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.

Strong Women Are Scaring the Pants Off the Right

By Paul Waldman, TomPaine.com. Posted April 10, 2007.


As a group, conservative media figures are not exactly secure in their masculinity. It's no wonder they are so easily persuaded by political campaigns from alpha males and fear seeing women strip them of their power.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Paul Waldman

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Last month saw Al Gore's triumphant return to Capitol Hill -- the once-ridiculed candidate now acknowledged as a visionary and treated with long-overdue respect. But the most remarkable moment of Gore's hours of testimony in both houses may have been one in which he wasn't even involved. It shined a light on both the changed atmosphere in Washington today, and the fear and loathing that that change is bringing on.

The most confrontational part of the day came when Gore was being questioned by Oklahoma senator, famed global warming skeptic and former chairman of the environment committee James Inhofe, in a battle of wits that was not exactly an equal match. Inhofe had trouble getting Gore to answer questions the way he wanted to, and kept interrupting him and complaining about the limited time he was given.

After some back and forth between Inhofe and Gore, the new chair of the committee, Barbara Boxer of California, put a hand on Inhofe's arm and said, "I want to talk to you a minute, please." After Boxer suggested that Inhofe give Gore the time to answer his questions, Inhofe replied, "Why don't we do this: at the end, you [Gore] can have as much time as you want to answer all the questions..." Boxer then interrupted: "No, that isn't the rule. You're not making the rules. You used to when you did this," she said, holding up the chair's gavel. "Elections have consequences. So I make the rules."

Boxer spoke with appropriate authority: not angry, not loud but unmistakably firm. There was no doubt who was in charge in that room. You could almost see the steam coming out of Inhofe's ears, not only because he had been deprived of his power, but because he was deprived of it by a woman. She even held up the gavel, the symbol of that power, and practically taunted him with it. Freud couldn't have scripted it much better.

The response in some quarters was unsurprising. Michael Savage, whose hateful rants are reportedly heard by 8 million radio listeners every day, hit the roof. Referring repeatedly to "foul-mouthed, foul-tempered women in high places bossing men around," he opined that the image of a woman giving a man orders would lead to more terrorist attacks (or something like that -- it was a little hard to follow).

And it isn't only extremists like Savage who are having trouble stomaching the idea of women in positions of increasing power. We now have a female speaker of the House, and the strong possibility of the first female president; the prospect is sending some men over the edge. MSNBC host Tucker Carlson recently described Hillary Clinton as "castrating, overbearing and scary." Why Carlson looks at the junior senator from New York and immediately fears for the safety of his testicles might be something he and his therapist should explore, but he's hardly alone -- after the election Chris Matthews wondered on the air if Nancy Pelosi was "going to castrate Steny Hoyer." And Matthews has gone through a series of man-crushes on politicians whom he sees as super-hunky in their masculine ways. First it was George W. Bush, then John McCain and the current object of Matthews' affections is Rudy Giuliani. "I think he did a great job," Matthews said about Giuliani's tenure in New York. "And I think the country wants a boss like that. You know, a little bit of fascism there."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: power, politics, james inhofe, barbara boxer, hillary clinton, pelosi

Paul Waldman is a Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America. He is the author of Being Right is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn From Conservative Success.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! 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:
My macho line in the sand starts and ends with Hillary.
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 10, 2007 1:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having raised three daughters, with a wife who's a retired attorney, I'm all for women kicking ass in the work place -- IF they're qualifed. But let's get real about Hillary being president of the United States. Take away $26 million plus Slick Willie and all you have left is an empty pants suit.

Hugh E. Scott, editor of King-George.biz -- the only website with hardcopy proof of White House corruption.

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

» Needs to be dealt with? Posted by: slydad
» Well, gee . . . Posted by: slydad
Not all media people are men.
Posted by: colinmeister on Apr 10, 2007 3:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am, of course, referring to Faux News' favourite right wing harpie Ann Coulter. I try not to be sexist, but I find her to be even more obnoxious than Faux's O'Reilly and Hannity. She seems as if she would relish castrating John Edwards among others.

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

Liberals are wussies
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Apr 10, 2007 4:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Male insecurity and voting patterns is an interesting topic. Equating liberal or anti-war with being a sissy seems to be common and effective tactic for the wing nuts. Unfortunately, it has a timeless appeal, because male insecurity is always in good supply, especially in the US, for some reason.

Ironically, Hillary is a typical insecure male. She acts tough and independent, but hides behind the herd so that she never has to face a real fight by herself.

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

Hillary won't be president
Posted by: ateo on Apr 10, 2007 4:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I know so many guys - friends, co-workers, who have said they would never vote for a woman to be president because women are not cut out to be leaders. I'm not a construction worker or a trucker by the way and these are educated (for what that's worth in America these days) white collar guys in the IT industry, geeks really.

Obama has a much better chance than ANY woman, let alone Hillary Clinton.

If the Democratic strategists are smart they will channel all of the energy surrounding Clinton/Obama among various minority groups into the campaign of a more "traditional" candidate at the appropriate time.

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

Lots of generalizations here
Posted by: H_H on Apr 10, 2007 4:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If this is true, then why are Margaret Thatcher and Katherine Harris so admired on the right?

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

» Yeah, or Ann Coulter? Posted by: Beck
MSM lacks balls
Posted by: wawa on Apr 10, 2007 5:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"as a group, conservative media figures are not exactly secure in their masculinity"

As a kid I wanted to grow up and be Brenda Starr, the red headed, ace investigative journalist, who was smarter than the guys, glamorous and headstrong.

Star reporter for the metropolitan daily, The Flash, Brenda traveled the world solving mysteries and unearthing scoops.

Brenda intuitively knew when somebody was not telling the truth

She boldly went around the world searching for unusual and usually dangerous stories and had the 'thatchers' to stand up to any guy.

After THAT DAY we call 9/11, when the MSM went limp and impotent, this red headed little one embarked upon a journey for some truth.

I have emailed Mr. Bill frequently and Hannity more than a few times, requesting they do what the Fourth Estate is suppose to do:

Seek and Report the truth.

My latest email to them both is posted on April 7 WAWA BLOG:

Dear Mr. Bill O'Reilly and Mr. Sean Hannity,


I write to you both on Good Friday to tell you of another tomb and because that during my four trips to Israel Palestine, every Christian told me that the way to help them, was to tell their stories.

Ever since 1967, Roman Catholic Claire, and her family of fourteen have lived next door to Rachel's Tomb.

Now they can no longer see it.

Their three story home and first floor business have been walled in on three sides by The Wall; which consumes 1.5 million USA tax dollars per mile.

Before The Wall entombed them, the family would spend hours in their back yard garden with a view of open green space and watch pilgrims and tourists visit Rachel's Tomb and welcome them into their gift shop.


Claire's home is now walled in on three sides by 25-30 feet high slabs of concrete which have imprisoned them from the rest of the Little Town of Bethlehem, Occupied Territory...

...Rachel's tomb and Claire's tomb are divided by the concrete barrier which is topped by guard towers and patrolled by soldiers in battle gear. Claire's home is less than 500 yards inside Bethlehem, and it had been the closest shop to Rachel's Tomb. Not long ago, multitudes of pilgrims and tourists would shop there, but today only the curious venture down the concrete walled pathway.

continues April 7, blog

http://www.wearewideawake.org/

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

» RE: MSM lacks balls Posted by: VannaLaRoche
What Hillary and MSM don't want you to know
Posted by: wawa on Apr 10, 2007 5:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Claire informed this reporter,

"Six years ago when the Israeli army blocked the main street in Bethlehem we hoped it would be temporary. We could not imagine anyone could block another human being and isolate them like they have done to us. A week before last Christmas my children went to school and when they returned they were faced with the concrete wall in front of them. They cried and cried and wanted to know how could such a thing be done to them? We are living in a tomb, we are buried alive. My children suffer and their mother and father can do nothing.

"In another ten years there will be no more Christians in Bethlehem if things do not change soon. Everyone is leaving, we need work, and we need to feed our children. Jesus was born here but we are dying. My children suffer, they are angry and shout because nobody comes to visit us anymore and the children must stay inside after school.

"We use to enjoy being out in our garden watching the people, the trees, the cars that would pass by, but now we only see concrete walls. Our lives have been stolen! Do Americans understand what happens to children when they are buried alive? We need a solution fast so that our children can live like American children! We want human rights!

"When Hillary Clinton visited Jerusalem and said the wall was not against the Palestinian people, she killed us too! Christians who do not care kill us too!

"My family use to go to Haifa on the weekends, we use to live a peaceful and comfortable life. But now our business is bankrupt and we are in prison for being Palestinians."

wawa april 7, 2007
http://www.wearewideawake.org/

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

Women at a disadvantage
Posted by: Democritus on Apr 10, 2007 5:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Smart women politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are at a disadvantage in putting forward their positions. If they talk tough, then their male adversaries will scream that they're "ball-busters," and their female critics will accuse them of having too much testosterone. If they talk gentle, then both their male and female detractors will say that they're not up to doing a man's job. The fact is that both Clinton and Pelosi have beaten the odds to achieve the positions of power that they hold. Despite being at a disadvantage both may rise even higher. Nothing succeeds like success.

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

» RE: Women at an advantage Posted by: MartianBachelor
» Women at a disadvantage Posted by: boing007
» RE: You are mistaken Posted by: ateo
» RE: You are mistaken Posted by: fork
YOU'VE COME A LONG WAY, BABY!
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Apr 10, 2007 6:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
anyone consider that women adopting the bad habits of men (controlling, rudeness, yelling, using violence to solve problems, not listening, wanting to be 'in charge', using sports metaphors as solutions for political problems) is a reason why the politics, business world, and international diplomacy is getting more adversarial, divisive, and rude? I thought the goal was to use the 'womanly' qualities always mentioned by feminists (collectivism, patience, detail orientated, consensus, understanding) to curb the war-mongering and devisivness, unfortunately the women leaders are often worse than the men they are replacing (and emulating.)

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

» RE: YOU'VE COME A LONG WAY, BABY! Posted by: hansennancykay
» RE: YOU'VE COME A LONG WAY, BABY! Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: YOU'VE COME A LONG WAY, BABY! Posted by: VannaLaRoche
» RE: YOU'VE COME A LONG WAY, BABY! Posted by: albrechtkrausse
GENTLEMEN, DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Apr 10, 2007 6:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's called progress. Most Women no longer define them
selves in terms of their usefulness to men. Your mothers take care of you for 20+ years. At which time you're expected to grow up. Your relationship with a woman is not meant to continue the mothering. Life becomes mutual and about sharing. Yes we compete but we also like the good life. Women in roles of authority rub you the wrong way. It seems unnatural to you. Relax we still like you all. Thanks, ANNA

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

» RE: GENTLEMEN, DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: GENTLEMEN, DON'T TAKE IT PERSONALLY Posted by: MartianBachelor
Absolutely.
Posted by: fafnir on Apr 10, 2007 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Despite Cheney's fingerprints being all over the knife Olmert twisted into Pelosi's back, what is certain is that strong Democratic women evoke fear and anxiety in Bush men. In particular, Pelosi's successful 100-hour agenda and her ability to move legislation through the House has raised her public favorability to the administration's displeasure.

The coordinated cacophony of condemnation in the media of Pelosi's rather innocuous, State Department approved Middle East trip was orchestrated by a petulant administration bent on putting this “misbehavin'” woman in her place. Others may disagree, but I believe that the tone and magnitude of the attacks on Pelosi would not have been as severe had she been a man.

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

» How many of those bills.. Posted by: Phenix
» Quelle horreur! Posted by: orwellwasn'tdreaming
Senator Clinton is the most qualified candidate
Posted by: robchapman on Apr 10, 2007 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Senator Clinton has shown repeatedly that she can reach other people and persuade them to deal.

She has passed numerous important bipartisan bills in the Senate. This shows that she is a productive and effective legislative leader, a prime qualification for the nation's chief executive.

She has won two elections in NYS by massive margins. Television police dramas are often set in New York to elicit a grity realism. We are not pushovers here and we have no buyer's remorse regarding our junior senator.

Senator Clinton combines the personal attributes of smarts, toughness and compassion in the right mix to serve effectively as President.

Most importantly, Senator Clinton has a vision of America that supplants the social darwinism of conservatism with an ethos of compassionate and principled civil engagement.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

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

Women On Top
Posted by: NoPCZone on Apr 10, 2007 8:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't have a problem with women in power, but would vote for UBL before I would vote for Hillary. Actually there is not a nickel's difference between Hillary and Dubya except in rhetoric.

I can't stand Beck, but he has it right on Hillary's grating voice. Combined with her condescending attitude and DLC-policies makes me reach for the off button the moment she opens her mouth. Pimp the former Wal-Mart Director elsewhere.

If we didn't need her so badly in the House, I would love to see Ms Pelosi in the White House. Clinton is all hat and no cattle.

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

Only true women need apply
Posted by: Knowmad on Apr 10, 2007 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To my mind, there's no doubt that the present sorry state of the world is almost entirely due to the ignorance, shortsightedness and ego-mania of the males who have been in control and made the decisions to this point. To paraphrase someone well-respected (his name escapes me): 'In order to help heal the damage humans have caused - environmental, cultural and sociological - men should be barred from all major decision making for 100 years'. I'm a male, and I tend to agree with this.

However, I would expand that group to also include those females, in the media and elsewhere, who have pretty much become males in all but physiology. By that I mean they have abandoned their natural compassionate and nurturing make-up, in order to become powerful and successful - by male standards. They are thus conflicted, and seem to a one unhappy and stressed. Of course, this does not apply to all those other caring women who try to help by following their true hearts and feelings.

Our planet and its inhabitants are badly in need of some good old TLC right now, and the machismo, domineering competitive male approach - though it had its place in earlier, less civilized(?) times - is no longer necessary or appropriate. Indeed, such practices are now totally and obviously counter-productive, but try to tell that to any of the legion of primitive, neocon children, such as the current farce of an administration and their mindless minions.

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

» Say what?! Posted by: MartianBachelor
Conservatism is fundamentally about fear
Posted by: ScottP on Apr 10, 2007 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fear is the big motivator to avoid change, which is the foundation of conservatism. They'll even avoid the appearance of change rather than change itself. For example, they'll avoid birth control because it's (kind of) new, but accept runaway population growth that brings about greater change to the world because they won't make the connection between births and pollution, overcrowding, etc.

And being macho is fundamentally about posing. If you spend time with people who engage in obviously risky activities such as ski racing or downhill skateboard racing you find people who tend to be less macho than average, less prone to support wars, and less likely to be posers in general (although they're a diverse group that certainly includes all kinds, and the media prefers to publicize the macho ones).

Moral of the story: be nice to children, or else they'll grow up to be macho, insecure war pigs!

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

:-(
Posted by: WhatNow? on Apr 10, 2007 10:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"I'm a manly man, and my opponent is a sissy." Bush beat Kerry among white men by an astounding 25 points.

I am a white man. I see bush as one of the biggest sissies we've ever had for president. I see some of the worse things about myself in bush but none of the good. I'd have to say Kerry is more macho too. He went off to an unnecessary war when I'm sure he could have found a way to stay home. What could be more "macho" (stupid) than that? I want somebody who is wise not macho.

As for hillary clinton, I would never vote for her. All I have to do is look at her voting record. Is there any instance where she has voted for the public's interest instead of corporate interests? If I were the bush administration I would be rather pleased with her voting record. No democratic candidate makes republicans look appealing more than clinton.

Our system is so corrupt now that it's getting difficult to tell who is the lesser of evils if the democrats are going to nominate clinton. Hell, Kerry would not even say the only thing he had to say to get me to vote for him, "I am going to end this war as quick as possible." I guess he'd have done for Iraq what LBJ did for Viet Nam. Okay, maybe a tyson, wal mart shill is a lesser evil than a haliburton, exxon shill, but I don't really know.

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

Yes, she won't win, and I'm not crying over it
Posted by: texshelters on Apr 10, 2007 10:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
True, Hillary won't win, but she's not even my first choice. She is a corporate hack that supports "free trade" and voted for the war. She only gives lip service to health care and withdrawal from Iraq. Sure, she supports some non-fascist positions, but she is not the alternative candidate people want her to be.

Being a women does not make her more compassionate or more progressive. Aren't there other candidates out there that are a real alternative? Oh, I forgot, Hillary can outspend all of them put together, and that is what counts in this election, MONEY.

We're doomed. Forget the presidency; vote locally.

Joe Tex

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

WOMAN ARE CO=PARTNERS WITH MEN IN GOD'S EYES
Posted by: poppop_schell on Apr 10, 2007 1:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am very saddened by this gender war which seems to drive America today. I enjoy working with women both in the home and workplace. Without women, my life would be tragic. In God's eyes, the Church is compared to a woman NOT a man. Men are to love their wife as Christ loved and gave His life for the Church. Women are to respect their husbands.

I wonder how this is going to end?

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

» How is this going to end? Posted by: morticia
Bingo!
Posted by: orwellwasn'tdreaming on Apr 10, 2007 7:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're right on target.

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

So...what about me?
Posted by: praedor on Apr 11, 2007 1:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm a man who does NOT want Hillary to be the nominee, nor do I want her to be President. It is not that she is a woman (I couldn't care less about her sex) but because she is just another goddamned triangulator. I HATE triangulation. It is just another word for mealy-mouthed.

She wants to be all things to all people. She IS the DLC (a cancer on the Democratic party!). She IS the HMOs (she helped create those abominations). She is the last person to revamp our medical disaster in the USA because she is under the sheets with HMOs and insurance friggin companies. She refuses to accept that her decision to support the illegal war on Iraq was wrong. She just wont admit it and apologize. People who refuse to take responsibility for their mistakes is all we've had for the last 16 years. Bill Clinton wouldn't take responsibility for his mistakes, Shrubya is constitutionally incapable to seeing anything he does as a mistake, and Hillary is just another Bill Clinton, advised by the likes of that pustule Carville and that abomination Rahm Emanuel.

I don't want "that woman" to be the nominee because she most assuredly does NOT represent change from the cancer that has been eating away at our government since that idiot actor from California became President.

So, does my opposition to Hillary, with me being a man and all, mean I have a problem with chicks in charge?

Just curious if it is possible to be a man and opposed to Hillary and not be automatically plunked in with the sexist crowd.

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

» it's not the gender Posted by: orwellwasn'tdreaming
One point on terminology
Posted by: praedor on Apr 11, 2007 2:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't refer to Hillary as a "bitch" because she doesn't strike me as such, but then, I don't know enough about her (and don't want to...her love of HMOs and corporations and the Iraq war is all I need to know). It is NOT sexist to use the word "bitch" to refer to a woman in charge unless you are a sexist in the first place. I'm not. I am equal opportunity with the appropriate applicable derogatory terms regardless of sex.

I have no problem with women being my boss, coworkers, whatever. It's all the same to me. But a bitch is a bitch is a bitch. I don't use that term to refer to the equivalent men, and no, I do not call them "decisive", "ambitious", etc, instead. A "bitch", to me, is the female version of a "dick". Nasty, vindictive, backstabbing, unconscionably self-promoting, self-serving, overly controlling behavior from a woman is no less attractive (or acceptable) than it is from a man. Shit behavior is shit behavior - sex has nothing to do with it.

I don't like dicks and I don't like bitches. They are the same sort of asshat.

Hillary isn't a bitch, as far as I can tell, but she is a corporate whore, an HMO shill, and a fellatrix of insurance companies.

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

Madrassas for the religion of unbridled power
Posted by: hansennancykay on Apr 11, 2007 6:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I despair of young men growing up with compassion and moral restraint, in the current climate that massages them over and over and over again with sexual messages tied to violence, sexual messages tied to unlimited power, and terrorizing messages telling them they're nobody if they're not rich, powerful, contemptuous of everybody else except the big bullies, etc etc. It's a wonder we have as many fine young men as we do, and - sorry - they're in the minority. The movies and tv shows they watch are like terrorist training grounds, like those madrassas we read about, training young men in fundamentalist radical religious beliefs. The U.S. religion is unbridled power. The movies and TV shows hook right into their hypothalamuses (instinct part of the brain) and their gonads, and stroke them while pairing the excitement with all the worst messages you couldn't think of in your worst nightmare. I don't know what can undo that conditioning, and worse yet, I don't see much effort to try, because nobody is talking about it. This stuff sells, and sells and sells, because it's linked to primitive pleasure, and this is not acknowledged. I don't think it's a plot, it's just what the producedrs have found that works. It's always, throughout history, been easy to manipulate young, frustrated males waiting for their turn at the table (i.e. from 18-35)...

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

Have pity on a mangled language!!!
Posted by: Ellen Remore on Apr 11, 2007 1:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I confess up front that I did not even take the time to read this article. I assume the person who wrote it is well educated and impressively credentialed. However, I find the use of the phrase "off of," which seems to be popping up all over the place, so increasingly offensive that if it appears in a title or first paragraph, I refuse to read any further. No, I really am not a nutjob about correct English, but these two prepositions in sequence are such execrable grammar that they really make me want to scream. Please, Mr. Waldman, whoever you are, have pity on your mother tongue! We still don't know how it may emerge after another two years of George Bush's bumbling attempts to make himself intelligible in it.

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

It's just like men in countries full of extremist Muslims...
Posted by: Aussie Kim on Apr 12, 2007 9:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...they hate and fear women, too.

Yet more evidence that the many people in the US hate certain cultures because they are too similar to these cultures and recognise their own faults in them...

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