Television personality Jesse Watters, known for his boisterous commentary on Fox News, recently sparked controversy when he seemingly targeted Doug Emhoff, the spouse of former vice president Kamala Harris, over a mundane errand: grocery shopping. Watters questioned the masculinity of ‘genuine men’ who accompany their wives to the grocery store, insinuating that such tasks could potentially be a blow to a man’s ego. A simple task of societal responsibility had turned into a hotly debated issue, inadvertently highlighting the commentator’s overtly outdated notions of masculinity.
Watters’ comments took flight from a video clip where Kamala Harris and Doug Emhoff, her husband of a decade, were spotted shopping together at the 99 Ranch Market. ‘What kind of husband goes grocery shopping with his wife?’ Watters mused pompously on his show, casting an incredulous gaze on the seemingly regular, everyday activity. His remarks ran counter to the growing trend of shared domestic tasks, casting an unnecessary cloud of suspicion over a pretty ordinary chore.
The irony was palpable as Watters, who has previously criticized men for participating in other common activities such as drinking milkshakes, taking baths, or using straws, was met with avid rebuttals on social media. It seemed that doing any usual activity was subject to scrutiny and ridicule under Watters’ questionable standards of manliness, an absurdity not lost on the digital audience.
As the issue made waves on the internet, many challenged Watters’ assumptions, asserting that accompanying one’s wife for grocery shopping, or even doing it alone, is hardly a dent on their masculinity. The critical voices echoed the familiar sentiment that it was time for Watters to catch up with the prevalent norms around the sharing of domestic responsibilities, a theme that was otherwise belittled and disrespected on his show.
Critics encouraged healthy masculinity, a far cry from Watters’ strange notions. Shared activities between partners were seen as an affirmation of love, companionship, and unity – aspects that seem to be overlooked quite conveniently by Fox News commentary. The debate stirred by this conduct has put a spotlight on the internal culture of Fox News, which many argue promotes a warped view of masculinity.
Some social media users also highlighted that assisting a spouse with shopping, or stepping in to handle the task solo, are signs of confidence, not weakness. But Watters seemed to view this entire episode through his unfathomably skewed lens, showcasing an outdated and retrograde idea of what it means to be a ‘real man’. He appears to have entirely missed the strength inherent in mutual respect and shared responsibilities in a relationship.
Despite his remarks inciting much criticism, Watters was not without supporters. Some social media users agreed with his sense of masculinity and praised his stance, a disturbing reminder of the polarized discourse prevalent in society around gender roles. Some even resorted to unwarranted disdain towards Harris and Emhoff’s relationship, sailing on the tide of baseless rumors and speculation.
Harris and Emhoff have been married for a decade and they presented a united front during their recent public outing. It is worth noting that these intimate details of their personal life took center stage, only due to disparaging remarks made on a national platform. Negative scrutiny seems to follow Harris, not sparing even commonplace activities like grocery shopping.
The timing of this controversy is notable. Prior to the recent election, in which Donald Trump emerged victorious, Watters caused further outrage with his comments on a commercial. This commercial, created by non-profit organization Vote Common Good, called on religious voters and subtly encouraged wives of Trump supporters to secretly vote for Kamala Harris.
Watters had equated the idea of a wife voting against her husband’s preference to perpetrating a marital betrayal, as if having a political view independent of one’s partner were an illicit affair. His disparagement aimed at the commercial sparked backlash, underscoring the concerning rhetoric that seemed aimed at cultivating mistrust in the fabric of marital unity.
While the criticism against the commercial was in some aspects valid, Watters’ tactless remarks only added fuel to fire by inciting further controversy. Stirring the pot, he continued to deride the idea of women exercising their lure of politics independently.
In the end, it becomes abundantly clear through these recurrent controversies that the narrative set forth by Watters is disturbingly regressive. His stances on masculinity, marital duties, and political independence for women are not just out of sync with contemporary understandings, but also contribute to the hostility towards anyone who deviates from his idealized version of societal norms.
With the media being a powerful, influential tool that reaches millions, it’s alarming that such harmful, outdated beliefs can still find an audience. The controversy surrounding grocery shopping, innocuous on the surface, indeed reveals the deeper issues concerning gender roles, shared responsibilities, and respect within relationships, distorted by the likes of Watters.