Letter to the editor: Why is anti-male violence OK?

OPINION:

Here in Canada, we recently marked the National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence Against Women. While violence against women and girls must be ardently challenged, so, too, must general societal violence. The latter includes the violence gratuitously sustained by men and boys, in actuality and media and pop culture representation.   

For example, there’s a relatively new Oreo cookie TV commercial that makes light of a pubescent-looking boy’s black eye. The bruised boy’s little brother gets him to smile after holding an Oreo to his own eye.  

The viewers, being potential product consumers, are given no clue as to the actual cause of the conspicuous bruise, but you don’t get the impression it was an accident. Was the boy hit by another boy, as I believe we viewers are supposed to presume? If so, does that make it socially and therefore ideologically acceptable?  

Nowadays, commercials get canceled at the drop of the figurative hat when they offend vocal segments of the viewership — yet this ad showcasing anti-male violence continues to be broadcast unchanged. What does this say about us collectively?  

Meanwhile, I’m seeing boldly socially progressive TV ads. These include commercials featuring gay, interracial couples. Some depict these couples with children, presumably meant to be their own.  

Why is there such a clear contradiction of values in the media? One value rightfully recognizes and represents sexual diversity, while the other value maintains the political acceptability of violence against males. Where are the otherwise-noisy cancel culture activists on this?  

FRANK STERLE JR.