An advert is a subject for discussion. Not a platform.
So we're in agreement - an advert is a great subject for discussion, which does advert does.
It's a commercial advert. Their motives are to increase the profitability of the company, therefore disingenuous. It doesn't not discourage debate one bit in my opinion and I think you are confusing people who scream loudly with the majority view. Here we are debating how things could get better. Not discouraged by the criticism of the advert.
Their motives are to increase profitability - but then so is any advert, right?
So is it not better for an advert to have a message behind it, rather than the stereotypical shaving advert which has a handsome guy who shaves his face while showing off his abs, then his supermodel wife hugs him from behind - aren't those adverts also disingenuous? It's certainly not reflective of 9/10 of their customers' lives.
Both will increase profitability, one of them at least has meaning and creates discussion.
There's a discussion to be had on companies jumping on political campaigns, sure - in this case Gillette have set themselves up to donate $3m to non-profits that target men, so I think it's unfair to say they are disingenuous.
I don't see any evidence the laws have contrarian effect but I'd be happy to be corrected? Laws are an ultimate deterrent. They are constantly changing, but from what I know sexual abuse, harassment, rape.... they all have very high legal repercussions. Schools fall into the educational bracket I mentioned. Won't schools be accused of virtue signalling? No, that's part of a schools mission to teach the right virtues and educate. It's not Gillette's.
It needs to be subtle because the people you are trying to reach will reject or ignore the message if its coming on too strong. The era of #MeToo and #BLM also brought a right wing backlash and Trump to power. People seem to forget that some times.
The law doesn't always protect men in the way it should.
Male domestic violence victims & rape victims aren't taken seriously because of the notion of "being a man", also they are far less likely to report a crime or talk to someone because of it. Single fathers find it harder to gain visitation and custody of their children even when the mother is in no state to look after the child.
Just because the laws are in place, doesn't mean they are protecting us.
Laws are often a reflection of society, and society has dictated this environment of toxic masculinity - and in most cases that gives men an advantage, however it doesn't mean it always gives them an advantage nor does it mean men are unable to be victims either.
Schools aren't currently educating kids on things like toxic masculinity, that won't suddenly change out of nowhere. Sex education wasn't introduced in schools until it was necessary - whether through teen pregnancies or rampant sexually transmitted diseases, so how do you expect schools to educate on a topic like this?
Surely it would need to come about through something like this advert?
I don't know about you but I was in 6th form during the recession and we would have discussions about it's impact during class. Similarly, we talked about politics & upcoming general elections during critical thinking, most classes were an opportunity to discuss relevant topics and in this modern era - I can only assume that, that is even more true now. So an advert like this enables discussion to be had where it otherwise would not have happened.
I fail to see how that's a problem.
It doesn't need to be subtle - people know whats right and what's wrong when it comes to these things, they choose to reject or ignore and their choice shouldn't dictate the momentum of the movement, especially when the victims don't get a choice.
