The Gillette Ad

“Everyone” is talking about the new Gillette ad above. It is cynical, manipulative in sinister ways, unfair, insincere, divisive, unfair, and wrong. Over at Reason, the usually rational Robby Soave was sucked in (as was Ann Althouse, who said the little boys at the end moved her to tears—Awwwww!) defending the ad:

But the ad never said that all men are bad. It never argued that masculinity is always and everywhere a dangerous ideal. It made a very modest statement—treat people better—in hopes of selling more razors to people who agree. Again, why is this bad?…Young guys need to learn from men who treat women well and act as protectors rather than victimizers, which…is exactly what the Gillette ad called on men to do. People are free to associate with whatever brand they want, so if Gillette’s so-called virtue signaling bothers someone that much, that person may go ahead and buy razors elsewhere. But it would be a shame if the right started boycotting companies for taking the position that maybe hurting people is bad. Is owning the libs really that important?

Sucker! I am heartened that the ad has generated overwhelmingly negative responses, and while I would never call for a boycott (I use electric razors, thanks), I would still love to see Gillette suffer for this naked virtue-signaling and insulting stereotype mongering, all while pretending to “care,” when in fact it is just a cynical tactic to create buzz. I hope the eventual buzz is the sound of Remington electric razors.

Jon Gabriel’s reaction was similar to mine:

Gillette has had a rough few years. The former shaving hegemon has seen its market share plummet due to a resurgence in classic “wet shaving,” online razor subscription services, and the popularity of beards. Gillette’s obvious options are to lower their artificially high price or drastically improve their quality. Instead, they’ve decided to make their remaining customers feel bad about themselves through an expensive new ad campaign…. “You’re a very bad person, give us money” is an odd marketing pitch, especially from a company that’s used sex to sell its product for decades…Gillette has now declared war on its customer base. [Quoting the Wall Street Journal]

Gillette parent Procter & Gamble Co. is among companies that in recent years have used advertising as a platform to promote their stance on social issues such as gender equality, and polarizing political topics such as immigration and gun control. P&G is perhaps best known for its lauded “Like a Girl” ad campaign for feminine-care brand Always and “Stress test” for deodorant brand Secret.

Promoting social issues can be effective marketing, but notice the difference. P&G’s female-directed ads make women feel better about themselves. The company tells women “you’re great just as you are” and tells men “you’re bad and need to change.”

“Why is this bad?” asks sensitive Robby. Ah, let me count the ways:

1. The ad is offensive in the same way the various “We’re glad you’re our neighbor” (‘…unlike the racist, xenophobes in the neighborhood, and you know who THEY are…’) signs aroung my neighborhood are. They are grandstanding proclamations of virtue that by their very existence presume wrongdoing is rampant. It’s fear-mongering; it’s insulting hyperbole.

2. The ad is also pandering to the #MeToo mob, and its presumption that any accusation of sexual misconduct by a woman about a man must be believed because, well, you know what men are like. The problem is that most men are not like Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Matt Lauer and Roger Ailes. Moreover, men who bully, harass and behave like jerks frequently are confronted by their more ethical peers. I know I’ve done it, but I haven’t had to very often. I was raised to respect women by a father who learned from his father’s horrible example. I raised my son to respect women because I learned from my father’s excellent example. Who is a greedy razor blade company to lecture me about what men should be like?

3. The set-up is all anti-male stereotypes. (A guy grilling! The Horror!) Girls, of course, are notorious bullies; indeed, the worst reported cyber-bullying episodes have had girls at their center. Why is bullying portrayed as a uniquely male behavior? The cartoon portraying a “wolf whistle” is a flagrant anachronism. When was the last time you heard a man whistle at a woman, except in a 1930’s movie? I’ve NEVER heard a wolf whistle in an entire life.  I know of one former employee who pinched women in the workplace, and he was almost seventy, and got himself fired. I had an uncle who was salacious around teenage girls, and my sister humiliated him, in public, so he never tried that crap in our house again. Yes, there are rude, sexist, predatory men. Normal men do not respect, emulate or tolerate them, for the most part. We do not need Gillette…

…to teach us not to think of women as eye-candy and sexual play-things.

3. The commercial is cowardly and dishonest. African-Americans are only shown as the rescuers and admirable men, though black culture has a serious problem with absent fathers, poor make role models, and domestic abuse.

4. “Boys will be boys” is indeed often a rationalization for bad conduct. It is also a crucial and correct observation when teachers, especially female teachers, and other adults expect boys to act like polite, cautious, submissive little girls, and punish young males as they try to learn how to be men. My son liked, and likes, guns, cars, fast cars, slapstick humor, violent films (but good ones) video-games and, yes, grilling meat. A lot of woke women call this “toxic masculinity.” He has nothing to be ashamed of, and being a boy, and now a young man, who likes those things is not a societal problem. Women trying to represent maleness as a societal malady, however, is a huge societal problem.

5. The ad is “piling on.” The New York Times hired an editor who repeatedly has stated in public that white men are a plague on society, and Gillette thinks that endorsing her position is societal responsible.

6. In this environment, the ad is partisan. Despite a few doomed males who have thrown their futile hats in the ring, the Democratic Party has made its anti-male agenda and gender biased position clear and inescapable. Gillette thinks signaling that it too regards men as dangerous, unthinking pigs who can’t be trusted with leadership or responsibility is  a winning message.

Let me conclude with some tart comments from Ann’s blog, taking her to task for swallowing this anti-male propaganda:

The ad is sexist as fuck, Ann, and you won’t admit it.

Nothing is more offensive to me, as far as societal issues go, than using the phrase “boys will be boys” as a pejorative.

-Boys, in their natural state, are bad.

-Boys cannot be boys in a healthy society.

It infuriates me.

I’ll propose a thought experiment. Assume Gillette put out the same ad, but it’s a lineup of African American men and the ad harps on their disproportionate participation in violent crime and asks them to be better. How do you think that ad would go over?

Serious question. Do women tune out nagging? Men do, a skill learned young.

Women likely purchase most shaving products so this ad is targeted towards them. Men don’t tell their women about the fights they broke up, the young men they help mature. Definitely not the dangers they face. Mostly because they don’t want to hear the nagging.

Obviously the ad is targeted at women. To target an ad at men you would describe the manufacturing process to produce sharp edges. How they solved the technical problem of a comfortable shave.

But no, it is all about people, resolving conflict. All that is missing is the swooning woman falling into the arms of her hero. A bodice ripper without the bodices.

For men it is more nagging.

 

 

56 thoughts on “The Gillette Ad

  1. “get woke, go broke”. I’m a buzzer guy myself (Norelco) but have used Gillette Right Guard products for 40+ years. Maybe time to try Dove Men+ care from Unilever… and if Unilever was really smart, they would exploit this…

  2. The final comment you quote rings true. Harry’s is gobbling up the razor market share, and their ads (which are everywhere in podcasts) focus on convenience, affordability, quality and source of the steel, and comfort/simplicity of the shave.

    I don’t use Gillette anyway and this wouldn’t make me stop, since I couldn’t care less about the social/cultural opinions of most products- it’s all about price and quality. It’s super tone deaf, though. As one friend of mine put it, “Great, I get to decide to agree with the fragile men who think a commercial is a personal attack, or to agree with a company using sexual harassment as leverage to sell plastic.”

    • Luke
      You referenced a friend’s comment which lamented siding with “fragile” men. This theme was prevalent among the supporters of the ad. Why are men that confront an issue head on deemed fragile? Such a term is specifically used to diminish your opposition’s masculinity. That is prima facie evidence of bullying. Fragile men are not confrontational unless they feel they will be backed up by others. That is the mark of a bully be they male or female.

      • It’s made me laugh.

        Man 1: I was actually offended by the commercial.
        Other: what a fragile little crybaby, getting offended over a commercial that’s only full of good things!
        Man1: Things like ending a culture of “toxic masculinity,” one of the major complaints of which is that men don’t Express their feelings, and tend to bottle them up? You’re right, I shouldn’t have said anything.

        Or:
        Man1: I find it appalling how the negative traits of a few people are being used to demonize an entire group.
        Other: Waah, poor white men, complaining now that they’re being treated the way they treated everyone else!
        Man1: So… is ok for people to be treated like this, because now I’m honestly confused.

  3. I royally pissed off an acquaintance with a simple observation, even if you buy the ad’s premise for the sake of argument.

    -So they’re saying roughhousing is on the same level as sexual assault?
    -No, of course not.
    -Looks like that to me. My boys play like that. I even teach them martial arts and the value of a measured response.
    -You’re making them aggressive.
    -Do you let your boy play rough?
    -No, violence is never the answer.
    -Well, you’re making him weak and unable to stand up to any bullying (which according to the ad is a good thing).
    -I do not want him to be a meathead.
    -Oh, he won’t be a meathead. He’ll either turn out a psychological bully or a coward.

    At that point, he just stormed off, but that’s what you get for calling my kids bullies in training.

    • PS on ‘violence is never the answer,’ a take off from ‘violence never solves anything:’

      Ask the city fathers of Hiroshima circa 1946 if this is true. Ask Dresden in that same year. Violence is the ultimate extension of politics.

      Ask anyone who stood up to a bully, and never had to fight him again.

      I was picked on as a school teacher’s child in school. One day I realized that in any fight I had the advantage: who would be believed, the star student who never had been to the office, or the bully and his cohorts who were in trouble almost every week? The next time they cornered me, I DARED the bully to hit me. I explained his predicament to him, and asked how would he like to be expelled? (He was bullied at home, so knew what would be waiting for him) I told him I was just the guy to see he got a long vacation.

      Never was threatened again, and never threw a punch. But I was violent just the same.

  4. We live in interesting times. I see both sides of it. Part of my wants to say that this is no different than when a man tells a woman to smile. This is women saying “calm down” or “be more sensitive and peaceable”.

    I don’t believe for a second that this message wasn’t crafted by people I don’t want the message to come from…but that’s just negative confirmation bias, right?

    In fairness, it’s not a bad message, if taken as honest, straight forward, with no ulterior motives….but there’s the rub. We’re convinced there’s bad intent here.

    It’s the kind of message we want to get from our fathers – and many of us do. We want to get these messages privately because of shame and pride.

    How many times has someone sat in a Sexual Harassment training seminar complaining about the reasons and motivations for why he had to be there, since he wasn’t the problem in the company? Our lashing out at this message comes from a similar place. Some of us can’t relate to it because we’re not shit-bags….but some in our society can.

    Another part of me likes the ad because it’s empowering men, men with good and ethical instincts, to speak up and be heard. We let too much slide in our society saying that confrontation is bad, to let people live their own lives, and that someone else will be responsible for making things better. We let dog-walkers continue with their day when we see them leave a pile of dog-shit on city or HOA property, we see litter on the side of the road and leave it to city maintenance. We tolerate impatient customers in the check out lane at the retailer, or have crazy incidents at a 7-11 that show the clerk isn’t taking his job seriously. I’ve taken a lot, stayed silent, and chalked it up to patience. I’ve also blown up and acted irrationally. Life is simply a rough balancing act.

    But yeah, if there’s one message I do like from this ad, it’s the “don’t be silent” message….good men should be heard from too.

    • My problem is that “the message” is buried under the assumption that (most) men are by default bullies and rapists. I miss the days when the worst thing an ad told me is that I was an idiot for not knowing how to change diapers.

      • That’s it, that unless they are woken up and told what’s wrong, they would never know, nor take action. On the other hand, women’s product commercials tell them they are beautiful, desirable and have ‘inner goddesses’. The contrast is stark.

        • Unfortunately, telling men, especially white, cisgender men, to “do the honorable thing,” leave alone “find your inner hero,” sounds at best passe’, at worst tone-deaf now. It’s either an outgrowth of, or maybe the root of (this is a chicken or egg question) the same set of ideas that fueled the recent orgy of statue toppling and historical airbrushing.

          These days, if you want a hero, you can’t look to the medieval heroes, who oppressed the common people and were islamophobes. You can’t look to the age of exploration, whose main actors were all white and did such horrible things to the society that was peaceful and in harmony with nature. You can’t look to the American Revolution, because some of the leaders were slave owners. You can’t look to the Civil War, because guys like Grant and Chamberlain were just doing the right thing long after it should have been done, and certainly not the other side. You can’t look to the World Wars, because we went into battle with a segregated military and mistreated Japanese-Americans. You can’t look to anything after that, because the military are just muscle for big business and corrupt Republican politicians – and they shut women out of plum assignments.

          Turning away from fighting heroes, you can’t look to the emergency services, because the police are just hunters of young black men descended from slave catchers, and the firemen are later generation racists where the Italians and Irishmen are still shutting the people of color and women out. You can’t look at anyone at all in business or finance, they kept the wealth from being spread around fairly and shut the people of color and women out of the housing market. You can’t look at anyone in major sports except the NBA since that’s almost all POCs), because they knock their women around and shut the socially conscious out.

          You probably can’t even look to the average dad, providing for and leading his family without asking a lot of questions. Is he woke? Does he teach his daughters they are six degrees of awesome and his sons “as soon as it’s not fun for her, you have to stop” and “fighting is never the answer, walk away?” Does he go with his gay neighbors to the pride events? Does he defer to his wife and daughters in all important decisions? If he’s white, does he acknowledge his privilege and work to balance it out? Has he always voted Democrat? Does he drink fair trade coffee? Does he eat vegetarian at least three times a week? Has he always done all of these things (and will a search of his online presence bear that out)? If the answer to ALL these questions is “yes,” then he MIGHT qualify as an “associate” hero, although he’ll never come up to the level of Martin Luther King or Gandhi or Barack Obama. Extra points if he does yoga or some other form of exercise considered non-masculine. If the answer to ANY of these questions is “no,” then he is disqualified and will never be even an associate or honorary hero.

          According to this commercial, HOPEFULLY we can get the male population on the right track, and soon, because the women are getting really, really tired of the patriarchy.

            • The downside is that there are a LOT of people who wouldn’t recognize this as the deadpan snarking/sarcastic satire it’s meant to be.

              • Actually that probably was a misuse. I looked it up and found it only refers to those whose identity corresponds to their birth sex, and has nothing to do with orientation. I thought it was a quick way to reference both not-gay and not-transgender in one word. I’m trying to use the saber approach rather than the morning star at this point, and be a logical Ben Shapiro/scholarly Victor Davis Hanson rather than a ranting Matt Walsh/Steven Crowder.

          • Yes, we are so tired of patriarchy that 25% of the fiction market is romance novels and that market is dominated (no pun intended) by Alpha shifters, bad boys, billionaires, firefighters, Doms, 19th century aristocrats, and cowboys.

            • I used to read romance novels for a living, and can confirm the domination (yep) of tough, protective, decisive heroes. They often turn to jelly when a baby or kid is involved, though, and it is no longer acceptable for romance heroes to throw heroines against walls when they’re angry.

  5. So, does this mean that Gillette will pull its name off of the home of the New England Patriots? That stadium is a toxic masculinity coliseum.

  6. I made the same observation about what the repercussions would becommercial featuring African Americans portrayed only in a negative light in a response to a Gillette response thanking a supporter of the ad.

    I was pleased that you mentioned that bullying is not gender specific. What is lost in this discussion is that women now are almost equally likely to be raising a child as a single parent. It does not matter why that is happening but we can say about 45% of all boys are being raised in an environment with no regular male role models. Additionally, most elementary school teachers are female so where are these kids learning to be sex crazed bullies when most of their influencers are moms and teachers?

    Behavior occurs when it is learned to achieve a desired result. This is positive reinforcement. If the females on the playground demonstrate that they prefer the dominant boys – the tall ones, the strong ones, the BMOC’s- the behavior they say the abhor is reinforced.

    Strength, appearance of wealth or capacity to achieve wealth and confidence are primary attributes of preferred males. Ironically, most males that have had those charateristics are probably the most likely to exhibit behaviors that diminish competitors and sexualize prospects because they have learned it worked once so why not now. As a well known billionaire once said “when you’re rich they let you grab them by …..” No truer words were ever spoken.

  7. This is the best comment on Ann’s blog:

    Blogger Lucid-Ideas said…

    “So there I was, putting on my rape shoes, and practicing my sexual harassment pickup lines this morning. I just got done cyberbullying my coworkers. It was time to shave, I yelled at my wife to smile because I demand it, while pinching her butt right after she told me she didn’t consent to it. Putting on the shaving cream and thinking about how I can get my son into a fight at the next BBQ, I replaced the worn Gillette brand Mach 3 and began to chant “boys will be boys” as I started to shave. Then suddenly my daughter burst in the bathroom holding her phone. As I began to mansplain to her why she isn’t smart enough to know my shaving time is my time she showed me the new Gillette ad…

    “I realized suddenly how my every view and behavior I ever held dear was wrong. I’m calling in sick at the toxic masculinity factory today and registering Democrat. Thanks Gillette, for showing me the error of my ways. I know support the impeachment of the evil Orange Man.”

    1/16/19, 9:04 AM

    Vicious take down of the ad,

    jvb

  8. Sucker! I am heartened that the ad has generated overwhelmingly negative responses, and while I would never call for a boycott (I use electric razors, thanks), I would still love to see Gillette suffer for this naked virtue-signaling and insulting stereotype mongering, all while pretending to “care,” when in fact it is just a cynical tactic to create buzz. I hope the eventual buzz is the sound of Remington electric razors.

    Well, I have always used Schick, so unfortunately I can’t boycott Gillette.

    Proctor & Gamble, now, is another matter. This should be fun.

    As to Soave and Althouse, well, I’ve never cared for Soave. I guess I’ll have to lower Althouse in my esteem a little bit for this flagrant nonsense.

    Promoting social issues can be effective marketing, but notice the difference. P&G’s female-directed ads make women feel better about themselves. The company tells women “you’re great just as you are” and tells men “you’re bad and need to change.”

    Isn’t that what the Democrat party, particularly women in the Democrat party, have been telling us since at least 2016? Gillette is just parroting this line, adopting it as a sales tactic, and begging men to tell them to sod off.

    Very well, I’ll bite — Sod off, Gillette. And your little parent company, too.

    The commercial is cowardly and dishonest. African-Americans are only shown as the rescuers and admirable men, though black culture has a serious problem with absent fathers, poor make role models, and domestic abuse.

    Cowardly, dishonest, and manipulative.

    And black men, generally, have been particularly guilty of objectifying women. Rap songs are cultural evidence of this, as if it were otherwise lacking.

  9. Men are toxic.
    Whites have privilege.
    Heteronormativity hurts gays.
    Mis-gendering should be a crime.
    The rich are pigs.
    Etc.

    In order to make the above folks look/seem bad, messages must be framed in terms of how they’re oppressing:

    Women
    People of Color
    Heterosexuals
    Transgendered
    The poor
    Etc.

    Then social justice gatekeepers come along speaking on behalf of the downtrodden to “increase safety.” “increase visibility,” and “shed a light on” how much these poor sots suffer. Thanks Gillette! Now I feel safer as an intersectional unicorn having an ecstatic social conformity experience.

    I don’t know what brings in the biggest bucks to a corporation or a social justice non-profit, but I do know framing is key. So I propose having conversations reframing this masculinity thing around what is good about masculinity for both men and women. How much men and masculinity is a beautiful balance to the feminine. And how the problem isn’t men being toxic, but how each of us is capable of bullying, violence, and meanness – while sanctimoniously pointing a finger.

    • Hey, Ms. Q, I’m 73. Let’s not leave the AGE-ED out of the suppression loop. After all, we have lived long and are wise. See ‘Gandalf’. People should listen to us and learn from us. ‘Nuff said about that.

      For the record, I am a little over six feet. I used to be 6’2″, and ain’t old age fun (Hint: Don’t answer ‘yes’.) I weigh roughly 220 lbs. and I am still aggressive enough that bullying attempts are, at best, risky. Having said all that, I will live and, if necessary, die by the creed my grandmother taught me; “Treat every woman you meet as a Lady, until she proves she isn’t” she said. I asked, “How will I know when she proves that?” My grandmother replied, “You’ll know.” To date, I have never met a women who has provided that proof. As an aside, I sport a full beard, and have no plans to use a Gillette razor to shave it off.

      • Speaking of missing; have Humble Talent & luckyesteeyoreman been MIA, in self-imposed exile, on Sabbatical, ran away & joined the circus, with some underworld spy or the wife of a close friend…wife of a close friend, or just purposefully (and successfully) evading my notice?

        • Good question. I wrote to Humble, and got no response. Lucky’s been missing since September—I need to write him, too. Commenters come and go: neither of these left any hints that they were disgruntled or doing a Charles Green.

          I shouldn’t take it personally, but I do.

          • Things HAVE slowed down quite a bit around here. Part of it is the loss of prolific liberal gadfly Chris and much more intelligent liberal Sparty, leaving less for us righties to respond to. Part of it, I think, is that a lot of the issues, particularly the continuous Trump-hate, are getting repetitious, which isn’t your fault, of course. I’ve slowed down a bit because too much anger and hate was making me unfocussed and unable to work, which is why I’m trying to keep it a lot less ranty.

        • Hi Paul! Jack, I have not gone away. I have always been here.

          Consistent with Jack’s Ethics Incompleteness Principle (and consistent with Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, somehow, but I could never explain), I, Lucky, am breaking my intentional silence (initiated October 2018) at this one-and-only spacetime (which may yet be identical to many, many other one-and-only spacetimes – I leave it to Democrats to find out about that, and prosecute someone for it [whatever they find], since it’s blatant intersectionality-appropriation, toxic #MeToo-ism, and correctness-theft) to say that I continue, and have continued, and will continue, to read and enjoy Ethics Alarms in all its blogging and commenting glory – including sentences even longer and more winding and twisted than this one, even such by contributors who may have even less of a clue what is ethical than even I do (some things, even the most ignorant just know – to their, and their known ones’, and God’s Glory, heralding the promised Perfectly Ethical Society). I could try to make excuses, citing personal health issues, family matters, challenges on my job, and such, but the plain truth is I have just settled back enough while following the blog to realize and accept that try as I might, I could not enhance the quality of EA any further via any comments I might be tempted to post. EA is far and away the best blog on the Internet, IMHO. I want it to stay that way, and the best I can do toward that end is to just shut up and stay shut-up.

          Anyway, I have also been missing Mrs Q, and HT, and that indefatigably left-leaning lawyer mommy from that Michigan school that employs that lovely green we see in its athletes’ uniforms. Speaking of green…I shall now return to my plotting of a (baseball-rich, BDS-less, AOC-less) New Red Old Deal…

  10. You know, this ad reminds me of some Super Bowl ads, except for one thing.

    Even Super Bowl ads are about promoting your company’s product. Are they really contending that this ad will help to sell razors? Give me a break.

    I tend to tune out PSAs — I would respond to this about the same.

  11. Why not boycott Gillette? Should I use their product after this? Why can’t I stop using them and encourage others to stop using them? It is just like the NFL. I was hesitant to watch the NFL with the concussions, but now it is a hard no for me. My son asked me why and I told him that the NFL hates me. They hate me and they hate all Americans, so why should I give money to people who hate and disparage me? I love Star Wars, but I will never watch another Star Wars movie after they made it known that they hate Star Wars fans. I like Nike shoes because they fit me and don’t make my feet hurt, but I am actively investigating what other shoes I can wear. If Nike wants to advertise that they hate me, they should not expect my business. Why should I give money to Gillette when they advertise that they hate me?

    It is obvious that stockholders no longer have a voice in the companies they own. If so, heads would roll when the ‘owners’ see their company running ads advertising that they despise their customers.

      • I think direct boycotts are fine (PETA sends out a mailing to their followers to not buy Tyson products because…factory chickens). It is when the organization targets third parties (our supporters will not shop at your stores if you carry Tyson products, we will stop using companies that supply Tyson with shipping supplies, or disinfectants), they threaten to disrupt people’s lives or businesses (we will protest in front of any restaurant that buys Tyson products until they go out of business), or they use the threat of a boycott as blackmail (If you pay me $500,000, my book about unsafe cars will not feature one of YOUR cars) that I have a problem.

        • The second of the three isn’t boycotting, it’s harassment. Boycotting would be not eating at a restaurant, and encouraging others not to. Protesting outside in an attempt to drive them out of business is harassment. Blackmail is extortion, plain and simple.

    • My stance is that I will watch an NFL game (as I did with my ill father last weekend…cowboys suck) when I am a guest in a home who wishes to watch. I will not mention my feelings (that would be unethical, as it will diminish their enjoyment of the game as well as their blissful ignorance) unless asked.

      Nike, Gillette, Target, Dick’s… all do not get my dollars

  12. Ironic that Gillette is famed in business schools for starting to use sports stars to market their product on TV campaigns. “The Gillette (Baseball) Game of the Week”

  13. Is it also ironic, or hypocritical, or just amusing or something that the company markets pink razors for women, and blue ones for men?

  14. Everyone else has made all the points to be made. I just have to say that, viewed side by side, the “be a good man” and “please a babe with your body hair or lack thereof” ads are astonishingly moronic and antithetical to each other. Can’t have it both ways, guys. Gillette really really needs new admen.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.