When morality does change with time

"Some things are right and some things are wrong. (Yes) Eternally so, absolutely so. It's wrong to hate. It always has been wrong and it always will be wrong. It's wrong in America, it's wrong in Germany, it's wrong in Russia, it's wrong in China. It was wrong in 2000 B.C., and it's wrong in 1954 A.D. It always has been wrong, and it always will be wrong."

- Martin Luther King Jr. Rediscovering Lost Values (1954), Sermon delivered at Detroit's Second Baptist Church (28 February 1954)

Martin Luther King Jr. has been one of my role models for as long as I remember. I was struck at an early age by his vision and faith. It definitely helped that he was a polished orator. MLK is spot on here. The core of what is right and wrong is eternal. It will not change according to the fads and opinions of society. I believe, however that our standard of what we deem right and wrong changes. Please indulge me as I explain.

Gillette recently released a new advertisement that I absolutely love and I am sure you have watched. This ad challenges toxic masculinity. In doing so, however, it has angered many, with Piers Morgan being one (a video of his very passionate objection popped up on my YouTube feed). For what its worth, here is my 5 cents on this specific issue. It has to do with when morality does change.

What has Gillette stood for?

For a long time, Gillette’s slogan has been “the best a man can get”. While this refers to its shavers, it goes deeper. Clean shaven = good looking = you get whatever you want e.g. popularity, money, and love. In a 2006 ad, these 3 things are heavily featured. The narrator says: "You know the feeling. Every guy's had it. You're unbeatable, unstoppable, you've got that walking on water feeling. You look, they smile”. And the picture that coincides with the words “they smile” is a beautiful woman smiling. This is not the exception but the norm. But do not be mistaken. Woven into Gillette ads have been heartwarming landmark moments that men might experience including but not limited to fathers teaching their sons how to shave, fathers hugging their sons during their wedding, and husbands loving their wife.

What is Gillette’s new advertisement about?

Spurred perhaps by the recent #metoo movement, Gillette’s new advertisement speaks against toxic masculinity. It emphasises that bullying, sexual and physical harassment, mansplaining are unacceptable. It shows the role that males should and must play. Their new slogan? The best men can be.

Interestingly, Gillette’s new advertisement with almost 25 million views has a dislike to like ratio of 2:1. Here are some of the comments from the video:

"Ideological garbage. WHITE MAN BAD, WHITE MEN TOXIC”

"I and my friends are boycotting your products. We want razors, not social/political commentary from you.”

"So only “some” men are doing the right thing according to Gillette. That means they’re calling most of their customers toxic. Way to sell your products”

What do I think?

I really appreciate Gillette releasing this short film. Gillette as a company probably has little financial incentive to release such a film. Even if, contrary to boycotts, Gillette’s sales do not dip, it is hard to see Gillette winning more market share especially given its price point. So if not based on economics then it might be assumed that the film is motivated more by principle. This, for me, makes this Gillette film all the more impressive. Could Gillette have done better? Yes. It could have released a statement apologising for its role in perpetuating less than ideal notions of masculinity over the years. As a society, we also need measurable metrics to track our progress, especially when to attempting change cultures and perspectives.

Despite my belief that society not politicians should be the key actors in effecting change, I am an advocate of having a good government. In saying this, I make no mention of the size or ideology of said government; this is irrelevant for my purpose. I am grateful to have been raised in a nation with a great government, potential flaws notwithstanding. Yet, I am of the even stronger conviction that faster and more lasting change will and can only come from the private sector. In a paper looking at social inequality, specifically violence against women, I show that the implementation of laws is not a sufficient condition for substantive equality between men and women. In fact, implementation of national laws congruent to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) had little to no impact on improving women's physical security. Cultural norms, however, play a much bigger role in improving women’s physical security with the cultivation of such norms a more organic process spearheaded by society not government.

What about the opposition toward the film?

On a basic level, Gillette is not against masculinity. It is against toxic masculinity. No one is denying that fathers teaching and loving their sons is bad. No one is saying that wanting a beautiful spouse is wrong. No one is arguing that wanting to look and the be the best is criminal.

But we can be better than what we used to think best means.

Wrong is a culture of female objectification, even manifested in children cartoons, and a norm of laughing it off. Wrong is a culture that says boys will be boys, that they will fight and bully while crying and being vulnerable is weak. Wrong is a culture where men, physically or verbally, assert dominance over women and others.

The mental gymnastics here is this. Good virtues and bad are not mutually exclusive. They coexist. A person can be good but guilty of bad actions or motivations, and vice versa. A father who loves his children can also be a father who perceives crying as a sign of weakness. A father who has a beautiful family can also be guilty of inappropriately laughing at female objectification, and there is no appropriate laughter when speaking of female objectification. A father who wants to look and be the best can also have had physically or verbally asserted dominance over women and others. I am not against strong men. In fact, I think the world could use more moral strength, more personal conviction, more individual initiative, and less senseless wingeing.

Some say the ad unfairly targets white men. Some say the ad unfairly targets all men. I say, and I do so bluntly, that if you take offence at the Gillette advertisement, chances are you are guilty of acting in a less than appropriate manner. If most men need to be called out then they should be called out. Intentional or not, wrong is wrong. And it is ok to be wrong. It is ok to have to change. I for one admit that I have had to change and still strive to constantly. I believe all men can be better than who we currently are. I would argue that in a continually progressing world, morality does change. At least the standard of morality does, and we have to change and constantly improve.

As a fun example, what is deemed an unethical and dangerous tackle in British football has changed over the years. The ruling that tackles from behind are cynical and unacceptable was only implemented in 1998. Such tackles used to be applauded but are now frowned upon in modern football. This, however, has resulted in a much safer environment for athletes. Or, for a more sombre example of changing standards of morality, American sociologist at Duke University tracks the evolution of racism in his book Racism without Racists:

"Whereas Jim Crow racism explained blacks’ social standing as the result of their biological and moral inferiority, color-blind racism avoids such facile arguments. Instead, whites rationalize minorities’ contemporary status as the product of market dynamics, naturally occurring phenomena, and blacks’ imputed cultural limitations. For instance, whites can attribute Latinos’ high poverty rate to a relaxed work ethic (“the Hispanics are mañana, mañana, mañana—tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow”) or residential segregation as the result of natural tendencies among groups (“Does a cat and a dog mix? I can’t see it. You can’t drink milk and scotch. Certain mixes don’t mix.”).

…

Compared to Jim Crow racism, the ideology of color blindness seems like “racism lite.” Instead of relying on name calling (niggers, spics, chinks), color-blind racism otherizes softly (“these people are human, too”); instead of proclaiming that God placed minorities in the world in a servile position, it suggests they are behind because they do not work hard enough; instead of viewing interracial marriage as wrong on a straight racial basis, it regards it as “problematic” because of concerns over the children, location, or the extra burden it places on couples.”

This concept merits a blog post on its own but illustrates for now that a standard of morality does evolve. Likewise, the concept of manhood has now evolved, or is at least in a stage of evolution. It must. Again, if the Gillette advertisement has offended you, chances are there is a need for careful introspection. If it contradicts what you grew up with, maybe your traditions need reevaluation. This is not an accusation that you are wrong but a call for all to embrace potential dissonance and strive toward a higher standard.

Being a loving father is good. Being a loving father who speaks out against unacceptable behaviour is better. Being a strong man is good. Being a strong man who stands up for others is better. Being charming and assertive is good. Being respectful to others is better.

You can be a good person who has a flawed perspective. You can be a good person who needs improvement. I would argue that no-one is exempt, not even women. As much as there is toxic masculinity, there is also toxic femininity. But this is neither the place, nor am I the person to suggest what it is women should be. What I am calling for, however, is an upward movement across the board. Old traditions must be analysed and challenged. Unhealthy perspectives must be discarded while the desirable kept. I feel this should be done across all genders, ethnicities, and ages. I believe that the characteristics worth keeping will not be exclusive to any one demographic but can be adopted by all. We can do better. We must do better. We can be better.