Doug Emhoff has been presented to America by our objective and brutally honest mainstream media and their Democrat sidekicks (or is it the other way around?) as the epitome, the role model, of the Modern American Male. In the Age of the Gillette Man, he has “redefined masculinity.” This means, one would assume, that women are drawn to a married guy who knocks up his little kid’s nanny and first-grade teacher. Gillette, “the best a man can get.” But I have discovered an even more refined aspect of the Emhoff redefined masculinity. In eras past, when women were full-time homemakers, minding and teaching their children, preparing the meals, cleaning, washing, dusting, vacuuming, shopping, packing, picking up the kids from school, bringing them to the doctor, budgeting, and doing overwhelmingly much more that was often unappreciated, they would rely on their husbands to “bring home the bacon” (or the gefilte fish). The man was the sole provider, the breadwinner, under this paradigm. Since the wife needed money for the shopping and dry cleaning and the incidentals incurred by the children, the husband effectively put his wife on an allowance. That’s the way it was. That’s how it worked. That sociology gave rise to a million stand-up jokes in that era before “misogyny” entered our daily lingo. Most comedians were male and the jokes truly were unfair, but that was the way it was. Many of the jokes further exaggerated the stereotypical complaints of men about their wives. The constant theme was, “I work so hard, and she just spends all of it.” It’s as old as I Love Lucy. (Methinks she did.) Henny Youngman told the story of his wife never cooking. He asked her why and she said it was because the kitchen stove was broken. So he bought her a new electric stove. But she still didn’t make meals, so he asked her why. She answered because the kitchen oven was broken, so he bought her a new electric oven. Nevertheless, she still never went into the kitchen. He asked her why. She answered it was because she couldn’t take all the hours she would need to stand while preparing meals. So he bought her a new electric chair. That was that world. And always the stereotypical complaint reverted to: “She spends all my money. No matter how much money I give her, she spends it all. She is obsessed with spending money.” We now live in a much more enlightened era. It is an era when women work, often in highly skilled professions demanding the highest degrees and certifications of expertise. Many women bring home more money than their husbands. In this new era, men do not complain as ubiquitously about their wives’ spending. That is true of so many men, so it obviously is especially true of the men of the Gillette Era and the man who has redefined masculinity. As Emhoff proudly told the Democratic National Convention, the one that gave a standing ovation to Ocasio as the face of the new Democrat Party that would be sweeping the national elections in 10 short weeks, he is such a model of redefined masculinity that, although he is the son of Jewish parents, he dutifully follows his wife to church on Easter. What a guy! (The “u” and “o” are interchangeable here.) I was thinking about these redefined gender roles as I was reading the latest news about presidential campaign spending. We all were blown away — Democrats and Republicans alike, in awe — as all the mainstream media globally gloated gleefully that Kamala Harris had raised over $1 billion to fund her 10-week presidential campaign. A billion dollars. The ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, and Washington Post monopoly bellowed and bloviated about the billion bullion she now had at her disposal. A billion smackeroos to take down Hitler, his Nazis, and his adoring 75 million pieces of garbage. The weeks passed, the election ended, and the end result? She blazed through the whole billion and ended $20 million overdrawn — all in 10 weeks. Even the screenwriters of Brewster’s Millions — a preposterous comedy about a Minor League baseball pitcher who must spend $30 million in 30 days to receive an inheritance of $300 million — could not have dared imagine the money pit called Kamala Harris. The husband of the 1950s world would have asked his honey bunch: “Sweety Pie, how the %$#&! did you burn through $1 billion in only 10 weeks, plus go $20 million into the hole, and come out with fewer blacks, whites, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, and even young people than that fascist-Nazi-Hitler did?” We know how it would work. She would draw him a Venn diagram. It would intersect the billion with another 20 million outside. She would giggle something about yellow school buses and needing to have unburdened the billion dollars that had been in order to burden what yet will be. And then she would charm him with her irresistible cackle that melts men’s hearts everywhere — white men, brown men, black men — driving men of all colors with a surge of testosterone to race to the polls and unburden themselves of what has been the past four years. And he, the Man of Redefined Masculinity, would be charmed. The conversation would continue: “But really, hon. Where did that billion go? How did you end up $20 million in the hole? How is that mathematically even possible? Even with Venn diagrams?” “First, Dougie Wougie, prices really have gone up. I really don’t know how or when or why. But do you know how much it costs just to fill up a car these days? I can’t figure it out. They should legislate price controls on advertising time.” “Uh-huh.” “But the main thing: Do you know how much a celebrity endorsement costs these days? What, did a coconut fall off a tree and hit you in your head? You think they just go around endorsing people for free? You think they endorse a candidate because they ‘believe in’ the candidate? Come on. These are not Trump endorsements where they love the guy. You’re a smart guy, Dougie Pie. When you watch an athlete endorse a sports shoe or a celebrity endorse a car, you think they do that out of the goodness of their hearts? Do you think they actually regard that car or those sneakers as the best? Get real, Doug. Endorsements cost money! And look at all the endorsements that cost me money. Now you know why I couldn’t get a performance out of Beyoncé. And then there’s Taylor Swift. And Cardi B. And Barack and Michelle — thankfully, they are cheaper as a pair. And Bruce Springsteen. Dougie, money doesn’t grow on trees. Weren’t you born in the USA?” “Well, for goodness’ sake, how much do they cost?” “I am not allowed to tell you, Em-Dash. It’s contractually secret. But I can tell you that Oprah cost $1 million and — ” “You paid Oprah a million dollars!” “Excuse me, I’m speaking. Yes, she cost me a million dollars. It was my money to spend, not yours. I raised it myself, and that’s final.” We live in a Brave New World. And the Master of the New Masculinity is left with one word to mutter, under his breath, “Weird.” Subscribe to Rav Fischer’s YouTube channel here at bit.ly/3REFTbk and follow him on X (Twitter) at @DovFischerRabbi to find his latest classes, interviews, speeches, and observations. Watch Rav Fischer’s latest 10-minute messages: There is No Palestine (here) and 6 Divine Miracles by Which Trump Defeated Harris (here) READ MORE from Dov Fischer: The Bullet We Dodged, the Miracles We Experienced, the Idiot We Faced If Trump Is Such a Nazi, Why Do 80 Percent of Orthodox Jews Support Him? A Jackass of a ‘Comedian’ in Madison Square Garden The post $1 Billion Raised, $20 Million in Debt, $1 Million for Oprah’s Endorsement appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.