Should men get facials?

Another recent trend: men pam­per­ing their bod­ies. Randy Stin­son cri­tiques the trend, call­ing it the fem­i­niza­tion of the Amer­i­can male. This line cri­tiquing Tony Glenville’s Top to Toe made me chuckle:

For instance, Glenville advises, “A spe­cial occa­sion calls for spe­cial treat­ment, and tak­ing the time to visit your hair­dresser, go for a mas­sage, and have a facial scrub will all add to your con­fi­dence.” In another sec­tion, he tells us, “At sport­ing events, whether cheer­ing your team on or par­tic­i­pat­ing your­self, the wrong footwear can com­pletely skew an out­fit.” I won­der if Chip­per Jones knows this?

Stinson’s point is that pam­per­ing one­self encour­ages the sin of self-absorption. “We do not need pret­tier boys. We do not need softer men. What we need is a church cul­ture that will call boys and men to lives of self sac­ri­fice as exam­pled by the pic­ture of Christ in Eph­esians 5 who loved the church and gave him­self for her to his own neglect and sac­ri­fice.” [Read the arti­cle]

Comments (2)

  1. mike wrote::

    Hm.… I dunno. Apples and oranges? I very much want as “men with chests,” as Lewis would call it. I am just uncom­fort­able with the male/female dichotomy that Stin­son uses to get there.

    Val­ues may man­i­fest them­selves dif­fer­ently but I tend to think the prin­ci­ples are gen­der free. Thoughts?

    Wednesday, August 6, 2008 at 12:55 pm #
  2. rlew wrote::

    I had a sim­i­lar ques­tion: Men pam­per­ing them­selves is self-absorption while women pam­per­ing them­selves is… (a) accept­able because they’re women, (b) also self-absorbtion, or © ____ ?

    Wednesday, August 6, 2008 at 3:28 pm #