Morning Team, it’s me, your favourite, Jordan at The Screen and today, I would like to talk to you about the now infamous Gillette advert.
Oh boy, this advert has really blown up in their faces, has it not? It’s really split opinion; I’m not sure why, the advert sucks ass but, there are those who like it. In fact, in a show of solidarity and defiance, I have not shaved in a total of 3-4 hours.
Today, I want to look at what the ad is all about, how people have responded and generally discuss the backlash of it.
So, without further ado:
The ad was uploaded to YouTube on Sunday 13th January and is 108 seconds of pure misandry. It opens with the phrases “bullying, me too, masculinity… is this the best a man can get”, continuing by suggesting these behaviours (and sexual harassment) are “taking over [and] have been going on for too long” because it has always been dismissed as “boys will be boys”.
They are suggesting that sexual assault, rape, bullying and misogyny is widespread and prevalent in men and boys rather than being a very small percentage of men. They are taking far outliers and pretending they are the norm. This is disgusting.
I have to say, I find it so hilarious they cite the #MeToo movement here in this piece of feminist agitprop what with the fact the #MeToo movement was heavily influenced by the allegations of sexual assault against known feminist ally Harvey Weinstein. You remember Harvey Weinstein? He was an attendee at The Women’s March!? He sat next to Hillary Clinton at Planned Parenthood’s 100th Anniversary Gala and pledged $100,000 to them? Remember him!?
Here, Gillette are alleging the Harvey Weinstein type is the norm – sorry, Gillette, the overwhelming majority of men are not feminist allies, only 4% consider themselves feminists, according to the Fawcett Society.
The overwhelming majority of men are not “feminist allies” and are certainly not sexual predators.
Ana Kasparian then features in the video, talking about allegations of a sexual nature. She is part of far-Left news outlet The Young Turks whose founder, Cenk Uygur, has openly denied the Armenian Genocide. The name of the outlet comes from the Turkish political movement that perpetrated the Armenian Genocide during 1915-17. It’s akin to featuring a blond-hair, blue-eyes, white guy on a show called The Hitler Youth whose founder openly denies the holocaust. It wouldn’t happen but, this!? According to Gillette, this is fine.
The advert then condescendingly states men can be better and hold each other accountable because, apparently, the allegations featured at the beginning of the advert are so widespread, only we men can fix it from the inside. We need to be constantly vigilant for this that is happening all the time.
Tell me, Gillette, if this behaviour is so widespread and prevalent in men, and yet you want men to change it, which men are you pitching this advert to!?
The advert then features really stupid “examples” (and I use that word very tentatively) of men being oppressive. In the first, a guy tells a woman (who has resting bitch face) to smile (probably because of her resting bitch face). I’m not sure what the scenario is supposed to be depicting, they appear to be having a pool party but, there’s a guy with a gert camera filming. Is this a music video? I don’t know. If it is, then, the director is simply doing his job. After this guy tells her to smile, some white-knight aggressively jumps in and about three people assist to gang up on the oppressive male. Seems kind of hypocritical for Gillette to complain about bullying then showcase four people bullying someone into silence because that person told a moody person to chill out.
And yet, this is the height of female oppression, according to Gillette, a moody woman being told to lighten up.
Not being gang-raped then decapitated, like what happens to women in the Middle East.
Not having her genitals carved into, mutilated and stitched shut like in the Eastern Horn of Africa.
No, that’s not real oppression, being told to smile, that’s the real oppression. I’m so glad Gillette has it here.
The next features a Taylor Swift lookalike walking down the street. A guy sees her and starts to approach to say hello. His white knight friend jumps in, holds him back and says “bro, not cool”. I’m assuming it’s his friend otherwise, who the heck is this guy thinking he can go and physically stop anyone when they go to say hello? If he’s not associated with him then, that guy has every right to accuse him of battery as he is being unlawfully manhandled by him – he full-on pushes the guy back, restraining him. Bro, not cool, not cool.
Saying hello is oppression.
White schoolgirls being repeatedly raped over decades in the British Midlands? Not oppression.
Schoolgirls being denied education by warlords in war-stricken Africa? Doesn’t exist.
Men saying “hello” to women!? Now that’s real oppression!
The advert finishes by showing what men already do, intervening when things go wrong but, Gillette says this is only some men who do this and it doesn’t happen enough. Ironic they say this yet at no point in the advert do we see women taking the lead and looking out for other people. I guess that doesn’t matter.
The advert then finishes by saying the boys of today will be the men of tomorrow.
I’m gonna put my lefty hat on for a second here and complain about the disgusting transphobia going on here.
Now I’m gonna take my lefty hat off again.
Also, what a wonderfully condescending message: you men are vile, toxic, bullying, rapist-misogynists and, unless if you fix yourselves then your sons will grow up to become vile, toxic, bullying, rapist-misogynists. Nice, Gillette, real nice.
Men are toxic and only men can stop other men being toxic so boys of today do not grow to be toxic men of tomorrow.
What the heck?
How much would they be willing to say the same damn thing about other groups?
I wish to pass over the mic to Imam Mohamad Tawhidi, who put it excellently with this here Tweet:
Peter Lloyd had something similar to say:
A question I have is: what were Gillette thinking? They create an advert showing (what they perceive to be) men being douchebags, they then admonish said men (their consumer base) for being douchebags and say, sure, some of you are alright but, (by implication) most of you are not – you are vile, toxic, bullying, rapist-misogynists – so, sort your act out. How many boards/iterations of testing & Quality Assurance did this advert pass through – how come it wasn’t rejected!?
I’ll show you why.
According to the Irish Times and the Daily Mail, the ad was directed by Kim Gehrig at the UK-based production agency, Somesuch, this is her here. Further, according to AdAge, Gehrig was selected via parent-company Procter & Gamble‘s partnership with Free the Bid, a program that launched in 2016 that aims to get more female directors on ads; P&G began getting involved with the effort last year. Thus, Gehrig was a Diversity Hire!!! That’s right, the director of the advert that accused men & masculinity of being rapey, bullying & misogynistic won the job not on merit but, because of “muh vagene”.
This is why the advert passed: because women need to sit at the big boys’ table.
Gehrig was also behind the 2015 This Girl Can advertising campaign for Sport England and “Viva La Vulva”, an advertisement for Swedish feminine hygiene brand Libresse which features a singing clam held in front of naked women (and additional vulva-looking objects as well).
The This Girl Can advert is about female empowerment and features women engaging in sporty activity saying, these girls can. It’s about exploring one’s potential and pushing their boundaries. Overall, a good advert except for the moment where the advert says “I kick balls. Deal with it”, alluding to… well, you know what it’s alluding to.
The difference in tone is so damn noticeable, as the blog Male Lives Matter points out. The former says “you men are vile, toxic, bullying, rapist-misogynists” and the latter says “you women can chase your dreams and achieve what you want”. A clear difference in meaning.
Furthermore (and I have to pop back on the leftist/feminist hat agin), what gives Gehrig the damn right to argue any of this!? According to the feminist narrative, we men have no right to speak on women’s issues such as menstruation, menopause, rape culture or abortion simply because we are not women – we lack the lived experience. So, if we are to expect any damn consistency, it stands to reason women have no right to lecture men on our issues & lived experience as, well, they lack the qualifications. Who the heck does she think she is, clamsplaining to us men how to be men!? What, does she think she can nag us into being better men!? When has that ever worked!?
It gets worse.
According to Peter Lloyd, who cites insiders at Procter & Gamble, a (female) vice president of P&G recently told a 100-person-strong meeting “I will never promote a straight, white man again”.
Following the disgusting advert P&G has uploaded, I would not be surprised if this is true.
Gillette, P&G, you have both set a precedent for your companies.
Hot damn, the response has been terrible. The advert itself has a total of 1.1million+ dislikes to 623,000 likes (there was a period, shortly after it first aired, where the ratio was 1 like & 10 dislikes) and the comments have absolutely slammed it.
There were a few people who have complained the stats were fiddled with and their comments were deleted. I, obviously, cannot verify this but, these claims have been repeated around the internet. Who knows!?
People also took to Twitter to express their disapproval.
I want to address the main arguments/issues that people have put forth vis-à-vis this advert.
One such argument being Gillette or, any other company, would not have made an advert like this about any other group. There was a comment I read on YouTube which I really liked, it went like this:
Let’s pretend that we saw a video that showcased black people doing drugs, and then another black guy steps in and says “We need to be more responsible”. Then they show black gang members about to knife each other up, and another black guy comes and says “Woah, we should be better, guys”. Or maybe black men putting on ski masks and pulling out guns about to rob a convenience store, then another black guy stops them and says “Stop. Not cool guys”. How would you feel about a video like this? It would be horrible, right? Racist? Discriminatory?
Well, the makers of the vid can always tell the complainers that “this video is not for all black people. Only for those who actually do the stuff in the vid.” You can also say something like, “Yes, we know not all black people do these things, but there are enough of them who do so we need to address it.” And then imagine that every time a black person complains about that video, other people will silence these complaints by applying the negative stereotype on the speaker, as they will say something like “The fact that you’re complaining about it must mean that you engage in the exact same toxic black actions shown in the video.” Horrible right?
And yet it’s that exact same kind of stereotyping that is shown in the Gillette video. They take some of the worst practices done by some men and then present it like it’s how majority of men act. They’re presenting a negative stereotype of men… and here I thought we were fighting against stereotypes? What’s worse is that every time a man complains about the ad, people are quick to apply that negative stereotype on the complainer, claiming the complainer is “not a real man” and is instead proof of the toxic masculinity showcased in the video. I mean, think about it. Isn’t this the kind of discrimination we worked so hard to fight against?
He makes a good point.
As such, we here at The Screen await with eager anticipation for Gillette Venus to an advert for toxic femininity, covering issues such as:
- False rape allegations
- Female Domestic Violence Perpetrators (both women-on-men and women-on-women)
- Paternity Fraud
- Mothers who use the court system to get back at their husbands
- Female rape perpetrators (on both male and female victims)
Their tag-line could be this:
“Women need to hold other women accountable. We believe in the best in women. To say the right thing. To act the right way. Some already are. In ways big, and small….
……BUT “SOME” IS NOT ENOUGH.”
Somehow, I think we’ll be waiting a long time until they release such an advert.
The Mainstream Media, as per the norm, have completely different views to the ordinary person. They wholeheartedly support the advert, decrying those who dislike it as being part of the problem, they are MRAs, conservatives, et cetera. I’m not gonna spend any time discussing them because we all know what they say and their drivel has been spouted everywhere.
One of the few voices not screeching about them MRAs & conservatives can be found in Forbes. The author, Charles Taylor, notes how Gillette has lost around 30% of its market share over the past decade which, considering what will be mentioned later about #GetWokeGoBroke, could spell the end times for Gillette no matter how unintentional. He points to three reasons why he thinks it went wrong:
- While corporate social responsibility appeals can be effective, corporations must be sensitive to the potential of consumers being sceptical of their motives, or not wanting to be told how to behave by a profit-motivated company.
- The creative in the “Best a Man Can Be” could be more effective if delivered differently.
- Politically charged language should be avoided by advertisers.
In point 2, he explains how the ad suggests most men engage in the negative behaviours shown in the ad which, obviously, they do not. This will irk male viewers and anyone who gives a damn about men.
In point 3, he rightly says the use of the term “toxic masculinity” was a flat out mistake. I would go further but, as he was writing for Forbes, I can understand his… diplomacy.
Dr John Barry said the advert inspires shame in men, tweeting: “Isn’t it time we stopped excusing *bad behavior*?” Well, @Gillette seem to have been advised by their marketing department that making men feel ashamed will sell more razors. Given the high rates of male suicide, isn’t magnifying male shame a clear example of *bad behaviour*?
Research from the suicide prevention charity The Samaritans shows “Men compare themselves against a masculine ‘gold standard’ which prizes power, control and invincibility. Having a job and providing for the family is central to this, especially for working class men… When men believe they are not meeting that standard they feel a sense of shame and defeat.” For men, masculinity means being strong for your family and providing for them, caring for them. They also note how men do not want to burden those around them with their troubles. If they feel like they are holding down their families, these men remove themselves to prevent them from burdening their families for any longer.
Further, as The Harry’s Masculinity Report, co-authored by Dr John Barry and Martin Daubney, shows, men value Honesty, Reliability, Dependability, Loyalty & Commitment as the five top values considered most important to them as men and the main predictors of happiness in men were job satisfaction & being in a long term relationship. Men feel a sense of duty towards those around them. It is a core part of their identity which, when taken from them, can lead them to suicidal behaviours. This Gillette advert simultaneously denies men’s commitment to those around them whilst shaming them for this so-say lack of care.
I would also like to cite research by Stoet & Geary, whose paper published earlier this month, titled A Simplified Approach to Measuring National Gender Inequality, introduced the Basic Indicator of Gender Inequality (BIGI) which found, in more advanced nations, they are more egalitarian (but, show favour to women & girls) and it is in lesser developed nations where women & girls suffer. We here in the West live in advanced nations that favour women & girls at the expense of men & boys, look, for example, at the discrepancies in life expectancy, genital mutilation, education, health outcomes, services for victims of domestic violence, et cetera. The Gillette advert, portraying life as men being dicks to women, simply isn’t true.
Dame Esther Rantzen, the founder of Childline, said it was wrong to stereotype and blame one gender. She added that her experience working with the charity has shown girls can be as “equally unpleasant” as boys. She wrote that it is true “that in some countries men have created regimes that repress women and use sexual violence against them… But to bring about the changes for the creation of equal societies we need strong, empowered men and women to work together… Adverts such as Gillette’s set men and women against each other and create resentment.” It also “tars all men with same brush”, she stated.
Newtown Fire & Rescue in New South Wales, Australia, put up a sign saying “House fires are toxic, our masculinity isn’t”.
They receive a lot of social media attention for the different signs they put up out front of their building and, usually, to positive reception. However, this one received a lot of negative responses so much they took it down, deleted their Facebook post and apologised.
I shall reiterate: they took down the sign, deleted their Facebook post and apologized for saying their masculinity isn’t toxic.
Men, whose job description is to literally climb into fire & risk their lives to save other people, were bullied into silence & shame because they refused to be tarred as toxic.
This is evidence of the misandry pervasive in society.
I would like to, momentarily, discuss some hypocrisy I’ve noticed. See, the dialogue went like this:
Gillette: Men are violent, bullying rapists.
Men: If you want to say that, we won’t buy your products.
Feminists: Haha, the menz, conservatives & MRAs are triggered. #LOL!
Also Feminists: How dare #ProteinWorld show an attractive woman and suggest I should be physically healthy, this is literal oppression!
THE HYPOCRISY KNOWS NO BOUNDS!!!
Gillette was essentially accusing all men of being vile, toxic, bullying, rapist-misogynists and Protein World only asked for people to be fit and healthy. Their adverts were vandalized and covered in graffiti, as seen here yet, these same feminists are calling men out for not liking they were called vile, toxic, bullying, rapist-misogynists.
In fact, the feminists cried so much, the Committee of Advertising Practice, which writes the codes all UK advertisers must follow, changed its rules following the Protein World advertisement. The same feminists who are telling men to accept adverts which accuse them all of being vile, toxic, bullying, rapist-misogynists are the same feminists who nagged the Committee of Advertising Practise into changing national regulations! Talk about #FragileFeminism!!!
The outrage has sparked action and angry customers are now saying they will no longer purchase Procter & Gamble (P&G) products. The hashtag of #GetWokeGoBroke was repeated a lot.
What #GetWokeGoBroke means is when companies and/or organizations “get woke”, they alienate their consumers and lose their custom, causing them to “go broke”.
If done improperly, it can really bite you in the ass, as it has done. Other such examples are:
- Star Wars
- Ocean’s Eight
- Doctor Who
- Marvel’s Social Justice Comics
- Battlefield 5
- Boy Scouts USA
See, Gillette are just trying to jump on the bandwagon of looking like it cares. I am reminded of that tweet “We are living in an era of woke capitalism in which companies pretend to care about social justice to sell products to people who pretend to hate capitalism.”
The National Coalition of Men sent a letter to the President of P&G informing him the Coalition will be boycotting their products and included on their website a link to a list of all P&G products so they could all be boycotted. I recommend all my viewers to send a letter as well. As we do not have his contact information (for obvious reasons), P&G can be emailed through their online portal which can be found by clicking this hyperlink.
However, it could play well into Gillette’s & P&G’s hands, just as the Nike & Colin Kaepernick advertisements increased Nike’s stock prices and increased their profits. Remember, the “believe in something even if it means sacrificing everything” ads? Many were irritated and called for a boycott but, the boycott and controversy played into Nike’s hands because the outrage expressed served as the fuel needed for their guerrilla advertisement campaign. The response to the advert was the advert. It could very much be the same for Gillette and P&G.
To finish, I would like to pledge my support for three companies, so to end this video on a high note:
- Harry’s: They supported the Male Psychology Network to create the Masculinity Report cited earlier. They also fund and support a whole host of other men’s initiatives.
- Dollar Shave Club: They support a lot of YouTube content creators, privately sponsoring videos. They helped support, for example, H3H3.
- Egard Watches: They released their own advert responding to Gillette and it is amazing. The CEO & Founder of Egard Watches, Ilan Srulovicz, funded his advert personally, filmed and edited it all himself because he truly believes in the goodness of ordinary men.
Those are three companies I recommend we support, instead of Gillette.
That will do for this video, thanks for watching.