Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Entertainment Industry's Love Affair With Immature Men

By Alicia Rebensdorf, AlterNet. Posted September 13, 2007.


In Hollywood, a pudgy slacker man can always get a hot can-do woman.
Advertisement

You know the guy. He has a monosyllabic retro name like Hal or Earl or Chuck, mildly wacky hair and a death grip on his adolescence. He's got frat house furniture and dependency issues with his friends, and is hapless or commitment-phobic with women. The Act One diagnosis is usually that he just "needs to grow up."

No, not Michael Vick. Though the Falcon quarterback's explanation for dog fighting -- "I need to grow up" -- does show just how ubiquitous the Peter Pan excuse has become. Male leads in recent popular TV shows and movies are increasingly portrayed as victims of their own immaturity. If only instead of claiming he had found Jesus, Vick had said he'd found some fantastically attractive and accomplished woman, perhaps the viewing audience would've gone along. In today's romantic comedy scripts, the man-child always meets his Wendy. Only through the innate, successful, high-achieving grace of a female may our hero be saved.

Taken one at a time, it's easy to pass off this trend as a simple, comedic trope. But considering the storyline's popularity and how it is affecting gender relations at large, this narrative is worthy of closer attention.

Pairing a bumbling, oddly employed male lead with a hot can-do woman is the current rage in Hollywood. The Ben Stillers and Adam Sandlers gradually brought it to the big screen, but this summer Judd Apatow seems to have elevated the trope to a new level of success. First there was the June release of Knocked Up, a film that matched a successful TV interviewer to a man whose primary working relationship was with his bong. Then, teen couples in the August hit SuperBad were too young to mismatch careers, but unless porn consumption counts as extracurricular credit, their college tracks were assuredly divergent. September will bring us The Brothers Solomon, about a pair of socially awkward siblings' efforts to spread their seed, as well as Good Luck Chuck and Run, Fatboy, Run, which, as their titles hint, only further the trend.

TV echoes what the New Yorker's David Denby calls the "slacker-striver" dynamic. Promos for the new NBC comedy "Chuck" pan from a svelte blond spy to a disheveled computer techie earning, a low voice intones, "Eleven bucks an hour." In HBO's The Flight of the Conchords, one of the parody folk singers is unemployed. The other holds signs. Both get dates. And if the men and women are all similarly employed, as in Scrubs or The Office, when it comes down to it, the women tend to wear the proverbial pants.

Commentators have found as many reasons for the phenomenon as there are examples of it. It's because white males are safe targets of ridicule. It's the work of feminist critiques of the '50s passive homemakers. Some think it sanctions the infantilism of male culture. Others think it's simply a reflection of changing economics, that, A, advertisers are aiming for women, the primary spenders of many households' discretionary incomes and, B, because women are achieving new levels of occupational success. Females outnumber men in most colleges, and while nationwide incomes still aren't equal, younger women in cities like New York are now earning more per hour than their male counterparts. As put forward by books like Alpha Girls, the casting of women as confident high-achievers isn't so much a sitcom cliché as it is a cultural truth.

No matter its source, the archetype of the superwoman is a surely an improvement over the pre-Mary Tyler Moore moms, beer babes and cop-show rape victims. These women are smart and capable, and striving in enviable jobs. Perhaps they should even be flattered to play savior to the opposite sex. But for as potentially insulting to men and empowering to women, a look at the credits should give one pause.

A sampling of the genre's writers' first names: Steve, Bob, Judd, Seth, Evan, Jeremy, Jay, Mike, Tom, Thomas, Matt, Nick, Josh, George, Chris, Michael, Josh, Peter, Sean ... not even an ambiguous Sam in the bunch. Women fair a little better in television comedies. Of the eleven writers credited for The Office, two are women. One of the five producers of "Chuck" is female. Still. While men are certainly capable of creating fair representations of the sexes, the dearth of these scripts' women writers begs the question of who this narrative actually benefits.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: hollywood, movies, tv, comedy, knocked up, peter pan, superbad, the office, good luck chuck, alpha girls, 30 rock, tina fey

Alicia Rebensdorf is a freelance writer and author of the recently published Chick Flick Road Kill: A Behind the Scenes Odyssey into Movie-Made America.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Media and Technology! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Stern
Posted by: ender on Sep 13, 2007 1:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Howard Stern just inked a $500 million dollar deal for doing the same comedic routines my friends & I did when we were 12 at the 7th grade lunch table. The man is in his mid-50's and makes a living from penis & poop jokes and getting well paid for it. Kids aren't stupid: work your ass off and go to college so maybe you can earn 1/10,000th of what Stern makes is a losing proposition.

We don't have an immediate external crisis to galvanize us to become men.

PC has gone too far shunning - even outlawing - a lot of male behavior. In many instances, we aren't allowed to be men.

Most boys are growing up without a male role model. And kids today are growing up as weenies thanks to ridiculously over-safe rules & parents. There's some lessons in life that people, men especially, will only learn the hard way: sometimes you've gotta let your kids get a little burn from a hot stove.

Modern education serves to weed out creativity, independence & responsibility and instead urges conformity and obedience. Children are perpetually infantilized and critical thinking - adult thinking - is absolutely discouraged.

Men are unable to leave the nest at 18 - a generation ago, folks were buying houses at 20, 22 years old. Young people don't live with their parents because they want to, but because they have to, because economics forces them to. It's difficult to be a man or to grow up when you're living under someone else's roof.

The options for men over the last thirty years has shrunk, along with their pay and overall status in society, while women's choices have expanded.

Finally, the average man today cannot make enough money to be the sole provider for his wife and family and that's as emasculating as life can get...surely there's some psychological consequence to all of this?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Some good points Posted by: kepstein7777
» RE: Some good points Posted by: ender
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: Stop whining!!!!!!!!!! Please! Posted by: Jordonquits
» RE: Stern Posted by: mandiwrite
» RE: Stern Posted by: ender
» actually we do Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: actually we do Posted by: PopRox80
» RE: actually we do Posted by: mviscid
» RE: actually we do Posted by: mviscid
» RE: actually we do Posted by: ender
» RE: Stern Posted by: hiryuu75
» RE: Stern Posted by: ender
» RE: Stern Posted by: hiryuu75
» RE: Stern Posted by: ender
» RE: Stern Posted by: Shey
» RE: Stern Posted by: ender
3.9
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Sep 13, 2007 4:27 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Comments:

1. Formulas like Ralph and Alice, Dumb and Dumber, etc. have been around forever because they're funny if they're done right. I hope they don't go away for the sake of PCness, but I wouldn't mind some new ideas, as long as they're funny and not PC.

2. Something is either funny or it's not. It has to reflect a reality we can identify with, not an idealized world where all men are tidy, sensitive, thoughtful, responsible, and love helping their wives pick out curtains. You can't mix PCness and comedy, unless you're making fun of PCness...which is why the Cigar Indian episode of Seinfeld is one of the all-time classics...Then again, a comedy about a man who is tidy, sensitive, thoughtful, responsible, and loves picking out curtains might work if it's funny. It kind of worked for Felix on the Odd Couple, and Will on Will and Grace.

3. Having more women in creative and decisionmaking positions in the sit-com biz might be our only hope since, for all practical purposes, the sitcom is almost dead. But if they think a bunch of cutesy, nitpicky, relationship-obsessed crap like Sex in The City or the Gilmore Girls is going to save the sit-com, then the sit-com is dead. They'll need to come up with something new and different and something we can all relate to. Good luck, ladies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: 3.9 Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: 3.9 Posted by: monkeybrig
How about giving us the best of men and women instead of the worst?
Posted by: greentime on Sep 13, 2007 4:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This can be done by having the process of creating "entertainment" in more diverse hands. We all know this is true. The best ideas happen when everyone can contribute.

It is time to broaden the process at the top and at the beginning. The time any of us spend watching various media is too important to waste it on thin and vaccuous stories about predominately male fantasy versions of how life can be. It isn't creating a positive, educated, flexible culture. That only happens when everyone can contribute. It is SO very tired. All of it.

Cheap jokes and tawdry ideas not to mention excessive violence is leaving us with a thin culture that is... well... cheap, tawdry and violent.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Another meandering article to nowhere.
Posted by: douglashoyt on Sep 13, 2007 5:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Can’t Alternet get competent writers anymore? What happened to the journalism, stylized writing, and poignant analysis?

Even Josh Holland is a star with Alternet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not necessarily... Posted by: kepstein7777
How true it all is!
Posted by: yale on Sep 13, 2007 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really liked this article. I think american men are embattled with themselves. These shows are so popular because most men can relate to the portrayed hero. Good examples are shows like, king of queens. The new age media is set up for men. In most households the remote is controlled by him. So he sits there and blurts out orders during the breaks, and between football games, to get him a beer, or a snack. Now, seems to me, all this sitting around is gonna turn daddy into a pudgy sort of blob, so fo course they can relate. The women are still doing the bulk of the housework as they run circles around him, and the kids, making sure the all have what they need. All of this running keeps them fit, and trim, and hot looking. This is the overall picture of oh, so many american homes. You hit the nail right on the head.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How true it all is! Posted by: Fade
» RE: How true it all is! Posted by: MartianBachelor
The liberals should DUMP the Hollywood elite and return to Middle America.
Posted by: maxpayne on Sep 13, 2007 6:55 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And this article pretty much proves that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why media giants putting out 2-3 new movies a week...
Posted by: eosrk on Sep 13, 2007 7:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...they're so crappy, that they figure out of ten or twelve shitty movies, they count on at least one to break even on all the money they're losing on this crap, but as people with no vision keeps on spending their hard-earned pennies and nickels(in the new economic world....sucks), they can recover their money. for example....

Spider-man movies for the most part break even in the first two to three weeks, where as Micheal Moore's movies break even in one night, and on 75% less screens, not even counting on world releases.

Sounds to me Micheal Moore knows how to manage money, whereas the rest blows other's money.

Another one is Mel Gibson, spent about 30 million on the Passion of the Christ and has made over 1 billion!

Just two examples on who's really making the money, and who's fuckin' up a lot of money...other peoples money

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Real Trend?
Posted by: lamar on Sep 13, 2007 7:20 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've seen this trend in real life. Perhaps back in the day, a man wanted a trophy wife who gave him no trouble, just yes dear, of course dear.

Women are now in positions of power and want the same thing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A Real Trend? Posted by: mviscid
Significance?
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Sep 13, 2007 8:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Media producers will give the paying public exactly what the public is willing to pay for. They aren't on Crusade; they're out to make money.

As in most other facets of life, changing one's preferences and behaviors when dissatisfied is the surest way to change one's state of satisfaction.

Best of luck in such endeavors.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a Joke
Posted by: Petros on Sep 13, 2007 8:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It takes a woman to find a way to feel oppressed by movies that portray women as smart, competent and beautiful and men as bumbling dunces. I think our feminist friends are so used to complaining they don't know any other way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What a Joke Posted by: mviscid
» RE: What a Joke Posted by: Petros
» RE: What a Joke Posted by: monkeybrig
» RE: What a Joke Posted by: Fade
» RE: What a Joke Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: What a Joke Posted by: Phenix
» RE: Hardly a Joke Posted by: Beepath
This is new? This is progress?
Posted by: hagwind on Sep 13, 2007 9:08 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I seem to remember a bumbling schmuck named Woody Allen who was always surrounded by women who were a lot better looking than he was. And what does it mean when the on-screen men can be frumps and the women all have to be drop-dead gorgeous? It means that male actors with a wide range of physiques can get cast in starring roles, but female actors have to be, well, drop-dead gorgeous. To me this sounds less like a commentary on contemporary male-female relations and more like a particular male fantasy that's been around for quite a while: "97-pound weakling" gets the girl, only in this version he doesn't even have to send away for a Mr. Universe bodybuilding gadget and transform himself into a handsome hunk first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes
Posted by: Logic's Edge on Sep 13, 2007 9:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think a lot of people are tired of the one-sided portrayal of men as bumbling idiots.

Clearly the people that write these things are scared feces-free to portray a woman, for example, as anything less than perfect, these days.

The only safe target is men.

The majority of women and minorities probably do have a sense of humor about themselves, but there are always those among them that are willing to get offended at anything. And in the scramble to avoid offending these groups, everything is tossed out.

And so it goes. Men as children, men as losers, men as utter fools.

My solution is to just stop watching television, period.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yes Posted by: Sushi
Giving the dorks on the glass teat what they want
Posted by: Ignatz deFyre on Sep 13, 2007 10:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please, maybe too much analysis?

If we can assume that the majority of the male viewing audience are dorks, then it's simply a case of the medium catering to this low denominator and fuelling the dork fantasy that even a dork can get an anatomically correct and intellectually sound female.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Goofy guy gets the Girl
Posted by: Fade on Sep 13, 2007 10:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is funny and entertaining because it doesn't happen. So what if a bunch of loser guys enjoy watching a movie where a total screwup manages to get a career woman 10 to fall in love with him?

It's entertaining because it IS such pure fiction. Most of the time career minded women treat their potential mates like they treat job moves- Is this man going to increase my net worth? Women don't date beneath them, financially, it just doesn't make sense, Love be damned. And, there's always that myth that men just can't stand women who make more than them- What a crock! Guys- My fiancee' makes a bundle more than me and it's awesome. I, for one, love it. She's a rarity, but then she'd give up her job to stay home and have more kids so her career-mindedness has its limits. Most women would drag their friends away from a man who isn't in their social and economic standing. So - the goofy guy DOESN'T get the girl. Its that rich prick in the sports car that you women love to bitch about that gets the girl in the end. So can't we have our own version of Pretty Woman?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

yeah, but in real life
Posted by: skydog on Sep 13, 2007 11:23 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You posit "In Hollywood, a pudgy slacker man can always get a hot can-do woman."

To which I must say that in real life, even the most horrific fat-ass spandex-wearing chain-smoking gum-cracking WalMart cruising sweat hog can always get at least a pudgy slacker man. Most get an honest, hard working man who's finally given up on barnyard romance and is ready for a life of delinquent children, Budweiser, and NASCAR. I have a sneaking suspicion that the cultural impact assessed in this article has never been a subject of dinner-table discussion at their trailer.

As for the observation that the writers' first names are exclusively male, that answers my question as to why the writers about gender relationships here seem at least to be always female.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: yeah, but in real life Posted by: hagwind
C'MON-BE STUPID, AMERICA...
Posted by: Roverton on Sep 13, 2007 12:05 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... just like your favorite movies portray you to be!

Life imitates guile.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Men will be boys
Posted by: admitchell on Sep 13, 2007 12:28 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's a reason why immature men rule the box office, and the box office is ruled by immature men. There's a reason most guys I know can recognize obscure Simpsons quotes or passages from Monty Python films, and why Dumber and Dumber was probably one of the top-grossing movies of that year. It's not a sexist reason, and it doesn't mean that girls can't be equally funny or creative, or equally lowbrow when it comes to humour. It's just how we're made. Take the average school at recess - the girls are usually in a corner somewhere talking, while the guys are on the field inventing some game that revolves around knocking each other to the ground. Girls had sleepovers to play games and talk, guys had sleepovers so they could watch movies and television all night. Girls were taught to show their emotions, guys were taught to hide them, and to laugh at pain and misfortune. Girls' bodies were mysterious and complicated. Guys bodies were simple and hilarious. Girls bond by talking, guys bond by sharing experiences like watching television, playing sports, playing games, drinking, and generally getting into trouble -- mostly with the women in their lives.
Guys prize humour in their friends, just as girls prize a sense of humour over most other traits when selecting men. Funny guys can got the hot girl, and not just in Hollywood -- I've seened it countless times in real life. Humour takes creativity, and creativity takes spontaneity -- all traits that are perhaps a little stronger in the male species because of the way we're socialized.
So is it any surprise that slackers are funny, or that slackers would write movies and television shows that are funny? And since most writing is always a little autobiographical, is it any surprise that slacker writers always make sure their alter ego in the script gets the hot girl in the end? That's just wishful thinking, but it's also something that most men can relate to. Before the Three Stooges, it was a theme in Vaudeville, and before that it was a theme in theatre -- even Shakespeare idolized a few slackers and off-colour comedy in his plays. Read Twelfth Night if you don't believe me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Men will be boys Posted by: mick3
"Super-Woman" = Ideological Charicature
Posted by: pdxstudent on Sep 13, 2007 12:35 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's the article in a nut-shell. The first few paragraphs of the second page really home in on this message. For you shlups who still don't get it, think of it this way: any figure of "perfection" is already taking a step back from life and into the realm of ideological fantasy.

I saw the complaint once or twice in the previous comments that, essentially, "women are crazy for bitching about getting such awesome parts!" What this criticism fails to recognize is that these are not glamorous roles except in the most superficial, male-centric way.

I think the author points it out best that while the men who are typically paired with these kinds of women are buffoons, they are the narrative center and experience the most growth, even if they remain essentially buffoons. Their female partners or foils are not typically admitted this kind of three dimensionality, and in that way do not rise above any other previous ideological charicatures.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Haven't we already discussed this?
Posted by: Ayla87 on Sep 13, 2007 12:41 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I swear I remember reading the same crap a couple of months ago.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What is a man in the 21st century?
Posted by: metamind on Sep 13, 2007 2:29 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's face it: the purpose of men has diminished in the past 100 years or so. They used to be the providers for the family.

Nowadays women can provide for the family themselves or get money from the government if they can't. Suppose the only way you could get assistance from the government is if you found a man who would help provide for your needs?
Well, that would change things, wouldn't it?

Many women aren't interested in men, really. They'd rather have money and if the man doesn't have money ... forget him. Who needs men?

Then there is the role of the man as a "respected law-giver." This would include positions in religion and tribal structure, positions of respect and authority. The chief, the medicine man, the priest, the lawyer ... well, scratch the last one ... the respected elders of the community.

On TV older men are often depicted as buffoons or morons who couldn't find enough spare change to get on the bus if their life depended on it, like Bart Simpson's grandfather.
When was the last time you actually saw an old man on TV who played a respectable role? "On Golden Pond" comes to mind but Henry Fonda was pretty much of a mindless grouch even back then. It's just been getting worse as we progress into the future.

What is a man? How about defining a man as someone who knows "right from wrong" and can lead us in the correct direction? Well, witness George Bush and Larry Craig.

Enough said?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What is a man in the 21st century? Posted by: TheNamelessCity
mick3
Posted by: mick3 on Sep 13, 2007 3:41 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the US, neotony rules. It has been fostered by both the media and its owners, corporations. It's all, "I'm a boy!" these days. Used to be, "Today I am a man!" at age 21, announced proudly, as an affirmation of both special entitlement and acceptance of responsibility. Probably, with women and girls now served somewhat by society, therefore leveling the playing field a tad, these faux men simply threw in the towel. We're left with a nation of aging and aged juveniles, whose great interests are gaming and sports...which leaves the schemers behind the government a free hand for whatever they want to dish out. With our nose rubbed in it.

The Spanish dictator, Franco, deliberately started a rage for sports in order to distract the citizenry from his actions. He didn't have TV helping his dictatorship along, as capitalism has today, or he might still be in power (in spirit, anyway). Still, if US males weren't so into being Peter Pan forever, our society might look like something besides what the cat dragged in on a bad night. I'd like to see any of those "boys" read a typical article in a French newspaper; they wouldn't have the staying power--or the capability, let alone the interest. Self is all, and indulging self is all that counts. Just ask....the boys.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: mick3 Posted by: Logic's Edge
Insecure men make shallow films
Posted by: scheherezade on Sep 13, 2007 4:55 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It’s telling that female movie characters continue to be, above all else, “hot.”

In a world of gender equality, one would expect movies to feature female characters whose appeal focuses less on physical appearance than persona and accomplishment.

Instead, the opposite appears to be happening.

Despite workplace gains for women, male-dominated media focuses more than ever on beauty-ranked definitions of female worth.

At the same time, definitions of beauty have been refined to a science, removing any guesswork from where a given women stands, valuewise – despite her workplace accomplishments.

The difference today is that male-based beauty rankings don’t determine women’s futures, including mate choice, to the extent they once did.

Nevertheless, at the same time average guys (like everybody else) are seeing increasingly fewer career possibilities – very attractive women are enjoying more opportunities than any other worker; often due to sexual interest by powerful male bosses (sorry folks, but anybody in the working world knows full well this is the case).

Thus “hot” women remain a commodity like anything else, unattainable by average slackers.

Men are always far more anxious about getting sex than women. Many surely find solace grasping the last shreds of control they still do have -- the ability to rank female worth based on beauty.

Celebrating accomplished, ‘average’ looking women won’t do, because that would hand women the last remaining ace-in-the-hole men do have control over – impossible-to-achieve-or-maintain ‘hotness’ rankings.

And that’s the last thing these guys are going to give up…regardless of how irrelevant it, and they, may eventually become.

And so comes Hollywood to the rescue: with morality theater that emphasizes a woman’s place is still in front of the mirror -- and reassures slacker movie ticket buyers that even unattainable ‘10s’ are ready, willing and able to degrade themselves with the lowliest potential mate choice.

These films aren’t about women ‘saving’ slacker males, so much as they’re about slacker males dragging what male ego, DNA, whatever, demands be defined as the most desirable women back down to a more attainable, or at least controllable, level.

Slacker films must surely represent some level of psychological backlash against an increasingly unattainable lifestyle. The question is whether current male obsession with “hotness” is related to larger consumer forces; or whether it’s just the latest iteration of DNA-grounded shallow male culture at work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Insecure men make shallow films Posted by: E-from-PHIOM
» RE: Insecure men make shallow films Posted by: scheherezade
» Bridget Jones's Diary Posted by: suprmark
» RE: Insecure men make shallow films Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Insecure men make shallow films Posted by: scheherezade
» RE: Insecure men make shallow films Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Insecure men make shallow films Posted by: scheherezade
Alicia Bebensdorf doesn't get it
Posted by: Shey on Sep 13, 2007 6:38 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And so, she is part of the problem. She points to 30 Rock as a sitcom produced, written and acted by a woman. She then quotes a Tina Fey monologue that is self deprecating for the character and that stoops to the same level of adolescent male bathroom and female stereotype humor that dominates the male produced and written sitcoms. So Tina Fey is part of the problem as well, mimicking what male sitcom writers are doing, in order to make a buck.

More proof that Alicia Bebensdorf is part of the problem:
"perhaps these [smart and capable women] should be flattered to play savior to the opposite sex" You've got to be kidding.
And, talk about really not getting it .... "women wield power in romantic comedies"
Taking on bumbling, socially challenged (barely socialized) beer guzzling, video game playing, porn-addicted man-children to 'save', is "wielding power"??

Romantic comedies at the theatre seem pretty hopeless right now. So where to look on your TV screens, for models of powerful women who are human and flawed being attracted to powerful men who are also human and flawed? You could start with Greys Anatomy. Created and produced by women (although every show has a number of producers .... executive, "co", etc. .... this show was created by a woman and the current show runner is a woman).
There are any number of dramas/dramadies, produced and written by both women and men, that portray both genders as seeking partners .... if they're seeking partners at all .... with whom they can share a relationship of equals. And that doesn't necessarily mean the "equality" defined by career status, earning power, etc. that is the paradigm to which pop culture and indeed, our society at large, wants to reduce us.
The kind of "equality" I'm talking about goes much deeper. It encompasses being a competent, caring, human being with a well rounded education. Which doesn't necessarily mean a "formal" education.

As for sitcoms, you have to go back to "Sex and the City" to find what I'm talking about. Four very different women with "girly" interests who often fell for the wrong men but learned from their experiences, with fully drawn male characters as well.
Before dismissing this show as a piece of fluff, remember that these four women ended up with four very different types of men. Including a blue-collar guy who was nobody's dummy for Miranda, the high-powered lawyer. Although set in affluent Manhattan, this show was all about gender equality on a level much deeper than affluence or status, a theme almost non-existent in the history of sitcoms. And no one could accuse it of being PC.
Maybe the lesson is, don't expect too much of TV, especially broadcast network and most especially, sitcoms. And just boycott the "high-powdered female hottie saves neanderthal guy" so-called romantic comedies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Alicia Bebensdorf doesn't get it Posted by: MartianBachelor
I'm old
Posted by: opeluboy on Sep 13, 2007 7:40 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, I am. I admit it. How do I know? Because I can't find one thing Adam Sandler has ever done that approaches funny. Annoying, ignorant, sexist, disgusting, irresponsible, yes, funny, no.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I'm old Posted by: jak
The Cinderella complex
Posted by: drcyflowers on Sep 13, 2007 9:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Recently I've seen "Knocked Up," which is actually a very funny and creative film. To me as a male, it seems like it was written for a male audience, and is therefor a male fantasy in a way. Is it so different from the old movies in which Marilyn Monroe is married to some geeky professor?

And what about the opposite, a loser chick who finds the perfect man to rescue her. That's been done a million times, from Cinderella, all the way to the Bridget Jones movies!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]