Gillette loses 8 billion. I guess that SJW wokeness does have a cost to it, and their stupid f'n CEO doesn't care. Gillette’s CEO and president, Gary Coombe, says that angering some consumers with its #metoo campaign was a "price worth paying" How in the hell does he still have a job after saying something so utterly stupid? Your job is to make money you silly fuck. https://www.bizpacreview.com/2019/0...aunched-its-toxic-masculinity-campaign-780595
While it does't matter to me what people do with their gender identity, i would agree this ad is probably a misstep in an effort to virtue signal. Does anybody know the stats on how many women want to become men? Is it the same number as males who want to become females? Anyway, biology divides the genders up into two groups. Oh wait. about 1% are born biologically both, called hermaphrodite. And everybody should know that biologically, all start out as female, and about half are randomly selected to get an extra dose of testosterone in uterus, generally yielding male genitalia. But if you can comprehend how reincarnation works, people are changing roles both biologically, as well as psychologically. While most role reversals are made behind the scenes, off stage, many role changes are made on stage in view of an audience. My point is people should not really get bogged down on any gender role, but especially, should never justify gender roles because of a role they assign to "God". Gender is not sacred, and should not be a sacred cow. Spirituality is, or ought to be about NO GENDER roles, there being none in reality. Any other identity will be problematic, including "straight" roles. I would not worry too much about what roles kids want to experiment with, or drift towards. But yah, be careful about the irreversible effects of decisions, but hey, kids can make decisions, give me a break. Too many parents are doing surgery on hermaphrodites to fit their own idea of what gender their child ought to be, and there are equivalently stupid decisions being made by parents in every other avenue of potential change, which are not more wise than what the child decides for itself. Still, i would not boast of one's open-minded ness as one set of parents seems to do above.
Friday, August 9, 2019 HOME COMMENTARY The cost of Gillette’s wokeness revealed: a non-cash writedown of $12 billionTHE MOCKERFollow @Oz_Mocker THEAUSTRALIAN.COM.AU1:48 Gillette's 'The Best Men Can Be' ad Gillette's new 'The Best Men Can Be' ad tackles the issue of toxic masculinity and has divided the internet. A screenshot from the Gillette advertisement. 3:27PM AUGUST 8, 2019 863 Facebook Twitter Email Once upon a time there was a man called John. He had a wife and two children. He loved his family, and they loved him. He had a good job, worked hard, and provided for his family. But he was not a good man. That’s not to say he was deliberately bad. But John was not a good man, because he never acknowledged his TOXIC MASCULINITY that comes with having a PAIR OF TESTICLES. In not renouncing this, John was part of the PATRIARCHY, which oppresses women. That all changed early one morning when John began lathering his face with GILLETTE HYDRA GEL. As he looked in the mirror and observed the GILLETTE FUSION PROGLIDE RAZOR glide smoothly across his face, he marvelled at the genius of this shaving manufacturer and the quality of its products. “The best a man can get,” he exclaimed contentedly. Then he suddenly realised that Gillette was urging him to reflect on his MALE PRIVILEGE. Instead of seeing a good man in the mirror, John saw a sleazebag, a catcaller, a bully, a rapist and a misogynist. “From now on I will strive to be THE BEST A MAN CAN BE,” said John as he applied GILLETTE COOL WAVE AFTER SHAVE SPLASH to his smooth face. John is now an example of what the #MeToo movement wants men to be. He no longer disagrees with third wave feminist pronouncements, he enthusiastically supports mandatory affirmative action targets, he remains silent during work meetings until all the women have finished speaking and he is invited to talk. He prefaces his observations with an acknowledgment that he is speaking as a white male, with all the privileges that entails. When seated on public transport, John rigidly keeps his inner thighs together to avoid manspreading, although his resultant facial expression unwittingly deters other passengers, both male and female, from sitting next to him. When a male colleague compliments a female co-worker on her new dress, John reports him to the harassment officer. Having taken his moral guidance from a woke multinational corporation that sells toiletries, John is now officially a GOOD MAN, a POSITIVE ROLE MODEL, and a MALE ALLY. There you have it, my take on Gillette’s advertising strategy. Unfortunately, there is a sad ending to this story. John’s wife and kids now treat him as a weak-willed pushover, and his friends avoid him altogether as they want nothing to with male feminists, whom they regard as creepy. Although he is pleased that feminist activists invite him to speak at rallies where he passionately denounces masculine traits, he suspects of late they regard him as a useful fool and laugh about him behind his back. To his male colleagues, John is the face of Gillette razors, and all of them have since either changed brands or grown a beard. Launching its controversial ad in January, Gillette declared that “Men need to hold other men accountable”. Produced by Australian woman Kim Gehrig, the ad depicted aggressive and rowdy boys, together with men “mansplaining” and sexually harassing women. It urged men to reconsider what masculinity meant. Not bad coming from a brand which in 2011 featured sexy women wearing latex onesies with Gillette’s brand name plastered prominently across their derrieres. Kristy Swanson ✔@KristySwansonXO · Jan 17, 2019 Well would ya look at my #Gillette... Kristy Swanson ✔@KristySwansonXO Incase you didn’t get to see enough of #Gillette’s ASSvertisements... 644 6:40 AM - Jan 18, 2019 Twitter Ads info and privacy 343 people are talking about this Men across the world denounced its turnaround ad as an attack on masculinity, many vowing never to use Gillette products again. Piers Morgan ✔@piersmorgan Let ME just be clear: you’re a man-hating imbecile and this pathetic Gillette ad is a direct consequence of radical feminists like you driving a war against masculinity. https://twitter.com/nicolathorp_/status/1084942282594443266 … Nicola Thorp ✔@nicolathorp_ Let’s just be clear. This ad focusses on changing the behaviour of men who have engaged in sexual assault, harassment, discrimination and violence. In this tweet, Piers condones this behaviour. For the likes. For the column inches. For the ego. For the love of god, stop him. https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1084891133757587456 … 5,096 6:30 PM - Jan 15, 2019 Twitter Ads info and privacy 1,665 people are talking about this Not surprisingly, it received almost universal accolades from the woke folk. Social commentator and self-declared ad expert Jane Caro praised it, tweeting that Gillette was fighting “for a better world”. Luke Chess♟@LukeChess · Jan 16, 2019 Replying to @JaneCaro Fair enough. I spend a deal of time criticising MRAs, right wing nutters, knee-jerk reactionaries and others. I guess I’ll just keep going, ma’am. Jane Caro ✔@JaneCaro Good for you and me and all of us who fight for a better world - including, it seems, Gillette. 6 9:09 PM - Jan 16, 2019 Twitter Ads info and privacy See Jane Caro's other Tweets Guardian columnist Van Badham wrote gushingly that she had “shed some tears” upon seeing the ad. Ironically, she unwittingly vindicated its critics who claimed it stereotyped men, stating “misogynists and their enablers have not taken the ad well”. Even arch-feminist and commentator Clementine Ford cheerfully acknowledged the ad was as “manipulative as hell” and capitalised on the #MeToo Movement. “The feminist scold in me just loves bathing in the male tears,” she chortled. Gillette is owned by Procter & Gamble. Its senior marketer, Marc Pritchard, freely admits the company wants to “change the way people view the world,” stressing the themes of inclusion, diversity and equality. But as adjunct professor Mark Ritson of Melbourne Business School wrote in January for this newspaper, it was an unusual strategy given Gillette’s male customers were more likely to hold conservative views. “My bet is that the net impact of this campaign and all the resources invested into it will result in more consumers abandoning the brand than adopting it,” he predicted. It looks like the good professor will collect on that bet. Last week P&G reported a net loss of $US5.24 billion for the quarter ending June 30, the reason being an $US8 billion ($12bn) non-cash writedown of Gillette. The company insisted the reason for this was the preference millennial men had for facial hair, and increased competition from brands such as Harry’s and Dollar Shave Club. “I don’t enjoy that some people were offended by the film and upset at the brand as a consequence,” said Gillette CEO Gary Coombe last month. “But I am absolutely of the view now that for the majority of people to fall more deeply in love with today’s brands you have to risk upsetting a small minority and that’s what we’ve done.” A screenshot from the Gillette advertisement. I do not purport to be an expert on ads, but to me it is a no-brainer that any marketing campaign which intentionally portrays its erstwhile loyal male customers as Neanderthals in dire need of civilising will cause a severe sales backlash. Last year, Gillette sold $US6.22 billion worth of men’s razors and blades compared with $US1.28 billion of women’s razors. Obviously Coombe’s definition of a “small minority” is different from mine. Just imagine a Gillette marketing executive’s idea of running a restaurant. “Yes madam, I know you ordered the chocolate mousse and not the fruit platter,” says a condescending manager to a complaining diner. “But we could not help noticing you are a tad on the porky side, and we decided you should instead have the low-cal alternative.” As for Caro, Badham, Ford and their ilk, consider how they would react to this hypothetical. A company that sells pregnancy testing kits launches an ad – produced by a male director – intended to raise awareness on the insidious practice of paternity fraud. “Women need to hold other women accountable,” says the narrator as the ad depicts expectant mothers as greedy and deceitful opportunists. The subsequent mass outcry from women’s groups would terrify a banshee. Gillette would have done well to learn from the example of coffee giant Starbucks and its ill-considered idea to impress customers with its wokeness. In 2015 the company, no doubt acting at the behest of some well-meaning cretin, decreed that its baristas would write “Race Together’’ on customers’ coffee cups to improve race relations. “If a customer asks you what this is,” said Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, “try to engage in a discussion that we have problems in this country in regards to race and racial inequality”. A screenshot from the Gillette advertisement which caused controversy. Such was the backlash this initiative was quickly shelved. “I felt personally attacked in a cascade of negativity,” complained Corey duBrowa, Starbucks senior vice president of communications, as he explained why he deleted his Twitter account. Who could have foreseen that customers were interested only in a caffeine hit and not a patronising lecture from some pimply teenager? Given Gillette executives remain determined to strike more blows for social justice, we should provide them with a couple of suggestions. To begin with, the company should review its instructional videos on shaving one’s bikini line, which currently feature an attractive cisgender woman. How incredibly woke would it be if it contracted Canadian transwoman and Brazilian aficionado Jessica Yaniv to do the same, especially given she possesses a fuller figure as well as the frank and beans so to speak? Or how about Gillette give publicity to the feminist theory that women shave only because they are forced to conform to patriarchal expectations of feminine beauty? Throw away our razors in the name of liberation, ladies! As for the Gillette gurus’ marketing strategy, let’s just say it is the male customers making the company accountable now, not vice versa. So much for their intention to transform men into docile and emasculated seekers of enlightenment. Not only has a once-respected company that is famous for its razors managed to sever ties with its largest customer demographic, but it’s also done the same to Gillette’s juniper berries
HOME INQUIRER Let us now praise masculine menJANET ALBRECHTSENFollow @jkalbrechtsen Colleagues Lee Cuthbert, Paul O’Shaughnessy and Alex Roberts, who captured Mert Ney. Picture: Jane Dempster 12:00AM AUGUST 17, 2019 350 Facebook Twitter Email On Tuesday afternoon a handful of men ran into the face of danger. Going about their business only seconds before, they confronted a man brandishing a bloody knife, pinning him down in the middle of a bustling Sydney street. The men who stopped further bloodshed have been called heroes, and they will be recognised for their courage. In passing, can we praise masculinity too? Or is that too controversial in an age when masculinity is raised only to condemn what is wrong with men and to preach how to change them. Today, any celebration of masculinity is limited to praising men who do more housework and get involved with their kids, men who are able to cry, empathise with women and express their feelings. All very important stuff. But none of that would have restrained a crazed man who was threatening more violent carnage in Sydney’s CBD. Can we praise men who do both please? Lawyer John Bamford picked up a wicker chair from the cafe he was in, raced outside and chased the attacker, 21-year-old Mert Ney, who was bloodied, jumping on a car bonnet while wielding his knife and screaming at passers-by. Ney was jammed to the ground by men using a milk crate and two chairs. Bamford returned the chair to the cafe and ordered a pie. Lawyer John Bamford. Picture: David Swift Traffic controller Steven Georgiadis tried to tackle Ney to the ground. “As soon as I saw the knife I moved to the side so I could crash tackle him sideways so he wouldn’t stab me,” said Georgiadis, who managed to stand on the bloody knife. From their office window, brothers Luke and Paul O’Shaughnessy saw the mayhem unfolding in the street below and raced down to help. They followed a trail of blood to the man who is alleged to have murdered one woman and stabbed another. “(We) were like ‘Right, where is he? Where is he?’ … I’m shouting, because I’m a bit more risk-averse than Luke, (who is) straight in there.” NSW Police Commissioner Mick Fuller described these men as heroes of the highest order. It is also true that the heroes were all men exhibiting traits now routinely derided as part of traditional masculinity — brute force and aggression, taking charge, adrenalin pumping, taking risks. Do we fear praising masculinity in case it leads to a scolding for encouraging toxic masculinity? It’s not an unreasonable fear because the conflation of masculinity with toxic masculinity, to use the phrase favoured by the roving gender police, has become routine. This common sleight of hand to use gender to confect some crudely defined phenomenon stokes pointless gender wars and risks harming both men and women. No one in their right mind endorses or condones or whitewashes genuinely toxic behaviour, let alone violence. A beautiful woman, Michaela Dunn, died on Tuesday allegedly at the hands of a man. Another innocent woman, Lin Bo, was stabbed, allegedly by the same man. But condemning violence should not be conflated with a male pathology. The conflation of traditional masculinity with the poorly defined “toxic masculinity” won’t stop bad behaviour because when words lose their meaning, they lose their punch. Take the Gillette ad, “The Best Men Can Be”, where Procter & Gamble tried to hijack this latest fad to turn a profit. Proving that consumers are not fools, it didn’t work. This month, P&G reported a net loss of $US5.24 billion ($7.73bn) for the quarter ending June 30. The company said men today like more facial hair. The company could have added that men today don’t like being told that masculinity needs to be redefined by a preachy razor ad showing a series of men behaving badly. While whoops of delight came from Jane Caro and Clementine Ford, more thoughtful viewers saw an advert with as much nuance as a lightning bolt from God. Perhaps Gillette’s next foray into “The Best Men Can Be” will include some vision of those brave men saving Sydneysiders from further violence earlier this week. It does no one any favours when gender is used as a cheap weapon, a stunt for ulterior motives. This week, for example, former foreign minister Julie Bishop fronted a camera, again, to talk about her time in politics, again, this time on Andrew Denton’s Interview program on the Seven Network. Repeating a story she has told many times, Bishop said that if a woman was the only female voice in the room, men showed a “gender deafness”. “It’s as if they just don’t seem to hear you,” she said. How often has this happened to her? If it was once, maybe it was an innocent oversight? If it’s more than once, then that deserves a bit of prodding too. For every Julie Bishop who complains, in sweeping terms, about “gender deafness”, there is someone like me who has sat in many board meetings over many years as the only female voice and never experienced gender deafness, only respect and courtesy. But, because I don’t talk about my thoroughly normal experiences in all-male meetings, and Bishop complains endlessly about hers, we are encouraged to treat “gender deafness” as a widespread, deeply entrenched phenomenon that treats women as second-class citizens. Predictably, the movement against toxic masculinity has become an open invitation for some women to grandstand about all kinds of silly, unproven claims, warping our understanding of the true state of affairs between men and women. And as Franklin D. Roosevelt said: “Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth.” Even if it is not a lie, repeating the tale of a single experience over and over again does not turn it into a wicked gender-based phenomenon either. There is only one thing worse than Julia Gillard making claims about misogyny when her leadership tanked: that is hearing Bishop say this week that she was disgusted by the treatment of Australia’s first female prime minister, when Bishop said nothing about it when it was apparently happening. It’s like Bishop’s recent conviction that the Liberal Party has a problem with women, expressed only after she lost the leadership contest last year. It’s time for the former foreign minister to draw stumps on her stage show because her smiling stage face can’t disguise the sour grapes. When men treat women poorly, it should be called out. And vice versa, if equality means anything. But credibility comes from acting on these matters when you have the power to change things, not afterwards as a stunt to get attention. After all, the bystander is sometimes as bad as the bully. Bishop’s diminishing credibility aside, there is a far more serious side to the gender zealotry unfolding today. As The Australian reported this week, there are real concerns that NSW crown prosecutors are running sexual assault trials with insufficient regard for the strength of the evidence. One of Sydney’s most prominent criminal lawyers, Greg Walsh, who has acted for alleged victims and defendants, told this newspaper that the “hysteria”, the “zealous” and “activist” prosecutions had “gone too far”. “They (sexual assault cases) are becoming a cause celebre, they are just out of control,” Walsh said. Lawyer Chris Murphy, another well-known Sydney criminal lawyer, said prosecutors were undoubtedly feeling the potential threat of public condemnation if they didn’t proceed to trial, and go hard in court. It was leading to especially aggressive tactics, Murphy said, with critical evidence being withheld from the defence in some trials. Murphy cited the recent rape trial of Wolf Creek star John Jarratt, who was acquitted within hours of the jury retiring to consider the verdict. Murphy, who acted for Jarratt, said he had never seen “a more undeserving, weak” crown case go to trial. Last week, a District Court judge implored the NSW parliament to consider changing laws that are aimed at protecting rape victims but are causing a serious injustice for defendants. The judge is presiding over a case where a man accused of rape is not allowed to bring evidence of 12 incidents in which his female accuser has made false complaints about sexual abuse. On two separate occasions, the woman made false reports to the police, and after being investigated she admitted fabricating the sexual assault allegations. The judge was precluded by law from allowing evidence of the woman’s history of making false claims of sexual assault because of laws that were introduced to stop “offensive and demeaning” cross-examination of an accuser’s sexual history. He described this as an “affront to justice”. Gender zealotry is having a real impact on our culture and our legal system. It stops us publicly praising the kind of masculinity that unfolded on King Street in Sydney this week. And a fixation with gender is not a win for women either because when women make silly claims, they lose credibility. The legal consequences are even more troubling given the pressure on prosecutors to proceed with flawed sexual assault trials. If it makes it harder to reform unjust laws, then surely it is time for more women to reconsider their role in stoking gender zealotry. After all, women who make false claims do real damage to genuine victims, and they should face the music for their lies. JANET ALBRECHTSEN COLUMNIST Janet Albrechtsen is an opinion columnist with The Australian. She has worked as a solicitor in commercial