Gillette’s wonderfully woke new commercial

[realibrad]

There haven't been nearly as many female leaders, making that claim absurd.

More than enough to see they are just as violent as the average.

 

[Zorba]

Nm

 

[bshole]

I don’t recognize any of the behaviors in that ad as acceptable, but the only men I’ve ever known to exhibit them are the exception rather than the norm. Perhaps the team who came up with the ad were lacking in diversity, hence the polarized response to it.

I recognized several behaviors as completely normal and healthy. The first one that resonated with me was the two kids wrestling on the lawn. Note this scene was different than the scenes of bullying, it looked like ordinary horseplay. I did that ALL the time growing up. I absolutely loved it. It is a guy thing I guess. Almost all predatory mammals tussle as youngsters, this is widely accepted as normal and natural. The majority of their genes are also our genes. This has been studied by scientists.

University of Colorado biologist Mark Bekoff has even suggested that play may contribute to the development of morality. In their playful games, animals can learn about the need for fairness and the consequences of cheating, such as social ostracism. As Bekoff writes in a 2001 article, “During social play, while individuals are having fun in a relatively safe environment, they learn ground rules that are acceptable to others—how hard they can bite, how roughly they can interact—and how to resolve conflicts. There is a premium on playing fairly and trusting others to do so as well.”

https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/games_animals_play

It is unexceptional in the scientific community that wrestling and mock fights are a healthy and necessary part of many young animals, including humans. Yea I know, this quote is from Highlights (1st to show up on my google search) but the points were made by an M.D. (again I concede that he is much less persuasive than a scientist) and I didn't care enough to look any further.

Intense, physical play stimulates and helps develop areas of the brain that control emotional memory, language, and logic. Research shows that when kids roughhouse at home, they do better in school and have better relationships with friends.

Adults (usually without even thinking about it) handicap themselves when they play with young children, holding back some of their strength and force to keep things safer for everyone. Kids pick up on that to learn a valuable lesson about self-control and handling an imbalance of power. Plus, kids have to blow off steam sometime. When they have opportunities to roughhouse at home with loving adults, they are less likely to play too aggressively or take unsafe risks when they’re away from parents’ watchful eyes.

Rough-and-tumble play gives kids an opportunity to read each other’s body language and facial expressions. Those are social cues all kids need to master to make and keep friends and succeed in group settings, like classrooms and teams.

Aggressiveness doesn’t seem like a quality we want our kids to have, but they do need to learn persistence and how to take the right kinds of risks (think: sticking up for themselves if they’re falsely accused of misbehavior, or pushing themselves to try a challenging new sport). Boys, in particular, can learn that physical contact does not have to be violent. And girls gain confidence in their physical skills.

Rough-and-tumble play is unpredictable, so it makes kids think on their feet (or while hanging upside-down, or clinging to an adult’s back). That translates into problem-solving skills. And figuring out, together, what’s fun and what’s not helps kids learn how to negotiate and be leaders.

Kids tend to spend a lot of time in sedentary activities, but their muscles need to move every day. Roughhousing challenges those muscles and gets kids up off the couch.Plus, it stimulates endorphins, the body’s natural pain and stress fighters, as well as oxytocin, the hormone we get from physical contact, which makes us feel loved.

https://www.highlights.com/parents/articles/6-reasons-roughhousing-good-children

It was a feminist woman who made this ad. My mother was ALWAYS more disapproving of our roughhousing than my father (who actually approved of it). I really don't think women understand how much boys love it because they as girls were never interested in it. Is it possible that the LACK of prepubescent play has contributed to the shocking percentage of the millennial male generation who are incels?

Another scene involved a young attractive man seeing a young attractive woman walk by. He attempted to follow her to introduce himself. Another man stopped him. This made literally no sense to me. It is the way I met most women I dated including my wife. Exactly how are men to meet women if introducing themselves is a moral sin? According to the study referenced below, 92% of women prefer to be asked out compared to 15% of men. This is why the scene is incoherent, it seems to be asking men and women to go against their natural instinct and preference. If only women are allowed to pursue, wouldn't there be a massive increase of incels and single cat ladies? Perhaps this ad is saying that the only way for men to morally pursue women is through dating ads or if they already know the woman. If that is what the creator intended then I disagree with her. Perhaps I was wrong about the creator's intention.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...201104/why-dont-women-ask-men-out-first-dates

The last scene that stuck out to me was the party scene where the dude was sticking out his tongue and attractive girls in bikinis were dancing. I participated in events like that in my youth and they are among the best memories of my life. I am not going to comment on the morality of the activities but from a pure pleasure aspect, those activities were sublime. This is where the feminist ideology and religious fundamentalism meet. My parents LOATHED those kind of parties more than anything else I ever did. The only time my father ever cursed at me in my life was after picking me up from one of those parties. The ads condemnation of parties like this is reminiscent of 1950's era morality. There is an argument that banning wild beer parties with attractive girls will improve the culture. This argument has always been made from the fundamentalist Christians (and is echoed by fundamentalist Islamic people). I read many of the comments on the Gillette ad and was not surprised to see a couple Christian fundamentalists who liked the ad. It made me chuckle a little bit.

In the end, I am grateful to Gillette for making the ad. The youtube hysteria over it has been deeply and thoroughly amusing. Now, if you will kindly excuse me, I need to go shave, my beard is itching the shit out of me.

 

[Moonbeam]

So this will be my last response to this topic.

Thank you again. It is encouraging to adopt a stand for something, in my case, accepting the ad, tentatively, as positive, while trying to remain open to some skepticism. I didn't go beyond acknowledging a possible dubious connection between sidling up to people with suspect economic motives as a uncontaminated virtue source, as you did in far greater depth than I did, but I am happy for your support that a doubtful and skepical analysis is morally sustainable. Cheers!

 

[Moonbeam]

I recognized several behaviors as completely normal and healthy.

Geez, thanks for the hand grenade. Here I was all ready for the night thinking to myself:

"What are little boys made of?
Snips and snails
And puppy-dogs' tails
That's what little boys are made of

What are little girls made of?
What are little girls made of?
Sugar and spice
And all things nice
That's what little girls are made of"

Why can't everything just be simple????????

My brain is cratered like the Moon.

 

[bshole]

Geez, thanks for the hand grenade. Here I was all ready for the night thinking to myself:

"What are little boys made of?
Snips and snails
And puppy-dogs' tails
That's what little boys are made of

What are little girls made of?
What are little girls made of?
Sugar and spice
And all things nice
That's what little girls are made of"

Why can't everything just be simple????????

My brain is cratered like the Moon.

Lol! Thanx Moon. I laughed.

Did you know that my avatar is my daughter. She is 15 years old. The last time she was tested, she was in the top 1% in the state on the standardized reading test they gave. This is why it perplexed my wife and I that she failed 3 classes last year. True story, we found her drug stash last week. I always knew my son was doing drugs because it was ridiculously obvious. He is a shitty liar, probably because he isn't overly intelligent. Our daughter played us quite well. I never wanted to believe she would get involved in that shit. Turns out she is in the same stuff that fried my son's brain - psychedelics. What I would LOVE to see is the mainstream media and corporations start virtue signalling over drugs. Make it seem uncool to do them. Why isn't hard drug usage marginalized in even the slightest degree?

I don't believe toxic masculinity will ever harm my daughter as much as the crap she is doing. Hell I wish I was masculine enough to stop her, all I did was cry in front of her like a typical beta male.... the exact same shit I have done in front of my son on more than one occasion. I am too weak to be a decent father. Hell I am so pathetic that I have no idea what I should do.

Oddly enough I fucked up my brain to some degree because of the drugs I did as a young man. My anxiety disorder originated in 1994 when I smoked some laced pot and my wife (she was my girlfriend at the time) had to take me to the emergency room. That changed my life forever and I have never been remotely like I was before that event (I would argue that my life basically ended that day). This is the story that I have told my kids ad nauseum and they don't seem to get it. They know I am fucked up, hell they live with me, how could they not? Why would they engage in behavior which could lead them to having a miserable life like their father? It makes no sense to me.

I am not upset about the Gillette ad, I am kind of ambivalent about it (although I LOVE the epic responses to it, those were entertaining). I agree with parts of it and disagree with other parts (described in my previous post). Corporate virtue signalling for profit. We have seen it before and we will see it again.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Hillary Clinton's book got millions of dislikes, and maybe even more likes? (star ratings) on Amazon before her book was even released. It doesn't really mean anything about "what you did" when it comes to internet mob voting.

Hello, AT effect.

Hillary Clinton also had a staff whose single purpose was to shape and control social media narratives.

Lose their seat of power? I think more chairs are just being pulled up to the table.

The table is only so big, and this as is great example that more chairs don’t always lead to better decisions.

 

[Jhhnn]

Hillary Clinton also had a staff whose single purpose was to shape and control social media narratives.

Yeh, it's a shame she wasn't nearly as good at it as Trump & his Russian backers. They ran rings around her.

 

[Moonbeam]

Lol! Thanx Moon. I laughed.

Did you know that my avatar is my daughter. She is 15 years old. The last time she was tested, she was in the top 1% in the state on the standardized reading test they gave. This is why it perplexed my wife and I that she failed 3 classes last year. True story, we found her drug stash last week. I always knew my son was doing drugs because it was ridiculously obvious. He is a shitty liar, probably because he isn't overly intelligent. Our daughter played us quite well. I never wanted to believe she would get involved in that shit. Turns out she is in the same stuff that fried my son's brain - psychedelics. What I would LOVE to see is the mainstream media and corporations start virtue signalling over drugs. Make it seem uncool to do them. Why isn't hard drug usage marginalized in even the slightest degree?I don't believe toxic masculinity will ever harm my daughter as much as the crap she is doing. Hell I wish I was masculine enough to stop her, all I did was cry in front of her like a typical beta male.... the exact same shit I have done in front of my son on more than one occasion. I am too weak to be a decent father. Hell I am so pathetic that I have no idea what I should do.

Oddly enough I fucked up my brain to some degree because of the drugs I did as a young man. My anxiety disorder originated in 1994 when I smoked some laced pot and my wife (she was my girlfriend at the time) had to take me to the emergency room. That changed my life forever and I have never been remotely like I was before that event (I would argue that my life basically ended that day). This is the story that I have told my kids ad nauseum and they don't seem to get it. They know I am fucked up, hell they live with me, how could they not? Why would they engage in behavior which could lead them to having a miserable life like their father? It makes no sense to me.

I am not upset about the Gillette ad, I am kind of ambivalent about it (although I LOVE the epic responses to it, those were entertaining). I agree with parts of it and disagree with other parts (described in my previous post). Corporate virtue signalling for profit. We have seen it before and we will see it again.

Jesus, I as so sorry to hear this and I see nothing more that I would like to do here in this thread than to help you, but I have no idea how to do that. Let me just say then what I feel:

I am, or would be very interested in focusing in on a couple of points, the first of which would be your bad trip. I had a therapist and he was for me a teacher, a guide, and a knower of wisdom who had taken LSD and had as he said, some far out experiences. But he had also had years and years of very intense analysis with some famous therapists himself and had deeply mined his traumatic childhood life.

OK, so I am talking about someone who in my opinion was completely amazing and different than any other person I had ever met and I am saying this only to suggest that for me what he had to say I put great value in. I am trying here only to say that I believe very deeply in the things he said in the hope that might be worth something to you.

So, on the process of therapy, his work with us, me and others, consisted of trying to get in touch with our feelings and that came with a warning, that if we were to feel what we really feel, it would be preceded by a terror of death and that was because we actually psychically did die in childhood and we would start to remember and relive the event(s). And he said the same could happen on drugs and there danger would consist in confronting those feelings psychologically ignorant of their true nature and be overwhelmed.

He said that we were made to hate ourselves in a way those feelings would be deeply repressed and that we would react to their coming to light because we believed them to be true, but that they are not true, that our worst fears of the truth of ourselves are nothing but a belief in lies.

So, no actual damage was done to you and there is nothing at all to fear. You got a brief look at what terror feels like, what happens when feelings of self hate in rising up th the surface kick off a massive psychological struggle to push them back down. Not so easy if the door gets cracked. Sadly, I know of no place in the world where a person can find someone to help them who has made the entire trip. My teacher died. I have read that mushrooms, for example, are once again being investigated because they cause transcendent experiences that have positive and life long transformative effects. This research is done in a careful setting and not with kids.

Going to post this and say more later.

 

[cytg111]

More than enough to see they are just as violent as the average.

Ima gonna need some data... I call fiction on that.

 

[cytg111]

Hillary Clinton also had a staff whose single purpose was to shape and control social media narratives.

The table is only so big, and this as is great example that more chairs don’t always lead to better decisions.

Compared to Cambridge Analytica, 50-120 million stolen facebook accounts, russian psyops social media blitzkrieg and extensive aid from Israel and Saudi Arabia... HC had social media staffers... I am almost gonna use a cuss word here on her cause she was so very ignorant(ly) unprepared for this shit. Shame on her.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Compared to Cambridge Analytica, 50-120 million stolen facebook accounts, russian psyops social media blitzkrieg and extensive aid from Israel and Saudi Arabia... HC had social media staffers... I am almost gonna use a cuss word here on her cause she was so very ignorant(ly) unprepared for this shit. Shame on her.

Correct the Record, led by good dude and former GOP hachet man David Brock, operated with the same intent and similar tactics as Cambridge Analytica...weaponize social media to smear opponents, sow seeds of distrust based off misinformation and engage in propoganda. The only difference was scale. Shame on her indeed.

 

[cytg111]

Correct the Record, led by good dude and former GOP hachet man David Brock, operated with the same intent and similar tactics as Cambridge Analytica...weaponize social media to smear opponents, sow seeds of distrust based off misinformation and engage in propoganda. The only difference was scale. Shame on her indeed.

Meh I would argue "the same" to a point. But yea.

 

[Jhhnn]

Correct the Record, led by good dude and former GOP hachet man David Brock, operated with the same intent and similar tactics as Cambridge Analytica...weaponize social media to smear opponents, sow seeds of distrust based off misinformation and engage in propoganda. The only difference was scale. Shame on her indeed.

Examples of said misinformation & propaganda? Surely you can provide some...

 

[Jaskalas]

His post was about trying to convey a message, and your response was to use physical violence because that is how men were toward women.

You don't see how that would at best be unproductive?

Honestly, I thought he was being sarcastic.
Because to do otherwise would probably land him a job in the White House.

 

[Jaskalas]

Why would they engage in behavior which could lead them to having a miserable life like their father? It makes no sense to me.

That's an easy one. Teenage brains are not wired to understand cause and effect. The idea of consequences comes later in life. That's why the army recruits at 18. Before the concept of mortality sets in.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Examples of said misinformation & propaganda? Surely you can provide some...

Keep defending David Brock. Maybe you should send him some Gillette razors.

Should we start with the dishonest ad campaign led by David Brock that fraudulently challenged Bernier Sanders’ record on civil rights, or the leaked Podesta emails demonstrating internal disagreements within Clinton’s inner circle questioning the logic of setting Brock loose.

Correct the Record was led by one of the worst propoganda artists in the game, and your attempt to deflect from that fact is pathetic.

 

[realibrad]

Ima gonna need some data... I call fiction on that.

Here is a working paper on queens in Europe.

https://papers.ssrn.com/soL3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2947181

https://www.nber.org/papers/w23337.pdf

Are states led by women less prone to conflict than states led by men? We answer this question by examining the effect of female rule on war among European polities over the 15th-20th centuries. We utilize gender of the first born and presence of a female sibling among previous monarchs as instruments for queenly rule. We find that polities led by queens were more likely to engage in war than polities led by kings. Moreover, the tendency of queens to engage as aggressors varied by marital status. Among unmarried monarchs, queens were more likely to be attacked than kings. Among married monarchs, queens were more likely to participate as attackers than kings, and, more likely to fight alongside allies. These results are consistent with an account in which marriages strengthened queenly reigns because married queens were more likely to secure alliances and enlist their spouses to help them rule. Married kings, in contrast, were less inclined to utilize a similar division of labor. These asymmetries, which reflected prevailing gender norms, ultimately enabled queens to pursue more aggressive war policies.

 

[pmv]

Here is a working paper on queens in Europe.

https://papers.ssrn.com/soL3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2947181

https://www.nber.org/papers/w23337.pdf

I guess I just don't think questions like that are really amenable to 'scientific' investigation. It's a badly-framed, ahistorical question in the first place. I just don't think it's a worthwhile question to ask, whether 'women leaders' are, or are not, more or less prone to get into wars. I mean, what does the question even mean? What's the hypothetical scenario where you could falsify such a claim? When do we _ever_ have a situation where one could choose between a generic idealised male or female ruler with absolutely all other factors being constant? And then re-run the situation with the other choice?

Choices are always between particular individuals in non-repeatable, contingent, circumstances.

History is not a science. That study is looking at a particular collection of individuals in very particular historical situations (none of those monarchs were chosen by scientifically sampled selection of the population, with some double-blind randomised control trial of monarchism).

So, I guess I'd agree with not taking too seriously essentialist earth-mother type claims that 'women leaders are less warlike' and 'the world would be more peaceful if women ran everything' (because for starters such a world would very likely produce very different women), but I don't think you can actually declare it to be _false_ either. It's just undecidable and hence irrelevant. You can only ask about particular situations and particular prospective leaders.

I don't believe it's actually that relevant to debating about the nature of 'masculinity'.

 

[realibrad]

I guess I just don't think questions like that are really amenable to 'scientific' investigation. It's a badly-framed, ahistorical question in the first place. I just don't think it's a worthwhile question to ask, whether 'women leaders' are, or are not, more or less prone to get into wars. I mean, what does the question even mean? What's the hypothetical scenario where you could falsify such a claim? When do we _ever_ have a situation where one could choose between a generic idealised male or female ruler with absolutely all other factors being constant? And then re-run the situation with the other choice?

Choices are always between particular individuals in non-repeatable, contingent, circumstances.

History is not a science. That study is looking at a particular collection of individuals in very particular historical situations (none of those monarchs were chosen by scientifically sampled selection of the population, with some double-blind randomised control trial of monarchism).

So, I guess I'd agree with not taking too seriously essentialist earth-mother type claims that 'women leaders are less warlike' and 'the world would be more peaceful if women ran everything' (because for starters such a world would very likely produce very different women), but I don't think you can actually declare it to be _false_ either. It's just undecidable and hence irrelevant. You can only ask about particular situations and particular prospective leaders.

I don't believe it's actually that relevant to debating about the nature of 'masculinity'.

Unless there is evidence to support something, it should not be claimed. So, when someone stupidly says something like violence to obtain and hold power is a Male thing, then it needs to be supported. When there is counter evidence to the original claim, and no evidence to support the claim, its becomes a dumb claim.

 

[Moonbeam]

Unless there is evidence to support something, it should not be claimed. So, when someone stupidly says something like violence to obtain and hold power is a Male thing, then it needs to be supported. When there is counter evidence to the original claim, and no evidence to support the claim, its becomes a dumb claim.

Ah but if the scientific method and reason itself are male dominance techniques, then we can dismiss reason itself as not worth anything and simply go with what we know in out guts to be true. I'm just going to close my ears and scream.

 

[realibrad]

Ah but if the scientific method and reason itself are male dominance techniques, then we can dismiss reason itself as not worth anything and simply go with what we know in out guts to be true. I'm just going to close my ears and scream.

How many times have you told people not to use logic and reason, but to use their feelings instead?

 

[Moonbeam]

How many times have you told people not to use logic and reason, but to use their feelings instead?

You need to do that here. You are trying to use the ideas I present that thought is of the past, filled with painful emotional connections between words and feelings that are unconsciously repressed and the fact that the only excape from that prediciment is to face that pain consciously in order to actually see (feel) those connections and be free of them with saying I oppose logic and reason but recommend feelings instead. The point is that you can't think logically or reason at all if you don't know what you really feel. The kind of feeling I am refering to as gut level truth, is not knowing what you feel at all. Those are all the negative feelings that come from and have their origin in self hate. Those disappear with real grief.

Remember that I say over and over again that when you get to talking about real truth you face paradox. paradox that can only be resolved at a higher level of understanding. That higher understanding is a different state of consciousness that no words can bring you to. It is a realization that collapses duality.

 

[Jhhnn]

Keep defending David Brock. Maybe you should send him some Gillette razors.

Should we start with the dishonest ad campaign led by David Brock that fraudulently challenged Bernier Sanders’ record on civil rights, or the leaked Podesta emails demonstrating internal disagreements within Clinton’s inner circle questioning the logic of setting Brock loose.

Correct the Record was led by one of the worst propoganda artists in the game, and your attempt to deflect from that fact is pathetic.

I didn't defend David Brock or say they were any good at it. I asked for specific examples of the disinformation & propaganda you alleged. You know, links & things. You merely made more unsubstantiated claims, added some disinformation of your own.

Podesta's emails were hacked, iirc, not leaked.

Trump & his Russian friends excelled at it, however. They made Trump's toxic masculinity something to admire, huh?

Bragging about the size of his penis in a nationally televised event?

Rating women on a 1-10 scale?

Advocating violence at his rallies?

Grab 'em by the pussy?

Married 3 times, cheated on all of them?

Need I go on?

 

[Bitek]

IDK how effective this will be selling razors, but it's triggered the conservative SJW as all fuck.