A week ago, the American Psychological Association (APA) issued guidelines to depict “traditional masculinity” as harmful. It listed certain traits of manhood as particularly pernicious: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, adventure, risk, and violence.
How would the United States, any successful corporation, or top sports team exist without men who possess these traits? Impossible.
Of course, every man must know the limits and consequences of each trait, based on how and when it’s applied. We saw this from the unacceptable, abusive behavior of Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and others -– a small minority of the male population.
But, without male traits, there would be no men, no leaders, no accomplishments, and no life.
By the way, most high-achieving women possess these same traits! Isn’t that why Sheryl Sandberg, COO of Facebook, wrote Lean In?
War Against Men
Why are psychologists so vocal about demasculinizing men?
The APA’s board is dominated by women -– past, current, and incoming presidents, for example, and other major officers. Moreover, according to the APA, 74 percent of PhDs in psychology are issued to women, and 65 percent of working psychologists are women.
In other words, psychology is a female-controlled field.
Ironically, the APA’s anti-male guidelines were created almost exclusively by men. How could that be?
Nowadays, pathetically, men are equally fervent in eliminating male traits.
Alas, this antipathy towards men isn’t new; it’s a pillar of socialism, which can’t work in a country of rugged individuals. In 1914, President Woodrow Wilson, a Constitution-hating progressive, told a YMCA audience in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: “I have often said that the use of a university is to make young gentlemen as unlike their fathers as possible.”
Yes, there is a war against men. Given the aforementioned, men should think twice before seeking or accepting the counsel of these biased psychologists -– for themselves or any members of their families. Girls and women, likewise, will be polluted by anti-male bias.
We also see the bashing of men in TV commercials. Men are portrayed as docile and dumb, women as bright and assertive.
So, when Gillette, owned by Procter & Gamble, decided to run a male-bashing, Me-Too-themed digital ad campaign, echoing the APA’s tropes, I wasn’t shocked. The spot, called “We Believe,” produced by virulent man-haters, admonishes men to shave their “toxic masculinity.”
Huh? I don’t have any toxic masculinity, and I have no friends so afflicted. In fact, most men aren’t toxically inclined.
So, who’s Gillette’s target? Good question.
For decades, Gillette’s tagline and advertising theme has been, “The Best a Man Can Get.” Gillette has celebrated men.
Now, the iconic razor company is turning on and insulting them, preaching to them — a major branding blunder.
Why?
According to Pankaj Bhalla, Gillette’s brand director for North America:
“This is an important conversation happening, and as a company that encourages men to be their best, we feel compelled to both address it and take action of our own. We are taking a realistic look at what’s happening today, and aiming to inspire change by acknowledging that the old saying ‘Boys Will Be Boys’ is not an excuse. We want to hold ourselves to a higher standard, and hope all the men we serve will come along on that journey to find our ‘best’ together.”
What does this have to with shaving and grooming? Nothing. It’s pure nonsense, social-justice, virtue-signaling gobbledygook. This is not the best a man can get. Men can do much better.
What’s the boardroom’s impetus for this off-putting campaign? Is business too good at P&G? Do the execs want to temper revenues by alienating customers?
Unlikely.
What else could it be? Is Procter & Gamble dominated by man-hating women? Unlike the APA, P&G’s management team is mostly men.
But, don’t let that fool you. These days, many men walk around feeling guilty — just for being male. After all, they’re bombarded daily with misandrist (man-hating) messages: in the news, in movies, in sitcoms, on TV commercials, and especially on college campuses.
Maybe the men at P&G are trying to impress their girlfriends and wives by appearing sensitive, hip, and with it. Don’t discount that hypothesis. Or, perhaps the university-brainwashed Millennials are now running the company. Or, some combination thereof.
Asymmetry
Seems a bit asymmetrical, doesn’t it?
Interestingly, Mr. Bhalla is also responsible for the Venus razor, for women. Can you imagine him running a campaign that criticizes women for hurting children — by having 40 percent of children out of wedlock and initiating 70 percent of divorces?
No, you can’t. He’d be fired. You won’t find the APA, P&G, or any entity criticizing women for any reason. Ever. Women are perfect angels.
But, according to the elites, it’s OK to attack men. They’re fair game. They’re flawed, just awful creatures.
Feeding the Hand That Bashes You
Wake up. It’s not OK to attack men, and men must stop taking it. Gillette’s anti-male sanctimony will backfire, and should backfire. It’s bad business.
Men should boycott Gillette because feeding the hand that bashes you is the epitome of not being a man, of being a wimp – and it will encourage other Gillettes to trash you, too.
Bottom line: a corporation should keep politics and social activism out of commerce, or suffer the repercussions of converting customers into enemies.
POSTSCRIPT #1: Gillette’s Stupid Attack on Men Cost It $8B (07.31.19)
© 2019 Marc H. Rudov. All Rights Reserved.
About the Author
Marc Rudov is a branding advisor to CEOs,
producer of MarcRudovTV, and author of four books