This paper takes a rhetorical perspective on how ads address the current debate of toxic masculinity and attempt to change its hegemonic ideals. We compare rhetorical strategies in two purpose branding campaigns, Lynx’s Is it ok for guys (2017) and Gillette’s The Best a Man Can Be (2019), to demonstrate how respective uses of formal and narrative tropes create vastly different narratives about masculinity and therefore also very different audience agency. We argue that Gillette repeats older versions of hegemonic masculinity ideals and call for men to take responsibility and act as protector of the weak, whereas Lynx invites the audience to embrace and identify with less stereotypical identities. We suggest that Gillette’s polemical rhetorical approach may generate more public debate on the issue of toxic masculinity, while Lynx’s approach builds on a more embracing strategy that encourages the audience to empathise with non-stereotypical forms of masculinity.

中文翻译：

---

改变男性气质，一次播出一则广告

本文就广告如何解决当前关于有毒男性气质的争论，并试图改变其霸权主义理想提出了一个反问。我们在两个有目的的品牌宣传活动中比较了修辞策略，即Lynx的《 Is It ok for guys》（2017年）和Gillette的《 The Best a Man Can Be》（2019年），以证明形式和叙事比喻的各自用法如何产生关于男性气概的迥异叙事完全不同的受众群体 我们认为吉列重复了较早版本的霸权男性主义理想，并呼吁男人承担责任并充当弱者的保护者，而天猫则邀请观众以较少的陈规定型身份去拥抱和认同。我们建议，吉列的辩证性修辞方法可能会引起更多关于有毒男性气质问题的公开辩论，