What the fuck do you call a "Real Man", asshat?

You dumb fuckwit.

How the hell do you define “real man”, anyways, dumbass? Someone who beats the fuck out of you when dinner is five seconds late? Someone who walks around like a macho dickweed pushing everyone out of his way, acting like it would kill him to pick up a dish towel?

You insult half of the population with your moronic spewings. Please, shut your mouth. No wonder the fight against ignorance is taking so goddamn long.

She used the word “stuff” twice in the same sentence.

Jesus, what an asshole. I know we don’t usually use that word to describe women, but “bitch” doesn’t really fit here.

Ya know, considering that I have the right to vote, own property, sit on a jury, work outside the home without having to turn my money over to a man, I’d hate to go back to a world that the likes of Debbie Schlussel, Phyllis Schlafly and Kathleen Parker would love to see. The attitudes these women espouse don’t protect us from anything, rather, they expose us to the dangers of abusive men.

Now, before I get jumped on, I know not all men are abusive. In fact, far from it. However, women who are forced to live under the thumbs of abusive men would have little, if any, protection if Ms. Schlussel gets her way.

Women have worked too hard for too long to see the advances we’ve made taken away, and for what? Because women should fit one stereotype and men should fit another? I don’t think so. Not in my America, and certainly not in the year 2001.


Plus she throws in too many commas in her writing.

The line I loved was “But since the attacks, everyone’s lauding the ‘men are back’ theorem.”

Theorem? Theorem?? The little twit is clearly too ignorant to reach for a dictionary. She meant ‘sentiment’, or some such. Either that or, this is the new name for Fermat’s second-to-last theorem. :rolleyes:

But I love it, just in general, when conservatives attack the popular culture. They’re believers in the untrammeled glory of the free market, and we’ve got exactly the popular culture that the market forces of the most economically advanced nation on earth - especially from their perspective - has produced.

Now, how can anything this culture produces possibly be bad, from that standpoint? And yet they routinely rail against it. Go figure. :rolleyes:


Why did I read all of that? Sweet god is she stupid.

The only thing approaching a reasonable thought in that mess of !Feminism is that the remake of “Brian’s Song” is going to be missing the point of the original. Even that though is burried in a sea of total mental crap.

As a not so “real man” individual I can say that plenty of the types of guys she’s talking about are nice individuals and accept individuals who are different than them. The thing that bothers me about her ideas is not that she rails against bashing these kind of men, in truth bashing them isn’t really nice or enlightened, but that she all but says that any guy who isn’t a “real man” deserves scorn and ridicule.

So basically there’s nothing wrong with “manly men” (that really does seem stupid and redundant, but whatever) as long as they aren’t jerk offs. There also isn’t anything wrong with guys who have long hair, don’t think sports are interesting and had mostly female friends early in life and prefers their company. People lie Debbie need a healthy dose of reality.

I must have missed something…

Guinastasia "You dumb fuckwit.

How the hell do you define “real man”, anyways, dumbass? Someone who beats the fuck out of you when dinner is five seconds late? Someone who walks around like a macho dickweed pushing everyone out of his way, acting like it would kill him to pick up a dish towel?

You insult half of the population with your moronic spewings. Please, shut your mouth. No wonder the fight against ignorance is taking so goddamn long."

What does the article in question have to do with the idiot you described? She never mentioned that she wanted idiots, she only mentioned that maybe good men have been forgotten while certain groups try to portray all men as idiots.
Just because a guy likes certain vehicles, movies, or books, does not mean that he also like to beat women but is too lazy to keep house.

You should consider how many good men you insulted with your own post.
Both genders have their good and their bad people. Neither gender is inately good, bad, or even just plain better than the other. However, all people regardless of gender, nationality, or whatever or different. Some are smarter, some are stronger, some are faster, some are gifted in certain areas (mental, physical). That does not mean that any one of them is better than another, only different. To assume that all “real men” are wife beaters is no less wrong than to assume that good wives cook, clean, and make babies, or are barefoot and pregnant.
Give us a break.
I drive a Land Rover jeep and a BMW. I love riding horses, playing and watching sports, and trying to fix things. I also sing, play the trumpet, enjoy reading and writing, and I even cook and clean my own house. But I have never beaten or even yelled at or used profanity at any of my girlfriends.
Am I a real man?
I suppose it would depend on whom you ask. Women who appreciate respect would probably say, “YES!”

No, I don’t mean that.

But she seems to think that any man who doesn’t act like a macho man, is “feminized”, or what have you. To state that THAT makes someone less of a man is insane.


I don’t think she lamenting machismo. I do think that real manhood has been given short shrift by today’s feminism, as evidence by LMN and the popular media, and I find your characterizations in the OP blatantly offensive.

I read the article too. I must of missed the wife-beating part. Care to point it out to me?

But you say you don’t mean that. The OP would seem to contradict that, but maybe you aren’t sure what you mean.

The “feminization” of males is not just some off-the-wall junk some conservative columnist pulled out of her ass. It has been the subject of serious debates and writing. Or would you consider Christina Hoff Sommers part of the loony right? (Actually, I can guess your answer to that.)

Just because a woman wants a “real man” doesn’t mean she wants someone to beat her up. And if you are going to put words in someone’s mouth (say, for example, Debbie Schlussel’s), maybe you could come up with something a little less vicious than suggesting she wants men to be wife-beating macho dickweeds.

Was there something so bad about Debbie Schlussel’s column that I missed? I don’t see how MsRobyn, or is that MizRobyn, could believe that Debbie’s attitude exposes women to abusive men.


Maybe Debbie Schlussel had a valid point. Let’s examine your definition of a “real man.” Did you get positive images of men building bridges, putting out fires, or fixing flat tires? No, what you got were negative images of men acting like “dick weeds” and beating the fuck out of people. Do you think that guys with sports cars or large trucks are compensating for something?


I’m sorry but I’m with RTfirefly on this one.

Theorem?, fuckin’ Theorem???

She deserves to be flamed just for that.

When I read Guin’s post, I assumed she was talking about an extreme stereotype to illustrate a point. It was the far end of the “manly man” spectrum that she described.

But anyway, does this woman suggest that we go back to the days of June Cleaver, with the men waiting for dinner while his wife fixes him a drink? Is my husband any less of a man because he works in an office and helps with the housework? I think Guinastasia was asking ‘what criteria makes a man a real man’. Is it only big burly Chippendale-fireman-construction workers that are to be considered real men? I think a man’s actions, his treatment and respect of other people and facing his responsibilities is what makes a man “manly”, not someone’s fantasy from a romance novel cover.

MGibson I think it is that she claims that showing abusive guys is “anti-male”. Where she claims that showing anything bad about men is “anti-male”. Certainly such an additude would rather keep a woman in an abusive relationship than say something bad about a guy.

The problem is that “real man” is usually only used to attack anyone who is a man, but doesen’t act like you think they should. Theres very little positive about the idea of a “real man” or true manhood.

I find Schlussel’s article to be offensive to men and to women because the underlying premise is faulty. Manhood, just like womanhood, is NOT something that can be taken away. These concepts are things that the INDIVIDUAL defines for him/herself. For Schlussel to assume that all men must act a certain way in order to be considered manly is EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE in my book. Now, she can feel free to be an idiot all she wants, but when she assumes her audience is a bunch of idiots who fail to think critically about terms and cliche phrases bandied about but not clearly defined, then I have a problem with that.

She talks about how men and “manliness”–a term she has yet to define outside of football in this article–have been under attack so much that men have been denied their “rightful place” as “crucial elements of society.” :rolleyes: Really? How have men been denied respect, a voice to define themselves, and the right to be influential members of society when the majority of state and federal government positions are held by men; when many CEOs and top management positions in business are held by men, and many women who aspire to those positions meet glass ceilings; and when many of the images we see manufactured and mass produced from Hollywood are controlled by powerful men who handle the majority of the decision making positions there so that what gets produced is a lot of crap that objectifies women and projects warped views of masculinity to men? I’m really failing to see how men have been denied power or a voice in society.

Schlussel goes on about a remake of “Brian’s Song” that shows the football players’ wives side of the story. Well, whoopee-fucking-doo. If she doesn’t like the film, then she needs to go talk to those free-marketers who produced the film to most likely appeal to a larger female audience. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that you can double your money by appealing to non-traditional football markets. And just perhaps there is an interesting side to the marriages of Piccolo and Sayre that folks who love football and these particular players would want to know about. The point of doing a re-make is to add additional material and change the focus a bit. The remake of the film appears to do that if Schlussel’s summary of it is correct; however, what’s debatable is how well the re-make of the film is executed. I wouldn’t know and really couldn’t give a shit since I’ve not seen it and don’t plan to do so. Still, if Schlussel doesn’t like this film, then she shouldn’t watch it. She, just like everyone else in America, has the right to change the channel and watch something else.

What I find the MOST offensive thing about this article is the idea of the “feminization” of men. WTF??? As if a man being concerned about women’s issues, women’s perspectives, or even becoming in touch with attributes more commonly associated with women (e.g. sensitivity) is a disease that will destroy men. It seems to me that REAL MANLINESS is the ability for each individual man to define for himself what works best for himself, rather than trying to become a carbon copy of the latest macho action hero presented to them from Hollywood.

The real problem is not power being taken from men and women by some loosely defined and poorly understood notion of feminism, but rather by folks not thinking critically about shit.


Is that how it is usally used because if it is I haven’t noticed.

Maybe this is what Debbie Schlussel was talking about. It seems to me that people used to think that John Wayne, Rock Hudson, Clark Gable, and Steve McQueen were positive examples of manhood. For the most part they didn’t play brutish characters but most would certainly think of them as manly.


I read the column, and am now confused. Confused because I agree with the column and enjoyed it. Because I consider myself a real man. Because even as I real man I do 90% of the housework in my home. Because I’m anything but macho and don’t even own a wife beater shirt. Because the last woman I hit was my 8 year old sister when I was 10. It was the last because my mom saw me do it and karate kicked me halfway across the room. I try to be sensitive yet rugged like Cosmopolitan says is the perfect man, yet I still come up lacking. Perhaps someday someone will set in stone the definition of a Real Man. I thought I was one, but apparently I’m not enough of an asshole to be one.

I do not understand why people equate “real man” with asshole. Seems to me that maybe there is a negative stereotype of men.


I read the article and I wasn’t offended. By no means did I think the author was “A dumb f***wit”.
Guin, you may be reading more into it than it deserves. I sort of look at this type of article as fluff, and never really take that sort of thing too seriously anyway.I don’t see anything in there about beatings of anybody at all.
Count me as a real man who is mildly confused as to what all the fuss of your OP is about anyway.