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!
And yet things didn’t turn ugly – we did not get the lashing out we were promised. Or the consequences, whatever they might have been. Almost like he was just all talk. Sad.
“Do feel free to make me, oh sweet, precious, desperate troll.”
Not I, Dear Heart. Simply trying to spare you the agony caused by my mere presence. By all means, carry on.
@Desperate Ambrose
From telling me to please leave for insulting you to empty threats of my imminent suffering in a mere 25 minutes!
What a flip! What fantastic gymnastics! Do it again!
@JD – He also misspelled “boredom” as “agony.”
“It’s kind of amazing that after harassment movements such as gamergate that resulted in terrorist threats and after violence carried out by incels radicalized on the internet and after Kremlin trolls played a big role in brexit and the election of Trump, someone could still be taking the position that the internet can’t cause harm.”
I am blissfully unaware of this “gamergate” nonsense, since I have a real life. Incels and MGTOWs are losers, and the proof is that they get as wound up as they do over fucking GAMES!
Hey, threaten me all you want over the Interwebz. I assure you, I won’t lose a moment’s sleep. Show up on my doorstep with malicious intent, leave in a body bag. That simple.
And I never said the Interwebz can’t be used to cause harm. I said that I can’t do you violence with it. I would have to be physically present for that. And, since I neither know nor care who any of you are, let alone where you live, wailing and gnashing of teeth over “VIOLENCE!” and “THREATS!” is just so much drama-queen histrionics.
(And please spare me the pearl-clutching about “verbal violence” and “emotional violence”. Like I said: You don’t know me from Adam, and I don’t know you from Eve. If you are so emotionally invested in what a stranger says to you on an anonymous message board that you “feel threatened”, you need to log off and seek professional help.)
“Nah, we’re calling you on your shit.”
Oh, is that what you’re doing? OK, well, duly noted.
@Hippodameia
All talk? Color me astonished.
I guess he doesn’t want to go to prison for a long, long time.
L.A. ‘swatting’ suspect charged with manslaughter in Kansas over hoax call that led to fatal police shooting
By James Queally and Richard Winton Jan 12, 2018 | 4:25 PM
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-kansas-swatting-20180112-story.html
It does violate the comments policy.
Calling someone crazy, for example, when they do something bad or wrong, is against the comments policy. People with mental illnesses are usually the victims of abuse, not the perpetrators, and this blog is one of a tiny number of places where we don’t allow casual-slang-for-mentally-ill to fly.
This policy includes relatively mild words like “wingnut”, since it means the same thing. People with mental illnesses have enough problems, we try to make this place welcoming for them. Over the years they’ve repeatedly voiced very sincere gratitude for it, too.
There are lots of other ways to call out the jerks of the world! Consider it an opportunity to flex your literate musculature.
“From telling me to please leave for insulting you to empty threats of my imminent suffering in a mere 25 minutes!
What a flip! What fantastic gymnastics! Do it again!”
Oh, mother, may I?
I don’t recall telling you a damn thing. I merely invited you to avail yourself of other amusements the Interwebz has to offer, rather than be burdened with my trollery.
Yes, and there we go with the “threats” again! Toxic masculinity is whatever you say it is.
By all means, stay. Your censuring nanny persona is quite amusing.
Ooh, “pearl-clutching”! I’ve never heard that one before. And certainly not from a troll.
@Desperate Ambrose
Such fun!
First you claim that you did not literally tell, but only invited me, to leave, according to the exact letter of your words, then you pull out the assertion that I was referring explicitly to toxic masculinity when I used the word “threats”, which you pulled out of your ass.
You did it! You flipped again! Good doggy! You get a treat
Your slip is showing again, my duck.
I suspect that you’re full to brimming with thoughts of how hypocritical we’re being, giving you academic definitions of “toxic masculinity” before just pelting you with it. How very irrational of us!
But it turns out that no one’s claimed your behaviour is toxic but you.
Im’a go to sleep now. Do give that some thought.
No way in hell is Desperate Ambrose nearly as cute as that dog.
As I have already conceded, the Interwebz can be used to cause harm. People are robbed, elections are rigged, and so forth.
This “swatting” thing is the first time I have heard of physical harm resulting from use of the Interwebz. Although I might note that, had it not been for one stupid, trigger-happy cop, even that wouldn’t have occurred.
Let’s rewind.
Red-and-blues flashing everywhere.
Cop on megaphone: “This is the police! Come out of the house with your hands in the air!”
Resident (on porch, hands in the air): “What’s going on, Officer?”
Cop: “We got a call that there’s a hostage situation here.
Resident: What? No, I’m here by myself.”
Cop: “Step forward and come out as far as the vehicles.”
Resident: “Yes, sir.”
Cop: “May we enter the house, or do you want wait for us to get a warrant?”
Resident: “Well, if it will keep us from having to stand out here in the cold for hours, go for it.”
(Of course, there is no hostage situation.)
Cop: “Sorry to trouble you, sir, but we do have to check these things out. We’ll be leaving now.
Resident: “Sorry you had to come out here on a night like this. But I will be having an attorney contact you about who made the call.”
See how that could’ve turned out? But, no, some Dirty-Harry-wannabe (TOXIC MASCULINITY!) had to turn the whole scene bloody.
And here is the point where the chew toy attempts to assert their moral superiority via insinuation and counter-insults, blissfully unaware of the rough play to come. There is no victory forthcoming, or perhaps everyone wins. The chew toy thinks they win by flouncing, the playful regulars think they win by the chew toy flouncing. It’s all a matter of perspective, really. Let’s watch.
“Ooh, ‘pearl-clutching’! I’ve never heard that one before. And certainly not from a troll.”
You’re welcome.
Oh, my FSM. The pearl clutching has begun. Why, you know what that means! Any minute there could be – no, I daren’t say it.
…yet I must, mustn’t I?
We have gone too far down this road. I must warn you all: if we are already in the territory of pearl clutching, then we may be only minutes away from …
…monocle popping!
Stay strong, my friends! We may yet weather through!
“No way in hell is Desperate Ambrose nearly as cute as that dog.”
Sadly, true.
But my wife loves me. And, much as we dote on our pups, none of them has lasted the 35 years we’ve loved on another.
Cute will only get’cha so far.
Desperate Ambrose provides us this wisdom:
Ah, yes. To those bewildered by sociology, all incidents are isolated incidents and all bad occurrences have singular, easily identifiable causes which in no way indicate organization wide, much less society-wide, problems.
Militarization of the police? What’s that? Deescalation tactics? What are those? One officer pulled one trigger; one officer is to blame. Attempting to understand the social forces that affect how people interact? Too bewildering!
One cop bad. Everything else fine. Next problem!
Oh, my stars and garters, Scildfreja Unnyðnes! How dare you threaten me with that knife!
TOXIC FEMININITY!
“…monocle popping!”
DAMMIT!
Where did I leave that blasted thing, anyway?
“And, much as we dote on our pups, none of them has lasted the 35 years we’ve loved on another.”
That should be “one another”. My bad.
You can tell it’s getting late.
@Crip Dyke
I believe the monocle has popped and Mr. Peanut is beside himself with — it’s hard to tell what it is.
Smugness?
Rage?
A bad case of Let-me-explain-things-to-you-people-whom-I-presume-to-all-be-ladies-or-at-least-of-the-female-gender?
Some unholy combination of all these? Plus more?
“One officer pulled one trigger; one officer is to blame. Attempting to understand the social forces that affect how people interact? Too bewildering!”
Oh, I understand perfectly, just as you do. It’s that damned TOXIC MASCULINITY!
Ah, well, this little on-line menage has been fun, but a real person awaits me in bed. And she’s probably wondering WTF has become of me.