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!
@Ohlmann I’ve been saying that about good old Europe for a while now. Heck, I grew up in a place where people dress up as spirits in winter, create magical fetishes in spring for harvest and paint skulls!
It’s the beauty and ugliness of humanity and it’s everywhere
First: I hate the phrase “toxic masculinity” because it too easily lends itself to being misused to describe all masculinity.
Second: That scene of guys lined up behind barbecue grills chanting “boys will be boys” is silly and contrived.
Third: Hey, incels and MGTOW losers, why don’t you quit fretting over what it means to be a man and try being a mensch?
@Desperate Ambrose
First: maybe you should exsmine why your knee jerk reaction is to #notallmasculinity.
Second: you expect commercials to never have silly and contrived scenes in them? Have you wayched commercials?
Third: I don’t think it’s just the MGTOWs we need to worry about when we’ve got people like you who look past the real harm toxic masculinity poses to women (e.g. rape, murder, domestic violence) and complain about how the term used to describe it affects men (I guess their feelings get hurt?).
Are we going to have to have a conversation about how adjectives work?
Gillette is coming out with a new shave cream for extra-sensitive guys with extra-sensitive skin… and 33% more soy!
kupo: First: maybe you should exsmine [sic] why your knee jerk reaction is to #notallmasculinity.
I have no idea WTF you’re talking about.
kupo: Second: you expect commercials to never have silly and contrived scenes in them?
No, actually, I don’t. But I expect videos that want to be taken seriously not to.
kupo: Have you wayched [sic] commercials?
Not lately. I don’t watch television.
kupo: Third: I don’t think it’s just the MGTOWs we need to worry about when we’ve got people like you who look past the real harm toxic masculinity poses to women (e.g. rape, murder, domestic violence) and complain about how the term used to describe it affects men (I guess their feelings get hurt?).
How does this relate, in any way, shape or form, to my third point?
@Desperate Ambrose:
About your first point, this is why it is called toxic masculinity and please give the people here enough credit that the discusion is unecesary.
A blog will also not chance the word and the discusion could get really boring, so please no.
And from a male POV: For me the question how my life and the live of other people is hurt by toxic masculinity is more important than if a false understanding that I would say most people will not have (goes even more so for the posters here).
We have a problem here that cost lives and can make the lives of a lot of people a living hell.
I like the spot by the way.
Saw a prediction in comments over at Pharyngula – some offended dudebro will buy a can of Gillette shave foam, record himself throwing it in a fire, then running like a scalded weasel as it explodes and rockets around.
Funny thing is, I don’t watch television, so if it hadn’t been for the 101st Screaming Snowflakes complaining I might not even have heard about it.
@Desperate Ambrose
Your reaction to a discussion about toxic masculinity was to whine about how it makes all masculinity look bad to use the phrase “toxic masculinity.”
It’s a commercial. They use tropes because tropes convey complex ideas in a relatively quick manner.
And? Commercials haven’t changed lately. They’re still the same format.
You’re talking about how the MGTOWs should “quit fretting over what it means to be a man and try being a mensch” when you’re placing your own feelings about a term over lives. If you can’t understand that, I can’t help you.
OT: New ContraPoints video just dropped, yay! Lucky I wasn’t planning to sleep or anything tonight! (Checks title) Well, that won’t be controversial at all…
Sorry to — offend — you, Who? I didn’t realize that we here are such a special, oh-so-enlightened lot that anything I might say insults everyone’s intelligence.
Oh, and I was also unaware that, even though I am the proud owner of a penis, my POV doesn’t seem to qualify as a MALE POV.
Mea culpa.
Parker Molloy has their number — and that of some broflake-y looking comments in the section here, too
https://twitter.com/ParkerMolloy/status/1085208437728964610
Hi @Desperate Ambrose, let me try to help you out here. I also have questions and I’m interested in your answers.
Aw dangit, blockquote mammoth. Im’a try again. Also, an edit to address the, aheh, recent reply.
Hi @Desperate Ambrose, let me try to help you out here. I also have questions and I’m interested in your answers.
The only people I’ve seen who misuse the term “toxic masculinity” are the ones who think that there are no toxic elements in patriarchal masculinity expression. They tend to be the same person who use the term “feminazi” unironically.
There are people who have a kneejerk reaction to the term because it talks about masculinity in a negative way; frankly they sound a lot like your complaint here. I’d like to ask – do you know what toxic masculinity means and why it’s important to call it out?
What would you use to replace the term? Keeping in mind that we can’t have a paragraph or dialog to get into nuanced details, we need a word that fits in that slot. If “toxic masculinity” is bad, what would work?
It’s a visual metaphor for the legions of dads who excuse bullying and aggression in their sons. They normalize that violence by saying – well, by saying that it’s normal. That it’s normal for boys to be selfish and bullying and sexist and all. Boys will be boys will be boys will be boys, an endless procession of men excusing the behaviour in their son, then their sons growing up and repeating the process with their kids. Down throughout the ages. The real expression of how patriarchy works.
It’s actually really clever. Why did you think that was silly? What was silly about it?
What’s a mensch?
Like, I know what the word means, but how are you using it here? Because you’re relying on a whole lot of implicit knowledge – frankly, a whole lot of implicit knowledge that leans hard on the same bullshit masculinity that needs to get turfed.
I’m not gonna dig deeper in that, maybe I’m wrong there. I’d like to know what you mean by that.
Lol, talking of special, enlightened lots here…
@Who? was being very civil and issued no insults, my duck. The fact that you read an insult in there is telling. Calm down!
kupo: Your reaction to a discussion about toxic masculinity was to whine about how it makes all masculinity look bad to use the phrase “toxic masculinity.”
Oh, dear. I didn’t realize that my desire to discuss what it means to be a man without having to contend with weaponized clichés like “toxic masculinity” constituted “whining”.
Oh, and speaking of which, I didn’t realize that clichés (BAD!) had suddenly become “tropes” (GOOD!).
And why, kupo, are your feelings (“lives“) more important than my desire to have a rational discussion?
Penis =/= male. Mind the transphobia.
@Weird Eddie:
The name’s Done.
Jane Done.
@Desperate Ambrose
The phrase “boys will be boys” is silly and contrived.
We’re talking actual, literal lives here, not my feelings. They do trump your desire for a “rational” conversation. Not sure what about attempting to stop actual physical violence against women being more important than manfeels is confusing.
Desperate Ambrose : maybe you should take a break, you are obviously very upset by this, and lashing out.
I mean, this was your first declaration:
What would you suggest instead? Keeping in mind that this term is already widely used and understood to refer to the toxic ways masculinity is defined.
Who has weaponised them, and how?
Seriously, my dude, wow.
First off, this is a mockery blog, not a seriouspants blog.
Second, you came into our space half cocked and lookin’ for a fight.
We don’t owe you anything, much less a ‘rational discussion’.
Scildfreja, your patience is astounding.
And thanks for reposting, italics are hard for me to read.
The ad is all over my Facebook feed, I saw it and I think it’s wonderful. In my humble opinion it’s making all the right people angry
Rationality that is unguided by empathy is not rationality, it is rationalization.
Food for thought.
Because it’s pretty difficult to have a conversation with someone who doesn’t even know how adjective works.
A handy example
You see, if someone says “don’t eat poisonous berries” it’d be pretty silly to say “not all berries are poisonous! I love blueberries! What’s wrong with that?” Because the word poisonous is a modifier and is understood to be referring to a specific subset of berries, such as a pokeweed berry.
Hope that helps!
“actual rape statistics.”
Uh, you mean the ones that show that the majority of rape (and other assaults against others) are intraracial? So a white woman is more likely to be raped by a white man and a Black woman by a Black man?
A miserable pile of secrets!
Scildfreja Unnyðnes, thank you for treating me as someone who wants to discuss this stuff in good faith!
This isn’t the only on-line forum I frequent, so pleaser don’t assume that any experience I relate occurred here. My experience of the term “toxic masculinity” has been that it is most frequently used as a discussion-stopper. I honestly can’t recall an occasion when someone actually tried to define the term. Rather, it is used as a cudgel to shut down guys who make points with which another contributor (or other contributors) are uncomfortable. I equate it with the use of “political correctness” by right-wingnuts as a catch-all for “stuff I don’t like”. So I don’t want to replace the term; I simply want to know what, exactly, it is supposed to mean in the context of any given discussion.
What you see as a “visual metaphor”, I see as a cliché that conveys nothing but stereotypes. Your “legions” and “endless procession” may describe your perception, but they do not describe anything factual. Are there ” dads who excuse bullying and aggression in their sons” Absolutely! Are there fathers like mine, who say things like, “Before you get into a fight, make damn sure you’re in the right!” Absolutely! Let’s talk specifics. Vague generalizations like “legions” and “endless processions” get us nowhere.
I’m using “mensch” the way it’s supposed to be used: “an upright honorable, decent person”, as Leo Rosten put it.
OK, I might have misread Who? Subsequent posts will tell, I guess.