The best that men can get..

[Ostroeuropa]

Raping men, harassing men, sexually assaulting men, groping men, beating men, playing mind games with men, abusing children (male children especially - most child abuse against boys is committed by women). Murdering children, and I'm not talking about abortion. I'm talking about infanticide. Raping boys in school. Silencing men on the basis of their gender by using sexist terms like mansplaining. Yelling kill all men. Mocking men for complaining (calling them sissies, whiners, criticizing them crying, male tears, etc), much of which is on full display in regards to people complaining about this video (in a truly ironic fashion).

That's a good start. We can go on from there.

Well? The problem is the view that it's not that frequent. Is it women fault this is not a topic of discussion? You can fall back on the silly notation of the grand conspiracy of the feminists making sure it isn't. It's more of a cultural issue. Are not men lucky to have an "aggressive" woman? Would not a "real" man be able to defend himself? You can't have a discussion if you can't really talk about it when your own gender.

It is a valid topic for discussion. It does not help when you have MRA's out that messing up the message over the evil feminists and women don't have it as bad. The only real message I ever saw about male rape was lady gaga in one of her songs. Victims of sexual violence marched across the stage and there were men in the group.

As to infanticide? Do you mean neonaticide? That is a problem and there are efforts to help in that with the postpartum depression and all. Why would you use that as an attack on women?

Yelling kill all men? You think every self declared feminist does this? I am sure my wife has wanted to kill me a few times.

Mansplaining? You don't think that is ever valid? I once heard a guy try to explain the pain levels of woman giving birth. The only time I heard that get tossed out was when it involved an MRA type. Anecdotal I know as I don't hear it that often.

Society hasn't accepted male emotions. Are you saying this is because of women?

It isn't a cultural issue, it's an institutional one. Feminist lobbies campaign for funding and use that funding to campaign for more funding as well as push a cultural narrative which leads to the view that these things aren't as frequent. That's not a conspiracy, it's simply how power works. These lobbies also pressure the government and corporations into gynocentric focus.

[The Black Forrest]

Has someone already posted that copypasta from the youtube comments? If not, am i allowed to do it then?

Don't.

You can take something relevant to the discussion and offer a comment but copy/pasta is a bad thing.

[Galloism]

Raping men, harassing men, sexually assaulting men, groping men, beating men, playing mind games with men, abusing children (male children especially - most child abuse against boys is committed by women). Murdering children, and I'm not talking about abortion. I'm talking about infanticide. Raping boys in school. Silencing men on the basis of their gender by using sexist terms like mansplaining. Yelling kill all men. Mocking men for complaining (calling them sissies, whiners, criticizing them crying, male tears, etc), much of which is on full display in regards to people complaining about this video (in a truly ironic fashion).

That's a good start. We can go on from there.

Well? The problem is the view that it's not that frequent. Is it women's fault this is not a topic of discussion?

To a large (but certainly not complete) degree, yes - as primary enforcers of social norms, particularly in regards to the stoicism of men (many women are repulsed when men show weakness, so men learn not to show it).

Men who attempt to share being abused and raped by women are often shamed and mocked - especially by women. Which makes sense - with their greater social power, they tend to be greater abusers in the social realm. Power corrupts, the more power, the more corruption.

You can fall back on the silly notation of the grand conspiracy of the feminists making sure it isn't. It's more of a cultural issue. Are not men lucky to have an "aggressive" woman? Would not a "real" man be able to defend himself? You can't have a discussion if you can't really talk about it when your own gender.

It's actually worth note men among men are more apt to talk about these things - because there's less enforcement of social norms in male-only spaces. It's one of the reason bromances are on the rise.

It's typically in mixed company that men are more afraid to speak.

As far as the tropes, you are 100% right - these are social norms enforced by men and women both. However, they are enforced especially by women - as weakness is revolusion to a large number, and hence why even in response to this video, which literally addresses the problem of enforced male stoicism, the common refrain to complain about it is to paint the men complaining as crybabies and sissies.

It is a valid topic for discussion. It does not help when you have MRA's out that messing up the message over the evil feminists and women don't have it as bad. The only real message I ever saw about male rape was lady gaga in one of her songs. Victims of sexual violence marched across the stage and there were men in the group.

As to infanticide? Do you mean neonaticide? That is a problem and there are efforts to help in that with the postpartum depression and all. Why would you use that as an attack on women?

Because we tend to excuse or at least partially excuse murder of babies performed by women. Sometimes we even make it a lesser crime (infanticide, where codified, is a lesser crime than murder).

Yelling kill all men? You think every self declared feminist does this?

Does every man say "boys will be boys"? Does it have to be every single person without even a single exception in all of human history to be a problem?

I am sure my wife has wanted to kill me a few times.

Mansplaining? You don't think that is ever valid? I once heard a guy try to explain the pain levels of woman giving birth. The only time I heard that get tossed out was when it involved an MRA type. Anecdotal I know as I don't hear it that often.

Society hasn't accepted male emotions. Are you saying this is because of women?

It has a lot to do with female enforcement of gender norms. They don't bear 100% of the responsibility, but the data suggests they do bear the majority of it.

[Tahar Joblis]

Are you saying this was a stupid business decision?

Maybe not, actually.

I read an article from Australia (that I'm now kicking myself because I can't find it again) that states this ad might be an appeal towards (average) the sexism of women. In married couples, wives very often make the majority of spending decisions - including buying things like razors for their husbands and teenage offspring.

Because of women's majority of spending power, they may feel that this ad will cause more razors to be sold due to men "just not caring", but women desiring the sexist advertising in question.

Also, while this isn't an ad for their women's line, Gillette sells women's razors ("Gillette Venus"). Generally at a "pink prestige" markup from men's razors, meaning they have higher margins on women's razors. Even if they only sold one extra women's shaving product for every lost sale of men's shaving product from this (and they may not lose any sales of men's razors from this), they would come out ahead.

[Ostroeuropa]

Has someone already posted that copypasta from the youtube comments? If not, am i allowed to do it then?

Don't.

You can take something relevant to the discussion and offer a comment but copy/pasta is a bad thing.

It's the one about how someone puts on their rape shoes and pulls on a t-shirt with "proud to be toxic" on it or whatever then walks down the street whistling at women who pass and telling them to smile, and at the end sees the advert and becomes a feminist.

It occurs to me that if you pulled something similar with regards to the criticism of feminsits and their behavior we engage in it wouldn't sound so comical.

"So I was writing an article that vilifies men and -" and so on. Maybe something to think about.

[Galloism]

Maybe not, actually.

I read an article from Australia (that I'm now kicking myself because I can't find it again) that states this ad might be an appeal towards (average) the sexism of women. In married couples, wives very often make the majority of spending decisions - including buying things like razors for their husbands and teenage offspring.

Because of women's majority of spending power, they may feel that this ad will cause more razors to be sold due to men "just not caring", but women desiring the sexist advertising in question.

Also, while this isn't an ad for their women's line, Gillette sells women's razors ("Gillette Venus"). Generally at a "pink prestige" markup from men's razors, meaning they have higher margins on women's razors. Even if they only sold one extra women's shaving product for every lost sale of men's shaving product from this (and they may not lose any sales of men's razors from this), they would come out ahead.

I mean, pure cynical capitalism is likely the most logical explanation if you get down to it. The margin explanation is a perfectly valid theory as well.

[Ostroeuropa]

Here's a question for those supporting this campaign.

If this isn't vilifying men, then why were all of the people engaged in negative behavior white men, the group your critics accuse you of hating?

If it were sincerely an attempt to help men end toxic behavior, why were there no minorities? We know these behaviors also impact minority men.

We can draw two possible conclusions:

1. The advert is positive and uplifting like you are claiming it is, but is racist and anti-minority.

2. The advert is indeed vilification and negative, and the reason it's white men is those are the men your ideology leads you to be most disparaging of.

No matter which you conclude, it's a racist advert. So you've got a choice it seems. Are you anti-minority, or anti-white and anti-male, for supporting this advert? I presume for a progressive this must be a very difficult decision to make.

Incidentally, this fact provides more credence to your detractors claims that you are anti-white in my opinion, as there is no credible explanation for it being all white males doing the negative behavior given your movements hypersensitivity to racism against minorities if it is intended to be a positive advert. It undermines your pretensions that the advert is positive. You have selected your outgroup for the depiction, and that speaks volumes about the content.

[Valrifell]

True, but as far as corporations who market themselves as "man's man's" company, Gillette is pretty up there with the likes of Axe.

This is just whiplash, tbh.

Are you saying this was a stupid business decision?

Yes. The ire isn't worth it.

[The Black Forrest]

To a large (but certainly not complete) degree, yes - as primary enforcers of social norms, particularly in regards to the stoicism of men (many women are repulsed when men show weakness, so men learn not to show it).

Ahh but the social norms; do we not give them that right when we used to think men worked and women raise children? Stoicism is ingrained as we don't want to show weakness to the proverbial pack. Have you not heard men call other pussies? As to being repulsed in general? Hmmmm?.......I would argue against that statement. In general I would say it's in various degrees of emotion. Sure there are those who are repulsed. I would say a majority don't mind some emotions. I think those would be tempered if the crying was a constant thing.

Men who attempt to share being abused and raped by women are often shamed and mocked - especially by women. Which makes sense - with their greater social power, they tend to be greater abusers in the social realm. Power corrupts, the more power, the more corruption.

That I find hard to believe. Especially, if they are victims of sexual assault. I would have to see/read the situation. Was it somebody claiming it just to be an ass? Was it a genuine claim in a setting say talking about rape?

It's actually worth note men among men are more apt to talk about these things - because there's less enforcement of social norms in male-only spaces. It's one of the reason bromances are on the rise.

One on one? I can see it but even then I would say it would have to be a tight friendship. Just like women; They tend to share things with people they really trust. Back at uni I was rather startled by how many girls I associated with admitted to a sexual assault in their lives. I have that kind of persona a person trusts as one gal once once told somebody "I tell him things I wouldn't tell my mother!?!" Anyway. Personally? I have only heard a couple stories of male sexually assault from friends show are gay.

It's typically in mixed company that men are more afraid to speak.

I believe that. Have you seen many women speak about it in such settings?

As far as the tropes, you are 100% right - these are social norms enforced by men and women both. However, they are enforced especially by women - as weakness is revolusion to a large number, and hence why even in response to this video, which literally addresses the problem of enforced male stoicism, the common refrain to complain about it is to paint the men complaining as crybabies and sissies.

Hmmm? I think both genders are still at fault with that one. Look through our history; imagery of men has pretty much been manly men. The only times emotion is shown is when to deride our enemies (thinking of battle scenes with the enemy fleeing. I don't know why I thought of that ).

I am not accepting that any emotion is gets a man tossed from the proverbial breeding pool.

Because we tend to excuse or at least partially excuse murder of babies performed by women. Sometimes we even make it a lesser crime (infanticide, where codified, is a lesser crime than murder).

Well? It's probably a little more involved then a simple right or wrong. It's only recent times where postpartum depression was acknowledged as a real issue. Are you suggesting there is an effort by women to make sure crimes committed by women deserve lessor sentences?

Does every man say "boys will be boys"? Does it have to be every single person without even a single exception in all of human history to be a problem?

It's not a great argument to raise as it wasn't implied that all say it. I have heard "boys will be boys" in conversation, on the screen and seen it in text. The only time I heard "kill all the men was followed "take all the women"

-edit- as I type this I did a simple check and found some editor on huffpo made a comment. I am ever surprised what people will toss out on twitter and think nothing of it.

It has a lot to do with female enforcement of gender norms. They don't bear 100% of the responsibility, but the data suggests they do bear the majority of it.

I agree with that. I would add it's fall out from the gender rules of old. Men make the money and women take care of the house.

[Special Aromas]

This why I love being a white man. Everything is so good for us lads at the moment that even the slightest notion that we as a collective could or should be better people has us foaming at the mouth.

Could it be that the notion that we do anything collectively on the basis of being white men is inherently racist and sexist? I think that's what's got folks "foaming at the mouth".

What is racist or sexist about encouraging good behaviour? Like, what kind of persecution complex does it take to make you feel this way?

[The Black Forrest]

Are you saying this was a stupid business decision?

Yes. The ire isn't worth it.

Is it? We are discussing it for the most part.

[Ifreann]

I mean... that's how culture works and what culture is. It's a collective experience shared by people whom interact with on another, influencing each other is subtle ways over the course of their lives. It involves reinforcing certain behavior through subtle subconscious interactions. And people you hang around temd to influence you more heavily than those you don't, amd people in all cultures tend to hange around people they view as similar.

Meaning that, to a certain degree, there is a collective notion of masculinity shared by men whom interact with one another, and one aspect of this notion is ignore or forgiving certain types of shitty behavior due to viewing it as being in the realm of acceptable male behavior (even though most males don't engage in said behavior).

The same holds true for women, as well.

Why is it left to men to discourage other men from bei g shitty? Well, simply put, they are more influential. Nobody gives up shitty behavior willingly, and cultural influence from peers is a piwerful motivator as that is the entire means of cultural production and exchange.

Nothing in your post addresses the sexism and racism inherent in the message. Telling people that they have to behave a certain way because their race and sex is racism and sexism.

Men do not have an obligation to stop bad behavior from other men just because they are men. Human beings of all stripes have an obligation to address bad behavior from other human beings in general. Drawing these tribal lines and telling people they have some duty to do something because they have a penis is blatant sexism.

Was there a scene about penises that I missed?

---

To be blunt, that was essentially the entire premise and message of the Black Panther movie, in that the "not my problem"-ism of Wakanda was less than ideal, evem though jt wasn't their fault. Essentially that Wakanda ignored and abandoned people to rot (particularly black people) because it wasn't their problem and they weren't responsible for them.

And yet I remember that movie doing quite well and nobody seeing that part as the part being controversial.

I never even heard of it.

It's a good movie, you should check it out.

---

Can't imagine a worse qualified corporation to try and talk about the issue. Because somehow the same company that implicitly claims their aftershave gets you swimming in pussy is in the position to talk down to their consumer base in this way.

That's kinda what they're getting at. They don't come right out and say "We've been pushing this particular idea of masculinity and that was maybe not a good thing so we're changing now", but that does seem to be what they're getting at by including clips from their ads and their slogan.

---

Here's a question for those supporting this campaign.

If this isn't vilifying men, then why were all of the people engaged in negative behavior white men, the group your critics accuse you of hating?

Why are most of the people in visual mass media, as a whole, white men?

If it were sincerely an attempt to help men end toxic behavior, why were there no minorities? We know these behaviors also impact minority men.

[Costa Fierro]

Could it be that the notion that we do anything collectively on the basis of being white men is inherently racist and sexist? I think that's what's got folks "foaming at the mouth".

What is racist or sexist about encouraging good behaviour? Like, what kind of persecution complex does it take to make you feel this way?

Nothing, it's the presumption that all men engage in this behaviour which is sexist. In this specific instance, the racist aspect comes from the fact that it's only white men acting negatively.

[New haven america]

Here's a question for those supporting this campaign.

If this isn't vilifying men, then why were all of the people engaged in negative behavior white men, the group your critics accuse you of hating?

If it were sincerely an attempt to help men end toxic behavior, why were there no minorities? We know these behaviors also impact minority men.

We can draw two possible conclusions:

1. The advert is positive and uplifting like you are claiming it is, but is racist and anti-minority.

2. The advert is indeed vilification and negative, and the reason it's white men is those are the men your ideology leads you to be most disparaging of.

No matter which you conclude, it's a racist advert. So you've got a choice it seems. Are you anti-minority, or anti-white and anti-male, for supporting this advert? I presume for a progressive this must be a very difficult decision to make.

Incidentally, this fact provides more credence to your detractors claims that you are anti-white in my opinion, as there is no credible explanation for it being all white males doing the negative behavior given your movements hypersensitivity to racism against minorities if it is intended to be a positive advert. It undermines your pretensions that the advert is positive. You have selected your outgroup for the depiction, and that speaks volumes about the content.

Actually, there were minority males in the commercial, they were the ones who were generally stopping the white males from doing bad shit and were being used as the main examples of what men should be.

Also, there wasn't a single minority woman in the entire ad. Unless you count the little black girl with her dad, but I feel like that just opens a whole host of issues...

[Skarten]

Nothing in your post addresses the sexism and racism inherent in the message. Telling people that they have to behave a certain way because their race and sex is racism and sexism.

Men do not have an obligation to stop bad behavior from other men just because they are men. Human beings of all stripes have an obligation to address bad behavior from other human beings in general. Drawing these tribal lines and telling people they have some duty to do something because they have a penis is blatant sexism.

Was there a scene about penises that I missed?

---

I never even heard of it.

It's a good movie, you should check it out.

---

Can't imagine a worse qualified corporation to try and talk about the issue. Because somehow the same company that implicitly claims their aftershave gets you swimming in pussy is in the position to talk down to their consumer base in this way.

That's kinda what they're getting at. They don't come right out and say "We've been pushing this particular idea of masculinity and that was maybe not a good thing so we're changing now", but that does seem to be what they're getting at by including clips from their ads and their slogan.

---

Here's a question for those supporting this campaign.

If this isn't vilifying men, then why were all of the people engaged in negative behavior white men, the group your critics accuse you of hating?

Why are most of the people in visual mass media, as a whole, white men?

If it were sincerely an attempt to help men end toxic behavior, why were there no minorities? We know these behaviors also impact minority men.

If i've read the thing correct, and i may be wrong, lemme get some stats

I think that there was around 33 men in a negative/bad light in the ad. It may have been, i don't know, 43, but just bear with me

Out of those 33/43, 32/42 were white men, when 5 out of the 8 men who were doing good things (I may be wrong, but i'm pretty sure it's this) were black. Not seeing how this is essentially saying "white men bed" would be asinine.

[The Technocrates]

The people who are getting butthurt over a stupid Gillette commercial, are the same exact people that call you a cuck if you didn't like their joke. Its just an ad.

[Skarten]

The same people who are getting butthurt over a stupid Gillette commercial, are the same exact people that call you a cuck if you didn't like their joke. Its just an ad.

They're not getting butthurt. Disagreeing with something is not getting "Butthurt". People didn't like the ad. They're talking about how they didn't like the ad. Is that a problem? Are we not allowed to dislike ads fro, companies anymore and call their BS out?

[West Leas Oros 2]

The people who are getting butthurt over a stupid Gillette commercial, are the same exact people that call you a cuck if you didn't like their joke. Its just an ad.

You act as though the other side doesn’t get just as offended.

[Ostroeuropa]

(Image)

They weren't displaying violent or bullying behavior so you've dodged the point.

Here's a question for those supporting this campaign.

If this isn't vilifying men, then why were all of the people engaged in negative behavior white men, the group your critics accuse you of hating?

If it were sincerely an attempt to help men end toxic behavior, why were there no minorities? We know these behaviors also impact minority men.

We can draw two possible conclusions:

1. The advert is positive and uplifting like you are claiming it is, but is racist and anti-minority.

2. The advert is indeed vilification and negative, and the reason it's white men is those are the men your ideology leads you to be most disparaging of.

No matter which you conclude, it's a racist advert. So you've got a choice it seems. Are you anti-minority, or anti-white and anti-male, for supporting this advert? I presume for a progressive this must be a very difficult decision to make.

Incidentally, this fact provides more credence to your detractors claims that you are anti-white in my opinion, as there is no credible explanation for it being all white males doing the negative behavior given your movements hypersensitivity to racism against minorities if it is intended to be a positive advert. It undermines your pretensions that the advert is positive. You have selected your outgroup for the depiction, and that speaks volumes about the content.

Actually, there were minority males in the commercial, they were the ones who were generally stopping the white males from doing bad shit and were being used as the main examples of what men should be.

Also, there wasn't a single minority woman in the entire ad. Unless you count the little black girl with her dad, but I feel like that just opens a whole host of issues...

That's largely the point. The advert portrays the idea that it's white men who need to be prevented doing these things. If the advert is meant to uplift and be positive instead of disparaging, doesn't that boost the notion that minorities don't have men who should be stopped from doing these things?

Wouldn't that leave minority communities with men still displaying these behaviors if you take the view the advert is positive?

If it's meant to be positive, then it would seem the positives will only fall on white men and their communities.

More likely however is that the advert is disparaging and negative, and the reason it's white men is that the movement and its ideology casts them as villains. The fact they chose white men to be the villains of the piece undermines the notion its a positive advert meant to uplift.

If you disagree, imagine if the advert portrayed all the violent men as black, and had white men intervening.

If i've read the thing correct, and i may be wrong, lemme get some stats

I think that there was around 33 men in a negative/bad light in the ad. It may have been, i don't know, 43, but just bear with me

Out of those 33/43, 32/42 were white men, when 5 out of the 8 men who were doing good things (I may be wrong, but i'm pretty sure it's this) were black. Not seeing how this is essentially saying "white men bed" would be asinine.

Disagree, count the ones who were problems for other people.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Know the difference:

Gillette: some shitty razor company
Gilet: a vest

[Torrocca]

Was there a scene about penises that I missed?

---

It's a good movie, you should check it out.

---

That's kinda what they're getting at. They don't come right out and say "We've been pushing this particular idea of masculinity and that was maybe not a good thing so we're changing now", but that does seem to be what they're getting at by including clips from their ads and their slogan.

---

Why are most of the people in visual mass media, as a whole, white men?

If i've read the thing correct, and i may be wrong, lemme get some stats

I think that there was around 33 men in a negative/bad light in the ad. It may have been, i don't know, 43, but just bear with me

Out of those 33/43, 32/42 were white men, when 5 out of the 8 men who were doing good things (I may be wrong, but i'm pretty sure it's this) were black. Not seeing how this is essentially saying "white men bed" would be asinine.

Ah, yes, just look at all these white men doing bad things that ended up featured in the commercial!

[West Leas Oros 2]

If i've read the thing correct, and i may be wrong, lemme get some stats

I think that there was around 33 men in a negative/bad light in the ad. It may have been, i don't know, 43, but just bear with me

Out of those 33/43, 32/42 were white men, when 5 out of the 8 men who were doing good things (I may be wrong, but i'm pretty sure it's this) were black. Not seeing how this is essentially saying "white men bed" would be asinine.

Ah, yes, just look at all these white men doing bad things that ended up featured in the commercial!

You appear to have missed the original point.

[Torrocca]

Ah, yes, just look at all these white men doing bad things that ended up featured in the commercial!

You appear to have missed the original point.

If the commercial's message was meant to be, "white men bad," do you really think they'd've featured either white men doing good things or black men doing bad things?

[Skarten]

You appear to have missed the original point.

If the commercial's message was meant to be, "white men bad," do you really think they'd've featured either white men doing good things or black men doing bad things?

All but one of the men doing bad things were white, while 5/8 of the men doing good things were black, if my memory is right

[Torrocca]

If the commercial's message was meant to be, "white men bad," do you really think they'd've featured either white men doing good things or black men doing bad things?

All but one of the men doing bad things were white, while 5/8 of the men doing good things were black, if my memory is right

l o o k a t t h e a b o v e l i n k t o s e e o t h e r w i s e