Surprise: Genius behind man-hating Gillette ad is a radical feminist

[Gingersnap]

January 16, 2019
Surprise: Genius behind man-hating Gillette ad is a radical feminist
By DC Larson

In recent days, many online essays have rightly ripped apart Gillette's ugly new "We Believe" advertisement. One online critic dubbed it "feel-bad liberalism."

Carpentered by Grey Advertising for Proctor and Gamble's razors company, it does not detail product attributes, encourage brand loyalty, instill warm feelings in buyers, or even show basic respect for consumers. Instead, the grimly lecturing spot declares masculinity itself toxic, a peril to decent society.

"Is this the best a man can get? Is it?" asks the painfully serious narrator, as a wrongdoing slideshow passes by. "We can't hide from it. It's been going on far too long. We can't laugh it off, making the same old excuses."

"I guess the guy at the ad agency missed the lesson about not taking a dump on the people you want to buy your stuff," cracked comedian Steven Crowder.

"The guy at the ad agency" is actually philosophically unpleasant feminist Kim Gehrig. Hiring her to court the male market is like expecting to accrue impressive rainbow flag sale numbers with spiels from Farrakhan.

Jezebel reported an email message Gehrig sent CNBC: "At the end of the day, sparking conversation is what matters. This gets people to pay attention to the topic and encourages them to consider taking action to make a difference."

She'd previously made the bizarre "Viva La Vulva" spot for Swedish feminine hygiene company Libresse. In that surreal ad, objects that included a conch shell, sliced orange, papaya, and coin purse stood in as ersatz female intimate parts. For the ad's nearly three-minute duration, these items were manipulated as unnatural "singers" of Camille Yarbrough's "Take Yo Praise."

Gehrig's new Gillette effort states her bias boldly by intercutting allusions to abusive acts with images of romantic heterosexuality.

A black-and-white cartoon scene that flashes past shows men whistling at a woman. In another scant bit, a guy sees a pretty female pedestrian. He steps after her but is restrained by a companion. "Not cool," the restrainer admonishes.

Expressions of attraction and related pursuits are natural. They lead to humans reproducing – which is how Gehrig got here, though she might be horrified to learn that.

Adweek pronounced Gehrig's group libel the "Ad of the Week." Gehrig's efforts were also recognized by Best Ads on TV.

Therein lies an issue worth note. Fox News host Greg Gutfeld tweeted: "the only ones lauding the Gillette ad work in media/advertising. everyone else sees it for what it is: a smarmy, condescending virtue signal aimed at the hardworking decent men they have been price-gouging for years."

At this writing, Gillette's YouTube posting of "We Believe" has received 40,000 "thumbs down" votes and only 4,300 positive ratings. Even when possible manipulations have been allowed for, that ratio does not bode well for the company.

Gillette executives may have hoped their brand would realize market uplift from public mind association with trendy messaging. That may also once have been the wish of suits at Dodge, the NFL, Target, Lynx, Nike, PepsiCo, and Dick's Sporting Goods. They all suffered as a consequence of catering to P.C. prejudices.

The greatest ultimate harm caused by Gehrig's Gillette advertising maliciousness may be this: irresponsible,"woke" parents bludgeoning their young sons with her message that just being a boy is unhealthy, a wrong for which they should forever hang their heads.

Poor kids.

If we want to go down this road (and we should not), I'm waiting with baited breath for the female finger-waving equivalent. Perhaps it could show women with crossed arms staring at their laptops (glass of wine required) as a lone black woman scolds them for being such advantaged pussies and yanks a 13 year old girl off her phone or iPad because she's cyber bulling some fat girl.

Then they could have "a real conversation".

American Thinker

[Norm dePlume]

Not sure why an aspirational message is taken as criticism. But razors are especially irritating to thin skins.

[Norm dePlume]

Ad: "Let's not look the other way when guys treat women as sex objects."

Viewer: "Hey, why are you slagging me?"

[Gingersnap]

Not sure why an aspirational message is taken as criticism. But razors are especially irritating to thin skins.

In what way is this "aspirational"? The vast majority of Western men are intelligent, kind, funny, helpful, protective, interested in fair play, and more than willing to do the dirty and dangerous work we all depend upon.

Men in general and particularly fathers don't stand idly by as their boys engage in serious fights (not rough and tumble play). They don't allow their sons to denigrate women. They don't turn a blind eye to real bullying by little kids.

The idea that men are "toxic" as a default genetic flaw is stupid.

As a woman, I would not buy any product that cast me as a major drama queen who constantly gossiped, undermined those around me through passive-aggressive manipulation, and burst into tears whenever I was thwarted.

Those are unfair stereotypes of women despite a grain of truth. Some women are exactly that but not most.

Neither are most men indifferent to unfairness, interested in sexual predation, or oblivious to the concerns of women or children.

Imagine the mirror campaign. Women depicted as wine-drinking shrews who belittle their children and men, who alienate their children from their fathers, and who destroy their families out of boredom and and sexual conquests.

Sound like women in your circle? Probably not - for a good reason. Most women aren't like that but some few are.

If you think the male commercial is "aspirational" then a female equivalent would also do good and be effective. If the idea of that gives you pause, you may need to rethink your concept.

[80zephyr]

In what way is this "aspirational"? The vast majority of Western men are intelligent, kind, funny, helpful, protective, interested in fair play, and more than willing to do the dirty and dangerous work we all depend upon.

Men in general and particularly fathers don't stand idly by as their boys engage in serious fights (not rough and tumble play). They don't allow their sons to denigrate women. They don't turn a blind eye to real bullying by little kids.

The idea that men are "toxic" as a default genetic flaw is stupid.

As a woman, I would not buy any product that cast me as a major drama queen who constantly gossiped, undermined those around me through passive-aggressive manipulation, and burst into tears whenever I was thwarted.

Those are unfair stereotypes of women despite a grain of truth. Some women are exactly that but not most.

Neither are most men indifferent to unfairness, interested in sexual predation, or oblivious to the concerns of women or children.

Imagine the mirror campaign. Women depicted as wine-drinking shrews who belittle their children and men, who alienate their children from their fathers, and who destroy their families out of boredom and and sexual conquests.

Sound like women in your circle? Probably not - for a good reason. Most women aren't like that but some few are.

If you think the male commercial is "aspirational" then a female equivalent would also do good and be effective. If the idea of that gives you pause, you may need to rethink your concept.

We have a winner!!

Mark

[Norm dePlume]

In what way is this "aspirational"? The vast majority of Western men are intelligent, kind, funny, helpful, protective, interested in fair play, and more than willing to do the dirty and dangerous work we all depend upon.

Men in general and particularly fathers don't stand idly by as their boys engage in serious fights (not rough and tumble play). They don't allow their sons to denigrate women. They don't turn a blind eye to real bullying by little kids.

The idea that men are "toxic" as a default genetic flaw is stupid.

As a woman, I would not buy any product that cast me as a major drama queen who constantly gossiped, undermined those around me through passive-aggressive manipulation, and burst into tears whenever I was thwarted.

Those are unfair stereotypes of women despite a grain of truth. Some women are exactly that but not most.

Neither are most men indifferent to unfairness, interested in sexual predation, or oblivious to the concerns of women or children.

Imagine the mirror campaign. Women depicted as wine-drinking shrews who belittle their children and men, who alienate their children from their fathers, and who destroy their families out of boredom and and sexual conquests.

Sound like women in your circle? Probably not - for a good reason. Most women aren't like that but some few are.

If you think the male commercial is "aspirational" then a female equivalent would also do good and be effective. If the idea of that gives you pause, you may need to rethink your concept.

From the ad:

We believe in the best in men. To say the right thing. To act the right way.

That is aspirational.

[Norm dePlume]

Also, it's nice that no bullying or sexual abuse is ever tolerated in your world. I assume Harvey Weinstein has been in jail for a decade or two there.

[Tom Servo]

The idea that men are "toxic" as a default genetic flaw is stupid.

Not all black men are criminals, but white middle-class women still clutch their purses a little tighter when they walk past one on the street.

[Michele]

Not all black men are criminals, but white middle-class women still clutch their purses a little tighter when they walk past one on the street.

Sure, Obama.

[Gingersnap]

Not all black men are criminals, but white middle-class women still clutch their purses a little tighter when they walk past one on the street.

As does Jesse Jackson.

Oddly, the vast majority of women actually live with genetic men, give birth to them, have them as fathers and brothers and friends despite (or because of) this "toxicity".

Some men are bad - not because they have testosterone or some kind of conditioning. They are just bad. Just as some women are horrifying - not because they have estrogen or conditioning. They are also just bad.

No one's genetic XX or XY status makes them bad or inferior. People focus a great deal at the moment on men being violent or not magically using their psychic powers to be more like women. Few focus on the facts that women are responsible for most child and elder abuse and deal out most of the emotional abuse that damages both boys and girls from childhood through young adulthood.

I certainly don't hate women nor do I think all women need to be held accountable for the actions of some. That's crazy. Neither do I want thinly disguised PSAs instructing women to be less bitchy and erratic when they buy tampons.

You can't have it both ways. If men need to "instructed" then women also need that. Frankly, I don't think either sex needs that.

People (both men and women) need to be brave, considerate, loving, funny, smart, willing to take a risk, and skeptical.

Chainsawing a tree or baking excellent cookies a plus - for either sex.

[Lady Marva]

Wonder what the people who have to work with this ad woman think of her. Especially the men.

[Gingersnap]

Also, it's nice that no bullying or sexual abuse is ever tolerated in your world. I assume Harvey Weinstein has been in jail for a decade or two there.

No women I know would have made that quid pro quo. Your world is different. I assume your Mom or sister would exchange sex for a job.

My Mom wouldn't but I have no sisters. My brothers? With a girl, maybe.

[Norm dePlume]

No women I know would have made that quid pro quo. Your world is different. I assume your Mom or sister would exchange sex for a job.

My Mom wouldn't but I have no sisters. My brothers? With a girl, maybe.

Well, that's mighty nasty of you to say, but it doesn't follow from what I said.

[Frostbit]

Well, that's mighty nasty of you to say, but it doesn't follow from what I said.

You mean when you were putting words in her mouth?

[Gingersnap]

Well, that's mighty nasty of you to say, but it doesn't follow from what I said.

Oh, it did.