And then everybody clapped!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koPmuEyP3a0

Sheesh, thats a lotta dislikes

A lot of men don't like being told their behavior isn't as "harmless" as they insist

People don’t like change. What is being asked is for many fold millions of men to change their thinking, the way they act. To consider the feelings and perspectives of others. There is effort involved in change. It’s the same thing that make sense people say they’ll quit smoking, drinking, spend less, eat better, etc- and then don’t. Because changing routines is tough and takes conscious effort. It means things you’re used to changing, and it means making conscious choices and not acting on instinct. With time, change becomes natural- for individuals and society. For millennia women’s place in society at large has been a certain way, and that is ingrained in our social fabric and reflected by it- so there’s more involved than just not calling women names like sugar or not grabbing their vaginas. Because of how integrated ideas of gender identity are in society and how much has been shaped by that, there is a lot of work and thought and discussion to be had- and on many points...

... you won’t find concensus even amongembers of the same gender on how we should handle them. Not all women will be offended by the same things or think even the most seemingly innocent thing isn’t offensive. As a society we have a lot to work out, and many see that process and the inevitable revisions and discussions as too much work when to them- things are “fine the way they are.” What’s more- people get dendensive. When you tell a person that some instinctive and seemingly harmless behavior to them is a sign of toxic masculinity- they may feel personally attacked. As though you are saying they are some sort of social degenerate, or that their behavior shows they hate women or aren’t secure about themselves. This can include people who are in general....

... “good guys,” not comic cliches of a misogynist, or men who think women belong “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen,” and even includes many men who actively try and believe they are supporting progressive views. So they can get defensive and feel that they are being criticized even though they already feel like they are doing right and putting effort towards things. It’s critically important that we remember this is not a problem that sprang up in one generation, and isn’t realistic to fix in one generation. We need to put in effort and make changes now, but we also must remember that few meaningful and lasting changes happen over night. We also have to be sympathetic. I know- shoot the messenger- but hear me out. We don’t need to condone negative behavior or even tolerate it- however acknowledging and understanding the view point of those who react negatively to change can help us bring them along for the change. Learning how to communicate best with them in a way that allows...

... fruitful discussion and not knee jerk hostility or defensiveness. If we would ask them to put forth the effort to change, we must be willing to put forth the effort to help them accept those changes and feel welcomed. We must guide them to change even when they are hostile to us, with patience so they do not feel excluded or shunned. That sort of attitude: “I’m right, you’re wrong, so why should I have to deal with you? Get on board or be left behind...” it doesn’t matter if you actually are right. It causes division. Where there is division people dig in and become more invested in wether their “position” wins or loses. They now have something to defend and a “persecuted minority” they can claim to belong to. They become righteous in their minds- rebelling against an “unjust” authority that would gladly sacrifice them to pave the road to their “new world.” It’s unecessary and can be avoided almost entirely through patience and repetition. Through time these people either change...

.... if properly encouraged, or die off and are “bred out” of society until all that remains of their ways are scattered and rare hold outs who were handed down parcels of these practices and beliefs. But meeting hate with hate, or anger with anger, negativity with negativity, or fear with acts that legitimize that fear in their minds- it makes these goals farther away. The way to a better future is not through forcing these people to change, but little by little showing them that they don’t need to fear such change, that no one is calling them bad people, we are just letting them know that their behavior is harmful to others, and they can show us who they are by how they act on that.

true dat. may i have a potato

>potato<

Neatly put @guest_

Pretty sure they did marketing research and estimated that the number of users they would lose wouldn't be that significant. This is capitalism we're talking about, look at what happened with Nike

Possible, but I'm more inclined to believe that either they failed, or it was an ideological initiative by someone from the marketing department, rather than a rational decision. Their stock started falling from 17th of January, 5 days ago, and it is still slowly falling. Also, I can't find the sources on who was behind the decision and whether it was ideologically motivated, but I will try as soon as I can. (gotta go, soz)

You think a couple of people decided over a worldwide marketing campaign that could jeopardize their brand and nobody sanctioned it before it went live?

Fun fact: actually this ad (and others) are directed at folks like @vitklim to bait them into a big fat rage to get their ad, meaning: their brands, into the news and tabloids by spewing hate all over the social networks. Marketing people know three things for sure: 1) most people have accepted the new times, whether they know it themselves or not. 2) Publicity sells no matter what 3) nothing easier than to trigger a reactionist these days. Advertisers have been doing this for decades (Benneton being one of the first) but then they needed to spend lots of money for ads to stir public discussion. Now they can rely on the twitter rednecks to spread the news and fuel the rage free of charge. Well done.

What's the point if they alienate their own customer base? People who buy razors, know about Gillette anyway, it being one of the main manufacturers in the field. As I said, their stocks went down as a direct consequence of that PR move, it's not conducive to doing business. Just think of EA, Blizzard, Bethesda, etc. EA with their Battlefront II blunder and Battlefield 5 "woke" marketing, managed to tank the sales of their games, drop their stock value, keep earning hatred from the community and cause government regulation all in one package. It may be publicity, but they shot themselves in the foot so many times that nobody wants to deal with them anymore. Same goes for Blizzard's Diablo fuckup and Bethesda's Fallout 76 disaster. Also, I like how @halfdeadhammerhead and others like him didn't even try to disprove my points, they just downvoted and called me a reactionary. Well, I guess if you are an SJW zealot, any normal person is a reactionary in their eyes

Also, @frangy089 I would agree that it would be sanctioned on some level, probably even by the parent company of Gillette, Procter & Gamble, given that they dabbled in politically motivated advertisement before: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovY6yjTe1LE
So I do have reason to believe that they could sanction another politically motivated PR move, but they went much farther this time, by intentionally offending a part of their own consumer base, and either completely miscalculating, or ignoring for ideological reasons, the scale of the backlash they would receive. I can't be sure which however, so that is still open for interpretation.

You don't have a point to "disprove° and you still don't get what's going on, you just have this vague feeling that some "liberal force" is trying to take something away from you and you loudly complain about things that don't even happen. And as to the Gillette stocks: Lolololol how about you watch their stocks over a longer period of time. They know what they're doing. For the sort of "customer base" you believe to represent, they have opened a fax line to complain. https://tenor.com/view/fax-shredder-gif-10022771

I have made a number of points why the advertisement was either a bad decision, or actively pushing an ideology down people's throats, rather than advertising a product. I can rephrase them for you, and you try explaining where exactly I'm wrong.
1. When a neutral company begins taking sides in a culture war they alienate some of their customer base and lose customers and money. Not beneficial to business.
2. The negative behaviours displayed in the ad are not gender exclusive and do not represent men as a whole. Bullying, murder, rape, theft, verbal abuse, anything else, is not exclusive to men, and the fact that the ad specifically focuses on men and not women reeks of modern feminist ideology in which women cannot be bad ever.
3. Feminists do not understand men, and try to force men to become like them. Playfighting is normal for boys, approaching women first to ask their number or whatever, is expected not just by men, but by women too...

Psychologically, people of different genders are wired for different behaviours and then they are shaped by the society around them. Feminists are trying to change behaviour of people based on their beliefs not on the society they live in. Look at the percentage of people consideing themselves feminists and ask yourself, why should the society change to fit their lens.
4. The ad does not motivate men to become better. It chastises men as a whole for the behaviour of a few, something that the left gets riled up about whenever the same is done to Muslims or other minorities. Yet here, they accept it because it fits their ideology. If Gillette wanted men to become better it would inspire them by showing those who are doing great things.
And besides, it is not a "liberal" force you are talking about. Liberalism is about freedom. If something is not criminal, then you have no right to tell people what to do, and if you try, you are no longer a liberal. Simple as that.

Yes, you made a lot of points but missed the main one. Gillette isn't the only company folks like you are actively though involuntarily advertising for. Think of the last campaigns that annoyed you for allegedly taking a political stance, like for example Nike? Did they loose some customers? Sure they did, but that's nothing to what they gained. You didn't get that sofar, so you're not going to get it next time, but you know what? It just doesn't matter. These campaigns work, cause the people running them know their job.

Nike is at a point where they are just about too big to fail. And besides, the shoe burning backlash was retarded, since those people still bought from Nike. However, Gillette is not that big, and they dug themselves a deeper hole. They made a gambit on appealing to a subset of people who are not as interested in their products, and once the influx they get from these people is over, they will lose most of them as well as the customers who they offended now. What they are hoping for is that people will forget as soon as the initial shitstorm is over.
Oh, and did I mention that the director of that ad is a feminist who got into her position through affirmative action and is infamous for creating ideologially based adverts?
Well here you go then: https://adage.com/article/cmo-strategy/gillette-s-a-man-responsibility/316231/
Search her name up on any advertisement based news site and you will see what ads she already shit out. On campaignlive.co.uk for instance

Well, then just relax and wait for her to get fired. Which - according to you - must happen any day now. Because what that ad is asking men for is so horrible and despicable, it's a shame for any real man just to think about it.
I mean, seriously, calling an in initiative to increase gender diversity, something that every major company worldwide is aiming for, "affirmative action" says all about you anyone needs to know. Keep up the good work pushing - uhm, no, "bashing" that agenda.
Did you fax your complaint yet? Let them know how you feel about it. They will care.

@vitklim- I doubt that the house hold name on razors and major supplier of blades to companies that rebrand and sell them under a private label is seriously worried about alienating anyone- and maybe it’s better that a person who decides they’d rather not shave at all, or will go out of their way to make sure they aren’t buying a Gillette razor over a commercial that says not to rape and bully people isn’t in target when I’m there. That said- you’ve set up a game companies can’t win. If they use their resources and influence to intentionally or even unintentionally support any cause- they are just some “big corporation pushing an agenda” but if they do not use any of their resources to contribute back to society- they are guilty of inaction in the face of wrong, and a large school of philosophy including the laws and founding principals of this country hold that to do nothing when you see wrong is itself a wrong....

.... so a company, made of humans- humans who see and think and feel, felt a certain way about an issue that most of us- I hope, can agree is a serious issue. Bullying, rape, violence, harassment- they are wrong. Now it’s a fine line I admit. A corporation shouldn’t be the moral compass of a nation or even one person. However the idea they are somehow mass targeting men is laughable. Gillette runs ads for men’s razors all the time- targeted to who? Men. Why would you find offense that this particular ad was also aimed at men by a company who does separate marketing AND production for men’s and women’s products? Their razors aren’t generally “unisex”- they often contain a gender on the package or product name, and the bulk of marketing and packaging include cues indexed to mass gender ideas. So that point is shaky to start...

... where it becomes untenable though- is your assertion that they imply all men behave this way. They make it clear not all men do. Several “hero” men are shown acting differently, and several men are shown as “victims.” You chose to focus on the “bad” men and identify that you were being singled out- defensive...? Well- not only are they very clear that not all men are that way, they make the call to good men to stand up when they see wrong. They don’t outline a moral philosophy or even what the “right thing” to do is- they just basically say: “if you see someone raping, harassing, or beating the shit out of someone- you should probably do something about it...” I can’t argue that isn’t true. But moving on to your next point... that play fighting is normal... well... to a degree yes. You mention men have natural tendencies. Men do. All humans do. We are animals. Like animals we could shit wherever we like, but we don’t do we? You’re taught to hold it until you can get to a toilet...

... well, sorry. Most people are. I do not want to assume anything about you, so most people are taught to hold their shit in and not take a dump in the parking lot. We don’t just corner a female and then have sex because we are horny and our biological urges tell us that’s what we should do. It’s called “civilization” or “society.” We have these rules, for common behaviors that are made to either channel our instincts into healthy expression that allows stable society, or to control our impulses. If you were angry at this ad and at Gillette HQ, your instincts might tell you to slam the writers head into the table until they no longer moved. Is that- is that ok? To follow that instinct? Or do you need to control it?....

... so 2 boys playfighting. Playfighting comes natural to many children. In the ad, we see two boys fighting at some sort of party or backyard BBQ. is that ok? Or was the guy that broke it up right? He didn’t sermonize them about violence or using words. He broke up a child fight at a party. If they were mock fighting in say- a martial arts or boxing class- no one would break it up- unless it got too extreme. See? It’s called “teaching.” You teach these kids that there are times and places for things. They can play fight. Sure. But a back yard BBQ with a bunch of families isn’t a place for it, nor is the mall, or the house of worship, or their work or school. You teach them about limits- sure, you can play fight. But play fighting doesn’t include eye gouges or beating someone into a pulp. Because if you are real fighting- generally you shouldn’t be trying to kill the other person, just end the fight....

.... you can flirt. But when she seems unreceptive, uninterested, expresses a desire to be left alone, is obviously in the middle of something else- don’t approach, or stop. The bigger lesson ALL these things have in common is escalation and respect. We don’t start out with “I want to lick your ass...” work up to it at an appropriate pace as they seem receptive. We don’t start out a disagreement with an eye poke. We don’t need 6 buddies to chase down a kid and mock and beat him for being weird or too smart or different. Maybe... again... start with “Hi...” and folllow that with some talk and questions, take it one step at a time before you go 0-100 in .2 seconds. That’s a really good lesson to teach, and the fact so many seem to need to hear us tells us that maybe we have failed each other when a damn razor company has to tell you to teach your kids not to be shit bags. Now lastly.....

... you mention that women do these things to. Oh yeah. Sure they do. But you say it yourself- did you forget your own words? Men and women as a generality but not a hard rule tend to have some differences. Women DO rape, harass, bully, etc. however based on available information they do it at a MUCH lower rate, and often the way they do it tends to be very different. You’re less likely to be chased down by a swarm of angry young girls looking to beat you up than those girls will use more subtle mental, verbal, and emotional pressures or targeted “traps” to bully. So maybe they get their own message later. Female bullying isn’t an invisible issue. It was a huge hot button and has received all sorts of attention and PSA’s, it even received several block buster movies on the issue. Women do commit rape too- but again- the circumstances and methods tend to be very different.

Kinda wish we made a separate chat for this already. This is getting long-winded.
First things first. A corporation pushing any sort of agenda is flying out the fucking window, because they are going against a fraction of their own consumer base. Unless of course they market to a very enclosed and limited demographic which Gillette are not. As for corporations giving back to the world, you got a very easy solution. Charity. Literally, give money to any reliable charity foundation and enjoy the good PR. What Gillette did instead, was attaching feminist agenda to the ad, because their director can't stop herself from injecting everything with feminism. And what's better is that I know that she ain't gonna lose any sleep over it, because diversity and social justice trumps reason at this point, just look at Patreon for f's sake.

Next, on what's actually in the video. They start off with "Toxic Masculinity", which is a meaningless term as I already outlined, because feminists call everything toxic whenever they are offended or can manage to find a victim. They mention #MeToo, which was tainted by them as weaponized to smear powerful men. Then, a bunch of kids are chasing another kid, which could be interpreted as bullying, but fuck the context amirite? We are not given enough information to make a conclusion. Then, they poke fun at the "boys will be boys" excuse, completely ignoring the fact that boys are fucking different to girls, and so in some cases, yeah they will be boys, they are meant to. What's next on the list hmmm. Oh right, a segment from The Young Turks, a left-wing propaganda media outlet, how convenient. Then they go on essentially wasting time for a bit, and insert Terry Crews segment, "men need to hold other men accountable". Well by that logic, women need to hold other women accountable too...

But they clearly don't, given batshit insane feminists are primarily women, and nobody holds them accountable for what they say or do. Now, for the following montage, breaking that down too. First one - a guy saying to a woman "Smile sweety". His crime? Talking to women apparently, because that one line in itself is not offensive and if the woman in question doesn't want to deal with him, she can ignore him or just say that she doesn't. Instead, our brave, non-white hero begins to I assume, lecture the poor fucker in terms of social justice and the women she talked to being now a victim of third degree sexual harassement. I'm obviously hyperbolic here, but so is the problem.
Next, a guy trying to approach a woman on the street, having been specifically instructed to act in the creepiest way possible.

Again, approaching women is apparently now forbidden, so even if he wanted to just ask her number or whatever, he has broken the feminist law by not respecting women enough to stop existing in their general vicinity. He gets stopped by another black guy (I'm starting to see a pattern here, especially since all "bad"men are white, funny how that works), when he didn't do anything legally wrong, or even anything morally wrong yet. If he had, it would be a different story, but we presume innocence, not guilt. Next, a couple of inspirational clips from non-white people (what a ratio, huh), and two callbacks. The first one is a guy following a group of bullies and breaking up the conflict, which is actually probably the one part of this I have no issue with, that does happen, and such response could be appropriate. And the second one is a dad breaking up kids playfighting at a BBQ. Again. Playfighting is a normal thing that happens. So what the fuck is the issue?

Next, in response to a couple of lines from you specifically. Going by your logic, what stops me from hunting down the person responsible for directing this ad and doing something bad to them? Or even to a lesser extent, ddoxing them or sending death threats online? Oh right, we have that thing called societal norms and "morals" which tell me that this is a bad and counterproductive thing to be doing. Same applies everywhere else. So, yeah, nice strawman.
And by the way, what "hero" men are they showing? Maybe firefighters saving lives, or working class dudes doing the worst jobs so that society can function? Nah son, we ain't about caring about other people, we're about showing how it is best to lecture whatever dude tries to talk to women that he has now offended half the world, breaking up a playfight (which is at best misinformed), and following a bunch of kids to see they are bullying someone and get them to stop (this one is completely fine).

So yeah, I would like to see any sort of proof that this is not ideologically motivated by the intersectional feminist hate mob, given that they had 3 strikes ("Toxic Masculinity", #MeToo, and TYT), and literally every fucking thing they focus on is a first world problem and actively dissing men. Approaching women? Bad. Playfighting? Bad. Boys being boys and not girls? Bad. And if you want I can find you some great statistics about all of this, like for instance the one that showcases that women overall do in fact prefer being approached by guys than approaching them themselves, and guys are more inclined to make the first move as well. Or maybe data on how only 1% of playfights transition into real fights? Or maybe a whole load of feminist articles that are simply hating on men without presenting any constructive points? Pick anything you like mate.

You’re once again missing context. Playfighting- not bad. Bad in context. You think playfighting is always good? If someone started wrestling at your wedding or a family funeral- that’s fine by you? Context. Things are just repeating at this point. But they did make constructive points. You’re just missing all of them because you are focused on wanting to see the “anti male agenda.” Let me break these down for you.

1. Play fighting: kids do it naturally. Not everywhere or any time is ok for that. Playfighting is a natural social and developmental mechanism. It’s not the only way to advance or express the skills it builds however. It was less about playfighting and more about the concept that violence should not be glorified or even made socially acceptable. Violence is a tool. It is used where and when needed. Most people will love their lives never having to use violence in any serious way.

2. Women/ come ons: women are t off limits. The whole point was to use your brain. In fact- much of this ad relies on you using your brain. You ask- what if that man wanted to say something other than to hit on her? Well... then don’t stop him. It’s a commercial about toxic masculinity and the fact you ask that question means you know full well that in this commercial- that man was going to hit on her. You can still ask women questions or talk to them. You can do those things without hitting on a woman you know? CONTEXT. think man. You see a woman walking by and you think she looks good. What else? You know nothing about her. So you are going to try and talk to her? Because why? About what? That’s the point. Many women don’t want to talk to men who are only approaching them because they are good looking. She probably knows she is good looking on some level.

You can still initiate with women. Where appropriate and as appropriate. Not while she’s walking by in a hurry someone people go to do errands. Not when she’s obviously busy. Not out of the blue with no prompt. Ask yourself this one question: would you walk up to a dude in the exact same situation and say something similar? If not- then it’s 99.9% a bad idea. If so- it may still be a bad idea, but at least you aren’t being totally dumb.

You’re in way over your head. You don’t seem to be able to understand the idea that things aren’t “good” or “bad” as much as that some things are sometimes good or sometimes bad. You’d likely be happy if I gave you water in a desert. You’d likely be upset if I gave you water while your boat was sinking. Engage your brain. “These are first world problems...” Do you think.... an American Football Super Bowl commercial.... for Disposible razors.... some of which cost a week or more in wages in less developed countries... would be.... aimed at preventing malaria, or on how to turn plastic bags into wheels for your push cart? It’s a fucking super bowl commercial. You don’t get much more first world than paying enough money for 30 seconds of broadcast as could feed a village for decades, on a game played by guys who make more than some countries do in a year. You have to be a troll, or extremely dense. Please. Please. Read. Books. Talk to humans. New ones you don’t already know. Take a trip?

As I mentioned in my string, it basically refers to anything that a feminist considers offensive or wrong. Approaching women or making an inoffensive remark towards one, apparently counts, kids playfighting (which is a normal thing that happens, but good luck explaining that to someone who has no idea what boys are like or believes that gender is a social construct). The only thing that the commercial depicts and is in fact wrong is bullying, however, it is only evident that that is the case, once it is confirmed in the montage at the end if the ad. None of this falls under definition of "Toxic", but it is something feminists don't like and therefore it is toxic.

Ok, first of all toxic meninists like you two (well, Garlog's mainly just a troll aiming for very low hanging fruit) don't get to decide what's toxic behaviour and what's not. Know what`? Every single a$$hole in this solar system is pretty, pretty sure s/he's quite a decent person. That's why the Zeitgeist get's the final word and it seems you two are called out. If you guys have really watched that spot and don't believe that most of what's depicted there is toxic, meaning that it hurts men and women who aim to live together as equals in a society alike, then your train has left the station and it's useless to argue with the likes of you, like I wouldn't argue with Guy Fieri about health food or Bill Cosby about flirting moves. You're still a lot (about a quarter americans voted for such a jerk) but you're going extinct. Godspeed!

Buddy, if I don't get to decide what is toxic and what is not, why are you the one who is allowed to? By what right? Society decides what is toxic and what is not, and by the current standards, there is only one instance in this commercial where something is decidedly wrong. And by what metric are women unequal right now? They have the same legal rights as men, there are laws against paying women different wages for jobs of the same value, so how are they not equal? You have not refuted a single point that I have made, and resurted to insults, meaning that you have nothing to back up your claims.
So go ahead, I created a chat specifically for this, debate me in front of the FunSubstance community, or give up. Try me.
https://funsubstance.com/chat/view/id/244085/

I quote myself: " It's useless to argue with the likes of you, like I wouldn't argue with Guy Fieri about health food or Bill Cosby about flirting moves." That's not even an insult from a certain angle. I mean, seriously, what has Cosby done wrong, according to himself? See what I mean? No, you don't, which is why I'm definitely not going to join your little "debate" which from your POV is "giving up" I'm sure. Enjoy.

You're not gonna get very far convincing people of these ideas if you called them trolls for trying to figure out what the fuck's going on. I'm just trying to get on their level so we can maybe find some semblance of common ground.

They have! Many others too. The Gillette ad addressed two major negative socially ingrained concepts of traditional masculinity- violence and sexual aggressiveness. They did so at a time when a record number of high profile incidents involving men and sexual assault have come up. But they and others have also taken stands against “Toxic Femininty” negative socially ingrained concepts of traditionally femininity. Things like: being docile, not speaking up for yourself, reliance on marriage or home making as an only option, not taking charge or making your own decisions, not embracing sexuality, and so on. So by your logic- every company which has ever made ads in which they challenged women to break those traditional “feminine traits” should now make ads like the Gillette ad, doing the same and telling men it’s time to leave those negative traits in the past and elevate themselves?

Or how about the stuff that isnt passive like abusing divorce courts, using children as social leverage, abusing the court system in general, using false accusations as social leverage, slut shaming eachother, etc. All the things you listed are passive and forgiveable and it seems like you intentionally avoided mentioning these things.

@xdmaniac- We already covered WAY near the start of this that family courts and other biases exist towards women. It’s not really relevant to the discussion though. If you go to your doctor, and tell them you have a bad cough, is their standard reply to go “oh yeah? What about that guy over there with runny nose?!” They are separate problems, each needing to be solved, but solving one doesn’t solve the other. Rape, sexaul assault, false accusations- those are their own complex topic. It all falls under a larger umbrella of gender issues and equality, protection by law and so on. But so does tax law and home zoning. So we can talk about every possible law and social injustice, or the ones this thread is about. Rape and sexual assault are both topics that are also being addressed in society right now, but they aren’t part of this discussion directly.

These things are being brought up because they're thrown out as accusations against men in general even though most men have never done these things and its mostly a messed up minority.
It would be like making a commercial saying black people need to stop committing crimes and leaving fatherless homes and selling drugs. Do some of them do that? Yeah, but you're kind of an asshole addressing all of them as if they all do it. As if these problems are original sin and you need to repent for the sins of all humanity even if you have none yourself

There are commercials like that all the time. Al Sharpton and many others have stood up and addressed the entire “black community” about issues like crime and education and the way blacks can effect how blacks are perceived by others. In fact it’s been that way for decades with individual women and minorities acting as “ambassadors” for their groups- knowing that if they fail or somehow invite public shame that they aren’t simply setting themselves back, but their group. Many feel this way in their daily lives- that they must actively try, especially in public view, to avoid things that would even hint to negative stereotypes society has about their groups because they do not want to validate or further negative stereotypes. Other groups and males of minority groups have long been held in their own “communities” to messages to lift each other up and to set an example that if “one looks bad, all look bad...”

Now such messages are finding their way into a mainstream male dominated culture where men are telling each other that one bad man makes all men look bad, not to be that man, not to stand by and do nothing or aid others. It’s a message that men who were already doing right know and have lived by, and men who weren’t can be aware. Because the corporations putting these ads out are largely owned and chaired by whom? What demographic is primarily in majority control of Gillette? So perhaps you can see the difference? They aren’t telling one group of men something, they aren’t telling people who aren’t in their “group” to do something. They are speaking to their peers- a primary difference from when one would release ads telling people who aren’t their peers of negative image. There’s a strong difference there.

It kinda flys in the face of the american spirit of individuality and individual freedom. Judging a man for his very existence rather than his own actions or associations.
The major problem with the ad is that its not sincere. A corporation is not an individual, not a person. Corporations are cold and this was a calculated effort to regain market share. They don't give a damn about toxic masculinity but they know the commercial will get shared all over the place.
I'm not responding after this one. Dont worry its not out of spite or anything ive just gotten tired of this topic and don't feel interested in discussing it for awhile.
Fantastic people, i respect your opinions, i just disagree. I look forward to discussions like this again on another post.

Fair enough. No offense taken, and please don’t think it’s disrespectful- and feel free to respond or not- but I don’t see it that way. Firstly- the spirit of American freedom still applies to corporations and the individuals who work for them. Starting a campaign of awareness for this is no different than a company starting a drinking and driving campaign or a cancer awareness campaign. When a company or NPO runs a foundation or grant or a study- are they saying that some group of people is incapable of helping themselves, or are they saying “we have a lot- let’s ise some to help people who don’t?” More over- they didn’t call men anything. They simply ran a campaign to make people aware of their habits. Lots of companies run campaigns to tell people not to litter or waste resources- are they calling you a litterer- or are they giving a “common sense” message in an era where you can’t count on everyone having “common sense” and many have shown they lack it in that regard?