Originally Posted by Brooklyn (Post 14070383)

Exactly. It’s only one side of their business. That’s why they didn’t condemn behavior from the other side of their business. Because that side of the business never used the tag line, Venus...the best a woman can get.

The best a man can get IS Gillette. That’s their thing. They own it from a branding perspective. So now they see in society that not all men are really behaving the best way a man can get. So they are telling the best of us to continue leading by positive example and call out those who aren’t.

You asked why the ad was only about one side of their business, but pretty sure you answered that for yourself.

EDIT: and if you didn’t know, Venus is the female brand of Gillette razors.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by stevieray (Post 14070386)

so, it's about money.

always is....LMAO

Originally Posted by Baby Lee (Post 14070413)

I didn't say you were complaining about anything. I asked if responding to observations about how advertising directed at women induces shame with 'what are you complaining about' was a road you wanted to go down.

You assert that there is a rich history of female-directed advertising that induces shame. I'm not necessarily refuting that.

But first, do you, in turn, acknowledge that this shame inducement towards women is usually more subtle, more subjective, more a factor of reading into the subtext? That it's more that the advertising touts high standards without actually pointing out how you don't measure up, while the Gillette ad is more overt and direct?

And second, do you in turn acknowledge that there have been concerted efforts to criticize and counter these shame-inducing messages insofar as they 'hurt' women, largely without controversy or complaint.

Why then would criticism, however mild, of a more explicit message directed at men be excused by the 'shameful history' of implicit messages directed at women, if they were properly subject to criticism.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 14070685)

People are more sensitive to it today so advertisers are generally very careful... recently. But there was nothing "implicit" about a lot of blatantly negative stereotyped ads about women reinforced by advertising over the decades. We didn't complain about it then. I'm not saying you don't have reason to complain about the Gillette ad. I'm just saying the argument that this hasn't happened in advertising to women is not only not true, it's really really not true.

Originally Posted by Baby Lee (Post 14070720)

YOU didn't complain, don't use WE without identifying your cohort.

There was and is plenty of complaining, about a lot more subtle and subjective messages than Gillette's. And the complainers were given latitude to complain, because complaining about their complaining was rude, unlike here.

I laid out what you would need to recognize in order to reach an accord. You deny, so we have to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 14069980)

So basically, you're ok with female stereotypes that make many perfectly fine women believe they are less of a woman, but outraged at an ad that tells men they're not manly enough. And no, I'm not offended by these ads, just as I wasn't offended by a Gillette ad I disagreed with. I just understand the double standard.

Originally Posted by GloryDayz (Post 14071070)

"Female stereotypes"? What, that beautiful, in shape, active, healthy, and confident women are going to get attention and be very sought after? If that's what you're referring to, who's really to blame, the men attracted to the women who do what it takes to be all those things, or the women who do it?

As for the commercial, for all the reasons that have become evident in the most recent posts, only an idiot would think the company who brought us hotties in latex with their company logo across their ass, in a few short years takes the content of that commercial seriously. It's so whorishly obviously that they're just looking to be talked about (remember, there is no bad press) that it's worth pointing out to people.

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501 (Post 14071110)

No, ads for decades blatantly played the women have no power anywhere whatsoever but the kitchen card. Using the "how would you feel if ads stereotyped women" card isnt quite the angle to take. And no, I don't think there's much difference preaching to women about what's lady-like anymore than preaching to a man what is masculine.

Originally Posted by FringeNC (Post 14195879)

WTF?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Go out there and slay the day 💪🏼 📸 Glitter + Lazers <a href="https://t.co/cIc0R3JfpR">pic.twitter.com/cIc0R3JfpR</a></p>&mdash; Gillette Venus (@GilletteVenus) <a href="https://twitter.com/GilletteVenus/status/1113565570354409473?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 3, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Originally Posted by FringeNC (Post 14195879)

WTF?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Go out there and slay the day 💪🏼 📸 Glitter + Lazers <a href="https://t.co/cIc0R3JfpR">pic.twitter.com/cIc0R3JfpR</a></p>&mdash; Gillette Venus (@GilletteVenus) <a href="https://twitter.com/GilletteVenus/status/1113565570354409473?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 3, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Originally Posted by FringeNC (Post 14195879)

WTF?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Go out there and slay the day 💪🏼 📸 Glitter + Lazers <a href="https://t.co/cIc0R3JfpR">pic.twitter.com/cIc0R3JfpR</a></p>&mdash; Gillette Venus (@GilletteVenus) <a href="https://twitter.com/GilletteVenus/status/1113565570354409473?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 3, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>