The New Gillette Social Awareness Campaign

308 posts in this topic

15 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

*blink* You, uh, think that the only choices in mass behavioral and cultural change are "brute force" and "convincing"? *sits down*

You're digging yourself a hole here.  Why don't you tell me how you would go about making men act differently?

 

15 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

Alas, yes, by the Ancient and Venerable Customs of the Argument Judges of the Internet, based as they are on the demonstration of Endurance and Swiftness, you have Won.  Here, I offer up all my internet points to you, the Victor.

 

This stuff takes time, and if my inability to give you that time means that you consider me to have no argument, so be it. This is the Internet, the stakes are high, you get the prize.

You usually present a calm and composed demeanour and yet I sense a bit of irritation here.  Tell me I'm mistaken. ;)

 

15 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

You missed my main point, which was about the collateral damage (for example, the cheap slaves) in the conflict between different forms of male-led social dominance/governance.

I don't think I did.  You stated "This conflict produces collateral damage, and the question is what happens when the collateral damage itself decides to seize agency and act against that dialectic.  This is not a situation that easily lends itself to comparison with the decline of Rome. " and I stated that it does.  I interpreted this as what happens to the Roman character when they are flooded with cheap slaves (collateral damage)?  They benefit for a while but it eventually leads to decadence.  So you see this is a situation where the collateral damage is a cause for the decline of Rome.  But then again all civilizations eventually die.  Civilizations are run by men and men are imperfect and sooner or later they will go down the wrong path and decay.

 

15 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

No, I was making a play on words thinking that your Rome enthusiasm would extend to being able to decode Latin noun declensions off fake words confected from English.  ie, "horny" -> "hornitude" -> "hornitudo" -> "hornitudinem" (3rd declension accusative of a -tudo noun).  "Argument to horniness", in other words, the use of a reference to sexual preference/gratification as an argument. 

I'll admit I missed this one.  You rarely crack jokes so I thought you just made a typo. :)  But in any case since we are talking about redefining masculinity Argumentum ad hornitudinem is one of the most relevant arguments you can make,  Humans are driven by their instinct to mate and to survive.  And therefore the man who is able to attract a female passes on his genes and therefore has a tiny bit of influence in the future of the human race.  So if you want to redefine masculinity you need to make sure that this new man is just as attractive to the opposite sex, if not more, than the old one.

 

15 hours ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

The point is that the "ideal" male role model that your talking about is just the flip side of the "sleazy" version, i.e., one exists in a kind of tension with the other. Both of them have to do with the fetishization of control and the appropriation of good and bad human character traits to one sex only.  Note that it is people like Weinstein involved in making these movies, choosing what plots appear on screen, choosing the heroes, etc.

It wasn't Weinstein or Hollywood who created this prototype.  The same type of man was idealized in ancient times as well.  Think about Hercules, Achilles, Gilgamesh etc.  Hollywood simply chose this type of hero because that was what people saw as being an ideal man.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2019, 11:23:56, J0ker said:

You're digging yourself a hole here.  Why don't you tell me how you would go about making men act differently?

 

Marketing, for example, is an entire field devoted to changing behavioural patterns without direct force or coercion.  There are all kinds of other ways to get behavioural change.  Marketing to women, for example, to change their preferences in male behaviour (horniness matters, just not as much as you think it does), changing employment law to disincentivize behavioural types, obsolescence of traditional professions, etc, etc, are all ways in which behavioural change has been induced. Masculinity (and femininity...), like any other long-standing social construct, is inherently a moving target, and has been affected by modernity.  The very backlash from some men is partly that they notice that the incentives have changed.

 

Quote

 

You usually present a calm and composed demeanour and yet I sense a bit of irritation here.  Tell me I'm mistaken. ;)

 

It's weird how some TTers misinterpret my moods.  I have never sought to present a calm and composed demeanour, I post more or less in a constant state of cheesed-offedness.

 

Quote

 

I don't think I did.  You stated "This conflict produces collateral damage, and the question is what happens when the collateral damage itself decides to seize agency and act against that dialectic.  This is not a situation that easily lends itself to comparison with the decline of Rome. " and I stated that it does.  I interpreted this as what happens to the Roman character when they are flooded with cheap slaves (collateral damage)?  They benefit for a while but it eventually leads to decadence.  So you see this is a situation where the collateral damage is a cause for the decline of Rome.  But then again all civilizations eventually die.  Civilizations are run by men and men are imperfect and sooner or later they will go down the wrong path and decay.

 

By "collateral damage", I mean the people who are harmed/caught-in-the-crossfire between competing patriarchal masculinities, I am not referring to the damage done to the patriarchal society itself.  I am talking about the situation where they seize agency, deliberately to subvert or overthrow the "strong men/weak men" dialectic, to use your labels (I would state it differently,

 

Quote

I'll admit I missed this one.  You rarely crack jokes so I thought you just made a typo. :) 

 

I am joking constantly.

 

Quote

But in any case since we are talking about redefining masculinity Argumentum ad hornitudinem is one of the most relevant arguments you can make,  Humans are driven by their instinct to mate and to survive.  And therefore the man who is able to attract a female passes on his genes and therefore has a tiny bit of influence in the future of the human race.  So if you want to redefine masculinity you need to make sure that this new man is just as attractive to the opposite sex, if not more, than the old one.

 

Perhaps, but culturally speaking, we are talking about the mores of a specific stream of human development that (depending on who you ask) started only a few thousand years ago.  The standards -- particularly in terms of personality traits -- under which "attract a female and pass on his genes and have a tiny bit of influence in the future of the human race" have not stayed constant over time, to some stereotype falsely projected onto a pride of lions.   

 

But, some detailed discussion of cultural anthropology aside, the bigger problem is, well, that whether or not the concept of attractiveness has remained constant, argumentum ad hornitudinem is still a logical fallacy in this context, like its ad hominem counterpart (which, I agree, is not always a fallacy). It pre-empts a discussion of norms and ethics.  Unless you are proposing a radically amoral philosophy whereby human action is to be judged by the extent to which it lets men impregnate women and argues that humans have no deliberate control over these choices, there is the question of whether traditional masculinities are actually good.

 

Quote

 

It wasn't Weinstein or Hollywood who created this prototype.  The same type of man was idealized in ancient times as well.  Think about Hercules, Achilles, Gilgamesh etc.  Hollywood simply chose this type of hero because that was what people saw as being an ideal man.

 

And that is the point -- toxic masculinity is toxic partly because of its abstract, idealized nature.  And consider the ideal represented by the examples you choose.  Hercules killed his family "in a fit of madness", blamed conveniently on a female deity. Achilles goes into a royal snit for a big chunk of the Trojan War because he doesn't get to rape a prisoner (she is conveniently described as being in love with him even though his forces slaughtered their family to loot their country). Of course, most of the heroes of the Iliad are terrible, and the Greeks even recognized this (cf. Euripides, The Trojan Women). 

 

It wasn't Weinstein or Hollywood who created that prototype, rather, it was the prototype creating them, the vector by which the prototype spreads itself.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gillette, letting today's old guys know there's a reason the neanderthals died out.

 

Quote

Certainly there's research backing the negative outcry on social media. But as a counterpoint, new research conducted by independent research firm Perksy—which conducts surveys via mobile app—reveals that a majority of younger consumers, Millennials and Gen Zs, a particularly valuable market for brands, reacted positively to the ad.

According to Perksy's survey of 3,500 men and women ages 18-34 across the United States, which was not commissioned by Procter & Gamble, 84% of women and 77% of men responded positively or indicated that they felt the campaign did not offend them. Of those who responded positively, 33% of females and 20% of men indicated they "loved" the campaign. When asked in what way this ad changed their perception of Gillette, 37% of men and 51% of women expressed that the ad bettered their perception of Gillette as a brand, according to Perksy; 42% of men and 32% of women responded the ad had "no change" on their perception. Only 11% of men and 4% of women responded that the ad worsened their perception of Gillette as a brand.

When asked whether brands should participate in culturally relevant campaigns, 70% of men and 85% of women said yes.

Though not focused on Millennials and Gen Z, two other research reports, also not commissioned by the company, showed similar support for the ad: Ace Metrix found that two-thirds of respondents rated the ad’s message as the “single best thing about the ad,” and 65% said the ad made them more or much more likely to purchase Gillette. And according to Morning Consult, before watching the film, 42% of consumers said they agreed Gillette “shared their values.” After viewing, that figure increased to 71%.

 

Hey, grandpas, you are not the majority any more.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, AlexTr said:

Hey, grandpas, you are not the majority any more.

That's why they create so many sockpuppet accounts, to make it seem like more people agree with them.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 1/31/2019, 8:48:45, El Jeffo said:

That's why they create so many sockpuppet accounts, to make it seem like more people agree with them.

You mean like your 60 y.o. "lesbian" sockpuppet who calls people 30 years her junior grandpas?  ;)

 

On 1/30/2019, 9:53:42, AlexTr said:

Hey, grandpas, you are not the majority any more.

Oh Jeffrey boy!  Have a look here.

 

The Next Generation of Americans (Gen Z) May Be the Most Conservative Since WWII

Why Democrats Should Be Losing Sleep Over Generation Z

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3790614/They-don-t-like-drugs-gay-marriage-HATE-tattoos-Generation-Z-conservative-WW2.html

https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2017/07/13/prof-gen-z-more-conservative-millennials/

Generation Z’s Rightward Drift

 

Damn those 18 year old grandpas! Who do they think they are messing with young and hip 60 year olds! :lol:

 

 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2019, 3:40:01, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

Marketing, for example, is an entire field devoted to changing behavioural patterns without direct force or coercion.  There are all kinds of other ways to get behavioural change.

Marketing is a form of persuasion.  Marketing a product is persuading potential customers that it's worth the money.

 

On 1/27/2019, 3:40:01, Eupathic Impulse said:

Marketing to women, for example, to change their preferences in male behaviour (horniness matters, just not as much as you think it does), changing employment law to disincentivize behavioural types, obsolescence of traditional professions, etc, etc, are all ways in which behavioural change has been induced. Masculinity (and femininity...), like any other long-standing social construct, is inherently a moving target, and has been affected by modernity.  The very backlash from some men is partly that they notice that the incentives have changed.

In other words social engineering?  That will be a tough sell because these preferences are biologically ingrained.  Women have shown a preference for strong men (both physically and mentally strong) ever since human history has been recorded and it's the same way in other species.  10 years of propaganda or marketing won't do the trick.  Neither will 50, 100 or 200.  But if you're up for it you may want to start with some of your "feminist" colleagues on here who are into big strong Viking men and listen to gangsta rap.

 

On 1/27/2019, 3:40:01, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

I am joking constantly.

 

That was a joke.

 

On 1/27/2019, 3:40:01, Eupathic Impulse said:

By "collateral damage", I mean the people who are harmed/caught-in-the-crossfire between competing patriarchal masculinities, I am not referring to the damage done to the patriarchal society itself.  I am talking about the situation where they seize agency, deliberately to subvert or overthrow the "strong men/weak men" dialectic, to use your labels (I would state it differently,

How would that be different than the people who are harmed in the crossfire between competing matriarchal feminists?  Feminists claim that the patriarchy is evil but they use the same tactics as patriarchal demagogues of old did.  Make an accusation (i.e. Kavanaugh was a rapist), incite a mob (on Twitter or social media) to harass and intimidate politicians to block his nomination, ignore any evidence and "call out" any opposition (via doxxing or additional harassment).  The victims here are those who are falsely accused.

 

On 1/27/2019, 3:40:01, Eupathic Impulse said:

Perhaps, but culturally speaking, we are talking about the mores of a specific stream of human development that (depending on who you ask) started only a few thousand years ago.  The standards -- particularly in terms of personality traits -- under which "attract a female and pass on his genes and have a tiny bit of influence in the future of the human race" have not stayed constant over time, to some stereotype falsely projected onto a pride of lions.   

Of course they have not stayed constant over time because humanity is not constant.  However if you pass on your genes a part of you lives on.

 

On 1/27/2019, 3:40:01, Eupathic Impulse said:

But, some detailed discussion of cultural anthropology aside, the bigger problem is, well, that whether or not the concept of attractiveness has remained constant, argumentum ad hornitudinem is still a logical fallacy in this context, like its ad hominem counterpart (which, I agree, is not always a fallacy). It pre-empts a discussion of norms and ethics.  Unless you are proposing a radically amoral philosophy whereby human action is to be judged by the extent to which it lets men impregnate women and argues that humans have no deliberate control over these choices, there is the question of whether traditional masculinities are actually good.

This is wrong.  Nowhere did I state that humans have no deliberate control over their choices.  They do but they also have instinct which is why sex is very important to a lot of people and a lack thereof can lead to mental illness (i.e. incels).  It is also wrong to ignore how important procreation is for the human race.  If we decided to stop having children the human race would die out in over 100 years.  Even a declining birth rate (below 2.1 children per woman) has consequences (i.e. will social services, public health care etc be sustainable if the retiree to worker ratio gets too high?).

 

On 1/27/2019, 3:40:01, Eupathic Impulse said:

And that is the point -- toxic masculinity is toxic partly because of its abstract, idealized nature. 

You can say that about everything.  Obsession with perfection can lead to mental illness.

 

On 1/27/2019, 3:40:01, Eupathic Impulse said:

Hercules killed his family "in a fit of madness", blamed conveniently on a female deity.

Hundreds, if not thousands, of Hellenic cities in antiquity claimed decent from Hercules and each had its own myths about him.  Some were contradictory and made him appear flawed (although he was still idealized).  And yes it was Hera who struck him with temporary madness.  Was this some sort of conspiracy to make women appear bad?  If yes are there any bad women or should they all be viewed as good?

 

On 1/27/2019, 3:40:01, Eupathic Impulse said:

Achilles goes into a royal snit for a big chunk of the Trojan War because he doesn't get to rape a prisoner (she is conveniently described as being in love with him even though his forces slaughtered their family to loot their country).

Who are you criticizing here?  Achilles or Homer for describing Polyxena having fallen in love with him?  As I recall Achilles didn't rape her and he was portrayed much better than Menelaus, Agamemnon or even Odysseus.  You may suspect that if there ever was an Achilles that he probably did rape Polyxena but we are not talking about historical accuracy here.  We are talking about the idealization of Achilles which was passed down from antiquity.

 

On 1/27/2019, 3:40:01, Eupathic Impulse said:

Of course, most of the heroes of the Iliad are terrible, and the Greeks even recognized this (cf. Euripides, The Trojan Women). 

Yes but you are comparing apples to oranges here.  The Greeks of the Iliad were of the Heroic Age while Euripides was a playwright in the Classic Age.  In the Heroic Age virtue wasn't defined by kindness, compassion or honesty.  A virtuous man was strong, fearless and resourceful.  The reason why I picked Achilles is that he stood out from the others.

 

 

 

 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/27/2019, 3:40:01, Eupathic Impulse said:

  Marketing to women, for example, to change their preferences in male behaviour (horniness matters, just not as much as you think

 

This is ridiculous. I don't need some Ministry of Truth bureaucrat telling me what type of men I should like.

 

I think this ad from Egard watches is more inspiring and it received much more positive feedback.

 

 

Real women do appreciate real men. By real men I mean strong men who take care of their families and do what's right. Not middle aged frat boys begging for sex online or "nice guys" pretending to agree with whatever the woman he's talking to says in the hope of bedding her.

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many americans "share their values" with the leading brand of toilet cleaner? or wallpaper paste? How dumb do you have to be to acknowledge a question like that at all?

8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you have kept up with branding topics at all, you would know that it is critically important. But, hey, knowing things from verified studies is so over-rated. It's better to get your info from Youtube. Don't worry. This is still only for and about American values so it doesn't affect you at all.

 

Quote

Now more than ever, business success is as much a function of company values as it is brand affinity. Consumers today are using a company’s values as a filter for whether they should support (or punish) an organization. 87% of consumers stated they would purchase a product based on values – because the company advocated for an issue they cared about — and 76% would boycott a brand if it supported an issue contrary to their beliefs. This was vividly demonstrated through the #GrabYourWallet boycott initiative,  where almost a dozen brands have been called out by consumers who then boycott the brand due to ties with the overarching Trump name.

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, what do all those numbers in that study mean?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They mean that 2202 people were incapable of giving an appropriate reply to a pitifully moronic question. That's sad, but I don't think it shows that branding matters.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, deadsoul said:

How many americans "share their values" with the leading brand of toilet cleaner? or wallpaper paste? How dumb do you have to be to acknowledge a question like that at all?

 

Actually I beg to differ. Alex may have a point. On a deep level, I share the same values as this brand:

 

Bildergebnis für happy end toilet paper

I'm sure we can all "get behind" this product's message.

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, I get it. Not everyone understands survey methodologies and results. Math and statistics are hard.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AlexTr said:

Hey, I get it. Not everyone understands survey methodologies and results. Math and statistics are hard.

 

Er, having studied sadistics yeah it is a tough subject. Especially when applied to bogus "media studies" twaddle. easy to manipulate such nonsense, especially if it's from someone with a "peace studies" degree. For the record, my geography degree was out-and-out Marxist back then so I know the warning sings. It is all horseshit.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now