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!
“I’ll give you an ounce of credit when you manage to give us a drop of honesty, you wilting lily.”
And if I cared a damn about what a disembodied Interwebz persona thought about me, that might hurt.
@Desperate: define “Gender Wars” and substantiate it’s existence.
Are you under the impression that when you interact with people face-to-face they aren’t also putting on a persona and therefore it’s somehow different to interact with someone in meatspace than online? Do you feel the same about email vs. written letter? Fascinating.
The lack of self awareness is astounding.
Your persistence in this thread over two days now suggests otherwise. The more you insist how little you care about us, the more it seems that you do.
People tried to engage you on the topic. You failed to engage back in good faith. So you started to be treated as a troll. Your own fault. If you actually want to discuss it, you can answer a question that multiple people asked you. What is an example of the term “toxic masculinity” being used incorrectly to shut down a discussion? Here’s your chance. to have a real discussion.
I don’t believe there’s actually a gender war. Feminists don’t oppose men. We oppose misogyny. We oppose patriarchy. There is a large subset of men that oppose women though. And that’s all we’re trying to address. Interesting that you only mention men being damaged from the “gender wars.” You don’t believe women are harmed by men? Or do you just not care about the women?
For someone who claims relationships of 35 years, it’s curious that you lack skills that some first acquire by 35 weeks.
Desperate Ambrose: If you want to have a serious discusion, than try to start one. At the moment, you are just insulting other people (okay not me on in the last post).
The not reall stuff: There is a difference between I don’t know the reall you(what is okay), and you are not reall(what you did write at the begining)
The second one is of course not giving great vipes. To depersonalise someone is a great weapon in propaganda. There was the NPCmeme, which I mentioned above. How in earth did you anticipate that would go.
At the moment the problem is as following: If you want to piss people of, you are doing a great job at it. Nearly every poster here is convincent that you are not discusing in good fate.
To chance that, you have to do somethink else than insult people who tryed to have a civil discusion with you. (Scildfreja Unnyðnes for example who has normaly great patience)
“Waita assume everyone here is younger than you, btw. You don’t know our ages.”
Because you act as if you are kids.
“I also enjoyed the bit where you pretended like people who are invested in some thing (in this case, pushing back against the idea that the term ‘toxic masculinity’ is terrible and bad) have lost, because they care.” No, what you’re invested in is Being Right. And Being Right means No Quarter. Your prejudices are questioned and you come apart at the seams. You attack. You “answer”, not what I actually post, but what you wanted me to have posted. So that you can “win” against a cartoon of your own creation.
“You’ve said you care about stuff.” No, I didn’t. I don’t care about “stuff”. (And words like “stuff” are part of the reason I regard you as kids.) I care about people. I care about ideas. I care nothing for ideology. And I care nothing for the buzz-phrases (“toxic masculinity”) that ideology generates, which conceal more than they convey. And I sure a hell don’t care about disembodied entities comprised of zeroes and ones.
“Your wife, for instance. Do you ‘lose’ because you care about her?” In a way, yes. But I gain more than I “lose” because I give freely and without hesitation. And because I know that she does the same for me. The world would be a damn-sight better place if we concerned ourselves with meeting the needs of others rather than obsessin g over our own needs.
“@Desperate: define “Gender Wars” and substantiate it’s [sic] existence.”
Define “toxic masculinity” and substantiate its existence.
“For someone who claims relationships of 35 years, it’s curious that you lack skills that some first acquire by 35 weeks.”
Give it a rest. you know fuck-all about me.
Listening to some, not all
And slinging accusations
Devolving into repetition
Beyond insinuations
Surely this must be disaster
To the scope of nations
Desperate Ambrose,
Behold, what a crock!
Not connecting A to B
Ignoring implications
Seeming that an errant word
Can give you palpitations
You’d swear to god, to criticize,
You’d call for reservations
To Desperate Ambrose,
Bearer of such schlock!
You’re going to follow up a lecture about how immature you are with a “no, you!” post?
People have already linked materials on toxic masculinity. Your turn. Even if you don’t want to link to evidence, you could at least describe it.
We know what you say here. And believing people cease to exist when you walk away from your desk shows a serious failure to grasp the concept of object permanence.
https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2019/01/15/angry-dudes-prove-toxic-masculinity-isnt-a-thing-by-screeching-about-a-gillette-ad-and-calling-other-men-soy-boys-cucks-and-fots/comment-page-5/#comment-2416145
Go on, backflip some more. Explain what you think “menage” means.
@Who?
But brill, nonetheless. 🙂 *applause*
In other news, here’s another link about the push back to That Commercial:
Push-back Against the Gillette Ad is Also Coming From Troll Farms
Here was (part of) the discussion. See if you can spot any familiar names:
https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2015/07/20/new-comment-policy/
Desperate Ambrose:
Several People:
Desperate Ambrose:
532 People:
532 MOAR People:
Desperate Ambrose:
ALL the Peoples:
Desperate Ambrose:
ALL the Peoples:
Desperate Ambrose:
ALL the Peoples:
Desperate Ambrose:
ALL the Peoples:
Desperate Ambrose:
ALL the Peoples:
Desperate Ambrose:
Like, 2 People or Something:
ALL the rest of the Peoples:
?itemid=3946883
One Last Person:
Okay, I think that sums up how we got here. Next troll, please?
Crip Dyke,
Holy Guacamole, Troubelle! Did you add this just for me? Cause if you saw what I said earlier and connected it to A Not B on purpose you are the most geniusy genius that has geniused in the last 704 years. The implied joke about perseveration is also noted.
In fact, do not even tell me if you did not intentionally wrap all this up with a bow just for me. It is my present, and I am enjoying it, and you are ALL THE GENIUS, the end.
DA:
Also DA:
Bro. Do you read what you type?
@Crip Dyke
We’ll just call it serendipitous.
I haven’t actually read this yet, but it looks a bit mammothy.
https://thenib.com/how-pick-up-artists-morphed-into-the-alt-right
I lost it at “I can construct latin phrases up to 3 words long!” I need to read your blog, Crip Dyke. I’ve missed you since I stopped reading Pharyngula. ?
I think Ambrose will only debate with people who agree that “toxic masculinity” is exactly what he says it is, i.e. a colloquially-defined term meant to be used against male voices in a discussion, as opposed to a precisely-defined technical term used to concisely refer to a larger concept.
A parallel could be drawn with creationists who insist that evolution is “just a theory” (“theory” here being defined in the colloquial sense as “guess”), and will only debate others on the basis that it is “just a theory”.
@Crip Dyke
Thank you, that post made it all worth it. I needed that laugh.
@Ariblester
Honestly, seeing how these people react, I bet hardly anyone wants to use the term to “shut down conversation”. Usually when people say that something is an example of toxic masculinity, they expect the other person to say something like “What is that and why do you think so?”. And then you have that conversation that Ambrose insists he wants to have, but vehemently refuses to actually initiate.
It’s the same tactic that coy transphobes use. They just want to have a conversation and want their voices to be heard and want to make sure everyone gets a say. And when you ask them what they think, they stress that it’s just about giving everyone a voice.
@Alan:
I read that earlier (it was linked to from Pharyngula as When reality conflicts with wish-fulfillment fantasies) and it seems to be a decent overview of the subject, which goes into names of some of the earlier figures of the PUA movement, and how the whole thing curdled over time when the ‘sure fire techniques’ didn’t actually work. It’s not too much detail, of course, but it lays out how we got here to some extent.
@Crip Dyke:
Only one person at the end being a cat? I’m sure there were at least a couple of cats on here. (Or was that ferrets in cat suits?)