Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Gillette Is Not Wrong
Is the new Gillette razor ad a radical feminist attack on masculinity – the commercial embodiment of a woke sensibility? I was prepared to think so. But having watched it twice, I find a lot to like. The ad has been panned by some conservative commentators. With all due respect, I think they are falling into a trap. They seem to have accepted the feminist framing. Feminists see culture as a Manichean struggle. It’s women versus men. Women are benign and men are malign. For society to progress, men must change. We must extirpate “toxic masculinity.”
Understandably, this rubs conservatives the wrong way. I’ve risen to the defense of masculinity many times myself. But is the Gillette ad really “the product of mainstream radicalized feminism—and emblematic of Cultural Marxism,” as Turning Point USA’s Candace Owen put it? Is it part of “a war on masculinity in America,” as Todd Starnes argued on Fox News?
Conservatives stripping off their coats to get into this brawl are like the man who, seeing a barfight unfold, asks “Is this a private quarrel or can anyone join in?”
Let’s figure out what the fight is about before taking sides.
There were a couple of undercurrents in the Gillette ad that suggested feminist influence – the term “toxic masculinity” should itself be toxic – but overall, the ad is pretty tame, even valuable. I have no idea if it’s the best way to sell razors, but as social commentary, it’s not offensive. “The Best Men Can Be” begins by showing men looking the other way as boys fight, shrugging “boys will be boys.” It shows men laughing at a comedy portraying a lout pantomiming a lunge at a woman’s behind. It shows kids teasing a boy for being a “freak” or a “sissy.” These are followed by more uplifting images of men breaking up fights, interfering with men who are harassing women, and being loving fathers to daughters. We hear a quote from former NFL star Terry Crews, saying “Men need to hold other men accountable.” These images didn’t strike me as a reproof of masculinity per se, but rather as a critique of bullying, boorishness, and sexual misconduct.
By reflexively rushing to defend men in this context, some conservatives have run smack into an irony. Imaging themselves to be men’s champions, they are actually defending behavior, like sexual harassment and bullying, that a generation or two ago conservatives were the ones condemning. Sexual license, crude language, and retreat from personal responsibility were the hallmarks of the left. It was to epate la bourgeoisie that leftists chanted “Up against the wall, [expletive]” on college campuses. Liberals were the crowd saying “Let it all hang out,” “If it feels good, do it,” and “chaste makes waste.” Feminists were the ones eyeing daggers at men who held chairs or doors for them, and insisting that a “woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”
The left won that cultural battle. Standards of conduct for both sexes went out the window. Whereas men had once been raised to behave themselves in front of women — “Watch your language, there are ladies present” – they were instead invited to believe that women deserved no special consideration at all.
As I’ve written many times, the MeToo movement may conceive of itself as a protest of “traditional masculinity,” but that’s only because memories are short. It’s actually a protest against the libertine culture the sexual revolution ushered in. Some men are behaving really badly – harassing women, bullying each other, and failing in their family responsibilities. Some women are too, though the MeToo movement doesn’t acknowledge that aspect of things. But these behaviors are not “traditional.” They’ve always existed, of course, but they went mainstream with the counterculture, which is now the culture. In any case, everyone, left and right, who values decent behavior should be able to agree that encouraging men to be non-violent, polite, and respectful is not anti-male. It’s just civilized.
Conservatives should applaud that aspect of the Gillette message. Progressives, in turn, should grapple with the overwhelming evidence that the best way to raise honorable men is with two parents. We may wish it were otherwise, but fathers — as disciplinarians, role models, and loving husbands — are key to rearing happy, healthy, and responsible sons, as well as self-confident, happy, and high-achieving daughters.
That’s the cultural reform we so badly need. Any corporate volunteers? Apple? Google?
Published in Culture
Oh simple! See, the elites, and the would be elites are Nevertherless, Trump types. They are the blue hairs who value decorum, civility, calm, status quo over the rough and tumble needed to make change. In other words, they are the type of people who act like moms. They don’t want the kids to play rough. They don’t want shouting or yelling. All needs to be Harmony. Trump is not that. Trump is rough. Trump is vulgar.
See, “boys will be boys” is not an excuse for bad behavior, but rough behavior. Mom’s don’t like it. Never Trump, at is core, is driven by the feminine aspects of the conservative movement. Therefore, NT will cave to feminists when the feminist message is one of being mom.
I expect you will not agree with me at all, but that is why I made the statement. I won’t argue with you about it, because you are not going to change my mind. I see it clear as day.
I buy the generic store brand.
As is your right.
I think one issue may be that “boys will be boys” is too often used to describe the behaviour of men rather than boys.
In the “good ol’ days” of traditional pedagogy, uncontrolled rough behaviour was never excused by educators. It was channeled into organized sport, manual labour, and/or military training. Old time all-boys schools knew how quickly things can descend into a Lord Of The Flies scenario if boys aren’t kept on a tight leash. The whole point was to turn uncontrolled boys into self-controlled men.
“Boys will be boys,” is an ethos that developed after that sort of traditional pedagogy fell out of favour. It was the excuse that parents and activists made to reduce the power of educators to control how boys burn off their masculine energy. In other words, it was the Left that unleashed “toxic masculinity”.
And so, now, the educational establishment is wholly unequipped to deal with the consequences whereby the students of a 21st century university are often worse behaved than the students of a 19th century schoolhouse.
Meanwhile, too many “conservatives” deny that “toxic masculinity” can even exist, rather than agitating for a return to traditional pedagogical methods.
I’ll believe in toxic masculinity when people start talking about toxic femininity. I’ll believe in white privilege when people talk about privilege in the context of other colors.
Until that happens, I am going to assume that the terms are too-frequently used in bad faith or in ignorant conflation to be worthy of consideration.
Put another way, I believe that males can pattern traditionally male behaviors in negative ways.
But I ain’t gonna call it Trendy Phrase™ unless I control the trademark.