** DING DING DING!! ** We have a winner!!
But then, it’s RTFirefly, I would never expect anything less. 
stoid
Stoid,
Assholes, far more appropriate than ‘humanity’ 
I’m bored, damnit entertain me people
The entire human race is made up of assholes?
The main problem with this article, AFAICS, is that the writer sees pro-feminine aspects of society as decidely anti-male. This just isn’t true. Yes, women have magazines, television shows, television stations, and movies targeted specifically toward them. But for every O magazine there’s a Maxim or an Esquire or a GQ; for every Oprah show there’s the Man Show or Bob Vila. Women can have high-profile careers; they can run cable networks and read magazines with articles about being women in today’s society and watch tv shows that talk about women in relationships. Luckily, these things exist for men, too.
It seems that the writer is claiming that the rise in entertainment options for women is directly proportional to a decline in entertainment options for men, and thus a decline in the percieved societal image of “real men.” I don’t see this happening. Therefore I think her premise is complete and utter bullshit.
Celebrity single fathers like Bruce Willis and Tom Cruise clearly have some sort of joint custody of their children and show up at premieres and in photo ops with the kids regularly, proving that fathers are an essential part of society. Celebrity couples and non-celebrity couples the world over continue to have children and stay married and raise the children, thus proving that both men and women appreciate the importance of fathers. Shows like “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire,” “Win Ben Stein’s Money,” “The Weakest Link” and “Jeopardy” continue to feature both male and female contestants, suggesting that both sexes are equally intelligent. Male bands and singers, like Incubus, Stain’d, DMX, Ludicrous, and POD, continue to write and sing songs that reflect a distinctly male perspective. Female entertainers like Britney Spears, Destiny’s Child, and any “It” actress of the week are still expected to use in-your-face sexuality as a means to sell millions of records or movie tickets.
I really don’t see what her point is.
Marc, please re-read what I had to say. Ms. Schlussel’s beliefs are a throwback to the days when restrictive laws were supposed to “protect” women. Women were not allowed to vote in the US until 1920, and in some states (Texas, in particular comes to mind), our property rights are still restricted with respect to men’s. If a woman’s financial and legal fortunes are still tied to their husband’s, what’s in place to protect those interests if she’s in an abusive marriage?
Second, I think my last point was dead-on. This isn’t about anything more than perpetuating a stereotype. Women are supposed to stay home, keep house and raise the kids. Men are supposed to go to work and earn the money. Men are not to be questioned. They are to be treated like kings. Women are not supposed to say anything that might bruise their men’s fragile egos.
I like to think we’ve gone past that. Sadly, reading crap like this makes me realize we haven’t.
Robin
**
You read a lot more into the column then what was written. I didn’t see anything to suggest that Schlussel thought that women shouldn’t own property, should be raped by their husbands, or should surrender any of their independence. Now maybe there’s some evidence of that in other things she’s written. But you didn’t provide us with a link to those.
**
Again, I don’t see how you could come to that conclusion based on that particular column.
**
Yes it is about stereotypes and what an ugly one you have about men acting like men.
**
If anyone is spreading ugly sterotypes it is you.
Did you happen to be involved with a man who beat you in the past? I’m just trying to get a grasp on your negative attitude towards masculinity. As I said when I think of manly acts I think of things like putting out fires, building bridges, and fixing flat tires. All positive things. Your ideas of masculinity seem to be negative.
Marc
I did not say that, Marc, and I would appreciate it if you would retract this misquote.
**
My ideas of masculinity are not negative. I am very much in love with a man who is the embodiment of masculinity. What I take issue with is the notion that women should put their men on a pedestal. That’s all. I think both sexes should respect and treat each other equally.
When I think about things like putting out fires, building bridges, and fixing flat tires, I don’t think of these things as “masculine”, any more than I consider cooking, housekeeping or child-rearing to be “feminine”. I’ve met women who were trained as firefighters, Anthracite is an engineer who knows more about power plants than most people, and I can fix a flat tire. Does this make these women masculine? I don’t think so. I think of these women as people who know how to do things. I also know men who are fantastic cooks (Airman Doors, my father and my cousin are men who are marvelous cooks), most men I know can clean a house, and most men are wonderful fathers and caretakers. Does this make them feminine? Not to me, they’re not. Again, they’re people who know how to do things.
Perhaps I am a candy-ass with a skewed view of things. On the other hand, I’m proud of the fact that I know how to change a flat tire, pump my own gas, install hardware to my computer, put out a fire, and generally, most things I know how to do. If I don’t fit a label, that’s too damn bad.
Robin
What? your saying there are humans WITHOUT assholes?
I seriously doubt it. Those people are really aliens mascarading as humans so they can control our diets until we are fit to eat. :rolleyes:
Come on humans without assholes? Where the hell DO YOU LIVE?
Oh wait… I read that so far out of context. 
just ignore me I will go away in time.
Osip
Let me qualify this post by saying that I’m an advocate for the equality of men and women, lest folks think this is just more male-bashing.:rolleyes:
quote:
Originally posted by celestina
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.
Lizard responds:
I’m sorry, but I really can’t accept this supposition as true. If individuals are left to define themselves we would have societal chaos. Only in extremely wealthy countries like the United States is the notion of individual self-definition even contemplated and taken seriously. Try telling a Cuban/Mexican/Ugandan they can “be whatever they want to be” and they’ll probably laugh. Their reply might sound something like “sure, as long as what I want to be is not something that would cause my family to disown me, my friends to beat me, or the government to throw me in jail. That narrows the options to…what I am right now.”
Okay, Lizard, so you mean to tell me that the world is full of automatons who all are carbon copies of one standard of “real man” and “real woman”? Forgive me if I find YOUR supposition to be just a little difficult to swallow, primarily due to the fact that there is NO ONE CLEAR DEFINITION of what a “real man” or a “real woman” is. I will say again that irrespective of nationality, gender, or culture, INDIVIDUALS define themselves. I fail to see how individuals defining themselves leads to chaos that will destroy the world. Individuals generally should and do define themselves within the ethical paramaters of the societies that shape them, changing their views of themselves as grow and experience different things. Some individuals do conform to whatever stereotypes are out there. Some individuals do reject the ethical parameters of their societies and define themselves OUTSIDE of the those parameters (e.g. Osama bin Laden). Some individuals find changing their views of themselves or others too scary a thing to do so they cling to narrow, outmoded concepts of manhood, womanhood, race as a biological determinant, and so on. The point is that INDIVIDUALS DO CHOOSE how they will define themselves. Perhaps this does lead to a little chaos. So what? In order to make progress, we have to stir things up a little. The world sure would be a boring place if we all agreed on everything and if we’re all automatons. [shrug]
quote:
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.” 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.
Lizard responds:
You assume that just because men have these things (and I’m not admitting that everything you’ve said is true by saying this) that therefore they DO have “power” (whatever that is) or a “voice” (ditto).
Is there a National Organization for Men? Is there a “Mr.” magazine? Is there? Hell, even organizations like the Elks and Boy Scouts, which were intended to be Male only have been the subject of lawsuits designed to FORCE them to allow women. I could go on and on in this vein.
Well, men do have power. We live in a patriarchal society that could well be construed to be a type of “National Organization for Men.” Last time I checked, men make more on average than women do. Men compared to women make up the largest percentage of CEOs, upper-level management, and federal and state government positions. Correct me if I’m wrong, but in the history of this country, how many women compared to men have served on the Supreme Court? How many women compared to men have been elected President of the US? How many women compared to men have been elected to the Senate? I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point. What I mean by “power” and a “voice” is very simply the socio-economic and political means to shape, present, and sell images, stereotypes, products, laws, whatever to folks. As far as male organizations like the Boy Scouts and the Elks, I really can’t comment because I don’t know that much about them. I do know that for the Boy Scouts a comparable organization called the Girl Scouts exists. I wouldn’t have a problem if guys wanted to join the the Girl Scouts, nor would I have a problem if girls wanted to join the Boy Scouts. Just because an organization was originally designed for one gender or group of folks, doesn’t mean that it could or should shut out other folks who may be interested in joining it because they either want to learn more about the topics the group covers, or because they believe enough in the ideals the group represents to want to contribute towards those issues.
quote:
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.
Lizard said:
Her point was that this was a film about two MEN, a film that MEN traditionally enjoyed, not women. Changing it for “non-traditional football markets” pretty much removes the original’s reason for being.
I don’t see how a remake that gives the additional focus of two men’s relationships with their wives damages the original film’s intent. It’s a remake. That means that it’s DIFFERENT from the ORIGINAL film. The original movie is still there, and I don’t think it’s going anywhere. What I think is that folks, if they’re interested in Piccolo and Sayers, should watch both films and then decide for themselves which one they like better. [shrug]
quote:
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.
Lizard responds:
Just what is a “woman’s issue” or a “woman’s perspective”? Who ever decided women’s views or perspective were so radically diferent from the population at large that they needed their own category? Are women so special or such aliens that they need/require/deserve to be dealt with on a basis seperate from the rest of humanity?
And who says women are more sensitive? That’s just one more feminist invention, like the notion of female “oppression” and the “glass ceiling.” Not to ignite a fire storm, but for every female example of those two things(most of which are anecdotal or very colored by politics), I could find two men who had it just as bad or worse.
I think the comparison of this mode of thinking to a disease is very apt. It has definitely done damage to men, by making it seem that women as a group deserve more or more special attention than men do, when in fact they don’t. Women today in the United States have more legally protected rights and privileges than woman anywhere else in the WORLD, indeed more than women of any other nation in HISTORY.
But I guess that’s just not good enough, is it?
A woman’s issue or perspective could be anything from domestic violence, rape, equal rights, reproductive issues, economic issues, political issues, to aesthetic issues, and so on. However, let me clarify. Just because it has the label “woman’s _____,” it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t concern men. It does. Women should NOT be dealt with as aliens from another planet; however, because much of the world we know now is and historically has been designed along patriarchal lines, THAT IS THE REALITY. For the longest time, women have been shunted to the side, and as second-class citizens they have had to find their own way to navigate in a world dominated by a focus on things from a male perspective. Historically men assumed that they could speak for women in socio-political and economic realms, and if men didn’t understand women, well, then women’s concerns/perspectives were just dismissed as a bunch of emotional claptrap. I realize I’m generalizing here. Not all men who lived and who live in patriarchal socieites felt and acted or feel and act this way. Still, patriarchy has been and is a powerful influence that traditionally has shut out women’s voices and disempowered them, and that continues to do so right now (e.g. Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia).
I never said that men aren’t sensitive. They are. I said that the attribute of sensitivity is more commonly associated with women because for some reason showing sensitivity is considered a sign of weakness in men so they don’t do it as often around their male peers, and depending on how comfortable they feel with women or a certain woman, they may or may not show their sensitivity around females either.
As far as American women having attained a better status of equality with men as opposed to women in other nations, I believe you could make a good case for this; however, in America we’ve still got a long way to go. It’s not “good enough” to stop where we’re at because to do so would lead to stagnation and/or the real threat of regression (where Schlussel would like to go), not progress. Still the issue is not that women “deserve more or special attention” than men do. The issue is that it wasn’t until the 20th Century that real strides in the equality of the genders and races began to be made. The focus on women’s issues now simply reflects us making up for centuries of neglect in this arena. The more we examine, debunk, and discard stereotypes about how men and women should act and be so that folks can focus on more healthy and realistic definitions of themselves, the better off we’ll all be.
As far as the disease allusion, the REAL disease that is rampant is the one promoted and spread by patriarchy. I believe that most tensions, discomfort, anxiety over definitions of individuality as opposed to some artificial construction of “real manhood” and “real womanhood” are due to the fact that men and women have bought into patriarchal notions of male superiority and female inferiority, and now that those notions are coming under fire and real socio-economic and political changes are taking place, they don’t know what to do about it.
Female Circumcision. Not that guys can’t discuss it rationally and with depth, but its very much a “woman’s issue”, just as abortion, glass ceilings, and some individuals in my engineering school thinking I’m an idiot because I have boobs. The label should not be used as an exclusion of men (and when it is used that way, you are right to feel snotty.) and it does not imply that only women can study such an issue, just that the issue pertains to women. (for instance, prostate cancer is a male issue. I can still educate myself about it and be passionate about it as an issue, but its not a woman’s issue.)
Education issues, race issues, economic issues, military issues, youth issues, issues of the elderly…the same things can be said about any of those categories in the same vitolic manner…and sound just as stupid. Take a breath, dude, and listen to yourself.
The article makes some points, no one in our culture should be systematically ripped on, from the imagery of an impossible feminine ideal of beauty to the encouraged buffonery of men. However, the author ignores the amount of positive male imagery that does exist to attempt to make a poor point.
The time has come for society at larger to encourage strength, compassion, and self confidence from all its members, and not divy up the good charactorisics piece meal. Strong women take nothing away from strong men, just as gentle men take nothing from gentle women. Good charactor improves society wherever it is found. Encouraging men to be gentle and compassionate as well as strong makes them better, not worse. (And, incidentally, my definition of “real man” includes all of the above.)
I’m only 75% sure, but if that is Jeff Smith’s masterpiece Bone, then I want to be the father of your kids (if you’re female) or give you a manly (but non-sexual) clap on the back and a grunted “g’job” if you’re male.
YES YES YES!!!
That’s EXACTLY what I mean!
And I find the whole “feminization of men” to be a load of horseshit.
Is it just me, but are most of those who agree with me that the woman is a twit all FEMALE, for the MOST part, and the ones who agree with the article are male, for the most part?
Anyhoo, no, she isn’t saying that real men are wife beaters, or whatever. But she’s also not quite saying what a “Real Man” is. She seems to be saying that a man has his “place” in society. What?
When have I EVER told a “dumb man” joke around here?
Stoid:
More and more, I’m starting to think this is the case, sadly. The more people I meet like Schlessel and such, the more I think we ALL are a bunch of assholes. The more I hear about what’s going on all over the world-maybe we ARE assholes. (I’m an asshole, you’re an asshole, everyone’s a FUCKING ASSHOLE!!!)
My whole point is, WHY should any self-respecting man feel threatened by women having a prominant place in the world? Why is that such a THREAT to men? Why is “girl power” (which is really such a stupid, shallow, insulting interpretation of feminism?), such a threat?
To say that a man is not a man if he cries or cooks or helps out around the house is insulting to men. My father has cried before, he cooks -he’s the best cook in the house!- and he does indeed help out around the house. He likes CATS for crying out loud.
To say that he isn’t a man because of that is shallow, shallow shallow. To say that someone’s penis is threatened by BOY BANDS, for Sweet Black Jesus’s sake!!!
D’oh! I mean, for the most part ARE female, not ALL female.
Dammit.
Hi, my name is James and I agree with Guinistasia.
Last time I checked, I had a penis.
The conservatives bitching about “feminized” men, should piss off all real men. Who is this cunt to decide what makes a real man? Hell, I not only eat quiche, I can cook a damn good one.
Well, I certainly noticed all the women here doing a concerted dogpile.
Never said you had. I was talking about an incident (actually many) IRL where I’d seen women unashamedly bashing men, and I thought it was tasteless and insensitive on thier part. This was said in reference to the columnist’s point about portrayals of men in popular culture and I was relating similar examples I’d seen personally.
Guin, Stoid, Celestina, et. al., you know I respect y’all (or maybe you don’t, but please hear it now), but I do have conflicting feelings on this topic. On the one hand, I think the columnist is indeed a twit. On the other hand, I feel it’s possible to have misgivings about men’s roles or image in society and not be a fem-basher. That’s why I was cheering WierdDave’s post (which I agree had some problems). I’m still chewing over a what a good way to express this point more clearly might be, so I’ll bow out for now.
None of which was addressed in the cited column. The column is not a great piece, guin, but your OP was a non-sequitur.
What I want to know is why we continually see threads like this one. Why do people (some apparently faithfully) follow the writings of columnists they can’t stand? I realized years ago Molly Ivins doesn’t have a clue, so I just don’t bother with her.
I want those two minutes back.
Esprix
Hey squeegee, I respect you too, and I agree that we need to examine men’s roles/images more closely so that we can identify the stereotypes and shit that are harmful, but that folks buy into just the same. I think that looking at men [giggle] would be a productive line of inquiry, and I’d personally be fascinated to see more discussion of men and men’s roles/images/stereotypes on this board and elsewhere because anything that helps fellas understand themselves better and that helps me understand fellas better can only be a good thing.
So get to it. Start a thread or two and you fellas get to talkin’ guy talk.
Uh, I’m a woman and I’f have to agree with Weirddave’s post as well. I don’t see what is in that column that makes it so absolutely and disgustedly offensive to the women who have replied. She’s not claiming that we all be subservient, you are taking things way way out of context. Not only that, you’re taking one idea and twirling it around in your minds so much it comes out you thinking that she means something else. That’s like having someone complement you on looking nice today and you getting your nose out of joint, accusing them of saying you don’t look good any other day. Guin, why you go actively looking for articles to look too far into and inevitable piss you off, is way beyond me. This is not a big deal people, I don’t see why you’re so upset. Let it go and surf somewhere other than townhall.com.