# The Cultural Emsculation of the American Male



## elder999 (May 26, 2005)

This thread got me thinking about a related topic, about the cultural war on boys and men. Im not talking about good-natured kidding, or poking fun at each other between boys and girls, or men and women. Im talking about the all out attack on maleness that is so ubiquitous today; most people dont even recognize it. It has nothing to do with equality of the sexes, but rather a radical, hateful social engineering that has crippled several generations.




According to the Department of Education, by 2010, 65-70% of college students will be female. Boys are falling far behind girls on test scores, especially math and science, yet the radical feminists (and that chowderhead at Harvard) will tell you the opposite. A shocking percentage of boys are on medication for behavioral disorders. Much of the Attention Deficit Disorder today is the result of forcing little boys to behave like-well-* little girls* The radical feminists have jumped on the bandwagon of victim-identity politics and have been far more successful in reshaping this culture in a relatively short time, than they probably ever imagined possible. They allow no discussion or debate on the issue. They scream down anyone who challenges them, accusing them of being sexist, racist, or homophobic. I know whereof I speak. I used to be a substitute teacher , and hope to teach school again when I retire.. Once I had a 5th grade class of boys who were given special assignments because all the girls were out going to work with their parents. The boys thought it unfair that they didnt have a special day. In my best child of 60s activists way, I told them to meet with the teacher and principal, and tell them how they felt. The boys said theyd already done that, and the teacher and principal had laughed at them. I told them I didnt think it was fair for them to be treated that way. They must have told their teacher what I said. Soon after, I was back at that same school. One of those boys informed me that his teacher had told them not to pay attention to me, as I was just an ignorant man who listened to Rush Limbaugh on the radio. Uh, yeah, sure. My demographic profile:son of activist liberals, African/Native American, New Age-metaphysical-alternative spiritual seeker, scientist/engineer, civil libertarian with sometimes leftist leanings who does yoga and martial arts, is really popular with the radical pseudo-Christian conservatives 



As he told me what his teacher had said, several girls walked by with tee-shirts that said, _Boys Are Stupid_. He told me that the girls got the shirts at a local organization which is exclusively for girls. He said, Theyd send us boys home if we wore a shirt proclaiming girls are stupid. He was a bright kid, but already demoralized and socialized to accept double standards as equality. George Orwells Newspeak is here, alive and well in the public schools. This boy sees that there is a Girls Inc., but no Boys Inc. Hes quite aware that there is never likely to be one. He also knows, at such an early age, that hes expected to be passively quiet, and to celebrate diversity in rigidly controlled ways. All this, by the time hes in fifth grade.
 



I didnt watch T.V. for nearly ten years. Rita-thats the wife-insisted that we get satellite television, so Ive been watching for about two years now, and suffering from all sorts of cultural shock. Ive watched how men are portrayed on TV. Im old enough to remember Father Knows Best-does anyone else? Well, today father is an idiotic buffoon, if hes even around at all. On shows, and in commercials, women push, punch, slap and kick men on a regular basis. On a popular funny video show, the favorite clips are always of men being hit in the crotch. The brainwashed audience howls with delight when that happens, and it happens often, on many shows. Youll hear the following, over and over: men are scum, men are pigs, I dont need a man in my life, to be happy. The new girl power shows are the worst offenders. 

This has been going on, unchallenged, for years, but dont take my word for it. Look for yourself. One of the very worst offenders was the often quite funny and well written sit-com, Everybody Loves Raymond. Raymond was slapped, punched, kicked, and hit in the crotch by his wife, and sometimes his mother, while the audience roared with laughter. The crotch is where men are obviously, biologically male. It is a powerful political statement to hit a man in the crotch. None of this is accidental. Taken by itself, it may indeed seem insignificant, but if you begin looking at the whole picture, seeing how men are constantly criticized, attacked and belittled, you begin to see a pattern. For the radical feminists, it is payback time. Ive been around them-it's hard not to encounter them in varying degrees when one travels in certain spiritual circles- and I can assure you that the matriarchy they are preparing for us is far harsher than the old patriarchy they seek to supplant. When you challenge them, they say, Oh, if I were a man, you wouldnt say thatyoure just threatened by a strong woman. I let them know that imitating the very worst characteristics of male chauvinists is not strength. Isnt it ironic that the radical feminists have become exactly like the ugliest male chauvinists they criticize? It is unlikely they will ever be open enough to grow beyond their hatred. The radical feminists dont represent the majority of women, yet they intimidate many, many women into silence. Still, there are many of us in this culture who delight in strong women, in the beautiful, authentically feminine spiritual leadership they present to us. Its also amusing that Im threatened by strong women when Im married to an uber-fitness freak who regularly squats 500 pounds for reps, destroys me (and most other men) on long, uphill bike rides-at age 40, is a far more knowledgeable outdoors_person_ than I (whose camping advice I always follow), and makes considerably more than my already considerable salary, doing what is-to the laboratory organization, at least-a more important job.



Do any of you out there have sons, or grandsons, or nephews? Please let them know that being a man is a *good* thing. They dont need to be embarrassed about making good grades in school, or ashamed of preferring competitive sports to leftist sensitivity training. Are there any fathers out there who still have a pair, who havent been turned into castrated Donahue clones? For Gods sake, for all our sake, stop throwing your sons to the wolves. Some things are worth fighting for. One of those things is your children. Are there any mothers out there who arent intimidated by the shrill harridans who are emotionally, psychologically and spiritually abusing and crippling your children, both your sons and your daughters? Why is it up to someone like me to point this out? Why arent you paying attention? These children have done nothing to deserve the cruel, inept, brainwashing that passes for education and socialization these days. Will you at least think about some of this?


----------



## Bigshadow (May 26, 2005)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Im talking about the all out attack on maleness that is so ubiquitous today; most people dont even recognize it. It has nothing to do with equality of the sexes, but rather a radical, hateful social engineering that has crippled several generations.


 I have been aware of it for years. I talked about it for a long time but it fell on deaf ears. It is human nature to want to ignore thoughts that make them feel bad. Sadly enough, there are man people out there that are content with the way things are as long as they have a six pack and can watch Sunday football. This reminiscent of the herd of cattle going to the slaughter house, they just follow and don't care or even oblivious as to where they are going.



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> They scream down anyone who challenges them, accusing them of being sexist, racist, or homophobic.


 Oh sooooo true! It is a very powerful tactic! Not unknown to other organizations and movements. Nobody wants to be labeled! So out of fear they acquiesce. 




			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> One of those boys informed me that his teacher had told them not to pay attention to me, as I was just an ignorant man who listened to Rush Limbaugh on the radio.


  Welcome to the affects of social engineering.




			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> Uh, yeah, sure. My demographic profile:son of activist liberals, African/Native American, New Age-metaphysical-alternative spiritual seeker, scientist/engineer, civil libertarian with sometimes leftist leanings who does yoga and martial arts, is really popular with the radical pseudo-Christian conservatives


 Please don't be offended, but... If I understand this correctly, you are pretty liberal? Wow, I am amazed to hear a liberal speaking openly about such things. The liberal men I know would flagellate themselves for their perceived inequities.
 


			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> George Orwells Newspeak is here, alive and well in the public schools.


  No doubt!  Not just school though, society.  There is more...  George Orwell was quite a visionary.



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> The brainwashed audience howls with delight when that happens, and it happens often, on many shows. Youll hear the following, over and over: men are scum, men are pigs, I dont need a man in my life, to be happy. The new girl power shows are the worst offenders.


 Ahhhh... Yes the media. You should see Cartoon network and Nickelodeon. There are many shows about "Girl Power". The heros are now girls, the stars are girls with boy side-kicks. There is no balance in the media, it has shifted completely oposite. They start the social engineering at a very young age.
 



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> The crotch is where men are obviously, biologically male. It is a powerful political statement to hit a man in the crotch. None of this is accidental. Taken by itself, it may indeed seem insignificant, but if you begin looking at the whole picture, seeing how men are constantly criticized, attacked and belittled, you begin to see a pattern.


 
 Wow, you are very observant! I have stopped watching that those sorts of shows several years ago. I came to realize that those shows are mind numbing fodder for the cattle masses. It provides them with a false reality. More social engineering.



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> The radical feminists dont represent the majority of women, yet they intimidate many, many women into silence.


 In all fairness that is true. My wife was the first to point that out to me on numerous occasions when I used to speak openly about these things. Thankfully she is not like them. But I did point out, that she certainly gets to enjoy the fruits of their labor. 




			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> Do any of you out there have sons, or grandsons, or nephews? Please let them know that being a man is a *good* thing. They dont need to be embarrassed about making good grades in school, or ashamed of preferring competitive sports to leftist sensitivity training.


 
I have a 10 year old son. He is aware for sure! However, I have to constantly find out what they are teaching him at school and be able to counter balance that with facts. Well not all the time, but often. Fortunately, he will ask me questions about what he is told at school. I also encourage him to find out things for himself, don't just take his teacher's word for it. Research it. Same goes for me.




			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> Are there any fathers out there who still have a pair, who havent been turned into castrated Donahue clones?


 I am with you on that! I stopped talking to others because nobody would listen, so I figured I would just take care of my own. People don't like to think about negative things like this. They want to just have fun and feel good. People will ignore it because they can see the resistance they must go through to make things happen. As you say, people need to wake up. Again, it is very Orwellian!


----------



## AnimEdge (May 26, 2005)

Great post, keep fighting the good fight! 
Who knows maybe we are in the need of a Men's Civil Rights Movement


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 26, 2005)

Sorry, not feeling very emasculated. And the odd thing is, after almost 30 years in colleges, I've never really seen any of this stuff.


----------



## FearlessFreep (May 26, 2005)

I see it a lot in commercials, and my wife and I have talked about it.  Men are often portrayed as boorish, selfish, stupid, clueless, or clumsy.  In the same commercial(s) women are portrayed as in control, smart,  and having the answers (to or for their idiot or insensitive husbands).


----------



## TonyM. (May 26, 2005)

I'd comment on this if I could find my nads. Actually my wife and I both have been noticing this advertising trend for at least the last fifteen years as well. Crap sells.


----------



## FearlessFreep (May 26, 2005)

_Crap sells._


Not to me.  I avoid products if the commercials just annoy me by being stupid.

Also, if they basically 'this guy is an idiot...he needs out product.  You need our product, too'...so, I'm an idiot?

Also, if they seem to be trying to paint some people in a bad light, like men/husbands as we mentioned.  Also kids products that make parents look stupid.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (May 26, 2005)

I don't see this emasculation.  Perhaps it's my point of view.  I was, until very very recently, working in a department made up in the majority (maybe 60%?) of undergrad women (vs. maybe 40% men).  Most of the grad students were women, too.  But the professors are are predominantly male.

A guy getting kicked in the nuts?  Hmmmm.  Of course, we do have the classic case of "Father Knows Best" - where Mother knows nothing, or just enough to please Father.

Someone who is pro-woman need not be anti-man, as we all know.  And portraying men as "idiots" does not mean that women look smart.

But I scarcely think men have the short end of the stick with how they are portrayed in the media.


----------



## Tgace (May 26, 2005)

Name some "strong (read smart, respectworthy, strong) male" role models in the media. Then look at all the "kick ***" female roles, or "smart wife" "stupid husband" roles...

As to ADD and medicating todays boys, Ive noticed that too..boys who would fight (in the "schoolboy" sense..arm punching, wrestling etc.), daydream, talk in class etc. used to be "boys being boys" now its a medicate, call the parents and/or the police situation. Boys are too violent...girls should be allowed in combat. Granted, nobody should be discriminated against due to the chance of their birth, but we are different and we should'nt be made to feel "wrong" about it.


----------



## Tgace (May 26, 2005)

But all that being said, my wife would never take my "commanding her to do X because Im the man". And I wouldnt expect or want her to.


----------



## arnisador (May 26, 2005)

Women definitely are the majority at the college level. Soon they'll be able to take over!


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 26, 2005)

Sorry, really not feeling very emasculated. But after a quick search on the Internet, it appears that a lot of guys are--and are getting kinda threatening about it, too. 

I have to say, after doing the search--wow. Talk about male hysteria under political pressure.

Me, I'd rather like to see some actual data on the supposed emasculation of men...something that wasn't as goofy as, say, George Gilder's "Sexual Suicide," book.

What's the old bumper sticker? Something about not being threatened by women of equality?


----------



## Tgace (May 26, 2005)

Try wearing a "women suck" t-shirt around campus and see what happens to ya.....


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 26, 2005)

I hear you, brother. Major issue of our time--right up there with, say, rape. Or the fact that most poor people in the country are women and children. Or the underrepresentation of women in government. Or the systematic sexual exploitation and enslavement of women throughout the world. Or dowry murders in Asia.


----------



## Tgace (May 26, 2005)

So things have become fine for the goose but youre gonna get plucked, stuffed and cooked if you are the gander...but thats OK...the ganders have been having it coming for a long time.....


----------



## Feisty Mouse (May 26, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Try wearing a "women suck" t-shirt around campus and see what happens to ya.....





			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I hear you, brother. Major issue of our time--right up there with, say, rape. Or the fact that most poor people in the country are women and children. Or the underrepresentation of women in government. Or the systematic sexual exploitation and enslavement of women throughout the world. Or dowry murders in Asia.





			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> So things have become fine for the goose but youre gonna get plucked, stuffed and cooked if you are the gander...but thats OK...the ganders have been having it coming for a long time.....


UUUUUUUHHHHHH.... I think comparing the prevalence of rape, poverty-level women and children, and dowry murders, with not being able to wear a t-shir that say "women suck", is just a BIT beyond the pale, don't you?

FYI, there doesn't seem to be any problem with guys walking around wearing t-shirts that say 9sarcasm) REALLY lovely (/sarcasm) things about women, too.

I'm delighted that little girls are watching the Powerpuff Girls or whatnot, rather than being told again that if you want to do anything, you have to get a man to do it for you.

I think getting tied up in this discussion is the very real problem of overmedicating children for ADHD, but that is a separate issue of people's perceptions of what children should and shouldn't be like - and rising incidences of chemical interactions with kids' development.


----------



## Bigshadow (May 26, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Me, I'd rather like to see some actual data on the supposed emasculation of men...something that wasn't as goofy as, say, George Gilder's "Sexual Suicide," book.


 A book I can think of right off hand is "The Feminization of America", I don't recall the author.  There are others.


----------



## Bigshadow (May 26, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I don't see this emasculation.  Perhaps it's my point of view.


 Maybe it is... There are plenty of examples in the media.  One I can think of right off (observed from the commercials for it...) 24.  There are many others I have seen from their commercials (I choose to not watch them).

 Incidentally, there is an entire channel dedicated to male bashing.  It is Lifetime (for women).


----------



## Bigshadow (May 26, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> But all that being said, my wife would never take my "commanding her to do X because Im the man". And I wouldnt expect or want her to.


 I am with you there too!   We are the same.  There is no commanding going around in our house either.  It is mutual respect.


----------



## Bigshadow (May 26, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Sorry, really not feeling very emasculated. But after a quick search on the Internet, it appears that a lot of guys are--and are getting kinda threatening about it, too.
> 
> I have to say, after doing the search--wow. Talk about male hysteria under political pressure.
> 
> ...


 
 After reading this post closer I have to say...

 Whaaaa! The writing is on the wall.  I cannot imagine that a male does not see it.  I don't feel emasculated, but I see it being done to many boys and young men.


----------



## Bigshadow (May 26, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I hear you, brother. Major issue of our time--right up there with, say, rape. Or the fact that most poor people in the country are women and children. Or the underrepresentation of women in government. Or the systematic sexual exploitation and enslavement of women throughout the world. Or dowry murders in Asia.


 Are you flagellating yourself?


----------



## Bigshadow (May 26, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> I'm delighted that little girls are watching the Powerpuff Girls or whatnot, rather than being told again that if you want to do anything, you have to get a man to do it for you.


 I agree with you. My point was that there are far more by comparison shows for children where the hero, the lead role, and smart/power position in the show is a female, with males being reduced to being side kicks or evil opponents. There is very little for boys to draw on nowadays so I see young boys starting to idolize girls as role models.

 I don't think any of us males are saying that you have to get a man to do it for you. Did we? I certainly didn't. I am all about empowering self. Just ask my wife!


----------



## Andrew Green (May 26, 2005)

That's it, let's bring back the Bundy Organization!


----------



## Feisty Mouse (May 26, 2005)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> I agree with you. My point was that there are far more by comparison shows for children where the hero, the lead role, and smart/power position in the show is a female, with males being reduced to being side kicks or evil opponents. There is very little for boys to draw on nowadays so I see young boys starting to idolize girls as role models.
> 
> I don't think any of us males are saying that you have to get a man to do it for you. Did we? I certainly didn't. I am all about empowering self. Just ask my wife!


Really? Where is this overwhelming excess of strong female roles?  

And Lifetime? Please. You can always go watch Spike.  (Which I love.)


----------



## arnisador (May 26, 2005)

Andrew Green said:
			
		

> That's it, let's bring back the Bundy Organization!


 I actually own a NO MA'AM shirt, sold by E.E. Bell (an extra on the show who had some made). What can I say--I liked the show!


----------



## Andrew Green (May 26, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Name some "strong (read smart, respectworthy, strong) male" role models in the media. Then look at all the "kick ***" female roles, or "smart wife" "stupid husband" roles...


 Granted I don't watch much tv...  but I am at a loss here...  I can't think of ANY...

 Help?  Anyone?


----------



## Cryozombie (May 26, 2005)

Vic Mackie.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 26, 2005)

Well, let's see. Men control the White House, Congress, the Supreme Court, the judiciary, every State government, all the major corporations, the police and the FBI, nearly every educational institution, the media, the churches, the publishing industry, and pretty much everything else--but they're oppressed? Men commit the considerable majority of the assaults, rapes, sexual harassment, etc., but they're the imperiled ones?

When a women's organization appears that resembles, say, the Promise Keepers, or the Catholic Church, or the Republican Party, I may rethink the whole emasculation bit.

But until then, sorry, don't feel emasculated. Feel the beginnings of liberation from a lot of bad craziness.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 26, 2005)

Look at tv targeting kids and sitcoms.  In "the real world" maybe not, but that is not what kids see and this thread was mainly about boys and what society tells them.


----------



## Marginal (May 26, 2005)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> I agree with you. My point was that there are far more by comparison shows for children where the hero, the lead role, and smart/power position in the show is a female, with males being reduced to being side kicks or evil opponents. There is very little for boys to draw on nowadays so I see young boys starting to idolize girls as role models.



What children's shows are you watching? Other than Power Puff Girls Kim Possible and She Spies, there aren't a whole lot of kid's shows that featue females in the leading/hero role. 

Love to hear you analyize Jackie Chan's Adventures though. 

I've heard this argument applied to the Drew Carey show as well, but it does beg the question, if people see a loser on TV, do they then aspire to be that loser? Why?


----------



## Bigshadow (May 26, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Really? Where is this overwhelming excess of strong female roles?


 Pick just about any show on TV now. Especially the children's channels. Have you watched them? I have. I see what they are showing. There is an overwhelming excess of females in the lead roles most movies, and shows today. Less and less of them are men. 



			
				Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> And Lifetime? Please. You can always go watch Spike. (Which I love.)


 Well at least Spike doesn't bash women. The opposite cannot be said about Lifetime. BTW, IMHO Spike sucks! It is choc full of useless mind numbing fodder as well. There certainly is not an overwhelming source of male role models on there either. There are males, but that it about it... Very few of the shows on there is worth watching. I will stick to Discovery Science.


----------



## Bigshadow (May 26, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> and pretty much everything else--but they're oppressed? Men commit the considerable majority of the assaults, rapes, sexual harassment, etc., but they're the imperiled ones?


 We are not talking about opression. What we are talking about is social engineering. It isn't your generation that is in danger and you don't have to be threatened. It is future generations that may suffer. I don't worry about my generation. It is too late for that. I worry for my son's and his children. Our actions today is what will determine their future tomorrow.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> But until then, sorry, don't feel emasculated. Feel the beginnings of liberation from a lot of bad craziness.


 That is fine. I don't feel emasculated either. But that wasn't the point of the discussion. I agree.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 27, 2005)

Having been involved in the mythopoetic "Mens Movement" for some time, I would refer interested readers to two essential readings on the subject, over quoted, poorly represented and understood, and yet painfully insightful regarding the anti-masculine zeitgeist woven through the cultural fabric. In the same way that anti-intellectualism is so common and rampant that it appears to be normal, anti-masculine sentiment has become embedded in the societal fabric in such a way as to be insidious.

"Iron John", by Robert Bly, and "Fire in the Belly", by Sam Keen. Not one of them is pro-masculine development at the cost of progress in feminist evolution. Not one is mysoginistic (sp?), touting the glories of masculinity in society at the expense of continuing work towards the expansion and equalization of the presence of women.  Rather, they stress that men must find a deep internal contact with what is good about masculine identity, so that responsible contributions of masculnie energy in life can be played out in a way that is hobnorable, and that women and children can trust. (think about that...how many men that YOU know would you trust with your daughters?)

Men, living without a code of honor and a functional understanding of what it means to comport oneself as a masculine entity in balanced relationships, become all that is heinous about the male half of the species -- rapists, child molesters, murderers, bride burners, etc. The task of the modern male is to find the mission within, and dedicate themselves to living their commitments, daily.

Men have been relegated to either goofs or criminals (Al Bundy or Ted Bundy), with little room for the enlightened male to make contributions, without representing a feminized male. Culturally, the physiologically driven masculine responses to stress or challenge have been regulated to the realm of criminal acts. Only by acting like good little boys who Mommy would approve of are men allowed to be remotely considered as "socially adept", even when many of the social constraints require men to abandon the living of masculine traits to adopt the mannrisms of a SNAG: Sensitive New Age Guy.

Wake up, guys. Philosophers in the womens movement are defining what the optimum social and personality traits are for a male. And, aside from having been traumatized by the despicable half of our species, what makes them an authority on what it means to live life as a man?

My rant is now over:

Out.

D.


----------



## AnimEdge (May 27, 2005)

Me and my Girlfriend has had a few discussions about the Boys Suck t-shirt, she finds them quite funny and i generaly just generaly role my eyes and come back about how much trouble i would get for having a "Girls suck so throw rocks at them" shirt compaired to her shirt, her main come back is the creator of that shirt is a guy.

And yes there are women "bashing" shirts but the majority of them seam to be sexual inuendos

A good quote about the tv is from "Will and Grace" my GF watchs it and it comes after a show i watch and on one they where looking through channels saying "Fat man skinny wife" over and over again with a few "Dumb man skinny wife" shows, and when i flip through tv thats generaly what i find as well, psssh i have allready givin up tv now i only watch Comedy Central and uh, PBS at 3am, another 'Girl Power' channel i would like to add is all 3 Disney Channels, its harder to find a male lead show eather animated or not than it is a female lead, CN is a bit more even (Few things to watch at night, but man Lilo and Stich is greatness) But i dont find them to be very "Empowering" nor male bashing

And being just out of HS '04 w007, i dont remeber much male bashing there eaither, when i wasnt alseep the majority of stuff i over heard from girls was who slept with who at what club and who over drank, sad i think, well i do remeber young male bashing, over hearing on about how highschool boys are imachure(sp) and the ones to be with are the 21+ (heard this from a lot of 15-17 year olds) in which im sure any 21+ year old who will date a 16 year old is a true keeper.

I never believed in ADD and is till dont, i think its a salution no one asked for but everyone uses, great example is from South Park where a Doctors ADD test was reading from a 700+ book and asking what someone said on page 249, of course no one remebered thus they must have ADD and be drugged, isnt there a movie made about this? It was a teen movie and i remeber its theme song was "Flagpole Sitta" by Harvy Danger, what was it called, where kids who where acting up had like surgerys and became brainwashed and suddenly became perfect

all in all i myself dont feel Emsculated but i do notice the "Women Movement"  and the generaly dumbing down of men in the media, any sitcom now a days has the generic theme, overweight husband gets into some "crazy antics" and the thin hot wife scolds him and lectures on what a bad father he his and is shown as the "good guy(girl)":

lets get a list going:
Fox:
Simpsons
ABC:
According to Jim
Complete Savages(maybe)
George Lopez
My Wife and Kids(Maybe but non fat husband)
Rodney
CBS:
Everyone loves Raymond
King of Queens
Two and a Half Men
Yes, Dear
NBC:
Joey(Maybe?)
UPN (A bit diffrent since they are like, you know)
All UPN shows exept: WWE and uh Star Trek, but probly them too
Same show diffrent People


----------



## Bigshadow (May 27, 2005)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> The task of the modern male is to find the mission within, and dedicate themselves to living their commitments, daily.


 Of course let's not forget... Men are disposable. Of course this is not new to the 20th or 21st century, it is something that has been sewn into the fabric of human society for a very long time.



			
				Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Wake up, guys. Philosophers in the womens movement are defining what the optimum social and personality traits are for a male. And, aside from having been traumatized by the despicable half of our species, what makes them an authority on what it means to live life as a man?


 Unfortunately, I am sure many men are not willing to stick their neck out. Or they just don't want to bother with it. Heck, I never thought I would see this many men actually see what I am talking about. That in itself is a surprise. I thought too many were asleep.


----------



## Bigshadow (May 27, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> What children's shows are you watching? Other than Power Puff Girls Kim Possible and She Spies, there aren't a whole lot of kid's shows that featue females in the leading/hero role.
> 
> Love to hear you analyize Jackie Chan's Adventures though.


 All those shows have females in lead roles, Power Puff Girls (female heros), Kim Possible and She Spies (self explainatory).    Jacky Chan's Adventures.  Well the real star is the little girl.  She is the one who is actually having the adventures.  I have seen it many times.  Oh and she is tough and is always outsmarting the big male oafs that come after her.  



			
				Marginal said:
			
		

> I've heard this argument applied to the Drew Carey show as well, but it does beg the question, if people see a loser on TV, do they then aspire to be that loser? Why?


 It isn't the loser that is aspired to, often times it isn't about aspiring to, it is about what is expected of men and of women.  Many people are hugely impressioned by media.  This is where public opinion is created.  The lemming watch/feed and then things are set in motion.  The shows are not just about role models but expected social behavior. It is often presented as reality, people identify with that, even though it is an illusion of reality.   It is social engineering at it's finest.


----------



## TonyM. (May 27, 2005)

Men are doing this. We control almost everything exept in many cases our wives pursestrings. Since women call the shots on many major purchases, malebashing is an effective marketing tool.


----------



## modarnis (May 27, 2005)

>>every State government, all the major corporations, the police and the FBI, nearly every educational institution, the media, the churches, the publishing industry, and pretty much everything else--but they're oppressed? >>

So there are no female police chiefs, CEO's, pastors, university administrators, corporate ceos/cfo, governors, or publishers in the U.S. ?  That university you teach at must have some special filter on its lexis/nexis searches if thatose are the facts you come up with


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 27, 2005)

1. Please give the long list of governmental bureaus, assemblys, corporations, media conglomerates, etc. controlled by women. It shouldn't take long. And while you're at it, please give the long list of women-controlled organizations that got nailed, the way Mitsubishi Corp. did, for obvious and open misogyny. 

 2. Let me see if I've got this--the endless stream of t-shirts, jokes, "Hustler," pictures, t-shirt contests, which take women as their objects are OK, because they may be demeaning and even violence-suggesting, but at least the insults are based on sex? That's actually the argument?

 3. OK, so women Are Now and Have Always Been the Power behind the Throne. Why, Behind Every Successful Man There Is A Good Woman. Never heard that before. Two steps behind and to the right, no doubt? With or without burkah?

 4. Uh, you guys are actually hot and bothered because of the Powder Puff Girls? Scary Spice is oppressing thee, brothers? Thank Demeter that nobody thought to mention "Kill Bill."

 5. "Mythopoetic," men's movement. Exactly right. Bly used to show up in Boulder, back in the 70s, and throw these neo-Jungian hand grenades, and leave. Yes, indeed a movie. It's called, "The Stepford Wives."

 6. Not gettin' the emsculation. What are y'all so afraid of? Ooooh--I know, Equal Opportunity Has Done Reared Its Ugly Head. As a friend once said, when I DID get some crap--from guys, oddly enough--and compared it to women's getting screamed at on the street by guys yelling, "SHOW US YOUR ****!", well, "Now you know how it feels." Buck up, me buckos.

 7. Neil Hertz. "Medusa's Head: Male Hysteria Under Political Pressure." Also try Charlotte Perkins Gilman, "Herland," ("But where are all the men?" "Uh, well, there was this avalanche? and then all the boys got the flu...?") and "James Tiptree, "Houston, Houston, Do You Read?"

 8. Incidentally, Buffy can kick all y'all's collective asses. I'm wit' her.


----------



## Marginal (May 27, 2005)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> All those shows have females in lead roles, Power Puff Girls (female heros), Kim Possible and She Spies (self explainatory).


 
Um yes, that was kind of my point. (I mentioned them as exceptions to the more typical dynamic I see in kid's shows like Teen Titans which do not have a female version of Robin barking orders.)

Jacky Chan Adventures almost manages to pull off the sterotypical, seemingly manditory sassy female sidekick, but it's foiled by the fact that Jacky is a capable guy. (Compared to the older dynamic like in Darkwing duck where the purported hero is an incompetant boob.) Even in Darkwing Duck's case, it's more of an inversion of the dynamic that Batman set fourth rather than social engineering. "What? Robin, my young male companion in my extended bacherlorhood, you've been tied up again, old chum?"



> It isn't the loser that is aspired to, often times it isn't about aspiring to, it is about what is expected of men and of women.  Many people are hugely impressioned by media.  This is where public opinion is created.  The lemming watch/feed and then things are set in motion.  The shows are not just about role models but expected social behavior. It is often presented as reality, people identify with that, even though it is an illusion of reality.   It is social engineering at it's finest.



That only works if you aspire to be a fat stupid loser.


----------



## ginshun (May 27, 2005)

As hard as it is to believe that I agree with Robert, seeing men as dimwits on TV hardly makes up for the real world.


----------



## arnisador (May 27, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> That only works if you aspire to be a fat stupid loser.


 Don't mock my dreams.

 Who is the power behind the throne? Note, the answer varies from culture to culture, especially in degree. In Japan, women keep the household accounts but are second-class citizens anyway. (This is improving.) Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are at an extreme. But, matriarchal societies are not unheard of either.


----------



## Phoenix44 (May 27, 2005)

I have a son, and I'm trying to see your point.  First of all, most of TV is idiotic, and portrays everyone as idiotic. If you're watching idiotic shows, you're going to see, well, idiots both male and female.

However, strong male roles:  Josiah Bartlet, Arnold Vinick, Matt Santos on The West Wing.  Law & Order has a lot of strong male characters:  Elliot Stabler.  Fin Tutuola (Ice-T).  Capt Donald Cragen.  Jack McCoy.  Movies? Will Smith in Hitch.  Almost any role Russell Crowe plays.  Tom Hanks in Castaway.  Lord of the Rings. You want cartoons?  Samurai Jack, Shrek, Yoda.

Now let's talk about those "kick-***" female roles, and see if you can name A SINGLE ROLE THAT ISN'T A T&A ROLE.  Every single female role, no matter how strong, dresses inappropriately for her job (including Marissa Hargitay as Olivia Benson in Law & Order), frequently ends up with a wet T-shirt or half naked (Princess Leia), or is essentially ineffectual (Pregnant Senator Padme).

So true, women are starting to get decent roles, but we have an awful long way to go to parity.


----------



## Cryozombie (May 27, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Now let's talk about those "kick-***" female roles, and see if you can name A SINGLE ROLE THAT ISN'T A T&A ROLE. Every single female role, no matter how strong, dresses inappropriately for her job (including Marissa Hargitay as Olivia Benson in Law & Order), frequently ends up with a wet T-shirt or half naked (Princess Leia), or is essentially ineffectual (Pregnant Senator Padme).


Roseanne. (From Roseanne)

Captain Monica Rawling (The Sheild)

Those both pop into my head without thinking as Strong Females who are not innefectual or in a lot of TnA situations.


----------



## Phoenix44 (May 27, 2005)

Well, the Rosanne character was a buffoon.  Plus, she's not on a current or recent show.  I wanted to omit the buffoon-y characters, male or female.  Ruth Fisher on Six Feet Under comes to mind as an important female role, but not a great role model.  But you have to admit, when you take out the T & A factor, the "kick-***" female roles are few and far between.

I don't want to completely blow off the argument altogether.  As I said, I have a son.  But when you think it through, it's not as strong an argument as it initially appears.  I think boys have a lot more positive role models than girls do.


----------



## Tgace (May 27, 2005)

Interesting essay...

http://www.xyonline.net/terror.shtml

A lot to ponder there. While I do believe that if "men believe there is a problem then there is a problem"..I also dont believe that the answer is "putting women back in their place" either. The issue as I see it is we, men that is, need to feel some sense of self-worth as "men". Most of us dont want some sort of androgynous society where the only difference between the sexes is purely for procreation purposes. The unfair treatment of women over history was wrong, but IMO there is a psychological/social need for "gender roles", there is something about masculinity/femininity that we find attractive and even necessary in each other. The problem is maintaining fairness and the freedom to choose your way in life despite the genetic circumstance of your birth and how to implement change without unfairly treating women or making all men feel like they are _personally_ responsible for violence, rape, and everything else that there is wrong in the world....


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 27, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 5. "Mythopoetic," men's movement. Exactly right. Bly used to show up in Boulder, back in the 70s, and throw these neo-Jungian hand grenades, and leave. Yes, indeed a movie. It's called, "The Stepford Wives."


Quote from Keen at the ranch: "It's all necessary."

Hmm.


----------



## arnisador (May 27, 2005)

LA Law had some strong female roles.

Hos about some of the Lifetime shows, like Strong Medicine etc.?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (May 27, 2005)

Emasculization?  Probably the wrong word.  There is a certain amount of helplessness felt by a great number of American males, however.  They deserve to be heard insofar as certain issues go.

Warren Farrell, in his "The Myth of Male Power," points out that American men don't quite have it as easy as its cracked up to be.  At the time he wrote it, about fifteen years ago, men were the prime victims of violence in America, yet violence against women dominated the news.  More men died of prostate cancer than women died of breast cancer (yet we don't have too many "prostate cancer awareness" days) men had/have higher rates of schizophrenia--he didn't mention this as it wasn't yet published but men also suffer greater rates of autism and ADHD.  They die on the job in high risk occupations.  They commit suicide in far greater rates than women.  

Men, typically, do not get custody of a child during a divorce--even in instances where the mother is unfit (this is often difficult to prove).  They have, in the past, had to bear significant financial burdens in order to maintain their children, their ex-wives, and separate residences.  Granted, the wife as caretaker needs this support, but there are times when women abuse it and don't carry their weight.  I read where one man, allready working three jobs, was ordered by a judge to pay even more in child support.  The man was tapped out, and short of cloning himself, could do no better.

Farrell, incidentally, was the first man on the board of directors for the National Organization of Women (NOW).  He isn't saying, and I certainly am not saying, that Feminism is some great evil that has victimized men.  He merely posits that in the great rush to advance women's rights we have failed to see that men themselves have suffered from social stereotypes, and they too have grievances.

But emasculization?  I agree with Robert.  I'm not feeling too neutered...and I'm living with one of the most liberated and incredibly strong women I know.  On top of that, I only have one really good testicle.  The other one just hangs around all atrophied and non-functional, never working...sort of like that lazy *** nephew of ours.

As for men in commercials appearing boorish, comical dunces...well...maybe we are.  But we're also portrayed as the heroes in most movies...and while Sigourney Weaver and Leslie Hamilton have redefined women's roles somewhat in action flicks, we still control the field.  

When we see women on the covers of FHM, Maxim, Stuff, and the old standbys like Playboy...do we feel emasculated?  When we see Brittney Spears, Halle Berry, Paris Hilton, and God knows how many other cheesecake models/singers/actresses gracing the set/screen/magazine cover...do we feel emasculated?  Who are these lovelies set out to please, if not us?  Women?  Gay men?

Now GRANTED it can be a little unnerving seeing Carson Kressley and the men of "Queer Eye for a Straight Guy" refurbishing men who look distressingly like us.  Worse still, they do an excellent job of it.  Flick the channel, however, and you'll get a show where some tattooed grizzly machinist is turning a piece of scrap iron into a muscle car.  There's still plenty of testosterone for all of us.  Our testicles are safe.  

At least my right one is.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 28, 2005)

Now THAT was a brilliant frickin' post.


----------



## Tgace (May 28, 2005)

> Farrell, incidentally, was the first man on the board of directors for the National Organization of Women (NOW). He isn't saying, and I certainly am not saying, that Feminism is some great evil that has victimized men. He merely posits that in the great rush to advance women's rights we have failed to see that men themselves have suffered from social stereotypes, and they too have grievances.


Thats probably the most accurate assessment of the "trend" we are discussing here as I see it. I have to agree with ya HDJH. "Emasculation" probably isnt the best term. I certainly dont feel less of a "man" because of whats being played over the media. I guess my angle on this issue is "great rush to advance women's rights we have stereotyped men into controlling, violent, rapists and oppressors". While history has shown that most of those offenders were indeed male, blaming the entire gender is as offensive to many of us with the Y chromosome as it would be to blame crime on race. And while there were many gender based wrongs then and now, one has to remember that if Men had control of the reigns of power then and still are "dominant" now, then how did feminism even get started? We "big bad men" here in the US could have pulled a Taliban-like crackdown if we were all that bad. There were/are plenty of men who know whats right and fair here IMO. Is there work ahead? Sure. But I believe that our country is a great example for womens rights worldwide.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 28, 2005)

Actually, we're not that great a role model.

And the claim about some great rush to feminism that has ended up "stereotyping men?" No great rush; no big stereo.

I do find it remarkable to see men adopting precisely the stance (victimization) and modes of analysis (look at images) that they generally attack like crazy when feminist types use them.

Pssst--the real issue here is: a) working class people getting screwed by capitalism; b) historical developments that are destroying the privilege and security to which Americans became accustomed after WWII; c) anxiety over scientific developments in the field of biology.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (May 28, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Thats probably the most accurate assessment of the "trend" we are discussing here as I see it. I have to agree with ya HDJH. "Emasculation" probably isnt the best term. I certainly dont feel less of a "man" because of whats being played over the media. I guess my angle on this issue is "great rush to advance women's rights we have stereotyped men into controlling, violent, rapists and oppressors". While history has shown that most of those offenders were indeed male, blaming the entire gender is as offensive to many of us with the Y chromosome as it would be to blame crime on race. And while there were many gender based wrongs then and now, one has to remember that if Men had control of the reigns of power then and still are "dominant" now, then how did feminism even get started? We "big bad men" here in the US could have pulled a Taliban-like crackdown if we were all that bad. There were/are plenty of men who know whats right and fair here IMO. Is there work ahead? Sure. But I believe that our country is a great example for womens rights worldwide.


lol - I think comparing the US feminist movement and the response to it, versus the Taliban's treatment of women, is a bit wonky.  Hopefully, we're working in a society that at least on paper posits that women and men should be equals.  

Still waiting for equal pay for equal work, but that gives us all something to work for, right?

And, for another good read on the topic, Susan Faludi (prominent feminist writer) wrote "Stiffed" several years ago, on this idea - that men in the US are facing similar issues that women have faced, although the topics are different.


----------



## Tgace (May 28, 2005)

The point being that if we American males are such "controlling, he-man women haters", why would we have "allowed" any loss of power? We do live in a society that posits that we are equals...thats my point. Change doesn't happen completely or overnight. Countless years of cultural and social (and to some point biological) conditioning isnt going to be instant.


----------



## Tgace (May 28, 2005)

http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/christin.htm

http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript893.html


----------



## Tgace (May 28, 2005)

Talk about "boys not being allowed to be boys"...how about suspending the violent little buggers for playing cops and robbers.

http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=155

I wonder if girls playing "powerpuffs" would have gotten the same treatment?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 29, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Actually, we're not that great a role model.
> 
> And the claim about some great rush to feminism that has ended up "stereotyping men?" No great rush; no big stereo.
> 
> ...


Oh, I agree.  The last thing you'll ever hear me do is whine about this topic, or any other for that matter.  As far as i'm concerned, the immasculation occurred by our own hand.  Nothing that has happened in modern times has happened without the express will and consent of men.  At this point it may be out of our hands, but hey, we did it to ourselves.  So men, enjoy what you have brought on yourselves.

Truth is, there is no need for men in a truly civilized society.  Since the world we live in is only half civilized, men are still needed, but the "civilized" half resent that need, so we see that expressed in the popular media.  The male archtype represents aggression, cold logic, rationality, and control.  

Women represent diplomacy, cooperation, caring, understanding and empathy.  There is room in a civilized world for men....so long as they act like women.  Enjoy.


----------



## TonyM. (May 29, 2005)

Why can't I be an educated, bathed, well dressed and reasonably well behaved and spoken thug?


----------



## Shizen Shigoku (May 29, 2005)

A lot of people are missing the important points here.

If you're already a manly man, no of course you're not going to feel threatened. 

Just because men are still a major controlling force in the world, striving for equallity does not mean both sexes crap on eachother in equal amounts.

The threat is to the young - both boys and girls - who are trying to learn about themselves and their roles, and about eachothers' differences. Making little boys feel bad about being male (and this practice is occuring) is not the way to equallity.

I don't understand how balancing the negativity makes things more equal. Regardless of the issues of how men are still in power, or things are still not equal, or any of those distracting ideas, the point is that little boys are being raised with less guidance on how to be appropriately male.

For those that can stand Jungian psychobabble, I recommend the following (it is martial arts related): The Warrior Within by Gillette & Moore - Morrow pub. 

It is in the Archetypes of the Mature Masculine series.

It covers many aspects of maleness including how male aggression should not be suppressed, but rather harnessed and directed.

(preface, pg. x) "There is no way to socialize aggression away. The Warrior archetype is hard-wired into our brain structure. Socialization means repression, which only keeps aggressiveness in an all the more volatile, compressed, and explosive form. ... In many ways legitimate aggression contributes vitally to our lives."

Another excerpt:

(pg. 4) "This is not to say that all feminist criticism is invalid. The feminist critique of patriarchal societies makes a great deal of sense. Patriarchy _does_ tend to institutionalize a particular kind of masculinity . . .
"Patriarchy is set up and run not for men as a gender or for masculinity in its fullness or in it mature expressions but rather by men who are fundamentally _immature_."

It goes on to say that what is lacking in modern societies are strong male role-models, and rites of initiation to lead boys to discover their maleness in its full mature form.

I think I was fortunate enough to have good role-models growing up - boy scouts, martial arts, etc. but many children do not take advantage of these opportunities to learn about themselves.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 29, 2005)

If we really want to start dragging up every stupid argument advanced by some nominal leftist or liberal or feminist, I will be happy to start dragging up every single piece of stupidity and hypocrisy on the matter of gender I can find from the Christian right, the Bush government, and Republicans.

But when arguing these issues, it might be good to support one's arguments with something more substantial and less-biased than Ben Wattenberg's right-wing and conservative interviews, or the Rutherford Institute--which apparently spent ten years pushing Paula Jones' case against Clinton on behalf of a consortium of fundamentalist Christians and right-wing politicians. 

Especially when, it looks to me, like the real issue is that men are starting to be expected to grow up and act like adults, and many don't want to.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

Here we go again..yeah, because the story of the boys being suspended appeard on a "robertson non-approved source" it didnt really happen. Those boys were never suspended, they didnt exist..ignore it. Notice that whenever someone posts a tpoic that "one" cant seem to find an argument against or refute, one always resorts to the "attack the source" routine...


----------



## Flatlander (May 29, 2005)

Which is fine.  Now his point is noted for the viewers at home, and the discussion can hopefully go on.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

True..sorry. That story does bring up an interesting point. Granted, nothing happens in a vacuum. Columbine enters into the equation, as does this "zero tolerance" policy silliness. But somewhere in there is a kernel of "violent play between boys must be stopped" and with it doors open to all sorts of political, social and sexual ideology.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Here we go again..yeah, because the story of the boys being suspended appeard on a "robertson non-approved source" it didnt really happen. Those boys were never suspended, they didnt exist..ignore it. Notice that whenever someone posts a tpoic that "one" cant seem to find an argument against or refute, one always resorts to the "attack the source" routine...


Come on, Tgrace, you aren't seriously suggesting that robertson engages in backhanded ad hominem attacks on any source he disagrees with to avoid even the discussion of it are you? I mean, that would be disingenuous and I can't really believe that about robertson.



			
				Tgace said:
			
		

> True..sorry. That story does bring up an interesting point. Granted, nothing happens in a vacuum. Columbine enters into the equation, as does this "zero tolerance" policy silliness. But somewhere in there is a kernel of "violent play between boys must be stopped" and with it doors open to all sorts of political, social and sexual ideology.


That's because there is a sociological mindset among the left that simply indoctrinating youth can bring about their vision of the world.  They believe that all behavior is learned, so all they have to do is try and teach children NOT to behave in a certain way.  For example, they believe that keeping boys from engaging in "violent play" they can end violence.  I guess it never occurred to some people that boys just might engage in violent play naturally.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

I wonder if little girls playing "Kimpossible" would get the same treatment?


----------



## Cryozombie (May 29, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I will be happy to start dragging up every single piece of stupidity and hypocrisy on the matter of gender I can find from the Christian right, the Bush government, and Republicans.


 This is new, How?



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> But when arguing these issues, it might be good to support one's arguments with something more substantial and less-biased than Ben Wattenberg's right-wing and conservative interviews, or the Rutherford Institute--which apparently spent ten years pushing Paula Jones' case against Clinton on behalf of a consortium of fundamentalist Christians and right-wing politicians.
> 
> Especially when, it looks to me, like the real issue is that men are starting to be expected to grow up and act like adults, and many don't want to.


 Yeah man, I agree, totaly.  Those 6-8 year olds really need to grow up and act like adults and stop playing at recess damn them.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 29, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> This is new, How?
> 
> 
> Yeah man, I agree, totaly. Those 6-8 year olds really need to grow up and act like adults and stop playing at recess damn them.


lol, yeah those darn immature 6-8 year olds, when are they going to get a job like everyone else.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

And contribute to the corrupt capitalistic society that they were born to control....:shrug:


----------



## sgtmac_46 (May 29, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> And contribute to the corrupt capitalistic society that they were born to control....:shrug:


I'm sorry, when are those 6-8 year olds going to wake up to a social conscience, it's time they led marches on washington demanding their right to vote and hold public office.


----------



## shesulsa (May 29, 2005)

_*Mod. Note. 
  Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

  -Georgia Ketchmark
  -MT Senior Mod.-*_


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 29, 2005)

"A sociological mindset among the Left..." would that we were that well organized. Y'all might want to find out what you're talking about ( agood brief intro would be West, "Race Matters") but wotthell.

Again, the difference between the way we argue is in part that you believe I'm being personal when I'm not, and anyone can see that you are indeed being personal, as you tend to use my name when throwing around these silly assertions about what goes on in my head and heart.

It's just a discussion on the Internet, fellas. And I'm better at it than you are, judging by what you've been writing.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

So what about those poor boys who were suspended for playing "cops and robberes"??


----------



## elder999 (May 29, 2005)

Bigshadow said:
			
		

> engineering.
> 
> [/size][/font] Please don't be offended, but... If I understand this correctly, you are pretty liberal? Wow, I am amazed to hear a liberal speaking openly about such things. The liberal men I know would flagellate themselves for their perceived inequities.
> [/size][/font]


 
Yeah, if being pro-choice, believing that _society_ (not necessarily "the government") has an obligation to help those in need, and that all people are entitled to equal recognition under the law, then yes, in the tradition of my parents, who marched on Selma and Washington before "liberal" became a bad word, then yes-I'm a liberal.

I'm *not* some neo-communist, anti-capitalist, pro-gun control, Birkenstock wearing, self-falgellating embracer of P.C. cultural diversity.

Nor do I feel emasculated-I'd have thought that my post made that pretty clear. I just think that there's something more insidious in the way that men are being portrayed, and sometimes in the way that we are expected to behave. That the standards for behavior have shifted so much that "boys will be boys" is only associated with excessive violence and date-rape, and, instead of the requisite amount of natural aggression that comes with a male endocrine system, *all* aggression has come to be viewed as anti-female and anti-social, and in need of medication or other forms of remediation.


I'll also just interject into this conversation that if Ray Romano, or any other male sitcom character, punched, kicked and slapped his wife and mother on that show, NOBODY would think it was funny, but the reverse has somehow become acceptable.


----------



## Tgace (May 29, 2005)

> I'll also just interject into this conversation that if Ray Romano, or any other male sitcom character, punched, kicked and slapped his wife and mother on that show, NOBODY would think it was funny, but the reverse has somehow become acceptable.



Hmmm...good point.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 29, 2005)

Since Sam Keen was several times mentioned as straightforawrd and unequivocal support for this, "men's movement," jazz, I thought y'all might want to read what he actually says, from, "Enlightenment," magazine:

WIE: In Fire in the Belly, you call upon men to undertake a spiritual journey that culminates in "the celebration of a new vision of manhood." What defines this journey, as you see it?

SAM KEEN: Well, a large part of my work is focused on the way in which the myths of a culture shape and inform the way we live, the way we think about ourselves and the way we feel. What I'm doing in Fire in the Belly is dealing with the myth of gender and specifically with the myth of male gender. And you have to understand that when I talk about a spiritual journey in that context, I'm not talking about a total spiritual journey; I'm talking about only one aspect of it. My ultimate message for the men's movement or, as far as that's concerned, the women's movement, with regard to spirituality and gender is: Get over it! Because the spiritual journey starts on the other side of gender.

Now let me say what I mean by that because I think my perspective is different from that of most people. I've got to start with the idea of myth, that a myth is like the software that is inserted into us by the society, by our family. Nature gives us certain hardware. There's male hardware and there's female hardware. But the moment we're born, people start shoving these software disks in, saying, "Here's what a real man is. Here's what it means to be a man. Here's what it means to be an American man," and things like that. That's what gender is. And those gender divisions, for roughly the last four thousand years, have been largely circulating around warfare. The division between men and women has been the division between warriors and nurturers. The male has been artificially conditioned to be tough, to be aggressive, to be hostile, to be willing to either kill or die for the tribe. The most poignant symbol of this, of course, is circumcision, which is a way of saying that to be male is to be wounded and to be willing to be wounded, whereas the female has been conditioned to be the servant of the warriors, the bearer of the children, the nurturer of the society, and in that sense to be inferior to the male. So when we're talking about gender, we're largely talking about injuries that have been done to male persons and female persons in the effort to perpetuate a way of life based upon warfare, aggression, domination and control. And all of that, from the point of view of the life of the spirit, is a mistake. It's this we have to rise above in order to begin to have any notion of what the spirit is.

WIE: Would you say, then, that the spiritual path is the same for men as for women? Or is it different?

SK: I would say it's the same, although it demands that we get over different illusions. The male has got to get over the illusions of manhood, and the woman has to get rid of the illusions of womanhood, to go beyond them, to go beyond the cultural stereotypes that have shaped them and to realize that, at the level of the life of the spirit, there isn't a differencethat it's equally difficult for us to transcend those things, to grind up the whole shadow, to delve into our unconscious and to transcend our conditioning. I think of the life of the spirit, in a sense, as that which begins to emerge on the far side of the mythologies that have shaped and informed us.

The first place I can remember that this question was raised was many, many years ago when Reinhold Niebuhr, the theologian, wrote an essay about pride, about how we have to get over pride because pride is a chief sin. And a woman who must have been one of the first feminist theologians wrote and said, "Wait a minute, that may be true for men. But it's not true for women. Women, by and large, have a problem of low self-esteem, of not having enough pride because that's what the culture has done to them; it says that you're second class." So in that sense, there is a different emotional agenda that attaches to a woman freeing herself and a man freeing himself, just in large terms.

Let me tell you another way in which this topic is talked about that I think will distinguish how I think about it differently from other people. Of course, Western spirituality has until recently been almost exclusively male in its metaphors. The metaphor of "God the Father" is perhaps the strongest example. And Mary Daly came along some twenty-five years ago and said, "This is a big mistake. Talking about God the Father is just a way to smuggle your politics and your sense of male gender superiority into theology." It was like dropping a bombshell into theology because suddenly you realized that these male-biased metaphors really said that "masculine" traits, such as control and reason, were better than "feminine" traits. Like all males, I resisted her stuff in the beginning. Then I began to realize she was absolutely right about it. But the problem is that the feminists then said, "Oh, God the Father. That's right. That's a baaad way to talk. Now, let's talk about God the Mother. Let's talk about the Goddess." Now, I think that Mary Daly should be as critical of that as she has been of the notion of God the Father. We do not begin to get on a spiritual journey until we go beyond the gendered metaphors for God. 


Not exactly great support for the whole, "men are oppressed by the women's movement," line of argument...


----------



## Marginal (May 29, 2005)

Sam Keen said:
			
		

> The male has got to get over the illusions of manhood, and the woman has to get rid of the illusions of womanhood, to go beyond them, to go beyond the cultural stereotypes that have shaped them and to realize that, at the level of the life of the spirit, there isn't a difference.



So he's advocating that... People model themselves after Jakko?


----------



## AnimEdge (May 30, 2005)

I havnt read anything since i posted but i made this lovely shirt for my store, i love it you should check it out: 
http://www.cafepress.com/animedge/638100
its greatness i tell you
http://store.animedge.net to get to the main one


----------



## Marginal (May 31, 2005)

The design's gotten fairly positive responses from girls on another forum I linked to 'em.


----------



## AnimEdge (May 31, 2005)

I think its funny, my girlfriend though who owns a boys are stupid shirt doesnt think so though


----------



## Marginal (May 31, 2005)

Here's the comments it drew on the other forum:

"oh wow i got to have one of them"
"Thats really funny "
Someone else replied with lol faces
aaaannnnd...
"Ahh, the mysteries of life."
(Not sure what the last one means.)

All twentysomething and female. Not sure if that makes your ultimate point or not.


----------



## Bigshadow (May 31, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Warren Farrell, in his "The Myth of Male Power," points out that American men don't quite have it as easy as its cracked up to be.


 Very good book.  I have read it.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> At the time he wrote it, about fifteen years ago, men were the prime victims... They die on the job in high risk occupations. They commit suicide in far greater rates than women.


 I think the statistics have slightly improved since his writings.  There are more women now working.  I think this also reflects the rise in deaths of women from stress, approaching that of men.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> But emasculization?  I agree with Robert.  I'm not feeling too neutered...


 I don't feel emasculization either.  The fellow who started the thread may have chosen the wrong word.   I would have called the feminization of America.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> As for men in commercials appearing boorish, comical dunces...well...maybe we are. But we're also portrayed as the heroes in most movies...and while Sigourney Weaver and Leslie Hamilton have redefined women's roles somewhat in action flicks, we still control the field.


 Yes the image of dumb and strong.  Another words a big oaf.  I disagree.


----------



## ginshun (May 31, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Pssst--the real issue here is: a) working class people getting screwed by capitalism;


 Every subjest eventually comes back to that, doesn't it.


----------



## Bigshadow (May 31, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> Still waiting for equal pay for equal work, but that gives us all something to work for, right?


 I think women SHOULD GET equal pay for equal work!  That is the right thing to do.  I never understood why some companies don't do this.  hmmm... go figure....


----------



## Bigshadow (May 31, 2005)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Yeah, if being pro-choice, believing that _society_ (not necessarily "the government") has an obligation to help those in need, and that all people are entitled to equal recognition under the law, then yes, in the tradition of my parents, who marched on Selma and Washington before "liberal" became a bad word, then yes-I'm a liberal.


 Cool! That is good.  I wasn't trying to be offensive, I was only curious...


----------



## Shizen Shigoku (May 31, 2005)

I've read a lot here about men vs. women, and the expectations of men/boys, and even : shakes head in disgust :: ) silly left vs. right, liberal vs. . . . damn, who gives a crap.

Is it that easy to be distracted by synthetic labels, and "us vs them" mentality?


*rmcrobertson: "Especially when, it looks to me, like the real issue is that men are starting to be expected to grow up and act like adults, and many don't want to."*

That is not the issue, but it is part of the problem. Men are not "_starting_ to be expected" to mature - actually, it is the expectation that is the problem. I could expect all sorts of things, but if I don't do anything about it . . . 

See where I'm going?

There's so much finger-pointing to potential problems and causes. Instead of just looking backward and just having expectations, and just finding things to argue about, how about actually doing something to help young men grow and mature, and learn to access their maleness in a productive way?

*elder999: "I just think that there's something more insidious in the way that men are being portrayed, and sometimes in the way that we are expected to behave.* 

That's why I say ignore the portrayals and expectations; keep a sensitivity to the insidiousness - which I'm just paranoid enough to believe exists - but focus more on creating the outcome you want instead of complaining about the ones you don't.


I'm barely even a mature adult myself (I'm putting it off as long as possible!) but when I'm with my nephews, little cousins, and younger MA-training partners, I try my best to instill mature male values, and to help focus their natural traits in positive ways.


If there is an insidious shadow-conspiracy plot to turn all men into little girls, then I'm just going to do some insidious turning myself - in the other direction.

Who's with me?


----------



## TonyM. (May 31, 2005)

Count me in.


----------



## Bigshadow (May 31, 2005)

Shizen Shigoku said:
			
		

> That's why I say ignore the portrayals and expectations; keep a sensitivity to the insidiousness - which I'm just paranoid enough to believe exists - but focus more on creating the outcome you want instead of complaining about the ones you don't.


 


			
				Shizen Shigoku said:
			
		

> Who's with me?


 I am with you.  I do the same the same.  Every little bit helps.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 31, 2005)

Well, I have been doing minor things like teaching for the last twenty-five years--but then, I thought the point was to help students to realize their humanity, not some, "maleness."


----------



## Bigshadow (May 31, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, I have been doing minor things like teaching for the last twenty-five years--but then, I thought the point was to help students to realize their humanity, not some, "maleness."


 Humanity...  How about human nature.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 31, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Since Sam Keen was several times mentioned as straightforawrd and unequivocal support for this, "men's movement," jazz, I thought y'all might want to read what he actually says, from, "Enlightenment," magazine:...
> 
> 
> ...Not exactly great support for the whole, "men are oppressed by the women's movement," line of argument...


Robert:

I'm hoping this was not directed towards me. If my earlier statements have been misconstrued that I believe the latter part of your post, please allow me to clarify. 

As a speaker in the mens' movement, I have had ample opportunity to "break bread" with Mr. Keen, and others (some more controversial, some less).  I had an opportunity to assist a friend of mine with her doctoral thesis, reviewing the available literature and research on hegemony (male) and culturally reinforced cycles of abuse of women, by men. Men are not oppressed by the womens movement. Hell, if you hear a "feminazi" saying something that's rubbing you the wrong way, it's time to do some self-reflection on WHY what she's saying irks you.

"Responsible masculinity" does not entail embracing bent values regarding gender roles, the places of men or women in society, or any of that.  Characterizing it as an "us/them" thing for verbal economy, if the "side A" makes a good point, it behooves "side B" to evaluate the foundations of that point, and make the requisite adaptations in perspective and behavior. I use the phrase "being a man women can trust" by design. And I have seen nothing in Keen's quote that contradicts where I thought I was going with this.  I have seen factions of the men's movement at it's silliest, and it's best; from half-naked men running around slapping finger paint on each other while congratulating themselves on their new-found maleness, to honorable "men of mention" wrestling with some hefty ideas about what it means to actually LIVE responsible masculinity from an authentic self position, and not from a forced behavioral redefinition provided by a singular or collective external source.

My point remains: beyond the spiritual path, from which we would all ideally be blind to gender roles and expectations, we still live in a world where we are seen as the genitalia between our thighs; the color of our skin; the buying power of our dollar as evidenced by the clothes we wear.  We are treated differently; enculturated differently; and provided vastly different opportunities. Hence, while in this aquarium, it is the responsibility of all good men to identify what it means to live well. By that I mean to live in a way that honors the similarities and differences between men and women; and to comport themselves in a way that, genuinely, holds women in positive regard not just as women, but as people (a subtle virus of perception can be seen in the literature, where even the most "liberated" of minds continue to regard women and their challenges as somehow seperate from the rest of the human experience...a distant deformed relative of the true human race, Men). 2nd class citizenry will likely always be a curse on this globes face. But that doesn't mean that we, as individuals, can't take lifestyle stances that refuse to participate in the collective sickness.

Regards,

Dave


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 31, 2005)

Pretty much my point; thanks.


----------



## Bigshadow (Jun 1, 2005)

Kembudo-Kai Kempoka said:
			
		

> Robert:
> 
> true human race, Men


 hmmm.... I think that is human *species*.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (Jun 1, 2005)

I sit corrected.

D.


----------



## moonsquid (Jun 1, 2005)

I to have noticed how un-p.c. it is to be, dare I say it...A MAN.  And believe me, if some dumb offey twenty something male can notice it than there is a good chance that it exists.  I try not to take shows like "Everyone likes Raymond" to seriously, but geeze after a while the trend starts to reveal itself.  Then you start to notice it more and more...especially if you are looking.  Being a boy, and doing "boy" things will surely get you on a med. of some sort.  I often call it the wussification of America (you can exchange the w for a p if you wish). Though it might be starting to lose breath though.  Finally there may be some backlash as more and more males are starting to take notice.  So keep fighting the good fight gentlemen!  Remember that we arent trying to keep women down, they deserve everybit of respect that we can muster.  All i'm looking for is the same respect that I give to women.  Women and men are different!  Do not try to mesh the two together.  Embrace a women for just that, being a women.  Embrace the male for being a man.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 3, 2005)

I should have mentioned the book The War Against Boys, by the _feminist_ scholar, Christina Hoff Sommers. She has documented her work impeccably. If youre interested in learning more, get her book.  

I should also mention how gratifying it is to see that so many of you appreciate my posts, but I also hear from people who try to silence me through calling me a racist (of all things!) or sexist, or the vilest accusation they can think of, Youre just a man. Their standard operating procedure is character assassination. By the time you read this, tIll have gotten a dozen e-mails and pms from shrill harridans protesting my use of the term shrill harridan. So be it. Im not afraid of them, for they simply spit and sputter the same tired, predictable old rhetoric. Ironically, the week I posted this thread, a local (Santa Fe, NM.)domestic abuse prevention advocate was arrested for punching her husband in the face. When do you think theyll start a Stop Violence Against Men campaign? I rest my case. 

One email mentioned that Ive got a way with writing about some of these controversial topics. I just like to say that Ive _gotten away_ with it, which in itself, is truly a miracle. 

As the father of two children, a boy and a girl, and having raised them alone since 1993, it has been one of my my greatest joys raising them to become adults: _a good man and a good woman_I consider it an honor to see my children to grow up to be strong and confident people who understand the role they play in a society that degrades _people_ in general...they are respectful of elders, display gracious manners, and my son actually knows how to shake hands like a man shouldstrong and firmI advise my son that *a man sometimes bears more injustice and responsibility for others actions than what is truly fairbut, as most real men realize, its not how you are treated in life that makes you what you areits how you choose to live your life that determines who you are* My parents were especially warm and wise people, and they taught me how to be a man, and how to conduct myself as a gentleman. I thank them for that gift. They also taught me how to sit at a table and eat like a civilized person. I was taught the proper use of a knife and fork. We didnt live a pretentious lifestyle, but we lived a gracious life .At the time, I probably didnt appreciate it. Today, I do more and more. When I see people bent over the table, using forks like shovels, eating like hogs at the feed trough, Im grateful that I was taught a different way, just as I am grateful for having been raised to not let what a society decline expects from me limit me, and for thus ensuring that Id raise my own children that way as well. 

People have various ideas of what peace is and what peace looks like. These ideas are usually thought forms which may, or may not bear any resemblance to actual peace. One of the most important knowings to come to me is that in order to be centered and at peace, I must embrace my humanity. In order to project peace outwardly, I must have inner peace. Peace doesnt imply passivity. Through embracing my humanity, Ive come to see that feeling anger can be a constructive, as well as instructive part of being human. There are certain issues about which it is appropriate for us to feel anger. The various actions of our administration in the U.S. are some of those things. Sending young men to their deaths, or poisoning the planet with depleted uranium in invasions of foreign countries, causing the deaths of innocent foreigners, easing environmental restirctionsthese are things about which it is appropriate to feel anger. The degradation of our society is another. I have embraced my anger, and Ive made it my friend. Im at peace with my anger, for it is part of my humanness. We cannot embrace our divinity until weve embraced our humanity. Dont be afraid of anger. Learn to wield your anger with vision, and you enter more profoundly into your humanity. It need not shake you from your spiritual center. The challenge is to express our anger as beings of power, in ways which are open ended, allowing for spiritual growth and change. We then move through the experience.


----------



## kroh (Jun 3, 2005)

Wow...

Great topic  and some good arguments...



> Being a boy, and doing "boy" things will surely get you on a med. of some sort.



Nice...all too often do we see this happen...People overmedicated due to some PHDork wanting his name on a cover jacket... There are some cases where the meds are justified but man!...Get over it Doc...



> Remember that we arent trying to keep women down, they deserve everybit of respect that we can muster. All i'm looking for is the same respect that I give to women. Women and men are different! Do not try to mesh the two together. Embrace a women for just that, being a women. Embrace the male for being a man.



I make sure that when I see kids comming into the martial arts school where I train I tell them to hold the door for mom or make sure they allow some courtesy toward the "ladies."  Not because they are week or in some way not able to hold the stupid door... Not because the tradition of Ladies first was so the Knight going through the door wouldn't get shot by an arrow...But to hold the door to teach the child men and woman ARE different and those differences should be acknowledged and celebrated.  BUT, boys should be allowed to explore what it means to be male.  Just like women should be allowed to do the same for their side.  Equality shouldn't have to mean non-diversity.

All the media are de-male-izing America?...Turn it off.  Read a book.  Tell your kids to read a book.  Or play Chess.  How about taking them out for something other than a movie and a happy meal.  Take them out for some adventure and get them (and yourself) out of the house.  Too Tired from work... not too tired to go to martial arts classes ( since this is that kind of site ).  If you are raising or are a role model for boys... Teach them manners, respect for their fellow citizen, love of country, and encourage a HIGH predatory drive.  Throw the meds away and let them rattle the cage to find out who they are ( and so you can show them their limits).   Might take a bit of work on our parts but it is better to raise a MAN than just a male.  

This entire thread I read in one sitting (great thread Elder).  I thought there were valid views on both sides.  I for one will continue to conduct myself in a MAN-ly fashion (holding the door for a lady, tipping my hat when one walks by, standing up when they come or go from the table, a high predatory drive, love of country and family, and above all else...*NO WHINING*!) so that if a boy asks me what it means to be a man...i'll just tell him...

"Always show and demand respect."

Thanks all...
Regards, 
Walt


----------



## German Coach (Jan 8, 2007)

Proof Nightclub ladies nights drew rights complaint

By Katie Kerwin McCrimmon, Rocky Mountain News
January 6, 2007

A self-proclaimed "agitator" against feminism declared ladies nights at Colorado nightspots dead Friday after prevailing in the first stage of a civil rights complaint against the Proof Nightclub in southeast Denver.

Steve Horner learned Thursday that Colorado's Division of Civil Rights for the Department of Regulatory Agencies sided with him in his complaint that men were unfairly having to pay cover charges and higher drink prices than women at the Proof's ladies nights.

Read more here.


----------

