The gillette ad and the crisis of masculinity | thearticle

By now, there have been so many articles about the Gillette advertisement that I almost feel embarrassed to write another one. Why, though, was there such a strong, visceral, even

disproportionate reaction to a  men’s razor commercial which was merely pushing an anti-harassment and anti-bullying message? The progressive, feminist side has labelled this reaction as

proof of their claims, namely that toxic masculinity is widespread among men and the angry responses must come from patriarchal perpetrators. For them, the advert is completely inoffensive,

encouraging men to evolve into better, emotionally well-rounded human beings. To be against the advert implies you must in some way be pro-bullying, pro-violence and pro-harassment. On the

other side, the advert has been decried as an attack on masculinity, framing traditionally masculine men as thugs or brutes. Some have argued that the advert criminalises normal behaviour

such as flirting or play-fighting among boys. They have pointed to the huge increase in Ritalin prescriptions and boys diagnosed with ADHD as further evidence that what they call typical

masculine behaviour is being pathologised in modern society. The advert also comes across to these mainly conservative males as the spectacle of a big corporation preaching to customers when

they should simply be trying to sell their product: it’s just a razor, after all. Who are Proctor & Gamble, which owns Gillette, to tell men how to behave? informing your consumer base

that they are morally deficient is an odd marketing strategy. Men all over the globe have declared that they will boycott the conglomerate as a result. We’ll see if it impacts sales soon

enough. This debate beautifully highlights our divided society. Both groups watch an advert and see completely different things, unable to comprehend the other side’s viewpoint. I think the

advert is an attack on masculinity, but I don’t think the frustrated blokes have articulated why they find the advert so objectionable as well as the confused progressives have explained why

they like it.   The problem with the advert is not what it tells men not to do. Strong, masculine men have always been against bullying, harassment, or unprovoked violence. Protectiveness

is the first instinct of a good father or husband. No, my issue was what it _didn’t_ tell men to do. In the past, adverts aimed at men would tend to push an ideal, such as saving lives,

succeeding in business or sport, or otherwise contributing to society. As a man you would aspire to have a great job, own property, win a competition or build things with your hands.

Gillette adverts too used to have some element of this. But this advertisement has no aspirational ideal. It contrasts the bad man or boy who does bad things with the good man or boy who

seems to exist purely to police the bad guys. There was a brief clip of a father telling his daughter that she was strong. Why not his son? For the most part the advert had nothing in it for

men to reach for. I have no problem with preventing poor behaviour, but you are left with a rather empty feeling of: “Well, is that it? Is that all men are expected to do?” This is

reflected in society. Many lower middle-class and working-class males in Western countries feel forgotten, useless, their lives without meaning or purpose. The jobs these men used to do have

long since moved offshore, replaced by new jobs which don’t create the same sense of satisfaction. Building cars or working with your hands gives a sense of accomplishment that office jobs

don’t. A British man with a family working in a menial job may be forced to rely on state hand-outs. Few men like accepting benefits. Among the leading causes of suicide or depression among

men are feelings of uselessness or worthlessness. Men want to feel valued, yet at a subliminal level modern society is increasingly telling them that they are not. Traditional masculinity is

attacked in the West, but not in developing countries. The wealthy have swapped their workforce for a new, remoter one, leaving behind the old. Confused and hurt, these forgotten men are

trapped in a society which has rejected them in favour of cheaper alternatives. Their masculine traits are now misplaced, redirected into obsessions with football or video games. These

natural instincts are now viewed as unnecessary anachronisms by the ruling class, who wish to mould the next generation of boys into a more serviceable model. All this seems strangely

inevitable in a purely consumer society like ours, yet to ignore these men or pretend they do not exist is extremely dangerous. We cannot abandon a huge portion of society without

consequences; and these have been far-reaching. Men are checking out of marriage, leading to more single mothers — and the biggest indicator of future crime is fatherlessness. Others avoid

work, making the economy inefficient. We won’t be able to rely on cheap foreign labour forever. Perhaps we will adapt and turn to robots instead, but that will only make the existential

crisis of masculinity worse. The social ramifications of this rejection of masculinity are only just beginning. Our rulers should heed this warning, for every revolution in human history was

born out of the male underclass.