Note - the links inside the body of this text are for your enhancement - they elaborate the points at which I'm getting.
If you haven't seen or heard about the new Gillette ad from last week, I daresay you either:
a. Actually do live under the proverbial rock
b. Have an existence similar to Helen Keller's in which you are both deaf and blind, or
c. Really don't care
Any of which are ok with me, however, most of my colleagues, friends, family, etc. have seen it, and many on the periphery have maybe only heard about it. Regardless of the camp in which they find themselves, i.e. those who have watched/listened to it themselves and shaped an informed opinion, or those who instead prefer a reactionary click of the share button upon seeing the conclusions of social media thought leaders (because italics = airquotes, right?), there is a hella lot of buzz right now.
When people first saw the ad, my feed was filled with a lot of friends who'd watched and comments along the lines of "Wow," "Slow clap," "THIS," etc. To be fair, many of my friends are also social justice champions in the non-profit and education arenas, so perhaps a bit biased, I know.
But when my husband, a socially conservative, working class dude, came home and said, "Have you seen this?" and made me watch when I admitted I'd seen things about it but had not actually taken the time yet, concluded, "I thought it was really good, why is everybody making a fuss?" I thought, "Because it resonates."
Days later, the screenshots of Twitter posts sticking it to, ironically, the metaphorical man behind the ad at Gillette have begun to fill my feed from friends and family owning [even] more conservative views. Interestingly enough the two posts that frustrated me most were those whose OPs were women, blaming women for the outcomes we see among American males today.
Let's unpack these a bit, ok?
Both seem to conflate the presence of males with the presence of masculinity, toxic or no.
One is a socio-biological reality (i.e. the statistical frequency of male-presenting individuals in a given population/place such as a family/household, teachers/school); the other is a cultural norm about the values and experiences of what maleness should be. Quite different things.
Secondly, disaggregate the data. Of those kids growing up without a father who are depressed, aggressive, and/or criminal, how many witnessed Dad being violent with Mom/other family members before he left? How many were sexually abused by Dad before he was put in jail? How many are of color and exposed to other societal injustices? How many are living in the chronic stress of housing instability and/or poverty because Mom is having a hard time making ends meet? How many are living in a home where Mom has a revolving door with strange men coming through because she "ain't nothin without a man?" How many well-adjusted kids grow up in homes of single parents? Likely more than those who are not well adjusted since conformity is the norm, not the exception. Don't cherry pick your data on which to base your claims, and for the love of God, please don't expect that the OP activating your own confirmation bias hasn't done so themselves.
I'll admit that this kind of thinking triggers me. A lot. Having heard, "I would have expected that from you, with your background, but he knew better," at a certain pivotal time in my life has set me up for being triggered when people assume things for/against others just because of their supposed family values.
All that said - interrogate your thoughts, people, and those with which you find yourself agreeing. Particularly those of you who claim to follow the same Deity as me. (Romans 12:2) Are they truly right, or do they serve you by keeping you from your own scrutiny?
Both seem to equate maleness as what is being upheld as toxic masculinity.
No one is saying that masculinity in and of itself is toxic. Feminists do not support an agenda that paints all men as evil/lesser.
What Gillette's ad and many others are saying, is that this "boys will be boys" attitude that allows presidents to openly say they just grab women "by the pussy" and be touted as a saint, that blames women for their own victimizations, that says they can't express emotions other than rage or lust without being branded a "girl" - that shit is toxic.
This is where some people will need some education. Did you know that there is a whole online culture of toxic masculinity that goes by the term "incels?" Did you know that they are not just harmless ne-er do wells hanging out and wanking to porn, posting ranty online fantasies in their parents' basements, but have actually taken steps to harm women simply for not showing interest in them? That's a toxic sense of maleness.
Domestic violence is toxic masculinity. And yes, I know, #notallmen abuse and #notallDVSurvivors are female, but just as the difference between, and thus the need for, #blacklivesmatter and #alllivesmatter is the disparity, disproportionately more cis-het men are DV perps than women or LGBTQ individuals.
This bullshit that men post online to women of prominence (and even those not of prominence, i.e. high school boys do on social media to girls at their schools) is toxic masculinity. And women who say, "Oh, you should just be nice" versus #outthem are also internalizing toxic masculinity. Just like people of color believing the white supremacist crap they are exposed to experience internalized racism. STOP THAT. You never know how many friends you isolate when you do this shit.
Both seem to think toxic masculinity is some new identity threat.
Tale as old as time, y'all. Does that mean we put up with it?
No, because for at least 2,000 years (more if you count other heroines in the Bible/ancient studies) since Jesus drew a line in the sand for the adulterous woman, people have been saying enough. One of the things that fascinates me so about this particular bible story is that the woman was being judged alone, not with her partner in the crime of extra/pre marital sex (adultery was painted as both then) as Mosaic law prescribed. Even then, the bro's before ho's attitude was alive and well. That's toxic masculinity.
Finally, I am kind of amused at the outcry generated by this one pro-scriptive ad that tells men to be different. Because women are pulled in 5 gajillion different directions by marketers alone - age gracefully - no, you're too old; be thin and fit - no, be bodypositive; be a lady on the streets - but a freak in the sheets; I could go on, but most of the folks reading this will already know what I'm talking about.
I don't care if you are masculine or feminine - why don't we all just espouse these traits of decency?
Merciful
Loyal
Equitable
Reliable
Integrity
Courteous
Serving
Honest
Flexible
Kind
Inclusive
Nurturing
Fun-loving
Compassionate
Responsible
Hard-Working
Et. Cet. Era
In sum - do some reading. Question your feelings - "Why does that bother me/Why do I agree so firmly with that?" Is it true, factually, or to your experience? If the latter, could others have different experiences? If so, does that threaten to erase your experience? Why would that matter to you?
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” MLK Jr.
How do Dr. King's words apply in this sense?
No comments:
Post a Comment