,
6 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Is it seriously necessary to explain this? Here, let me try the Socratic method: ask yourself what would happen to the makers of a comparable ad encouraging blacks to avoid crime or Muslims to avoid terrorism.
Nothing wrong with the messages in any of those ads, right? Of COURSE men shouldn't be bullies, blacks shouldn't be criminals, and Muslims shouldn't be terrorists. Who could object to such positive and socially responsible messaging? What law-abiding soul would feel insulted?
Naturally, we all know the pillars of Heaven would be shaken by the outrage if any such collective insinuation of guilt was made about any group except men, and the Gillette ad is carefully designed to make it look like white men specifically are the problem.
There's even a bit in the ad where a black man steps in to prevent a white guy from committing the unpardonable crime of pursuing a pretty girl, telling him it's "not cool." Reverse the race of those actors and heads would be rolling at Gillette right now.
This business of collective guilt, of PREJUDICE, can now be applied only to men and more specifically white men. Not an inch of slack would be cut for messages that assume the worst about any other group. Nobody else can be told to "be better" because they're unacceptable as is.
When it comes to "toxic masculinity," the prejudice is so casual that corporations think nothing of insulting their own customers. We just emerged from a Supreme Court battle where we were told men don't even deserve the legal presumption of innocence. /end
