I stumbled across a very interesting article out of Australia, regarding the negative portrayal of men throughout the media.

'Dissing’ men: the new gender war

Feminism has drawn attention to and fought against stereotypical and sexist portrayals of women in mass media, but new research shows that media portrayals of gender have largely done an about face in the past decade or so. There is a new “gender war” and the main target of discrimination is no longer women, according to research - it is men.

...

Until recently, gender theorists and media researchers have argued or assumed that media representations of men are predominantly positive, or at least unproblematic. Men have allegedly been shown in mass media as powerful, dominant, heroic, successful, respected, independent and in other positive ways conducive to men and boys maintaining a healthy self-identity and self-esteem.

However, this view has come under challenge over the past few years. John Beynon, a Welsh cultural studies academic, examined how masculinity was portrayed in the British quality press including The Times, The Guardian and The Sunday Times over a three-year period from 1999-2001 and in books such as Susan Faludi’s 2000 best-seller Stiffed: The Betrayal of Modern Man. Beynon concluded in his 2002 book, Masculinities and Culture, that men and masculinity were overwhelmingly presented negatively and as “something dangerous to be contained, attacked, denigrated or ridiculed, little else”.


Questions for debate:

1) How credible do you consider the essential thrust of the article, underlined above, to be?

2) What, specifically, can and should women do in response to this dynamic? (Note that if you disagree with the assessment, then offer a "women's response" that addresses the "patriarchial myth" being propagated)

1) How credible do you consider the essential thrust of the article, underlined above, to be?

Totally. It is irritating to see this constant over and over again denigrating of men after some time. It is even in the kids cartoons now! Remember Scooby Doo? You know how Allen and Velma would solve the mystery together, and Allen was kinda the group leader? Well, now he is an egotistical idiot on Scooby doo even!



2) What, specifically, can and should women do in response to this dynamic? (Note that if you disagree with the assessment, then offer a "women's response" that addresses the "patriarchial myth" being propagated)

Start taking responsibility for thier own actions instead of blaming every bad choice they make on the men in thier lives. Perhaps then, maybe some sort of homeostasis in regards to true equality can be achieved.

I am starting to wonder if the gynocentric culture can even survive any length of time. Look at Islam's increasing influence in the world, and the birth rate fall off in western culture- and you wander if the feminist culture is even a positive thing for humanity.

At the very least- makes ya think!

I could blab about this issue all day. I'll keep it short and likely post more later. It's still early. First I'll address a couple of issues I have with the linked article:


There are numerous reports that are directly contradictory to this statistic, probably a ratio of 10 or more to one. Survey methodologies affect results. From the 2002 Bureau of Justice statistics


It isn’t surprising that 78 percent of the perpetrators of child neglect are female, as females make up the VAST majority of the childcare workforce. Who is the more likely to shake the baby? Obviously the person most likely to be around the baby 24/7. Who is the most likely to pick up an eight year old girl or boy and drive them off to kill and/or rape them in the woods? A man. Which of those actions are more likely to grab headline news? The second one. However, if the abuse is extremely violent and graphic the first category will catch headline news, regardless of the sex of the perpetrator. Andrea Yates, for example, received large coverage.

Now, to answer the questions (I'll stop with the first one for now)…

1) How credible do you consider the essential thrust of the article, underlined above, to be?

The underlined portion: There is a new “gender war” and the main target of discrimination is no longer women, according to research - it is men.

I disagree. I think that, just as things are turning around for women in the media (more powerful roles), things are changing for men (more subservient ones). Regarding “metrosexual”…Men are expected to groom more now than ten years ago, this is true. There is still no comparison. Where is the female equivalent of Jack Black? It doesn’t exist. Oh, sure powerful, intelligent female characters abound, but how many are average looking? With the mainstream use of plastic surgery the standards are ever higher and higher as well. Underworld shows a powerful lead female character, but it’s essentially Kate Beckinshale jumping around in a black catsuit (Uma Thurman in catsuit, ect...) while the men are in trenchcoats. The message is ubiquitous everywhere: “Yes! Women are smart and powerful! But above all, they must be hot”. So, frankly, I think it’s about damned time SOME pressure was placed on the man to look good (or at least dress well, smell nice and groom).

Regarding CR’s assessment of the goofy stupid men portrayed in media, what you are seeing isn’t a new cultural phenomenon. It follows pretty much precisely what we saw generations ago in entertainment television, there are just 50000+ times the number of choices of viewing material. The formula is this: Men generally will be either heroes, villains, or goofy. Women will be beautiful. Example, ‘The three rascals’. We have boys behaving in funny ways, with the occasional doll-faced pixied girl striding in to the scene. Alfalfa then wiggles his ears and turns red.
The three stooges…Abbott and Costello. The list goes on. “I Love Lucy” was a great show. It is also the only show I can think of which portrayed primarily the women looking silly rather than the men. Look back to your school days…who made the silly faces? Who was the class clown? How many girls are considered the “class clown” when growing up? Wit is appreciated in women, but stooopid antics and slapstick generally aren’t. Never have been. I remember watching made-for-children presentations on stage in Sardinia. The men would walk onstage in funny wigs and do a silly dance while the kids laughed…then, the beautiful women would come up and perform a hula dance. Name a culture, “gynocentric” or “patriarchial” which generally enjoys watching primarily women "clowns" for entertainment. Good luck, I can’t think of any in existence. The reasons for that would probably be a debate in and of itself....

I don't believe that this perceived bias against men in the media would constitute discrimination, as I would define it, but there is a key ingredient that I have witnessed over the last couple of decades: advertising.
For the most part, long gone are the days of the Brawny Man. Today's advertising is probably geared far more towards the female shopper than the male, and the trend of the smarter, in control and attractive female is evident in this genre of television media.
What we see now more often than not is the stereotype of the balding, paunchy, goofy grimaced male who can't seem to figure out how a mop works, or how to pay bills or even how to do that home improvement project on his 'honey-do' list.
There are of course exceptions to this rule, but 'have-it-all-together' women have infiltrated the previously male dominated advertising arena of Home Depot and the like, whereas the same is not true for men being portrayed in commercials of a more domestic bent.
Obviously this is only one segment of the media where men and women are exhibited for popular consumption, but I also will have to disagree a bit with Mrs.. Pigpen's portrayal of women in movies. Without any statistics, and only my viewing history to fall back on, I contend that there are just as many prominent female leads who compare in depth and talent as males, at least recently. As far as being hot is concerned, not being an expert of which male leads are actually hot, I think that looks play into who is selected for roles, of both sexes. It's not as if Steve Buscemi is the mold of male actors in Hollywood......no matter how talented he is (and he is my favorite male actor) he is probably not considered extremely attractive. I believe both sexes of actors are by and large selected as much for their visual appeal as acting talent.

I didn't say that there weren't as many prominent female leads. I said that each and every one of them is beautiful. The message being, you can be powerful and smart, but you must also be beautiful above all. If you aren't beautiful you don't exist.


I like Steve Buscemi, too. He makes the point. He has played many a lead character. Where is his female equivalent? Doesn't exist. My contention being the "metrosexual" (for what it's worth, I would never look twice at any man who called himself a metrosexual and brandished a loofah, but that's a digression) phenomenon, far from proof of a 'gynocentric' culture it's just a slight step towards the other direction for men.

Lucille ball- old school vaudvillian- slapstick humor- possibly more famous and loved than all the male counterparts you mentioned.

Jeanine Garafalo would be an immediate Steve Buscemi - when you talk "leads" instead of "character" actors- they are pretty equal- though few actors/actresses PERIOD are allowed to be "normal" in appearance, as related to what is walking down the street in the US LOL

Though, "black" programing, primarily on UPN, does allow more "body styles" and such- seems to be much more open to "less western" types of beauty LOL

Mrs P- I do the math this way- I change the role of male to female- would it be allowed to run? Would there be a huge outcry of how the role is "abusive" to women? Would it be "inappropriate" to do the same thing to a woman? I am reminded of that Tom Selleck comedy years ago, when the hilariously funny laugh line has him losing a testicle, as part of a gag. Would a woman losing a breat be funny in any context? Men getting kicked in the crotch, or out right losing thier "manhood" is a re-occuring gag line- you have an equivilent for a woman? Is it ever funny when a woman has her uterous ripped out?

Dissecting comedy is what I do on a day to day basis, and I explore this subject heavily in my act- basically making fun of how far the pendulum as swung to anti-male society- gyno-centric in the extreme.

A great example is the very stats you used to illustrate how men harm women or children more- but what is missing from that stat is how under reported those stats are when it comes to women as perps. And how often women will falsely report being abused to get out of punishment for a crime.

I am sitting on a unit last night that had 8 out of 10 patients were female- and all of them claimed abuse as a reason for commiting thier crime, when it is really apparent that they were the abuser all along- BUT_ in our reporting - it looks as though we have 8 abused women on our unit- when, in fact, we have 8 liars and borderline personality disorders on our unit, who are very, very bad poeple, that have gotten away with blaming thier actions on men for a very long time.

There are no shelters for men, no services for men abused by thier SOs, there is no support, no lawyers waiting in the wings for us, no justice for us in court, and the judges automatically believe the women, you have to prove otherwise.

On TV, it is even worse- women are the stoic keepers of the household from idiot fathers. I tis hard to even find a reponsible comedy figure as a male- though the female mom is usually, if not always, the good one in every episode- I know, I have helped write this stuff.!!!

I mentioned her myself as the exception. Yes, Lucy was a great show. It is also nonstandard for the woman to be the glorified slapstick clown. There are far more Jerry Louis types than Lucy types. In school, who made the "funny" obnoxious sounds? Do I really have to elaborate? Is this truly even debateable?


She isn't the lead, she always plays the pretty girl's less cute friend (unless the lead happens to be the character of the pretty girl's less cute friend).



Of course, and this is (again) nothing new. NO revolutionary "change" indicating an increasingly gynocentric society. Slapstick kick-him-in-the-crotch humor is ageless. Again..Three stooges? Jerry Lois? Woman don't partake in this style "humor" and no one would appreciate it if they did. Indeed, change the role of male to female. Woman speaking with her butt cheeks like Jim Carey...woman making fart sounds with her armpit. Funny or gross? Or how about this...men wearing thongs in a woman's magazine, interviewed and claiming that in their spare time, they enjoy slumber parties and pillow fights with other males. "Sometimes things get a little crazy! Tee Hee!" Doesn't work, does it?

Does this indicate that things are gynocentric, patriarchial...or, hey....could it be that women and men are different and that's why society reacts to kick to the crotch humor, or for that matter, maimed and war-marred images of males and females differently.

Cruising Ram did you at all read Mrs. P's response? Did you take note of the difference in the numbers of violence or abuse by gender? Could that perhaps explain why men's abuse shelters are not widespread? Because abuses against men by women is not as widespread? Are you discounting this and feel that it bears no consideration? Or if I read your argument correctly, you seem to be presenting the idea that a large group of women are liars and that perhaps figures and data on women and abuse is in fact false. Well forgive me for not wanting to accept your own personal "experience" as evidence, I think if you wish to present such an insulting view you should have to do so with empirical data.

Oh but you are the comedy dissector, so here dissect this:
Carlson has emblazoned her five favorite words in pink letters on tank tops, T-shirts and spanky pants, which she sells at outdoor street fairs and via her Web site (www.youcumlikeagirl.com). Several months before she started the apparel line, she attempted to register her catch phrase with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). What she got in return was a resounding NO! and a sizable porn collection on her computer hard drive, compliments of our own federal government.

Carlson discovered the unusual gift of porn one morning two months ago when she found four separate pieces of correspondence from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in her personal e-mail account. In each were literally dozens of photographs of women covered in ejaculate and no letter of explanation.

“What does this have to do with my shirt?” Carlson remembers thinking.
link

I been looking for a way to include this story in a debate.


1) How credible do you consider the essential thrust of the article, underlined above, to be?

Not credible.



2) What, specifically, can and should women do in response to this dynamic? (Note that if you disagree with the assessment, then offer a "women's response" that addresses the ""patriarchial myth"" being propagated)
Oh not a loaded question at all, is is just a myth all the patriarchal nonsense. Yet there has never been a female US president or even VP, only 1 woman sits on the US Supreme Court, women only account for 15% of the US Congress and Fortune 500 board seats..interesting how those numbers correlate. Women on average are paid 76% of what men are, we call this pay equity, something we have yet to achieve. Female headed households have the the largest rate of poverty in the US...gee maybe that extra 24% would help out. And this is all in the USA, things are MUCH much worse for women around the world.
But forget all that, because the guy on Scooby Doo is a moron.


For some reason the spellchecker hacked my post to bits!

1) How credible do you consider the essential thrust of the article, underlined above, to be?

Not very. The fundamental assumption is that what shows up in popular media shapes a man's self-image from birth to death.

Um, wrong. The popular media is made up of fictions, mostly, with news reporting that doesn't care that little Billy got a hand up after spilling his bicycle from an older neighborhood boy, and that little Billy remembers that act of kindness and camaraderie until his dying day.

Big Bill made it a point to always offer a hand up to whomever took a spill. Yeah, I'm making this up, so it's fiction. But it's based on life experience, not media, and I bet if an author took the time to craft a story around the premise, readers would find it convincing. That's because these little instances often impact our lives deeply and permanently.

What shows up in the media is given way too much power by those who don't try to figure out the real world from, well, the real world.

2) What, specifically, can and should women do in response to this dynamic? (Note that if you disagree with the assessment, then offer a "women's response" that addresses the "patriarchial myth" being propagated)

I object to being told to give a woman's response simply because I disagree with this article. For one, I'm not a woman, so it's pretty difficult for me to give that perspective. For another, there's an underlying false assumption that all men will agree with this article. I do not.

[sliding the old soap box forward and taking a step up] How a man becomes what he is in life is equally as complex as how a woman becomes what she is. There's the equality among the sexes. We're both members of really complex groups in the larger group of complex homo sapiens.

Beyond that statement, a great deal of research needs to be done on each individual. If one explores biographies of both men and women in history, the difficulty of figuring out any individual becomes clear. Another exercise that I do regularly is trying to figure out what makes a fictional character tick. That's a lot easier because I get to make it up, but if the character is to be believable (be-liveable?), the fiction has to be based on actual real world observations, both of others and of self.

This brings up the regular use of stereotypes in reality and, especially, in fiction. A man would behave this and that way, a woman that and this way. Well, there are always exceptions, right? But if you're honest with yourself, expectations pop up based on stereotypes. The exceptions will be surprises, and I've been told as much: "You're surprisingly different than most other men."

Okay, not sure what that means, but okay. Now what? Do I get laid?



"Whell. You are just a man!"

Guilty. So do I get laid or not? Want another drink or four?

stomp-stomp-stomp, slam!

Alright, what just happened? A woman got my full attention for a period of time. This often happens with writers, and due to this 100 percent attention, I was different than most men. No kidding! I pay attention. I'm writing characters based on this interview. You're doing all the talking. Maybe you're interesting enough for a heroine, maybe not. Whatever, I'm horny. How about it? And so I reinforced the stereotype that all men really want is sex, which is often the case, and of course that the use of alcohol can grease the sheets, so to speak. Eh, that's a lousy image, but what the hey.

So the stereotype does fit, but not all the way. That's pretty much true for everyone, with notable exceptions where someone doesn't fit any stereotype. Unfortunately, and interesting as these people tend to be, they'd make unbelievable fictional characters.

A closing soap box statement: The media might help build stereotypes, but reality is what builds the person, male or female. Just how this happens is hard to analyze.

What should women do about it? I don't know, accept the drinks? Gad, am I disgusting or what. Really though, both men and women have to take this on one individual at a time. Screw the media. They don't know anything, except what sells. And I guess women shouldn't make the assumption that 100 percent attention from a man really means anything romantically. He could be a dastardly writer with only one thing on his mind, besides the writing part.

The opposite can be said too, that men need to take women on one individual at a time. I think this is the basis of relationships, individuals relating to one another as unique humans among a mass of humanity. Watch out for the guy who lets you do all the talking. Believe me, he isn't all that interested in a relationship. It's either getting laid or writing characters, or both. If he's got relationship on his mind, he will want to talk too, even desperately.

But then I'm making an assumption that all women want relationships. Ach!

Before I address the issue at hand, I feel compelled to respond to this statement.

If your only concern is the sheer number of human beings who populate this planet, then your best strategy is to throw out every vestige of egalitarianism and keep half of the species enslaved. However, if you have any concern at all with the quality of human life -- if you wish for something other than a world of misery and ignorance -- then you must accept the benefits of the emancipation of women. A low birth rate -- the freedom to choose to limit the number of children one brings into this world -- is one of the great triumphs of modern technology and modern social progress.

Back to the main discussion.

This article makes some valid points, but is somewhat overdramatic. There is no doubt at all that men can be the victims of sexist stereotyping, and that such portrayals should be spoken out against by feminists. I reject the notion that there is a "gender war" in any reasonably free society. If you want to see a real gender war, take a look at those oppressive societies where women are less than human beings.

What should women (and men, of course) do about the unfair treatment of men in media? Speak out against it, and offer the truth about human beings. Celebrate virtue whenever it appears. It is certainly possible to continue the great progress that has been made in the relationship between the sexes without making men the "enemy" in any way.

I agree with Victoria that there are some valid points in the article – but it is to overdramatic. Further, I agree with Mrs. Pigpen and Bucket that sexual stereotyping is much worse for women than men. I also agree with Mrs. Pigpen that female credibility is still sadly associated with the male gaze of beauty – and this is even more rooted in the media because of plastic surgery.

However, with this said, I do think that Crusing ram does bring up an issue of more media bashing of men – comparing it to men over the last 10-20 years. Perhaps I am missing something, but there seems to be more and more jokes regarding the size of a man’s penis. Further, there seems to be more media oriented toward how the penis can be a place for women to assert female power – both in making fun of men with small penises or inflicting physical pain by kicking or grabbing men. I’m going strictly from memory and personal experience – and I know memory and personal experience has limitations – but it seems to me that female credibility is still related to physical beauty and breast size. However, in the past ten years or so male credibility seems to be more associated in the media with physical beauty (e.g., muscular) and penis size via talk (not visual). Although I find this focus on male worth via penis size and physical attractiveness very disturbing for multiple reasons – one for which is that I am raising four sons and I want to teach them to respect women and men for internal attributes (e.g., intelligence, hard work ethic, empathy, humor) rather than physical attributes – I just find it disturbing seeing a man squirming around helpless because a women has a hold of his testicles in a public space. This only will harm gender relations. However, at the same time I think men deserve a turning-of-the-tables because of the harsh treatment men have rendered on women (e.g., defining female worth by breast size) and seeing women squirming helpless due to rape. However, at the same time I do not think two wrongs make a right.

The one area I do disagree with is both the implicit and explicit suggestion that feminist are behind the gender war. As a male who has interacted with different feminist, I simply can’t lump sum them all together. There are some that do hate men, but there are others that love men and gender and would resist any notion of gender war – regardless of male or female bashing. Although I do not know this, I think more of the problem lies still with men in position of power who are now trying to captivate an audience by creating gender wars – for whatever reasons people tend to watch media that has a gender violence nexus.

My answer to the situation is similar to Victoria’s – speak up against in various forms. I also think having media literacy/education classes in a K-12 curriculum would be helpful. Also, I have personally tried to stay away from the media. Although I still watch an occasional movie and TV show, my wife and I have very little interaction with the media. I know this does not help resist a societal issue, but it does give respite from an individualistic perspective. Instead, we simply try to take our time and volunteer it toward what we consider good causes. It is much better than watching the media.

1) How credible do you consider the essential thrust of the article, underlined above, to be?

Not very. For every schlub in a crappy sitcom, there is a Keifer Sutherland (Jack Bauer-24), Sam Waterston (Jack McCoy-Law and Order), Dennis Farina (Joe Fontana-L&O), Christopher Meloni (Elliott Stabler-L&O SVU), Anthony LaPaglia (Jack Malone), Vincent D’Onofrio (Bobby Goren-L&O CI), Hugh Laurie (House) any man in the CSI franchise, the Cold Case men, etc. etc. The networks are lousy with men’s men (and an inordinate number seem to be named “Jack”…wonder what that’s all about?? )

2) What, specifically, can and should women do in response to this dynamic? (Note that if you disagree with the assessment, then offer a "women's response" that addresses the "patriarchial myth" being propagated)

Just a look at 2 franchise shows; Law and Order and CSI, shows a dynamic mix of male and female characters. I would assert that the male and female “leads” (if you can figure out just which ones those might be) are portrayed equally well/badly, depending on the story arc. On the other hand, you have the incredibly stupid-sounding Till Death (or whatever it’s called) starring the guy from Seinfeld; something I wouldn’t watch in a million years. Sitcoms are supposed to be stupid, I guess, but it’s something I don’t enjoy. Watching doofus male characters and harpy female characters is like listening to someone running their fingernails down a chalkboard. My favorite male character on TV right now is House. One could argue both ways with his character; he’s scruffy, abrasive, rude, condescending, etc., or he’s funny, brilliant, more than a little vulnerable, and a challenge. His character is someone both men and women can relate to.


Most of the obsession with penis size seems to come mainly from, well - not to put too fine a point on it -you.

Lets face it : women and men will never have a parallel role in society. I am literally the only male where I work (which btw the average paychecks around here are pretty high), but when I goto national guard drill (were I dont get paid as much btw), it's overwhelmingly male. Why? There's absolutely no restrictions on female enlistment (other than infantry I believe) that isn't just as fair for the men - even the PT standards are lower for female's. It's because we are genetically different to take on certian roles. If you have ever looked into the religion Wicca, they actually accept this fact and embrace it. Instead of attempting to have parallel roles, they simply encourage self-empowerment in which the roles they do excel at. Women have been able to choose our political leader's for a long time as well as men, they have also been able to create their own business for a long time. Heck they even have specific loans that can be offered to female's for small businesses.

I somewhat agree with the article in the respect that our culture is changing. Entertainment venue's are simply a reflection of our society otherwise they wouldn't stay in business.

I don't believe there is a gender war on a large scale against males or females.

Even in predominantly female occupations, males still earn more. I think the only exception is pornography and/or the sex industry.

I think people try and disown and misrepresent the importance of gender issues, and more specifically advocation towards women's issues by presenting the argument as the above. No one wants things to be totally equal without any trait or hint to any kind of difference. I think diversity is a high valued cause that in fact coincides with women's issues not opposes it.

And having been a woman who worked in an exclusive male profession myself I do have some indication or understanding why women are more apprehensive or less inclined to insist on inclusion. It is hard to go against what stereotypes, biases and preconceptions a great majority of the your society believes in and so often insists on.

And I think this above argument is slightly insulting..women are not in a shared position in political power because we are genetically not intended for such a role? Are women also genetically made to be poor? Is that why so many more women live in poverty, genetic destiny? So we are different, yeah I grasped that concept when I was about 2 yrs old, but so what? What does that really matter in a progressive, democratic society that projects social equality and places importance on human rights? See how it is human, not male and female, rights

You still haven't shown any evidence that the reason female's do not have as much income is because "they are female so a male doesnt want to give them a job/raise". Qualifications, experience, education : aren't those the main factors employers base there decisions on? I think females blow up the "its because im female" bit... ive heard women tell me they were turned down jobs b/c they are female... and I ask how they know with the typical responce "I just gotta a feeling" "that guy was a pig" or w/e. Well I get turned down for jobs to does that mean it's because im a white male? ... cause I got a feeling it is.... Although im sure that it does happen occasionally... and im sure women get hired because they are female occasionally.

Yes im saying women are not shared, in the majority, as the face of the political parties because of our differences. How many women apply for political positions as opposed to men? How many women can vote? I believe that women just arent as pro-active in politics as men. For example this message board, whats the male/female ratio? I can't really say for sure but to me it seems there are more men, if not certianly more posts from men than women. Is it because there's some guy saying no you cant post on that board! Or is it because females just arent as attracted to the subject enough to run for office as much as males are?

Take this chart for example.

http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/Research/Repor...ookofStates.pdf

1991-2000 female elected candidates rose by 10%

2001-2004 female elected candidates dropped by 4%

Now was this due to the great male conspiracy made a comeback the past few years? Or is it because female's just werent as interested as the males so it steadied out around 25%? Now this is not to say that men are better at it, just more attracted to it. Men tend to be more aggressive and want to prove to the world that they are the big dog - genetic differences.

As far as women being poor, I can't say for sure but I don't believe that it is because men want women to live in poverty. This is a trend across the globe, not just the US.

What type of rights do I have exactly that you dont have?

Hannity echos Dr. Laura’s sentiments-blame it all on women
By: John Amato @ 5:22 PM - PDT
Sean Hannity blames all problems of sex on women these days. Why should a man be burdened with controlling himself. It’s not surprising to hear a right wing talk show host take it out on them, after all–they look sooo good. When are these extreme Christian men going to take some responsibility for anything relating to sex? Do you think Sean was a good boy as he grew up? Listening to him and watching FOX news–it’s all Rosie’s fault anyway. I wonder if Sean ever said, " Baby we shouldn’t do this, but you’re such a promiscuous little thing and I am so absolved in God’s eyes. You on the other hand are full of sin."

Audio-MP3 (http://movies.crooksandliars.com/hannity-christian%20sex.mp3)

Hannity: "–men, their nature, some people take issue with it but that’s neither here nor there."

Vampiel:

I find your last e-mail shocking – especially the part where you are asking Bucket for evidence regarding female discrimination. What planet are you living on? There are so many studies that highlight that women are treated as inferior in employment, life services (e.g., health), and income – everything from lawyers, parks and recreation administrators, engineers, Walmart employees, professors, firefighters, and so forth. Here are two readings that highlight this:

Schulman, K. A., Berlin, J. A., Harless, W., Kerner, J. F., Sistrunk, S., Gersh, B. J., Dube, R., Taleghani, C. K., Burke, J. E., Williams, S., Eisenberg, J. M., and Escarce, J. J. (1999). The effect of race and sex on physicians’ recommendations for cardiac catheterization. New England Journal of Medicine, 340(8), 618-626.


This study highlights how female (and African-American’s) patients receive poorer medical treatment. That is, they are discriminated in basic medical practice.

Beauchamp B. R. (2002). In defense of affirmative action. In S. M. Cahn (Ed.), The affirmative action debate (pp. 145-152). New York: Routledge.

This article provides sweeping explanations and statistics regarding employment, housing, income, etc., and underscores how women are constantly discriminated against in these areas.

To me, the genetic argument is a pathetic way to shrug off personal responsibility that is needed to live in a democratic society. It is genetics, rather than the choices of men (and women) that have caused women to be treated as “less than.” I disagree and would suggest that more men need to become aware of their own roles in male privilege and the history of maleness in North American society.

Dafffygr:

I am not sure what to make of your comments regarding my concern about male penis size jokes related to male objectification. However, when I have raised this issue in other places (in person and on other websites) I am usually meet with three basic responses. The first is a joking response – such as yours. Perhaps this is a response from a lower-developed ego where male body objectification is trivialized. The second response is laughing – and in connecting it to jokes – could be related to superiority and enjoyment in seeing this happened to men. The third response is an argument ad hominem – where people actually think I argue against both male and female body objectification because I must have a small penis or I am intimidated by women with large breasts. These are weak arguments that are completely innacurate. Can you elaborate on your comment? Further, beyond Daffygr, I’m curious if other people see this topic like I do or in a different light?

I was not making a joke; I was making an observation. As hard as I tried, I couldn't find anything related to penis size in the source article the originator posted. It's a subject that you keep bringing up whenever there is a gender issue. Can you cite any actual instances of penis size jokes on TV (not cable, where anything goes, but regular network TV)? I sincerely doubt any exist...if they did, I'm sure the so-called moral majority would have a coronary and studio heads would roll.

Does the unrealistic body ideal bother me? Personally, not really; I'm way past the stage where I yearn to look like some skinny bimbo with pneumatic breasts on my favorite TV show (like it'd ever happen anyway - ) - now I just want to stuff a cheeseburger in her face! It does bother me that young girls see it and do yearn for something so freakishly unrealistic. Am I going to lose any sleep over it or start a movement? Eh, probably not. I do find it humorous that men are now crying about unrealistic stereotypes: WELCOME TO OUR WORLD, GUYS!

It's up to parents to make kids feel good about their bodies and themselves.

Rbb I never said that women have not been discriminated against. However I do not believe that there is currently any type of widespread discrimination against women. Just because some numbers may point in that direction, you have to go much more in depth to see the main cause of those numbers.

For example :

http://www.izix.com/pro/bias/women.php



Thats a 5% difference with those factors added. Also was it the same company? If not did that company have enough money to pay them the same salary as another company? Were women as aggressive asking for raises? What was their job performance like? Why did they make less, was it discrimination?

Here's some more information :

http://money.cnn.com/2006/02/21/commentary/everyday/sahadi/



50%, 33%, 25%, 15%, 10% - who knows? What is it?

According to SBA, women were slightly less likely to be approved for a small bussiness loan.

Or we can take a look at Dr. Warren Farrell's book for an explanation.

http://www.martynemko.com/pub/articles/wom...-earn-more.shtm



The last part in the bold solidifies the genetic arguement as well as reference to my political arguement in my previous post. It's a fact we are different and we are good at different things. Maybe men are just better at making money in different types of jobs than women, and women are better at other things like rearing children and social support which is just as if not more important than the latter. Now this may seem very stereotypical/chauvinistic of me, but it does have alot of truth to it, and what's wrong with that? This is a total generalization of course that is much more complex and each person is well - their own person. I know discrimination does happen, ive seen it. I've also been discriminated against growing up in a black neighborhood being white oh yeah there's discrimination.

All im saying is that there's so many different ways of looking at these numbers, and that some women tend to make the excuse of discrimination when in reality it isn't.

Sounds like someone might be blaming women... they are not aggressive enough, they perform poorly.



ugh, dr. Farrell. Feminists, yes I said the F word, are familiar with this expert. He has been thoroughly discussed, debated and investigated. I personally feel he pursues an argument much like yours above, so no surprise your google searches picked him up, he wrote the book titled "Myth of Male Power" after all. He advocates the idea that women are to blame for their wage gap, women get pregnant, women have more responsibility at the home, women are the predominate caretakers, women pursue careers less valued by our society, women don't get invited to go golfing or to smoke cigars, women's careers are often secondary to their partners. It's all the fault of the women and their "choices".

I don't appreciate this man's contribution to this debate much, and I am in fact quite grossed out by his ideological view, and feel he is not the least bit credible.
Read this if you have the stomach for it:
INCEST: THE LAST TABOO

Vampiel:

First off, I find most of your references to be non-credible. You are marshalling evidence via website. Both you and I could create a website and write about anything we want. In fact, my neighbor kids, who is 12, just created his own website. Although I agree with Bucket in her argument, she also used a Penthouse article for support – I do not find Penthouse or website like CNN to be credible. These are popular entertainment oriented sites, which purposely use controversial issues – like gender – to create readership. In regard to the two articles I refered to, one is an academic peered reviewed journal and the other an academic reviewed textbook (however, the original article by Beauchamp was published in the Journal of Ethics an academic peered reviewed journal and then reprinted in an Affirmative Action book). Hence, I disagree with you on the grounds of the source – websites, which in my mind are quite worthless.

With this said, I do want to make a few comments about Dr. Farrell. Although I do think Dr. Farrell is a credible thinker – during the latter part of his career he has gone “Hollywood” and is spending more time on talk shows making money than interacted with real academic institutions or writing real academic type books. For example, the publisher AMACON – which is a private profit arm of the American Management Association – funded his book “Why men make more”. As such, my opinion is that (1) his book never went through an academic review (peer or non-peer) and like websites, anyone can make claims without the safety net of a review process, and (2) this organization is profit driven and such a book – due to its controversial nature – can make quite a bit of money for both the author and the publisher. The research and statistics are worthless due to a no academic review process. To this end, I do not find Dr. Farrell later work to be credible – he, like Dr. Phil, are professor who have done Hollywood to make huge amounts of money. As Bentrad Bertrand Russell suggested over fifty years ago, that when evaluating philosophical ideas and its related research, it is always wise to know who pays the philosopher or researcher.

Daffygr:

I was not referring to just the article – I was extrapolating beyond it to gender wars throughout society. Although you are accurate that I have brought up the issue of penis size in other threads – I have made many other comments in other threads also (e.g., myth of mental illness) and find the topic relevant -- especially here as it relates to crusing ram’s concern about male objectification.

I use to think that the penis size jokes were minor until a male friend of mine told me how much he dislikes them and challenged me to really pay attention. I then realized they are more widespread than most people think. Further, I have also paid attention due to wanting to know how popular culture will affect my sons. Here is a sampling of penis size jokes I’ve noticed over the past few years:

· Female characters in both TV show Ally McBeal and Sex in the City explicitly dumping men because their penises were to small. Likewise, jokes about small penises in episodes of Steinfield.
· Erectile dysfunction TV commercials where the emphasis is not on correcting the health problem – but impressing others with a large erection
· Movies – such as the Fantastic Four (when Mr. Fantastic is asked by a group of sexy female reports if he can make any parts of his body enlarge) or Must Love Dogs (where actress Diane Lane finally decides to use a website for looking for a man and requests a man with a big one).
· Most TV sports on TV and associated sport language like “Get it up” or “we smash them hard” in football – with an implicitly message about being bigger
· All sorts of website dedicated to penis size debates and comparisons (I realize these are sappy sites – but they do exist). There are even large penis support group sites which are nothing more than to brag and put down men with smaller penises.
· Popular magazines and TV commercials such as advertising such as Chevrolets “Longest (care) in the lot” or Cosmopolitan surveys on the actual issies on penis size.

These are just the small size issues – there are show that also underscore how women can grab or kick men in the penis area. Likewise, there is sexual objectification when men have bigger penises, which are also harmful. All I was trying to suggest is Crusing ram did have some merit to his post regarding the issue of male objectiveness. I think it is more widespread than you think. But at the same time, I also was to re-emphasis that I realize that sex objectification is much, much worse to women – but it does happen to men. That is all I’m trying to communicate.

Not poorly, but not as well at certian jobs. I figured out that men could do certian things and women could do certian things better when I was like 2.



So what part of this arguement is false?



CNN can't be created overnight and many of the website's I linked did not argue my point of view but yours. I just took the information and explained it from a different perspective, did you even read them?

Dr. Warren Farrell (who was also listed as one of the top 100 thinkers by financial times) studied the information from the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Im not going to ardently defend it because I haven't read the book but seeing as to how the findings were aired on 20/20 and printed in the New York Times I would assume he listed the sources in his book and are at least somewhat credible.

So some feminists says he's crazy - im shocked.

Anyone who is ever curious as to why there are so few females who participate here in political discussions, this thread is a very good indication.

rbb, you misunderstand the point I was making for offering the Penthouse article. I would never ever support or wish to present the views of that article as something I believe is true or am in agreement on. That is an article Warren Farrell wrote that advocates not only incest but pedophilia. I think this article discredits him as someone who could contribute, campaign and be truly concerned for the rights of others. And in fact I think it gives us a very creepy insight into what exactly motivates this man and his thinking on men's rights. I think to consider his views honestly and to then have a debate honestly about where they lead us we are obligated to see where they come from.





So men are better at all the higher paying jobs then, well that works out pretty conveniently. Is that how your argument goes? Where are you taking us and where do you base such "figurings" on? You are not still employing your infantile logic to this day are you?


So self assured. The argument is false in assuming that all these factors are conditions and choices that women are in total and complete control of.



So it takes only a feminist to consider someone who advocates a father having sex with his daughter to be crazy? I hadn't really considered distaste for his views as being biased, thought it was fairly well accepted as being crazy and disgusting universally. Why are you still defending this man?


I had forgotten about something I wished to address from a previous post of yours..


You seem to not understand the concept of rights as how we advocate it in a liberal democracy. Rights are not just had in society. They have to be advocated for, ensured, fought for, won and protected. You and I have needs for different rights in accordance to our position in society. The law often recognizes imbalances and attempts to correct inequalities. For example...Women are, by proven statistics, not the rantings of madman, less likely to provide for and achieve financial independence. Our society should concern itself with this inequality because of the role women play in our society..often the sole caretakers of children. You seem unaffected by this as you feel poverty of women, which also means poverty of children is a universal truth and not something a society itself has any responsibility to..you said "As far as women being poor, I can't say for sure but I don't believe that it is because men want women to live in poverty. This is a trend across the globe, not just the US."
You seem to be under the delusion that things are as they are, that we are not the creators of our social structures, that we have not for ourselves defined what is a right in our society and what is not and you seem to believe that by nature we just govern. But that is not true, we govern by our own construct and women and children's rights are one of the things that defines our culture, our government and our nation from others.

Bucket:

First off, my apology. I did not realize this was an article by Dr. Farrell and did not understand your position. I think your strategy is right on – any professor writing in Penthouse has lost his credibility. It is probably because his academic work would not be published in academic journals.

Daffygr:

I had one additional thought. In regard to Crusing ram comments, why is cracking jokes about penis size (especially small) or seeing men become weak via his penis (kicking, grabbing) considered funny? To me, it more disturbing than funny. I have my own thoughts, which align to male sexual objectification, (talk and action rather than visual) but am curious about yours? Further, if this question is not relevant – I am willing to start another topic or have dialogue via private messages. As a male I want to make sure I do not take over to change a serious female issues to concern over male issues (which many men do when dealing with female sexual objectification topics). The original issue was about what women should do about media misandry -- not men.

Oh yes thats why Bucket because there are so many threads just like this all over the place and so many men defending my stance. I know im on shacky ground because women don't like to hear this type of arguement, im just calling it how I see it. I could say that there are alot of black people in prison because they tend to cause more crime and would be called racist.

Im not racist nor chauvinistic just realistic.

Instead of explaining why im wrong you just attack my character because you don't like were my logic is leading and cant seem to accept it. That's fine but you still havent explained to me why im wrong other than "no women can do those things just as good as men". Even though you admitted we are different - work better at different things. How many women are good with computers compared to men? Computer related fields are one of the highest paying jobs in the US.



They aren't. I never said women were in control of them. Women are pre-ordained with the blessing and burden of birth which is root cause of much of the points.



Honestly I didn't read it because of the penthouse reference which anything relating to that wouldn't be a good thing to do on this particular computer, but I will be sure to later. My apologies...



Im really not sure were you are going with this. Are you saying that women are not also the creators of our social structures?

rbb, I think a lot of your complaints are mainly a backlash from women who have been judged by their physical attributes (or lack thereof) for DECADES. Most of the stuff you mention is on cable or pay TV, and while yes, that's media also, I don't believe it's comparable to media available to everyone (i.e. free, or network). As for kicking/grabbing men in that sensitive area, that is also a maneuver that has its basis in men using their superior strength to subdue women, and women finally getting fed up with being victims, and using strategy to attack back (since in most cases we can't use superior strength). And, oh, yeah, men do it to each other when they fight, and little kids always manage to smack their daddies in the gonads occasionally (if America's Funniest Home Videos is any indication), so how exactly is this an issue?

You guys are just as guilty for "stupid male" stereotypes...look what's in movie theaters these days "Jackass Number Two" was made by men about men, and if that doesn't just fry your grits, I don't know what would.

I don't get insecure about my sexuality when I see female characters portrayed as too old (like over 25), frigid, or too ugly to consider having sex with (there is a scene in Nip/Tuck that absolutely made me cringe, tho...had to do with an average looking woman and a paper bag), or inferior because their breasts are too big/too small/not perky enough, etc. Good grief, I'd never go out of the house if that were the case.

I'm sorry if I sound insensitive, but men need to get over it. Regardless of women's hard-won successes in business, men still control the media and men still set the standards for beauty and desirability (do you think women would bother with all that nether region shaving and trimming if not for what men consider sexy?...which is really kind of creepy if you stop and think about it.).

Just a thought regarding beauty standards. This year, fashion shows in Spain are banning 'ultra-thin' models. Many, many men who make decisions in the fashion industry are gay (Tom Ford, Jean-Paul Gaultier, Halston, Marc Jacobs, to name a few)... Thing is, what men find those paper-thin waifs attractive? I've never, ever heard a man say that an 80-pound runway model was 'hot.'

Perhaps the models are meant to look like boys intentionally, due to the taste of the designer. Look at any gay magazine and you'll see the glorification of the young boy look. Ick.

bucket, even in like fields, women can make less "for the same job" due to family / work trade-offs. In medicine, for example, men are much more likely to be surgeons, while women more likely to demand predictable hours to handle their family needs (generalizing a bit here). In business, gender-equity in MBA programs is a pretty recent phenomenon, so female executives are mostly under 40, and certainly under 50. That 10 - 20 years of experience will vault them up the earnings ladder, especially given family-friendly programs at larger companies. Of course, I've met a handful of CEO's and most are working 24 / 7, driven and have all of those alpha-male characteristics. However, disciplines like Marketing seems predominantly female, and they make pretty big bucks in my experience.

rbb
No you are right it is not an article he wrote but was interviewed for. It is not that he wrote it but said it. I am sorry for all the confusion, I suppose they could have misquoted him...a lot, and profusely, but I doubt it.

And rbb I don't doubt men are sexually abused and mistreated and overly sexualized in some instances, I just think it happens to women a lot, too much, where it is more of a problem and concern. I had a manager grab my crotch at work, and yet I never saw him grab any of the men's crotches at work, none.



I do not believe I have skirted or avoided answering any or your questions or addressing any of your points. I agreed we are different, who ever said we are not, you tried to misrepresent my argument as being one that denies gender and denies diversity. I am trying to explain to you that advocation for women's rights is not a demand or belief that gender is irrelevant. In fact quite the opposite as it so often focuses on the exclusive rights and needs of women.
You seem to be under the impression that men are just by nature more capable of earning more, having more value in our society and more wealth. That this is a man's "pre-ordained" - to use your own term, role in our society. Is it? Are we just victims of our birth or has our social structures been designed and formed around the idea that men are better? I am sorry but I don't accept the idea that women are so much more of an inferior sex, and so much more less important and so much less valuable to account for the wage gap, to account for only 15% participation in the political and corporate structures of our society.

And you certainly have not proven this to be true, most everything Mr. Farrell has claimed has been disputed or as rbb pointed was never peer reviewed. The rest of your data supported the fact there is a wage gap.



I would imagine some women would cringe at having to read that. Not all women desire or ever even have children.
That is a choice, a choice I might add that is not exclusive to women as it takes both sexes to make a baby! I also wonder how a sterile woman would interpret that comment.

Reproduction rights, or as many call it choice, is a construct of our society. We have circumvented our preconditions and have for many years now been demanding the access and ability to choose our own destinies. This is one of the cornerstones of the women's right movement in this country and something that even tho we have the medical ability to control are still not often afforded the right to control. You are again making the argument that by nature, that again we are just acting not out of free will but predestine, when in fact we socially have created the tools and ability to give ourselves choice, but are we always affored it?

I also fail to see how the physical ability to have a baby makes you better at housework, or making dinner, or running chores, or caring for children. Once a baby is born and weaned from it's mother I don't think either sex is better or more skilled to care for it. I would imagine most men feel they are as good a parent as their wife.



Obviously they are not having an equal role as "creator". Were there any women who helped draft and sign the Constitution? With a paltry 15% of women lawmakers, no female president, only 8 women governors I don't see how we can claim that women even have a strong role in our nation's political system.
Or with women accounting for 26.3% of the judgeships on state courts of last resort, 19.2% of federal district court judgeships, 20.1% of federal appellate judgeships, and 22.2% of the U.S. Supreme Court.link So I don't see how again we can claim a shared, equal role for women in creating our legal system.
Or the fact that women do not receive equal pay or are more unlikely to accumulate wealth is, as the others, an indication that women are not fully and comparably acting as creators in our economic system.



You know carlito, I don't wish to downplay anyone's lack of fair and full compensation for equal work, but I don't necessarily concern myself or perhaps I should say advocate for government involvement with the higher paying, education required, wealth generating jobs. Of course I want this pay gap to cease to exist across the board, but I feel it is most urgent for women who that 24% difference could in fact bring them (and their kids!) above poverty level.

Skill trade professions and women are not exactly friendly, in fact all can fairly be considered predominantly male professions..mechanic, chef, electrician, plumber, firemen, postmen, garbage man, construction worker.

If you can not follow the argument I am making, I am very tired, I will try again another day.

Bucket the figures I showed can argue either way. Either 1) discrimination 2) genetic differences.

The discrimination argument can be made easily. I've also offered an alternate explanation in which you have not explained why it is incorrect. The fact that the gap decreased when factored in education and experience seems to support my argument, as well as the political percentages that I have provided.

I think you know that your comment about women not being as prominent on this board because of "threads like this" is not true. These type's of threads are very rare on this board in comparison to the overall thread count.

Also you are placing superiority on the dollar, which is what I believe to be your main fallacy. Were does the real power lay in societies.. money or impact on our children?



What rights and needs? Do women need more right's than males? What rights do I have that you do not??



Caveman brings home food, cavewomen care for children.

Again you are gauging superiority by means of the dollar. You do know that the pen is mightier than the sword right?



HOW??? How have I ever asserted that? Because we make more money and are the face of political parties? Does that automatically make us superior?

You asserted that not me.



Ok so dont have children or care for them.... That choice is entirely up to you.



Again this is a decision to be made by both parties. There is absolutely no law that states women have to do such "chores".



Bucket... what do you suggest we do? Women can run for office this day in age just as well as males. Should we afford women more rights than males? Should we have a quota so we make sure there are just as many women?

That seems a bit ridiculous to me.

How is this relevant? I would hope, the Geico commercial aside, that we’ve advanced beyond the cave era.

Just out of curiosity, why is “caveman” singular and “cavewomen” plural?

Vampiel:

First off, as male I am against your argument. Not all males agree with you! I find most males do not listen to issues related to gender because they have the most to lose – historically men have been privileged in society (e.g., discrimination in hiring) that still exists today. By accepting past wrongs, men today would have to realize that much of their privileged position came from sociological forces (which would hurt their egos) and would have to deal with the ethical tension of knowing they should fix a historical problem that still affects both genders today. A much easier and protective line of reasoning is to lay the blame on genetics (like you do) or blame women – it is a great way to (1) thwart personal responsibility, (2) maintain male privedges, and (3) protect shallow egos.

Furthermore, I find your comments to be very individualistic, rigid, and superficial (e.g. women are pre-ordained) and gives little attention to history and sociology – which underscore how gender today is an interaction of multiple variables (e.g., political forces, poverty, genetics, economics, religion, historical social policy, male privileges, health forces, and so forth). It is not as simply as “genetics.” For example, the reason why there are more African Americans in prison and women are still being treated “less than” is due to the history of poverty, slavery, and lack of rights that still has serious consequences still today. There are still African-American children and grandchild that live in poverty due to American’s racist policies during the 1950s and 60’s (and even slavery), who end up becoming criminals due to no other options (e.g., stealing to feed their children). It takes generations to move toward equality. Hence, your realism needs to have greater breadth in its gaze and see the realistic aspects of past history – rather than taking complex issues and simply individualizing them or blaming “genetics”.

Also, just because there are laws of equality for men and women today – does not mean that women still have equal treatment. Again, it takes generations to change gender inequality. For example, I know men who have picked a woman for a menial job (e.g., secretary at a car dealership) simply because she has larger breasts and they want to look at them and entice male customers. I also know men who have joked about not hiring women. Men need to realize this is a real problem and women will need to not act in a revengeful way or in a backlash. For example, I also have had women tell me they get a real rush in being superior to men in organization management (e.g., laughter at small penis jokes) and I also know of women who use their breasts as weapons of power in organizations. It will take both men and women to work together in good faith efforts. However, again, I think this is going to take generations to fix – and it may never happen. It is sad.

Daffygr:

I agree with you on most things. I agree that the penis size and grabbing behavior in popular culture – and the associated laughter – is a backlash against decades of men treating women as “less than” in all areas of life. I also agree that today men still primarily control beauty standards and the media.

I am not sure why you were commented that “you guys are guilty of stupid men” – I never suggested otherwise, did I? I agree that men are also to blame and I actually think, in general, that men are disgusting humans that seem to be more associated with cro-magnum types (not all – just many). I also see how men are also to blame about penis size and grabbing behavior in popular culture (male sexual objectification). Although somewhat embarrassed, I can share past male stories and marshal evidence regarding how men are more to blame than women regarding the various issues I’ve brought up (e.g., past penis size contests, or my son telling me in junior high that boys walk down the hall and attempt to punch other boys in the sensitive area). Males also sexual objectify males – no doubt about it. However, I find that when women do it to men – there is a more pervasiveness to it. This is strictly a personal opinion and value – I have no research to back it up. To me it is disturbing because (1) as some feminist scholars suggest, it underscores a “female-like-male” model – where women need to take on historically male traits to be viewed as credible, and (2) I find that because so many men view the penis with such importance (which I believe is part of a male sickness that I hope I have overcome) that more and more women commenting about the importance of penis size will cause so many low ego cro-magnum men to become even more aggressive about having a larger penis. And as a father, I do not want my son’s to adopt such pathetic and harmful notions. And although I can understand the backlash – two wrongs do not make a right. Just because men and boys do these things to men and boys, does not justify it.

Do I make sense?


Bucket:

I agree with you and I’m sorry to hear about being grabbed in the crotch. So many men are unrespectful cro-magnum types. I hope you reported him. And in no way to undermine this sensitive issues that you shared – and I know it happens much, much more to women – but had a women grab my crotch in a high school situation, which was not appreciated. It does happened to men also – but in no way am I trying to undermine your thoughts – I know it is much more severe and frequent for women.

1) How credible do you consider the essential thrust of the article, underlined above, to be?

Tell me, why is the question about the "thrust" of the article, rather than the focus of the article...hmm?

Could it be that men are doing a number on themselves?

You know, you can't go very far in advertising and entertainment without ruffling somebody's feathers, but before I fob this question off with a dismissive "deal with it" as women have received from the male gender for so many years regarding comparable worth and prejudices designed to keep the "fair" sex in its rightful place,

I'll consider it seriously.

While I do not think that there is a concerted effort underway to demean the traditional view of the male gender, I do think that whoever writes the screenplays, casts the characters, and produces movies, television programs and commercials doesn't give a rat's [butt] about the perception of men that is foisted upon the consumer public apart from whether it is going to line the coffers significantly.

Yay, Capitalism! You care nothing about others apart from how much money they can make for you! Yet we still treat you as Holy Writ handed down from Heaven...


2) What, specifically, can and should women do in response to this dynamic? (Note that if you disagree with the assessment, then offer a "women's response" that addresses the "patriarchial myth" being propagated)

For several centuries, patriarchy was not a myth. For the cult members for whom Warren Steed Jeffs is still considered a prophet, patriarchy is not a myth. For females who are in bondage to the Taliban, it is not a myth. For the Roman Catholic Church, until a female pope is duly (and knowingly) elected, patriarchy is not a myth.

Until the people of the United States get over the notion that the elected leader of the "free world" has to have a penis, patriarchy may be in "its last throes" (with apologies to Dick Cheney), but it isn't dead any more than al-Qaeda is. It may be as out of style as wearing white after Labor Day supposedly is, but the fashion hasn't changed appreciably.

Yes! Men are portrayed as idiots, slackers, drunks, schemers, libidinous toadies. Women are still portrayed as sluts, golddiggers, shrews, or empty-headed sex toys for men.

Was ANYBODY expecting it to be otherwise when ethics are ignored and the bottom line is considered god? The Seal of Good Practice so prevalent and sought-after in the 1960s has gone the way of the dinosaurs. Wholesomeness doesn't sell anymore, or at least that's what we're told.

The solution? Join those sanctimonious people who write in to television and radio stations and magazines demanding that ethics once more become a consideration in portrayals of men and women. It has been shown that people in society often imitate what they see on television and in the movies. If there are no standards in television or the movies, well??????

Before I address the rest of your post. What "male privedges" ? Bucket and you keep reffering to this yet do not explain exactly what are these invisible male privledges it is that all of us men have in the US.

Secondly I don't have any "ego" as far as making more money than women. Heck both of my bosses are female (one of the elected) and don't make more than anyone else in the office. Also what "personal responsibility" are you talking about?

Vampiel:

Very quickly, the term male privilege is a conceptual term, which posits that societal values are based on the value systems of white males. As such, it becomes a “common sense” practice to value white males over other people (e.g., employment, dating, workout partner, marketing, etc.).

For example, white males tend to embrace individualistic vales (where the self is more important than the group) and like competition. Asian Americans, African Americans, and American Indian populations tend to embrace collectivities values (where the group is more important than the individual). Women tend to embrace collaboration, rather than competition. (see the 4th edition of the academic book “Counseling the culturally diverse by Drs. Sue and Sue for an excellent summary of the body of research related to cultural values).

Here is a quick sampling of white male values in society, which then privilege white men:

· Public policy based on intense debate, rather than collaborative dialogue
· Research based on objectiveness, rather than subjectivenss
· K-12 school in which encourages individual learning (e.g., SAT scores) rather than group collaboration or learning
· University education, which embraces individual learning (e.g., GRE scores) and individual critical thinking
· As carlitoswhey underscored in post 27 – a business and capitalistic world based on alpha male characteristics that place career success over being a father or family member (e.g., taking care of older parents).
· Leadership styles – such as being individually aggressive or having a deep voice, which suggests control (e.g. one of the reasons Harriet Meyer was not appointed as a supreme court judge was because many people felt her voice has high and squeaky – due to biological differences, not leadership or thinking ability – they didn’t think she has “the stuff”)
· Asserting oneself and trying to stand out of a crowd
· Much less racism against white people

This list could go on. As such, because so many domains in the life course embrace white values – white people get inherent privileges. For example, achievement oriented test (k-university) privilege white values and dis-privilegeican Indian people who follow the ethic of silence, want to work in group collaboration, or can’t understand English as well because they are trying to maintain their native language. White privilege is part of the reason white males due better on achievement scores than American Indians or African Americans. Likewise, white males spend much more time at work because capitalism posits a parentless society and white men value their careers over their children and women tend to value their children over their careers. As such, the white males get more job promotions because of their values to neglect their responsibilities in the home.

Let me first apologize that I am jumping in at the end of the thread. I only read the article and this post.

And let me say secondly, that it's a lot harder to make broad and generalized statements than it is to tear them apart.

So with that said, I find the discussion interesting but I don't find a lot of merit in what you're saying. For one, Japanese culture is supposedly very collective yet fathers/husbands spend most of their time with the company, not their families. It's a different form of collectivism, where the company is more important than the family.

I agree that American culture is less family-based than other cultures. But to assume it's because of white males has no basis, IMHO. In fact many European cultures are very family-centric as well as collective. And those are white-man cultures.

And what is a "white man", anyway? I hate that term because a Greek person can be totally different from a German person, but aren't they both white?

I think this is just an excuse to rag on "white men", IMHO. Let's just blame everyone's problems on the white guy and take no responsibility for ourselves. Indians can't speak English? Must be the white guy. African Americans do poorly in the class room? Blame the white guy.

You can debate forever whether alpha-male environments are better than a matriarchal or collective environment. But I don't think only white men are responsible for an alpha-male environment. That again just seems like someone's hatred for white men and a reasoned excuse to blame them for the ills of society.

Why do white men have more priviledges? Because they are the majority in this country and they have the power. It's not much more complicated than that. But one thing you do notice in a competitive environment, is that it's not ONLY white males that succeed. A collective society can more easily discriminate than one that allows people to compete.

And maybe people with squeeky voices, are meek, have small and weak bodies, never speak out, are not taken seriously or assumed to have the right stuff, is because NATURALLY they are perceived as being weak. This has nothing to do with skin color. A giant, fast, strong, black man can have the right stuff.

Your issue may be with NATURE and not white men. Nature will always give preference to those that are aggressive and stronger. It's not a white man's law that created that situation.

And if our schools are so slanted toward white people....why are there so many Asians in our schools? Maybe we should blame Asians for Indians and Blacks not succeeding?

I still don't see any priviledges that white males have in the US over anyone else. Please explain what law state's that a white male can have X because of Y.

All you did was list what tendencies white men have. So are you saying that we should repress our opinions because some females or Indians may not like them? And in expressing our opinion we are somehow skirting our responsibilities at home because we want to provide them with bread? Someone has to do it and again this is a decision made by a couple not forced upon a female.

CedarRed:

In my mind you are accurate that you are missing information because you have not taken the time to read the entire post and absorb it. Take the time to read and understand before commenting.

CedarRed and Vampiel:

I think one of the difficulties you are experiencing is that both of you are thinking from a strictly individualistic manner – the way white people tend to think (remember that a generalization is a proposition supported by research, it does not mean every white person thinks a certain way and each Asian man has to act a certain way – there are within and between group differences). For example, of you are pitting individuals from different cultures against each other – this is the binary logic debate style of thinking that I was explaining in my previous posts – it is a white male way of thinking. Further, both of you are guilty of straw man fallacies – when an opponents position is presented as so extreme that its indefensible (I never suggested that white men should repress opinion).

Vampiel, from a contemporary law perspective, you are somewhat accurate that there are no laws that explicitly give white men privileges. However, I never suggested or argued against laws, my argument is that you take on a new paradigm of thinking – think of these issues from a cross-cultural or sociological perspective. The list I provided are sociological norms – not contemporary laws. For example, look at the history of sociological aspects of laws – you will see a history of White men in control. If you want further information, I would suggest you read Rupert Ross’s book “Dancing with a ghost.” He is a white Assistant Crown Attorney for the District of Kenora (Ontario, Canada) who has written a book on the sociology of law and explains how contemporary law is based on white male values that privilege white males and harms First Nation people of Canada. If you take time to learn, you might be able to begin to think from multiple paradigms – such as from a historical or sociological lens, rather than in an individualistic and binary logic manner.

While I agree with you, there's no question that there's a "glass ceiling" for men during divorce proceedings when question if child custody is being decided. It is a fact that men are awarded custody of their children in only a fraction of all divorce cases (around 30 percent, I believe). So the stereotyping works both ways.

Sorry for my brief leave of absence, it is very difficult for me to rationalize any time spent debating with someone who feels our society is and should be guided by what cavemen did.