699,178 posts

The symbolism of the line of men grilling in the GILLETTE AD | "Barbecue men are deeply invested in family life. They are fathers. What is the easiest way to produce boys who do not understand or respect the boundaries between positive and negative masculinity? Take away their fathers."

Reddit View
January 29, 2019
139 upvotes
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2019/01/28/the-symbolism-of-the-line-of-men-grilling-in-the-gillette-ad/


Post Information
Title The symbolism of the line of men grilling in the GILLETTE AD | "Barbecue men are deeply invested in family life. They are fathers. What is the easiest way to produce boys who do not understand or respect the boundaries between positive and negative masculinity? Take away their fathers."
Author redpillschool
Upvotes 139
Comments 29
Date 29 January 2019 03:30 PM UTC (1 year ago)
Subreddit TheRedPill
Link https://theredarchive.com/post/218321
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/al13q0/the_symbolism_of_the_line_of_men_grilling_in_the/
Similar Posts

Red Pill terms found in post:
Dalrockthe red pill
Comments

[–]I_Dont_Type66 points67 points  (0 children) | Copy

“Kitchen women are deeply invested in family life. They are mothers. What is the easiest way to produce girls who do not understand the difference or respect the boundaries between positive and negative femininity? Take away their mothers.”

Gotta love double standards. Tell a woman to be more invested in family life these days and you might as well gouge your own eyes out before they do it for you.

[–]halfback91045 points46 points  (26 children) | Copy

Why do companies have political/social opinions. Just... why? Even if it's a very non-controversial stance I don't think a company should ever adopt it, let alone a controversial stance.

Unless it's something totally apolitical like "Here at Gillette, we like apple pie and moms." I would never even think about adopting it. Just fucking stupid. You're a business. Just take people's money and give them shit. It's easy. I take my employer's money and give them shit every day without sidling over to them and saying "Hey, let me tell you about my political beliefs right quick."

If I can do it, so can they.

[–]CountVP41 points42 points  (8 children) | Copy

There are two possible theories. The first is that they are appealing to the female crowd (wich shounds like bullcrap) and the second is that the culture in New York and L.A has gone so far off the deep end to the left that CEO’s truly believe radical feminism is a growing trend in the western world. It is not. Everyday i see more and more people reject their dumb ideology. It’s just that these people live in liberal bubbles

[–]halfback91012 points13 points  (5 children) | Copy

I desperately want to believe the first theory. I've seen decisions that are meant to appeal to liberal sensibilities made by liver splotched old men smoking cigars. I want that to be the case here.

Like when Burger King proposed to McDonald's that they unite for International Peace day. You just KNOW some evil old bastard still brags about that in his Union Club over a scotch.

[–]CountVP20 points21 points  (2 children) | Copy

I doubt old man smoking cigars would release an add talking shit about men in general. This reeks of a 21 year old diversity hire. It’s just too dumb to be done by someone who has lived an entire life

[–]Morty-Fried5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy

for International Peace day. You just KNOW some evil old bastard still brags about that in his Union Club over a scotch.

It was a female director/writer who created this..

[–]halfback9100 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

My dream is shattered. Hopefully she's still evil and cynical, though.

[–]Leylinn1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

yikes "evil old bastard"? am i the only one who admire them?

[–]halfback9100 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I admire the hell out of them. That was a compliment.

[–]EdmondDantes7770 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

The real reason is social engineering. Women are easier to control, so they want to shame men for acting like men, and drug them and make them fat and fill them with soy and adderall until they start acting like women.

Women are responsible for 78% of consumer spending in the world, that is why all businesses are going in to overdrive trying to appeal to them.

[–]OutsideTheCage313 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy

It is past time to mail our razor handles back to Gillette. That is the protest that will catch their attention, much more than social media videos.

[–]Chainsawninja10 points11 points  (1 child) | Copy

ILGWU is long gone, dissolved in the 1990s. But so are the attitudes that celebrated it. Millions of people around the world still work in factories, but you don’t hear much about them. What would happen if there were the equivalent of a Triangle Shirtwaist fire at, say, an iPhone factory in China? Would anyone care? Actually, we know the answer. The phone you have in your pocket right now was likely made in China by Foxconn, a Taiwanese company that is the biggest electronics manufacturer in the world. The workers who assembled it made less than two dollars an hour. Even by Chinese standards, that’s not a lot. Foxconn employees who make iPhones would have to work for months to afford one. The work at Foxconn is repetitive and hard, the pressure from management unrelenting. Some workers have reported being forced to stand for twenty-four hours at a time. Others say they are beaten by their supervisors. Starting around 2010, employees at Foxconn plants in China began to kill themselves in alarming numbers. Workers hanged themselves, took poison, jumped from windows. There was very little news coverage of any of it until 2012. That year about 150 Foxconn workers at a plant in Wuhan climbed to the roof of their factory and threatened to commit mass suicide if conditions didn’t improve. The company likely made in China by Foxconn, a Taiwanese company that is the biggest electronics manufacturer in the world. The workers who assembled it made less than two dollars an hour. Even by Chinese standards, that’s not a lot. Foxconn employees who make iPhones would have to work for months to afford one. The work at Foxconn is repetitive and hard, the pressure from management unrelenting. Some workers have reported being forced to stand for twenty-four hours at a time. Others say they are beaten by their supervisors. Starting around 2010, employees at Foxconn plants in China began to kill themselves in alarming numbers. Workers hanged themselves, took poison, jumped from windows. There was very little news coverage of any of it until 2012. That year about 150 Foxconn workers at a plant in Wuhan climbed to the roof of their factory and threatened to commit mass suicide if conditions didn’t improve. The company responded by installing circus nets beneath the railings. All pretty grim. Yet when was the last time you heard a politician decry Apple’s treatment of workers, let alone introduce legislation intended to address it? When was the last time a group of socially conscious hipsters from Brooklyn protested outside the home of Apple CEO Tim Cook?

Never, of course. That’s because Apple, like virtually every other big employer in American life, has purchased indulgences from the church of cultural liberalism. Apple has a gay CEO with fashionable social views. The company issues statements about green energy and has generous domestic partner benefits. Apple publicly protested the Trump administration’s immigration policies. The company is progressive in ways that matter in Brooklyn. That’s enough to stop any conversation about working conditions in Foxconn factories. Indeed, the whole point is not to talk about Foxconn factories. As Notre Dame professor Patrick Deneen points out, the ruling class’s “insistent defense of equality is a way of freeing themselves from any real duties to the lower classes that are increasingly out of geographical sight and mind. Because they repudiate inequality, they need not consciously consider themselves to be a ruling class.” A resolute lack of self-awareness makes this arrangement possible. Earlier ruling classes understood they were in charge. They admitted it and faced the consequences, including a responsibility to those beneath them. Noblesse oblige means “obligations of the nobility.” Every functioning aristocracy has taken that obligation seriously. The modern rich, by contrast, don’t acknowledge that they’re at the top of the economic heap, or even that a heap exists.

TL;DR Modern capitalist neo-liberal elites make themselves as hip and socially progressive as possible to deflect any criticism for being exploitative robber barons.

[–]Senior Endorsed Contributormax_peenor6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy

Why do companies have political/social opinions. Just... why?

Just take a look at modern marketing departments. It isn't Don Draper getting rip roaring drunk in between fucking whatever quim passes him in the elevator. It's women. It's a lot of women. They will literally spend weeks packed in a conference rooms just to produce a single idea and god help you if you call it a bad idea. Men invented this sort of advertising by trying to get into the heads of other men and other women. Women do it by exploring their own heads, which is why they come up with retarded shit like this. Men will ruthlessly attack each others ideas and then head out for drinks and laughs after. Women will ruthlessly protect their own ideas and burn down the world to vanquish a foe to them. These organizations become banal, angry and gridlocked. So yeah, this ad didn't surprise me.

Sadly, with the push to get women into the production side of industry, I expect not only our marketing to be a total shitshow, but our products will start turning to abject shit.

Now don't get me wrong. Women can come up with great ideas for stuff that people really want to have and use. That's not what we are talking about here. This is a corporate environment turned into a social club where ideas are inherently inorganic. Angry power-grrrrls in pants suits don't duo well here.

[–]Irtotallynotrobot4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy

I was thinking about why they took this marketing tactic myself actually. I figure their ultimate goal is to increase sales right? Obvious. So if we figure it's true that women make the majority of purchasing decisions, they'll be more likely to choose a razor for their SO that supports the female imperative.. When men walk through the drug store aisles, they just grab the first one they see, at least I do. Even if you piss men off, I doubt their going to take a razor back to the store to return it if their girls hand them one, we just don't give a shit.

In short, I think they're trying to get men's SO's to buy Gillette stuff. I'm sure women are buying Gillette razors now for themselves too.

[–]halfback9104 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy

On some level I get that but I think they could have accomplished that without taking a stance.

Ultimately, this may have made people like them but it also pissed a lot of people off. No stance? Nobody's gonna get pissed at you. I feel like you don't want to polarize customers either way. I buy my own razors and I'll be buying Schick now.

And I shave my head too, so they lost a PREMIUM customer! PREMIUM, I say!

[–]Irtotallynotrobot4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Yep. That's how I feel too. It was a collossal marketing mistake. I think that's the marketing logic but that commercial doesn't exactly scream logical thinking. I'm sure their teams have been infected with toxic feminist emotology.

[–]Aggressive_Beta2 points3 points  (7 children) | Copy

The company doesn’t give a shit about your precious snowflake feelings. They have no morals or political stance. The only thing they care about is which stance will increase their profits, and they will do whatever they think will help them achieve that. Including pissing off a bunch of stoic alfa keyboard warriors with their advertisements.

And they’re going to laugh at everyone who is outraged about this ad when it works. Getting upset about that is like being mad at the grass for being green.

[–]halfback9101 point2 points  (6 children) | Copy

That was my whole point. I think the most profitable stance for companies is no stance. Why do you think most companies don't take stances?

If you're right you should be able to tell me McDonald's stance on most political issues. But you're wrong. So you can't. Because McDonald's only stance is "Look at all the things you can shove into your face for four dollars!"

For fuck's sake, McDonald's doesn't even have a stance on health/eating healthy. They just offer you choices.

"You can be healthy or a fat fuck. BUT you can be EITHER of those things for just four dollars at McDonald's!"

Gillette dominated literally 75% of the market for years without ever having a stance!

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]Aggressive_Beta-1 points0 points  (3 children) | Copy

Obviously what works for some companies doesn’t work for other companies. Sometimes it’s more profitable to take a political stance... or at least pretend to take a political stance. The world is not black and white like you’re making it out to be.

[–]halfback910-1 points0 points  (2 children) | Copy

I'm not making it out to be black and white. But generally speaking in capitalism you're rewarded for focusing on having the best product.

[–]Aggressive_Beta1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy

You just said, “I don't think a company should ever adopt it, let alone a controversial stance.” That’s black and white.

[–]halfback9100 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

I think it's sub-optimal as a businessman. That is what I was saying. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, which is a context I think black and white would apply more in.

[–] points points | Copy

[permanently deleted]

[–]halfback9100 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy

Oh, I don't think it was genuine. I get that it was a marketing move. I just think it was a bad marketing move.

I think corporate social responsibility campaigns shouldn't take stances. So for instance, Gillette could have done a social responsibility campaign where they would provide a free shave to homeless people or something. Social responsibility. No stance.

I just think unnecessarily polarizing customers is dumb.

[–]Fatstupidvirginboy28 points29 points  (0 children) | Copy

I grew up in a fairly wealthy suburb in the southern united states. Divorce was by far the norm and only 1 or 2 kids i knew lived in a double parent household.

I swear that the weird kids, and the kids that seemed to struggle socially and behaviorally, were all raised by their mothers. I also noticed a general lack of personal responsibility and self sufficiency.

Not having a male role model will make young men behave more like women, naturally. Unfortunately women say they want this but in my on experience, girls wanted nothing to do with these guys and were quick to bash them as a "pussy" or weirdo.

Its not a secret, children do better on average with a father around. I would argue that for some children in some demographics, it is far more serious, and leaves children at a disadvantage to their peers.

Taking it a step further and outside of my original point, now that I am older, i have seen women really quickly judge men who behave effeminately. Girls really do not want to see a man cry, they really don't want to see a man bitch and moan. If a man does behave that way ive seen women be completely disgusted and super quick to make snarky comments to their buddies.

[–]AllahHatesFags26 points27 points  (1 child) | Copy

It's a very stupid business strategy because bitch-made soyboys with low T tend to have less facial hair.

[–]CensorThis1114 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy

Right? Although I never bought their shitty products anyway.



You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2020. All rights reserved.

created by /u/dream-hunter