Gillette, the Razor’s Edge of Advertising, and the Politics of the Beast

A long, long time ago, before the scandalous and now discredited Buzzfeed article, and before the instant outrage and back-peddling regarding the tribal chieftain and Covington Catholic teenagers on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, there was yet another outrage blowing up on social media regarding the recent Gillette advertisement about “toxic masculinity.” Now, when I first saw the stories about the new Gillette ad and then watched it for myself, I wasn’t really outraged about it at all. Yes, I got the point that it was trying to get across, but it was also obvious that it was going to create some heated responses. Still, it was an advertisement, who cares?

But soon, the level of reactionary outrage, and then the heated reaction to the reactionary outrage, got me thinking, “There is something going on at a deeper level here that is much more concerning than anything in the advertisement itself.” I took to my Facebook page and wrote the following:

Here’s a thought:

As we are now seeing in the current Gillette ad about fighting “toxic masculinity,” it made me realize just HOW MANY advertisements and commercials are using cultural movements, trends, etc. and how most of the buzz/talk that gets generated on social media is along the lines of, “Oh, did you see that ad that is promoting such and such a social cause/trend?”

Think about that: companies are using and promoting certain trends and causes TO SELL YOU THEIR CRAP.

I don’t know what to make of that. We don’t need a totalitarian regime to churn out propaganda for its causes. We have a whole advertising industry that essentially acts as propagandists for certain social movements, not because they necessarily BELIEVE in them, but rather because they see an opportunity to cash in.

And our society eats it up and seems to think approval of an ad makes one virtuous; never mind the fact that the whole purpose of advertising is to manipulate you to buy a product. Social engineering through advertising and virtue signaling. Just a thought…

Simply put, the Gillette ad got me thinking how advertising is changing. In a sense, all ads are trying to manipulate you into buying their product, whether it be through humor, sex, “the good life,” or a variety of other things—that’s what advertisers do. But the Gillette ad got me thinking about a number of other ads that are purposely attaching themselves to specific social/political/partisan movements and trends in order to sell their stuff. Not generalized things that virtually no one will object to, mind you; but specific movements that, for better or for worse, are polarizing in our society.

And, like my Facebook post said, companies are doing this more and more in order to try to sell their stuff. It simply struck me as highly disingenuous. And so, my Facebook comment really was just driving home one point: realize that advertisers are playing upon partisan issues to get you to buy stuff. They are engaging in propaganda for personal profit.

Fairly quickly, the comments to my Facebook post got rather partisan and heated, and I got a few comments like, “What’s wrong with the ad? Why do you have a problem with the ad? It’s just telling men not to be ***holes! Obviously not all men act this way—but some men do. What’s wrong with addressing that bad behavior?” No matter how many times I said that my comments were not really about the specific Gillette ad, things just kept on going back to the actual content of the Gillette ad. The whole thing was quite fascinating to me, so much so that I felt I had to crystalize my thoughts stemming from that Facebook debate in a blogpost. I hope what I am about to say makes sense.

A Bit About the Gillette Ad Itself

Like I said earlier, all advertising is basically manipulative to a degree. But I feel that when an advertisement latches on to a distinctive politically-partisan issue, at best it is going to fail to be effective, and at worst it is going to actually further heated partisanship and divisiveness. The reason why should be simple: there really isn’t much an ad can say in a mere 30-60 seconds. All it can do is throw up a few images and slogans with very little nuance. And since those images and slogans are attached to some politically-partisan issue, people already have a visceral response to those images, and what ends up happening is that instead of discussing or contemplating whatever actual problem that is being highlighted in the ad, those politically-charged imaged cause people to retreat to their partisan corners and simply hurl the usual hyper-partisan talking points at people on the other side of the political aisle.

Case in point, the Gillette ad.

Let’s try to tease things out a bit. First, there is absolutely nothing wrong with encouraging men to not be abusive or hyper-sexual, but to rather be better, more noble men. I don’t know how anyone could object to the sentiment that men should strive to behave better. That being said, what caused the reaction to the ad was the perceived “liberal/left wing” rhetoric as seen in the phrase toxic masculinity and the reference to the MeToo movement. To that point, I’m willing to bet that if Gillette came out with a similar ad with the exact same message of “Hey men, don’t be abusive and don’t treat women like meat,” but simply without those two references, there would have been no controversy…and no media buzz.

Secondly, let’s just agree that there will always be triggered nuts who positively feed on social media outrage, and let’s just put them to the side. In most of the criticism of the ad I saw, people basically said the general message was fine, but that they felt the ad painted with too broad a brush, to where “toxic masculinity” was conflated with just typical, normal masculine behavior. One commentator pointed out that if there was a commercial that showed a line of women in aprons baking cookies, watching two girls being abusive to each other and saying, “Oh well, that how girls are!” there would have been an uproar, because in reality, most mothers would step in at stop the fight, and in reality, most fathers would step in and stop the fight. Those criticisms, though, can be debated and discussed, and most people, even those who didn’t like the ad, aren’t having meltdowns on social media. Most will just roll their eyes and move on. After all, it is just an ad…or it should be just and ad.

Politically-Motivated Advertising

In our society, though, people aren’t seeing ads like the Gillette ad as “just an ad.” In reality, they become fronts in the culture war—and the thing that concerns me is that most people don’t realize it.

Case in point: the Facebook debate about the Gillette ad.

Like I said earlier, despite my repeated attempts to point out my Facebook comments weren’t really about the Gillette ad itself, the question kept coming up, “What’s your problem with the Gillette ad? What’s wrong with telling men not to be ***holes? We should be happy advertisers are promoting moral behavior. Toxic masculinity isn’t the same as masculinity (which is true, obviously).” And someone even shared a few links that described toxic masculinity as basically abusive/bullying behavior and hyper-sexualization in men.

So, in order to try to steer things back to what my original point about what happens when advertisers latch on to politically-partisan issues, I basically said, “There’s nothing wrong with encouraging men to behave better, but what would your response be if a woman’s product put out a similar ad aimed at women? What if there was an ad that basically said, ‘Hey women, don’t act like abusive whores, but be loving and caring to each other and to men?’”

My contention was that the more “liberal crowd” who approved of the Gillette ad would be outraged over that ad. And sure enough, the reaction was just that: that ad would be sex-shaming and misogynistic because “whore” is used by the patriarchy to oppress women. So I said, “Okay, let’s not use that word. What’s wrong with addressing bad behavior in women? Obviously, most women don’t act that way, but some women do abuse other women and men, and some women are hyper-sexualized. So if it is okay for an advertiser to address bad behavior by some men, would it be wrong to address bad behavior by women?” The response didn’t change: ads that target toxic masculinity were fine, but ads that target similar bad behavior in women were misogynistic. That’s something that only the “white male party” would approve of.

And it was that response that highlights the problem: it’s not really about promoting morality. It is about political partisanship and virtue signaling. It is trying to say, “My side of the political aisle is moral, your side is immoral.” This is true for both partisans on the Left and the Right.

Now, let me stop and just clarify two things: First, I wouldn’t want to see an ad like the one I suggested for the same reason I wasn’t impressed with the Gillette ad—real moral problems can’t be adequately addressed in 30-60 seconds, and all that can come about is further partisanship and divineness.

Secondly, my use of the word “whore” was intentional—for the fact is in this day and age certain words and phrases (be it “toxic masculinity” or “whore”) trigger hyper-partisan responses, especially when used within a political context. I knew as soon as I used that word, my debate partners would take offense and see that word as a blanket, misogynistic slur against all women that could only be uttered by a man exhibiting toxic masculinity. Of course, that really isn’t true. Both men and women use it as an insult, but also as shorthand for really bad, often hyper-sexualized, behavior in men and women alike.

In fact, when I used the word, I was thinking of an old episode of South Park during the time Paris Hilton was all the rage. The episode used the word “whore” everywhere, and the point of the episode was pretty clear: the media fascination and glorification of the bad behavior of Paris Hilton ended up having a bad influence on young girls. At one point, one of the characters says, “Being a stupid and spoiled whore is supposed to be a bad thing, remember? Parents, if you don’t teach your children that people like Paris Hilton are supposed to be despised, where are they going to learn it? You’re the ones who have to make sure that your daughters aren’t looking up to the wrong people!”

I’m going to guess that although some people don’t like the use of that word on the grounds it is seen as vulgar, I doubt too many people would object to that sentiment displayed in the South Park episode, because South Park is understood to be satire and comedy. But the same message, when set within a perceived politically-partisan context, whether it is aimed at men or women, fosters visceral outrage in many people. And that is what I feel is the underlying problem with ads like that of Gillette: they use partisan issues with the aim of profiting off people’s outrage.

The Politics and Propaganda of a New Kind of Beast: Revelation 12-13

Throughout history, tyrants—be it Domitian in the 1^st century or Hitler and Stalin in the 20^th century—have used propaganda to gain and maintain power and to affect a kind of social engineering in their own image. In Revelation 12-13, the figures of “the beast from the sea” and “the beast from the land,” when understood within the context of the first century, were that of the Roman Emperor and the Imperial cult, which effectively acted as his propaganda arm. We are told that the sea beast got his power from the dragon (i.e. Satan), and the land beast had “two horns like a lamb but spoke like the dragon.” In the context of an authoritarian dictatorship, the message is clear: even though such a beast presents itself as the savior, the epitome of all that is good and just and moral, the fact is that through its propaganda, it demands people’s worship and blind allegiance and it will destroy anyone who doesn’t do so.

The real power behind it all, though, is Satan himself, who masquerades as an “angel of light.”

In America, though, we don’t have tyrants ruling with absolute power. We are a republic with a free press. We don’t have a state-run media that dictates through authoritative propaganda. But we cannot fool ourselves into thinking because we don’t live under a Stalin that Satan isn’t still waging war and attempting to deceive and destroy people. Propaganda is propaganda, it just comes in different guises.

Now, I’m obviously not saying Gillette (or any advertiser) is Satanic. In their minds, I’m sure they’re just looking for a way to get people talking about their ads and products because they want to make money. But the very fact that they are they are latching onto partisan political/social issues, and the fact that people are getting so worked up over them should alert us to the fact that there is a deeper dynamic being played out in our society. The more secular and irreligious we become as a society, the more we will look to other things to fill the void and provide moral clarity. And since we in our natural state are idolatrous creatures, we are naturally attracted to images—and in the 21^st century, advertising is all about imaging. It is all to happy to fill that void. (Don’t get me started on why I cringe when I see churches churning out sleek ad campaigns to try to boost their “brand”).

In America our politics have become our religion, and the way pagans promote their religion is through their idolatrous images…and slogans, and catch-phrases, and talking-points. But it still is propaganda, virtue-signaling, and political opportunism, even if those who propagate it are blind to it. That, incidentally, is a fundamental biblical theme: idolaters are deaf, dumb, and blind, just like the very images their own hands have made that they now worship.

At its root, all propaganda plays off fear and offers simple, clear, easy answers to that fear, and in its most diabolical forms, is utterly deceptive, masquerading as an angel of light.

Conclusion: In the Age of Trump

All of this has been accelerated and heightened in the age of Trump. Like it or not, virtually every politician is now fashioning him/herself in the image of Trump by using social media to throw out quips, scandalous accusations, threats, all in brief images and memes. Why? Because bomb-throwing, insults, and imaging works. Idolatry creates a buzz, fosters outrage, and invites people to worship you and join the fight against “them.”

Ironically, talk of “toxic masculinity” as well as the MeToo movement, actually have come about precisely because of Donald Trump. Make no mistake, he can serve as the poster child of toxic masculinity—he is a horrible person. But make no mistake, society has known he is a horrible person for decades. Hollywood (and society as a whole) has long glorified and profited from that kind of image of toxic masculinity. People knew about the likes of Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and so many other “toxic men” for decades and excused it.

The bitter irony is that conservative Christians who have long railed against the excesses and immorality of Hollywood have now embraced a man who is the epitome of those very excesses and immoralities. Why? Political power.  At the same time, “Hollywood liberals” who have long glorified and promoted such toxic masculinity, abuse, and sexualization of women are now acting like the Evangelicals of the 1980s and 1990s. Why? Because someone who was once “one of their own” went over to the other political team and won.

But because politics is involved, the propaganda game is still being played, yes, on both sides. Propaganda does that: there is truth in it, to be sure. But it manipulates images and messaging to play off your fear and to get you to focus solely on the sins of the other person and the other group, and it blinds you to (or at least encourages you to downplay) the very same sins in your own camp.

What this all boils down to is this: beware when advertisers, politicians (or anyone, really) preach morality from a political and partisan pulpit. The image might be displaying two horns like a lamb, but the speech quickly devolves into idolatrous vitriol and outrage…especially on social media.  Sure, being flawed human beings, we will all let ourselves fall into that trap from time to time. But man O man, we really need to be on guard for such masquerades, so that we don’t end up worshipping the image of some strange beast.