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!
@Desperate Ambrose
Toxic Masculinity is a sub group of Hegemonic Masculinity and can be defined as “The ideals of manhood espoused by the dominant masculinity suggested a number of characteristics that men are encouraged to internalize into their own personal codes and which form the basis for masculine scripts of behaviour. Toxic elements are such that harm both the individual as well as the surrounding community. Examples would be violence and aggression, stoicism, detachment, sexual aggression, risk taking, lack of self-care.
Or in other words: It’s the shit that society assumes men do naturally even though it hurts them and everyone around them. Like not going to the doctor, not talking about emotions, not putting on a safety harness because it’s for pansies and other things like that.
It’s a term from sociology and it’s part of a respected body of work. If you want to change it, you’d have to submit a few papers.
@Desperate Ambrose
As I understand it toxic masculinity is the term used to describe the disgraceful sexist behaviour certain men indulge in whilst trying to claim that they consider it to be appropriate masculine conduct. The ‘cat grabbing’ by Don Combover comes to mind.
Such as?
I mean, a lot of the things that fall under the description of toxic masculinity make us uncomfortable for fuckdamn good reasons.
@ The KND
Ninja’d me, and with a far better post.
@Desperate Ambrose
“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”.”
I discuss what it means to be a man from time to time (or at least what *I* personally think it means to be a man), including even in the comments section on this blog sometimes, and I find considering the concept of toxic masculinity important and relevant, not cliched. It helps me understand the world, including some ugly parts of it that I aspire to have a small role in reducing.
I’m pretty traditionally masculine, both in how I present myself as well as in my vocation, hobbies, sports, and so on. I’m honestly at a loss about the notion that thinking critically and carefully about the ways in which masculinity gets twisted and distorted to hurt other people in horrible somehow *prevents* me from being who I am.
Heck, I’m just lucky that my deeply-held inclinations on expressing gender happen to be in a way that *is* actually socially sanctioned, much less privileged.
Others here have explained more effectively than I could about how attitudes that permeate a culture have REAL capability to threaten the lives and safety of people in real-time.
I’ve never had a person who cares about that important reality shame me because I go to the gym and lift weights, love my historic firearm collection, melt when my girlfriend dresses sexy for me on Saturday night (and, well, because she’s Ms. Pavlov’s House, lots of other nights of the week, :)) and spend a career studying military history.
Dealing with toxic masculinity doesn’t prevent anybody from being masculine.
Kevin: THANK YOU! Now we’re getting somewhere.
KND: I’m sure you mean well with your post, but I’m afraid sociology shop-talk leaves me as bewildered as legal shop talk (“FED” “FTA” “MIP” “sua sponte” “nunc pro tunc” “choses in action”) might leave you.
WTF is “Hegemonic Masculinity”? Or “the dominant masculinity”? And why the passive, rather than active, voice (“are encouraged”?)
As the King of Siam sez, “‘Tis a puzzlement!”
Pavlovs House: Oh, you’re absolutely right! “Considering the concept of toxic masculinity” is important and relevant! That is why using the phrase to 1) shut down discussion, 2) dismiss any and all attributes about men that one finds unpleasant and/or 3) dismiss masculinity in general is so counter-productive.
You sound like someone I’d like to sit own over a beer with P.H. And let’s invite Kevin.
Hey, Pavlovs House!
Nice to see you again. Next open thread remind me, there’s something I’d like your expertise on, if that’s ok.
Ambrose.
Quit digging.
Hey Alan! Good to see you! Had to be away for a while as life and worked called. Yeah, sure, throw it at me on any such thread as appropriate!
@ Desperate Ambrose
TheKND has something. If I’d been less wary of going to the doctor, and I’d paid more attention to relative’s jokes about my Vulcan demeanour, I’d have been diagnosed sooner. Flattening of affect is a symptom of my neurological exuberance. The condition is incurable, but I’d have been spared the worry and discomfort/inconvenience of a year or more’s creeping paralysis.
@Ambrose, you’ve given me some quite lovely material to work with here, thank you.
Aheh. Interesting. You’re quite welcome, thank you kindly, and please hold that thought.
For the actual definition of toxic masculinity, please see the indefatigable @TheKND. Excellent description, and you’ve given me some reading of my own, thank you.
To extend on that a little bit, I’m not going to get technical, I’m just gonna make an observation here. You say that you don’t know what the term is, but you also understand it to be a cudgel to shut down dudes making contributions. Your reaction to hearing “toxic masculinity” being used wasn’t to think “what’s that mean? I should look into it” and, I dunno, read the wikipedia article on it or something. Your reaction was to assume that the person using it was making an invalid statement in an attempt to shut down a discussion.
Why did you make this assumption instead of investigating on your own?
Is this the stuff you wanted to discuss? Whether toxic masculinity exists, and whether those clichés (And I 100% agree that they’re trite stereotypes, commercials sort of have to use them to convey meaning) are relevant in the world? I’m going forward under the assumption that that’s what you want to discuss. If not, please correct me.
Also, to be clear, you came here for this discussion on whether toxic masculinity exists without even knowing what it was?
In my profession we have a term called “hitting the literature” or, more casually, “doing your homework.” You don’t start in on a project without first unearthing an unholy raft of white papers, reading them all, then following their citations and reading those. This way we can proceed without our research well informed. It’s mostly to avoid looking like idiots in front of the journal editors.
You gotta hit the lit, my duck. You’re absolutely free to debate those things, but do your reading first, please. That Wikipedia article up there is a good start.
As for my use of the terms “legions” and “endless processions” – it’s true, they’re weasel words. Unacceptable in formal writing. This ain’t formal. The statistics bear me out.
Great! That clarifies.
Now – as to the original statement, thanking me for treating you like you’re here for civil discourse instead of being confrontational.
First – thank you kindly, again. But I wasn’t treating you like someone who wants to discuss this in good faith. I was walking on eggshells, doing my level best to avoid saying anything that might be interpreted as confrontational or assertive. I started with a hello (you didn’t in your first post), I offered to help (you didn’t), I showed curiousity in your opinion and invited you to express them fully (you didn’t).
I was performing the female role.
Poor @Who?, you jumped on as an attack when they were being fairly benign, they just weren’t being submissive like I was. @Kupo, who was just as benign but was speaking directly, you called her statements whining. I imagine more have scrolled by since I’ve started typing (it’s dinner time here after all).
You saw my kindness as expected. You saw their directness as an attack.
It likely seems to you that my words here are an attack, also. Please trust me – they aren’t. As I said above, objectivity requires empathy. I’m trying to give you my perspective on this interaction as clearly as I can, so that you can triangulate your position in the world.
Looking forward to your reply.
Sorry everyone, using a smartphone and the embuggerance can make my typing a bit wobbly.
Ambrose seems desperate indeed to discount anyone who doesn’t say that they engage in what he considers masculine pursuits. I wonder what he’s say to a female presenting person who excelled at those things; somehow I doubt it would be with a suggestion of beer.
@Desperate Ambrose:
What?
So you come in here all,
And now you’re all:
Maybe the non-lawyers here would have their eyes glaze over if you started using specific terms with specific definitions in legal contexts that seem obscure, abstruse or vague to the non-lawyers.
But here’s the real question: would they barge onto a law blog and start yelling at you and me for using “reasonably foreseeable” and “acts of god” because some other non-lawyers are raging on their little corner of the internet that consulting the pope to determine insurers’ liabilities is contrary to the 1st amendment?
Cause WtF, Desperate Ambrose. That’s what you’re doing right now. And there are plenty of us with law degrees that studied anthropology, psychology or sociology as undergrads sufficient to understand both “toxic masculinity” and “sua sponte” and none of us made a motion requesting you to smack around entire disciplines with your authoritay.
Maybe, just maybe, if you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about you should show the same humility as a non-lawyer in court. Fuck, I mean if you’re a lawyer, what would be the first piece of advice you’d give to a client out of her element?
That’s what I thought.
@Desparate Ambrose
“That is why using the phrase to 1) shut down discussion, 2) dismiss any and all attributes about men that one finds unpleasant and/or 3) dismiss masculinity in general is so counter-productive.”
The point I was trying to make is that I don’t — and pretty much never have — encountered people who DO use the term toxic masculinity to shut down discussion nor dismiss and/or put down masculinity in general. And the people I encounter include a heck of a lot of gender studies and women’s studies professors and scholars, feminist activists, and so on. (I know some who like to sit down and have beers! Inviting them too would be great for the present matter.)
Thanks for the compliment but…why me? Even among the present group, I’m FAR from the most articulate and knowledgeable person on the subject at hand (i.e., the concept and usage in discourse of toxic masculinity). Don’t the comments *in this very discussion* make that clear?!
After all, even the very fact that I apparently couldn’t make my point clearly should indicate that!
You’d get a lot more mileage reading and studying even *one* Scildfreja Unnyðnes comment on this blog.
hi-fives Crip Dyke
@Desperate Ambrose
God, I am SO going to butcher that here… I suggest you google the terms yourself if you’re interested. Because this is the absolute minimum.
Ok, basics first: It’s passive because this is about systems and how they affect the individual. The individual being a hypothetical human with specified traits that goes through said systems. Since the focus is on things that happen to the individual, passive speech is often used.
Hegemonic Masculinity describes a group of behaviors, coded male, that stress male hegemony and dominance. Basically: men are the leaders because men are strong, determined, rational and all the other goodies. When practiced, hegemonic masculinity makes males compete with each other for dominance. “Losers” are mocked, ridiculed and fear being ostracized, therefore everyone is encouraged to trump the others. This is a dynamic that runs rampart in many sports.
Toxic Masculinity is the fallout from that system. When the constant competing and displaying of “power” starts harming the individual and those around them. That can be stuff like “I don’t need to go to the doctor because admitting that I’m sick is weak” and go to “My wife talked back to me, I smack her to put her in place”.
Seriously, I suggest you look the terms up yourself.
Rhuu – apparently an illiterati: My being “very upset by this, and lashing out” may be obvious to you, but I ‘spect that has more to do with your prejudices than anything objective.
Nothing I read in the Comments Policy defined this as “a mockery blog, not a seriouspants blog”.
Oh, and “our space”? Last I checked, this is Mr. Futrelle’s space.
Again, you seem to be in the minority here, assuming as you did that I joined this thread “half cocked and lookin’ for a fight”. If you wish to fight, just say so. I am prepared to oblige you.
“We don’t owe you anything, much less a ‘rational discussion’”. Well, precious few of you have provided one, that’s certain. At any rate, did everyone else vote you to be designated spokescreature for the entire band of contributors? I know nobody solicited my opinion. Perhaps Mr. Futrelle appointed you?
@Cats In Shiny Hats
You said it better than I could. Thank you.
You summed up what I was thinking.
@Desparate Ambrose
I don’t know for sure because I’m not in your head, but your words and their context *seemed* like my saying that I like historic firearms, go the gym and have a conventionally attractive girlfriend, etc. legitimated me more than *an ability to define and explain concepts about gender clearly.* [which some people of other gender identities and presentations can do better than I]
@Scildfreja Unnyðnes
“You don’t start in on a project without first unearthing an unholy raft of white papers, reading them all, then following their citations and reading those. This way we can proceed without our research well informed.”
Yes, in history the cognate process of what you described is mastering the historiography and placing your argument within the context of that historiography. One has to do that before one actually gets to make the argument and substantiate it with evidence. Often that process includes wrestling with the definitions of concepts, some of which may be somewhat abstract but still identifiable enough to be of use. Often we won’t follow every single citation, but one had better have mastered the main 4-5 monographs and any seminal journal articles on the subject enough to have synthesized them to get that historiographic framework.
” It’s mostly to avoid looking like idiots in front of the journal editors.”
Yep. Same. Although in history sometimes they’ll send it out to referees *anyway* and then they roast you alive in their referees’ comments/report.
“
Nah, Rhuu is not in the minority, here.
@Scildfreja Unnyðnes
Thanks, though I admit it was low-hanging fruit.
@Desperate Ambrose
What about anything you read in the title of this post?
That’s some pretty tough talk from someone who doesn’t even know what an adjective is. I think I learned about adjectives in maybe third grade?
Anyway, no one gives a fuck if you were looking for a fight or not. #notallmen responses will never go down well in a group of feminists. Not all men, or in your case, not all masculinity has no purpose but to derail away from discussions about misogyny and refocus the conversation on how men’s delicate broflake emotions should be coddled at all times. And if they’re not coddled, then we have no one to blame but ourselves if men hurt us.
What I’m trying to say is, if you wish to fight about whether or not men’s emotions should be centered in conversations about gender and if you wish to substitute a weird combination of a condescending tone + (feigned?) ignorance of words and phrases that can be easily looked up instead of an actual argument, well, bring it on.