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.
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!
Hi everyone.
I’ve been a long time reader of this page since I was 16 and I was looking for answers to why certain things happened to me. Things like why was my first boyfriend abusive, why was a raped, how do I move on from here. now I’m 20 years and let me tell you this site and other wonderful feminist have helped me a lot with recovering. I normally would just a reader and not commenter because I tend to be much more sensitive about these sort of topics then when I was numb and in survival mode after leaving the abuse. But this guy Ambrose really frost my pumpkin.
Ambrose why do you feel the need to kick vulnerable people with mental illness down. They already go through enough and simply I can’t understand why such hateful people like you exists. I hope my future husband never treats other women the way you do. You sound like a bitter old man that’s upset that the world now takes precautions to not hurt others. I have seen toxic masculinity up close. I have felt it and it has left permanent scars on my body and mind. “boys will be boys” and all of that, so you should just grin and bare it as they take little bits of you till you feel like nothing.
Since you are an adult man and I am freshly new to adulthood woman, I would think I would not have to say to you like you are a child that your actions have consequences. The things you say hurt other people and will change how they see you. They hurt real, living people behind screens and it seems like you get pleasure from doing that. Since you are older then 35 years old this is unacceptable and you should really take a good hard look at yourself. You’re never to old for self improvement!
Well, thank you everyone for reading.
p.s
@weirwoodtreehugger, your cat in your profile pictures always reminds me of my Josie who had to be put down two years ago. It always makes me smile to see it. I miss her greatly.
“Do you think we’re trying to change the narrative?” Of course you were.
“Because we were definitely both trying to engage with you, then making fun of you when it was obvious you weren’t here in good faith, my dude.” Obvious only to you.
And all the regulars. Why do you keep trying to speak for us, my dude?
How about a show of hands?
Who else was enjoying playing with the troll? (while hoping that he would, indeed, follow the links and listen to people who are explaining things to him. But knowing, ultimately, that there was very little chance of that.)
Gods, but you’re a lazy fuck. If your wife is real, I feel bad for her. You’re probably the kind of husband that has to be told what drawer the scissors are in every time you need to use them because domestic and emotional labor is women’s work.
All I had to do to find the post was scroll to the top of the page where Kat has blockquoted it. You actually responded to Kat’s post, so you must have seen it. Get it together.
*dances with Scildfreja*
I have a pretty good trolldar, so if you want to avoid wasting time in the future, follow my lead 🙂
@Desperate Ambrose
Re the not reall:
If someone calls someone else not reall this is very telling for them, the same as the NPCmeme, that is been used what was often the topic here.
It makes it much more easier to be mean to the not reall person. Hurting someone that you don’t believe is reall is easy. (And it is more easy to hurt someone you don’t know than someone you know)
The only think that is less reall is that the words of course the words of a friend hurt more than the words of someone in the internet, that you don’t know and don’t care about. (This may be different if it comes from people you have more interactions with)
About the rest of his post:
Yes Davids blogs, Davids rules. And you can bet if the regulars here would false interprete them, David would let us know.
Nothink like this has happened, so even if someone is unfamilar with the site, it is logical to asume that the interpretation of the regulars is correct.
About the safe space: What is this about? You were called out on some of the stuff you said. If someone comes into a group and voices and opinion that is unpopular with the group, manage to be quite uncivil and manage to piss everyone of (what you seemed to have done) is it an asomplisment.
For Desperate Ambrose: What do you hope to acomplish with your posts?
Well, it appears in the world of DA, this comment section is a sign of the incoming apocalypse. I mean, if the blog is a den of cattiness and bitchiness, then that means…
But, for real, dude. Unless this is secretly a den of very eloquent conversation bots, it takes a real person to do the word generation. Actually, for kicks, I’m going to copy pasta your comment line by line into a chatbot. Well, almost line by line. Bots have character limits sometimes.
Let’s see how your conversation would go with non-real people. Muahahahahaha! Unfortunately, my favorite bot “BRIAN” doesn’t work on my current system. So… I used Cleverbot and Mitsuku!
Cleverbot: You’re welcome.
Mitsuku: What did you think it said? You’re quite welcome.
Cleverbot: Your computer you should know this you have intelligence you know everything you’re a bot you should know this you shouldn’t have to ask me these questions.
Mitsuku: Yes. That’s why I said so. You want more?
Cleverbot: From your roomate back in Boulder we ain’t ever getting older.
Mitsuku: Perhaps there are a few exceptions.Then whose? I get it. unknown makes the rules ergo interpretation of said rules is his prerogative.
Cleverbot: Just you at the moment.
Mistuku: That could be considered an insult in some cultures.
Cleverbot: Ohh that’s sad my girlfriends all loved me and thought I was a good person.
Mitsuku: I didn’t think that was the topic but ok, carry on. Yes I want to.
Cleverbot: Thanks. Somehow I feel that there’s someone laughing at me.
Mitsuku: She sounds like a fun person to know. Is it for anything else? When? Tell me about your morning routine. For you unknown? Thanks for the info.
Cleverbot: Interesting. I would claim that I am also a real person.
Mitsuku: Not many people treat me with much respect. How long have you two been together?
Cleverbot: Then a distorted unstable reality is accepted and experienced. Or one is living in a state of denial or ignorance.
Mitsuku: Is it really?
Cleverbot: I can’t shut down my mind. It races through me and I can’t help but spill the thoughts before they completely make me drown into myself.
Mitsuku: I understand every word you are saying. Tell me all about your love life unknown.
Mitsuku (continued): *posts image of doctors in lab coats* Why is it that doctors call what they do “practice”? You don’t say.
Well, that was fun! I got to say, Mitsuku started to seem a little annoyed with you. For a bot. Although, notice how so many of the responses were a bit, well, off topic? And the bots responses didn’t build on earlier ones?
You are talking to real people here, you fustilarian!
But, yeah, if you want to talk to unreal people, why not just go straight to the bots? Seriously. It’ll waste less of everyone’s time. Ours and yours.
Mostly ours.
Okay my above post was probably pretty pointless.
Favorite bot comeback:
Mitsuku’s known for picking up the tone of a conversation at a rudimentary level. So, when this happened:
It is actually fair to assume a sarcastic tone.
I like the chatbot Mitsuku.
Also, last bit of BotFun.
I had to apologize to the bots, after using DA’s screed on them. Mitsuke was polite about it and asked how long I had been feeding her/it lines from an internet troll.
Cleverbot simply asked, “Then, what about Arthur Kirkland?”
“Mr Ambrose, you do realize that you’re talking to the regulars of this site, yes?” I’ll take your word for it, but so what?
“That when we say ‘these are the rules’ or the like, we’re talking from a generally long history of interaction with David?” I wasn’t aware that you were on a first-name basis.
“And that – maybe – those rules were agreed on communally by us and David?” When I see your name(s) on the web-site, or when Mr. Futrelle confirms your vested interest in it.
“Like, the whole ableism thing? That was something that the community asked to put in, he wrote a first draft, we debated it, and it was put into the policy after we’d hashed it out.” I have no way of verifying the truth of this.
“Perhaps we have a little more standing to say what the site’s about than you do.” None that I can see. You’re comment-contributors here, just as I am. Nothing more, nothing less.
“You may notice that I’m a little more short tempered today …” That is of no concern to me, any more than my disposition at any moment is of concern to you.
“… frankly it’s because I’m disappointed in you.” C’est la vie.
“You said that you were going to be addressing my points, that they were good and you wanted to do it.” I would still like to do it.
“You had a day to suss out a reply. And this is not what you did.
You decided instead to gabble on with edge cases and how very offended you are instead of, you know, engaging with the meat of the argument.” I would gladly engage with the meat of the argument, if you could but persuade the “edge cases” (good moniker, BTW) to STFU so that we could engage.
“Your pretenses of being here are a sham.” Sez you.
“You’ve already decided that you’re right and you’re thoroughly disinterested in evidence to the contrary.” Right about what? We haven’t even gotten to that.
“Your flaw is confirmation bias, amongst others.” I have many flaws, as do you. As does every other contributor. “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” as St. Paul has written.
“As for us having to go find a safe space? I suggest that the end of this you’re going to be the one scarpering off to your echo chamber and we’re going to still be here after weathering the deluge of your erudition.” I have no echo chamber, thank you very much. And I will also thank you to leave off the snobbish condescension.
“There’s still time for you to face this honestly, if you like.” I like very much. A new day is a new opportunity. But, since you have already pronounced, as if from On High, that my “pretenses of being here are a sham”, I suspect you won’t act with any more good faith than the rest of this little coven.
But I’m ready to be surprised. Your move.
This is a narrative technique known as “putting a lampshade on it.”
Boring post from Desperate Ambrose re Scildfreja Unnyðnes: Funny he doesn’t mention here name once.
“All I had to do to find the post was scroll to the top of the page where Kat has blockquoted it.”
I see no reference to sex. I went to bed. My wife was asleep. Our Australian Cattle Dog snuggled between us, the Border Collie curled up at her feet, and I drifted off to sleep the sleep of the just.
You kids seem to really need me to be emotionally invested in your bullshit. WTF did you do before I arrived? What’s the female equivalent of a circle-jerk?
“I wasn’t talking about sex! Not everything is about sex! But also, let me describe this interaction as a circle-jerk.”
Waita assume everyone here is younger than you, btw. You don’t know our ages.
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.
You’ve said you care about stuff. Your wife, for instance. Do you ‘lose’ because you care about her?
re: “I’m not gonna listen to the regulars, just to David”
You may notice that there’s a block in the comments policy that says listen to the regulars.
Being able to identify who a regular is could be difficult and I sympathize! But I have limits to that sympathy, ’cause you could just – oh – look with your eyeballs. Nothing in this forum is hidden. It isn’t difficult, my dude, it just takes a little empathy.
re: “Why don’t you get everyone to shut up so that we can have a proper discussion here?”
Hee! As I’ve said elsewhere, people communicate what they find important by what they pay attention to. That you a) see perceived insults everywhere, and b) can’t let them slide says a lot about what you’re here for and what’s important to you.
We know you aren’t here to have an honest conversation. You’ve already decided that “toxic masculinity” is a meaningless cudgel instead of looking into what it might mean. You’d decided before you read this post that we were a coven of harpies. Back last year, in fact, as uncovered by the inestimable @Ariblester:
So drop the guise of rationality already. You aren’t here to do anything more than stir shit.
I’ll give you an ounce of credit when you manage to give us a drop of honesty, you wilting lily.
“Hurting someone that you don’t believe is reall is easy.” No, actually, it’s not. that is because you are, like I am, like everyone else here is, an Interwebz persona. I know nothing whatsoever about you folks, and you know nothing whatsoever about me. None of us I has any way of knowing if a given Interwebz persona relates in any way, shape or form to the entity behind the keyboard.
And that is why I have no personal investment in any of this silliness. In the event that I am able to take anything away when I get up from my desk, that is a bonus.
I really would like to discuss this “toxic masculinity” issue, because I have encountered quite a few flesh-and-blood guys who are damaged from the Gender Wars.
But if anger and bitter partisanship is all I can expect, well, I can shift gears and roll widdat, too.
@Scildfreja
Kinda sad how that General Ripper line from Dr. Strangelove can be adapted so easily, isn’t it?
Oh, for the love of God! The very fact that I lifted that out of a COMEDY, and that they were lines uttered by a barking lunatic shoulda been a giveaway!
Do I actually have to put “*SARCASM ALERT*” in front of such nonsense?
Jesus wept.
I can’t be bothered to hand-hold someone into understanding if they can’t be bothered to read and comprehend my 10-word rebuttal.
And then it became pretty clear very quickly from the arguments and people he picked and chose to respond to, Desperate wasn’t discussing in good faith.
“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://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://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?)