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!
He thinks we’re fictional.
I think that was more of an attempt to dismiss our online personas as not being our authentic selves? Which is slightly true in my case, since I’d be all TMI sometimes if I didn’t hold back.
@Desperate Ambrose:
Do you even know the gender of the cop who pulled the trigger? How the fuck can you know who or what to blame – a single person, a single social dynamic, whatever – without actual investigation.
I am not omniscient, and I haven’t happened to research that event. I have no Freuding clue what went into pulling that trigger.
But then, I’m not the one proposing simplistic explanations like,
Switching from one simplistic explanation – One cop! – to another simplistic explanation – It all comes down to toxic masculinity! – shows that you to continue to be exactly what you said you were: incapable of understanding anything that might have the least social complexity.
And yet, you think you know that the phrase toxic masculinity “lends itself too easily” to misuse.
All this space! All these words! And yet Desperate Ambrose has been prevented – cruelly prevented! – from articulating a critique of the definitions of “toxic masculinity” provided.
Poor Desperate Ambrose only came to find some consensus on a better definition for toxic masculinity, and yet someone dastardly has forced DA’s comments to fill up with things entirely other than observations on exactly what forces or what definitional deficiencies might exist that would support the contention that the phrase “too easily lends itself” to misuse.
Oh, the horror! Won’t someone please think of the definitions! Someone, please, someone hold back the social forces that prevent DA from making the rational argument that DA came here to make! Someone, please, someone give DA the power to cite examples of the so-called “misuse” of the phrase! Someone, please, someone give DA the basic knowledge of interwebzing that would permit linking to some actual evidence!
Oh my fellow thread-idents! We must admit that only with such powerful outside help, only with some heroic effort to hold back the Elder Gods of Mockery, only then will DA be free to type up a definition of “toxic masculinity”, provide a reasoned argument for preferring that definition to those established by academics with expertise and years of work in this area, and ultimately include something like evidence in these comments.
It is tragic, but DA is incapable of providing criticism, argument, and evidence all on DA’s own. It is up to us to make it possible for DA to accomplish the goal for which DA originally came to this thread: to unify all those who care about society around one definition of toxic masculinity.
We are churlish, fellow thead-idents, to physically hold back DA from providing such a positive contribution to the world.
We hang our heads in shame!
@Kat, ambassador of the feminist government in exile
Even worse, he thinks that we would willingly share a bed with him.
Even reading that, I felt like I needed a shower, not a cigarette.
@Snowberry:
I totally read that in a nature documentary voice
@Kat:
The only thing that’s fictional is his claims. He spoke of the consequences, the ugly, the party, the lashing out, the agony but sadly, it is naught but a tall tale. The troll is as a toothless dog: all bark, no bite.
@Kat, ambassador of the feminist government in exile
Dammit! Robbed of the Turing Prize again.
I thought we had it that time.
@Crip Dyke
BTW, I love the admonition “Don’t pop your monocle.” I had never heard it before, and I’m gonna use it often.
My word! Look what happens online while I’m busy sleeping!
Thank you again, eminent regulars, for providing so many pages of wisdom for me to read on waking. Honourable mention goes to the muse for the wisdom, the troll who stuck with insisting good faith and keenness to debate whilst failing to do any such thing, over and over again.
I wonder what other wonders the day will bring.
And yet, in this instance, your starting point was to come here and whine at us rather than do even the bare minimum of research on the topic at hand. Which has led to you looking like an ignorant jackass, which I don’t think was the look you were going for. Maybe I’m wrong and you always envied Nick Bottom, I’m nor gonna judge.
P.S: (possible TMI)
fully cocked and fully femme, old bean. A penis doesn’t make a man.
Sigh. Desperate Ambrose, so happy to dunk on MGTOWs and incels (and to humblebrag about his wife), so quick to lash out when his own masculinity is threatened.
To make a long story short (too late), you could replace all of Ambrose’s posts with one posting of this gif:
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/sam.gif
@Desperate Ambrose
At this point (after a night of sleep and my morning coffee), I can look back at your conduct here and I had to come to this conclusion:
You didn’t come here to “have a rational argument”, you came to “win an argument that you perceive as rational as to stroke your ego”.
Hints are the constant small brags, how you needed to assert, after not understanding some terms that I would have issues with terms you know, the way you try to cover your bad behaviour by giving the responsibility for the editing of the comments to David Futrelle and now the “I am such a good hubby and my wife is real! 35 YEARS!”.
Thank you, we have a few wonderful examples of hegemonic masculinity here! If you really want to know, stay a while and listen
First of all:
You asserted that you could “have a beer” with two of the regulars that treated you in a way to your liking. “Having a beer” in American/European culture is a process of mostly male bonding. An idicator that these are people that you can relax with. It also hints that you consider people to who you’d “have a beer with” to be more worthy of discussion, debate and so on. You inadvertently create an environment where the highest virtue isn’t evidence, knowledge or expertise, but garnering your sympathy. And since men are more likely to sympathize with men, we have a system where women are more likely to be deemed unworthy or discussion and debate.
Second:
“Pearl clutching”, “drama queen” and others are wonderful exemplifyers! Perfectly coded female, those terms assert that “them hysteric womanfolk” can’t be reasoned with. Added with how you keep claiming to rationality (when nobody truly is, our brains are wired to make us think we are), you imply that you ultimately want to deal with a man who speaks male and not the irrational women here.
Third:
When called out about the comments policy (which you violated, no question there), your reaction was to A. strip your critics off their social power by pointing to Futrelle and B. asserting that you would not reconsider your wording unless a dominant member of the hierarchy would force you to do so.
Fourth:
You define violence as clearly physical. Well, I work in nursing and if I continuously call a patient by the wrong name, I can get reprimanded and even fired for violence. And that is entirely right! See, violence is about harm and injury to body and mind. But since men are socialized to detach from their emotions, many don’t want to realize that, yes, being ostracized, verbal abuse and the like are acts of violence.
Honestly, I’m gonna leave it at that because if I went into more detail, I’d end up with a thesis. But seeing how in the last few posts, you went on a wannabe-sarcastic rant about how everything is toxic (note how you were repeatedly given clear definitions, examples, links… everything short of me busting out my sockpuppets), I think we can leave it at that.
(BTW: Real toxic femininity is… oh god… you’d WISH they’d get knifes)
HAVE I MENTIONED THAT I AM SEXUALLY ACTIVE RECENTLY?
Why, no, Citerior Motive! I am very glad you clarified that point. Everyone participating in this conversation is much better off knowing that you, personally, have proven your value by achieving sexual activity with another human being.
Could you also list some big words that you are certain that only you can possibly understand?
Pretty please?
Peripheral to the ‘violence needn’t be physical’ thing. One for the legal geeks here.
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1997/34.html
Summary: Psychological harm can amount to GBH. Can be inflicted remotely, eg by phone, letter, email etc.
Well, that was a creepy flounce. Sexualizing an argument with people who are mostly female or perceived by him to be (as if women aren’t serious opponents and one merely argues with us as part of flirtatious banter that leads to sex) and then making a creepy and unwanted wank comment is pretty textbook toxic masculinity.
Anyway, this guy made a couple of trollish comments when he first arrived. In fact, I thought he might be another seagull sock. Then he commented normally for awhile. I guess he couldn’t hide his true trolly self forever.
@ Alan – whispers i think this guy either is or is pretending to be involved with the law in some way.
Also @ DA: i say “listen to people with more knowledge”.
You say “lolol none of those here. Also you can’t commit violence over the internet!”
Others say “holy fuck, my dude, SWATting and Gamergate and the alt-right and doxxing and targetted harassment and and and!!!!!”
You: “Hm, I am learning of ALL OF THIS REALLY BASIC HARASSMENT stuff for the first time!”
Like, come on, dude. This is ‘the internet is used in bad ways’ 101.
I’m going to keep blowing your mind, just in case you ever come back. Did you know… That many people in gamergate were radicalised into becoming trump supporters?
That twitter was set up in a way that lets nazis and all sorts of horrible people be horrible?
That reddits commitment to ‘free speech’ let a lot of people put borderline child porn there, until it was finally taken down? That they also housed many alt-right and manosphere communities?
Did you know that the internet was often designed by straight white cis men for straight white cis men? And that since they had never experienced this sprt of harassment, they didn’t think of ways it could be shut the shit down?
I also don’t understand how you can use the term ‘lashing out’ and *not* understand it as violence. Wtf does the term mean, then? You say you want to debate ‘definitions’, how about you define something for a change?
And, my dude, it is a classic troll move to say that everyone has been brought to tears by your trollishness. Why would *crying specifically* be thought of as weak?
Is it because of social expectations that Real Men don’t cry?
And could that be, iunno… Toxic?
Come on, now.
@wwth
Well, the post you reference (which I linked to in my previous comment) was an actually on-topic paraphrase of a Doctor Strangelove quote (which has just the right amount of plausible deniability to it), but I do remember you quickly voicing your suspicions, seeing as we were at the tail end of a Mick Dash infestation, and it did smack of Mick’s fevered scribblings.
I guess you were right to be suspicious.
(This was in a post where NoFap conspiracy theorists posited that porn was a ploy to weaken men via excessive masturbation.)
And now I learn again, don’t post if you plan to go to sleep and know it will take some time before you post again.
I don’t know if it still makes sense to make the clarification that were misunderstandings:
I never intendet to imply that Desperate Ambrose was not male, it was only a statement to say that I am male. (In contrast to other posters)
In reading my post, I deleted to much while formulating my first sentence and wanted to say that the discusion that the term toxic masculinity doesn’t imply that everythink men do more than women is toxic.
Funny for me today I bough beer for a pokergame. (Not a complete male group on the other hand)
Ah, i did use the term ‘lashing out’ first. Hmmmm. I will need to find a different term to use to describe “someone who comes in with a statement that a perusal of this blog would show the people here find ridiculous, and when told that, starts to be aggressive to the other commenters.”
Lashing out works very well for that… But it is tied to violence. i’ll give it a think.
(This is because our language has many words that have implications that aren’t good, and i keep finding things to adjust what words or terms i choose to express myself.)
@ Scildfreja –
i have been pointing out instances where his behaviour has been examples of toxic masculinity. Haven’t needed to stretch to make any of it apply, either.
(To be fair.)
I am also finding it really funny how much he seemed to respond to *me*, that doesn’t usually happen. I am dying to know why i struck a nerve. Was it the ‘my dude’s? Was it the use of the term ‘AFAB’? Was it the two comment policy reprimands????
I thought it was weird and funny that he never could manage to respond to me in any substantive way.
You and Scild obviously know what you are talking about, as well as having education that mirrors his level. You talked about legal stuff, and Scild talked about white papers.
I have a feeling that he is used to being deferred to, because he is a lawyer. (or involved with the law, or knows enough jargon to bluff it out until some actual lawyers/people learned in the law show up.)
I’ve wondered if i should change my ‘nym to something more gender neutral, since Rhuu sounds like a female name. I wonder how he would have reacted?
I doubt with the offer of beers he gave the two people! One of them has a masculin name and the second talked about his own relationship to masculinity, so one could assume they are fellow men. I was too blunt for that.
Aw, crap! I missed a whole troll! And here I was going to ask him
how many times he voted for Bush.
All i know is, if troll doesnt start using the fucking blockquote feature, ambrose should be banned.
And i can smell his misogyny from my screen. Its reeks.
*puts away empty popcorn bowl*
Someday, I will be as articulate with trolls as you wonderful people are. *loves* (But, sadly, today is not that day. I have a hard enough time talking about private things to my husband! :D)