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!
@An Impish Pepper
Thank you, but the credit must actually go to another commenter on this site (unfortunately, I have forgotten who it was), who pointed to it in a thread a few months ago. It has been interesting reading.
@Jane Doe
Still kind of Eurocentric, though. Europe by far does not have a lock on those sorts of activities (e.g. the caste system in India, or the Burning of Books and Burying of Scholars in China, to name a few).
@Jane Done
Fair enough. I apologize for misinterpreting your argument. Is it really a phenomenon exclusive to Europeans, though? China is another example of a society in which knowledge was valued, and was extremely hierarchical in its organization. As is India.
Edit: I was ninja’d by Drungarios
It cld all be bots? I mean who says ‘soy boy’ ??? So weird and repetitive…
For whatever it might be worth, a soy-based diet sure seems to have grown a lot of badass samurai and Shaolin monks.
@An Impish Pepper, I love the aesthete but my soul is hurt by “nibelung valesti”. Mixing Old German and modern Italian?
Oh, Walt Jenkins. I have a name you would think is Jewish. But no — just German. I’m 0 percent Jewish.
Aaaaaaand I think you’re an idiot.
Aaaaaaand I’m pretty sure you’re an idiot Every. Fucking. Time.
@Drungarios, Ariblester
I’m not saying I think control of knowledge is exclusively european/white, I just honestly don’t know much anything about other people’s history (grew up and went to school in the whitest white prairie town), other than that a fair amount of it has been lost or whitewashed, so I just keep my mouth shut about things I know nothing about.
@AsAboveSoBelow:
Firstly, that sounds difficult! Apparently, real men prefer to take the easy path (while claiming it’s difficult). Secondly, it imposes constraints on the man’s behaviour. Apparently, real men want to be free to behave as badly as their impulses direct them to in the moment, without push back.
Kinda sounds like real men are behaviourly similar to toddlers, doesn’t it?
Clearly, the paradigm for True Masculinity™ is to be permanently seated in front of a large-screen television watching sporting events appropriate to one’s cultural context, drinking beer while hollering for your womenfolk to bring you sandwiches, and administering corporal punishment to any child who walks in range. Anyone who says otherwise is a liberal cuck plotting the downfall of Teh West ?
This is a moderately interesting article; although nothing mammotheers haven’t already addressed before.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/16/men-masculinity-gillette-advertisement
I can’t see Gillette or anyone else putting out an ad they thought would cost them money. But the people who decide these things are humans, and most of them have children, and that might nudge them towards promoting a better world for their children now and again.
I don’t think it’s common, but I don’t think it’s impossible either.
Re ‘Jewish names’:
What Americans think of as Jewish names are often just German names.
For example, in Buffy, you’re meant to understand that Willow is Jewish from her name, Willow Rosenberg.
But Alfred Rosenberg was a prominent Nazi, and no one seems to have suggested there was anything Jewish about his name.
In a rather bizarre coincidence, I was watching a documentary the other night about Dieter Rams, the famous industrial designer at Braun– a coincidence because Braun ultimately ended up being acquired by Gillette sometime in the 1990s (something Rams complains about in the documentary, finding them too fussy to work with and who conflicted with his minimalist “do one thing well” aesthetic). In an interview in the documentary, one of Rams’s biographers describes how she initially disliked his designs because she found them too “masculine” (the exact word she used), and it was only when she visited his house and saw how they faded into the background and were unobtrusive in use that she appreciated them more. Looking back on it, it makes me appreciate what a weirdly loaded word the word “masculine” is!
But there were definite aspects of the darker side of masculinity, almost veering into the Mad Men territory, about the setup of Braun’s design department in the late 50s/ early 60s when Rams first became a celebrity: he describes in the documentary how there were very few women working there– photographers and draughtswomen, certainly, but no women designers ?
An interesting documentary, if you’re into that kind of thing. It was made by the same guy who made that Helvetica documentary some years ago. Yes, I watch documentaries about fonts. Not sorry. ?
True, but there’s an additional point: the primary function of adverts is to get people (particularly potential customers) to notice the product. Thus they often court controversy. It’s almost true for them that “No publicity is bad publicity”.
“identifies as a slab of cheese”
Hey, cheese needs to shave too.
I’m actually encouraged when some megacorp decides that progressive “virtue signaling” is to their advantage, whether that means this, or Nike using Colin Kaepernick as a spokesperson, or some other company casually using diverse casts in their advertising. If the megacorps think it’s more convenient or profitable for them to be on our side culturally, then that’s a pretty good sign that we’re winning. And the bigots know it, which is why they scream so loud when it happens.
@Alan Robertshaw
I’d like to thank you for bringing that Guardian article to my notice, and to that article for introducing the word “testeria” to my vocabulary.
And Jim Sterling is two for two regarding tweets made on topics this blog has covered recently (FARTs and the Gillette ad), so on the off-chance you’re reading this: Hi Jim! Love your work.
I couldn’t find a named rule about toxic masculinity like Lewis law so maybe we could start #gillettelaw
@Lizuka
I know, right?
A local bank did an ad campaign last summer, and one of their billboards in the theme simply stated:
“Investing for people who don’t want to be evil”
Like…how low has human civilization fallen that THAT is a high bar to set oneself to??!!
I’m just… Done. Done with this planet.
waitaminnit… I thought you were Jane Done…???
🙂
….
off-topic… no, WAAAYYY off-topic, as in “falling off the edge of the world…”
http://i171.photobucket.com/albums/u288/bucketuser07/DS.jpg
“Sicarius Dracorum”… the lance that Galen used to try to kill Vermithrax Perjorative in 1981’s Dragonslayer
From T.V. Tropes:
Also, a pleasing nod to cult classix from my youth, I watched “Ready Player One” a couple weeks ago, in the flik the now-dead-dude who wrote the game everyone’s playing liked to take tidbits of culture from 70’s/80’s society and incorporate them into the game…. There’s a moment when the Bad Guy(s) are using a “magic stone”, and the incantation they invoke to turn it on is:
“Anahl naddraig
uthvas bethuud
dochiel dienvé”
(give-er-take a spelling error)
which is the “charm of ‘making’ ” from Excalibur, also 1981!!
Meanwhile in Ireland: breakthrough research in masculine toxicity: ‘Semenly harmless’: Man receives hospital treatment after injecting himself with his own semen
I… can’t… even… can someone get me out of this country?! ?
@ Cat Mara:
Double-Yoo Tee EFFF?!?!?!?!?
@Cat Mara
Well, someone had to come first. 😛
(Didn’t click the link yet because that is the sort of headline I can have fun with for hours.)
Dangerous propaganda; a form of mind cancer. This is shit spitted out by NPCs and barcodes.