Man Attempts to Troll Gillette With Photo of Family Posing With Guns

Man Attempts to Troll Gillette With Photo of Family Posing With Guns

A photograph posted by a U.S. Army veteran has gone viral after it was deliberately directed at Gillette in response to the razor manufacturer’s recent advert encouraging men to treat other people with respect and speak out against toxic masculinity.

The photograph, posted by Graham Allen, shows the former soldier standing with his three young children, his two sons holding weapons either side of his daughter. The caption stated that the family was practicing their own “toxic masculinity” and rejected Gillette’s advice regarding how he should raise his children.

What isn’t clear from the deliberately provocative post is how the right to bear arms and educate children on the safe use of weapons is at odds with the messages underpinning Gillette’s advert. Gillette’s advert urges people to reject sexual harassment, bullying, and attitudes towards gender that perpetuate stereotypes. Standing up for the rights of marginalized genders, speaking out against sexually inappropriate behavior, and discouraging aggression does not mean a rejection of traditional gender roles, in the same way that traditional gender roles are not a prerequisite for gun ownership or gun rights advocacy.

Gillette’s advert sparked huge debate last week and has since garnered more than 23 million views and more than 300,000 comments on YouTube. Many have objected to Gillette’s message, though most responses have been more considered and thought through than this photograph. As Yahoo Lifestyle notes, Allen has not responded to requests for comment.

Lead image via Pixabay.

Log in or register to post comments


Another illustration of how you cannot fix stupid.

William Howell's picture

Yeah, yes you can fix stupid, dear Lord Jesus please don’t let me get crucified for this attempt at humor, (it is to easy for the people to get butt hurt). Yeah, to fix stupid, just buy a gun and shoot it!!!

Cherokee Lair's picture

This is exactly what I started to type but I decided I didn't want to deal with the comments so I erased it and posted what I posted. #agreed

Cherokee Lair's picture

"We have met the enemy and he is us."

Chris Silvis's picture

Im over here trying to figure why what he did matters to you. Hes offended by their remark and chose to voice his opinion. Just like you were and did. And now Im over here doing the same thing with you as you did with him. 😂😂😂😂 Irony is too funny. Moving on.

Edward Blake's picture

I took the author's response as confusion at the complete absence of logical nexus between the Gillette campaign and the response - which appears to be clearly articulated.

I suspect the fact that you have interpreted the author's article as a manifestation of offence says far more of you than it does of him.

Dave Dundas's picture

So this guy was offended by a message that "urges people to reject sexual harassment, bullying", and you're puzzled as to why he's an asshat? Really??

Chris Silvis's picture

No. Ill spell it out.

Hey OP! Why do you care what Graham Allen is doing? So long as it doesnt hurt anybody or himself.

Hope that alleviates any confusion on your part Dave.

Dave Dundas's picture

Seem the confusion remains elsewhere, as your "answer" has nothing to do with my rhetorical questions, or the comment I was responding to. Thanks for playing anyway though! :)

Edward Blake's picture

I've been sitting here for half an hour or so trying to work it out, and it's actually a pretty simple associative bias.

1. Liberals attack my right to bear arms.

2. I have come to view liberals as being fundamentally opposed to me, and therefore I'm fundamentally opposed to liberals.

3. Therefore when liberals say "toxic masculinity", they are directing this specifically at me and my guns.

Andy, your question presupposes there has to be a logical nexus; however, the association is purely emotional.

Edit: I honestly did spend over half an hour considering this (it pertains to my core area of expertise/interest), and I kept coming back hoping for commentary that contributes in some meaningful way...

I have to remind myself that photographers make pictures, and that's about it. Disappointing nonetheless.

Controversy creates attention and getting attention is a big part of what advertising is about.
It probably started about 20 years ago with controversial campaigns like “United Colors of Benetton”.
It’s also one of the reasons Nike chose Colin Kaepernick for advertisements and it worked.
I’m from Europe and outside the US almost nobody cares about American Football. We’ve heard of Kaepernick though, but if you would ask people over here if they know let’s say Tom Brady, they won’t.
The mechanism is pretty simple. Controversy will start a chain reaction on social media, if it’s big enough the “old” media will pay attention to it and before you know it everybody has something to say about it. We’re even talking about it on Fstoppers so it’s very effective advertising.

I'm having difficulty seeing how this is related to photography/filmmaking. C'mon, guys, I know the struggle to pound out new content is real, but this one is quite the stretch.

Edward Blake's picture

You don't understand how a photograph posted on social media, as a response to a video marketing campaign on social media might be within Fstoppers' remit?

I think that might be enough Internet for today.

I agree Casey. This is not an article about photography or filmmaking. It does not talk about the technique or merits of the photo. It is not talking about how images can be used to further political discussion or debate. It is not evaluating the Gillette marketing ad. It is not critiquing the effectiveness of the image in conveying a feeling or message. This sole purpose of this article is to criticize the views of the person who posted this image. I'm not saying I disagree with the sentiment of the article. It is a worthwhile message and I understand the passion to use a platform to express it. But let's not pretend this is about photography. This is 100% a political article. According to the "About Fstoppers" page: "Fstoppers is an online community aimed at educating and inspiring photographers, videographers, and creative professionals." I don't see how this article achieves that goal.

I'm sure this article will have the most views and comments of the week, so perhaps it is mission accomplished. But I would challenge the team at Fstoppers to consider if these types of posts, even if well-intentioned, align with the mission of Fstoppers... if there is one.

Francisco B's picture

Agreed, sociopolitical opinion pieces don't really seem appropriate for this site, and one of the reasons I like fstoppers is because as far as ive seen, they rarely push politics on here.

Agreed. This is click-bait crap. Why can't we have the 193nd article about new mirrorless cameras?

Jim Bolen's picture

Only in 'Merica.

Andy - Gillette is undermining traditional masculinity, redefining "norms" and trying to associate maleness with mean-spirited bullying, sexual harassment and other behavior that "real" men typically reject. This photog is simply flexing his muscles and underscoring his heterosexuality (the vast majority of us). Guns are an extension of that if you grew up in many parts of America... I know, I know... you're a Brit living in France and I'm not raising that point to mock you... just saying you likely didn't have the same experience that many of us have/had. (I have many French and British friends, having worked for a Paris-based company for a decade and I'm also a gun owner and have seen the nervousness that comes out when I share that fact...). Take a look at this video over the weekend... it demonstrates Gillette's efforts to insert political correctness on to its customer base. Thanks for considering.

Andy Day's picture

Hey Scott, appreciate the thoughts. I consider myself wiser for them. :)

Back at yah, Andy!

While the western men are being emasculated, the rest of the world are not following suit. So what happens when their women are being attacked? They are nowhere to be seen to protect their women.

Saw that unfold last year, A.I. Sad... Kind of related... kind of... I was shooting in Chicago the other day and was carrying two cameras. Was brutally cold, hands were hurting and I wondered, would I fight back with my Sony GM 16-35 or my super-heavy vintage Canon 55 1.2. I thought, "dang, that old Canon glass would make a compelling weapon..." ;)

C'mon, Scott, a monopod will do. ;-)

Jim Bolen's picture

I've thought about that too. Imagine the crack of the monopod on the head of an attacker?!

Are you assuming that most men protect "their" women in traditional societies? That certainly is not borne out by statistics. And then when women are assaulted, the women are blamed for doing something wrong and becoming victims.

Chris Collins's picture

Scott, thanks for the link. Ezra sums it up with a taste of facts.

JetCity Ninja's picture

i’d thank him for his service but i don’t feel like sitting in a fast food drive-thru.

my joke only makes sense if you’ve ever attended any service branch’s basic training.

Johnny Rico's picture

I remember when this place was full of photo articles and not the oddball political rants. Those were the days..

mlittle's picture

Yeah, I avoid articles by certain authors. I think this is the guy who also penned the relevant photography article about the sexism in soccer photography. One of my favorites, I refer to it every time I shoot a sporting event.

Michael Jin's picture

Way to completely miss the point...

More comments