Of Knights and Men

Okay, the Gillette ad: it is either the worst thing or the best thing in the world, right? Everyone has an opinion. It’s the latest thrust in the conspiracy to create a generation of castrated soy-boys; it’s the first step out of this quagmire of oppressive male stereotypes. Am I taking crazy pills? I finally watched the damned thing. It’s a soulless cash grab reflecting the atmosphere of the moment. Today it is in vogue to shit on men; tomorrow, who knows? Men shouldn’t, period. All the ad amounts to is an echoing of a much louder chant, “Shame, shame!”

Feel ashamed, men:

You like women’s bodies? Well, be ashamed.

You like to fight? Well, be ashamed.

What? Do you think men are the only bullies? I didn’t watch E— waste away into a suicidal shell of herself because men were harassing her day and night. I’ve never known a man to expose his breasts to me because he wanted a favor.

But what is that? I don’t want to see ads denigrating women. I love women. I don’t want to see ads denigrating men. I love men. I love all mankind.

Okay, getting my rant out of the way, this came on after talking to a beloved relative about the ad. She sees it in a positive light, and what stuck with me after the conversation was her assumptions that certain of the men where undoubtedly up to no good. The scene I’d like to highlight starts with a well-built woman, very attractive, walking down the street. A man notices her, says something like, “Woah!” and commences to follow her. This is stopped by Gillette-Man. Now, I can’t see this as anything sinister: Why shouldn’t the man, attracted to the woman, make an overture? Provided he acts in a civilized manner, I would almost say it is good that a man should pursue a woman. I think it’s good that men and women get together and form romantic relationships.

But it’s assumed in the ad that the man is not civilized, and if I understood my relative, she was sure that this man was going to rape the woman. What? And a good third of the ad relied upon the assumption that in some little sliver of a scene, a party, a board meeting, a barbeque, some man was acting either with malice or contempt. What warrants this assumption?

As I talked with my relative, I tried to focus on how the ad could have been better, could have accomplished its ostensive goal of championing men to be their best. Don’t have the dad spill meaningless platitudes to his daughter: have the daughter watching her father be those virtues, showing her her worth as a woman in his love towards her mother.

And that’s the only thing I hate about this ad. I don’t hate its position: criticize men if you want; I may not agree with your criticism, but I will listen to you. I hate its emptiness, its vagaries, the cheap platitudes it brandies about. I hate that it stands as a mirror, not of men, but of our culture. I hate that it gets any attention at all, but I suppose that’s the one good thing about it: In all the attention it has garnered, it shows us that there is a problem. It’s not a problem with men, it’s a want of virtue.

All the ad manages to do is tear down men while pontificating in meaningless sloganeering. You want better men? You want better women? You want a better world? Then don’t give us “You’re strong,” don’t give us, “Be better.” These words are hollow. Teach boys to be virtuous; don’t twist them up in some neurotic web where their natural drives for sex, love, and admiration are equated to rape, bullying, and domineering. Teach men to be knights, not eunuchs.

Okay, I need a laugh now: