homophobia MGTOW misogyny toxic masculinity transphobia

Gucci releases a dress for men to challenge “toxic masculinity.” MGTOWs respond with … toxic masculinity

Yes, he’s also wearing pants

Gucci has inserted itself into the culture war by releasing a weirdly dowdy dress for men at the low, low price of $2600 a pop. The dress, more a publicity stunt for the brand than an actual product anyone will ever buy, is said to be a challenge to “toxic masculinity.”

And it sort of is, in that its drawn an assortment of toxic men out from the shadows to indignantly protest against this alleged insult to their brand of masculinity. I found a few of these guys (and a couple of sympathetic women) posting about the dress on Twitter:

The reactions were more intense over on my second-favorite hive of toxic masculinity, the Men Going Their Own Way subreddit. (On my first-favorite hive,, the regulars seem not to have noticed the new dress yet.)

Some suggested that any man wearing the dress would deserve a beating.

“Anyone wearing this is pretty much asking to get beat up,” suggested melkiorr.

“The only thing that will be fluid would be the nose of anyone dumb enough to wear this in public,” joked ppkoto7.

My_name_jeff2 pulled out the t-word.  

Now, you can be a tr*nny without being mentally ill! For only £1699.99

Some lashed out at the model himself in homophobic ways.

“That n***a look like a bitch!” wrote HaywoodJabBitch.

“Behold the eternal virgin!” wrote EnvironmentalRest4. “Getting boned by guys doesn’t count, not in this case.”

Throwawayham1971 mocked any man who would go out and buy the dress.

There is a totally gay dude at Gucci laughing his ass off knowing damn well some fucking loser will buy this to try and get laid.

Rocko20002 tried to retroactively claim Kurt Cobain as an ally in bigotry.

Kurt Cobain might have been a feminist simp, but I’m convinced that if he saw this “grunge inspired” monstrosity sold for I’m guessing the equivalent of US $2000, he would blow his brains out again.

Cobain might have been offended by the price tag but he definitely had no problem with men wearing dresses, which he occasionally sported himself as a challenge to precisely that same toxic masculinity that Gucci is supposedly critiquing.

Luciano700 wrote that

If a man wants to cross dress. Fine that’s his problem not mine

But to shove this down our throats when it is clearly not at the preference of most? That’s going a little too far

It’s not clear how a designer selling a dress that no one is obligated to buy counts as shoving anything down anyone’s throat.

Other commenters saw the dress as a legitimate threat to their kind of masculinity.

“They want you neutered and then they’ll laugh at you” wrote ThrowawayGhostGuy1.

Vijaya_Narayana agreed:

They just want to pander to all of the people and organisations that seek to demonise and ostracize REAL masculinity, the world is changing, not for our benefit.

Monkonajourney challenged the very notion of “tocix masculinity” even as his colleagues in the MGTOW subreddit exhibited it all around him.

Fuck these bullshit societal brainwashing propaganda advertisements. Being a man is not toxic. Wearing masculine clothes is not toxic. Getting angry in the right situations is not toxic. Fighting for yourself and your loved ones is not toxic. Competition is not toxic. Standing up for yourself is not toxic. Not taking shit from anyone is not toxic. Growing a beard, building your physique is not toxic. If it intimidates certain snowflakes, that is their fucking problem. Stop trying to feminize men.

Well, if you make your definition of “toxic masculinity” a series of straw men, you’re only going to succeed in pissing yourself off. No, toxic masculinity isn’t any of those things, from wearing “masculine clothes” to growing a beard. Masculinity in itself is not toxic. Toxic masculinity involves a rigid adherence to an exaggerated version of masculinity that’s socially maladaptive and at times dangerous to people of all genders.

Truly righteous anger is not the problem; a man using anger and implied or real violence to control his wife is an example of masculinity gone toxic. Similarly, suggesting that gender-nonconforming men — say, men in dresses — should be beaten up is toxic masculinity.

Say what you will about Gucci’s ugly man-dress, but it certainly brought out the toxic men in droves, exposing their toxic masculinity in their own words.

Follow me on Twitter.

Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.

We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

94 replies on “Gucci releases a dress for men to challenge “toxic masculinity.” MGTOWs respond with … toxic masculinity”

@ naglfar
I am with you on bringing back full skirts I had a 50s style full pleated skirt it was perfect short enough for cycling and the pockets where huge I could fit books in them


Come on, few children are anywhere near as obnoxious as manospherians.

True. It takes years of dedicated practice to reach that level of jackass. If they had spent that effort meditating, they’d all be fucking buddhas by now.

@Alan Robertshaw:

that retro-70s vibe that keeps having a resurgence.

Median real income in the US peaked then. Maybe people sense that, in some ways, things were at their best in that decade, and that fuels a lot of nostalgia for it?


I’ve got one that I never use. Should I do the honors?

I immediately laughed hard. I guess that means, YES. Take screen shots, though! Gods, I’d love to see them work themselves into a riot about this. You just know that suddenly MRAs who – on any other day – insist that STEM fields are for men only & women can’t hack it (pardon the pun) will now scream that all the programmers & circuit designers in the entire world are women and their most loyal soy boy cuck-beta slaves.

@ surplus

Over here the 70s is sometimes referred to as “The decade that fashion forgot“.

So there’s maybe a bit of a thing with boho types for the sort of ironic kitschiness of it all?

It certainly wasn’t a boom time here economically. ‘Winter of discontent’; ‘going cap in hand to the IMF’; ‘poor man of Europe’ and other cliches.

Still, we got punk out if it!

@Big Titty Demon

the thing I wonder is if said dress line will be crappier quality? I personally would find it hilarious in a very unfair, schadenfreude-y way, because women’s clothing modeled from men’s clothing is universally made from cheaper, thinner materials that wear out faster

You know what’s funny. I actually looked at that dress and just based on how it looked I **assumed** it was going to be cheap quality that wouldn’t last 10 washings.

@Crip Dyke

I immediately laughed hard. I guess that means, YES. Take screen shots, though!

I feel like I have a bit of an obligation to let David know beforehand that it’s me, otherwise he might think it’s real. Poe’s Law applies here.

@North Sea Sparkly Dragon

For and adult it must be a lot more. I have heard that modern kilts developed from a sort of skirted cloak garment that needed to be big enough to wrap up in completely for sleeping outdoors, but I’m not sure how true that is.

100% true. Technically, a ‘plaid/plaidie/feile-mhor*’ is the garment, while the pattern is tartan. Essentially a decent sized wool (usually) blanket that’s worn wrapped around the waist and pinned over the shoulder in a toga-like fashion. Usually a shirt is worn underneath. The kilt is basically a plaid that’s been fully wrapped and then all the top bits removed and a waistband added. It was created by colonial English aristocrats, then made part of the uniform of the Scottish regiments and thus spread in Scotland proper. A kilt calls for ~5 yards of fabric, a plaidie ~9 yards. (This difference is best bet I’ve been able to find for an origin for ‘Whole Nine Yards’, as a quartemaster’s report from the 18th century specifies the lengths above)

*Lit. “Great Kilt”, a back formation after the introduction of kilts, or feile-bheag.

@Crypt Dyke

You know what’s funny. I actually looked at that dress and just based on how it looked I **assumed** it was going to be cheap quality that wouldn’t last 10 washings.

You know, you’re not wrong. It does look flimsy. But I would be scared to wash something that cost that much anyway, and hence would never buy it from that alone. Aside from many other high fashion exploitation and sustainability soapboxes I could get up on but I reckon probably most people are already near a similar page in the chapter here.

Don’t like that dress either, but funnily enough I can imagine Kelli Mayo of the band Skating Polly wearing it. She wears some very ’70s looking clothing in their videos.

@Alan, I have always heard the ’70s referred to as the decade that taste forgot (the wallpaper! the plates and mugs! orange, brown and green, oh my, not to mention the purple) and FSM knows I wouldn’t miss the blatant sexism and racism even more unquestioned than now, but iirc it was also the decade when the UK’s gini coefficient was at its lowest. Maybe that buoyed up a certain degree of optimism and hope for the future.

And then came 1979 and Thatcher …

Say what you will about Gucci’s ugly man-dress

“Ugly” is an understatement. Whoever designed that sartorial monstrosity should be arrested and made to stand trial for crimes against humanity. Nobody of any gender with the slightest ounce of taste would be caught dead wearing it.

@Cyborette @Ohlmann

Ok, in general defense of people like the dude in the picture and myself, I would like to point out that I spent more than 25 years as a “rail thin” guy who never looked “too healthy”, what with the easy to see rib bones and all.

Despite some concerns from doctors at my appearance, MRIs, CAT scans, and other tests never found any issues except for my bones being less than the desired density and nearsightedness. Although I have gotten lazy in my old age (33), been eating less nutritious food than I should, and picked up thirty pounds, back in the day I regularly engaged in martial arts, parkour, running, walking, etc. As a result, I have always happily noted that in general, I am usually one of the healthiest people in any given room by most metrics. I can outperform the average person in most athletic endeavours, have never needed any kind of regular medication, etc, etc.

And yet, throughout my time on this planet, people who can’t run a mile to save their lives, eat fast food more often than not, and are on various meds feel the need to tell me I am too skinny and need to put on weight for my health…

@ opposablethumbs

 gini coefficient 

I had to google that.

Yes, I won’t miss bosses chasing their secretaries round the desk or the black and white minstrel show, but I do have a soft spot for avocado bathrooms.


Finally got rid of our avocado tub last year. It came with the house. I really didn’t want to change it – it was a 6 foot tub, and the only one we’ve ever had that I could have a bath in without coiling up. The prices of those now, we went for a standard size replacement and I’ve regretted it ever since. 🙁

Am I the only one noticing that the model has a hang-dog facial expressiona nd body language? Is that normal for Gucci?

.45 : I meant by “seeing the ribs” as a a common sign that something is wrong, not as the end-all tell tale of underweightness. If only because some people seem to refuse to store fat here and have actually impressive legs and arms and visible ribs.

As a side note, don’t very skinny people get hurt significantly more in combat sport ? If there is something I hate it’s when I get hit directly on bone, but since I don’t do the whole “fighting” part it’s hard to say if it’s really a problem.

@ ohlmann

don’t very skinny people get hurt significantly more in combat sport

Not if they’re doing it right (although it often goes wrong!)

In combat sports (and fighting generally) people are taught “Strike hard to soft, and soft to hard.”

What that means in practice is, that whilst you might use your fist (hard) against your opponent’s stomach (soft); if you were to strike their chin (hard) you would use the heel of your hand (soft). That helps prevent injury to yourself.

Even with things like Muay Thai you’ll note that shin to shin strikes are avoided. People might strike the thigh with the shin; but if they are going for a knee they’ll aim to make contact with the front of their ankle, which does provide a measure of protection. And it’s the same with defending. People will block strikes with the muscle at the side of their shin.

Many Thai fighters and other kickboxers will do all sorts of exercises to create microfractures in their bones to strengthen them anyway. Purely coincidentally, Thailand has the highest rate of (shin) bone cancer in the world.

Of course, a lot of combat sports do allow for some form of padding; whether that be gloves or shin protectors.


Oh that’s fascinating, thank you! I learned the hard-to-soft part in self defense classes, and “strong part of your body vs. weak part of your opponent’s” (for attacks against joints), but not soft-to-hard strikes. That makes a lot of sense.

remembers the time teenage me socked a guy in the ribs and broke my hand, sigh

@Cyborgette @Ohlmann

Just for clarification, I’m not raging upset or anything. More calm observational tone. (While I haven’t exactly worked up statistics, thanks to skinny jeans and metrosexual stuff today, I think it has became way more common to see skinny male model representation than in my youth, but still, look at magazines and popular media. Men’s Health doesn’t exactly feature the Don Knotts type, and if a skinny guy is the hero in a movie, he is usually an awkward nerd who struggles in society and romance, can’t fight, and wins by a combo of luck and brains. Well, unless he gets all Steve Rogered. Again, not bitter, just observational.)

Anywho, you’re probably right, I imagine very skinny people don’t do well in cage fighting or full contact Muy Tai UFC type stuff. However, I did a couple styles of Tae Kwon Do, and two different traditional Jujitsu styles that with the notable exception of one of the Jujitsu styles, were not particularly strenuous. I wasn’t exactly the best student in class there, though I was never seriously hurt, just thrown and pinned a lot.


Ah okay. Still, I think you were right to call me in on this. I’ve been on the receiving end of a lot of body shaming myself and like… I should know better, even if lashing out at men along those same lines gets really tempting.

Just took a stroll through mgtow2 which is suppose to be less hateful and misogynistic than it’s original sub but it’s already full of “women are inferior in every sense and haven’t contributed anything to society besides their wombs” posts. Women live rent free in their heads for the longest time, despite trying to go their own way.


trying to get rid of the male breed

Just many cis men really think that they’re a different species altogether. The number of times they spout something like this. Is it anti-biology? ignorance? Misogyny? All of the above?


Just many cis men really think that they’re a different species altogether. The number of times they spout something like this. Is it anti-biology? ignorance? Misogyny? All of the above?

A lot of TERFs have tried to claim a similar argument that AMAB and AFAB people are different species (one on Twitter informed me that AMAB humans had more in common with male chimpanzees than AFAB humans). In their case it appears to be a lack of biology knowledge and rabid misogyny and transphobia, and I’d imagine it’s similar for MGTOWs.

For what it’s worth, breed is usually used for domestic or farm animals and are still part of the same specie – believe it or not, but a chihuahua can reproduce with a Great Pyrenee, even if I suspect they would need help. It don’t make the claim any less intelligent since, you know, people breeds animals opf the same breed together to accentuate traits, and I don’t think breeding males with males will go very far.

The closest I see among human to a “breed” is the too-tightly-knits royal family in Europa (or egypt for that matter). But I don’t think they actually got any recognizable trait. You can recognize a Labrador at sight, but good look distinguishing a distinguished member of the English Royal Family from the average englishman.

The claim about AMAB being closer to chimpanzees is obviously meant as an insult, but “close” is mostly subjective and not very well defined. Is it supposed to be behaviorally ? Genetically ? Culturally ? Something else they would make up on the spot ? If someone said that to my face, I would probably challenge them to say in which way. I like see people trip on their own arguments, and it’s *very* likely that anyone making that argument know less about chimpanzee behavior and biology than me, because else they wouldn’t try that angle.

@ Naglfar, and also Nequam (and anyone else who likes dresses with pockets), I’m a little o/t here now but I wanted to tell you this. 😊

My biggest issue with most dresses is the lack of pockets. Some garments that are stylish and functional at the same time would be nice.

Ok, this is probably going to sound like an ad, but I buy all my abayas at eastessence(dot)com. They’re basically floor-length dresses. They all have nicely sized pockets, or at least the jersey-fabric ones I buy do, and they’re customizable for length and sleeve-length. I guess if you didn’t want floor-length, you could cut it off? If you don’t sew to do hems, jersey at least just rolls a bit and doesn’t fray. I’ve never bought their more fancy ones, though.

That orange dress is…well, to each their own, I suppose… Men, choose better dresses than this! Nicer fabrics! Colours that flatter you!

@ bookworm in hijab


If you don’t mind me asking, what’s the difference between an abaya and a jilbab? From the pics there appears to be a degree of overlap.

Alan, no real difference, except I think in Indonesia “jilbab” also includes the headscarf? Tbh my friends and I use them interchangeably, but abaya seems like the more common word.

Species and breed mean different things in biology, but when someone blathers about “male species” or “male breed”, they mean the same thing – or rather there’s equal lack of meaning. It’s just a somewhat conventional rhetorical expression for someone who wants to sound dramatic. It sounds vaguely fitting to the gender essentialist thinking, where men and women are seen as clearly different things.

Thus, when someone’s actual concern is “they want to undermine traditional masculinity”, it is rhetorically expressed as “they want abolish the male gender”, which may be loosely conflated with “they want to abolish the physical existence of male humans”.


(one on Twitter informed me that AMAB humans had more in common with male chimpanzees than AFAB humans)

From a purely genetics perspective, I can see how someone might think that, actually, though you have to deliberately misunderstand a whole lot about genetics and compare two separate numbers measured in different ways in order to say it.

The difference in genetics between humans and chimpanzees is generally believed to be somewhere around 1.2%, though that number is measured based on only comparing the specific genes that humans and chimpanzees both share, so it’s ignoring a lot of genetics that only exist in one or the other; if you measure all the sites, it’s 4-5% higher. See

Whereas a naive idea of the difference between men and women is that the Y chromosome is only about 40% the length of the X chromosome, and that’s one of 46 chromosomes, so the 60% difference of 1/46 is about 1.3%. Of course, that’s measuring everything, rather than only active genes like the previous number, and there’s some duplication on the X chromosome.

So if you completely ignore the fact that those two ‘differences’ were measured in utterly incompatible ways, you could make that argument.

@Jenora Feuer

So if you completely ignore the fact that those two ‘differences’ were measured in utterly incompatible ways, you could make that argument.

This is basically what every TERF/alt-right appeal to “science” boils down to.

@ bookworm in hijab

Cheers for that; that makes sense. I was familiar with abaya; from the markets; but jilbab was a new one for me. But as I like to learn one new thing everyday, that can be today’s.

More specifically, abaya comes from an Arabic word that originally meant a kind of goat’s wool cloth, or a garment made from same. Said garments being typically a long coat or robe, the word eventually started meaning any similar garment.

Jilbab is Ge’ez in origin, borrowed into Arabic, from a word meaning covering, wrap, or veil. These days it has also come to mean robed garments in general.

Alan, I usually get “hey I like that…dress…thingy…that you’re wearing! It’s pretty!” Which always makes my day.

Jenora, I actually took a screenshot of your comment; it was really clear and I can forsee a time when I’d want that info handy to use for combatting ignorance. 😊

@ bookworm in hijab

This reminds me of the keffiyeh/shemagh thing. Although it’s perhaps not surprising that one of the most practical pieces of clothing in the world is found in so many countries and thus has lots of names. Of course unless they come from the city of Kufa then technically they’re just sparkling headscarves.

It was in relation to keffiyehs that I first heard to term cultural appropriation. I was at a showing of a film called “Arna’s Children“. There was a surreal scene afterwards. Myself, an ex IDF commando friend, and the director of the film and some of his Palestinian friends all ended up in a pub in a place called Shadwell. So you had this somewhat eclectic bunch of people all getting on like a house on fire in a pub that was decked out in St George’s flags and shall we say other items of ‘patriotic’ symbolism.

But anyway, one of the women raised the issue of keffiyehs. She had no problem with anyone wearing them generally; just Westerners adopting the black & white checkered one. To her, you had to earn the right to wear it, and spending a couple of weeks visiting the camps didn’t count. Not when you could go home afterwards.

It was a really interesting evening, and one of my favourite memories. It’s all a bit wistful now though as the director was killed a few years afterwards; in circumstances he’d predicted on that very evening. I’m glad we kept in touch until then though. He was a pretty amazing guy.

My problem isn’t the dress per se, but the fact that it looks like something a little girl would wear in the 1970s. When I wear a dress, I usually opt for a sleek boat neck or a crisp shirtdress.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.