Gillette

[JoeyChuckles]

Originally Posted by chinaski

Boycott Gillette

Including Gillette Stadium

I stopped shaving on Sunday, since I only have Gillette razors.

[Ken Bone]

The pussification of America continues

[In58men]

Originally Posted by Ken Bone

The pussification of America continues

Why is it that you need America to be portrayed as tough bad asses?

[BIG_DADDY]

Originally Posted by In58men

Why is it that you need America to be portrayed as tough bad asses?

One has nothing to do with the other. Nice try.

[In58men]

Originally Posted by BIG_DADDY

One has nothing to do with the other. Nice try.

America pussificiation?

I think it does.

[BIG_DADDY]

Originally Posted by In58men

America pussificiation?

I think it does.

The need of some in our society to constantly emasculate males has nothing to with wanting to project America as a bunch of bad asses. Why is emasculating males so important to you? There is already so much estrogen in our food and water we got 10 year old girls running around with boobs. Where are you looking for this to go dude?

[Munson]

[Hammock Parties]

only the best for brady's son

he wouldn't want to kiss peach fuzz

[Why Not?]

JFC. Really? I need life lesson lectures from a ****ing razor company?

[CoMoChief]

You just know Brady wants to french kiss the living hell out of all of those kids.

[Holladay]

Welp, I was going to shave the scraggly beard off tonight. Now I am going to Wal-Mart (only store in town) to replace my Gillette blades with Schick.

Goodness. That commercial screwed up my stomach.

[Why Not?]

On a related note, I rewatched the PC Principal episode of South Park last night. So damn funny!

[TinyEvel]

Not sure why all the hate for this. Are you saying we as a society should condone bullying or guys grabbing a woman’s ass? That it’s okay to let people keep other people down, or to not consider how, in a meeting, our own assertion to be heard, or right, is more important than letting another person speak?

Is it you disagree with the message? Or the message is valid but shouldn’t be coming from a razor company.

But if Gillette didn’t say it, who would? Sure, female politicians in California, okay. But Gillette as a brand has the right to say this, in my opinion, as a male oriented brand. No less a right than Budweiser can say be a fan of a certain team, or P&G can say that moms should support kid’s sports.

They’re leading by example, saying speak up. And the reactions are proof that it’s a relevant and necessary message. You can choose to buy or not buy their razors, they know that. This takes balls on their behalf, and in my opinion one of the greatest measures of being a man: use your strength to help others.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by TinyEvel

Not sure why all the hate for this. Are you saying we as a society should condone bullying or guys grabbing a woman’s ass? That it’s okay to let people keep other people down, or to not consider how, in a meeting, our own assertion to be heard, or right, is more important than letting another person speak?

Is it you disagree with the message? Or the message is valid but shouldn’t be coming from a razor company.

But if Gillette didn’t say it, who would? Sure, female politicians in California, okay. But Gillette as a brand has the right to say this, in my opinion, as a male oriented brand. No less a right than Budweiser can say be a fan of a certain team, or P&G can say that moms should support kid’s sports.

They’re leading by example, saying speak up. And the reactions are proof that it’s a relevant and necessary message. You can choose to buy or not buy their razors, they know that. This takes balls on their behalf, and in my opinion one of the greatest measures of being a man: use your strength to help others.

Allow me to propose a criticism that is about something other than 'too PC.'

While you might applaud the particular aims of these suggested responses [stopping kids from roughhousing, restraining an ogler or a groper] they are STILL patriarchal.

It's not progress to simply replace one set of stereotypes with another.
The 'old' mindset is supposedly that the only people who are harmed by horseplay or ogling are wimps or bitches who don't matter anyway. But this 'new' mindset assumes that people can never derive enjoyment or growth through any of this 'unwelcomed' activity.

But the horseplay and bullying and the ogling and the groping and the remarks, and all that, . . . are still between two individuals who ARE NOT YOU. You are by definition stereotyping and exercising privilege when you step into a situation between two individuals and state 'hey, I'm bigger and stronger than all of you, and I think that your interpersonal reactions should be like xxx'

You have no way of knowing what the inner monologues of the actual participants in the event are, but Gillette call upon you to be a referee anyway. Those who propose this cannot envision anyone in a physical scrap as anything but an aggressor and a terrified recipient, and cannot envision anyone involved in flirting as anything other than a predator and a terrified prey.

Clearly there comes a point where additional evidence accumulates, where a kid is clearly being bested and hurt, or where a woman is clearly receiving emotional damage without the interpersonal skills to handle the moment on her own. And at that point, your tactful intervention might be called for.

But this campaign isn't about being tactful and situationally aware, it's a backlash to underutilized patriarchy demanding that instead that same patriarchy be abused in 'good ways,' in ways that make the critics more comfortable.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by Baby Lee

Allow me to propose a criticism that is about something other than 'too PC.'

While you might applaud the particular aims of these suggested responses [stopping kids from roughhousing, restraining an ogler or a groper] they are STILL patriarchal.

It's not progress to simply replace one set of stereotypes with another.
The 'old' mindset is supposedly that the only people who are harmed by horseplay or ogling are wimps or bitches who don't matter anyway. But this 'new' mindset assumes that people can never derive enjoyment or growth through any of this 'unwelcomed' activity.

But the horseplay and bullying and the ogling and the groping and the remarks, and all that, . . . are still between two individuals who ARE NOT YOU. You are by definition stereotyping and exercising privilege when you step into a situation between two individuals and state 'hey, I'm bigger and stronger than all of you, and I think that your interpersonal reactions should be like xxx'

You have no way of knowing what the inner monologues of the actual participants in the event are, but Gillette call upon you to be a referee anyway. Those who propose this cannot envision anyone in a physical scrap as anything but an aggressor and a terrified recipient, and cannot envision anyone involved in flirting as anything other than a predator and a terrified prey.

Clearly there comes a point where additional evidence accumulates, where a kid is clearly being bested and hurt, or where a woman is clearly receiving emotional damage without the interpersonal skills to handle the moment on her own. And at that point, your tactful intervention might be called for.

But this campaign isn't about being tactful and situationally aware, it's a backlash to underutilized patriarchy demanding that instead that same patriarchy be abused in 'good ways,' in ways that make the critics more comfortable.

THANK YOU.