nudge Posted January 16, 2019 Posted January 16, 2019 10 minutes ago, Azeem said: Isn't that one of the main focus of modern women rights movements ? Anything that men can do women can do and should be given equal opportunity. But like you said there are some biological differences that make some roles men specific. Like Armed forces, we had our first female fighter pilot couple of years ago sadly she died in a crash. But there are reports that she didn't died because of the crash rather she died of a heart attack as soon as she lost control of the plane. Since then women pilots are unofficially grounded. Why can't they openly say that if its true ? It will be unfair to women rights if females are found unfit for that role ? Its not like every other man can fly a supersonic jet Certain professions are definitely better suited for either men or women, although in your fighter pilot example I'm not so sure as I don't think there's any biological reason for women to be more likely to experience a heart attack in a situation like that. It's probably more about the overall cardiovascular strength and general fitness as well as mental strength of an individual. That said, there might be gender differences in things like G tolerance and spatial awareness for sure.
Harry Posted January 16, 2019 Posted January 16, 2019 A contender for post of the year nudge. With much of what you said It's more than just this one issue. There's been a major breakdown in discourse. both sides on each issue now no longer seem to go into debates aiming to strike common ground. Rather just demonize your opponent, stubbornly insist on being right and make no progress...
Azeem Posted January 16, 2019 Posted January 16, 2019 30 minutes ago, nudge said: Certain professions are definitely better suited for either men or women, although in your fighter pilot example I'm not so sure as I don't think there's any biological reason for women to be more likely to experience a heart attack in a situation like that. It's probably more about the overall cardiovascular strength and general fitness as well as mental strength of an individual. That said, there might be gender differences in things like G tolerance and spatial awareness for sure. As i said not every other man can fly a supersonic jet. If she was not ready for such a responsiblety why was she given a go. Just to make headlines
The Artful Dodger Posted January 16, 2019 Posted January 16, 2019 The problem of the advert isn't the message, it's the cynical use of it by a huge company. They would livestream the rape of children if it thought it would get them more sales, these companies have zero morality or social concern whatsoever.
Harry Posted January 16, 2019 Posted January 16, 2019 8 hours ago, The Artful Dodger said: The problem of the advert isn't the message, it's the cynical use of it by a huge company. They would livestream the rape of children if it thought it would get them more sales, these companies have zero morality or social concern whatsoever. It's a major change in how they are positioning their brand and they're using a high cost a super bowl commercial to do it
Harry Posted January 17, 2019 Posted January 17, 2019 https://twitter.com/MikeDrucker/status/1085226593910325249?s=09
Danny Posted January 17, 2019 Posted January 17, 2019 14 hours ago, The Artful Dodger said: Not seen the advert or care to but itt's boss how angry these 'men's rights' types get about this kind of thing, twitter is a goldmine of middle-aged, creepy men angry at being 'emasculated'. For that alone, the advert deserves applauding. This.
Cicero Posted January 17, 2019 Posted January 17, 2019 Toxic masculinity. One bloke just told a girl he should smile more
6666 Posted January 17, 2019 Posted January 17, 2019 The advert isn't as cringeworthy as that Pepsi advert but it probably is the dumbest advert I've seen for a while specifically for the fact that it's virtue signalling to go against its target market rather than virtue signalling to appeal to its target market. It's a pretty ridiculous strategy. Don't think it was that offensive but I can see why there's people not happy about it. Everyone's supposed to be okay with the nothing things that people get outraged over but should be against the outrage of half the world being demonised...? If it was ten percent the other way, there would be hell. This is the unfortunate thing about politics now when talking about people that are tribal like when it comes to being left wing or right wing. Both sides actually know what the issue is with bigoted or extremely generalised statements but only apply that knowledge if it suits their agenda. "You can't hold people accountable or demonise people for other people's actions" shouldn't be a difficult concept to live by all across the board. Same thing when it comes to feminism. It's unfair to look at the airhead feminists on social media crying about nothing situations and then think all feminism is like that. Not saying this is right/left issue or a men vs. feminism issue but it's been positioned as that and idiots are playing their roles based off of it. Still can't get past how much of a dumb move this advert was though, trying to appeal to airhead feminists to sell razors to men.
Subscriber JoshBRFC+ Posted January 17, 2019 Subscriber Posted January 17, 2019 Am i the only one who instantly thinks of C-Note and Michael Schofield whenever the term snowflake is used to describe someone?
Harry Posted January 17, 2019 Posted January 17, 2019 2 hours ago, 6666 said: The advert isn't as cringeworthy as that Pepsi advert but it probably is the dumbest advert I've seen for a while specifically for the fact that it's virtue signalling to go against its target market rather than virtue signalling to appeal to its target market. It's a pretty ridiculous strategy. Don't think it was that offensive but I can see why there's people not happy about it. Everyone's supposed to be okay with the nothing things that people get outraged over but should be against the outrage of half the world being demonised...? If it was ten percent the other way, there would be hell. This is the unfortunate thing about politics now when talking about people that are tribal like when it comes to being left wing or right wing. Both sides actually know what the issue is with bigoted or extremely generalised statements but only apply that knowledge if it suits their agenda. "You can't hold people accountable or demonise people for other people's actions" shouldn't be a difficult concept to live by all across the board. Same thing when it comes to feminism. It's unfair to look at the airhead feminists on social media crying about nothing situations and then think all feminism is like that. Not saying this is right/left issue or a men vs. feminism issue but it's been positioned as that and idiots are playing their roles based off of it. Still can't get past how much of a dumb move this advert was though, trying to appeal to airhead feminists to sell razors to men. Maybe they're poised to announce a move into female razors, creams and balms?
IgnisExcubitor Posted January 17, 2019 Posted January 17, 2019 43 minutes ago, Harry said: Maybe they're poised to announce a move into female razors, creams and balms? Don't they have that already? And it's way more expensive than men's razors. @topic Not really surprised by the advert. Brands have increasingly started virtue signalling in their campaigns. The most important thing is to get noticed, and this works because one side will hail them while the other will outrage, so the first side with criticise the other side and then the second side will angrily counter, then we will have op-eds and counter op-eds, discussions on the telly,........ This bubble will burst eventually, and the brands will find a new way to market themselves.
nudge Posted January 17, 2019 Posted January 17, 2019 9 hours ago, IgnisExcubitor said: Don't they have that already? And it's way more expensive than men's razors. Correct, and they're also much worse than men's razors too...
Cicero Posted January 17, 2019 Posted January 17, 2019 On 2nd viewing, you can see all of the 'predators' or bullies are white whilst the protagonist in each scenario is black. Honestly. Why does everything have to be blatantly forced?
Subscriber Mel81x+ Posted January 17, 2019 Subscriber Posted January 17, 2019 I actually wonder how many customers Gillette P&G lost in the entire process? I'd wager that the ocean didn't give two shits about the drops that left.
The Artful Dodger Posted January 17, 2019 Posted January 17, 2019 11 hours ago, Harry said: Good call. Think Nike with Colin Kaepernick. Again, I can't pick a a side here because Nike do not care at all about racial inequality, they just want to make money but the byproduct of the advert was it making masses of collosal bellends really angry, so I owe it a debt in that respect becauee that sort of things makes me beam from ear to ear. Similarly with gillette, the irritation of bellends is extremely gratifying. The reactions in this thread alone providing much mirth.
Dr. Gonzo Posted January 17, 2019 Posted January 17, 2019 23 minutes ago, The Artful Dodger said: Again, I can't pick a a side here because Nike do not care at all about racial inequality, they just want to make money but the byproduct of the advert was it making masses of collosal bellends really angry, so I owe it a debt in that respect becauee that sort of things makes me beam from ear to ear. Similarly with gillette, the irritation of bellends is extremely gratifying. The reactions in this thread alone providing much mirth. Yeah, Nike taking on social causes while needing to rely on sweatshops to survive as they do is a bit fucking rich. They legit do not give a fuck about any sort of stance, as you said, all they care about is making money. However, watching right wing morons in America upload videos of them burning their expensive trainers to twitter and whatnot, was just hilarious. And seeing some people say "oh wow this might be the end of Nike" (lol) was hilariously naïve of how powerful a bunch of hateful losers on the internet would be in terms of persuading the general consuming public. Likewise, the Gillette ad is a stupid ad imo. But the backlash against it from the online army of incel weirdos is great. Identity politics is fucking shite though and I wish it'd have less of a prominent role in our society. But with how polarised the political culture is now, I think there'll definitely be more ad campaigns from American companies highlighting this shite
Cicero Posted January 17, 2019 Posted January 17, 2019 It's bollocks. The ad represents the current feminist movement (something I admired in the past). Emasculate men, but Gillette took it a step further. They emasculated 'white' men. That right there is when you can pin point the agenda. Like most, I find the whole thing patronising that white men only are being told how to behave. As if creeps aren't called out to begin with. Toxic Masculinity when a man told a women he should smile more and a man wanted to approach a women to introduce himself with hopes of snagging a number. Poor examples and the irony is that I've seen women do those kinds of things as well. Most importantly, they are a razor company. A pretty big one at that. If they are leaning towards this PC culture of advertisement at the risk of losing the majority of their target market, so be it. Hypocritical as well given their history of animal testing, but this will ultimately be the cost when companies get involved in politics.
Dr. Gonzo Posted January 17, 2019 Posted January 17, 2019 1 hour ago, Cicero said: It's bollocks. The ad represents the current feminist movement (something I admired in the past). Emasculate men, but Gillette took it a step further. They emasculated 'white' men. That right there is when you can pin point the agenda. Like most, I find the whole thing patronising that white men only are being told how to behave. As if creeps aren't called out to begin with. Toxic Masculinity when a man told a women he should smile more and a man wanted to approach a women to introduce himself with hopes of snagging a number. Poor examples and the irony is that I've seen women do those kinds of things as well. Most importantly, they are a razor company. A pretty big one at that. If they are leaning towards this PC culture of advertisement at the risk of losing the majority of their target market, so be it. Hypocritical as well given their history of animal testing, but this will ultimately be the cost when companies get involved in politics. There's a black guy in the commercial in that whole "boys will be boys" shite their criticising - then they show black and white men having their "epiphany" moment. Not sure I agree with the idea that this was targeting a particular race at all. I also take issue with the idea they've "emasculated" anyone. Is it because they've used the phrase "toxic masculinity?" Because that's a stupid phrase and I generally think people who say that are idiots, but it's sort of just a meaningless phrase. But other than that, it's more critical of parents who stand by their kids bullying & people who are sexist. Ultimately the political message it seems to be sending is "Teach your boys to be kind. Also shave with a Gillett razor." I'm not sure that the absence of kindness equates to masculinity, or that encouraging kindness equates to emasculating groups of men. I honestly think the people most offended by this ad are reading waaaaaaaay too far into this, it's honestly a bit hilarious. As with Nike and Kaepernick, Gillett's in no danger of losing the majority of their target market - this will blow over and people will forget about being irritated by this ad. And of course it's hypocritical, it's a big corporation pretending that it cares about anything other than it's own profits. As if they give a fuck about any social cause
Dr. Gonzo Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 Furthermore I think there’s a good argument to be made that razor companies have always been against masculinity. It’s a hair removal product, removing facial and body hair. Both of those are pretty manly things.
Subscriber Mel81x+ Posted January 18, 2019 Subscriber Posted January 18, 2019 If you thought the Gillette ad was a cracker you should go see the PETA ad for going vegan and improving 'male' performance that was released just one day after Gillette went out with their ad. Thought I wouldn't post it what the hell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL38scvWFno
Harry Posted January 18, 2019 Posted January 18, 2019 10 minutes ago, Mel81x said: If you thought the Gillette ad was a cracker you should go see the PETA ad for going vegan and improving 'male' performance that was released just one day after Gillette went out with their ad. Thought I wouldn't post it what the hell. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sL38scvWFno Terrible ad. And questionable premise too.... Maybe you'd last longer in bed as a vegan because when you become a pale ass sickly looking S.o.b that gets puffed out after every 5 thrusts you'll call a time out on the loving to talk about your feelings, make hemp clothing and play hacky sack.
Subscriber Mel81x+ Posted January 18, 2019 Subscriber Posted January 18, 2019 22 minutes ago, Harry said: Terrible ad. And questionable premise too.... Maybe you'd last longer in bed as a vegan because when you become a pale ass sickly looking S.o.b that gets puffed out after every 5 thrusts you'll call a time out on the loving to talk about your feelings, make hemp clothing and play hacky sack. I think it might actually be worse than Gillette's but that's debatable. I think the reason the PETA ad fails more is that it was trying to promote a Vegan lifestyle and I don't hate eating vegetables but that ad just made me not want to touch a vegetable for a bit.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.