Just for a second, when I heard there was a “backlash” to Gillette’s recent ad, I wanted to believe the news media was blowing it out of proportion, that there were actually only a few nasty comments. But I quickly became convinced it was widespread.

As I promised in December, I won’t make this entry about the news of the moment; I want to focus on the broader societal issues cropping up here. But in case you’re out of the loop (or visiting this page a year from now when all the hoopla over Gillette’s ad has disappeared), I think it’s fair to post a little background.

Gillette, the well-known razor company (owned by Procter & Gamble), released a nearly-two-minute advertisement recently — celebrating the 30-year anniversary of its memorable slogan “The Best A Man Can Get”. The ad focused less on razors than on harmful behaviors like bullying, sexism, and harassment — and the idea that it’s time we get better. Gillette explained:

“It’s time we acknowledge that brands, like ours, play a role in influencing culture. And as a company that encourages men to be their best, we have a responsibility to make sure we are promoting positive, attainable, inclusive, and healthy versions of what it means to be a man.”

And suddenly, for a day or two, Gillette became the most-talked-about brand in the West. There was legitimate criticism, like this piece in Maclean’s, in which Anne Kingston points out: “Had Gillette truly wanted to pave the way for actual change in gender inequities, they could have taken a far bolder step”, like “ending the absurd gender-ification and price discrimination perpetuated in the marketing of shaving products.” (She refers here to the pink tax, and notes the heavily male-centric nature of Procter & Gamble’s leadership.) But there was also a tidal wave of “criticism” from people who, inexplicably, don’t want companies to spread positive messages. It remains to be seen whether Gillette has learned its lesson on either front.

As you might expect, I had several thoughts and opinions about all this.

One fleeting thought of mine regarded the ever-present (but not always true) idea that “there’s no such thing as negative publicity”. For good or for ill, the name “Gillette” is now burned into the minds of an entirely new generation, and re-emphasized in the minds of us oldsters. Five years from now, most of us will have forgotten this ad, but we’ll be in a drugstore somewhere and see the name; it will sound familiar; we’ll buy the product. (Disclaimer: I don’t buy, and have never bought, disposable razors. I have always shaved what little facial hair I grow with an electric razor, beginning with borrowing my Dad’s in the late 1980s.)

But another, far stronger, thought was: Why in the world are people so offended by this? What kind of person sees or hears an exhortation to better behavior and gets angry?

As the screenshots (of a Facebook conversation) on this page show, there definitely are people in my circles who were upset. It’s clear from reading their comments that they hold a completely different worldview than I do — and that’s okay, of course — but it’s also clear that they’re getting their information from somewhere besides this commercial. Because the ad didn’t say anything they’re claiming it said.

“Its (sic) literally attacking masculine men, white men in particular.”

Um, watch the ad again. Someone can only get that impression if they think “masculine men” are bullies, sexual harrassers, or quiet supporters of them, AND if they think those behaviors are okay, AND if they think only white men behave thusly.

“We live in a culture that is trying to push for the feminization of men, trying to turn little boys into [slur] and telling teen boys they’re evil for what is natural. Gillette has jumped on that bandwagon.”

So... There are actual people in the world who think behaving well is feminine, AND that men shouldn't do it. See, this is why I am often repulsed by major news media telling us to “have conversations with the other side”. Because I don’t want to have conversations with people who think we shouldn’t be kinder, with people who think we should encourage bullying or sexual harassment, or, truly, with people who so badly misunderstand feminism and refuse to be corrected.

“Masculinity is NOT wrong or toxic but these feminist schills (sic) want to make the world think so.”

I haven’t actually ever heard anyone say masculinity is “wrong” or toxic — and I follow a lot of feminists — so I think this here is a strawman. Possibly what’s happened here is a misunderstanding of the term “toxic masculinity”. Toxic, of course, is an adjective, like the word “drunk” in the phrase “drunk driver”. Have you heard any driver get offended because someone else was described as a “drunk driver”? No, because that would be absurd. It would be silly for someone to react to an anti-drunk driving campaign by saying “driving isn’t wrong!” Because no one has said driving is wrong. We’ve said drunk driving is wrong. Drunk driving is a particular type of driving, something that only a subset of all drivers will engage in, and even those drivers who do sometimes drive drunk don’t do it all the time. Everyone knows and understands this, yet when the same grammatical structure is used in toxic masculinity, they lose their shit. It can’t possibly mean that masculinity is toxic. If so, then the word toxic would be redundant. So the phrase only applies to one particular type of masculinity, the type that is toxic.

“Every time feminists talk about toxic masculinity, there is a chorus of whiny dudes who will immediately assume — or pretend to assume — that feminists are condemning all masculinity, even though the modifier ‘toxic’ inherently suggests that there are forms of masculinity that are not toxic.”

Amanda Marcotte, cited in The Advocate, 2017

So then, what is the particular type of masculinity that is toxic?

“So, to be excruciatingly clear, toxic masculinity is a specific model of manhood, geared towards dominance and control. It’s a manhood that views women and LGBT people as inferior, sees sex as an act not of affection but domination, and which valorizes violence as the way to prove one’s self to the world.”

Amanda Marcotte, Salon, 2016

Only if one believes that all masculinity fits that specific model can one also think the term “toxic masculinity” refers to all men. Most of us (I hope) recognize that masculinity doesn’t have to fit that model. People can be men without being violent and without idealizing the violence in others. Men can see themselves as equals to non-men instead of inherently superior. Men can protect without also having to dominate. And so on.

The only conclusion I can come to about the people upset over Gillette’s call to better behavior is that they strongly believe that all men should behave in a toxic manner. This is abhorrent.

“Because the majority of white males have never done the stuff this video accuses all of them of doing.”

This person either hasn’t seen the video, or doesn’t know what words mean, or both. Because (1) the ad did not accuse “all of them” of anything, and (2) I’m going to need a citation or other evidence that “the majority of white males” haven’t done whatever it is this person thinks the ad is accusing them all of doing. The advertisement did, in fact, depict quite a few men (of multiple ethnic backgrounds) doing the right things. If someone says to you: “Some men do bad things, but other men do good things”, do you think it is reasonable to assume they actually meant “all men always do bad things”? Of course not. The only way anyone gets offended by the “some men” statement is when they identify with that specific portion of men. If you hear the phrase “rapists are typically men” and somehow feel accused of something, you have deep and abiding issues that I would rather not know about.

Conclusion

Not only from this small sampling of comments on a particular Facebook post, but also from a wider net of comments around the internet, it looks like the “backlash” comes from one or more of three places. First, sadly there are people who think men should behave badly. Second, there is an inexplicable miscontruing of the term “toxic masculinity” — somehow misunderstanding it to mean “all men are toxic”. And third, there are a number of people who consistently surprise me by their ability to feel accused when someone else is accused of something.

The first one, I have long been aware of. The second, I am becoming more aware of, though I still don’t understand it.

It’s the third one that surprises me. When I read a statistic showing, say, how many males have been convicted of domestic violence, I have never once felt the need to defend myself against a non-existence accusation of domestic violence. If someone says something like “humans are so violent”, I have never thought to respond: “But not me! Not all humans are violent!” Because it’s clear and obvious that she wasn’t talking about me; rather she spoke of the species as a whole, and never said ALL humans are violent.

This leads me to suspect that the men who do get butthurt over depictions of other men behaving badly are probably seeing a lot of that in themselves, whether the depiction is praising or condemning the toxic behavior. Because otherwise, there’s no explanation for it.