Gillette is right: There must be other ways to be masculine

Pretty inoffensive, right? Of course not. A swathe of the viewing public - and I'd like to say this swathe is solely cut from the right wing and men's rights activism sections of the public but I cannot - are affronted.

In what has been called a global attack on masculinity led by feminist scolds, the razor brand's short video shows men carrying out a range of poor behaviour: discrimination in the workplace, sexual harassment, bullying and fist fighting. The long held slogan, The Best A Man Can Get, is subverted to ask the question "Is this the best a man can get?" before Gillette unveils its new tagline: The Best A Man Can Be.

Crucially, the video offers solutions to the problems it highlights by modelling alternate behaviours. Fathers are shown breaking up fights between little boys and championing their young daughters with inspirational mantras. Young guys divert their pals from street harassment.

Gillette has also pledged $3 million over three years to non-profit organisations that "inspire, educate and help men" to become "role models for the next generation."

Such is the backlash, anyone would think Gillette had developed and was marketing an electric shock device that delivers a painful nip every time a man explains something a woman has more knowledge of, takes up unnecessary space on public transport or praises Jordan Peterson. Excuse me while I nip to the patent office.

Never mind the perils of toxic masculinity, here we see fragile masculinity in action.

A boycott of Proctor & Gamble, Gillette's parent company, has been called for while men are throwing away their Gillette razors, failing to realise that not cutting off their bristles only spites their own face.

Commenters online went straight for the false equivalence by means of defence, suggesting Maybelline should be doing mascara adverts telling women to stop making false rape accusations.

It's one thing to roll your eyes at a giant US corporation that still charges a pink tax - women's beauty items are more expensive than men's because... well, answers on a postcard - virtue-signalling about gender equality and trying to profit from being woke. Lower the cost of your women's razors to that of your men's, Gillette and then we'll talk.

But to become incensed at an otherwise reasonable message makes no sense.

Critics of the advert say that it demonises all men - and that's a constant refrain in response to any campaign or comment against male violence. It has its own hashtag #NotAllMen. Rather than being reflective about certain male behaviours and the damage they cause, men become defensive.

They, personally, don't display these behaviours so why are they being lumped in with the bad guys. It's both an unproductive stance - digging your heels in due to being affronted helps no one while failing to offer solutions to clear problems - and a nonsensical stance. No one is saying all men are the same.

It's also a fallacy in response to Gillette, given the ad clearly shows men doing the right thing. One of its main points is that good men should step in to cajole, guide and all-round nicely step up to help the not-so-good men in a bit of self-improvement.

If you watch the Gillette advert and see nothing that resonates then congratulations - you're either living on a unique island utopia or you're a man.

It's a truism of modern marketing that brands must stand for something. (Over to you Lynx.) Gillette is by no means blazing a trail here: Nike did far better last year by championing the Black Lives Matter cause through its advert featuring American football player Colin Kaepernick, he who enraged President Trump by taking a knee during the American national anthem.

And just as men are throwing out their Fusion 5 Proglides, raging patriots burned their Nike trainers on their lawns and vowed to boycott the sportswear brand for good.

The difference, and where Gillette has fallen foul, is that Nike offered up a feel good stance against racism. It blamed no one, but suggested everyone can be part of a solution.

Gillette's advert is uncomfortable because it suggests that men - some men - are at fault and it makes a request of them to modify their behaviours.

Pankaj Bhalla, Gillette's North America brand director, has said this explicitly: "This was intended to simply say that the enemy for all of us is inaction." I saw a suggestion online that it's asking men to go from being a bystander to being an upstander.

Once you recover from the cheesy phrase, you see the problem. Gillette has caused offence by asking for self-awareness.

Good. When a brand as vast as Gillette gets on board, it's a sign a concept has gone mainstream. Only by talking about these issues in the mainstream will we make any steps on them.

Feminists have been whapping on about the damage done by toxic masculinity for years, as have charities supporting men. Men make up three quarters of suicides in the UK; they are more likely to be involved in violent crime; they are less likely to seek help for health problems that are difficult to discuss, such as depression and prostate cancer.

Challenging the narrative of toxic masculinity is not about emasculating men, it's about eradicating the negative aspects of masculinity that harm both women and men.