Gillette’s Razor-Thin Hypocrisy [OPINION]
So, Gillette, the razor makers who sponsor the home of the testosterone-rich New England Patriots football team, is now worried that men might be a bit too masculine. Anyone else see something a bit weird in that?
The American Psychological Association recently weighed in on the masculinity debate by suggesting that “traditional masculinity” is “harmful” to society. The APA says "toxic masculinity" as it has become known can lead to homophobia and sexual harassment. Gillette, a Proctor & Gamble subsidiary, agrees.
I worry more about male children being raised to believe that gender neutrality and transgenderism is normal behavior. I am also concerned about tax money being spent to promote Drag Queen Story Time at public libraries like the one in Worcester.
The emergence of the modern day feminist and her backers in the political and media circles are doing their best to diminish the image of the traditional male and remold men to suit their needs and perceptions of what men should be. Especially white males who are portrayed as old and angry and out of step.
The attack on men has been going on for decades. You can see how it has evolved simply by watching TV. Strong male characters have been replaced by wimpish wet rag types with tons of insecurities and no backbone. Often times, these men are pushed around by dominant female characters or worse, smart-ass kids. What we are left with are shows like The Big Bang Theory.
Isn't there something just a little bit odd about Gillette (as in Gillette Stadium) lecturing men about being too masculine?
Gillette is concerned that masculine male role models might be a bad influence on the next generation of men. I think Gillette ought to concentrate on making shaves softer, and not the men it markets to.
Barry Richard is the host of The Barry Richard Show on 1420 WBSM New Bedford. He can be heard weekdays from noon to 3 p.m. Contact him at firstname.lastname@example.org and follow him on Twitter @BarryJRichard58. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.