That word should be “inevitably”.
The idea she expresses that I find particularly offensive is that a rise in female-centered entertainment and “girl power” equals a rise is the image of “real men.” Does anyone else see that in her article? I found it glaringly obvious, and I don’t think I was looking all that hard for it, either, or getting bent out of shape.
I am offended by the idea that for women to have power, men must lose theirs and be “feminized.” I think that is absolute horseshit. The direct conclusion from this idea, however, is that women concede their power to re-create this “real men” myth. I think that’s what upsets women, although I think that’s a jump from the bullshit this woman wrote. Because if we DO have to concede our power, then where does that leave us? Without female-based entertainment? Without the power to make decisions about what movies get made? And what’s after that - the right to vote?
I firmly believe that generations of women have worked excruciately hard for the rights that we do have. I am grateful for these rights, grateful that I can go to college and become a nuclear physicist if I want, that I can vote and own property and rise in a company previously dominated by men. I think it’s partially my responsibility, as a woman in today’s society, to enjoy these rights and make sure they are not infringed upon.
Schlusser seems to be advocating that the only way to re-create the “real men” image is to get rid of societal examples that suggest men are not necessary. Not only do I not see any examples of this, I vehemently oppose her implied suggestion that women concede their power for this purpose. That courageous men have recently been celebrated as heroes and “real men” does not mean that they haven’t been all along, despite Britney, Oprah, and Destiny’s Child. I think it’s horseshit that Schlusser suggests that “real men” have gone “out of style,” just as its horseshit that women should have to sacrifice the rights we’ve for which we’ve struggled for centuries (the rights that still do not exist for women in other countries!) simply to stroke the male ego and build back up the image of the “real men.” I think anyone capable of intelligent thought would realize that although the entertainment spotlight has shifted to women, men are still recognized as an integral part of society and respected as such.
It appalls me that these sort of biased, unfounded theories are propogated my anyone, much less a woman who has no doubt encountered the discrimination toward women inherent in this society. I personally have felt it, and I don’t think I am alone in saying that. I refuse to, in any way, relinquish my power in this society to rebuild a misguided view of “real men” that we are better off without.
I meant, a decline in the image of “real men.” Hit the wrong damn button.
Sure, like I want to end up on the bottom of the dogpile? 
Seriously, I don’t think it’s a discussable topic, for many reasons, but 2 quick examples:
Brand New OP: “Let’s talk about men’s roles and/or problems in American society”.
Someone takes offense: “why are you bashing women?”
Male poster heckling topic: “I was just thinking that we should go to the woods, wear buckskins, give ourselves manly animal names, bang on drums, scream a lot, and kill our own fish for food”
Summary: instant quagmire, multiple inevitable hijacks. Maybe I’m mistaken, but it doesn’t seem to be a topic that can be discussed rationally around here or possibly anywhere. Which really is a shame.
[cough]bullshit![cough]
I DARE you to produce one iota of actual proof that more men “abandon” their families than women do.
And you can’t quote statistics on the number of “deadbeat dads” nationwide unless the exact same stats are kept for “deadbeat moms.”
Have you missed the other posts saying that women are awarded custody of the children in the vast majority of divorces? And it doesn’t matter how much the father might want them, or even if he can provide for them physically better than the mother can; she still gets them something like 90% of the time. That information is something that is such common knowledge it’s taught as part of the curriculum in some law schools (I used to work in one, which is where I first heard that statistic).
As a man and product of a single-parent home, I am profoundly offended that you would casually make such a damning statement as if it were a proven fact.
Stoid not-my-woman, I couldn’t go on and on about your post, because you completely missed my point and interpreted my post using the exact point of view that I am arguing against. I’m pretty sure I know what I intended to say and what I meant by it. You, obviously, don’t.
The “population at large” consists of men and women, of all ages. These men and women breath the same air, eat the same food, engage in the same pastimes (reading, jogging, etc.) watch whatever movies are showing at the local multiplex, etc. Sure there are differences in taste, and women might naturally tend to gravitate in one direction at times, while men may go another. But to think or argue that these natural differences constitute a unique “perspective” is one of the biggest lies (yes, LIES) that the feminist movement has ever foisted on the “population at large” (that’s both men AND women, in case you forgot).
There is no “unique” female perspective, nor is there any unique male perspective. There was, is and always will be a vast universe of perspectives, which may and usually are shared by men and women alike. Women may hold certain opinions or have certain tastes more often than men do, but that doesn’t make those things uniquely “female” anymore than most NASCAR drivers being male means a woman can’t do it.
Just as there is no such thing as a “Real Man” or a “Real Woman.”
Take your mind back, I don’t know when
Sometime when it always seemed
To be just us and them
Girls that wore pink
And boys that wore blue
Boys that always grew up better men
Than me and you
What’s a man now, what’s a man mean
Is he rough or is he rugged
Is he cultural and clean
Now it’s all changed, it’s got to change more
'Cause we think it’s getting better
But nobody’s really sure
And so it goes, go round again
But now and then we wonder who the real men are
See the nice boys, dancing in pairs
Golden earring golden tan
Blow-wave in the hair
Sure they’re all straight, straight as a line
All the gays are macho
Can’t you see their leather shine
You don’t want to sound dumb, don’t want to offend
So don’t call me a faggot
Not unless you are a friend
Then if you’re tall, and handsome and strong
You can wear the uniform and I could play along
And so it goes, go round again
But now and then we wonder who the real men are
Time to get scared, time to change plan
Don’t know how to treat a lady
Don’t know how to be a man
Time to admit, what you call defeat
'Cause there’s women running past you now
And you just drag your feet
Man makes a gun, man goes to war
Man can kill and man can drink
And man can take a whore
Kill all the blacks, kill all the reds
And if there’s war between the sexes
Then there’ll be no people left
And so it goes, go round again
But now and then we wonder who the real men areYou know, I usually stay out of arguments like this, because in the end there is no accounting for people’s opinions and I don’t see how anyone can produce quantifiable evidence either for or against the emasculation of this counrty’s men.
But I’ve seen two things in this discussion that have set off alarms.
One is the assertion in Schlussel’s column that The View had a show where the entire premise was that men were dogs and therefore needed to be trained.
Are you fucking kidding me?
Even The Man Show, with its glorification of fake breasts, midget jokes, Oprah-bashing and fascination with porn, would never deign to think they could get away with a show on “training” women. Comedy Central would be a smoking heap of rubble within minutes of the segment were this to happen. And hearty cries of “Bullshit!” to those would counter with a “tongue in cheek” argument. This is one glaring instance of an inequality in the rules of PC. Men are much more acceptable targets for bashing and denigration than women.
Second is Sara’s point that Britney, Destiny’s Child and other women are expected to use in your face sex to sell records. No, they aren’t expected to, but they do so in attempts to broaden their audience-in exactly the same way celestina describes in her post. By accentuating certain qualities or adding others that would appeal to a section of the public who would otherwise be uninterested in your product/art, they’re hoping to rake in a few extra bucks. Now, they could do this by varying the style and content of their output in an attempt to lure fans of other styles of music into their listening audience. Instead, they choose to emphasize their physical attributes in hopes of bringing in people who will be attracted to said attributes. I’d have to question the success of this line of reasoning, as no matter how great her tits look, I’m not buying one of Britney’s CDs. Same goes for that trio of banshees Destiny’s Child. And honestly, I’d expect that a survey of men would bear out the same opinion; that getting to look at Britney’s cleavage does not outweigh the penalty of having to shell out $16 for a CD of music that doesn’t appeal to you.
squeegee said:
“Summary: instant quagmire, multiple inevitable hijacks. Maybe I’m mistaken, but it doesn’t seem to be a topic that can be discussed rationally around here or possibly anywhere. Which really is a shame.”
Awww. Do you really think so? I mean if we can have all these race threads that while they can be a little heated and can get off-track do manage to educate folks to some degree and the outstanding job Esprix has done with his “Ask the Gay Guy” threads, why can’t we have a little ol’ thread or two where you fellas talk seriously about how y’all feel about patriarchy, male and female stereotypes, why feminism is so scary to some fellas, how societal/peer pressures for males to repress their emotions/sensitivity make y’all feel, how fellas really define manhood, and so on? I think the OP should be worded carefully, and gosh, the logistics of where to put it would be tricky–probably GD–but I think it can and should be done. I can’t start and maintain it because I don’t have the time, and I already have a tendency to scare fellas away–I really don’t know why [celestina looking all wide-eyed and innocent]–but I think some fella should start a thread. Maybe call it “The Lockerroom” thread or “Guys Night Out,” or something along the lines of the things that Wierddave mentioned in his post would be a good place to start and treat it like an actual session y’all would have with your male friends.
I really want to see a thread like this happen because everytime I ask a fella what he’s thinking, he says sex [giggle], and I find it difficult to believe that all fellas think about sex 24-7. That’s certainly NOT the case on this board where folks discuss all types of topics. You fellas are complex creatures, and I think fellas saying that all they think about is sex is just a part of the secret male club code to deflect genuine female empirical inquiry into the fascinating terrain of male brains. 
In the interests of furthering science [giggle] and eradicating ignorance about males, we need a thread where you fellas talk about what’s really on your minds. Plus, y’all would be helping me fill another fantasy of mine–I have quite a rich fantasy life–which is to observe what fellas actually do talk about when they’re alone with their buddies. [giggle] Won’t some strong, brave, sweet guy oblige me? Please? I promise I’ll try not to bite y’all, unless you ask me nicely.
I’m just genuinely curious.
Hey, ladies? Aren’t y’all curious? How many of y’all would like to see a thread where the fellas get together and talk man talk, not female bashing, just things that they talk about when the ladies aren’t around?
[Homer]
Mmm…cleavage.
[/Homer]
I firmly stand by my assertion that without the tits and ass, the cleavage, the stripteases on MTV, the sexually suggestive videos, and the mass marketing of them as sex symbols, Britney et al would not have sold a record-breaking number of albums. One million in one week? Come on. I think you’re fooling yourself if you think that’s simply because people like her music. She markets an image, not music, and if she hadn’t made her first video in a series of suggestive outfits showcasing her beautiful body, she wouldn’t be nearly as famous as she is right now.
You may have not bought her record, but I don’t think you fall into her target audience of horny teenage boys and insecure teenage girls, either.
Not that women aren’t guilty of the same thing. Hell, one of the reasons I bought Incubus’s new CD is because of that sexy-ass Brandon Boyd singer. In the new video for “Wish You Were Here,” he’s an bare as Britney, flashing his incredible ab muscles left and right. What I was trying to say with my post was that for every example Hollywood presents of men being unnecessary (single moms, Regis, etc), there are examples of men being quite necessary and even dominent in the entertainment industry. Schlusser claimed that male actors and singers looking like girls mean that “real men” are no longer in; I’m saying that female actors and singers are not immediately “in” simply because they are female. They still have to sell themselves as much as anyone else.
The very fact that women have only been able to vote in this country (with a few exceptions), for 80 years should say something about why feminists feel the way they do.
Think about that. We’ve only been able to vote for less than a century.
Well, horny and insecure you missed. You’re right that I’m not a teenager, though.
I can really only speak from past experience on the marketing to teenage boys. When I was a budding lad and turned to pop symbols as the basis for my autosexual expression, I still didn’t buy their crappy record in hopes of getting a stiff one from the liner notes. The $16 was better spent, in my estimation, on D&D or the lastest Piers Anthony book. I’m willing to concede I might not be the norm on this, but I still think the vast majority of the purchasers of Britney and her ilk are same sex and that the image is being pushed more to appeal to female consumers as an ideal than as a sexual image to the male ones. (That, however, is a much different argument and isn’t germane to this discussion.) I think there has to be some predisposition to the music for a purchase to be made, if for no other reason than it’s hard to imagine yourself in a sexual situation with someone if you’re clawing at your own ears in an attempt to drown out their hideous crooning. I should know, I was a pisspoor singer in a crappy band for a few months, and I didn’t even get a grope out of the deal.
THIS is your big example of injustice?! You need to check your history. The United States was among the first, that’s right, the very first nations to give national suffrage to women. Women couldn’t vote in national elections in France until the 1940’s.
In Switzerland, they couldn’t vote in local elections until the 1971
Check out the links, and then try and tell me women in the U.S. were treated so harshly.
Dammit, that last post of mine was supposed to have a link telling how France didn’t give the vote until the 1940’s. Oh well. Consider it said. VB code appears to be a little screwed on my Mac, so heres here’s the URL:
http://humanities.uwe.ac.uk/corehistorians/suffrage/coredocs/coredoc3.htm#secondww
Interesting article, but I think it is a tad overblown. If anything, I have found women changing in the last 30 years to become more and more ‘mannish’ in many aspects.
I once got fired from a job for defining a ‘real man’ to the young redneck, 14 year old, tobacco chewing son of my 40 year old, redneck, boss. I think my biggest mistake was in telling him that real men did not have to ‘chew tobacky’ and beat up everyone who disagreed with them or slap ‘wimmin’ around to be real men. The kid disagreed. I guess the boss did also and I was canned. Oh well.