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!
Re: personae
Wouldn’t it be funny if our internet personae were actual Personas (from the video game), i.e. manifestations of our deepest darkest selves? And wouldn’t it be funny if this posting persona was Ambrose’s Persona? (No, it wouldn’t. It would be mildly tragic, actually.)
Re: “ménage”
From the French, literally meaning “household” or “housekeeping”, but now more commonly used in English as a contraction for “ménage à trois”, which literally means “household of three”, but is euphemistically referring to a mutually agreed-upon arrangement in which three people have sexual relations with each other.
“mutually agreed-upon… sexual relations”
?
What about this particular situation resembles a ménage à trois, Desperate Ambrose? It’s a pretty bad analogy. And how is this term not sexual in nature?
And if you did mean to refer to us as a “household”, well. Firstly, that’s a terrible analogy, again: this is a comments section on a blog. Secondly, why go to the effort of lapsing into French, when a perfectly serviceable English word (i.e. “household”) already exists and would cause less misunderstanding?
– Ariblester
(“Mr. Ariblester”, if we’re not on first-name basis, Desperate Ambrose)
(Also, is “Desperate” an adjective, or is that your persona’s given name?)
He doesn’t believe in adjectives. I think he’s accusing all people named Ambrose of being desperate. Which seems pretty mean to me!
My Fiancé currently has a roommate just like Ambrose. He can’t stand him either and most of there conversations end up like the comment section.
Dumb Ass is a lawyer? Does he live DIRECTLY ON THE BEACH?
@Hippodameia
He does not need to prove anything to any 30+ or SPINSTER on this website.
@Desperate Ambrose
That’s an impressive level of solopsism, my dude. Tell me, do you believe that the POTUS ceases to exist when you turn off the news?
Maybe they just haven’t developed a sense of object permanence. Most children will develop it between 4 and 7 month, but some take two or three extra decades.
So I was right about the whole “dismissive of our online personas” thing. Huh. Not really surprising, it’s just rare for me to see things like that confirmed.
…Unless I was the one who gave him the idea to say that, but if that were the case, you’d think he’d have also paid more attention to the “chew toy” hint.
Also, add in my thanks to Crip Dyke for that bit of hilarity. It’s a barely even exaggerated summary, yet you pulled it off so well.
Well, Ambrose got dull quickly.
Back to the OP, First Dog on the Moon summarized the whole teapot-tempest quite well:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/18/leave-men-alone-the-vicious-virtue-signalling-incursion-in-the-global-assault-on-masculinity
I particularly liked the #notallmen moment: “Exactly! Just because I like to threaten women on the internet doesn’t mean Dennis does!”
So . . . hurt. So terribly hurt.
Sob.
@Rabid Rabbit
Ninja’d by a rabbit! I liked that piece of dialogue best too. It put me in mind of Paul Elam and his crew of misogynists getting together in a restaurant and drinking beer. Was that two summers ago? Three? So much crapola under the bridge since then!
A few guys have tried to gaslight me, but none has gone so far as to try to convince me I don’t exist.
Yes, Desperate Ambrose, you did say that I was fictional for your purposes.
The other guys had pathetic backup arguments too.
Desperate Ambrose also claimed to worship the ground his wife of 35 years walks on. So, if we follow his logic, since he doesn’t exist, his wife definitely doesn’t exist, especially for our purposes, so there’s no one waiting for him in bed after all. Also, since she doesn’t exist, the ground she walks on can’t exist either, so his whole religious system is based on a blatant impossibility.
Also, Ambrose, I won’t get into the whole question of how worshipping women is part of the problem, but maybe consider worshipping your wife instead of the ground she walks on? That just seems displaced, not to mention a bit insulting.
I love the way Desperate Ambrose just keeps (desperately) trying to swagger and brag about how WHTM and all who sail in her mean nothing to him, nothing … and yet he just has to keep trying over and over again to prove his disdain.
It’s like he can’t quite believe nobody has fallen at his feet yet in awe of his manly bluster (oh dear, waving those legal initialisms about – a thing of self-pwning beauty); he’s had his arse handed to him repeatedly, by multiple people, but he just can’t get his head round it much less try to argue in good faith to deal with any points. Still waiting for an example of “toxic masculinity” being used to shut down an argument, old chap. Still waiting for you to explain why you’re complaining about it despite not knowing what it means – by your own admission – and refusing to read even so much as a wiki.
Poor DA, manly bluster is supposed to work, dammit! It always works at home, and it positively slays ’em in the supermarket … but here people actually have the effrontery to disagree with him! They point out his inconsistencies – including by quoting his very own actual words that he wrote his very own self right there on the screen! Doesnotcomputedoesnotcomputedoesnotcompute repeat repeat add moar bluster!
Thank you and chapeau to everyone who’s done this troll up like a kipper, and made such a beautiful and highly edutaining job of it too.
@Ariblester
Wait, you mean you don’t scream “Thou art I!” at the top of your lungs whenever you click “Submit Comment”???
@opposablethumbs:
It’s supposed to get you a job on the Supreme Court, dammit! Why’s it not working???
There is a famous SF novel from the 60s, John Brunner’s Stand on Zanzibar that won many awards at the time. It’s set in a horribly overpopulated near-future Earth and told in a choppy, cut-up style from multiple perspectives that was influenced by the writing of media commentators like Marshall McLuhan and meant to suggest someone feverishly channel-hopping (which showed some prescience on Brunner’s part as most of his readers at the time wouldn’t have had access to more than a handful of channels on their TVs). At multiple points in the novel, it cuts to a character sitting alone in his apartment, giggling uncontrollably and repeating over and over, “Christ, what an imagination I’ve got!” As a kind of meta-commentary– that of a literal imaginary character commenting on the unreality of the events within the novel itself– it is amusing and maybe a little profound. In real life, it is just irritating and the kind of debate-club “gotcha” one routinely expects from the intellectual heavyweights (sic) of the manosphere. Thank you, next.
I love how quickly he pivoted from “my REAL wife is waiting in bed for me” to…dare I say it…pearl-clutching: “I never mentioned sex! She was asleep! How dare you!”
Virtually everybody over 12 knows what someone means when they say a person is “waiting for them in bed”. Otherwise, why even bother to mention it? Why choose to invoke that image if you didn’t also want to invoke the connotations?
Reminds me of the guys who use racist dogwhistles, and when called out on it, try to hide behind the more innocent interpretation. “What? You’re the racist, since YOUR mind went there!”
It’s an annoying debate style that retrograde men love: use weasel words, play “gotcha” by changing the interpretation of their statements after the fact, and steer the debate into an endless bog of pedantry. That allows them to duck responsibility in the event that someone challenges them. By pretending to be injured and misunderstood, they can put their opponent on the defensive (see also DARVO, see also “You haven’t watched all of Jordan Peterson’s 1000 videos, so you can’t possibly know what he’s talking about”).
tl;dr Own your shit, trolls.
Theres a bit of a shocker in the Majority Report thread: A Peterson fan who hasn’t yet “cried context and let slip a million hours of video.” They’re actually using their own words and understanding.
Its refreshing in a way. Then again, so’s the shade of a septic tank in the desert.
I’ve haven’t really been involved in this, mostly because of a combination of a persistent chest infection and because my time zone seems not to overlap much with that of our, um, guest. Also, the view from the spectator seats has me like:
But this comment stood out for me:
Well, of course, what would a blog’s comment section be but a mutual admiration society? Why else would people come here and leave comments if they didn’t like the other people doing so? One could just lurk, or read the articles posted on the main page passively through an RSS reader. It’s not the Army. We didn’t enlist; we weren’t pressganged[1]. We’re not obliged to be here. It’s telling that Desperate Ambrose cannot conceive of a human organisation based on mutual appreciation rather than one on authoritarian lines. There’s domination tells all over the place; all the references to “Mr. Futrelle” and the idea that we are here at David’s sufferance, just like Ambrose is. If this were a real-world gathering, Ambrose would be sidling up to David right now, brewski in hand, nudging him in the ribs, going, “dames, huh?” and rolling his eyes at the rest of us, trying to ingratiate himself with who he perceives as the “alpha”.
[1] At least I wasn’t. If David approached any of you in a seedy waterfront bar and said, “aaar, I be formin’ a blog and be in need of trusty hands to work the bilge in the comments, will ye take me shilling?” you’d tell me, right? Are there shanties? Tell me there are shanties!
(Chorus)
What do you do with a drunken MGTOW
What do you do with a drunken MGTOW
What do you do with a drunken MGTOW
When he barges in here?
Point out all the holes in his logic
Laugh at his thoughts biologic
Wait for him to get hypnagogic
When he barges in here!
(repeat chorus)
Wish he could say something clever
But it’s quite the rough endeavor
Sometimes flounces take forever
When he barges in here!
(repeat chorus)
Raise a glass to our Mammotheers
Some of whom have been here for years
Making silk bags out of pig’s ears
When he barges in here!
Just for you, Cat Mara:
Oh, the year was 2019
– How I wish I was at Kinkfest now –
And a url came from the queen
To the misandristest bloggy I’ve ever seen
Cats bless them all!
I was told
We’d mine the ‘net for ManBoob gold
We’d ban all trolls, drink men’s tears
Yes, I’m a happy dyke on a feminist blog
Just one of Futrelle’s privateers
Oh, snarking posts then made the rounds
– How I wish I was at Kinkfest now –
And feminist friends, menschenkennerin,
Would take them in and add mocking too
Cats bless them all!
I was told
We’d mine the ‘net for ManBoob gold
We’d ban all trolls, drink men’s tears
Yes, I’m a happy dyke on a feminist blog
Just one of Futrelle’s privateers
… tbc …
@Victorious Parasol, @Crip Dyke: ???
commenteers …
It should have been commenteers.
Had that brainstorm too late, now, didn’t I?
Hah! I’m not the only deranged sea-shanty-butcher!
But if this is bigger than just my one-off, we’re going to have to find a place to put all the lyrics. Perhaps we should put together a songbook of feminist sea shanties! I can collect them at my blog if David doesn’t want to host them here…