Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THIS WEEK, GILLETTE released an advert which, using a play on their old slogan ‘The Best a Man Can Get’, calls on men to act as an example to their sons by treating women with decency and respect.
Generally acclaimed, media coverage of what criticism there has been of the ad has
focussed on the Piers Morgans of the world; men – mostly older, white and rich – who believe they’ve been dealt a raw deal by the push for greater rights by young women.
I don’t have any sympathy for Piers and his ilk. I know precisely how it feels to be belittled, spoken down to, underestimated and harassed because I am a woman.
But I also know that neither Gillette nor any other mega-company in the world is driven by anything except its bottom line.
There are, of course, women who believe there is nothing wrong with the enormous profits which Gillette, and its parent company Procter & Gamble, make each year. But for the rest of us, a corporation such as Gillette rejecting sexism should be seen as, at best, a mild sign that being outrageously sexist is now bad for business.
It certainly does not deserve our applause, and indeed it would be wise for us to view such campaigns with some caution.
Is it really any harm?
Many will call me a cynic, unable to accept this as a win for women’s activism.
What’s the harm in Gillette making a profit, if their end goal delivers what we are looking for anyway? Aren’t they only trying to sell a few razors?
If Gillette was simply to sponsor a charity, or establish a women’s leadership programme, its efforts would be readily dismissed as self-interested altruism.
But as audiences have become more wary of corporate power, advertising has responded by using more nuanced and sophisticated methods for shoring up positive sentiment towards its brand – or even just neutralising the worst of the negative sentiment.
The global spend on advertising has reached well over half a trillion dollars. And given the technological developments in the razor business have been marginal, for a product like Gillette, brand is key.
Take the example of Ben & Jerry’s. The ice-cream company has successfully cultivated an
image as environmentalist, feminist and progressive. And yet they are owned by Unilever, the world’s fifth largest consumer goods company, and one with a far from pristine social justice record.
The ‘soft power’ which Ben & Jerry’s has built up as a brand which is separate from, and better than, evil corporate multinationals, is the very thing which makes it so attractive to Unilever.
And it maintains a safe distance between it and other Unilever brands like ‘Slim Fast’ and ‘Pot Noodle’ – icons of a global advertisement-fuelled diet/obesity epidemic which is poles apart from Ben & Jerry’s hippy-love image.
In the baby boomer, novelty-obsessed 1950s or 1960s, being a global mega-brand was a sign of progress, something capable of boosting sales. Now, it has become a liability. And we can be sure that companies like Unilever and Procter & Gamble spotted trends like ‘ethical consumerism’, ‘craft produce’, and ‘artisan’, before we Joe-soaps even knew what to call them.
In the ultimate modern irony, in order to ensure ever-greater profit and global dominance, corporations have had to invent more and more sophisticated mechanisms to distance themselves from that very objective of profit creation and global domination.
Idealism sells.
And nobody is better at packaging, marketing and selling idealism than a
corporate advertising guru.
Gillette and the marketing of the female razor Gillette has particular skin in the game (pun intended) when it comes to shoring up positive female consumer sentiment.
It has long come under pressure for pursuing radically different marketing strategies to sell what was fundamentally the same product – a razor – to men versus to women.
It has been forced to pull adverts which sought to increase female razor purchases by telling women that shaving would help them ‘get close to their man’. It’s website hosts a
section for “tweens” (8-11 year olds), encouraging their parents to proactively teach them how to shave.
A cursory look through their current advertising material would suggest that, while Gillette may have embraced the concept that men should not hound women in the street (congratulations!), they intend to continue depicting men as athletic powerhouses, and women as delicate, pastel-coloured sex kittens.
Pink tax
Gendered segregation of audiences has proven one of the advertising industry’s most
successful tools. But it’s one that has come under increasing backlash, as consumers became more aware of how ‘unisex’ products that were once sold to humans – lego, razors, ‘Bic’ biros – had been ‘diversified’ into two distinct product streams; one for men, and one for women.
These ad campaigns reinforce stereotypical ideas about the behaviours and preferences of the sexes in a way that perpetuates inequality, including the types of behaviour rightly reviled in its latest anti-sexism campaign.
But Gillette are not about to abandon such damaging gendered marketing strategies. It is far less risky to just run a feel-good ad campaign about men not being sexist.
We must resist capitalism’s attempts to use women’s equality as its alibi Procter & Gamble, the company who own Gillette, are the second-largest consumer goods
company in the world, after Nestlé.
A cursory examination of their workers and environmental rights record shows up consistent use of child slave agricultural labour by their brands, while the company director takes home $5 million every year.
There is widespread evidence the company’s brands have been engaged in destruction of large tracts of rainforest for palm production, active membership of corporate fuel lobbies against climate action and a host of other major abuses.
Over 50% of its political donations in 2016 went to Trump’s Republican Party in his election year.
These facts should be sufficient to prevent any ‘moral rehabilitation’ of Gillette or any other Procter & Gamble brand. And yet, one of capitalism’s most extraordinary traits – and why it remains the structure that dominates us – is its ability to morph, change and shift in response to a changing globe.
While we may associate it with mega-brands such as Coca-Cola, it has demonstrated an uncanny ability to develop an image which is altogether less corporate, if that is what is required to keep its profits up.
The only thing that will not change, in all of this, is capitalism’s continued need to drive up its profits at the expense of the very workers who produce those profits.
Corporations like Gillette do far more harm than good. We must resist their attempts to use women’s equality as their alibi.
Éilis Ryan is a Dublin City Councillor for the Workers’ Party. She is a European election candidate in Dublin this year.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
If I was going to investigate international hacking, I’d definitely get an old guy who can’t use a computer to head the team.
Can Michael O’Leary fly a plane?
O’Leary would certainly be a better choice to head the team.
You suck at analogies. He knows more than most about the aviation industry & business. I’d bet Rudy can barely use a computer, let alone lead a team of hacking investigators.
@Congress Tart: Rudi is a Yes man, put in there to dumb down the staff.
It was between rudi and a 10 year old..
” So we had to get very, very tough on cyber and cyber warfare. It is a huge problem. I have a son—he’s 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers. It’s unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough. And maybe, it’s hardly doable. But I will say, we are not doing the job we should be doing. But that’s true throughout our whole governmental society. We have so many things that we have to do better, Lester. And certainly cyber is one of them.”
Trump
Congress Tart. Old and not computer literate go hand in hand in your little ageist world do they?
@Bridget O’Hanlon: yes, from experience. It’s not “ageist” – it’s true. Stop being overly PC for no reason.
Your experience is very limited then. No need to throw around the pc football. It’s got nothing to do with being pc. It’s to do with you being ageist and wrong
Doesn’t he have business ties to the Russian government? And the Qataris? And the Iranians?
It’s like asking Fred Flintstone to advise on Nuclear Physics
So who better to look into these improprieties?
Hmmm I dunno…..maybe….someone with expertise in cyber crime….
I don’t know dave usually an honest person would cite evidence when making accusations like that.
We are in a post-truth world, evidence should never be allowed to get in the way of spurious allegations.
Or was that never let the truth get in the way of a good story
@Jason Fallon We could say the same thing about a lot of members of our current government.. but we don’t
@Jason, how misinformed you are, he has been dealing with cyber security issues for years through his private security firm. He has plenty of expertise in the area.
So he has a confict of interest ?
Or you could just have a memory. Remember all the reasons why he couldn’t be secretary of state? https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/11/16/us/politics/donald-trump-cabinet-rudy-giuliani.html
“Records show Mr. Giuliani has had ties dating to at least 2004 to TriGlobal, a company that has provided image consulting to Russian oligarchs and clients with deep Kremlin ties. They have included Transneft, Russia’s state-owned oil pipeline giant”
@Siegheil Valtazar: So cute the way you jump to Papa Donald’s defence every time, bless your cotton socks! *ruffles hair*
Dave O’Keefe the journals premier Clinton propagandist now super concerned about potential conflicts of interest.
Oh the shock of it all, business people with ties to Russian business, quick run and tell the Guards. Even better just call Joe Biden, I am sure his some will be right up to speed with that sphere of influence. Or maybe Soros, he has some great long-term ties to Russia.
Run away, run away now, the Russians are coming.
Meanwhile in real news, Obama makes the Ministry of Truth a reality.
Obama Quietly Signs The “Countering Disinformation And Propaganda Act” Into Law
Late on Friday, with the US population embracing the upcoming holidays and oblivious of most news emerging from the administration, Obama quietly signed into law the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) which authorizes $611 billion for the military in 2017.
Recall that as we reported in early June, “a bill to implement the U.S.’ very own de facto Ministry of Truth had been quietly introduced in Congress. As with any legislation attempting to dodge the public spotlight the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act of 2016 marks a further curtailment of press freedom and another avenue to stultify avenues of accurate information. Introduced by Congressmen Adam Kinzinger and Ted Lieu, H.R. 5181 seeks a “whole-government approach without the bureaucratic restrictions” to counter “foreign disinformation and manipulation,” which they believe threaten the world’s “security and stability.”
Mikhail, interesting how you and Pádraig change tactics once I produce the article. Both before it saying nah, no way, liar. Now Pádraig has decided that every business man has links to Russia (even though he previously said I was lying about Rudy) and your new tactic is to tie me to a (unt who was in my opinion the best of a bad lot at the last election. If you haven’t noticed I have not been talking about her at all.
They say unnamed statements are like a Cinderella shoe, they only fit those that have the right feet. Others just walk on by knowing the shoe did not fit.
Funny old world
Pádraig, how on earth did that make it through a Republican house and Senate? You almost make it seem like he wrote it and signed it without approval from anywhere else. Also, it may have been news when “Tyler Durden” wrote the article 3 weeks ago.
Pádraig, it was a section of the article I posted a link to which provides the sources. Why ask for proof and then not read it when it’s provided?
@Mikhail Valtazar:
“I don’t know dave usually an honest person would cite evidence when making accusations like that.”
You wrote that did you not? One of the posters seems to have some confusion.
Maybe he left his glasses at home, not sure. Seems to mix up statements with questions to people.
Funny old fellow
Dave all you’ve done is provide an article that proves Mr Giuliani has private business interests like so many other successful people, your bias is then allowing you to draw all kinds of imaginary links.
Mikhail, the bit you’re missing is that’s also all I claimed, that he has business ties to the Russian government and the Qataris and the Iranians. There’s a real link. Where is the part that I imagined?
Pádraig, you do know people can just scroll and see what else he and you said right? You’re some man for editing after the fact.
New edit tools, I must have the wrong version of the app installed.
Scans about, nope no edit tools here.
Pádraig, for a well read individual sometimes it does look as if you can’t read.
“But Mr. Giuliani’s business ties are a major red flag. He built a lucrative consulting and speechmaking career after leaving City Hall. His firm, Giuliani Partners, has had contracts with the government of Qatar and the Canadian company that is building the Keystone XL oil pipeline, and Mr. Giuliani has given paid speeches to a shadowy Iranian opposition group that until 2012 was on the State Department’s list of foreign terrorist organizations.”
Wonder if it is anything like Hillary that sat on the board fo directors to the company working with ISIS. Or the Sadi connection or indeed many of the other, it’s just out foundation getting the coin.
We would not be running double standards, would we?
No, never, that would be hypocritical –
http://www.mintpressnews.com/hillary-clinton-served-on-the-board-of-a-company-who-funds-is/219060/
Newsflash: Hillary didn’t win, Trump did. I don’t think you’re quite seeing the difference between the judgement of a private citizen and that of a person heading an investigation potentially into actions of his former business partners.
If it was fine during campaign time it would have been fine during office. There are ties to all kinds of weird and smelly places in the current office, the previous office, and the next office. It is all straws, writ large because some people have their nose out of joint.
You say that as if I said it was OK, I didn’t. So your stance is that it’s OK because it’s happened before? I’m saying surely there’s someone with less “sensitive” connections that can do just as good a job.
Anyone can start a company in any given field and come up with a shoddy website to boot. Doesn’t mean that they’re in any way an expert in that field.
Some might say ‘sensitive’ other might say understands the business and cultural environment better. Unless, of course, you cast aspersions on his character due to third party connections and speeches. Now that would be some underhanded sentiments.
There’s plenty of factual evidence out there about Giuliani’s character if you’d care to look. But you’re to blinkered to see it. You claim not to be a Trump supporter but you’re here every day defending his every move. Are you really saying that a guy with friends in the Kremlin is the best person to investigate hacks that his boss believes were ordered by the Kremlin and other countries?
@Dave O Keeffe:
Of course Padraig supports Trump – Padraig is the Kremlin’s man on the Journal, and Trump is the Kremlin’s man in the US.
Feel free anytime to highlight where I have supported Trump – and don’t forget that pesky content you all hate so much that again highlights how wrong you are. But sure, spurious is the player’s card of so many of the soundbite pundits.
Funny enough the narrative your ilk push some say is just giving wind to his sails.
The Deep State Goes to War with President-Elect, Using Unverified Claims, as Democrats Cheer
IN JANUARY, 1961, Dwight Eisenhower delivered his farewell address after serving two terms as U.S. president; the five-star general chose to warn Americans of this specific threat to democracy: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” That warning was issued prior to the decadelong escalation of the Vietnam War, three more decades of Cold War mania, and the post-9/11 era, all of which radically expanded that unelected faction’s power even further.
This is the faction that is now engaged in open warfare against the duly elected and already widely disliked president-elect, Donald Trump. They are using classic Cold War dirty tactics and the defining ingredients of what has until recently been denounced as “Fake News.”
Pádraig, your comments on this article are you supporting him and his choices. Even going as far as to use deception to do so. So, hey, I found you supporting Trump, scroll to see it. Yesterday you edited a quote of his so as to actually change the meaning of it so you could use it to prove he didn’t say what he did say. I’d also like to point out that “my ilk” I questioned his business ties. Then you questioned the business ties of a private citizen. So you might want to take notice of yourself being of similar ilk.
So cyber terrorism and foreign governments hacking US organisations is a thing now? I thought it was all Fake. Donald… Donald… Donald were you lying?
Strawman argument. Sad!
Mikhail: Kek! Happy!
He also hasn’t a clue whatsoever how to tackle cyber terrorism/hacking. clown
Giulianai has been dealing with cyber security issues for years through his private security firm. He has plenty of expertise in the field.
@Mikhail Valtazar: You seem to be the person that seems to know a thing or two..Can you provide exactly what his company does? Thanks in advance.
He’s spending too much time out in that field when he should be inside, learning how to use a computer.
@Francis Mc Carthy:
No mention of cyber security services on Giuliani’s website. Still, I’m sure Mikhail knows best…..
http://www.giulianisecurity.com/index.php/us/services
@Avina Laaf:
I was hoping that I could pass some great news onto this Zak guy,but alas, it looks like Mikhail vanished into the night
I’ll leave your mans details on here… just in case..
https://medium.com/@zackwhittaker/how-to-contact-me-securely-38dc5c5bc756#.m0dhzjf6i
Watch the documentary called “zero days” cyberterrorism is scary stuff
The latest on Donald’s, ahem, favourite past-times! http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/twitter-is-drowning-in-a-goldenshower/news-story/17f297c7c86510cf986011201ab88d85
I heard Hilary likes to watch
Giuliani – LOL & OMFG – This is the same wizard that moved the emergency command center to the Twin Towers AFTER the first terror attack in ’93.
Family mob ties, first wife was his second cousin, allowed his mistress to use the nypd as a taxi service, the list goes on
Call in the geriatric swat team. Headed up by the high tech minded Rudy!…..Eh,I think not.He dosent even know how to turn on a computer
Old grey ‘mare he ain’t what he used to be
The same Rudi who claimed there wasn’t a terrorist attack on united states soil until Obama took office?
The wind industry are hacking my phone trying to find out about planning law. If I could help it I would have nothing private on the internet, but I have to do a lot of stuff there. Some fine day hackets will get into the bank accounts and then there will be mayhem
What on earth are you on about?
I posted there now, but it does not appear to have loaded for some reason.
Call, on a serious note, is everything OK?
*Val
Anyone see the add where Trump is flogging a ‘perfume’ and Gulianni is dressed as a transvestite? Trump nuzzles his/her ‘breasts’. Really weird.
have your say