So far, 2019 seems to be establishing itself as a year in which the cultural Marxists are intensifying their war on traditional masculinity. But it may turn out to be the year in which the misandrist tide begins to turn.
In just the last week, the American Psychological Association (APA) caused a stir by posted a piece l traditional masculinity – “marked by stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression” – to be a “harmful” mental disorder. Then People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), sharing online a declaring that “Traditional masculinity is dead,” suggested that we “ .” In another example, the New York Timesast Friday praising “’” with songs that “protest old notions of manhood.” The article concludes with one singer declaring, “Toxic masculinity is real.”
It is not real. Toxicity is not an inherent feature of masculinity, just as “stoicism, competitiveness, dominance and aggression” are not inherently bad – far from it, in fact. Without those propulsive masculine qualities, which the APA deems harmful, humankind would never have elevated itself from cave to civilization. Unfortunately, the term “toxic masculinity” has become deeply embedded in our cultural consciousness now and is being conflated intentionally with traditional masculinity. That’s because the endgame of the totalitarians pushing this concept is to emasculate Western civilization in order to erect a collectivist utopia in its stead.
But the most controversial assault on masculinity in the last week was razor company Gillette’s release of a two-minute promotional video called “.” It immediately went viral with well over 19 million views (as of this writing) and spurred a massive backlash. Down-votes on YouTube were originally running at a 10-to-1 ratio over up-votes (that gap narrowed quickly and suspiciously to a 2-to-1 ratio). “Bullying… the Me Too movement against sexual harassment… masculinity,” the voiceover begins, clearly linking all three and depicting various examples of ugly behavior on the part of (almost exclusively Caucasian) boys and men. “We believe in the best in men,” the voiceover intones unconvincingly, after shaming men collectively for the worst in men. “To say the right thing, to act the right way. Some already are, in ways big and small. But some is not enough. Because the boys watching today will be the men of tomorrow.”
For many, that may have been the last straw. Social media swarmed with men (and supportive women) swearing off Gillette products. Op-eds defending masculinity, and denouncing the ad as ill-advised at best, abounded.
A PR expert quoted at The Guardian (a publication which devotes a significant amount of space to bashing norms of masculinity) praised the ad and said, “It is no longer enough for brands to simply sell a product. Customers are demanding that they have a purpose – that they stand for something. Masculinity is a huge part of Gillette’s brand, and there is a recognition in this ad that the new generation is reworking that concept of masculinity, and it is no longer the cliché it once was.”
Some have put forth the argument that Gillette, whose tagline used to be “The Best a Man Can Get,” was making not a political statement but simply a calculated marketing move for publicity, much like Nike did last year by making the cop-hating Communist Colin Kaepernick the face of a highly controversial “Just Do It” campaign. That argument falls apart in light of the fact that the creator of the Gillette video is “” feminist Kim Gehrig, of the UK-based production agency Somesuch. Gehrig was behind an ad campaign for Sport England called “This Girl Can” and “Viva La Vulva,” an ad for a Swedish feminine hygiene brand “which boldly challenged the stigmas around women’s periods,” . The ragingly misandrist Jezebel website reported that Gehrig sent an email to CNBC which read, “At the end of the day, sparking conversation is what matters. This gets people to pay attention to the topic and encourages them to consider taking action to make a difference.”
So presumably the motive for the Gillette ad was more activism than profit, although of course the company hoped to score the same net boost in customers that Nike’s Kaepernick ad did. As The Intelligencer , however, the difference between that ad and Gillette’s is that the former “is uplifting rather than accusatory.” By contrast, the Gillette ad is a “downer.” (For a more uplifting, sympathetic take on masculinity, check out to the Gillette ad from Egard Watches.)
Of course, the Left embraced the ad (imagine their apoplectic outrage if an ad campaign dared to address “toxic femininity”). One male Twitter user if your masculinity is THAT threatened by an ad that says we should be nicer then you're doing masculinity wrong. that “” This is way off the mark. Men weren’t threatened by the ad; they were insulted by it. It sparked widespread anger because men are fed up with being demonized. They are fed up with having masculinity equated with bullying and sexual harassment. They are fed up with being told that their very nature is poisonous and that redefining masculinity means acting like stereotypical women. Countless good men who are quietly leading lives as protectors and providers and role models and unacknowledged heroes are fed up with the cultural insistence that masculinity is a dire problem instead of a dynamic life force.
The pushback against the Gillette ad and the APA report are evidence that the Marxist assault on Western masculinity is finally beginning to be met with resistance. Men and the women who love traditional masculinity (i.e., the majority of them) are getting mad as hell and they’re not going to take it anymore.
From FrontPage Mag, 1/19/19