when I first heard of the Gillette commercial, I thought it was the next step in advertising. Somewhere in the marketing department was a millennial that saw a consumer demographic, turned a brand-recognized but potentially problematic tagline and turned it on its head in a way that carried a lot of weight. Dunno if it's going to sell more razors (it might fall into the popular but no increased sales hole that the old spice guy fell into years ago), but it's certainly memorable.
And the overall message it carries is pretty awesome. Examples of good men (who have the time and inclination to step up) are fewer and farther between than we'd like. I spoke about the difficulties of parents yesterday, and that goes as well for coaches, teachers, martial arts instructors, and other mentor figures that do a lot in young people's lives. People who are vital in taking the phrase "boys will be boys" and making it not an excuse anymore.
I'd like to think "boys will be boys" would instead mean, "We call them boys because they're still learning to be men. They'll screw up. Let's be diligent in correcting said screwups and preventing future ones."
(Think about it. There's a reason that referring to a male as "boy" becomes seriously derogatory once that male is above a certain age and experience level).
aaand then it lost me with the bit about the guy not only trying to break up a bunch of teenagers, but dragging his own child into the fray with him.
That was where the ad crossed the line from admirable to bone fucking stupid.
Given the current state of America, that kind of intervention with the idea of "all I have to do is step up" is a good way to get yourself stabbed, sued, or jailed.
I'm not against intervening. But I'm against stupidly intervening. And that was seriously stupidly intervening.
Then we have the term "Toxic masculinity" in general.
If "toxic masculinity" was just used to identify and correctly treat the problem, I wouldn't have an issue.
But it's never just that. Not now, when being properly leftist is a religion and being woke is orthodoxy. Which is exactly what's happening now. Questions are heresy, and pointing out flaws is a blasphemy. Which means the new term transforms from an identity of a problem into a club of shame, to be swung against all heretics, blasphemers, innocent bystanders, and people who nodded off during the sermon. And all the good parishioners are quick to point them out, lest the club of shame be swung in their direction.
It happened to the word "racist."
It happened to the word "privilege."
It happened to the word "Nazi."
And you expect me to believe it's not happening to the words "toxic masculinity?"
Fool me once? shame on you.
Try to fool me four times? go fuck yourself, asshole.
Which is why it's going to lose effectiveness without solving the problem, the way all of the others did. Because it's not being used in the way that's actually effective. It's a hammer that's being used to threaten the fearful instead of build a table. And it's a fucking shame.
And the overall message it carries is pretty awesome. Examples of good men (who have the time and inclination to step up) are fewer and farther between than we'd like. I spoke about the difficulties of parents yesterday, and that goes as well for coaches, teachers, martial arts instructors, and other mentor figures that do a lot in young people's lives. People who are vital in taking the phrase "boys will be boys" and making it not an excuse anymore.
I'd like to think "boys will be boys" would instead mean, "We call them boys because they're still learning to be men. They'll screw up. Let's be diligent in correcting said screwups and preventing future ones."
(Think about it. There's a reason that referring to a male as "boy" becomes seriously derogatory once that male is above a certain age and experience level).
aaand then it lost me with the bit about the guy not only trying to break up a bunch of teenagers, but dragging his own child into the fray with him.
That was where the ad crossed the line from admirable to bone fucking stupid.
Given the current state of America, that kind of intervention with the idea of "all I have to do is step up" is a good way to get yourself stabbed, sued, or jailed.
I'm not against intervening. But I'm against stupidly intervening. And that was seriously stupidly intervening.
Then we have the term "Toxic masculinity" in general.
If "toxic masculinity" was just used to identify and correctly treat the problem, I wouldn't have an issue.
But it's never just that. Not now, when being properly leftist is a religion and being woke is orthodoxy. Which is exactly what's happening now. Questions are heresy, and pointing out flaws is a blasphemy. Which means the new term transforms from an identity of a problem into a club of shame, to be swung against all heretics, blasphemers, innocent bystanders, and people who nodded off during the sermon. And all the good parishioners are quick to point them out, lest the club of shame be swung in their direction.
It happened to the word "racist."
It happened to the word "privilege."
It happened to the word "Nazi."
And you expect me to believe it's not happening to the words "toxic masculinity?"
Fool me once? shame on you.
Try to fool me four times? go fuck yourself, asshole.
Which is why it's going to lose effectiveness without solving the problem, the way all of the others did. Because it's not being used in the way that's actually effective. It's a hammer that's being used to threaten the fearful instead of build a table. And it's a fucking shame.
RSS Feed
