Toxic Masculinity In 2019… It’s Going Nowhere

—

For thirty years, Gillette has always had a consistent tagline, believing they are “The Best A Man Can Get.” In January of 2019 Gillette expanded on their trademark tagline, believing it reflects standards men should be reaching to achieve. They highlighted an apparent acceptance of responsibility, as they released television ads calling out the bad behavior we’ve come to describe as ‘toxic masculinity.’ The commercials were meant to take a stand, and encourage men to stand with them, by challenging the men who idly stand by without discouraging their toxic brethren.

It was an interesting angle, yet Gillette’s stance was met with heavy criticism instead of cheers. In fact, the YouTube posting of the commercial eventually had comments disabled and YouTube’s thumb rating system leans toward heavy disapproval. The commercial and its message were defended by Gillette, explaining it opened a dialogue as intended.

Even in its defense though, a new campaign appeared on its heels. This new commercial shifted to traditionally American ideals, highlighting veterans as heroes. That might be a weird flex, but OK. The veteran slant certainly wouldn’t offend, as it promoted deodorant while portraying heroes that sweat too. The shift in advertising was enough to quell pushback on the issue of toxic masculinity. Moving on from those expressing discontent with the message also mitigated the possibility this stand may be toxic itself, another contributor to the downfall of the “MeToo” movement.

I feel the need to preface my forthcoming personal opinion of the commercial by associating it with my personal view of the “MeToo” movement. I took an oath, I swore to support and defend the constitution of the United States. I feel it’s a dangerous place we’ve come to as a society when our all too common knee-jerk claim of offensive speech overrules the basic tenets of free speech granted by our forefathers in that constitution. Simply put — I could do with less PC police.

As a man, and a combat veteran comfortable with my masculinity, I couldn’t relate personally to the complaints and found a stronger connection to the disdain of toxic masculinity than any emasculating qualities emanating from the advertisements. As a father and role model to both boys and girls, the commercial’s imagery left a reaffirming feeling that I was doing my part in raising children to become productive members of society, with qualities and values that would make me proud.

This toxic masculinity callout garnered more attention with a release during Super Bowl season. That alone was enough for it to join the landscape of conversations in New York City, a hub in the advertising industry. It was a discussion within my small circles of advertising friends, including ladies, fathers, and men. Writ large, the conclusion about the sentiment was this — only those men deserving of the callout could have any reason to feel emasculated or insecure about their behaviors. In effect, the campaign does facilitate the conversation as intended.

Our conversations about advertising, and how to impact a change in behavior and actions, raised several other strategies. For example, instead of opening the door to accusations of negative reinforcement and political biases, why not shift to creating a bond through the use of real-world examples with today’s non-toxic men? Just to name a few, you have “The Rock” Duane Johnson, NFL superstar J.J. Watt, even Navy SEAL turned US Representative Dan Crenshaw, if you wanted to lean in politically.

But here’s a lingering question — why tiptoe into the realm of the callout about a topic so politically charged in America today? The MeToo movement has been exalted in political circles by those claiming to be champions of the people. Unfortunately, today’s political environment is filled with low-blows from both people and groups who insist they “go high.” Why jump into the ring with a heavyweight topic and pull punches? Why not go all in? The holy grail of this political Molotov cocktail is “locker room talk,” and skirting the elephant in the room mimics the exact behavior, of looking the other way, that it claims we need to correct. It gives the appearance of being judge and jury to classifying which behavior is toxic. It also gives a pass to our elected officials in Capitol Hill at a time when they deserve to be scorn for the discord they sow in the name of representation.

Our current political class is a dysfunctional assortment of people so focused on their reelection potential, yet insecure in their ability to represent Americans, that they relate to their constituents through memes and Twitter “dunking” as a replacement for actions of governance and legislation in our most hallowed halls. I have a unique view as a soldier, I correlate cutting and pasting a meme with squeezing a trigger. They’re interchangeable, if you can do one, you can do either. Yes, all soldiers squeeze triggers. But soldiers, and men, distinguish themselves with their actions, by taking a stand. With few exceptions, our ‘leaders’ are less distinguished and more oxymoron — poster children for the very behaviors we attempt to refute.

It seems this MeToo, toxic masculinity conversation starter, came to the table with our political poster children and bit off more than it could chew. It smacks of advice from a past career as a soldier, never pick a fight you can’t win. Gillette took a beating in the backlash from the political division, without actually addressing the toxic masculinity of politicians they tiptoed around with their message.

But… did they really? Having another advertising campaign in the chute seems to indicate a strategy, maybe anticipation of fallout? Or maybe they reached for help from the depths of their sinking message?

Clearly, Gillette fell victim to the political divisiveness inherent in the argument itself, and therein lies the rub. In their effort to encourage men to be best — to stand up and be the best a man can be regarding toxic masculinity — they reached toward the bottom of the barrel. They first reached toward men entrenched within this politically-charged arena to confront injustice. Only after they erred did they reach for those capable of, and experienced in, driving change — veterans.

Overall, this leads me to the conclusion that we, whether leaders, veterans, or even just garden-variety American men, cannot publicly claim to be winning in any sense of the term. I sign off with a final, valid question. Where are the rest of this generation’s men?

—
Previously published here and reprinted with the author’s permission.