AlterNet / By Mark Dery
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 350

The Hidden Costs of America's Hypermasculine Culture

How America's fear of femininity is driving some of our worst foreign policy mistakes.
May 9, 2007  |  
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 
This article first appeared in the Los Angeles Times.

So there's a smoking crater where Don Imus used to sit. That's fine with those of us who never understood the appeal of his grizzled-codger shtick, which, to me, always sounded like Rooster Cogburn reading The Turner Diaries.

But if we're going to administer a ritual flaying to every blowhard who channels the ugly American id, how is it that a hate-speech Touretter like Ann Coulter has escaped the skinning knife? She called Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards a "faggot" at the Conservative Political Action Conference; insisted on The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch that Bill Clinton's "promiscuity" is proof positive of "latent homosexuality"; quipped on Hardball Plaza that Al Gore is a "total fag"; and wrote, in her syndicated column, that the odds of Hillary Clinton "coming out of the closet" in 2008 are "about even money."

Obviously, racism -- slavery, lynching, institutionalized discrimination -- has taken a much greater toll, in this country, than homophobia. According to the most recent FBI report on hate crimes (2005), most such attacks (54.7 percent) were racially motivated; only 14.2 percent were inspired by the sexual orientation of the victim.

But there's another reason the media haven't given Coulter a prime-time water-boarding: Her problem is our problem. As a society, we view racial epithets as Class-A felonies, whereas homophobic slurs are parking violations (if that). Coulter laughed off her Edwards crack on Hannity & Colmes, saying, "The word I used ... has nothing to do with gays. It's a schoolyard taunt, meaning wuss." Of course, as noted etymologist Mike Damone observed in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, a wuss is "part wimp and part pussy." Not that it means you're a fag or anything. Even if you are a fag. Which is just British slang for "cigarette," anyway. So why are you looking at me like that?

Seriously, though, Coulter's choplogic reminds us that homophobia is so ubiquitous as to be invisible in American society. Only people whose idea of formal attire is a white sheet with eyeholes would dare to use the N-word in public, but homophobic smears reverberate throughout pop culture. Little wonder, too: Asked, in a 2003 Pew study, if homosexuality should be accepted by society, only a razor-thin majority (51 percent) of Americans answered yes, in contrast to 83 percent in Germany, 77 percent in France, and 74 percent in Great Britain.

Our long tradition of demonizing our political and ideological opponents is founded on homophobic innuendo. Camille Paglia derided Al Gore for his "prissy, lisping Little Lord Fauntleroy persona," which "borders on epicene." John Kerry, who spent his childhood summers in France, was too "French" to be presidential timber -- meaning, too much of a girlyman. Now, Jonathan Edwards is too heteroflexible to be commander-in-chief; only Straight Guys with a Queer Eye pay $400 for a haircut, right?

George W. Bush learned an unforgettable lesson about the anxious nature of masculinity in America when Newsweek tarred his father with the "wimp" charge, a perception Bush 41 never really overcame. The resolve never to be branded a wimp is the key to Dubya's psychology: the you-talkin'-to-me? pugnacity and cock-of-the-walk swagger at press conferences; the cowboy bluster about getting Saddam dead or alive; the Top Gun posturing on the aircraft carrier, in a crotch-gripping flight suit that accentuated the Presidential Unit (leading G. Gordon Liddy to swoon -- on Hardball, for Freud's sake -- "what a stud").

Doesn't all this chest-thumping machismo and locker-room homophobia protest a little too much? Paging Dr. Freud, pink courtesy phone: What can we say about a country so anxiously hypermasculine that it can give rise to Godmen, a muscular-Christianity movement that seeks to lure Real Men back to church with services that feature guys bending metal wrenches with their bare hands and leaders exulting, "Thank you, Lord, for our testosterone!"

The trouble with manhood, American-style, is that it is maintained at the expense of every man's feminine side -- the frantically repressed Inner Wussy -- and the demonization of the feminine and the gay wherever we see them. In his book The Wimp Factor: Gender Gaps, Holy Wars, and the Politics of Anxious Masculinity, clinical psychologist Stephen Ducat calls this state of mind "femiphobia" -- a pathological masculinity founded on the subconscious belief that "the most important thing about being a man is not being a woman" (which, for many straight guys, is another way of saying: not gay).

Okay, so maybe I'm overstepping the bounds of my Learning Annex degree in pop psychology. But the hidden costs of our overcompensatory hypermacho are worse, far worse, than a few politicians slimed by reich-wing pundits. The horror in Iraq has been protracted past the point of lunacy by George W.'s bring-it-on braggadocio, He-Ra unilateralism, and damn-the-facts refusal to acknowledge mistakes (even as the body count mounts and billions of dollars go down the drain) -- all hallmarks of a pathological masculinity that misreads diplomacy as weakness and confuses arrogant rigidity with strength. It is a masculinity founded not on a self-assured sense of what it is, but on a neurotic loathing of what it is not (yet secretly fears it may be): wussy. And it will go to the grave insisting on battering-ram stiffness (stay the course! don't pull out!) as the truest mark of manhood.



  • 1
View as a single page
 
Mark Dery is a cultural critic who teaches in the Department of Journalism at New York University. Dery is at work on Paradise Lust, a book about the culture war, on the Web, between sexual revolutionaries and the morality police.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
See more stories tagged with: bush, racism, masculinity, homophobia, ann coulter, don imus

comments COMMENTS ( 350 )
READ COMMENTS
LOGIN OR REGISTER TO POST A COMMENT
 

Comments are closed-

Your system...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Temporary on May 9, 2007 12:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is broken from the INSIDE! You must fix it first! "A house that is divided cannot stand" If you cant fix your own system, you wont win against China or Iran! You will lose, and you will lose BIG TIME!

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

» RE: Your system... Posted by: JoAnne
» RE: Your system... Posted by: talkville

Comments are closed-

Femininity?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Logic's Edge on May 9, 2007 1:02 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe you could start by encouraging it in females first?

Feminine women are difficult to find, these days.

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

» RE: Femininity? Posted by: icha
» RE: Femininity? Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Femininity? Posted by: momly
» RE: Femininity? Posted by: skoog5600
» RE: Femininity? Posted by: icj
» RE: Femininity? Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Femininity? Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Femininity? Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Femininity? Posted by: JoAnne
» RE: Femininity? Posted by: Logic's Edge
» very funny comment JoAnne Posted by: off-the-radar 2
» So true Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: So true Posted by: JoAnne
» RE: So true Posted by: tya
» RE: So true Posted by: babs
» RE: So true Posted by: goatini
» RE: Femininity? Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Femininity? Or Capital? Posted by: talkville

Comments are closed-

Violence is for wussies
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SBK on May 9, 2007 1:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It takes far more control and strength to discuss and collaborate than it does to bomb. How many bullies are known as the smartest kids in class? This crap about being "soft" on crime or war always obscures the fact that diplomacy and rehabilitation are hard work. A real man, woman, commander in chief should have the skills to be the peacemaker such as intelligence, patience, and listening capacity. Can we please let go of the John Wayne, Rambo, Die Hard guys and promote real power in this country?

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

» RE: Violence is for wussies Posted by: ProgressiveManiac

Comments are closed-

Feminity is virtually nonexistent in the US
[Report this comment]
Posted by: skoog5600 on May 9, 2007 1:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the previous comment - "Femininity"? Before I comment let me preface this with a preemptive. I know this will anger a lot of "Women" but here goes ... I lived in MN for most of my life and NYC for over 8 years and dated I would say not a lot of women but enough to make this general assumption that women have lost their femininity. What happen to their sexuality, curves and softness? It is a shame and I don't know if it was the first or second wave of feminism that wiped that out.

Now I have traveled the world and now live in Japan and I have to say that women in the countries I have experienced have curves, sexuality and well quite frankly are more beautiful and attractive than any American woman, generally speaking.

Sorry to be so blunt, but somebody has to point out the fact that men and women are meant to be different, not closer to one another on the spectrum of masculinity and femininity. You are not meant to compete with men in the form of power, you will lose. But when it comes to sexuality, now there's your power.

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

» the Celts did have it right Posted by: off-the-radar 2
» Well Posted by: ateo
» RE: It really is women's fault Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: It really is women's fault Posted by: ljetoorsummer
» gag Posted by: ding1166

Comments are closed-

Protesting too much
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kepstein7777 on May 9, 2007 3:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we can get some of the insecure goons into therapy, maybe we can get some of the Hummers and jacked-up trucks off the road. That would help with the fuel crisis and global warming.

Ann Coulter seems awfully butchy to me--not that there's anything wrong with that. Rumor has it that she's been spotted at Home Depot wearing dark glasses and a mustache...It's okay, Anne. We'll still love and support you no matter what.

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

Comments are closed-

Just a thought.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: zyxwvut on May 9, 2007 3:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The corporate environment is the ultimate expression of American hypermachismo, at least in the civilian world.

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

» Actually... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Actually... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: Actually... Posted by: JoAnne
» agree frosty86 Posted by: off-the-radar 2

Comments are closed-

Pfft!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on May 9, 2007 4:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Methinks Ms Coulter doth protest too much.

Hmm.

Our commander in chief was a cheerleader. In college. *Looks up 'latent homosexual behavior'* *Realizes the twins must have been produced by the 'Michael Jackson' method*

Oh, laura! He never knew ye!

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

Comments are closed-

Bullying is prevalent
[Report this comment]
Posted by: robchapman on May 9, 2007 4:19 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bullying is so prevalent in American schools, that many are beginning to adress it directly... this is shocking, because the inertia in the educational administrative apparatus is so complete.

In the schools that I work in, and particularly among Middle school boys, bullying smaller, weaker boys is common. This is never one-on-one it is a group sport that is participated in by the girls as well as the boys.

For many taunting, shunning and name-calling are the methods, Gay and faggot seem to be the most common themes.

I have called students down and had them justify their actions by appeal to James Dobson's Family Network denunciations of homosexuality.

Paradoxically, the boys who are so persecuted are straight, the gay boys seem to know how to deflect such attention from themselves.

It seems to me the problem is not in the social attitudes so much as it is in Americans' willingness to engage in mob bullying,

Bullying is a phenomena that Americans both left and right seem unwilling to address.

Yet its manifestations are everywhere evident.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

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

Comments are closed-

Imus and Coulter
[Report this comment]
Posted by: colinmeister on May 9, 2007 4:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are several major differences between Don Imus and Anne Coulter.

The first is that Imus was for the most part a good entertainer. Sure - he made off colour cracks about many groups, including student "Jockettes", but it was intended to be in a joking manner. Ann Coulter, on the other hand, comes over as nothing but a mean-spirited bitch. Her comments about the firefighters' wives were just plain nasty, with not a shred of humour or satire in sight.

The second is that Don Imus has actually done quite a lot of charitable work, which is more than can be said for Anne Coulter.

There are many other differences, but two will do for a start.

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

» RE: Imus and Coulter Posted by: goldmarx
» RE: Imus and Coulter Posted by: SteveO
» yes - & in general Imus had it backwards Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: Imus and Coulter Posted by: Wacre
» RE: Imus and Coulter Posted by: goldmarx

Comments are closed-

Homophobia is a weapon of sexism
[Report this comment]
Posted by: frosty86 on May 9, 2007 4:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm glad alternet posted an article on this because there is so little critical discussion about masculinity these days. The article hinted at this but homophobia or heterosexism is a way to maintain unequal gender roles.

Since we live in a patriarchal society, women are devalued and are seen as inferior to men. One way to justify sex inequality, is to make men and women seem very different from each other (biologically, cognitively, etc.). Boys who act feminine are taunted and teased with words like, "sissy," "pussy," "fag," "fairy" etc. And as Suzanne Pharr explained in her book "Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism," gay men are seen as being feminine/like women and are breaking ranks with masculine solidarity, in the eyes of other men. The existence of gay men threatens the idea that men are very different from (and better than) women. Lesbians are seen as taking on masculinity, which is not rightly theirs. They also suggest to men that women can live independently of them, which is threatening to men.

Thus the roots of heterosexism/homophobia are not in individual men's insecurities or quircks. While the men who are visibly homophobic may very well be insecure about not being masculine (strong, aggressive, powerful) enough, we can't stop there with our analysis. What does it mean that some men are insecure about masculininty and have to taunt feminine men and masculine women to feel better? What does that tell us? It tells us we're living in a sexist society. It all comes back to living in a society in which women and femininity are mocked, devalued, and the targets of violence.

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

» one more thing... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: jasonk
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: jasonk
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: Ydotheyhateus
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: jasonk
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: jasonk
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: jasonk
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: jasonk
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: jasonk
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: frosty86
» continued... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: continued... Posted by: jasonk
» RE: continued... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: continued... Posted by: jasonk
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: jasonk
» best thread yet Posted by: off-the-radar 2

Comments are closed-

Johnson, Nixon, Bush, Cheney
[Report this comment]
Posted by: astockton on May 9, 2007 4:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What do all four of these men have in common? Answer: they all had two daughters and no sons. I wonder if they felt, or feel, somehow less masculine because they couldn't reproduce themselves and had/have a need to wage war to prove that they're "real" men?

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

» RE: Johnson, Nixon, Bush, Cheney Posted by: MartianBachelor

Comments are closed-

This article
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Robba29 on May 9, 2007 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
sucks! There is so much to be said on this subject and this is the best alternet can find? Come on! This is a huge issue, and this person chalks it up to "pop psychology"--that's grounds for a deletion--it shows a total unawareness of the deep seeded patriarchal value system that is the root of so many of our problems. Cop out.

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

» RE: This article Posted by: maven

Comments are closed-

Guys in camouflage
[Report this comment]
Posted by: sausage on May 9, 2007 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's nothing "gayer" than a bunch of men, gathered round a campfire drinking beer, all wearing camouflage clothing.

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

» RE: Guys in camouflage Posted by: babs

Comments are closed-

Meh. I don't work out as much as I should, but I've got no problem...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ABetterFuture on May 9, 2007 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...with being able to change the channel if something like Anne Coulter appears on it*. Might I suggest those who are most offended buff up their channel changing digits just a bit? Then, for goodness sakes, work on aerobics.

Breathing is important!

That said, it's hard to completely avoid her since I visit this site at least a few times a week, and stumble on more Coulterism coverage. It's apparent that there is a fixation afoot, though it would be wrong of me to out the ed.

*For comparison. see also the well-dwellers, deadites from Army of Darkness, except they're actually fun to watch when playing the old "how many bullets can his double barrel shotgun shoot before he has to reload" drinking game. Hmm, perhaps this offers yet another indictment of American culture and Western Civilization? There are just so very many to choose from. With 300M folks, everybody should have the opportunity to work through their personal oppression(s) with healthy doses of raising the old awarenessing, a sprinkle of community activism for those who feel group therapy is icky, and lot's (and lot's) of self-help books, as well as those advocating the continuity of advocacy of some sort or the other.

Of course, none of this is at all possible--one can not possibly change one's situation in life--without a clear understanding of the problem, and a highly personalized accusation that Society Has Failed To Make You Feel Important Enough.

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

» Shorter read. Posted by: ABetterFuture

Comments are closed-

IMUS / COULTER ?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 9, 2007 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lousy comparison. Maybe that's the problem. All people men and women vary greatly. Even within the same family. Too much emphasis is put on stereotypes. One woman can change a tire the other can't. One man has a hairdresser another man goes to the barber shop. Is this a big deal. Women have not become hypermasculine, they simply are not afraid to be smart and capable. It's called progress. Thanks, ANNA

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

Comments are closed-

IMUS / COULTER ?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 9, 2007 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lousy comparison. Maybe that's the problem. All people men and women vary greatly. Even within the same family. Too much emphasis is put on stereotypes. One woman can change a tire the other can't. One man has a hairdresser another man goes to the barber shop. Is this a big deal. Women have not become hypermasculine, they simply are not afraid to be smart and capable. It's called progress. Thanks, ANNA

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

» RE: IMUS / COULTER ? Posted by: DaBear

Comments are closed-

HYPERMASCULINE = Michelangelo's art
[Report this comment]
Posted by: caru on May 9, 2007 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this is not about hypermasculinity this is about self hate.

michelangelo was known for his love of male beauty -- just look at david! talk of hypermasculinity!! he was known to LOVE men.

i think this administration, and most white men in power are engaged in one huge circle j*rk. they claim and desire to control others minds by limiting the access to LIFE. LIFE includes the pleasures of the skin. LIFE includes kindness and caring. if one can control anothers access to LIFE, one can control the mind. these guys are NOT homophobic, they are self-hating engagers in the very same things they want to control in others minds.

i do NOT DOUBT there are relationships between w and gonzales ...

you do not have to be gentle to be loving your own sex. you can be big and strong and hypermasculine too. we need to accept all the people all the ways and encourage each one to stop the SELF HATING and the desire to control others minds.

please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo
'Fundamental to Michelangelo's art is his love of male beauty, which attracted him both aesthetically and emotionally.'

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

Comments are closed-

Masculinity pays the bills...enough said!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ydotheyhateus on May 9, 2007 7:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the wonderful luxuries we enjoy today here in US is thanks to our masculinity to wage war, and acquire what we need and when we need it. Does anyone think we would be the sole superpower in the world had we not started a weapon's race with the communist block? Or to bleed the Soviets in Afghanistan?
For the most part we can dictate to the world the laws of trade and commerce for our benefit. Does anyone thinks that we could be in such a powerful situation if we didn't have over 700 military bases around the world, and air-craft carriers deployed around the globe?
And at the end of the day, it benefits us all in the form of material comforts that we enjoy.

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

» And how is any of this good? Posted by: wallart2006

Comments are closed-

Bye bye Gendernet
[Report this comment]
Posted by: sweetlou on May 9, 2007 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This will be my last visit...

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

» RE: Bye bye Gendernet Posted by: dover23
» RE: Bye bye Gendernet Posted by: Radicalizer
» RE: Bye bye Gendernet Posted by: talkville

Comments are closed-

The Hidden Costs of AlterNet's Hyperandrophic Culture
[Report this comment]
Posted by: MartianBachelor on May 9, 2007 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For men, the world is a theater for heroism. - William James

Dery confuses and conflates several different things, in particular theatrical heroism with the real thing. Thus, he gets sidetracked by buzzwords such as "hypermasculinity" and "femiphobia". Perhaps the latter result when a culture is over-feminized, but I don't think Dery is capable of considering such an idea.

Coulter gets a pass not because of her subject matter but because of her sex. In short, men are held accountable whereas women aren't. That's the real double standard. We all know practically any nutty thing is likely to come out of a given woman's mouth at any given time. We don't expect a woman to think before she speaks, though we do expect a man to do so. If "the demonization of the feminine" was the operative principle, as Dery thinks, Coulter's name-calling would have elicited the tarred/feathered response which Imus got. But it didn't, so he's just wrong.

If "homophobic innuendo" works it's because it works especially well with women, who surveys have shown would rather date/marry a convicted murderer than a cross-dresser -- by a four-to-one ratio. A gay man is of no use to your average woman because she has no power over him. Gay men are abhorent to the larger, feminized society not because of their sexuality but because they don't do what men are basically supposed to do: support women and children. If too many men defect, the whole system collapses because then there's no one left to do the unpleasant work that gets done only because men do it.

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

» READ: ...Hyperandrophobic Culture Posted by: MartianBachelor

Comments are closed-

Who wants to be a macho man?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: OneAcre2012 on May 9, 2007 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, two pages hardly is room enough to make an indentation on an extremely important topic. Fortunately, that leaves us with plenty of room to flesh out the argument. It seems to me the biggest societal problems that we face are the one's that are based essentially on superstition. Most of us are quite aware that racial differences are not biological, but cultural. The "battle of the sexes," likewise, is a cultural issue. And let's not forget religious differences. To address these issues, you have to start here. A lot of folks simply refuse to believe that they aren't different at all from those they despise.

Male/female is not a dichotomy but a continuum. Ask someone who was born intersexed. As humans, we range from the biggest burliest of men to the daintiest, most petite of women and, guess what, vice versa, with big, strong women and dainty, petite men. Since our culture, and by culture I refer to the decisions and actions of everyone that came before us and everyone that is now among us, has somehow dictated that men and women have to fit certain specifications to be deemed normal, those of us don't fit those norms become targets for ridicule from people who are flummoxed by the very existence of difference. Many of the targets then find other people that are freakier than they are to deflect the attention to. The plot is foiled, however, when the freaks stand up and own their freakiness with a confidence that the insult-hurlers never had, and now all of a sudden the hyper-macho patriarchy pushers are exposed for what they really are.

I watch a lot of NBA basketball, and the trend over the past few years has been toward cooperative team play and away from the hyper-macho individual star-dominated performances of the Michael Jordan/Charles Barkley era. But still, when a prime-time player like Dirk Nowitski struggles to establish a presence on the court, his masculinity is called into question. The same player who, along with his teammates in a team-game, helped dispatch the always challenging San Antonio Spurs (another team that wins with cooperation and not unilateral star power) just last year now doesn't have the meddle or the, well, balls to step up in the clutch.

Cooperation and teamwork are not highly valued in an Alpha-Dog culture where strong, muscular and loud leaders demand subservience from the minions in order to achieve half-thought-out goals. Look at Sarkozky in France. His aims are to toughen his country up and make them competitive in the the US/UK/China/India business model, where the almighty Dollar/Pound/Franc/Rupi/Euro takes precednce over living life to the fullest and relishing the blessings of the every-day. When you bully people into producing, you chip away at their souls. When you engage people and get their input, the collective value increases exponentially whether or not you can place a dollar value on it.

What a lot of hyper-masculine men don't really understand is that by abhorring everything that is feminine, they actually weaken themselves substantially. For a macho-man's ego, eradicating the female means protecting oneself against a woman having a better idea or being more capable of doing something, thus rendering said macho-man into wussy oblivion. But if the idea is truly better, if the individual more capable, wouldn't cooperating to make that idea work be the "manliest" course of action? Working for the betterment of others, however, runs counter to hyper-man's sheer existence, as he ascended to power by trampling those he deemed weak and inferior, so why would he want to help them? In his view, he would weaken himself by doing so, even though he's busy weakening himself anyway by shutting out the non-manly, adhering strictly to a code that has borne chaos and destruction, from genocide to that little kid getting picked on everyday at school by the Ann Coulter's of the world.

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

» RE: Who wants to be a macho man? Posted by: off-the-radar 2
» RE: Who wants to be a macho man? Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Who wants to be a macho man? Posted by: Ranch_Davidian
» thank you! Posted by: off-the-radar 2

Comments are closed-

Confused about our sexuality? What can you tell by looking?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Sojourner on May 9, 2007 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Display yourself? That's common to humans everywhere. Our problem is that it's commercialized by a fashion industry whose momentum is profit and whose influence is ubiquitous.

At first I thought that the availability of pornography these days might contribute to sexual health. But since it is just a sex show, and since love is not for exhibition nor about performances, I hope that youngsters are not getting the wrong idea. But I am likely wrong about that.

"Looking good" matters more than being good--at whatever. That's acceptable for adolescents. It is a measure of our cultural immaturity that it remains the rule even to the mortician's profit.

Bush is a brat whose growth got stunted somewhere back in adolescence. It's a pity that American voters cannot see that he's a shrunked version of what a man might be. But since we see ourselves in him and others like him, we shall continue to elect 'boys' instead of men. I like kids. But not running the country.

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

Comments are closed-

Then we should be whuppin some ass
[Report this comment]
Posted by: fred_53_99 on May 9, 2007 9:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You'ed think with all these balls up in here we would have whomped Iraq four years ago. Notice that few of these macho men are in the militay. Notice that there was no big surge of men to join up after 911. Pat Tilman and his brother are the exceptions. Yes upper class white men do feel they have lost thier balls so the only way they can prove they havent' is to talk tough and send others to fight for them. No wonder they fear the word puzzy. I perfer the word coward.

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

Comments are closed-

Hypermasculinity? Try lack thereof
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on May 9, 2007 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Bush sat in that classroom and did nothing while the country was suffering "the worst terror attacks in history" it becomes painfully obvious that he and his devout followers are not very masculine at all. They're cowards in fact. Now when you take that fact into account, it becomes even more obvious the true reasons they are so homophobic. It's because they cant lie to themselves. They know they are the ones who are weak inside and therefore must outwardly project a hypermasculine image to compensate.

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

» RE: Hypermasculinity? Try lack thereof Posted by: MartianBachelor

Comments are closed-

Remember Feminism?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mstenger on May 9, 2007 10:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's good to see articles like this that attempt to introduce the younger generation to good old fashioned feminism.

Feminism is about equality of the sexes and the end of patriarchal society. We've gotten closer to equality, but just a little. Patriarchy is alive and well.

Many things feminine in our society are ridiculed. Movies with women's themes are derisively called "Chick Flicks" by both men and women. Why is it that men can't sit through Steel Magnolias but women are supposed to think Diehard is just dandy? I like to call male-themed movies "Dick Flicks." Hollywood churns out movies with male leads all the time, but rarely is a woman doing anything other than being the girlfriend or mom of the starring male.

Isn't it interesting when you call a male a pejorative term like "son-of-a-bitch" that it stems from degrading a female?

We allow our girls to be tomboys but we don't allow our boys to be sissies because the worst thing one can be is a girl.

Now, because men don't want to feminize themselves in any way, we have women who work fulltime, keep house and take care of the kids while many men refuse to help with the housework or kids and simply work a job like they've always done. Women--that's your own fault for not making your husbands do half!

Personally, I knew feminism was dead when calling women over 18 "girls" became common-place again, and boob jobs were seen as something not only acceptable to have, but necessary to get a man!!!!!!!

Of course the end-all of women's rights is now forseeable with Roe v. Wade hanging in the balance. I never thought I would ever again in my lifetime see such an assault against women.

I hope Alternet keeps these kinds of articles coming so that the younger generation will stop taking women for granted and wake up.

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

» nice call icj Posted by: off-the-radar 2
» Quite the read. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Dick flicks!!!!! Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: emember Feminism? Yes Posted by: talkville

Comments are closed-

false binary
[Report this comment]
Posted by: freeda'all on May 9, 2007 10:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The idea that 'hypermasculinity' can be resolved or cured by 'feminity' plays right into the false divides created by people needing systems of power.

Gender is an artificial social system intended to keep females subordinate to males by artificially assigning common human behaviors to one sex or the other and placing positive/negative values on the basis of which sex gets which lot. Of course there are 'masculine' women and 'feminine' men because we all share commonalities that are denied to us by 'gender.'

This article doesn't take us out of the trap, it just keeps us rattling around and around inside of it.

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

» RE: false binary Posted by: mviscid
» RE: the social construct of gender Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Ames reply Posted by: Blade
» RE: Ames reply Posted by: Ames
» RE: Ames reply Posted by: Blade
» RE: Ames reply Posted by: Ames
» RE: false binary (....no) Posted by: elfinito
» RE: false binary (....yes) Posted by: off-the-radar 2
» RE: false binary (....no) Posted by: Blade
» Every culture assigns gender roles Posted by: Philip Newton

Comments are closed-

It's not masculinity, it's blatant greed.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 9, 2007 10:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women are just as guilty as men when it comes to being greedy pigs - look at Condoleeza Rice shopping for $5000 spiked boots while New Orleans drowned.

Of course, a publication like the LA Times, owned by some of the biggest greed-heads in existence, is not going to point out this obvious fact.

Look at all the Iraqi 'reconstruction contracts' - a bunch of greedy corporate contractors sucking up every penny of the reconstruction budget, while doing as little work as possible, then fleeing the country when the cash ran out.

The hogs are really at the trough.

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

Comments are closed-

I THANK GOD THAT MY FEMALE AND MALE FRIENDS AREN'T LIKE WHAT I SEE HERE ON ALTERNET
[Report this comment]
Posted by: poppop_schell on May 9, 2007 12:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After reading all the posts, I feel like I'm literally from another world. I guess I'm truly sheltered or perhaps better stated blessed to live among men and women who value each other: that don't in general have some much bitterness towards the opposite sex. My heart goes out to you'll.

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

» What's with the Mormon bashing? Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
» RE: What's with the Mormon bashing? Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: What's with the Mormon bashing? Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: What's with the Mormon bashing? Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: What's with the Mormon bashing? Posted by: poppop_schell
» being a religious bigot is ???? Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: What's with the Mormon bashing? Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
» Have you ever met a Mormon? Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
» RE: Have you ever met a Mormon? Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Have you ever met a Mormon? Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
» RE: Have you ever met a Mormon? Posted by: poppop_schell

Comments are closed-

America: a cruel country
[Report this comment]
Posted by: THIAHB on May 9, 2007 2:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article made sense to me in suggesting a possible link between personal psychology and national psychosis.

Compared to many other Westernized, allegedly civilized countries around the world (and I have lived in a few), America is an incredibly cruel and insensitive country. From public policy to public attitudes, the culture demonstrates a lack of sympathy and empathy for people who are disadvantaged, different or somehow don't fit into the mold of what is considered "American".

Americans are so drunk on their own ideals and the heroic history that they fail to see the sickening irony that they have betrayed the very values that they once stood for.

For evidence one need look no further than some of the posts here on this forum. I simply had to laugh and shake my head at the poster who said that America needs its 700 military bases around the world to guarantee its quality of life. Sad, very sad indeed how the promise of America has been so blatantly betrayed.

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

» RE: America: a cruel country Posted by: skoog5600
» RE: Pulling the rug out... Posted by: THIAHB

Comments are closed-

Masculinity is natural (not saying good)
[Report this comment]
Posted by: elfinito on May 9, 2007 5:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing that drives me nuts when discussing sexuality, exclusion, and conflict is the need to "Blame Society."

Society has its bad portrayals; Pop culture has become a wasteland of hate and degradation, and education has pawned off on ill-equiped schools while so many parents do nothing to tecah their children positive virtues.

However, civilization has spent thousands of years modifying the natural tendencies of teh Human Animal. That's right we are Animals...in particular mammals. Agressive "machismo" tendencies, such as territorial aggresiveness and "bullying" of weaker males (not to mention, uncomfort with differences....i.e hating those outside your group, tribe, or herd.) genetics and have been natural part of mammallian behaviour right down the line. Society, recognizing the poblems this can cause has fought an uphill battle aginst it for centuries (and even more so in the last 50 years, since Women have began to gain some more power).

But even the most masculine societies around today, try to curb this...perhaps by horrible methods, but its done. What do you think the Arab laws about woman are about? They are men acknowledging their weakness, abd insteda of having some goddamn self-contriol, they try to avoid teh aggresive competitive behaviour that males exhibit, by hiding their women.

Education and society have to do something to work against these tendencies (The roots rae so bad that most mammals only have one male that is "allowed" to mate, the rest are driven off, or bullied into submission, hoping for a chance to become the Alpha). I agree that they are dangerous and childish...but don't blame society for teaching opour childrem they exist...blame nature for that...blame society and education for not doing a better job of combatting these natural tendencies.

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

Comments are closed-

Another UltraLiberal Clueless Metrosexual
[Report this comment]
Posted by: faultroy on May 9, 2007 5:10 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find Mark Dery's comment about hypermasculinity laughable. It just goes to show, if you say something outrageous enough, someone is stupid enough to print it.
He says: "The trouble with manhood American Style is that it is maintained at the expense of every man's feminine side. Aside from the overt stupidity of the comment in that it is both illogical and irrational; it makes no sense--even his own argument differentiates between macho and desirable "male" qualities. To imply that male qualities are dominant because we consciously subvert "female" qualities is nothing more than ...well stupid. Men have been assailed by a culture of Feminism--woman good, man bad.
A perfect example is Dery's comments about Imus and Ann Coulter. Can anyone imagine a male public personae making some of the outrageous comments of Ann Coulter?
Imus's comments, while crude, were not meant to attack anyone, but rather to mock and make a joke. No one involved in this brouhaha has ever said that Imus himself was racist. As a matter of fact, Imus is a legend in the New York area as an ultraliberal. Imus has repeatedly supported liberal political agendas both on and off the air. This is beyond the considerable charity work that he does for all children regardless of color or gender.
Coulter on the other hand is a pretty crude vulgar and ugly example of feminity's dark side. No one can honestly say that Coulter's vitriol is strictly for entertainment purposes. It really does not matter if you are liberal or conservative, everyone that really listens to Coulter will find something both unseamly and unsavory.
Why then the double standard? Can it be that a tall "woman" wearing a miniskirt is not held to the same "standard" that men are? Bingo!!!
Men have been assailed in the courts, politically and consistently not held to the same standard that women have. They have been denied their constitutional rights in the courts as fathers, brothers and sons. They are consistenly denied both due process and the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Feminists have consistently lied about studies, misrepresented facts and distorted issues with their own brand of bigotry and biased invective. There is no dearth of feminist facism. Bias is even taught in schools under the guise of "Women's Studies." No one disputes these courses are biased--even the professors teaching them.
Fortunately, men are organizing and getting together and building alliances with women's organizations focused on both equality of genders and those oriented towards both family and conservative values.
That the pendulum will swing back to a more moderate homeostatis is a given. How long it will take is the question. It is obvious that the GLBT groups and Radical Third Wave Feminists are the culprits and instigators since they have the most to gain. As men slowly destroy their weak and biased arguments the tide will change.

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

Comments are closed-

The Missing Word is Misogyny - Female Hating
[Report this comment]
Posted by: odcherenow on May 9, 2007 5:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a lot of confusion in this article. The author pairs homophobia and hypermasculination with abhorrence of things feminine.
No, the behaviors and beliefs we are seeing enacted by all the players he mentions is misogyny: hatred of females. The original source of all negative discrimination into better than and less than was the early patriarchs (the father-rules guys) and the original target was females, of all hues. The institutionalization of misogyny is sexism. Homophobia came much later - well after Greece and Rome where homosexuality was the norm and women of all classes were kept to their houses.
Misogyny is to be found, worldwide, in ancient cultural traditions and current religious practices. Women and girls are defined as "purdah", "unclean" and "not fit to speak in the temple" in Hindu, Moslem and Judeo-Christian faiths.

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

Comments are closed-

RE: Women, women, women and more women.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: morticia on May 9, 2007 6:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Darn! I was hoping to get a subscription to Stupid Cunt!

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

» RE: Women, women, women and more women. Posted by: SatanicJamboree

Comments are closed-

RE: Women, women, women and more women.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Aussie Kim on May 9, 2007 8:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow.

I found your post amusing at first, because I LOATHE women's magazines and would close them all down in a split second, given half the chance, but then I read on and it dawned on me that you hate us anyway.

SO WHAT if women study other women? What do men do? Shoot each other? Bomb each other? Beat each other to a pulp?

Oh YEAH! There's something to aspire to.

I'd rather study the lives of other women and LEARN from them, thanks, rather than behave the way some men behave.

I'm a feminist, but I ain't no stupid "MAN".

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

» RE: Women, women, women and more women. Posted by: SatanicJamboree

Comments are closed-

RE: Women, women, etc.. (its a shame, you had a good basis...but made awful conclusons)
[Report this comment]
Posted by: elfinito on May 9, 2007 8:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But really women...what the fuck is the deal with woman's mags? I undertand we have Maxim and the like...but women have 3,000 of em all spewing the same crap.

I remember making the mistake of saying, to who I though was really cool woman at work that i could be honest with, that "if I was a woman, I would be thoroughly offended by what these magazines seem to think of my intelligence....They seem to think that this is the only thing a woman can handle reading about. She went off on me...completely caught me off guard, I wasn;t even sure what I did...I guess maybe she read them too, just not at work? If you want the feminst movement to gain some teeth...the first thing you have to do is convince woman to stop worshipping Cosmopolitan, Elle, etc....

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

Comments are closed-

Women read Vanity Fair, Wired, Salon etc
[Report this comment]
Posted by: off-the-radar 2 on May 9, 2007 9:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so your post seems to assume that women only read "women's magazines". That's a mighty big assumption. Last I knew, women were not restricted to Redbook and Good Housekeeping (both fine magazines by the way).

Yep many women are reading Vanity Fair, Wired, Salon, Utne, Better Homes and Gardens, and the list goes on. And in my neck of the woods, both men and women read People, Us, Entertainment weekly and that old classic, Reader's Digest.

So please, if you're going to rant, try to be informed. And a sense of humour wouldn't hurt either.

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

Comments are closed-

RE: Women, women
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Blade on May 9, 2007 9:15 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Notice no one can refute you. bradford! You put some effort in there, and I, for one, appreciate it.

Sure, let's all be more like women, all about me, me, me. Even in their "Mother" roles, it's all about them, don't kid yourself.

USAmerican women, that is. What was that Guess Who song? American woman, get away from me... That phrase was great in its double meaning...

To give you some reference, I graduated from high school in 1970, and know something of the really old days, when most Moms, like mine, stayed home and raised the kids.

But my generation burned the bras, and didn't even wear them for years. They were real heroes in a way, in your face, and here's my tits, deal with it, women.

My first wife hyphenated her last name, like most others.

I always, since grade school, had women buddies, and have been told, that for a most part fairly macho guy, that I am "in touch" with my feminine side more than most. So I have been told several times.

Well, if that is so, it's the side of me that causes the most problems.

Over the years, I have learned to be more feminine when I am in a fight. That means there are no rules of behavior, I can lie and manipulate, devise detailed plans of destruction...

A doctor friend of mine was explaining to me that men grow up playing playground games, board games, video games, etc., while women grow up playing house, etc. In the boys' world, rules of the game and behavior (don't kick below the belt), serve as a sort of Linus blanket for the guys, individually, and as a group. But the girls' world is one where they make up the rules as they go, change them at a whim, and tell you to go home if you don't like it.

This explanation answered a lot of questions for me about why women are so dishonest and nasty in a divorce fight, and so many men get taken lock, stock, and barrel.

Why do most women not have many women friends? Except these progressive enlightened ladies, here, of course, excluded.

Many women I have known over the years would at some point say they don't like other women, and say that that is true of most women. Is it?

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

» RE: Women, women Posted by: morticia

Comments are closed-

all i can say to this is...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vwaites on May 9, 2007 10:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WHAT??? (as in, what the f**k!?)

This is so unabashingly (and i do not throw this word around) mysogonistic, that i truly can think of no way to respond to someone with their head so deeply buried up his sad, sad, ass.

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

Comments are closed-

if you're going to hurl insults, at least do your homework
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ames on May 9, 2007 11:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While this post is no doubt intended to be inflamatory and I have no intention of setting it straight because it would be a massive waste of my time, I have to point out a major grammatical error.
Apart from the obvious intent of using the word 'cunt' to describe women, 'cunting' is actually an incorrect word usage. 'cunt' is a noun, however disgusting it's use may be, and therefore cannot have -ing attached to the end. -ing can only be attached to verbs, doing words, like your next word in the sentence - 'fucking'.
Next time you want to have an anti-women rant, at least make sure you get your insults right. THEN, we can treat you like you've got a brain and argue and discuss like civilized people.

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

Comments are closed-

RE: Women, women, women and more women.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Aussie Kim on May 10, 2007 12:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, and if anyone's interested, the only magazines I buy are New Science and Scientific American and some of the National Geographic specials. And maybe the occasional Rolling Stone magazine if there's something really interesting, like the article they had on the birth of the AIDS epidemic in the 50's.

(and THAT fact alone should blow a few people's minds because it shows I'm not even so anti-American...)

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

Comments are closed-

RE: Women, women, women and more women.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ranch_Davidian on May 10, 2007 10:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're pissed off that women's magazines cater to...the interests of women? So what? No one is going to force you to sit down and read O or Modern Bride. Also, most of the types of magazines you mentioned as being "men's magazines" are aimed at and read by both genders.

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

Comments are closed-

I don't like girls! I like trains and guns and computers and rock stars!!! And so does Biff!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Beck on May 10, 2007 1:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Me and Jimmy and Biff really like cars and trains, and we hate cunting, fucking women. Oh, and me and Tommy like magazines about DVD players; they are really, really good, but not those stinking girls. We all really like planet magazines, but girls are icky. Well, boys are, too, because we'd never look at a magazine with boys on it. Only stuff. We really like stuff. Stuff magazines are the best! Magazines with humans are dumb.


Actually, if I were to go by alot of the posts on alternet, I'd think that some men do nothing but navel gaze, then whimper that women aren't too willing to gaze into their hairy navels along with them. Some of you guys are so emotionally out-of-control.

Oh, and don't the words, "cunting fucking women" (you forgot the comma; can't any of you punctuate?) look like an idiot wrote them when you see someone else use them? I imagine you pictured that sentence as impassioned and extra-convincing. It actually looks like an immature sixth-grader wrote it.

Sit behind your window and keep looking. It really sounds like a fascinating way to live. But it will keep you away from the rest of us, and make you feel safe from those icky, icky girls.

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

Comments are closed-

Fear Of Big Sister?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hole11 on May 9, 2007 6:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Masculinity has it's place. Most of us don't know what that place is or if it can be contained. It does bother some of us that being to masculine is now almost a felony.

It does seem to me that Coulter has a point that every political candidate is gay or girly men. What does it say when Howard Dean's speech is pumped up in volume while the background is silenced to make him appear like a raging animal on steroids.

I like to hear McCain say he is going to follow Osama to the gates of hell in order to get him, but I doubt if he is physically able to do it. But it bothers me that people frown on his aggressive speech.

I am sure Condallezza Rice can hold her own going to foreign countries and talking the talk. But I couldn't help but notice the looks from other men at her (on her team) while she was talking. It was almost as if they were laughing at her. It's similar when Rosie O'Donnel and Trump go at it. She might be right but Trump is laughing at this woman.

It is bothersome when women interview women as with Hillary Clinton and that reporter that had the great shoes from Saks. It's as if society is getting soft, kinder, and gentler. We have reporters not asking hard hitting questions and celebrities apologizing for everything they do and seeking rehabilitation as soon as their brain farts.

It's as if we have a conservative society that doesn't plan on changing anything. Where is the guy or gal that says I am going to change it, scrap it, or fix it? Instead they just apologize and say they are wrong or not good enough.

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

Comments are closed-

Defining Definity Fag
[Report this comment]
Posted by: talon53 on May 9, 2007 7:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mark Dery
I disagree with Coulter's definition of Edward is a Fag, a wuss to you a fag to someone else. Is that the same connotation that could be used in NY, in Dallis. in St Louis. The logic seemed a bit to loose in context; "a parking violations (if that)"to a writer"?? Fag carries with it the baggage of the original Gay context so even though you have defined it one is always wondering subconsciously "is he a fag" .
The question comes in when Defining Definitely. How credible are you or Coulter on the scale do you put a person who believes in this type of thought pattern or do you just lump them all-together in a class distension to fast-boat someone creditability . I guess what I'm am saying is that people should be brought to task (be responsible for what they write. I did injoy your article in a way of expressing oneself and ideals but I can not hold with your ideals of Coulter even though she might be an acommplished writer/publisher. Ann Coulter has escaped the skinning knife! Yes and No only to slander every good writers creditablity painting them with the same paint brush.

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

Comments are closed-

Hypermasculine? Or just plain stupid?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Aussie Kim on May 9, 2007 7:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sadly, it also appears that "hypermasculinity" also means "ignorance and stupidity". If macho attitudes caused this illegal war, ignorance and stupidity fuelled the drive to get there.

Also - Right-wing Christianity is so rampant in the US - of COURSE they hate women and gay men. Of COURSE they also hate education and logic and (*gasp*) THINKING. These things WILL drive most people from the church, and so you can't have these things occuring.

The US must be the strangest communist country in the world - your people actually INVITE others to give them people to hate and goals and "standards" to work _down_ to...

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

Comments are closed-

All of mass-culture has become shallow and degrading
[Report this comment]
Posted by: elfinito on May 9, 2007 9:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hate all these articles about how "X aspect of scoiety is ruining it"....

Our society has become such a shallow wasteland where all mass-media insults the intelligence of all of us, man, woman, black, white, mormon, jew, etc... ALL OF US!!

These articles that single out one issue, in themselves seem to discount the rest. Mass-media has flooded our brains with false hero worship, and sent us into one giant popualrity contest, from the age of 5 on.

Family value has become lost. I am not talking CONSERVATIVE family value, but value in quality family time and taking pride in educationg your children about life, reading, society, etc.... Instead we have let children be raised by TV and rely on the schools for any substance...but when kids are eductaed by pop-culture at home, how is school ever going to be any more than a Giant popularity contest. School can't teach the values needed to filter through this crap.

As a man, i am horribly offended my most male portrayals on television, just as much as I am offended by the female, black, jewish, etc... portrayals. All of them appeal to the lowest common denominator...the ignorant consuming public.

Americans have become, by and large, uneducated fat and lazy. The only information we want is that which is spoon-fed to us.

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

Comments are closed-

MY INNER FEMINIST HAS RISEN!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vwaites on May 9, 2007 11:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...thanks to alternet, and the amout of anti-woman, anti-femminist venom i have read in the comments here. I had never really before considered myself one, as I didn't fit what, I guess I thought was the common mold (after all: I like cute shoes! And lipstick! I shave my legs and pits!).

But reading how much some people seem to despise the women, I have felt the need to step it up a bit.

Good going guys, I'm sure this is the reaction you were after. I'll be sure to spit in your face next time you open the door for me.

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

» RE: MY INNER FEMINIST HAS RISEN! Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: MY INNER FEMINIST HAS RISEN! Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: MY INNER FEMINIST HAS RISEN! Posted by: Aussie Kim
» very true Posted by: off-the-radar 2
» RE: very true Posted by: Blade
» RE: very true Posted by: off-the-radar 2
» RE: MY INNER FEMINIST HAS RISEN! Posted by: Fantasyartist

Comments are closed-

Has anybody noticed how the White House is fighting passage of a new"hate crimes" law ?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Fantasyartist on May 10, 2007 2:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has anybody noticed that the Bush White House is fighting Congress over a n proposed "hate crimes" bill that will include gender, disability and sexual orientation as well as ethnicity. So much for " law and order"!

Terry

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

Comments are closed-

Right about our culture and Bush personally, wrong that it's driving the Iraq agenda
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kenhymes on May 10, 2007 3:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the author's eneral point about the damage of homophobia in our culture, but I disagree that this is the driving force behind the White House's obsession with keeping the occupation going.

This is about the same thing it always has been: money. Cheney is driving the car, and he and his rich friends are along for the ride.

First, there are the massive no-bid contracts for Kellog-Brown-Root and Halliburton, both in the Middle East and here at home.

Then there is the win-win situation for anyone heavily invested in U.S. oil interests: if the situation stabilizes in favor of a U.S. friendly strongman (unlikely at this point, but it was in my opinion always the outcome the WH desired, whatever the neocons ideology might spout), then vast new oilfields become essentially U.S. oil company property; if the chaos continues, those fields are effectively off the market, and the price of oil remains artificially high.

Not quibbling with the author about the damage done by homophobia (in my own life as in so many others). But it's giving Bush et al way too much credit to say that the culture is unconsciously driving their decisions - sadly, they know exactly what they're doing.

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

Comments are closed-

No one castrated any of you
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Beck on May 11, 2007 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You just do not want to accept responsibility for your own failings.

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

Comments are closed-

RE: "America's Hypermasculine Culture"! LOL -- YEAH RIGHT!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: lotus23 on May 13, 2007 10:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you Mr. James Dobson. Yes, we'll all tune in for your next installment of "Focus on the Family" to learn how we can preserve traditional values, keep our military strong, fight the terrorist before they come to us, and prevent secular humanism from infiltrating our schools teaching evolution and recruiting our children to join the homosexual agenda and hate America. Oh, as a bonus, I'll throw in John Birch and you'll have a baker's dozen. Good night, John Boy.

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

Comments are closed-

'Hypermacho' is too polite a word...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Blue Heron on May 10, 2007 3:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To describe the most neurotic culture in the world. Americans have less vacation than the Japanese, never sit down and actually enjoy their food, and worst of all, have no manners. That 's not just a 'macho' problem. It's a deep-seated psychosis and it'll be a long time before this culture embraces more humane ways of being or examines quality of life issues. But hey, it's your lousy country. Have fun being nervous wrecks and having heart attacks! Now that's macho!

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

Comments are closed-

What if...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: realitysucks on May 11, 2007 1:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've read alot of of rants about women. Here are some logical responses.

1. Guys wonder why women don't always have as much friends as they do. Here's why... Guys support other guys even when they are wrong. Women will tell their friends when they are full of crap or doing something immoral. That leads to conflicts.

2. I've seen lots of whining on this list about divorce settlements, manipulation, and other bad "female" traits.. What if we raped 1 in 4 of you like you did us? What is we murdered you like you do us? What if the world over we enslaved you like you do us? What if we mutilated your genitals and beat you and gave you no rights whatsoever like you do us? How would you feel about women then?

3. There is a reason why *all* the wars, most violent crime, and a good chunk of domestic abuse is started by men. Men steadfastly refuse to take responsibility for their own behavior and seek out scapegoats like-their mothers, wives, ex-wives, daughters, the girls who refuse to go out with them, and womankind in general. What if some men broke ranks and decided to be moral and right instead of aligning with their buddies. Maybe some of this crap would stop.

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

» RE: What if... Posted by: Aussie Kim

Comments are closed-

Boo hoo
[Report this comment]
Posted by: lotus23 on May 11, 2007 3:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh you poor babies. Oh, men have it sooo tough. Boo hoo. They're soooo oppressed. Those feminist meanies keep coming after them telling them things they don't like to hear. Maybe we should have some affirmative action for the white male, given the overwhelmingly high privilege women have (why look at all the female presidents, generals, and CEOs!). Boo hoo. Let's just change the subject -- not talk about those pesky little things like gender and race and sexual orientation -- so nobody will actually have to be challanged.

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

Comments are closed-

We Interrupt Our Regularly Scheduled Programming
[Report this comment]
Posted by: M. Dery on May 11, 2007 8:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although AlterNet's eye-gouging page layout (sorry, Don!) makes the Mayan codices look like PowerPoint, I can't resist the urge to correct a few misperceptions, here. But first, a quick thanks to all the thoughtful, reasoned commenters for their wisdom; props for making yourselves heard above hoarse-throated baying of the right-wing orcs.

Now, then:

1. Grateful as I am to the AlterNet editors for allowing me to preach from their bully pulpit, I have to point out that the headline they slapped on this thing---"How America's fear of femininity is driving some of our worst foreign policy mistakes"---is the mother of a million misunderstandings. "Femininity" is a red flag to Santa Cruz history-of-consciousness grad students and anyone else on the academic left, such as the author of the post about "false binaries." Nowhere in my essay do I use the term "femininity." Rather, I'm at pains to use the term "the feminine," by which I mean" socially constructed notions of what is feminine, a category that in the political demonology of the right includes gay men (forever and always tarred with the brush of "femininity"). Short version: I'm not ratifying age-old notions of what is feminine and what is masculine; I'm arguing that American notions of masculinity are at heart hysterical (irony intended), gnawed by the anxious knowledge that sex studies since Kinsey have shown that the thoroughgoing heterosexual is a cherished fiction, and that nearly all of us have had, at one time or another, homosexual experiences or homosexual impulses. As well, our culture's attempts to build a firewall between the masculine and the feminine notwithstanding, studies in pediatric psychology show that before children have been socialized along gender lines, they toggle freely between gender definitions in terms of patterns of play, social behavior, and the like.

"Gender is an artificial social system intended to keep females subordinate to males by artificially assigning common human behaviors to one sex or the other and placing positive/negative values on the basis of which sex gets which lot." (Cue Homer Simpson *d'oh*!) This is freeze-dried Judith Butler, served up as if it were a revelation. Again, I'm not buttressing gender differences, I'm giving the lie to them. That, in fact, is the very nub of my argument: that hysterical masculinity denies the infinite shades of gray that constitute each person's deepest sense of his/her own gender.

2. A passing thought on women's magazines, since that subject seems to have roiled the viper's nest, here: they are almost exclusively owned by men, and their executive editors are, on balance, men. Their very existence depends on advertisers---the cosmetics industry, diet supplements, fashion---and that advertising base determines much of the editorial content. Again, cosmic Duh. We hold these truths to be self-evident, etc. In any event, the notion that women get the media they deserve---a notion that seems to undergird a number of threads on this page---is pure fiction. Alt.culture 'zines like BUST offer a fleeting glimpse of what a media world by women, for women, would look like, and it's worlds apart from the brain-softening gruel slopped out in the pages of most glossies. Mainstream women's mags, with their numbing litany of diet regimens, celebrity gossip, and astrology tips, address a social mirage, not who women truly are. Why do women buy these things? You're a soccer mom, marooned in the vast flyover, casing the Wal-Mart offerings: you choose the glossiest fruit on the poisoned tree.

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

» Nonsense Posted by: Philip Newton
» More freeze-fried Judith Butler Posted by: Donna_Darko

Comments are closed-

Porn culture (see above) is the enemy. Isms suck.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Philip Newton on May 12, 2007 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While we wring their hands over the disrespect proffered [insert oppressed special interest group of choice] and every ISM on planet jockies to be head of the Line of the Oppressed, our culture rots from within.

All relationships in America -- all of them -- are damaged and bleeding from the caustic beating of a degraded and violent national environment.

We can chop ouselves into ten thousand ineffectual special interest groups, numbed and distracted by the latest cultural excesses, advocating for our private fetish causes, or we can unite to address the bread and butter issues which affect us all: starting with health care, the environment and labor rights. Until we make headway on these issues, who gives a rats ass about your isms?

Isms suck.

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

» Weapons of Mass Distraction Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Weapons of Mass Distraction Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Weapons of Mass Distraction Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Weapons of Mass Distraction Posted by: Philip Newton

Comments are closed-

comments changing the subject
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Shey on May 12, 2007 5:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If an article about the destructive social consequences of obsessive hyper-masculinity, posted on AlterNet, immediately spawns a ton of misogynistic comments ranging from "lets address the issue of women not being 'feminine' enough" to how our national culture of violence at home and war mongering abroad has actually been "beneficial" to us all, what hope is there for our country and our society? Not too fucking much, in the opinion of this "gender equality" hetrosexual female feminist.
I realize that the entire idea of a censorship-free online forum is based on anyone being able to have their say, anytime, anywhere. But for a while now, the tone of the "comments" here at AlterNet gives me the impression that the comments forum has been taken over by those whose only reason for commenting is to bash the progressive tone of AlterNet news.
Isn't it enough for the outmoded values crowd to have their own TV network (Fox)? Is there nowhere left that allows social and political progressives a forum for discussing our issues, that hasn't been invaded by the bashers and trolls , so that our comments are reduced to a consistently defensive tone? Just saying.

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

» Weapon of mass distraction Posted by: Philip Newton

Comments are closed-

Weapon of mass distraction
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Philip Newton on May 13, 2007 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is the common factor for all persons who find themselves shunned, disenfranchised, marginalized?

Resources.

In one way or another, a person who suffers real discrimination suffers a lack of some kind of resource.

What is the best way to end this? Regain control of the resources.

Uniting, not dividing, is the only way to achieve that. Your average robber barons unite to get what they want. They don't cry about some alleged slight or lack. They focus on what they want and -- at our expense -- they get it.

There are only so many hours and so much energy. We can squander them arguing over fetish causes or we can begin to organize in a meaningful way to redress the wrongs which affect us all. As I post often, I don't care whose screwing you, I care about the screwing we're all getting.

In the meantime, yes, our culture rots from within. Because, guess what? The Man doesn't give a shit about these fetish social issues, except when they are useful to divide and conquer. All he cares about is getting a lot and getting it cheap.

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

Comments are closed-

Strong Wrong
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mommy64 on May 13, 2007 11:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Pope Benedict wants a strong Church."

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

» RE: Strong Wrong Posted by: lotus23

Comments are closed-

I thought feminism was supposed to be about equality
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Beste on May 13, 2007 6:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i guess not.

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

» it is Posted by: ding1166
» RE: Feministing?!?! Posted by: Beste

Comments are closed-

I ask again:
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Aussie Kim on May 13, 2007 11:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If being "manly" is NOT good enough for women, WHY is it good enough for men?

If being "manly" is so bad, why do men keep doing it?

Why do women have to put up with it, if men won't?

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

» RE: I ask again: Posted by: Philip Newton

Comments are closed-

The Long & The Short of It.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: obliu222 on May 14, 2007 2:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The difference is that Ann Coulter thinks that if god says so it's OK to rape the world. [In fact she says so, and holds that God gave it to us for this very reason.] I think that even if God says so, it's already been written in the book around the time of Abraham that we're not supposed to listen to crowing ninnies.

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

Comments are closed-

Bizarre Article
[Report this comment]
Posted by: fleurette on May 15, 2007 11:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find this article so bizarre in its "jumping off" point. He seems to have a bit of sour grapes about the occasional situations where black people are sometimes able to organize, protest, and effect change when they are wronged - and gays are not able to get those results. I'm sorry gays are not able to get those results. Racist shock jocks as well as homophobic pundits are both Class A Felonists, but don't blame or be envious in a nasty way against blacks who are organized and have been dying in the thousands for Civil Rights for over 100 years. If gays want to have that "scare-ability" factor like Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson, they need to bring more forth more Barney Franks and Rosie O'Donnells who offend people and put their reputations on the line to advance their rights and fewer right-wingers like Andrew Sullivans, Christopher Hitchens, Karl Roves, Cheney's daughter, etc. just in it for the money, speaking "yassir to power" and/or are crazy drunks with massive identity issues.

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

Comments are closed-

Violent Women...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jasonk on May 15, 2007 2:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Violent Younger Women...
In 1986, a report appeared in "Social Work," the journal of the National Association of Social Workers (Nov./Dec. 1986) on violence in adolescent dating relationships, in which it was found that girls were violent more often than boys.
Another report on premarital violence found that 34% of the males and 40% of the females reported engaging in some form of physical aggression against their mates in a year. Once more, 17% of women and 7% of men reported engaging in severe physical aggression. The most revealing statistic was that 35% of the men and 30% of the women reported having been abused.
http://www.romanceopedia.com/O-ViolenceNotAllowed.html

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

» RE: Violent Women... Posted by: Cathyblj
Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

Your system...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Temporary on May 9, 2007 12:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is broken from the INSIDE! You must fix it first! "A house that is divided cannot stand" If you cant fix your own system, you wont win against China or Iran! You will lose, and you will lose BIG TIME!

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

» RE: Your system... Posted by: JoAnne
» RE: Your system... Posted by: talkville

Comments are closed-

Femininity?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Logic's Edge on May 9, 2007 1:02 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe you could start by encouraging it in females first?

Feminine women are difficult to find, these days.

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

» RE: Femininity? Posted by: icha
» RE: Femininity? Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Femininity? Posted by: momly
» RE: Femininity? Posted by: skoog5600
» RE: Femininity? Posted by: icj
» RE: Femininity? Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Femininity? Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Femininity? Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Femininity? Posted by: JoAnne
» RE: Femininity? Posted by: Logic's Edge
» very funny comment JoAnne Posted by: off-the-radar 2
» So true Posted by: Bobsays
» RE: So true Posted by: JoAnne
» RE: So true Posted by: tya
» RE: So true Posted by: babs
» RE: So true Posted by: goatini
» RE: Femininity? Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Femininity? Or Capital? Posted by: talkville

Comments are closed-

Violence is for wussies
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SBK on May 9, 2007 1:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It takes far more control and strength to discuss and collaborate than it does to bomb. How many bullies are known as the smartest kids in class? This crap about being "soft" on crime or war always obscures the fact that diplomacy and rehabilitation are hard work. A real man, woman, commander in chief should have the skills to be the peacemaker such as intelligence, patience, and listening capacity. Can we please let go of the John Wayne, Rambo, Die Hard guys and promote real power in this country?

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

» RE: Violence is for wussies Posted by: ProgressiveManiac

Comments are closed-

Feminity is virtually nonexistent in the US
[Report this comment]
Posted by: skoog5600 on May 9, 2007 1:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the previous comment - "Femininity"? Before I comment let me preface this with a preemptive. I know this will anger a lot of "Women" but here goes ... I lived in MN for most of my life and NYC for over 8 years and dated I would say not a lot of women but enough to make this general assumption that women have lost their femininity. What happen to their sexuality, curves and softness? It is a shame and I don't know if it was the first or second wave of feminism that wiped that out.

Now I have traveled the world and now live in Japan and I have to say that women in the countries I have experienced have curves, sexuality and well quite frankly are more beautiful and attractive than any American woman, generally speaking.

Sorry to be so blunt, but somebody has to point out the fact that men and women are meant to be different, not closer to one another on the spectrum of masculinity and femininity. You are not meant to compete with men in the form of power, you will lose. But when it comes to sexuality, now there's your power.

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

» the Celts did have it right Posted by: off-the-radar 2
» Well Posted by: ateo
» RE: It really is women's fault Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: It really is women's fault Posted by: ljetoorsummer
» gag Posted by: ding1166

Comments are closed-

Protesting too much
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kepstein7777 on May 9, 2007 3:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we can get some of the insecure goons into therapy, maybe we can get some of the Hummers and jacked-up trucks off the road. That would help with the fuel crisis and global warming.

Ann Coulter seems awfully butchy to me--not that there's anything wrong with that. Rumor has it that she's been spotted at Home Depot wearing dark glasses and a mustache...It's okay, Anne. We'll still love and support you no matter what.

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

Comments are closed-

Just a thought.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: zyxwvut on May 9, 2007 3:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The corporate environment is the ultimate expression of American hypermachismo, at least in the civilian world.

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

» Actually... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» RE: Actually... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: Actually... Posted by: JoAnne
» agree frosty86 Posted by: off-the-radar 2

Comments are closed-

Pfft!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on May 9, 2007 4:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Methinks Ms Coulter doth protest too much.

Hmm.

Our commander in chief was a cheerleader. In college. *Looks up 'latent homosexual behavior'* *Realizes the twins must have been produced by the 'Michael Jackson' method*

Oh, laura! He never knew ye!

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

Comments are closed-

Bullying is prevalent
[Report this comment]
Posted by: robchapman on May 9, 2007 4:19 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bullying is so prevalent in American schools, that many are beginning to adress it directly... this is shocking, because the inertia in the educational administrative apparatus is so complete.

In the schools that I work in, and particularly among Middle school boys, bullying smaller, weaker boys is common. This is never one-on-one it is a group sport that is participated in by the girls as well as the boys.

For many taunting, shunning and name-calling are the methods, Gay and faggot seem to be the most common themes.

I have called students down and had them justify their actions by appeal to James Dobson's Family Network denunciations of homosexuality.

Paradoxically, the boys who are so persecuted are straight, the gay boys seem to know how to deflect such attention from themselves.

It seems to me the problem is not in the social attitudes so much as it is in Americans' willingness to engage in mob bullying,

Bullying is a phenomena that Americans both left and right seem unwilling to address.

Yet its manifestations are everywhere evident.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

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

Comments are closed-

Imus and Coulter
[Report this comment]
Posted by: colinmeister on May 9, 2007 4:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are several major differences between Don Imus and Anne Coulter.

The first is that Imus was for the most part a good entertainer. Sure - he made off colour cracks about many groups, including student "Jockettes", but it was intended to be in a joking manner. Ann Coulter, on the other hand, comes over as nothing but a mean-spirited bitch. Her comments about the firefighters' wives were just plain nasty, with not a shred of humour or satire in sight.

The second is that Don Imus has actually done quite a lot of charitable work, which is more than can be said for Anne Coulter.

There are many other differences, but two will do for a start.

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

» RE: Imus and Coulter Posted by: goldmarx
» RE: Imus and Coulter Posted by: SteveO
» yes - & in general Imus had it backwards Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
» RE: Imus and Coulter Posted by: Wacre
» RE: Imus and Coulter Posted by: goldmarx

Comments are closed-

Homophobia is a weapon of sexism
[Report this comment]
Posted by: frosty86 on May 9, 2007 4:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm glad alternet posted an article on this because there is so little critical discussion about masculinity these days. The article hinted at this but homophobia or heterosexism is a way to maintain unequal gender roles.

Since we live in a patriarchal society, women are devalued and are seen as inferior to men. One way to justify sex inequality, is to make men and women seem very different from each other (biologically, cognitively, etc.). Boys who act feminine are taunted and teased with words like, "sissy," "pussy," "fag," "fairy" etc. And as Suzanne Pharr explained in her book "Homophobia: A Weapon of Sexism," gay men are seen as being feminine/like women and are breaking ranks with masculine solidarity, in the eyes of other men. The existence of gay men threatens the idea that men are very different from (and better than) women. Lesbians are seen as taking on masculinity, which is not rightly theirs. They also suggest to men that women can live independently of them, which is threatening to men.

Thus the roots of heterosexism/homophobia are not in individual men's insecurities or quircks. While the men who are visibly homophobic may very well be insecure about not being masculine (strong, aggressive, powerful) enough, we can't stop there with our analysis. What does it mean that some men are insecure about masculininty and have to taunt feminine men and masculine women to feel better? What does that tell us? It tells us we're living in a sexist society. It all comes back to living in a society in which women and femininity are mocked, devalued, and the targets of violence.

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

» one more thing... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: jasonk
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: jasonk
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: Ydotheyhateus
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: jasonk
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: jasonk
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: jasonk
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: jasonk
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: jasonk
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: frosty86
» continued... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: continued... Posted by: jasonk
» RE: continued... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: continued... Posted by: jasonk
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: frosty86
» RE: one more thing... Posted by: jasonk
» best thread yet Posted by: off-the-radar 2

Comments are closed-

Johnson, Nixon, Bush, Cheney
[Report this comment]
Posted by: astockton on May 9, 2007 4:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What do all four of these men have in common? Answer: they all had two daughters and no sons. I wonder if they felt, or feel, somehow less masculine because they couldn't reproduce themselves and had/have a need to wage war to prove that they're "real" men?

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

» RE: Johnson, Nixon, Bush, Cheney Posted by: MartianBachelor

Comments are closed-

This article
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Robba29 on May 9, 2007 6:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
sucks! There is so much to be said on this subject and this is the best alternet can find? Come on! This is a huge issue, and this person chalks it up to "pop psychology"--that's grounds for a deletion--it shows a total unawareness of the deep seeded patriarchal value system that is the root of so many of our problems. Cop out.

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

» RE: This article Posted by: maven

Comments are closed-

Guys in camouflage
[Report this comment]
Posted by: sausage on May 9, 2007 7:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There's nothing "gayer" than a bunch of men, gathered round a campfire drinking beer, all wearing camouflage clothing.

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

» RE: Guys in camouflage Posted by: babs

Comments are closed-

Meh. I don't work out as much as I should, but I've got no problem...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: ABetterFuture on May 9, 2007 7:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...with being able to change the channel if something like Anne Coulter appears on it*. Might I suggest those who are most offended buff up their channel changing digits just a bit? Then, for goodness sakes, work on aerobics.

Breathing is important!

That said, it's hard to completely avoid her since I visit this site at least a few times a week, and stumble on more Coulterism coverage. It's apparent that there is a fixation afoot, though it would be wrong of me to out the ed.

*For comparison. see also the well-dwellers, deadites from Army of Darkness, except they're actually fun to watch when playing the old "how many bullets can his double barrel shotgun shoot before he has to reload" drinking game. Hmm, perhaps this offers yet another indictment of American culture and Western Civilization? There are just so very many to choose from. With 300M folks, everybody should have the opportunity to work through their personal oppression(s) with healthy doses of raising the old awarenessing, a sprinkle of community activism for those who feel group therapy is icky, and lot's (and lot's) of self-help books, as well as those advocating the continuity of advocacy of some sort or the other.

Of course, none of this is at all possible--one can not possibly change one's situation in life--without a clear understanding of the problem, and a highly personalized accusation that Society Has Failed To Make You Feel Important Enough.

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

» Shorter read. Posted by: ABetterFuture

Comments are closed-

IMUS / COULTER ?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 9, 2007 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lousy comparison. Maybe that's the problem. All people men and women vary greatly. Even within the same family. Too much emphasis is put on stereotypes. One woman can change a tire the other can't. One man has a hairdresser another man goes to the barber shop. Is this a big deal. Women have not become hypermasculine, they simply are not afraid to be smart and capable. It's called progress. Thanks, ANNA

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

Comments are closed-

IMUS / COULTER ?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: VZEQICVA on May 9, 2007 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lousy comparison. Maybe that's the problem. All people men and women vary greatly. Even within the same family. Too much emphasis is put on stereotypes. One woman can change a tire the other can't. One man has a hairdresser another man goes to the barber shop. Is this a big deal. Women have not become hypermasculine, they simply are not afraid to be smart and capable. It's called progress. Thanks, ANNA

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

» RE: IMUS / COULTER ? Posted by: DaBear

Comments are closed-

HYPERMASCULINE = Michelangelo's art
[Report this comment]
Posted by: caru on May 9, 2007 7:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this is not about hypermasculinity this is about self hate.

michelangelo was known for his love of male beauty -- just look at david! talk of hypermasculinity!! he was known to LOVE men.

i think this administration, and most white men in power are engaged in one huge circle j*rk. they claim and desire to control others minds by limiting the access to LIFE. LIFE includes the pleasures of the skin. LIFE includes kindness and caring. if one can control anothers access to LIFE, one can control the mind. these guys are NOT homophobic, they are self-hating engagers in the very same things they want to control in others minds.

i do NOT DOUBT there are relationships between w and gonzales ...

you do not have to be gentle to be loving your own sex. you can be big and strong and hypermasculine too. we need to accept all the people all the ways and encourage each one to stop the SELF HATING and the desire to control others minds.

please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo
'Fundamental to Michelangelo's art is his love of male beauty, which attracted him both aesthetically and emotionally.'

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

Comments are closed-

Masculinity pays the bills...enough said!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ydotheyhateus on May 9, 2007 7:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the wonderful luxuries we enjoy today here in US is thanks to our masculinity to wage war, and acquire what we need and when we need it. Does anyone think we would be the sole superpower in the world had we not started a weapon's race with the communist block? Or to bleed the Soviets in Afghanistan?
For the most part we can dictate to the world the laws of trade and commerce for our benefit. Does anyone thinks that we could be in such a powerful situation if we didn't have over 700 military bases around the world, and air-craft carriers deployed around the globe?
And at the end of the day, it benefits us all in the form of material comforts that we enjoy.

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

» And how is any of this good? Posted by: wallart2006

Comments are closed-

Bye bye Gendernet
[Report this comment]
Posted by: sweetlou on May 9, 2007 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This will be my last visit...

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

» RE: Bye bye Gendernet Posted by: dover23
» RE: Bye bye Gendernet Posted by: Radicalizer
» RE: Bye bye Gendernet Posted by: talkville

Comments are closed-

The Hidden Costs of AlterNet's Hyperandrophic Culture
[Report this comment]
Posted by: MartianBachelor on May 9, 2007 8:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For men, the world is a theater for heroism. - William James

Dery confuses and conflates several different things, in particular theatrical heroism with the real thing. Thus, he gets sidetracked by buzzwords such as "hypermasculinity" and "femiphobia". Perhaps the latter result when a culture is over-feminized, but I don't think Dery is capable of considering such an idea.

Coulter gets a pass not because of her subject matter but because of her sex. In short, men are held accountable whereas women aren't. That's the real double standard. We all know practically any nutty thing is likely to come out of a given woman's mouth at any given time. We don't expect a woman to think before she speaks, though we do expect a man to do so. If "the demonization of the feminine" was the operative principle, as Dery thinks, Coulter's name-calling would have elicited the tarred/feathered response which Imus got. But it didn't, so he's just wrong.

If "homophobic innuendo" works it's because it works especially well with women, who surveys have shown would rather date/marry a convicted murderer than a cross-dresser -- by a four-to-one ratio. A gay man is of no use to your average woman because she has no power over him. Gay men are abhorent to the larger, feminized society not because of their sexuality but because they don't do what men are basically supposed to do: support women and children. If too many men defect, the whole system collapses because then there's no one left to do the unpleasant work that gets done only because men do it.

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

» READ: ...Hyperandrophobic Culture Posted by: MartianBachelor

Comments are closed-

Who wants to be a macho man?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: OneAcre2012 on May 9, 2007 8:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, two pages hardly is room enough to make an indentation on an extremely important topic. Fortunately, that leaves us with plenty of room to flesh out the argument. It seems to me the biggest societal problems that we face are the one's that are based essentially on superstition. Most of us are quite aware that racial differences are not biological, but cultural. The "battle of the sexes," likewise, is a cultural issue. And let's not forget religious differences. To address these issues, you have to start here. A lot of folks simply refuse to believe that they aren't different at all from those they despise.

Male/female is not a dichotomy but a continuum. Ask someone who was born intersexed. As humans, we range from the biggest burliest of men to the daintiest, most petite of women and, guess what, vice versa, with big, strong women and dainty, petite men. Since our culture, and by culture I refer to the decisions and actions of everyone that came before us and everyone that is now among us, has somehow dictated that men and women have to fit certain specifications to be deemed normal, those of us don't fit those norms become targets for ridicule from people who are flummoxed by the very existence of difference. Many of the targets then find other people that are freakier than they are to deflect the attention to. The plot is foiled, however, when the freaks stand up and own their freakiness with a confidence that the insult-hurlers never had, and now all of a sudden the hyper-macho patriarchy pushers are exposed for what they really are.

I watch a lot of NBA basketball, and the trend over the past few years has been toward cooperative team play and away from the hyper-macho individual star-dominated performances of the Michael Jordan/Charles Barkley era. But still, when a prime-time player like Dirk Nowitski struggles to establish a presence on the court, his masculinity is called into question. The same player who, along with his teammates in a team-game, helped dispatch the always challenging San Antonio Spurs (another team that wins with cooperation and not unilateral star power) just last year now doesn't have the meddle or the, well, balls to step up in the clutch.

Cooperation and teamwork are not highly valued in an Alpha-Dog culture where strong, muscular and loud leaders demand subservience from the minions in order to achieve half-thought-out goals. Look at Sarkozky in France. His aims are to toughen his country up and make them competitive in the the US/UK/China/India business model, where the almighty Dollar/Pound/Franc/Rupi/Euro takes precednce over living life to the fullest and relishing the blessings of the every-day. When you bully people into producing, you chip away at their souls. When you engage people and get their input, the collective value increases exponentially whether or not you can place a dollar value on it.

What a lot of hyper-masculine men don't really understand is that by abhorring everything that is feminine, they actually weaken themselves substantially. For a macho-man's ego, eradicating the female means protecting oneself against a woman having a better idea or being more capable of doing something, thus rendering said macho-man into wussy oblivion. But if the idea is truly better, if the individual more capable, wouldn't cooperating to make that idea work be the "manliest" course of action? Working for the betterment of others, however, runs counter to hyper-man's sheer existence, as he ascended to power by trampling those he deemed weak and inferior, so why would he want to help them? In his view, he would weaken himself by doing so, even though he's busy weakening himself anyway by shutting out the non-manly, adhering strictly to a code that has borne chaos and destruction, from genocide to that little kid getting picked on everyday at school by the Ann Coulter's of the world.

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

» RE: Who wants to be a macho man? Posted by: off-the-radar 2
» RE: Who wants to be a macho man? Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Who wants to be a macho man? Posted by: Ranch_Davidian
» thank you! Posted by: off-the-radar 2

Comments are closed-

Confused about our sexuality? What can you tell by looking?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Sojourner on May 9, 2007 9:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Display yourself? That's common to humans everywhere. Our problem is that it's commercialized by a fashion industry whose momentum is profit and whose influence is ubiquitous.

At first I thought that the availability of pornography these days might contribute to sexual health. But since it is just a sex show, and since love is not for exhibition nor about performances, I hope that youngsters are not getting the wrong idea. But I am likely wrong about that.

"Looking good" matters more than being good--at whatever. That's acceptable for adolescents. It is a measure of our cultural immaturity that it remains the rule even to the mortician's profit.

Bush is a brat whose growth got stunted somewhere back in adolescence. It's a pity that American voters cannot see that he's a shrunked version of what a man might be. But since we see ourselves in him and others like him, we shall continue to elect 'boys' instead of men. I like kids. But not running the country.

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

Comments are closed-

Then we should be whuppin some ass
[Report this comment]
Posted by: fred_53_99 on May 9, 2007 9:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You'ed think with all these balls up in here we would have whomped Iraq four years ago. Notice that few of these macho men are in the militay. Notice that there was no big surge of men to join up after 911. Pat Tilman and his brother are the exceptions. Yes upper class white men do feel they have lost thier balls so the only way they can prove they havent' is to talk tough and send others to fight for them. No wonder they fear the word puzzy. I perfer the word coward.

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

Comments are closed-

Hypermasculinity? Try lack thereof
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on May 9, 2007 10:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When Bush sat in that classroom and did nothing while the country was suffering "the worst terror attacks in history" it becomes painfully obvious that he and his devout followers are not very masculine at all. They're cowards in fact. Now when you take that fact into account, it becomes even more obvious the true reasons they are so homophobic. It's because they cant lie to themselves. They know they are the ones who are weak inside and therefore must outwardly project a hypermasculine image to compensate.

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

» RE: Hypermasculinity? Try lack thereof Posted by: MartianBachelor

Comments are closed-

Remember Feminism?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mstenger on May 9, 2007 10:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's good to see articles like this that attempt to introduce the younger generation to good old fashioned feminism.

Feminism is about equality of the sexes and the end of patriarchal society. We've gotten closer to equality, but just a little. Patriarchy is alive and well.

Many things feminine in our society are ridiculed. Movies with women's themes are derisively called "Chick Flicks" by both men and women. Why is it that men can't sit through Steel Magnolias but women are supposed to think Diehard is just dandy? I like to call male-themed movies "Dick Flicks." Hollywood churns out movies with male leads all the time, but rarely is a woman doing anything other than being the girlfriend or mom of the starring male.

Isn't it interesting when you call a male a pejorative term like "son-of-a-bitch" that it stems from degrading a female?

We allow our girls to be tomboys but we don't allow our boys to be sissies because the worst thing one can be is a girl.

Now, because men don't want to feminize themselves in any way, we have women who work fulltime, keep house and take care of the kids while many men refuse to help with the housework or kids and simply work a job like they've always done. Women--that's your own fault for not making your husbands do half!

Personally, I knew feminism was dead when calling women over 18 "girls" became common-place again, and boob jobs were seen as something not only acceptable to have, but necessary to get a man!!!!!!!

Of course the end-all of women's rights is now forseeable with Roe v. Wade hanging in the balance. I never thought I would ever again in my lifetime see such an assault against women.

I hope Alternet keeps these kinds of articles coming so that the younger generation will stop taking women for granted and wake up.

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

» nice call icj Posted by: off-the-radar 2
» Quite the read. Posted by: ABetterFuture
» Dick flicks!!!!! Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: emember Feminism? Yes Posted by: talkville

Comments are closed-

false binary
[Report this comment]
Posted by: freeda'all on May 9, 2007 10:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The idea that 'hypermasculinity' can be resolved or cured by 'feminity' plays right into the false divides created by people needing systems of power.

Gender is an artificial social system intended to keep females subordinate to males by artificially assigning common human behaviors to one sex or the other and placing positive/negative values on the basis of which sex gets which lot. Of course there are 'masculine' women and 'feminine' men because we all share commonalities that are denied to us by 'gender.'

This article doesn't take us out of the trap, it just keeps us rattling around and around inside of it.

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

» RE: false binary Posted by: mviscid
» RE: the social construct of gender Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Ames reply Posted by: Blade
» RE: Ames reply Posted by: Ames
» RE: Ames reply Posted by: Blade
» RE: Ames reply Posted by: Ames
» RE: false binary (....no) Posted by: elfinito
» RE: false binary (....yes) Posted by: off-the-radar 2
» RE: false binary (....no) Posted by: Blade
» Every culture assigns gender roles Posted by: Philip Newton

Comments are closed-

It's not masculinity, it's blatant greed.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 9, 2007 10:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women are just as guilty as men when it comes to being greedy pigs - look at Condoleeza Rice shopping for $5000 spiked boots while New Orleans drowned.

Of course, a publication like the LA Times, owned by some of the biggest greed-heads in existence, is not going to point out this obvious fact.

Look at all the Iraqi 'reconstruction contracts' - a bunch of greedy corporate contractors sucking up every penny of the reconstruction budget, while doing as little work as possible, then fleeing the country when the cash ran out.

The hogs are really at the trough.

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

Comments are closed-

I THANK GOD THAT MY FEMALE AND MALE FRIENDS AREN'T LIKE WHAT I SEE HERE ON ALTERNET
[Report this comment]
Posted by: poppop_schell on May 9, 2007 12:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
After reading all the posts, I feel like I'm literally from another world. I guess I'm truly sheltered or perhaps better stated blessed to live among men and women who value each other: that don't in general have some much bitterness towards the opposite sex. My heart goes out to you'll.

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

» What's with the Mormon bashing? Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
» RE: What's with the Mormon bashing? Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: What's with the Mormon bashing? Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: What's with the Mormon bashing? Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: What's with the Mormon bashing? Posted by: poppop_schell
» being a religious bigot is ???? Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: What's with the Mormon bashing? Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
» Have you ever met a Mormon? Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
» RE: Have you ever met a Mormon? Posted by: poppop_schell
» RE: Have you ever met a Mormon? Posted by: fluffmuffinmom
» RE: Have you ever met a Mormon? Posted by: poppop_schell

Comments are closed-

America: a cruel country
[Report this comment]
Posted by: THIAHB on May 9, 2007 2:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article made sense to me in suggesting a possible link between personal psychology and national psychosis.

Compared to many other Westernized, allegedly civilized countries around the world (and I have lived in a few), America is an incredibly cruel and insensitive country. From public policy to public attitudes, the culture demonstrates a lack of sympathy and empathy for people who are disadvantaged, different or somehow don't fit into the mold of what is considered "American".

Americans are so drunk on their own ideals and the heroic history that they fail to see the sickening irony that they have betrayed the very values that they once stood for.

For evidence one need look no further than some of the posts here on this forum. I simply had to laugh and shake my head at the poster who said that America needs its 700 military bases around the world to guarantee its quality of life. Sad, very sad indeed how the promise of America has been so blatantly betrayed.

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

» RE: America: a cruel country Posted by: skoog5600
» RE: Pulling the rug out... Posted by: THIAHB

Comments are closed-

Masculinity is natural (not saying good)
[Report this comment]
Posted by: elfinito on May 9, 2007 5:07 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing that drives me nuts when discussing sexuality, exclusion, and conflict is the need to "Blame Society."

Society has its bad portrayals; Pop culture has become a wasteland of hate and degradation, and education has pawned off on ill-equiped schools while so many parents do nothing to tecah their children positive virtues.

However, civilization has spent thousands of years modifying the natural tendencies of teh Human Animal. That's right we are Animals...in particular mammals. Agressive "machismo" tendencies, such as territorial aggresiveness and "bullying" of weaker males (not to mention, uncomfort with differences....i.e hating those outside your group, tribe, or herd.) genetics and have been natural part of mammallian behaviour right down the line. Society, recognizing the poblems this can cause has fought an uphill battle aginst it for centuries (and even more so in the last 50 years, since Women have began to gain some more power).

But even the most masculine societies around today, try to curb this...perhaps by horrible methods, but its done. What do you think the Arab laws about woman are about? They are men acknowledging their weakness, abd insteda of having some goddamn self-contriol, they try to avoid teh aggresive competitive behaviour that males exhibit, by hiding their women.

Education and society have to do something to work against these tendencies (The roots rae so bad that most mammals only have one male that is "allowed" to mate, the rest are driven off, or bullied into submission, hoping for a chance to become the Alpha). I agree that they are dangerous and childish...but don't blame society for teaching opour childrem they exist...blame nature for that...blame society and education for not doing a better job of combatting these natural tendencies.

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

Comments are closed-

Another UltraLiberal Clueless Metrosexual
[Report this comment]
Posted by: faultroy on May 9, 2007 5:10 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find Mark Dery's comment about hypermasculinity laughable. It just goes to show, if you say something outrageous enough, someone is stupid enough to print it.
He says: "The trouble with manhood American Style is that it is maintained at the expense of every man's feminine side. Aside from the overt stupidity of the comment in that it is both illogical and irrational; it makes no sense--even his own argument differentiates between macho and desirable "male" qualities. To imply that male qualities are dominant because we consciously subvert "female" qualities is nothing more than ...well stupid. Men have been assailed by a culture of Feminism--woman good, man bad.
A perfect example is Dery's comments about Imus and Ann Coulter. Can anyone imagine a male public personae making some of the outrageous comments of Ann Coulter?
Imus's comments, while crude, were not meant to attack anyone, but rather to mock and make a joke. No one involved in this brouhaha has ever said that Imus himself was racist. As a matter of fact, Imus is a legend in the New York area as an ultraliberal. Imus has repeatedly supported liberal political agendas both on and off the air. This is beyond the considerable charity work that he does for all children regardless of color or gender.
Coulter on the other hand is a pretty crude vulgar and ugly example of feminity's dark side. No one can honestly say that Coulter's vitriol is strictly for entertainment purposes. It really does not matter if you are liberal or conservative, everyone that really listens to Coulter will find something both unseamly and unsavory.
Why then the double standard? Can it be that a tall "woman" wearing a miniskirt is not held to the same "standard" that men are? Bingo!!!
Men have been assailed in the courts, politically and consistently not held to the same standard that women have. They have been denied their constitutional rights in the courts as fathers, brothers and sons. They are consistenly denied both due process and the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Feminists have consistently lied about studies, misrepresented facts and distorted issues with their own brand of bigotry and biased invective. There is no dearth of feminist facism. Bias is even taught in schools under the guise of "Women's Studies." No one disputes these courses are biased--even the professors teaching them.
Fortunately, men are organizing and getting together and building alliances with women's organizations focused on both equality of genders and those oriented towards both family and conservative values.
That the pendulum will swing back to a more moderate homeostatis is a given. How long it will take is the question. It is obvious that the GLBT groups and Radical Third Wave Feminists are the culprits and instigators since they have the most to gain. As men slowly destroy their weak and biased arguments the tide will change.

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

Comments are closed-

The Missing Word is Misogyny - Female Hating
[Report this comment]
Posted by: odcherenow on May 9, 2007 5:28 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a lot of confusion in this article. The author pairs homophobia and hypermasculination with abhorrence of things feminine.
No, the behaviors and beliefs we are seeing enacted by all the players he mentions is misogyny: hatred of females. The original source of all negative discrimination into better than and less than was the early patriarchs (the father-rules guys) and the original target was females, of all hues. The institutionalization of misogyny is sexism. Homophobia came much later - well after Greece and Rome where homosexuality was the norm and women of all classes were kept to their houses.
Misogyny is to be found, worldwide, in ancient cultural traditions and current religious practices. Women and girls are defined as "purdah", "unclean" and "not fit to speak in the temple" in Hindu, Moslem and Judeo-Christian faiths.

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

Comments are closed-

RE: Women, women, women and more women.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: morticia on May 9, 2007 6:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Darn! I was hoping to get a subscription to Stupid Cunt!

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

» RE: Women, women, women and more women. Posted by: SatanicJamboree

Comments are closed-

RE: Women, women, women and more women.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Aussie Kim on May 9, 2007 8:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow.

I found your post amusing at first, because I LOATHE women's magazines and would close them all down in a split second, given half the chance, but then I read on and it dawned on me that you hate us anyway.

SO WHAT if women study other women? What do men do? Shoot each other? Bomb each other? Beat each other to a pulp?

Oh YEAH! There's something to aspire to.

I'd rather study the lives of other women and LEARN from them, thanks, rather than behave the way some men behave.

I'm a feminist, but I ain't no stupid "MAN".

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

» RE: Women, women, women and more women. Posted by: SatanicJamboree

Comments are closed-

RE: Women, women, etc.. (its a shame, you had a good basis...but made awful conclusons)
[Report this comment]
Posted by: elfinito on May 9, 2007 8:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But really women...what the fuck is the deal with woman's mags? I undertand we have Maxim and the like...but women have 3,000 of em all spewing the same crap.

I remember making the mistake of saying, to who I though was really cool woman at work that i could be honest with, that "if I was a woman, I would be thoroughly offended by what these magazines seem to think of my intelligence....They seem to think that this is the only thing a woman can handle reading about. She went off on me...completely caught me off guard, I wasn;t even sure what I did...I guess maybe she read them too, just not at work? If you want the feminst movement to gain some teeth...the first thing you have to do is convince woman to stop worshipping Cosmopolitan, Elle, etc....

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

Comments are closed-

Women read Vanity Fair, Wired, Salon etc
[Report this comment]
Posted by: off-the-radar 2 on May 9, 2007 9:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so your post seems to assume that women only read "women's magazines". That's a mighty big assumption. Last I knew, women were not restricted to Redbook and Good Housekeeping (both fine magazines by the way).

Yep many women are reading Vanity Fair, Wired, Salon, Utne, Better Homes and Gardens, and the list goes on. And in my neck of the woods, both men and women read People, Us, Entertainment weekly and that old classic, Reader's Digest.

So please, if you're going to rant, try to be informed. And a sense of humour wouldn't hurt either.

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

Comments are closed-

RE: Women, women
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Blade on May 9, 2007 9:15 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Notice no one can refute you. bradford! You put some effort in there, and I, for one, appreciate it.

Sure, let's all be more like women, all about me, me, me. Even in their "Mother" roles, it's all about them, don't kid yourself.

USAmerican women, that is. What was that Guess Who song? American woman, get away from me... That phrase was great in its double meaning...

To give you some reference, I graduated from high school in 1970, and know something of the really old days, when most Moms, like mine, stayed home and raised the kids.

But my generation burned the bras, and didn't even wear them for years. They were real heroes in a way, in your face, and here's my tits, deal with it, women.

My first wife hyphenated her last name, like most others.

I always, since grade school, had women buddies, and have been told, that for a most part fairly macho guy, that I am "in touch" with my feminine side more than most. So I have been told several times.

Well, if that is so, it's the side of me that causes the most problems.

Over the years, I have learned to be more feminine when I am in a fight. That means there are no rules of behavior, I can lie and manipulate, devise detailed plans of destruction...

A doctor friend of mine was explaining to me that men grow up playing playground games, board games, video games, etc., while women grow up playing house, etc. In the boys' world, rules of the game and behavior (don't kick below the belt), serve as a sort of Linus blanket for the guys, individually, and as a group. But the girls' world is one where they make up the rules as they go, change them at a whim, and tell you to go home if you don't like it.

This explanation answered a lot of questions for me about why women are so dishonest and nasty in a divorce fight, and so many men get taken lock, stock, and barrel.

Why do most women not have many women friends? Except these progressive enlightened ladies, here, of course, excluded.

Many women I have known over the years would at some point say they don't like other women, and say that that is true of most women. Is it?

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

» RE: Women, women Posted by: morticia

Comments are closed-

all i can say to this is...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vwaites on May 9, 2007 10:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
WHAT??? (as in, what the f**k!?)

This is so unabashingly (and i do not throw this word around) mysogonistic, that i truly can think of no way to respond to someone with their head so deeply buried up his sad, sad, ass.

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

Comments are closed-

if you're going to hurl insults, at least do your homework
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ames on May 9, 2007 11:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While this post is no doubt intended to be inflamatory and I have no intention of setting it straight because it would be a massive waste of my time, I have to point out a major grammatical error.
Apart from the obvious intent of using the word 'cunt' to describe women, 'cunting' is actually an incorrect word usage. 'cunt' is a noun, however disgusting it's use may be, and therefore cannot have -ing attached to the end. -ing can only be attached to verbs, doing words, like your next word in the sentence - 'fucking'.
Next time you want to have an anti-women rant, at least make sure you get your insults right. THEN, we can treat you like you've got a brain and argue and discuss like civilized people.

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

Comments are closed-

RE: Women, women, women and more women.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Aussie Kim on May 10, 2007 12:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, and if anyone's interested, the only magazines I buy are New Science and Scientific American and some of the National Geographic specials. And maybe the occasional Rolling Stone magazine if there's something really interesting, like the article they had on the birth of the AIDS epidemic in the 50's.

(and THAT fact alone should blow a few people's minds because it shows I'm not even so anti-American...)

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

Comments are closed-

RE: Women, women, women and more women.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Ranch_Davidian on May 10, 2007 10:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You're pissed off that women's magazines cater to...the interests of women? So what? No one is going to force you to sit down and read O or Modern Bride. Also, most of the types of magazines you mentioned as being "men's magazines" are aimed at and read by both genders.

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

Comments are closed-

I don't like girls! I like trains and guns and computers and rock stars!!! And so does Biff!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Beck on May 10, 2007 1:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Me and Jimmy and Biff really like cars and trains, and we hate cunting, fucking women. Oh, and me and Tommy like magazines about DVD players; they are really, really good, but not those stinking girls. We all really like planet magazines, but girls are icky. Well, boys are, too, because we'd never look at a magazine with boys on it. Only stuff. We really like stuff. Stuff magazines are the best! Magazines with humans are dumb.


Actually, if I were to go by alot of the posts on alternet, I'd think that some men do nothing but navel gaze, then whimper that women aren't too willing to gaze into their hairy navels along with them. Some of you guys are so emotionally out-of-control.

Oh, and don't the words, "cunting fucking women" (you forgot the comma; can't any of you punctuate?) look like an idiot wrote them when you see someone else use them? I imagine you pictured that sentence as impassioned and extra-convincing. It actually looks like an immature sixth-grader wrote it.

Sit behind your window and keep looking. It really sounds like a fascinating way to live. But it will keep you away from the rest of us, and make you feel safe from those icky, icky girls.

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

Comments are closed-

Fear Of Big Sister?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: hole11 on May 9, 2007 6:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Masculinity has it's place. Most of us don't know what that place is or if it can be contained. It does bother some of us that being to masculine is now almost a felony.

It does seem to me that Coulter has a point that every political candidate is gay or girly men. What does it say when Howard Dean's speech is pumped up in volume while the background is silenced to make him appear like a raging animal on steroids.

I like to hear McCain say he is going to follow Osama to the gates of hell in order to get him, but I doubt if he is physically able to do it. But it bothers me that people frown on his aggressive speech.

I am sure Condallezza Rice can hold her own going to foreign countries and talking the talk. But I couldn't help but notice the looks from other men at her (on her team) while she was talking. It was almost as if they were laughing at her. It's similar when Rosie O'Donnel and Trump go at it. She might be right but Trump is laughing at this woman.

It is bothersome when women interview women as with Hillary Clinton and that reporter that had the great shoes from Saks. It's as if society is getting soft, kinder, and gentler. We have reporters not asking hard hitting questions and celebrities apologizing for everything they do and seeking rehabilitation as soon as their brain farts.

It's as if we have a conservative society that doesn't plan on changing anything. Where is the guy or gal that says I am going to change it, scrap it, or fix it? Instead they just apologize and say they are wrong or not good enough.

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

Comments are closed-

Defining Definity Fag
[Report this comment]
Posted by: talon53 on May 9, 2007 7:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mark Dery
I disagree with Coulter's definition of Edward is a Fag, a wuss to you a fag to someone else. Is that the same connotation that could be used in NY, in Dallis. in St Louis. The logic seemed a bit to loose in context; "a parking violations (if that)"to a writer"?? Fag carries with it the baggage of the original Gay context so even though you have defined it one is always wondering subconsciously "is he a fag" .
The question comes in when Defining Definitely. How credible are you or Coulter on the scale do you put a person who believes in this type of thought pattern or do you just lump them all-together in a class distension to fast-boat someone creditability . I guess what I'm am saying is that people should be brought to task (be responsible for what they write. I did injoy your article in a way of expressing oneself and ideals but I can not hold with your ideals of Coulter even though she might be an acommplished writer/publisher. Ann Coulter has escaped the skinning knife! Yes and No only to slander every good writers creditablity painting them with the same paint brush.

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

Comments are closed-

Hypermasculine? Or just plain stupid?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Aussie Kim on May 9, 2007 7:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sadly, it also appears that "hypermasculinity" also means "ignorance and stupidity". If macho attitudes caused this illegal war, ignorance and stupidity fuelled the drive to get there.

Also - Right-wing Christianity is so rampant in the US - of COURSE they hate women and gay men. Of COURSE they also hate education and logic and (*gasp*) THINKING. These things WILL drive most people from the church, and so you can't have these things occuring.

The US must be the strangest communist country in the world - your people actually INVITE others to give them people to hate and goals and "standards" to work _down_ to...

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

Comments are closed-

All of mass-culture has become shallow and degrading
[Report this comment]
Posted by: elfinito on May 9, 2007 9:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hate all these articles about how "X aspect of scoiety is ruining it"....

Our society has become such a shallow wasteland where all mass-media insults the intelligence of all of us, man, woman, black, white, mormon, jew, etc... ALL OF US!!

These articles that single out one issue, in themselves seem to discount the rest. Mass-media has flooded our brains with false hero worship, and sent us into one giant popualrity contest, from the age of 5 on.

Family value has become lost. I am not talking CONSERVATIVE family value, but value in quality family time and taking pride in educationg your children about life, reading, society, etc.... Instead we have let children be raised by TV and rely on the schools for any substance...but when kids are eductaed by pop-culture at home, how is school ever going to be any more than a Giant popularity contest. School can't teach the values needed to filter through this crap.

As a man, i am horribly offended my most male portrayals on television, just as much as I am offended by the female, black, jewish, etc... portrayals. All of them appeal to the lowest common denominator...the ignorant consuming public.

Americans have become, by and large, uneducated fat and lazy. The only information we want is that which is spoon-fed to us.

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

Comments are closed-

MY INNER FEMINIST HAS RISEN!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: vwaites on May 9, 2007 11:03 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...thanks to alternet, and the amout of anti-woman, anti-femminist venom i have read in the comments here. I had never really before considered myself one, as I didn't fit what, I guess I thought was the common mold (after all: I like cute shoes! And lipstick! I shave my legs and pits!).

But reading how much some people seem to despise the women, I have felt the need to step it up a bit.

Good going guys, I'm sure this is the reaction you were after. I'll be sure to spit in your face next time you open the door for me.

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

» RE: MY INNER FEMINIST HAS RISEN! Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: MY INNER FEMINIST HAS RISEN! Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: MY INNER FEMINIST HAS RISEN! Posted by: Aussie Kim
» very true Posted by: off-the-radar 2
» RE: very true Posted by: Blade
» RE: very true Posted by: off-the-radar 2
» RE: MY INNER FEMINIST HAS RISEN! Posted by: Fantasyartist

Comments are closed-

Has anybody noticed how the White House is fighting passage of a new"hate crimes" law ?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Fantasyartist on May 10, 2007 2:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Has anybody noticed that the Bush White House is fighting Congress over a n proposed "hate crimes" bill that will include gender, disability and sexual orientation as well as ethnicity. So much for " law and order"!

Terry

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

Comments are closed-

Right about our culture and Bush personally, wrong that it's driving the Iraq agenda
[Report this comment]
Posted by: kenhymes on May 10, 2007 3:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I agree with the author's eneral point about the damage of homophobia in our culture, but I disagree that this is the driving force behind the White House's obsession with keeping the occupation going.

This is about the same thing it always has been: money. Cheney is driving the car, and he and his rich friends are along for the ride.

First, there are the massive no-bid contracts for Kellog-Brown-Root and Halliburton, both in the Middle East and here at home.

Then there is the win-win situation for anyone heavily invested in U.S. oil interests: if the situation stabilizes in favor of a U.S. friendly strongman (unlikely at this point, but it was in my opinion always the outcome the WH desired, whatever the neocons ideology might spout), then vast new oilfields become essentially U.S. oil company property; if the chaos continues, those fields are effectively off the market, and the price of oil remains artificially high.

Not quibbling with the author about the damage done by homophobia (in my own life as in so many others). But it's giving Bush et al way too much credit to say that the culture is unconsciously driving their decisions - sadly, they know exactly what they're doing.

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

Comments are closed-

No one castrated any of you
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Beck on May 11, 2007 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You just do not want to accept responsibility for your own failings.

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

Comments are closed-

RE: "America's Hypermasculine Culture"! LOL -- YEAH RIGHT!
[Report this comment]
Posted by: lotus23 on May 13, 2007 10:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you Mr. James Dobson. Yes, we'll all tune in for your next installment of "Focus on the Family" to learn how we can preserve traditional values, keep our military strong, fight the terrorist before they come to us, and prevent secular humanism from infiltrating our schools teaching evolution and recruiting our children to join the homosexual agenda and hate America. Oh, as a bonus, I'll throw in John Birch and you'll have a baker's dozen. Good night, John Boy.

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

Comments are closed-

'Hypermacho' is too polite a word...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Blue Heron on May 10, 2007 3:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To describe the most neurotic culture in the world. Americans have less vacation than the Japanese, never sit down and actually enjoy their food, and worst of all, have no manners. That 's not just a 'macho' problem. It's a deep-seated psychosis and it'll be a long time before this culture embraces more humane ways of being or examines quality of life issues. But hey, it's your lousy country. Have fun being nervous wrecks and having heart attacks! Now that's macho!

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

Comments are closed-

What if...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: realitysucks on May 11, 2007 1:02 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've read alot of of rants about women. Here are some logical responses.

1. Guys wonder why women don't always have as much friends as they do. Here's why... Guys support other guys even when they are wrong. Women will tell their friends when they are full of crap or doing something immoral. That leads to conflicts.

2. I've seen lots of whining on this list about divorce settlements, manipulation, and other bad "female" traits.. What if we raped 1 in 4 of you like you did us? What is we murdered you like you do us? What if the world over we enslaved you like you do us? What if we mutilated your genitals and beat you and gave you no rights whatsoever like you do us? How would you feel about women then?

3. There is a reason why *all* the wars, most violent crime, and a good chunk of domestic abuse is started by men. Men steadfastly refuse to take responsibility for their own behavior and seek out scapegoats like-their mothers, wives, ex-wives, daughters, the girls who refuse to go out with them, and womankind in general. What if some men broke ranks and decided to be moral and right instead of aligning with their buddies. Maybe some of this crap would stop.

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

» RE: What if... Posted by: Aussie Kim

Comments are closed-

Boo hoo
[Report this comment]
Posted by: lotus23 on May 11, 2007 3:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh you poor babies. Oh, men have it sooo tough. Boo hoo. They're soooo oppressed. Those feminist meanies keep coming after them telling them things they don't like to hear. Maybe we should have some affirmative action for the white male, given the overwhelmingly high privilege women have (why look at all the female presidents, generals, and CEOs!). Boo hoo. Let's just change the subject -- not talk about those pesky little things like gender and race and sexual orientation -- so nobody will actually have to be challanged.

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

Comments are closed-

We Interrupt Our Regularly Scheduled Programming
[Report this comment]
Posted by: M. Dery on May 11, 2007 8:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although AlterNet's eye-gouging page layout (sorry, Don!) makes the Mayan codices look like PowerPoint, I can't resist the urge to correct a few misperceptions, here. But first, a quick thanks to all the thoughtful, reasoned commenters for their wisdom; props for making yourselves heard above hoarse-throated baying of the right-wing orcs.

Now, then:

1. Grateful as I am to the AlterNet editors for allowing me to preach from their bully pulpit, I have to point out that the headline they slapped on this thing---"How America's fear of femininity is driving some of our worst foreign policy mistakes"---is the mother of a million misunderstandings. "Femininity" is a red flag to Santa Cruz history-of-consciousness grad students and anyone else on the academic left, such as the author of the post about "false binaries." Nowhere in my essay do I use the term "femininity." Rather, I'm at pains to use the term "the feminine," by which I mean" socially constructed notions of what is feminine, a category that in the political demonology of the right includes gay men (forever and always tarred with the brush of "femininity"). Short version: I'm not ratifying age-old notions of what is feminine and what is masculine; I'm arguing that American notions of masculinity are at heart hysterical (irony intended), gnawed by the anxious knowledge that sex studies since Kinsey have shown that the thoroughgoing heterosexual is a cherished fiction, and that nearly all of us have had, at one time or another, homosexual experiences or homosexual impulses. As well, our culture's attempts to build a firewall between the masculine and the feminine notwithstanding, studies in pediatric psychology show that before children have been socialized along gender lines, they toggle freely between gender definitions in terms of patterns of play, social behavior, and the like.

"Gender is an artificial social system intended to keep females subordinate to males by artificially assigning common human behaviors to one sex or the other and placing positive/negative values on the basis of which sex gets which lot." (Cue Homer Simpson *d'oh*!) This is freeze-dried Judith Butler, served up as if it were a revelation. Again, I'm not buttressing gender differences, I'm giving the lie to them. That, in fact, is the very nub of my argument: that hysterical masculinity denies the infinite shades of gray that constitute each person's deepest sense of his/her own gender.

2. A passing thought on women's magazines, since that subject seems to have roiled the viper's nest, here: they are almost exclusively owned by men, and their executive editors are, on balance, men. Their very existence depends on advertisers---the cosmetics industry, diet supplements, fashion---and that advertising base determines much of the editorial content. Again, cosmic Duh. We hold these truths to be self-evident, etc. In any event, the notion that women get the media they deserve---a notion that seems to undergird a number of threads on this page---is pure fiction. Alt.culture 'zines like BUST offer a fleeting glimpse of what a media world by women, for women, would look like, and it's worlds apart from the brain-softening gruel slopped out in the pages of most glossies. Mainstream women's mags, with their numbing litany of diet regimens, celebrity gossip, and astrology tips, address a social mirage, not who women truly are. Why do women buy these things? You're a soccer mom, marooned in the vast flyover, casing the Wal-Mart offerings: you choose the glossiest fruit on the poisoned tree.

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

» Nonsense Posted by: Philip Newton
» More freeze-fried Judith Butler Posted by: Donna_Darko

Comments are closed-

Porn culture (see above) is the enemy. Isms suck.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Philip Newton on May 12, 2007 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
While we wring their hands over the disrespect proffered [insert oppressed special interest group of choice] and every ISM on planet jockies to be head of the Line of the Oppressed, our culture rots from within.

All relationships in America -- all of them -- are damaged and bleeding from the caustic beating of a degraded and violent national environment.

We can chop ouselves into ten thousand ineffectual special interest groups, numbed and distracted by the latest cultural excesses, advocating for our private fetish causes, or we can unite to address the bread and butter issues which affect us all: starting with health care, the environment and labor rights. Until we make headway on these issues, who gives a rats ass about your isms?

Isms suck.

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

» Weapons of Mass Distraction Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Weapons of Mass Distraction Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Weapons of Mass Distraction Posted by: Philip Newton
» RE: Weapons of Mass Distraction Posted by: Philip Newton

Comments are closed-

comments changing the subject
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Shey on May 12, 2007 5:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If an article about the destructive social consequences of obsessive hyper-masculinity, posted on AlterNet, immediately spawns a ton of misogynistic comments ranging from "lets address the issue of women not being 'feminine' enough" to how our national culture of violence at home and war mongering abroad has actually been "beneficial" to us all, what hope is there for our country and our society? Not too fucking much, in the opinion of this "gender equality" hetrosexual female feminist.
I realize that the entire idea of a censorship-free online forum is based on anyone being able to have their say, anytime, anywhere. But for a while now, the tone of the "comments" here at AlterNet gives me the impression that the comments forum has been taken over by those whose only reason for commenting is to bash the progressive tone of AlterNet news.
Isn't it enough for the outmoded values crowd to have their own TV network (Fox)? Is there nowhere left that allows social and political progressives a forum for discussing our issues, that hasn't been invaded by the bashers and trolls , so that our comments are reduced to a consistently defensive tone? Just saying.

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

» Weapon of mass distraction Posted by: Philip Newton

Comments are closed-

Weapon of mass distraction
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Philip Newton on May 13, 2007 9:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What is the common factor for all persons who find themselves shunned, disenfranchised, marginalized?

Resources.

In one way or another, a person who suffers real discrimination suffers a lack of some kind of resource.

What is the best way to end this? Regain control of the resources.

Uniting, not dividing, is the only way to achieve that. Your average robber barons unite to get what they want. They don't cry about some alleged slight or lack. They focus on what they want and -- at our expense -- they get it.

There are only so many hours and so much energy. We can squander them arguing over fetish causes or we can begin to organize in a meaningful way to redress the wrongs which affect us all. As I post often, I don't care whose screwing you, I care about the screwing we're all getting.

In the meantime, yes, our culture rots from within. Because, guess what? The Man doesn't give a shit about these fetish social issues, except when they are useful to divide and conquer. All he cares about is getting a lot and getting it cheap.

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

Comments are closed-

Strong Wrong
[Report this comment]
Posted by: mommy64 on May 13, 2007 11:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Pope Benedict wants a strong Church."

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

» RE: Strong Wrong Posted by: lotus23

Comments are closed-

I thought feminism was supposed to be about equality
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Beste on May 13, 2007 6:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i guess not.

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

» it is Posted by: ding1166
» RE: Feministing?!?! Posted by: Beste

Comments are closed-

I ask again:
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Aussie Kim on May 13, 2007 11:48 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If being "manly" is NOT good enough for women, WHY is it good enough for men?

If being "manly" is so bad, why do men keep doing it?

Why do women have to put up with it, if men won't?

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

» RE: I ask again: Posted by: Philip Newton

Comments are closed-

The Long & The Short of It.
[Report this comment]
Posted by: obliu222 on May 14, 2007 2:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The difference is that Ann Coulter thinks that if god says so it's OK to rape the world. [In fact she says so, and holds that God gave it to us for this very reason.] I think that even if God says so, it's already been written in the book around the time of Abraham that we're not supposed to listen to crowing ninnies.

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

Comments are closed-

Bizarre Article
[Report this comment]
Posted by: fleurette on May 15, 2007 11:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find this article so bizarre in its "jumping off" point. He seems to have a bit of sour grapes about the occasional situations where black people are sometimes able to organize, protest, and effect change when they are wronged - and gays are not able to get those results. I'm sorry gays are not able to get those results. Racist shock jocks as well as homophobic pundits are both Class A Felonists, but don't blame or be envious in a nasty way against blacks who are organized and have been dying in the thousands for Civil Rights for over 100 years. If gays want to have that "scare-ability" factor like Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson, they need to bring more forth more Barney Franks and Rosie O'Donnells who offend people and put their reputations on the line to advance their rights and fewer right-wingers like Andrew Sullivans, Christopher Hitchens, Karl Roves, Cheney's daughter, etc. just in it for the money, speaking "yassir to power" and/or are crazy drunks with massive identity issues.

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

Comments are closed-

Violent Women...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: jasonk on May 15, 2007 2:53 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Violent Younger Women...
In 1986, a report appeared in "Social Work," the journal of the National Association of Social Workers (Nov./Dec. 1986) on violence in adolescent dating relationships, in which it was found that girls were violent more often than boys.
Another report on premarital violence found that 34% of the males and 40% of the females reported engaging in some form of physical aggression against their mates in a year. Once more, 17% of women and 7% of men reported engaging in severe physical aggression. The most revealing statistic was that 35% of the men and 30% of the women reported having been abused.
http://www.romanceopedia.com/O-ViolenceNotAllowed.html

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

» RE: Violent Women... Posted by: Cathyblj
 
Advertisement