By David Futrelle
Gillette’s new ad challenging toxic masculinity has got a lot of people talking. Unfortunately, most of them seem to be angry dudes attacking Gillette for challenging them to be “The Best Men Can Be,” and using the ad as an excuse to call other men “soy boys,” cucks, sissies, pansies and f***ots.
The ad, which took on an assortment of related issues ranging from bullying to sexual harassment, has gotten 5.6 million views on YouTube since it was released Sunday. It’s also gotten more than 400,000 “dislikes,” nearly four times the number of likes.
If you haven’t seen it yet, here it is. I have mixed feelings about giant corporations trying to position themselves as progressive entities, but the ad itself is pretty good, as these things go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koPmuEyP3a0
So what are the online, er, critics saying? I spent a while reading through some of the reactions on Twitter, where the video was also posted, and, well, let’s just say that, just as comments on any article about feminism prove the need for feminism, Tweets about videos challenging toxic masculinity prove the need for videos challenging toxic masculinity.
Let’s start with Jeffrey here, who conveys some of the flavor of the response with this weird attack on Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks, who appears briefly in the video as an example of a journalist talking about the #MeeToo movement.
But most of the attacks weren’t misogynist attacks on women; they were, rather, misogynistic attacks on the allegedly insufficient masculinity of the Gillette executives behind the ad, and on those the ad was designed to appeal to.
Did I say men? I meant “soy boys.” Or at least that’s what the commenters meant.
Apparently, all the excess testosterone in these manly men’s systems has rendered them incapable of original thought. These aren’t the most creative of people.
Still, some eschewed the “soy boy” insult in favor of assorted old-school insinuations of inadequate manhood.
Others mixed-and-matched old and new school insults with gleeful abandon.
Others descended into straight-up homophobic attacks:
Others went with everyone’s favorite transphobic slur.
Such an inventive play on Gillette’s famous slogan “The Best a Man Can Get.”
And it’s not like anyone else thought of that joke. Oh, wait.
Yes, I’ll have the combo, please.
On second thought, I’ll have one with everything.
But perhaps the strangest contribution to this whole debate that I ran across while, er, researching this piece by bumbling around on Twitter came from our old friend Stefan Molyneux, the culty Canadian “philosopher” and YouTube blabber, who had this observation about the ad:
Stefan is suggesting, in a sly if not-quite-plausibly deniable way, that the ad is somehow going easy on Jewish men and exempting them from the “toxic masculinity” accusations, almost as if there were some big Jewish conspiracy on Madison Avenue to go along with the one in Hollywood.
How do I know this is what he’s getting at? Molyneux is an increasingly open anti-Semite who pretends to oppose anti-Semitism; he regularly tweets regurgitated anti-Semtiic talking points and, in a tweet the other day he explicitly denied that he has any Jewish blood in him. Which is evidently a big concern in the circles he hangs out in these days.
My question, of course, is how he can tell that none of the guys in the ad are Jewish. I mean, there are a LOT of boys and men in the ad, and it kind of seems statistically likely that at least a couple of them are Jewish. But evidently Stefan’s Jewdar is better than mine.
Turns out Stefan wasn’t the only one thinking about Jews. So were these guys, and they weren’t quite so subtle as Stefan in their tweets.
(I’m not quite sure how this fellow decided she was Jewish; I found no indications as to her religion online. “Gehring” is a German name but as far as I can tell not one specifically associated with Jews. Not that anti-Semites are big on accuracy.)
So I guess the problem isn’t just that a lot of men are poisoned by toxic masculinity. I guess a lot of them are also Nazis, who turn every discussion into an opportunity to talk shit about Jews.
I mean, we knew that already. But how convenient to be reminded of both facts so colorfully in this little collection of tweets.
We Hunted the Mammoth is independent and ad-free, and relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!
It wouldn’t. However, when presented with the term’s actual meaning as refined by decades of work by specialist academics who are experts in the field, you didn’t leap at the chance to join a long-considered, hard-won consensus.
Instead you declared that “shop talk” was boring and left you bewildered. Obviously you did not WANT to reach a consensus on the term’s meaning or you would have at least tried to understand what others were saying.
Drawing on our knowledge of courtroom wisdom as well as common sense, we reasonably infer that one intends the natural consequences of one’s actions. Declaring that you won’t engage with knowledgeable presentations of a term’s meaning has the natural consequence of preventing a group that would include you from coming to consensus.
Since we are not in a courtroom, “want” and “intend” are synonyms.
We thus conclude you’re lying your ass off when you say that what you wanted was to come to some sort of consensus on the term’s meaning. If that’s what you really wanted, you could have just read a book.
@Desperate Ambrose – you said you read the comments policy.
Ableism is not welcome here. Conservatism isn’t a mental illness, use a phrase that doesn’t throw people under the bus.
Also, we HAVE a widely accepted definition, ‘toxic masculinity= the things that men do because of how they were raised, and social pressures, that hurt them, the people around them, and society.’
You like building things? Cool! You like to be the man in charge, the one everyone in your family defers to or you will give them something to cry about? Shit son, that’s super toxic.
It’s not always that cut and dry, which (i suspect) is why you hate the term. You recognise some of your own behaviours in there, and rather than doing some introspection, you are lashing out.
@Desperate Ambrose
“I cannot understand why the mere desire to reach a consensus on a term’s meaning so that it isn’t subject to the user’s whim is such a problem here.”
But several commenters here have already referred you to easily-accessible sources that will provide you an existing meaning of the term.
Someone mentioned the Wikipedia treatment of toxic masculinity. I’m a historian, and we don’t use Wikipedia much in my field but looking at the article it seems useful on a subject like this. It cites a scholarly source to give a concise definition with parameters to do indeed contain it.
It cites Terry A. Kupers,” Toxic Masculinity as a Barrier to Mental Health Treatment in Prison” Journal of Clinical Psychology 61 (6) (June 2005): 713-724 to quote Kupers’s definition of toxic masculinity as
“The constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia and wanton violence.”
People in this discussion keep addressing the “concerns” you purport to raise and you ignore them. That does not suggest discourse in good faith on your part.
@Crip Dyke
I would say you ninja-ed me, but you conveyed the point more effectively anyway.
“barging into a space with an established group of commenters …” Oh, I’m sorry! I didn’t realize that there was an application process for your little Mutual Admiration Society!
“picking a fight …” Again, sez you.
“being disrespectful of those who weren’t really gentle with your feelings …” Hey throw shit at me, don’t be surprised if I pick it up and fling it right back at’cha.
“elevating the perceived males while denigrating thw perceived females) …” Nope, just being decent to those who are decent to me.
“Re: Crip Dyke’s post – look, if you see a fight in progress (and you are able to), you help out, right? You have your friends or compatriots backs?” Ah! OK, now I know the rules: It’s the Hells Angels ethic: massive and wildly-out-of-proportion retribution for every (mis-?)perceived slight. Good! Because I tend to embrace Harley Quinn’s ethic: I like getting ganged-up on because then I don’t have to worry about who I hit.
Let’s party.
(also to be fair everyone can like building things. I was looking for a good, poitive example of masculinity, and ‘spendong time creating something using power tools’ is cpded masculine, bit it doesn’t need to be. I am sorry for that.)
@DA,
I’m so impressed by the cogent arguments you made about consensus. Oh, wait . . .
“Someone mentioned the Wikipedia treatment of toxic masculinity. I’m a historian, and we don’t use Wikipedia much in my field but looking at the article it seems useful on a subject like this.”
Haven’t checked Wikipedia yet. Usually, I only use it as a starting point for any research I’m doing, but I’ll check it out.
“The constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia and wanton violence.” OK, that’s something I can work with.
“People in this discussion keep addressing the ‘concerns’ you purport to raise and you ignore them.” I know someone called “Jen” referred me to an AlterNet article. Looked to be useful when I skimmed it, so downloaded it.
More tough talk that’s not particularly intimidating given that you have yet to make any kind of hit.
People have already explained the concept of toxic masculinity to you. Now you must provide an example of how the concept is misused. What is something that people don’t like about men that isn’t toxic masculinity?
@Desperate Ambrose:
You’ve managed to find your way onto the internet: Can’t you even format your work for readability? There are even handy buttons at the top of the comment-typing box, and a preview feature to double check you’ve used them correctly.
I know that anything sociological leaves you bewildered but what about a bit of manly coding? Is that too much to ask?
@DesparateAmbrose
[quoting Rhuu] ““elevating the perceived males while denigrating thw perceived females) …”
It does seem to me, from a review of your comments, that you have indeed done what Rhuu indicates.
Of all that I’ve said you seemed only to gravitate to the post in which I talked about how I see and express my masculine identity, i.e.
“You sound like someone I’d like to sit own over a beer with P.H. And let’s invite Kevin.”
Testimony about what I see as masculinity seemed to be what generated your approval. Why should that matter more than the cogency of my arguments and the articulation and clarity with which I can convey them — which are surpassed by others (the very ones who seem to earn your discontent)?
So, thanks (uh, I guess) for the invitation, but to me more enjoyable conversations over a beer (or other beverage of choice) take place when people don’t seem to make gender expression a better indicator of legitimacy than words, ideas, and incisive thought.
@PocketNerd
Here you go! https://discord.gg/DXHmzx
Thanks, @Kupo. You’re very kind.
“Ableism is not welcome here.” Mr. Futrelle decides what’s “welcome here”.
“Also, we HAVE a widely accepted definition, ‘toxic masculinity= the things that men do because of how they were raised, and social pressures, that hurt them, the people around them, and society.’” OK. If all or most of us can agree to that, it’s a good start. And your examples are helpful.
“It’s not always that cut and dry, which (i suspect) is why you hate the term.” Yeah, that’s part of it. In view of how contentious the issue can be, we should nail down what is cut-and-dried, so we can have some common ground on which to build further.
“You recognise some of your own behaviours in there, and rather than doing some introspection, you are lashing out.” I hope you are not referring to me, personally. If you are, then I assure you, you ain’t even begun to see “lashing out”.
Oops, my bad. This particular website has no preview feature. Instead it has an “edit for 5 minutes after posting” feature. Similar, but not the same. Apologies for the error.
@Desperate Ambrose
“‘The constellation of socially regressive male traits that serve to foster domination, the devaluation of women, homophobia and wanton violence.’ OK, that’s something I can work with.”
Then why couldn’t you work with it *when Scildfreja Unnyðnes cited it — THE SAME THING — to you many, many comments ago*?
“@DA,
I’m so impressed by the cogent arguments you made about consensus. Oh, wait . . .”
Duly noted.
Next.
There is, it’s called listening to people who have more knowledge than you when they are talking.
That’s pretty much it.
I am reminded of this quote:
We didn’t tip toe ’round you, “i see how you could think that, smart man, but please if it is not too much trouble and wouldn’t make you upset, may i explain?”
I actually have to work really hard *not* to use softening language. As an example – I was talking with a male friend a while ago, and i was describing my email editing process.
“And then when i am done, i go over it again to adjust the language.”
“Oh i know!” He says. “You’ve got to tone it down.”
“Actually,” i replied, “i have to take out all the ‘maybes’ and ‘if you could’s.”
It didn’t even occur to him that i would need to make an effort to be firm.
This isn’t easy for me, my dude, it takes constant effort and editing to just say things.
Wtf dude? How is any lf this out of proportion? You know toxic masculinity feeds into domestic violence, incels, and PUAs, right?
This is a life or death fight. It’s great that you get to be flippant about it, but toxic masculinity also affects men’s relations to safety equipment, going to the doctor, and expressing affection to the people who are important to them.
I honestly don’t see how you can be flippant at all. :/
P.H.: Don’t read too much into my posts addressed to you. As I said earlier, I am decent to those who are decent to me.
Dang, I think this is the most I have ever commented on a WHTM post that wasn’t on a military topic or that didn’t touch on a military history issue.
Commenting here is much less taxing when the post is ones where David mocks one of the perennial MRA complaints about compulsory military service that misunderstand compulsory military service, armed forces organization, mobilization and the entirety of military history. (David, you mock them well. I know they’ll come up again. And they do prompt useful thought).
And, crap, I didn’t get anything done on my article that I’m supposed to be working on tonight.
Off to bed for me now — life and work call.
Good night/morning/day/evening [depending on where you are] everyone!
Which is why he’s specifically stated thst ableism is not welcome here. There’s a handy link to the comments policy in the reply section, if you’d like to read Mr. Futrelle’s thoughts on the matter.
Huh. Yet again, ignored by the guest when I do my level best to be considerate. It’s almost like our guest has motives above and beyond rational discussion or something!
Oh well. Always the bridesmaid, never the bride.
“You’ve managed to find your way onto the internet: Can’t you even format your work for readability?”
Last I checked, my posts are typewritten, and even in English! What more do you want?
“There are even handy buttons at the top of the comment-typing box, and a preview feature to double check you’ve used them correctly.”
Think I’ve got the “b” and “I” buttons down. Can’t see anything re: “preview”.
“I know that anything sociological leaves you bewildered …” I wouldn’t go so far as to say “anything”.
“but what about a bit of manly coding? Is that too much to ask?” Apparently. I await your words of wisdom with a worm in my nose (i.e. baited breath).
YES I KNOW, THAT’S WHY IT IS IN THE COMMENTS POLICY FFS.
Reading for comprehension: F-
There you go, once again someone else has done the work you should have.
The BEHAVIOUR isn’t cut and dry, because we are human and humans are messy.
Also, are you enrolling in a gender studies programor something similar, to really get in to ‘defining’ this term? Surely you wouldn’t think too well of someone with a cursory understanding of the law because they’ve seen all of Law and Order writing laws, would you?
Yes, responding with a threat of violence is very un-toxic. You have proved me completely wrong! Accept these roses as an apology, how could i ever have judged you on your words?
(Also i am off to bed too, sheesh so late)
Oh, trolly-boy, do lash out. Let me guess – you’ll stomp your little feet?