Thanks. I did read his response carefully, and my conclusion remains the same, regardless of whether I might have misinterpreted his own feelings of inner self-worth (which, of course, no one but he himself can judge).
Your point concerns me to a certain degree because, deliberately or not, you’re effectively pitting “athletic, youthful masculinity” and “decent, non-toxic behaviour” against each other as if they were two entirely different, separate things.
There is no clash or dissonance between being a “young, attractive hunk” and supporting the values which the ad claims to encourage. You can be a ravishing, muscular, sporty guy and at the same time also respect women and express emotions. By suggesting that this advert perpetrates a message brought about by an “old nanny” (which in itself is subtly misogynistic – not accusing you of being a misogynist, just saying this common argument is inherently sexist), you’re inadvertently implying that the behaviours promoted by the advert are antithetical to genuine masculinity.
The comparison with the car commercial isn’t wholly pertinent, because once again, if a parallel were established, it would suggest that Gillette’s traditional image (of masculine attractiveness) clashes with a message of decency and non-toxic attitudes. It may well be the case that, some time ago, the values promoted in the new commercial would have been perceived as “unmanly”, but Gillette are making it very clear that being a true “guy” has got nothing to do with being boorish, disrespectful or even outright aggressive.