ginshun
2nd Black Belt
As hard as it is to believe that I agree with Robert, seeing men as dimwits on TV hardly makes up for the real world.
The Cultural Emsculation of the American Male
- Thread starter elder999
- Start date
Don't mock my dreams.Marginal said:
Who is the power behind the throne? Note, the answer varies from culture to culture, especially in degree. In Japan, women keep the household accounts but are second-class citizens anyway. (This is improving.) Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are at an extreme. But, matriarchal societies are not unheard of either.
Phoenix44
Master of Arts
I have a son, and I'm trying to see your point. First of all, most of TV is idiotic, and portrays everyone as idiotic. If you're watching idiotic shows, you're going to see, well, idiots both male and female.
However, strong male roles: Josiah Bartlet, Arnold Vinick, Matt Santos on The West Wing. Law & Order has a lot of strong male characters: Elliot Stabler. Fin Tutuola (Ice-T). Capt Donald Cragen. Jack McCoy. Movies? Will Smith in Hitch. Almost any role Russell Crowe plays. Tom Hanks in Castaway. Lord of the Rings. You want cartoons? Samurai Jack, Shrek, Yoda.
Now let's talk about those "kick-***" female roles, and see if you can name A SINGLE ROLE THAT ISN'T A T&A ROLE. Every single female role, no matter how strong, dresses inappropriately for her job (including Marissa Hargitay as Olivia Benson in Law & Order), frequently ends up with a wet T-shirt or half naked (Princess Leia), or is essentially ineffectual (Pregnant Senator Padme).
So true, women are starting to get decent roles, but we have an awful long way to go to parity.
However, strong male roles: Josiah Bartlet, Arnold Vinick, Matt Santos on The West Wing. Law & Order has a lot of strong male characters: Elliot Stabler. Fin Tutuola (Ice-T). Capt Donald Cragen. Jack McCoy. Movies? Will Smith in Hitch. Almost any role Russell Crowe plays. Tom Hanks in Castaway. Lord of the Rings. You want cartoons? Samurai Jack, Shrek, Yoda.
Now let's talk about those "kick-***" female roles, and see if you can name A SINGLE ROLE THAT ISN'T A T&A ROLE. Every single female role, no matter how strong, dresses inappropriately for her job (including Marissa Hargitay as Olivia Benson in Law & Order), frequently ends up with a wet T-shirt or half naked (Princess Leia), or is essentially ineffectual (Pregnant Senator Padme).
So true, women are starting to get decent roles, but we have an awful long way to go to parity.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2003
- Messages
- 9,998
- Reaction score
- 206
Roseanne. (From Roseanne)Phoenix44 said:
Captain Monica Rawling (The Sheild)
Those both pop into my head without thinking as Strong Females who are not innefectual or in a lot of TnA situations.
Phoenix44
Master of Arts
Well, the Rosanne character was a buffoon. Plus, she's not on a current or recent show. I wanted to omit the buffoon-y characters, male or female. Ruth Fisher on Six Feet Under comes to mind as an important female role, but not a great role model. But you have to admit, when you take out the T & A factor, the "kick-***" female roles are few and far between.
I don't want to completely blow off the argument altogether. As I said, I have a son. But when you think it through, it's not as strong an argument as it initially appears. I think boys have a lot more positive role models than girls do.
I don't want to completely blow off the argument altogether. As I said, I have a son. But when you think it through, it's not as strong an argument as it initially appears. I think boys have a lot more positive role models than girls do.
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
Interesting essay...
http://www.xyonline.net/terror.shtml
A lot to ponder there. While I do believe that if "men believe there is a problem then there is a problem"..I also dont believe that the answer is "putting women back in their place" either. The issue as I see it is we, men that is, need to feel some sense of self-worth as "men". Most of us dont want some sort of androgynous society where the only difference between the sexes is purely for procreation purposes. The unfair treatment of women over history was wrong, but IMO there is a psychological/social need for "gender roles", there is something about masculinity/femininity that we find attractive and even necessary in each other. The problem is maintaining fairness and the freedom to choose your way in life despite the genetic circumstance of your birth and how to implement change without unfairly treating women or making all men feel like they are personally responsible for violence, rape, and everything else that there is wrong in the world....
http://www.xyonline.net/terror.shtml
A lot to ponder there. While I do believe that if "men believe there is a problem then there is a problem"..I also dont believe that the answer is "putting women back in their place" either. The issue as I see it is we, men that is, need to feel some sense of self-worth as "men". Most of us dont want some sort of androgynous society where the only difference between the sexes is purely for procreation purposes. The unfair treatment of women over history was wrong, but IMO there is a psychological/social need for "gender roles", there is something about masculinity/femininity that we find attractive and even necessary in each other. The problem is maintaining fairness and the freedom to choose your way in life despite the genetic circumstance of your birth and how to implement change without unfairly treating women or making all men feel like they are personally responsible for violence, rape, and everything else that there is wrong in the world....
Kembudo-Kai Kempoka
Senior Master
Quote from Keen at the ranch: "It's all necessary."rmcrobertson said:
Hmm.
LA Law had some strong female roles.
Hos about some of the Lifetime shows, like Strong Medicine etc.?
Hos about some of the Lifetime shows, like Strong Medicine etc.?
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
Emasculization? Probably the wrong word. There is a certain amount of helplessness felt by a great number of American males, however. They deserve to be heard insofar as certain issues go.
Warren Farrell, in his "The Myth of Male Power," points out that American men don't quite have it as easy as its cracked up to be. At the time he wrote it, about fifteen years ago, men were the prime victims of violence in America, yet violence against women dominated the news. More men died of prostate cancer than women died of breast cancer (yet we don't have too many "prostate cancer awareness" days) men had/have higher rates of schizophrenia--he didn't mention this as it wasn't yet published but men also suffer greater rates of autism and ADHD. They die on the job in high risk occupations. They commit suicide in far greater rates than women.
Men, typically, do not get custody of a child during a divorce--even in instances where the mother is unfit (this is often difficult to prove). They have, in the past, had to bear significant financial burdens in order to maintain their children, their ex-wives, and separate residences. Granted, the wife as caretaker needs this support, but there are times when women abuse it and don't carry their weight. I read where one man, allready working three jobs, was ordered by a judge to pay even more in child support. The man was tapped out, and short of cloning himself, could do no better.
Farrell, incidentally, was the first man on the board of directors for the National Organization of Women (NOW). He isn't saying, and I certainly am not saying, that Feminism is some great evil that has victimized men. He merely posits that in the great rush to advance women's rights we have failed to see that men themselves have suffered from social stereotypes, and they too have grievances.
But emasculization? I agree with Robert. I'm not feeling too neutered...and I'm living with one of the most liberated and incredibly strong women I know. On top of that, I only have one really good testicle. The other one just hangs around all atrophied and non-functional, never working...sort of like that lazy *** nephew of ours.
As for men in commercials appearing boorish, comical dunces...well...maybe we are. But we're also portrayed as the heroes in most movies...and while Sigourney Weaver and Leslie Hamilton have redefined women's roles somewhat in action flicks, we still control the field.
When we see women on the covers of FHM, Maxim, Stuff, and the old standbys like Playboy...do we feel emasculated? When we see Brittney Spears, Halle Berry, Paris Hilton, and God knows how many other cheesecake models/singers/actresses gracing the set/screen/magazine cover...do we feel emasculated? Who are these lovelies set out to please, if not us? Women? Gay men?
Now GRANTED it can be a little unnerving seeing Carson Kressley and the men of "Queer Eye for a Straight Guy" refurbishing men who look distressingly like us. Worse still, they do an excellent job of it. Flick the channel, however, and you'll get a show where some tattooed grizzly machinist is turning a piece of scrap iron into a muscle car. There's still plenty of testosterone for all of us. Our testicles are safe.
At least my right one is.
Regards,
Steve
Warren Farrell, in his "The Myth of Male Power," points out that American men don't quite have it as easy as its cracked up to be. At the time he wrote it, about fifteen years ago, men were the prime victims of violence in America, yet violence against women dominated the news. More men died of prostate cancer than women died of breast cancer (yet we don't have too many "prostate cancer awareness" days) men had/have higher rates of schizophrenia--he didn't mention this as it wasn't yet published but men also suffer greater rates of autism and ADHD. They die on the job in high risk occupations. They commit suicide in far greater rates than women.
Men, typically, do not get custody of a child during a divorce--even in instances where the mother is unfit (this is often difficult to prove). They have, in the past, had to bear significant financial burdens in order to maintain their children, their ex-wives, and separate residences. Granted, the wife as caretaker needs this support, but there are times when women abuse it and don't carry their weight. I read where one man, allready working three jobs, was ordered by a judge to pay even more in child support. The man was tapped out, and short of cloning himself, could do no better.
Farrell, incidentally, was the first man on the board of directors for the National Organization of Women (NOW). He isn't saying, and I certainly am not saying, that Feminism is some great evil that has victimized men. He merely posits that in the great rush to advance women's rights we have failed to see that men themselves have suffered from social stereotypes, and they too have grievances.
But emasculization? I agree with Robert. I'm not feeling too neutered...and I'm living with one of the most liberated and incredibly strong women I know. On top of that, I only have one really good testicle. The other one just hangs around all atrophied and non-functional, never working...sort of like that lazy *** nephew of ours.
As for men in commercials appearing boorish, comical dunces...well...maybe we are. But we're also portrayed as the heroes in most movies...and while Sigourney Weaver and Leslie Hamilton have redefined women's roles somewhat in action flicks, we still control the field.
When we see women on the covers of FHM, Maxim, Stuff, and the old standbys like Playboy...do we feel emasculated? When we see Brittney Spears, Halle Berry, Paris Hilton, and God knows how many other cheesecake models/singers/actresses gracing the set/screen/magazine cover...do we feel emasculated? Who are these lovelies set out to please, if not us? Women? Gay men?
Now GRANTED it can be a little unnerving seeing Carson Kressley and the men of "Queer Eye for a Straight Guy" refurbishing men who look distressingly like us. Worse still, they do an excellent job of it. Flick the channel, however, and you'll get a show where some tattooed grizzly machinist is turning a piece of scrap iron into a muscle car. There's still plenty of testosterone for all of us. Our testicles are safe.
At least my right one is.
Regards,
Steve
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Now THAT was a brilliant frickin' post.
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
Thats probably the most accurate assessment of the "trend" we are discussing here as I see it. I have to agree with ya HDJH. "Emasculation" probably isnt the best term. I certainly dont feel less of a "man" because of whats being played over the media. I guess my angle on this issue is "great rush to advance women's rights we have stereotyped men into controlling, violent, rapists and oppressors". While history has shown that most of those offenders were indeed male, blaming the entire gender is as offensive to many of us with the Y chromosome as it would be to blame crime on race. And while there were many gender based wrongs then and now, one has to remember that if Men had control of the reigns of power then and still are "dominant" now, then how did feminism even get started? We "big bad men" here in the US could have pulled a Taliban-like crackdown if we were all that bad. There were/are plenty of men who know whats right and fair here IMO. Is there work ahead? Sure. But I believe that our country is a great example for womens rights worldwide.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
Actually, we're not that great a role model.
And the claim about some great rush to feminism that has ended up "stereotyping men?" No great rush; no big stereo.
I do find it remarkable to see men adopting precisely the stance (victimization) and modes of analysis (look at images) that they generally attack like crazy when feminist types use them.
Pssst--the real issue here is: a) working class people getting screwed by capitalism; b) historical developments that are destroying the privilege and security to which Americans became accustomed after WWII; c) anxiety over scientific developments in the field of biology.
And the claim about some great rush to feminism that has ended up "stereotyping men?" No great rush; no big stereo.
I do find it remarkable to see men adopting precisely the stance (victimization) and modes of analysis (look at images) that they generally attack like crazy when feminist types use them.
Pssst--the real issue here is: a) working class people getting screwed by capitalism; b) historical developments that are destroying the privilege and security to which Americans became accustomed after WWII; c) anxiety over scientific developments in the field of biology.
lol - I think comparing the US feminist movement and the response to it, versus the Taliban's treatment of women, is a bit wonky. Hopefully, we're working in a society that at least on paper posits that women and men should be equals.Tgace said:
Still waiting for equal pay for equal work, but that gives us all something to work for, right?
And, for another good read on the topic, Susan Faludi (prominent feminist writer) wrote "Stiffed" several years ago, on this idea - that men in the US are facing similar issues that women have faced, although the topics are different.
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
The point being that if we American males are such "controlling, he-man women haters", why would we have "allowed" any loss of power? We do live in a society that posits that we are equals...thats my point. Change doesn't happen completely or overnight. Countless years of cultural and social (and to some point biological) conditioning isnt going to be instant.
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
Tgace
Grandmaster
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2003
- Messages
- 7,766
- Reaction score
- 409
Talk about "boys not being allowed to be boys"...how about suspending the violent little buggers for playing cops and robbers.
http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=155
I wonder if girls playing "powerpuffs" would have gotten the same treatment?
http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=155
I wonder if girls playing "powerpuffs" would have gotten the same treatment?
sgtmac_46
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2004
- Messages
- 4,753
- Reaction score
- 189
Oh, I agree. The last thing you'll ever hear me do is whine about this topic, or any other for that matter. As far as i'm concerned, the immasculation occurred by our own hand. Nothing that has happened in modern times has happened without the express will and consent of men. At this point it may be out of our hands, but hey, we did it to ourselves. So men, enjoy what you have brought on yourselves.rmcrobertson said:
Truth is, there is no need for men in a truly civilized society. Since the world we live in is only half civilized, men are still needed, but the "civilized" half resent that need, so we see that expressed in the popular media. The male archtype represents aggression, cold logic, rationality, and control.
Women represent diplomacy, cooperation, caring, understanding and empathy. There is room in a civilized world for men....so long as they act like women. Enjoy.
T
TonyM.
Guest
Why can't I be an educated, bathed, well dressed and reasonably well behaved and spoken thug?
Shizen Shigoku
Purple Belt
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2004
- Messages
- 344
- Reaction score
- 25
A lot of people are missing the important points here.
If you're already a manly man, no of course you're not going to feel threatened.
Just because men are still a major controlling force in the world, striving for equallity does not mean both sexes crap on eachother in equal amounts.
The threat is to the young - both boys and girls - who are trying to learn about themselves and their roles, and about eachothers' differences. Making little boys feel bad about being male (and this practice is occuring) is not the way to equallity.
I don't understand how balancing the negativity makes things more equal. Regardless of the issues of how men are still in power, or things are still not equal, or any of those distracting ideas, the point is that little boys are being raised with less guidance on how to be appropriately male.
For those that can stand Jungian psychobabble, I recommend the following (it is martial arts related): The Warrior Within by Gillette & Moore - Morrow pub.
It is in the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine series.
It covers many aspects of maleness including how male aggression should not be suppressed, but rather harnessed and directed.
(preface, pg. x) "There is no way to socialize aggression away. The Warrior archetype is hard-wired into our brain structure. Socialization means repression, which only keeps aggressiveness in an all the more volatile, compressed, and explosive form. ... In many ways legitimate aggression contributes vitally to our lives."
Another excerpt:
(pg. 4) "This is not to say that all feminist criticism is invalid. The feminist critique of patriarchal societies makes a great deal of sense. Patriarchy does tend to institutionalize a particular kind of masculinity . . .
"Patriarchy is set up and run not for men as a gender or for masculinity in its fullness or in it mature expressions but rather by men who are fundamentally immature."
It goes on to say that what is lacking in modern societies are strong male role-models, and rites of initiation to lead boys to discover their maleness in its full mature form.
I think I was fortunate enough to have good role-models growing up - boy scouts, martial arts, etc. but many children do not take advantage of these opportunities to learn about themselves.
If you're already a manly man, no of course you're not going to feel threatened.
Just because men are still a major controlling force in the world, striving for equallity does not mean both sexes crap on eachother in equal amounts.
The threat is to the young - both boys and girls - who are trying to learn about themselves and their roles, and about eachothers' differences. Making little boys feel bad about being male (and this practice is occuring) is not the way to equallity.
I don't understand how balancing the negativity makes things more equal. Regardless of the issues of how men are still in power, or things are still not equal, or any of those distracting ideas, the point is that little boys are being raised with less guidance on how to be appropriately male.
For those that can stand Jungian psychobabble, I recommend the following (it is martial arts related): The Warrior Within by Gillette & Moore - Morrow pub.
It is in the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine series.
It covers many aspects of maleness including how male aggression should not be suppressed, but rather harnessed and directed.
(preface, pg. x) "There is no way to socialize aggression away. The Warrior archetype is hard-wired into our brain structure. Socialization means repression, which only keeps aggressiveness in an all the more volatile, compressed, and explosive form. ... In many ways legitimate aggression contributes vitally to our lives."
Another excerpt:
(pg. 4) "This is not to say that all feminist criticism is invalid. The feminist critique of patriarchal societies makes a great deal of sense. Patriarchy does tend to institutionalize a particular kind of masculinity . . .
"Patriarchy is set up and run not for men as a gender or for masculinity in its fullness or in it mature expressions but rather by men who are fundamentally immature."
It goes on to say that what is lacking in modern societies are strong male role-models, and rites of initiation to lead boys to discover their maleness in its full mature form.
I think I was fortunate enough to have good role-models growing up - boy scouts, martial arts, etc. but many children do not take advantage of these opportunities to learn about themselves.
R
rmcrobertson
Guest
If we really want to start dragging up every stupid argument advanced by some nominal leftist or liberal or feminist, I will be happy to start dragging up every single piece of stupidity and hypocrisy on the matter of gender I can find from the Christian right, the Bush government, and Republicans.
But when arguing these issues, it might be good to support one's arguments with something more substantial and less-biased than Ben Wattenberg's right-wing and conservative interviews, or the Rutherford Institute--which apparently spent ten years pushing Paula Jones' case against Clinton on behalf of a consortium of fundamentalist Christians and right-wing politicians.
Especially when, it looks to me, like the real issue is that men are starting to be expected to grow up and act like adults, and many don't want to.
But when arguing these issues, it might be good to support one's arguments with something more substantial and less-biased than Ben Wattenberg's right-wing and conservative interviews, or the Rutherford Institute--which apparently spent ten years pushing Paula Jones' case against Clinton on behalf of a consortium of fundamentalist Christians and right-wing politicians.
Especially when, it looks to me, like the real issue is that men are starting to be expected to grow up and act like adults, and many don't want to.
