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 declaring
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 grotesquely
suggestive video declaring that “Traditional masculinity is dead,” suggested
that we “cure toxic
masculinity by going vegan.” In another example, the New York
Times posted a piece last Friday praising “The
New Angry Young Men: Rockers Who Rail Against ‘Toxic Masculinity’” 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 “We
Believe: the Best Men Can Be.” 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 “philosophically
unpleasant” 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,” according
to AdWeek. 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 points
out, 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 this video response
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 remarked
that “if your masculinity is THAT threatened by an ad that says we
should be nicer then you're doing masculinity wrong.” 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
