Rolling Maleness and Masculinity Discussion Thread

is shaving for the first time with the president a custom in yr part of the world deems

neutral? hm

The APA, complicit in torture but in a neutral way

there's no such thing as a politically neutral body but if there were APA def isn't it

Oh yeah i forgot about that. Hm

it was the first time he'd been home to spot me shaving iirc is the thing mordy

its an example of some non toxic masculinity easy now

oh the taste of yr masculinity i'm on a ride

shavings good

first shave was back in 93 iirc but i met the president in 96 and i had to pretend that was my first time cos dad was home for it and it seemed important to him

The guidelines, 10 in all, posit that males who are socialized to conform to “traditional masculinity ideology” are often negatively affected in terms of mental and physical health.

more or less than yknow anyone else like?

― topical mlady (darraghmac), Monday, January 14, 2019 2:22 PM (one minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i don't know how it is in ireland deems but suicide is the main killer of young men in scotland. a common refrain after someone jumps in the clyde is "we never knew he was struggling". the causal link between "being a man" in the traditional masculinist sense and bad mental health would seem fairly clear

also if many of these men would "open up" to their pals they would be told to fuck off or stop being bent

i think that's true. a lot of "confessional" behavior that one might imagine as an alternative to bottling up yr feelings is similarly arrested full of toxicities so many ppl are addicted to their complaint narratives compulsively returning to them again and again. there's a healthy kind of confessional/confidence but ppl will need to be taught that it's not simple enough to say "don't bottle it in" ppl have to know how to communicate + theorize their suffering in productive ways. (neither repression nor magnification etc)

i agree mordy. it's a careful balance--it's good to know when to ask for help, but the goal has to be emotional self regulation. also i am a big believer in therapy because if you try to open up all the time to your friends that is going to be taxing on those friendships.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/science/apa-traditional-masculinity-harmful.html

― Trϵϵship, Monday, 14 January 2019 22:18 (eight minutes ago) Permalink

lol, traditional masculinity may be harmful. For example, here is a stock photo of a high school basketball team.

its the leading cause here too jim

im not sure that youve linked it to traditional masculinity vs a v rapid pivot from same and a constant barrage of negativity of p much any form of self determined masculinity

but idk.

tbh I blame capitalism either way

def!

and im not saying the pivot didnt need to happen neither fwiw but im not sure that either the vacuum or the numerous advocated alternatives arent a major input into young male suicide figures (skewed heavily rural here also which is imo relevant)

i don't really feel like the pivot away from traditional masculinity has gotten up much steam when I'm back home in lanarkshire in the pub tbh.

"'Men are not the target audience of this ad.'

"That's really interesting. Do you think that this would be obvious to most people in marketing?"

I think so, particularly if they know about Procter & Gamble's strategy. (Part of my partner's job is knowing something about the personal care business world.) But there are some clues in the ad itself, especially the longform version -- showing the existing slogan in low-res video and then having an act of violence burst through it is a pretty on-the-nose way to do a re-branding, failing to show any men that male viewers would want to be until Terry Crews appears halfway in-- until that point, the men shown are pensive, victimized, or victimizers, while the women in the first half are shown being strong or tough or nurturing even in the face of victimization. Even importing Terry Crews from another P&G brand to Gillette says something. Corporations as large about P&G have to know about public attitudes to a million billion things, but they only ever want to change public attitudes on three types of things: attitudes toward political decisions that benefit their shareholders, attitudes toward their brands, and attitudes toward their products -- and they never ever ever want target markets to feel bad about themselves. This ad would make marketing sense if P&G no longer wants separate branding for Gillette and Gillette for Women.

i think any man watching that as would know right away it's not targeted to them, it's feminist porn. it even has a superhero foiling an in progress sexual assault (the brave man who stops his friend from looking at SMH attractive passerby). 10/10

*an, not SMH

I am not qualified to comment on the larger politics here, but I will say that I hate shaving AND I hate having a beard about equally. It is a continual cycle of annoyance. I probably deserve it.

i have that thing where if i have a beard i look like the daguerreotype of a civil war casualty and if i'm clean-shaven i look like a slightly weathered child, but if i have a moderately unshaven look it works. it's a delicate balance.

I think i’m always going to keep the scruff. I did clean shaven a few weeks ago and i had to admit it didn’t look like me.

I've been totally clean-shaven twice in the last 36 years and couldn't get that beard back fast enough.

the worst thing about the gillette ad is the men on twitter vigorously congratulating themselves for not being one of the men on twitter who's offended by the gillette ad

My mom just e-mailed this to me noting how “I have my work cut out for me as a father” lol

"'Men are not the target audience of this ad.'

"That's really interesting. Do you think that this would be obvious to most people in marketing?"

I think so, particularly if they know about Procter & Gamble's strategy. (Part of my partner's job is knowing something about the personal care business world.) But there are some clues in the ad itself, especially the longform version -- showing the existing slogan in low-res video and then having an act of violence burst through it is a pretty on-the-nose way to do a re-branding, failing to show any men that male viewers would want to be until Terry Crews appears halfway in-- until that point, the men shown are pensive, victimized, or victimizers, while the women in the first half are shown being strong or tough or nurturing even in the face of victimization. Even importing Terry Crews from another P&G brand to Gillette says something. Corporations as large about P&G have to know about public attitudes to a million billion things, but they only ever want to change public attitudes on three types of things: attitudes toward political decisions that benefit their shareholders, attitudes toward their brands, and attitudes toward their products -- and they never ever ever want target markets to feel bad about themselves. This ad would make marketing sense if P&G no longer wants separate branding for Gillette and Gillette for Women.

― Three Word Username, Monday, January 14, 2019 6:23 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Any source for this other than inside info? It's interesting but it would be nice to have a (non-breitbart) article or something like that making that case

is there a brietbart article making the case? it does seem likely that insulting your customers or inveighing against them to be less shitty are not great strategies if your intention is to sell them a product. what's the alternative? that they're a corporation moved by social responsibility and they're willing to alienate some of their customers in order to "make a difference"?

https://goat.com.au/metoo/gillettes-anti-toxic-masculinity-ad-is-so-sharp-that-of-course-its-cut-toxic-men-deep?fbclid=IwAR1OggiwUqIHfojyOxwyxKLbFk4kAoegEMZKLMICAx3vQTTgZG9lCLgGbvI

Something a fb friend posted from Au.

ppl who are normally skeptical of corporate motivations esp when it comes to promotion and advertising (not saying this is anyone in particular, just as a general statement) probably shouldn't suspend that skepticism just bc they like the message

facial hair: uncomfortable, mild dysphoria. shaving: tedious, nick this same damn mole on my face 2/3 of the time. laser: intimidating, unknown.

― I have measured out my life in coffee shop loyalty cards (silby), Monday, January 14, 2019 3:07 PM (yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

once again silby and i are on the same page

Meanwhile, one brave advertiser senses an opportunity:

Ball Deodorant: Sometimes the best inventions are the most obvious! You put deodorant under your arms, doesn't it make sense to put it on down there? Your balls will thank you → https://t.co/JX5CsVG8jG pic.twitter.com/RvyhpLXgjl

— Manscaped (@manscaped) December 18, 2018

perfect for marketing of masculinity

I couldn't tell if he was powdering them or punching them.

brad u can ilxmail me anytime if u want a penpal

https://goat.com.au/metoo/gillettes-anti-toxic-masculinity-ad-is-so-sharp-that-of-course-its-cut-toxic-men-deep?fbclid=IwAR1OggiwUqIHfojyOxwyxKLbFk4kAoegEMZKLMICAx3vQTTgZG9lCLgGbvI

Something a fb friend posted from Au.

― There's more Italy than necessary. (in orbit), Tuesday, January 15, 2019 4:22 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this catch-22, "if you don't like the ad that just proves how correct and necessary the ad is" reaction to the backlash feels like something that's implicit in the ad itself, and part of the reason why it rubs some men the wrong way? like it's *daring* you not to like it, because if you have a problem with it that means you're fragile/toxic/beta/inadequate/misogynistic etc

I think Breitbart is much more liker to argue (incorrectly) that Procter & Gamble gives a fuck about anything but shareholder value than I am. I see this as a really good example of the oft-ignored proposition that no idea is so righteous that it can't be co-opted. American men as a genre sure can do better than they are doing; P&G also don't give a fuck about me.

yeah I mean obviously they are doing it for their bottom line, I just meant the specific idea that the ad is aimed at women and not men, which I think is very interesting from a marketing/branding perspective

it's *daring* you not to like it, because if you have a problem with it that means you're fragile/toxic/beta/inadequate/misogynistic etc

― soref, 15. januar 2019 18:58 (eighteen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Yup. It's nicely done.

I mean it makes sense. If I wanted to make an ad aimed at men I'd just make an ad that makes beards look stupid and dated and unattractive.

Here's an idea: First-person POV walking into an office, heads keep turning, attractive women taking notice, all the men have goofy, exaggerated facial hair and are gawking. Perspective switch and you see a handsome, square-jawed, clean-shaven man. He touches his own freshly shaven jaw as if to say "I guess it's the shave." Slogan: "It's time to show your face." That's how you sell to men. Imply that your product will make them more attractive to women and admired by other men, while playing on their insecurities at the same time. It's not that complicated, get your shit together advertisers!

Good ad man alive

i'm cypriot and this anti-beard talk is violence

personally i think shaving products and their advertisements are also needlessly gendered

they kinda did that with the ad showing all the people with shaved heads getting high powered jobs or whatever. idk if it was effective but it seemed like a good shaving ad to me

A - male - friend of mine just retweeted this:

Well, I can tell you exactly which men’s care brand will never get my money, and it ain’t Gillette. pic.twitter.com/6Q4UZ5fuN8

— Dan Moren (@dmoren) January 15, 2019

big who cares

so yeah, it might be about provoking a contrast?

I remember a poet in the "words tent" at Glastonbury in the late 90s had a poem about "is that really the best a man can get?" and "apparently gay people don't shave" - they could've hired him but no.

in these kinds of brand battles over "serious" issues everyone comes out dumber

re boys will be boys - how often is that idiom used to excuse sexually abusive behavior as opposed to stuff like rough housing and general wildness? bc the two are not synonymous. i'm sure it has been used for the former before but recently it has become a stand-in for excusing abuse whereas i think i almost always see it as an explanation for rowdiness.