If Gillette Really Cares About Toxic Masculinity, They Would Stop Advertising on Tucker Carlson
Photo via screenshotBecause we live in a unique kind of hell where our brands are more accountable to our culture than our democratic institutions, we now have a predictable news cycle that includes all the predictable people getting predictably mad about a predictably manipulative commercial from one of America’s brand giants.
Credit where it’s due: this is a great commercial by Gillette.
This is why I’m including Gillette in my predictably cynical leftist take.
As @JuddLegum points out, @ProcterGamble advertised on Tucker’s show over 200 times in 2018, with no signs of slowing in 2019.https://t.co/SaThcXbZTc
— jordan (@JordanUhl) January 15, 2019
Tucker spent Women’s History Month airing a series on men & parroting misogynists pic.twitter.com/wkKq2IH1UI
— jordan (@JordanUhl) January 15, 2019
Gillette released a commercial that is legitimately important (that phrase is also a depressing indictment of America’s political and moral institutions), and they publicly aligned themselves with popular will—all while their parent company funnels dollars to one of the saints of the toxic masculinity they aim to indict. American capitalism is really just one big shell game.
That said, we cannot let our cynicism get in the way of a real and honest conversation at the center of this debate that Gillette sparked. Toxic masculinity is a pox on this world, and men who want to be allies to women must take every opportunity they can to try to redefine masculinity in terms that emphasize respecting women, and embracing our inherent weaknesses.
We’re not perfect, guys. Far from it.
At its core, that’s all that this debate among men is: “I’m fine” versus “no you’re not.” The predictable mix of hucksters and true believers on the right brought out all the familiar tropes during their meltdown that is still ongoing as I write this.
The #Gillette commercial is the product of mainstream radicalized feminism— & emblematic of Cultural Marxism.
STOP PERVERTING MASCULINITY.
LET LITTLE BOYS WRESTLE.
Despite what Lena Dunham tells you, women are not into beta males & men are not into chicks w/ armpit hair.
— Candace Owens (@RealCandaceO) January 15, 2019
Yeah, the Gillette commercial is the beginning of the “Toxic Masculinity” campaign that Democrats will pull from the depths of extreme leftism, and try to sell it to the American public through social engineering in order to defeat President Trump in 2020. It’s garbage. https://t.co/sx5Yu1DAaa
— Ethan Van Sciver (@EthanVanSciver) January 15, 2019
So nice to see @Gillette jumping on the “men are horrible” campaign permeating mainstream media and Hollywood entertainment. I for one will never use your product again. https://t.co/uZf7v4sFKm
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) January 14, 2019
I’ve used @Gillette razors my entire adult life but this absurd virtue-signalling PC guff may drive me away to a company less eager to fuel the current pathetic global assault on masculinity.
Let boys be damn boys.
Let men be damn men. https://t.co/Hm66OD5lA4— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) January 14, 2019
OMG. Gillette has been kidnapped by the Oberlin College Wimmin’s Collective.
— Christina Sommers (@CHSommers) January 15, 2019
Well that’s pretty insulting… does @Gillette honestly think that real men have to be told what to teach their sons. May be time to look for a new razor.
— Bernard B. Kerik (@BernardKerik) January 15, 2019
There is a kind of man in this world who cannot separate masculinity from the unchecked use of power—whether it’s physical power by restricting another person’s movement, intellectual power by “exposing” the “Hollywood conspiracy” to paint that kind of physical power as “toxic,” or cultural power by threatening to lead a boycott of one of the most ubiquitous brands in America. Regardless of why these men and women are angry at Gillette, it all comes down to power, and their grievance over men having less of it than they used to.
Less power to “mess” with their smaller and weaker compatriots. Less power to “be a man” by continuously making unwanted advances towards random women. Less power over women in the workplace. Less power to dismiss these abuses of power with self-perpetuating mottos like “boys will be boys.”
We find ourselves in the middle of a legitimate cultural revolution being led by the women of America. The sexual revolution upended the 1960s, and it bled into a corporate revolution in the following decades, evolving to the point where it was expected for women to be out of the house and working by the turn of the century, despite that being a laughable assertion a half-century before it. Like everything in the 1990s, we treated this as the end of history, and assumed that all the progress that needed to be made had been made, and ignored all the structural issues in our culture, economy and politics that still existed and caused untold pain and grief for half of the population.
#MeToo has had an impact on every single man in this country. We have all been forced to address the inherent misogyny so rampant in our culture that it is literally programmed into each and every one of us. We are complicit simply by being the beneficiaries of a culture that devalues women, and that realization is beginning to take root. One of two things has mainly occurred in response to this cognizance:
1. We have admitted mistakes and worked to correct them.
2. We’ve regressed into whiny little children screaming about how we’re not getting our way.
All the while, the powers that be have tried to play both sides to max out their profits. Gillette releases a legitimate “wow” commercial, all while their parent company pays handsomely to advertise on a Fox News show hosted by a man that stands for everything that the “wow” commercial stood against. Conflict is a profitable business model in America, and toxic masculinity is a key ingredient to economic growth. #MeToo has won and will win significant cultural victories that are ushering in a new and improved status quo for women. The question is whether economic titans like Procter and Gamble want this great leap forward for women to happen, or if they just want to pay lip service to it while standing in its way—all in the name of profits.
Jacob Weindling is a staff writer for Paste politics. Follow him on Twitter at @Jakeweindling.