Are men now victims in the sex war, continually demeaned by women without protest?

[Kimstu]

What Tom said. It sounds like aaaphen256 got a raw deal, and I’m sorry for him, but there’s no question that the automatic assumption “kids belong with their mothers” goes back way, way, way before modern feminism. The persistent “pro-mom” bias in court rulings does not count as evidence of some new kind of “feminist cultural trend” of bashing males.

I do agree that some kinds of anti-male jokes and criticisms are considered more socially acceptable nowadays than their anti-female equivalents would be. And I think that stinks: I’m strongly opposed to sexist insults in either direction. But I don’t agree that this is a symptom of a culturally triumphant misandrist (sure it’s a word, it’s the opposite of “misogynist”) feminism grinding its boot in men’s faces. We’re a long way from genuine female supremacism.

(And I must say I think the comments about men being demeaned “without a whimper of protest”, “silently”, etc., are pretty ridiculous. As a matter of fact, there’s a vociferous storm of popular protest going on about “anti-male” rhetoric and imagery. Just google on “reverse sexism” and sift through the hundreds of complaints, debates, denials, arguments, etc. I’m all for it, as I think sexist oppression should be exposed and combated wherever it occurs, but it doesn’t exactly bear out the notion that men are silent and unprotesting victims.)

[everton]

*Originally posted by tomndebb *
That the portrayal of men and women in much of the media (particularly advertising and situation comedies) tends to denigrate everyone, with no special tilt toward or against men or women;
and
That in the corporate world, men still have more freedom of movement and activities without being subject to censure in general than women do.

In quoting from my previous post you seem to have overlooked this remark:
“This is not to say, of course, that there aren’t negative images of women too”.
Your second observation is, of course, entirely correct.

But I still find it difficult to believe that American TV is showing commercials where a woman is compared to a garbage bag (see the post from David, God of Frogs) – it wouldn’t happen over here. There are numerous images on TV screens and posters in the UK that denigrate men like that, though, and do it with very little protest. The criticism is beginning to happen though.

As for what Lessing was doing in a school, do American schools not invite famous people to visit so they can talk to the kids sometimes? I wouldn’t put myself in the ‘famous’ category, but I have been invited to speak to children in the age category she mentioned, and they wouldn’t have dreamt of calling out protests at what I said or what their teacher said. Naturally it’s something that would vary from school to school, but just because you didn’t see it happen doesn’t mean Lessing invented it. Certainly none of her critics have accused her of that.

The article DDG linked to, from The Hindu, just transcribed criticisms of Lessing published in British papers. Some of the comments there seemed ridiculous to me at first reading – Jeanette Winterson, for instance, is found to quote her (female) hairdresser, and a taxi driver who “thinks of himself as boss in his marriage” to undermine Lessing’s remarks. But I took the trouble to find Winterson’s response in full, and although it’s a bit of a Curate’s Egg (just as Lessing’s remarks are), it makes more sense in context.

For Lessing to blame feminists for this negative attitude to men may well be misplaced – I haven’t been able to locate any references she has made to specific individuals. But the fact that men are being criticised through popular culture in ways that women are not is beyond dispute. It is a problem that deserves to be taken seriously for what it’s worth; I believe it is a distraction from the further steps in equalisation that are so necessary. And acting against it needn’t prevent those steps being taken.

[tomndebb]

But the fact that men are being criticised through popular culture in ways that women are not is beyond dispute.

That there are specific images of men that the media uses where similar images of women would bring more condemnation, I agree. I suspect, however, that the negative images of men and women are simply different. Is Drew Carey (with his bumbling sidekicks) a negative male image? Possibly. Is Mimi (or even Kate), then, presented as a positive female image? I would not say so. It may be true that women cannot be compared to trash bags*, but I submit that the image of the bubble-headed woman (or the grasping and conniving woman) is still a fairly stock character on television. If anything, there are a lot more Sensitive New Age Guys showing up on TV these days than there ever were in the “good old days.”

My questions regarding Lessing’s comments were more ruminative than challenging. Whatever she may have actually witnessed on one visit to one classroom, I will still place my constant involvement at my kids’ schools (and the comments of the many parents with whom I interact) against her single anecdote and find her comments exaggerated at least (with a strong suspicion that she saw what she wanted to see rather than what actually occurred).

• I also suspect that the whole point of the commercial is the humor involved in allowing women to say what many people would expect men to say about women. It actually depends on the shock of women treating men in the way that men have allegedly treated women from time immemorial–and the “hook” of the commercial is that shock of recognition of how the world (supposedly) “really” works rather than that women are now free to actually treat men that way.

[red_dragon60]

Ah, my great grandmother always hated the idea of making women equal to men. She thought that it was a giant step down for the women

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by Lamia *
Gosh, it must be so hard to be a man these days. At least they have things to help keep their minds off the pain, like running the government, and big business, and the military, and the church, and the entertainment industry, and…

As Susan Faludi reminds us, that’s about as far removed from the experience of most men as it is from that of most women. Women may not run the world, but the fact that the relative handful of movers and shakers who do run the world are mostly men, doesn’t do men in general a lick of good. We’re all in this together, really.

[GSV_Consolation_of_Dreams]

Reminds me of one of the Dilbert books, paraphrasing:
Men might control the world but those are other men!

The rest of his take was proving that men don not in fact control anything in the world other than fashion, but I forget the details.

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by tomndebb *
While I do sympathize with your plight, you should realize that your experience is more in line with the actions of courts from the “old days” rather than a result of any recent “feminist” changes.

*Originally posted by Kimstu *
What Tom said. It sounds like aaaphen256 got a raw deal, and I’m sorry for him, but there’s no question that the automatic assumption “kids belong with their mothers” goes back way, way, way before modern feminism. The persistent “pro-mom” bias in court rulings does not count as evidence of some new kind of “feminist cultural trend” of bashing males.

I think this may depend on how you define “modern feminism”. When I’ve read about the early days of feminism (late 19th century) they describe how women typically lost custody in divorce cases. This was described as one of the great abuses that feminism (or “women’s lib”) was to have rectified. Of course, the same abuse exists today, but now in the other direction.

And I must say I think the comments about men being demeaned “without a whimper of protest”, “silently”, etc., are pretty ridiculous. As a matter of fact, there’s a vociferous storm of popular protest going on about “anti-male” rhetoric and imagery. Just google on “reverse sexism” and sift through the hundreds of complaints, debates, denials, arguments, etc.

You can google on anything and get the same. That does not make it mainstream.

[JRR]

Three odd pop culture observations:

Commercials:
A standard commercial template is the “comparison test” between two products. This can be a direct challenge between two items, or just people arguing the merits of their brand of choice.

If a male and female are going up against each other in one of these commercials, the female will be on the side of the “better” product 99% of the time, be it a soft drink, detergent or car.

Sitcoms:
The oldest comedy routine in the world is the “comic/straight man” bit. You’ve got a wacky character and a normal one who serves to set up jokes and act exasperated when the comic does something stupid.

In almost every modern sitcom, if a woman is cast as the “comic,” she’ll be presented as a enlightened, smart, free spirit who doesn’t feel restrained by society’s rules, with the male “straight man” coming off as a repressed, anal-retentive, possibly neurotic stuffed-suit. See: Murphy Brown.

On the other hand, a male “comic” will usually be shown as an infantile dullard; good at heart but utterly incompetent. The female “straight (wo)man” will be wise and mature; stern, but with plenty of patience. There is probably no show that more typifies this than the godawful “Home Improvement.”

Movies:
For the longest time, Hollywood has had the universal, unbreakable rule that “Victimhood = Victory.” By the end of the movie, kids always beat adults, women always beat men, minorities always beat whites, the poor always beat the rich, etc. If you ever find yourself in a movie going up against a poor black girl, RUN.

[Soup_du_jour]

Originally posted by JRR
Movies:
For the longest time, Hollywood has had the universal, unbreakable rule that “Victimhood = Victory.” By the end of the movie, kids always beat adults, women always beat men, minorities always beat whites, the poor always beat the rich, etc. If you ever find yourself in a movie going up against a poor black girl, RUN.

Ever seen the film Unbreakable, by M Night Shyamalan (sp?) One reason I liked the film so much was that The bad guy ends up being a crippled black man (Samuel L Jackson,) and the hero ends up being the invincible white guy (Bruce Willis.)He totally turns the sorts of stereotypes that you cite in your post around completely.

Methinks the juxtaposition of “traditional” roles of race and physical handicap was intentional. In fact, I never really noticed the trend until I saw this film that completely bucked it.

Another notch for M Night as a wonderful director, IMHO.

Also, the site ifeminists has many an essay on this topic. Look for the editorials section.

[Soup_du_jour]

Woah, I just read my post, and saw that I might come off as a racist, by saying that I enjoyed the portrayal of Willis and Jackson’s characters.

To clarify, the juxtaposition of roles was one of many things in the film that made me think, and therefore, enjoy the film.

Oops. :smack:

[Sarina]

*Originally posted by Eulogy *
**It’s true…it’s gone beyond “women’s lib”. It seems the ‘new generation’ is more concerned with making males look bad, rather than females look good. But it only seems to happen with destiny’s child fans and middled aged women upset at all the things they never did.

;j **

I didn’t realise that ‘women’s lib’ was ever about ‘making females look good’. I thought it was about equality. My bad.

[teneisha]

It’s not a question of Sexism or Racism or any other “ism”. It’s all about ignorance. Stupid people treat other people badly because of their skin color or language or religion, stupid men treat woman as sex objects, stupid woman treat men as sex objects.

It would be a rare site to see a well-rounded educated person treating somebody badly because of the sex or skin they were born with.

“The most dangerous people are the ignorant”- Henry Ward Beecher

[deborah183]

It is, in my opinion, very much a question of sexism and racism and all the other ism. These are a direct result of patriarchy. I know plenty of well rounded educated people who make judgements about people and treat them accordingly because of their skin/sex/etc.

Until we come to understand that the patriarchal system is oppressive, we will always have the symptoms of it.

[teneisha]

I understand what you are saying about our patriarchal society making sexism a prevalent notion. But I still hold firm to my statement, that ignorance is the underlying cause to it all. The reason why we have a patriarchal society is because of the historical ignorance of men and woman. Woman were uneducated because it was necessary to have children to keep the family alive. And still to this day these practices of uneducated woman bearing ungodly amounts of children are happening everywhere (especially in the south). And comparatively the men in these situations are uneducated to the fact that there are woman in this country who could run this country, or at the least are educated, have meaningful careers, and family’s.
The cycle of ignorance makes sure that we as a country cannot wash our hands of sexism, racism, patriarchal-ism or any other ism.
I am a female, and believe me I am outraged at the fact that woman still make less then men on average, or that I am passed up for the job because a man applied. I am outraged at the way men rule the world. But I do not think we can blame it on men, because if the woman in this country were educated enough to be angry about these things as we are…it would not still be happening.
What we need is more sex ed in high schools, more female mentors, more female role models on TV and in the government…

[BlackKnight]

*Originally posted by deborah183 *
It is, in my opinion, very much a question of sexism and racism and all the other ism. These are a direct result of patriarchy.

Cite? Argument to support this claim?

[catsix]

And while you’re at it, please define ‘patriarchal system’ and give some examples of it.

[teneisha]

pa·tri·ar·chy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ptr-ärk)
n. pl. pa·tri·ar·chies In both senses also called patriarchate.

1. A social system in which the father is the head of the family and men have authority over women and children.
2. A family, community, or society based on this system or governed by men.

[catsix]

Well, legally in the US a husband/father does not have ‘the authority’ over his wife and their children. Many women are heads of households, and many couples operate on equal partnership, so strike number 1.

And the US being a representative republic with an elected government, and women being a larger voting block, the government is to no small degree influenced by women. Let’s also not forget that there are women in Senate and House seats and other leadership roles in government. Therefore number 2 doesn’t apply.

So if there is currently a ‘patriarchy’ in the US, it must be of some other definition.

[teneisha]

ok lets scratch the dictionary definition. How about the fact that woman still make less in the same jobs as men.

And why are you on my case about this? Im the one who said : "It’s not a question of Sexism or Racism or any other “ism”. It’s all about ignorance. Stupid people treat other people badly because of their skin color or language or religion, stupid men treat woman as sex objects, stupid woman treat men as sex objects.

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by teneisha *
ok lets scratch the dictionary definition. How about the fact that woman still make less in the same jobs as men.

In blatant violation of many state and federal laws? Why haven’t these employers been sued to hell?

Perhaps it’s because men work more hours, more dangerous jobs, and don’t take time off to care for children.