfect that they speak for themselves. But sadly, men are simply human - meaning they are capable of bad, sometimes evil, acts and expressions just like everyone else.
If "those kinds of people" (other religions, races, nationalities, etc) are capable of bad cultural practices, then straight, cisgendered, white, non-poor (even 'fine folks of the community') males ALSO are capable of badness too. In this case, unwittingly (at best) promoting attitudes that say bullying and misogyny (even mild forms) is a "masculine thing to do". This is especially true when they denigrate people opposing this behavior as "unmanly"/"feminine", "fragile", "wimpy", "naïve", "fantasy-dwellers", etc -- dismissing centuries of successful challenges to other bad social practices . . . including the cultural attitudes of "We the people".
Gillette is not attacking masculinity in general, only toxic masculinity and all the things associated with it (misogyny, bullying, cheap social dominance displays for the sake of impressing like-minded buddies or women too blind to see that social dominance alone doesn't make a good romantic partner).
To teach a boy or a girl to act wimpy leads to the snowflakery we have in this era. Men are supposed to be the stronger sex. This is due to evolution and sexual dimorphism.
In the commercial the boy cries in the shoulders of his single mom. The boy has no father figure and that is tragic. That is the LEFT for you.
They overrepresent white men as the major offenders. The truth is that in 2019 white men treat women better than all other groups including blacks, Hispanic, Arabs, Africans, Asians, etc. IN this era the most civilized safe neighborhoods are predominantly white and yet they put massive emphasis on violent white men on the film. I get it, if they had portrait black men as violent it would have been called racism.
I'll overlook the "fried chicken" stereotype and go to the rest.
KFC and it's ad agency would not use an all-black cast to start with. They would show criminals of all races engaging in crime.
Off course they won't, who wants an outcry and maybe few looted locations?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil75230
Historically, and echos remain even today, blacks were considered second-class human beings at best merely because they were black, not because of anything bad they did. Furthermore, blacks suffered from all kinds of pigeonholing and misassumptions of particularly degrading sorts in a way straight, cis-gendered, white males never were.
Males (especially the type I just mentioned), by contrast, were never considered second-class human beings. That means males were judged by "the content of their character". Therefore this commercial is just "speaking truth to power", the truth that bullying, misogyny, and other toxic masculinity needs addressing. In fact, what today is deemed "toxic masculinity" is even today very much celebrated by males higher up in the "masculinity" pecking order (though maybe not status per se). Even worse, males without those traits often are disparaged merely for lacking "manliness" alone.
All that is what makes your comparison of the Gillette ad and your hypothetical KFC ad baseless.
So basically you say that there are demographics that you can offend and there are others that you can not. Am I right?
Irrelevant parallel. Boondocks was created, written, and probably produced by black Americans. That means they have control over the meaning of the content of such scenes as the ones you posted. Similar to the way Mel Brooks (Jewish) could get away with trivializing Nazis. Or Jeff Foxworthy spoofing "rednecks". They're part of the group spoofed, so they get to make light of all that stuff. I don't get to make light of that because I'm not any of those things. Seriously, if Sarah Silverman, for example, went to a comedy club in Wichita or Knoxville and started talking about "rednecks" the way Foxworthy does, she'd get booed and hissed off the stage - and the blue-collar women in the audience threatening to kick her ass besides.
Same thing with Boondocks and their producers and writers.
The KFC example and the ad companies are not under majority-black ownership and certainly not widely reputed to be such. That means blacks would not have control over the ad message's meaning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
To teach a boy or a girl to act wimpy leads to the snowflakery we have in this era. Men are supposed to be the stronger sex. This is due to evolution and sexual dimorphism.
Disparaging sensitivity, thin-skin, and weakness is precisely a big part of toxic masculinity. Not only is it saying that mainstream/traditional "human nature" judgments are pretty much A-OK the way they are and therefore don't need to change; it implies that cruelty and callouseness is less unacceptable than traits that certainly don't signify deliberate efforts to hurt or demean others. It also reduces any other positive trait a person can have to a boring but important trait for "real men" at best, an outright consolation prize for "losers" at worst. Also, men are supposed to simply be themselves to the extent that they don't set out to deliberately hurt or demean others. That's all.
BTW, your bashing of "wimpy" people is frankly a form of bigotry, for you're demeaning them not because the person you bash consciously and deliberately set out to hurt or degrade others but simply (the only proper role of scorn), but simply because you have a kneejerk distaste toward weakness. Sorry, but being weak in and of itself is not a setting out to hurt or degrade others. Furthermore, even if it is theoretically possible to overcome, some people simply have more or less ability to overcome it than others. That makes your attitude frankly ableist, even if the trait is correctable in principle. It's like making fun of a person who got severely assaulted and can't walk for the next few months as a result.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
In the commercial the boy cries in the shoulders of his single mom. The boy has no father figure and that is tragic. That is the LEFT for you.
You're just reading "single mom" into that scene, all without a shred of proof the woman in that video actually portrayed a single mom. For all you know, she could have been a stay-at-home mom while her husband's a brain surgeon or partner in the biggest law firm in the state. All this is irrelevant, for the point here is that her son is in agony over bullying and needs emotional comfort. Isn't that what all good mothers do anyway?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
They overrepresent white men as the major offenders. The truth is that in 2019 white men treat women better than all other groups including blacks, Hispanic, Arabs, Africans, Asians, etc. IN this era the most civilized safe neighborhoods are predominantly white and yet they put massive emphasis on violent white men on the film. I get it, if they had portrait black men as violent it would have been called racism.
Aside from the backyard BBQ scene, I saw a pretty diverse group of men, even seeing a few scenes featuring black men. No sale.
Wow, i'm surprised by this corporate marketing strategy. Insinuating men are bullying, toxic thugs doesn't sound like a good way to get men to buy a product from your company.
In fact, women who love men and think this ad is full of **** may avoid the P&G brand as well. I plan to do so.
I've bought my last can of Foamy. Their blades and razors haven't been competitive for decades, so that business is long gone.
This must be a a marketing strategy for Pampers, Pantene, and Oil of Olay.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
