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!
http://weknowmemes.com/generator/uploads/generated/g1387716638655441539.jpg
“There is, it’s called listening to people who have more knowledge than you when they are talking.”
Perfectly willing to do so. I’m hoping C.D. will help me with coding. And maybe some sociology shop-talk. Aside from that, I ain’t heard anything worth listening to.
I have no idea how your Atwood quote is relevant. Laugh all you want; I don’t know you, and I don’t care a rat’s patoot about what you do or do not find humorous.
“You know toxic masculinity feeds into domestic violence, incels, and PUAs, right?” OK, we can agree about that.
“This is a life or death fight.” No. This a message board. And, from what I’ve seen so far, an echo chamber. How you are going to do anything about domestic violence, incels, and PUAs by giving one another high fives over beating up a 64-year-old guy who has worshipped the ground his wife walks on for the past 35 years, well, that’s something you’ll have to explain to me.
Not to take away from the ongoing argument with the latest tone troll, but unholy gods, this thing is now everywhere. Someone randomly interjects a positive or neutral comment about it in a message board or blog or wherever, and the cries of “not all men”, “how dare you tell me how to be a man”, “reverse mansplaining”, “this is why the world is turning against feminism”, “I know man-hate when I see it”, etc. start spilling out all over. And then you get the occasional “this is how you get MTGOW” and “Cassie Jaye is a misunderstood genius” and other stuff which is confusing the hell out of people who have no idea what they’re talking about. Also I saw a bit of “Russia wants the US to be weak” WTFery. (No, context doesn’t help. Your guess is as good as mine.)
The ratio of ‘that shit’ versus ‘against that shit’ appears to be about even in terms of content, but ‘that shit’ appears to be produced by a smaller number of more dedicated posters.
Is there a Troll Appreciation Award? Because I think Desperate Ambrose deserves one for his moment of “I haven’t read the comments policy about ableism” when a page or two ago he was insisting that he had read the comments policy and it didn’t say anything about this being a mockery blog.
@Scildfreja Unnyðnes
I’m trying to find a way to phrase a “Don’t worry, everyone else enjoys your bridemaid’s speeches” compliment that uses your final line, but unfortunately all I can come up with are variants of “Your mind is extremely marriageable,” and each one’s creepier than the last. Sorry about that.
@DA – And how you’re doing anything about domestic violence by making threats here is something you’ll have to explain to all of us.
*crickets*
“Yes, responding with a threat of violence is very un-toxic.” What possible violence could I do to your over the Interwebz? Thankfully, though, you have provided me with a perfect example of what everyone has been asking for: “toxic masculinity” is me taking exception to your condescending snarkiness. You get personal. I tell you getting personal will ensure that things will turn ugly in a hurry and you scream “VIOLENCE!”
I piss you off and you run off to cry in your pillow about “toxic masculinity”. As you define it.
I rest my case, folks.
P.S.: If Mr. Futrelle agrees that the term “right-wingnut” is “ableist”, I will refrain from using it again. I will also recommend that he visit http://www.wonkette.com, then see if he still thinks so.
@Snowberry,
I have a theory about that. Still thinking it over. It’s good, though.
@Rabid Rabbit,
hee hee! I appreciate the sentiment <3
“@DA – And how you’re doing anything about domestic violence by making threats here is something you’ll have to explain to all of us.”
YES! There it is again! Someone jumps ugly with me. I assure them that ugliness has consequences.
“THREATS!”
Yet another “toxic masculinity is whatever I say it is!”
PS: Again, I will wait for a ruling from Mr. Futrelle on whether “right-wingnut” is “ableist”.
“Ambrose, here’s a good article to read: https://www.alternet.org/2015/06/masculinity-killing-men-roots-men-and-trauma/ ”
Thank you, Jen. It looked interesting/useful when I skimmed it, so I downloaded for a more thorough reading later.
@Desperate has such an appropriate troll handle. Such pompus posturing, such inflated sense of his own opinions as superior to decades of intellectual research, such boastful claims of fierceness.
OK, had to get this last one in.
@DesparateAmbrose
Your case is deeply flawed.
Let’s review:
You ask for an concise, bounded definition of toxic masculinity.
Scildfreja Unnyðnes cites one.
You ignore it. Later I cite the same one. Then you accept it.
The definition (now accepted by you) itself includes mention of traits that foster the devaluation of women.
You devalued a voice that presents as female for a voice that overtly presents as traditionally male *when the content was the same*
Your approach to seeking a definition of the term led you to behavior THAT MEETS IT.
“Huh. Yet again, ignored by the guest when I do my level best to be considerate. It’s almost like our guest has motives above and beyond rational discussion or something!
Oh well. Always the bridesmaid, never the bride.”
Terribly sorry, Scildfreja Unnyðnes. I really didn’t mean to ignore you. I’m afraid other, more obnoxious, posters clamored for my attention. The squeaky wheels get the grease, and all that.
Sincere apologies.
Do feel free to leave, Sweet Jane.
@Scildfreja Unnyðnes
My statement: “You devalued a voice that presents as female for a voice that overtly presents as traditionally male *when the content was the same*” minimizes your cogency. I apologize for that as, indeed, your content was more effective than mine, in my opinion; I was just trying to get at the notion that I cited the same source as you; he accepted it from me and ignored it when you did.
OK, *now* finally out of here. Fortunately workout tomorrow is all calisthenics, push-ups, pull-ups and such — no barbell stuff slated for tomorrow so I should be OK with a tiny bit less sleep, as long as I get the 7-hour minimum.
Be well, all!
“Scildfreja Unnyðnes cites one.
You ignore it. Later I cite the same one. Then you accept it.”
Fair enough. For now, I’ll take your word for it, because I think I’m gonna hit the rack. But I will definitely. check in tomorrow and see if I can find the two posts you reference.
For the record, my apology post to Scildfreja Unnyðnes was entered before I saw your most recent. I really didn’t intentionally ignore her. Louder voices distracted me. (OK, feeble attempt at humor.)
Well, now I’ve got Cowby Junkies in my head.
https://youtu.be/Fa9nN3G2CSg
I wasn’t placing any money on this troll, and still he does seem to have some faint entertaining value.
Bravo.
Do feel free to make me, oh sweet, precious, desperate troll.
Wow, talk about being both patronizing and severely self-unaware. I take that back. You’re not a tone troll, you’re a wannabe tone troll who is too tone-deaf to pull it off.
@Pavlovs house, don’t mention it my duck <3 My agency is not reduced. Thank you. Have a nice sleep!
@Desperate Ambrose,
At your leisure. I'll get prepared for tomorrow.
That you prioritized the voices that sounded argumentative exposes your motivations in coming here though, my duck.
Something for you to think about in the interim.
(pokes head in, sees what’s going on)
Huh.
Uh, I’m just gonna leave this right here.
http://wondermark.com/c/2014-09-19-1062sea.png
See ya.
@Desperate Ambrose
As you well know, emotional violence can and is carried out over the Internet.
You also know that physical violence (including death) can be carried out through the Internet: doxxing and swatting come to mind.
Crying in our pillows? Who’s doing that? Nah, we’re calling you on your shit.
@Desperate Ambrose
As you well know, emotional violence can and is carried out over the Internet.
You also know that physical violence (including death) can and is carried out through the Internet: doxxing and swatting come to mind.
Crying in our pillows? Who’s doing that? Nah, we’re calling you on your shit.
It’s kind of amazing that after harassment movements such as gamergate that resulted in terrorist threats and after violence carried out by incels radicalized on the internet and after Kremlin trolls played a big role in brexit and the election of Trump, someone could still be taking the position that the internet can’t cause harm.
Plus this position doesn’t at all square with how mad Desperate Assbro is at the use of the term “toxic masculinity” on the internet.
“Is there a Troll Appreciation Award? Because I think Desperate Ambrose deserves one for his moment of “I haven’t read the comments policy about ableism” when a page or two ago he was insisting that he had read the comments policy and it didn’t say anything about this being a mockery blog.”
If I recall correctly, I said I didn’t see anything about this being a “mockery blog” in the comments policy. As was pointed out to me, something like that does occur in the masthead (for want of a better term): “We Hunted the Mammoth tracks and mocks the white male rage underlying the rise of Trump and Trumpism.”
Apparently, I did read past the word “ableism” in the comments policy. However, since I am not in the habit of referring to fellow posters as, e.g., “retards” or other such vile words, I wasn’t particularly concerned. Certainly, I wasn’t prepared for someone to try and ding me for using the term “right-wingnut”, especially as it was used in reference to a group of people holding certain social/political beliefs, rather than being aimed at another poster. Having said that, however, I am not at all certain that the term is one of “ableism” at all; so even if I were to apply it to someone here (highly unlikely as that is), I don’t believe it violates Mr. Futrelle’s policy. If he says it does, I will gladly refrain from using it in the future.