I just watched the Gillette commercial that everyone is upset about.
There was a time when--at least aspirationally--conservatism meant behaving with decorum, and modesty, and restraint. Conservatism may have had other problems, and it did, but a deficit in these qualities was not among them.
Weird, I know, but as recently as the 1990s conservatism generally meant looking down on boorish behaviour rather than praising it or making excuses for it. It also meant protecting the weak, rather than protecting their attackers.
Yes, "protecting the weak" usually meant protecting women, and yes, that brought its own problems with regard to sexism. But such problems are much preferable to the ones we get when conservatism feels it has to defend the boors and the bullies of the world.
It might be nice if someone were to reconstruct that older, more gentlemanly conservatism, just without the older, more gentlemanly sexism that often went with it.
Maybe it actually IS botched, and maybe that's why I don't see the good in speaking up for a gang of kids who'd hunt down and beat up a lone child who's half their size?
Maybe that just happens to be a part of masculinity that's crucially important, but I missed it. I was too busy being the kid that everyone wanted to beat up.
Hey @honeybee, sorry to hear about you being the kid getting beaten up. That must have sucked. Still, I think you have turned out fine.
I just watched the video. There are almost 1 million dislikes. Wow, that is impressive. Almost twice as many dislikes as likes. That is quite unusual. You used the tag 'troglodyte', that's pretty cool. Only post using that tag right now.
Some people might see this commercial as hypocritical on behalf of Gillette. Gillette ads are typically showing off macho guys with attractive women admiring their masculinity. This ad is completely the opposite. So dislikes on those grounds can be expected.
The ad could also be seen as villainizing men, which to an extent it is. The ad is 'the best men can be' which aligns with the Gillette gimmick. So that can justify the angle.
The ad also antagonises Trump supports. The ad screams don't be like Trump. This should be obvious to Gillette.
There are a lot of things we can talk about in regards to the outrage. We can take a look at women's rights. Women's rights, at least in western countries, have improved dramatically. This does not necessarily mean women's lives are better. Many surveys suggest almost the opposite. Reports of domestic violence suggests that as well. Laws, rules, and policies can tell one story. People's actions and attitude can tell another story.
Going back to Gillette. Do they really care about the message they sent? I don't think so. I think they predicted that many people would be outraged as well as many people that support it. All of this equals more publicity for them; free publicity.
The Nike ad that sparked outrage worked very well for them. I think sales went up by over 30%. This ad might do the same for Gillette. It's worth checking in 6 months.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
There where 9 times the downvotes at one time.
But what about women's obligations and accountability? No one looks at that yet if you want the same rights then you should also accept the same obligations. And you should also be hold accountable for your choices the same.
And do note how all the women in the advert are shown weak and in need of protection by the good men.
But it might still be a success. After all women control 80% of spending.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think Gillette have trapped themselves because the focus is on men as they are advertising men's shaving products. At the same time they are pushing a message that involves both men and women. They can respond with a similar ad for women's products. They probably shouldn't wait too long.
On paper, I believe in most western countries, women have equal rights/opportunities to men. The application of those rights are distorted and so are the perceptions. In some work places some women benefit because they are quickly pushed up the ladder to create the impression of equality. These same workplaces also discriminate against women by informally restricting opportunities. So we get a situation where some women are climbing ladders but not through a meritorious process.
You mention obligations and accountability. In that aspect I think we are in a transition period. Some women were comfortable with some of the customs of being treated as the weaker sex. Chivalry can be argued to be sexist but how many women are opposed to it? So there is the aspect of wanting the best of both worlds. I see that as part of human nature.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's now a hundred years since women got the vote. Transition should be over.
And there is more then just chivalry. Most common example is the conscription aka draft aka selective service.
Germany for example can draft women into non combat roles if need be. But Germany is also the country with a truly gender neutral rape law.
In most countries a woman forcing a man to have sex with them are not held to the same accountability as the other way around.
The lag of obligation and accountability for women is not just chivalry — it deeply rooted in the laws of many countries.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Oh. I am in the dark then because i have not heard about the gilette commercial
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit