What is with people who are constantly worried that American manhood is under threat? It seems like anything that seeks to make people safer or expects people to treat others with respect and dignity and not act like a jerk, is taken as evidence of the increasing wussification and feminization of America.
And what does ‘feminization’ even mean? It is almost always used in a pejorative sense and along with the awful phrase ‘man up’ seems meant to perpetuate the stereotype of women as weak and vacillating and equivocating.
The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook
(This clip aired on January 14, 2014. To get suggestions on how to view clips of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report outside the US, please see this earlier post. If the videos autoplay, please see here for a diagnosis and possible solutions.)
What amazes me is the large number of women who seem to long for the “good old days” when (white) men could do pretty much whatever they pleased. Is the conservative fear of change so strong that these women prefer accepting second-class citizenship rather than trying to make things more equal?
From the video:
Meanwhile, when us women “speak bluntly, even sometimes rudely,” all the so-called tough guys freak the fuck out. They really, really, really don’t like women speaking to them (or anyone else) the way they want to speak to everyone else.
~*~*~*~*~
moarscienceplz (#1)
I think it has a lot to do with how white women are trying to preserve our privilege relative to people of color. (Not consciously, necessarily.)
What is with people who are constantly worried that American manhood is under threat?
What the hell does it even mean to say, “American manhood is under threat?”
From the examples that I have seen, it appears to mean that someone is being asked to do something differently than they have before. Only sometimes the difference is that they act a little less stereotypically male and/or do something in a manner that is more stereotypically female.
In other words, saying that American manhood is under threat is just a shorter way of saying, “I want to remain a complete jerk, but instead of just saying, ‘I want to remain a complete jerk,’ I want to say it in an idiotic and offensive way.”
It’s politics. There is still something very attractive in our culture or in our bones about the rugged man, the take no prisoner’s man, the boss, the protector, the builder, the take no shit dude… He gives us security and at times, even a center.
And yes, that’s the kind of stuff that feminist’s “sensitive new age guy” directly opposed (http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/c/christine_lavin/sensitive_new_age_guys.html)
Even now, we see that being drilled out of boys in schools, who are pathologized and drugged if they don’t sit still in class, and are judged negatively if they don’t perform up to female behaviors.
And we are told that it’s just a mask of masculinity and what boys need more is more feminine behaviors and less male behaviors.
http://ideas.time.com/2014/01/13/masculinity-is-more-than-a-mask/
Her whole article is worth reading (and so hard to qute).
But if my quote doesn’t convince you, well even feminists recognize the feminization and hate it. Oh, they won’t say that straight out, but they will say it:
And it’s more than just a myth that feminists love to defend their love of “bad boys”.
http://everydayfeminism.com/2012/12/but-why-do-some-women-go-for-aholes/
And here is Feminist Jaclyn Friedman, famous for writing about feminist sex, and writing about “Toxic Masculinity”
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2010/03/26/fucking-while-feminist-with-jaclyn-friedman/
So it’s no surprise that whether it’s Fox and Brit Hume, or among women voters, that Chris Christie’s no bullshit attitude is creaming jeans.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-06/chris-christies-dramatic-turnaround-with-women-voters
Boys and girls have always been expected to sit still in class. Somehow manhood survived, even when corporal punishment was used to discipline children. (Note: I don’t believe in corporal punishment.)
Sadly, overuse of ADD/ADHD medications has happened a lot--over the last 40+ years (it’s nothing new.)
That quote doesn’t say what you claim it says. In the first place, she says, “some women (believe it or not, we’re not all alike--any more than men are.)
In the second place, she answers her question “Why do some women go for a**holes” with this:
And Jaclyn Friedman says:
Being put on a pedestal is just the flip side to being held in contempt as an inferior.
Your problem is gender essentialism. You seem to see some qualities as masculine and some as feminine. That men Friedman is talking about here may well have the same problem, only where you see “masculine” qualities as good and to be encouraged, the men she’s discussing see them as bad and to be repudiated.
A whole person has a full complement of human qualities. And hopefully doesn’t see some of them as “masculine” and others as “feminine.”
(Friedman also suspects that “our internal conceptions of masculinity” may make it difficult for some people to accept gentle men. Why wouldn’t that be true--lots of people have trouble accepting aggressive women. We’ve all internalized these gender norms. Even feminists.)
Seriously? You think Chris Christie and his disregard for the people of New Jersey--hell, for human life (emergency vehicles were unable to respond in a timely way during that fiasco)--has anybody other than right-wing propagandists creaming their jeans? I’m sorry; that’s just stupid.
@stacy
“Seriously? You think Chris Christie and his disregard for the people of New Jersey–hell, for human life (emergency vehicles were unable to respond in a timely way during that fiasco)–has anybody other than right-wing propagandists creaming their jeans? I’m sorry; that’s just stupid.”
Bwa ha ha ha.
A poll from five days ago shows MORE women than men view Chris Christie as a leader.
So “just stupid” or just the facts, maam?
Face it, feminists say one thing about who they find attractive, but women (including feminists) really want something else instead.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/01/15/poll_nj_voters_see_christie_as_leader_not_a_bully_121242.html
Poll: N.J. Voters See Christie as Leader, Not a Bully
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie remains popular in his home state, where most voters view him more as a leader than a bully and do not believe that he was involved in the “Bridgegate” scandal, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll.
Fifty-four percent of those surveyed say Christie is more of a leader than a bully, the lowest “bully score” in the 3½ years that Quinnipiac has polled on the question; 40 percent of Garden State voters say the opposite.
Broken down by gender, women are slightly more likely to see Christie primarily as a leader: While only 53 percent of men held that opinion, 55 percent of women did.
“Christie is doing better with the public than with the news media,” said Quinnipiac University Polling Institute director Maurice Carroll. “His job approval has dropped from the stratosphere, but it’s still double-digit positive.”
Christie’s personal favorability ratings have remained high for a number of other characteristics. By 51 percent to 41 percent, voters see him as trustworthy. Almost three-quarters say he is a “strong leader.” Voters also think he cares about their needs, 55 percent to 41 percent.
Democrats are the only political demographic that view Christie as a bully. Only 37 percent of Democrats think Christie is more of a leader than a bully, compared to the 56 percent that believe otherwise. But more than three-quarters of Republicans think he is a strong leader, while 55 percent of political independents agree.
Christie’s approval remains above 55 percent, despite the bridge controversy’s high penetration rate. According to the poll, 93 percent of New Jersey voters have heard reports about the controversy surrounding lane closures on the George Washington Bridge in September, apparently engineered as political retribution by a Christie aide and several appointees.
Overall, 66 percent of voters believe Christie was not involved in the action; only 22 percent say he was. Democrats in the state are also doubtful of Christie’s involvement: 53 percent believe Christie was not involved.
Here’s a poll between Christie and Clinton taken before bridgegate:
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2013/12/27/Chris-Christie-Hillary-Clinton-in-a-draw-poll-says/UPI-91711388122200/
Chris Christie, Hillary Clinton in a draw, poll says
Christie has a 14-point lead among men but trails Clinton by 10 points among women, the poll shows.
So in a national poll, Christie is only 10 points behind Clinton among both Republican and Democratic women combined.
I have to imagine that (before bridgegate) he was damn pleased with that.
It would be good to get breakdowns of women based on party and age.
Bridgegate aside, and I think Bridgegate is devastating to Christie, but Bridgegate aside, Christie’s threat to Clinton is that Christie comes across as the modern straight talking no bullshitting buck stops here (*) politician.
(*) unless it’s bridgegate about which he knows nothing, nothing.
wtfwhateverd00d:
@6: “A poll from five days ago shows MORE women than men view Chris Christie as a leader.”
@7: “Christie has a 14-point lead among men but trails Clinton by 10 points among women, the poll shows.”
Odd how gender preference @6 results in the apparently contradictory result @7.
It’s not American Manhood© that’s under threat it’s American Jerkhood©. Don’t conservatives know the difference?
@3: “In other words, saying that American manhood is under threat is just a shorter way of saying, “I want to remain a complete jerk, but instead of just saying, ‘I want to remain a complete jerk,’ I want to say it in an idiotic and offensive way.”
It’s the same thing as the idiots who rail about “PC”; what they’re really saying is, “I want to be able to insult people and act like a jackass with ZERO repercussions!” Ironically, these are the first people to turn pale and faint if someone not in the traditional power base is rude to them.
A. Noyd @ 2 --
Also possibly a good deal of projection. Someone personally prefers to be submissive and take the support role in a relationship, and since it feels right for them they imagine that it’s right for all other women. They start calling it all women’s “true nature” because the idea that different people can have different natures is too much for them.
By whom? Males? Why on Earth would a feminist take orders from a man on who they should sleep with? Isn’t that the whole point of feminism?
D00d, seriously, neither men nor women are a monolith. Different people want different things. Telling people “no, you’re X, so you must want Y” is evil and counterproductive.
@8 I believe what’s going on is the difference between a national poll of people who don’t really know Christie, and a local NJ poll of people who do know Christie.
So in lieu of knowledge, the national poll reverts to stereotypes.
This is one reason why bridgegate is so devastating, Christie right now is in a phase where he should be getting national attention so that information can overcome stereotypes (fat, republican, new jerset, male, corrupt, …) which apparently is a process that works very well for the guy as can be seen in his experience of high popularity in New Jersey.
@13, Oh I agree, but when Jaclyn Friedman famous feminist sex author says she often dislikes feminist men and also discusses her anonymous Craigslist hookups to get the kind of sex she wants from anonymous men it does poke a huge hole in her claims of how evil the men are and how what society needs is more feminism.
That and the acknowledgement by another feminist that women and feminists often do go for the bad boys (yes she rationalizes that as brain washing and poisoning from the Patriarchy) does shine a light on the worries by some that feminism is leading society down an unworkable path, in part by criminalizing and pathologizing typical and reasonable male behaviors.
It seems that even feminists agree with that in their ACTUAL behaviors once you ignore what they say.
Does anyone here know how to obtain a map of how any neighborhood swings, Democratic or Republican?
Neighborhood level would be fine, block by block would be awesome.
Googling failed me this morning.
@Sassafras (#11)
I don’t know that they’d even have to prefer a submissive, support role. Attach moral value to something and a lot of people will insist they want it even if it makes them uncomfortable. Or, rather, the comfort of being able to live up to a set of morals outweighs the discomfort of actually having to behave a certain way. I think that’s true of men and traditional masculinity, too.
No mention of the infantilization of America by religion?
Women are known for doing as they’re told, so that makes perfect sense. I hear that all the time, “Say what you like about women, but you gotta admit, they always do as they’re told.”
The truth is more…logical. Humans appraise the value of others based on their internal value system, completely ignoring the values of the other. When humans are attracted to someone, they are revealing their internal value system and when you learn to listen to what people do, you will discover -- especially with feminists and Christians -- that what they do has very little correlation with what they say. It’s often the exact opposite. Their stated values are exploitable and preached at you for you to value. Those who Preach don’t Do and those who Do have no need to Preach. They live their values. The preachers don’t; women, Christians, politicians, priests, etc. Preachers are always telling you what to do, always breaking their own rules.
If we take Christians for example, they will preach exploitable values that are logically insane for you to value. They want you to be merciful, forgiving, kind, tolerant…they’ll be taxing those qualities of yours as soon as they’ve given them to you.
Every Christian and feminist I’ve ever met has been the opposite of that, but they will say you should be ‘good’ because they want to do ‘bad’. They resent being exposed as fraudulent with this single verse:
No ambiguity whatsoever. But they keep that verse to preach at others. No one is actually going to accept this value, I don’t believe even St Francis of Assisi was that stupid, but it’s not the point. Christians know no one will do it. That’s the point. They want to use the refusal as a pretext for malice.
The Cross of Jesus goes on before to tell the natives to “Forsake all that they hath” and follow Christ. The missionary is ridiculed, mocked. With a sorrowful heart, the missionary accepts that they did their best. They tried to help the peaceful natives but they refused to be civil. In come the civilized armies of Christian boy sociopaths (trying to prove their worth to abusive mothers and impress slut-shamed women into giving them favour), to genocide their betters for Christ / Mom. To be fair, the uncivilized heathens were rude. The Cross of Jesus asked politely. That is why Polite Society is so rude.
Please understand the point that I’m making. Duplicitous Christian mothers built this world of horror by saying one thing and doing another. They offer no value as objects selling themselves and concealing their true (negative) worth. I thank you to understand how it’s all tied together. If I’ve explained it badly, I’m Sorry. Please, forgive me. I’m genuinely Sorry -- so Sorry -- for wasting your valuable time. Thank you for accepting my insulting emotional currency in lieu of value. God bless you.
I do speak for God, actually. He doesn’t know how.
Back to the question at hand, only bad girls like bad boys. No exceptions. If you disagree, you may be confused by Society’s definition of a good girl (staying away from Society’s male slaves until they can be made to perceive the need for discretion and self-objectification). Mothers Know Best how to destroy the minds of their children with lies and shame of biology and, may I take this opportunity to point out how ridiculous you look in those clothes. No offence.
We all look ridiculous. And we should all be very ashamed of ourselves for being ashamed of ourselves.
Sorry I didn’t mean my comment to be that long. Hah. What? Gosh.
I SAID I WAS SORRY.
Fine. You know what, I’m not sorry. I’m sorry I’m not sorry.
God bless.
Drive safely.
Have a good trip.
Our prayers are with you.
Good night.
Take care.
Everything’s going to work out fine.
Just you wait, you’ll see I’m right.
Think positive!
Don’t settle for less. Wait for what you deserve.
You can understand, I’m sure. What does a girl deserve for joining women’s Cargo Cult? Waiting for that deserved cargo. Women prey on girls with endless sleaze that all boils down to, “Stay away from my man.” This is what religion is all about. This is why sex is taboo. Exclusive love = hate. If you disagree, you’re wrong but don’t feel bad, you’re only wrong by a factor of like, a billion to one. You’re Josef Fritzl and you need to accept it. If not you, your mother was. Every mother and every wife is Josef Fritzl.
Someone mentioned religious infantilization? Religions become great when evil mothers find the values appealing. Christianity is grotesquely appealing to objectified, infantile women. “But what about all the misogyny?” Exactly. The Bible isn’t anti-women, it’s anti-children. It’s anti-girls. It’s anti-everyone except the Matriarchy, mothers and wives who hate women for being women (distracting male slaves from their duty).
When people refer to the feminisation of America, they may be talking about the march towards mindless conformity, by virtue of living in a society where it’s more important not to offend the malicious than it is to be honest and call a spade a spade.
Feminists will scream about women’s right to choose and in the very next breath, scream at women for choosing not to conceal themselves. Feminists will scream about consent and then scream about the need to protect women from giving their consent too freely. Then again, protecting a 17-year-old woman from her choices is a lot like protecting a man from choosing to leave a non-contributing leech who doesn’t respect free will. Marriage is very romantic. It’s sole function is to obligate labour / enable slavery.
Feminists hate Miley Cyrus because her crime is having fun without hurting anyone. And feminists know she’s not supposed to feel that way (because men are supposed to pay to see an exposed nipple). Feminists know how everyone is supposed to feel, and now feminists writing for the Wall Street Journal are challenging whether authors have the Right to say how their fictional characters feel.
WSJ: Is Blurred Lines A Rapey Song
A fellow by the name of George Orwell wrote a book titled 1984 which some of you may have read. It’s patently clear that Big Brother is feminism because, “You’re not supposed to think that way.”
They will tell you how to think. They will tell you how to feel. Girls hate sex. NO, girls cannot be trapped between their mother’s slut-shaming and their raging biological desire. No means No. No exceptions. Does Thicke or Rand have the Right to say how their fictional characters feel? Absolutely not. Do you have the Right to speak uncensored truth? Not on FreeThoughtBlogs, you don’t. Why not?
“You’re not supposed to feel that way.” Everyone knows that.
FreethoughtBlogs is a private space and so no one other than the individual blog host has the right to publish here. It is a privilege granted to them by the host. But they are always free to write elsewhere on their own blogs, so their right to free speech is not abridged if they are forbidden to post here.
I am always surprised by people who do not appreciate what seems to me to be a fairly straightforward distinction between public and private fora.
It’s always amusing to have someone tell you what you believe based on what they read on the back of a cereal box.
@d00d
Since you seem so hung up on what people get off on, you should consider reading and listening to Dan Savage’s columns and podcasts. They’re very informative and enjoyable!
I appreciate that but my concern isn’t really about the Right to free speech. I’m more concerned about the Right to honest speech.
I caught your thoughts on moderation and they seemed incredibly logical and fair. But on some of the feminist blogs, comments limited to evidence in support of a contrarian position can be censored for that reason. Commenters who participate in the discussion in good faith with the intent of speaking truthfully can be banned for that reason. I get that it’s FreeThought for the individual bloggers, but when they’re censoring truth they can’t refute, it’s not really FreeThought they’re protecting, it’s FreePropaganda. Sure, they have the legal Right to do it but the NSA has the legal Right to be indecent as well.
They want freedom to abuse. They’re attacking the Church for some of the very conduct they’re shamelessly engaging in. I may be a little OCD but I don’t think anyone has the Right to duplicity and hypocrisy.
Wall Street Journal: Is Blurred Lines a Rapey Song
They want freedom to take away the liberty of others to think and feel. Feminism is not a mainstream opinion. Only 23% of women and 16% of men identify as feminists. But it’s a huge problem because, historically, Indecency has consistently beaten Decency. Of course it can’t win so we all get to lose.
Men are beginning to underperform women in both the academic arena and the workplace with women earning more degrees and making more on average than their male counterparts. We men need to respond by working hard and getting things done like we used to, not by fading into mediocrity and dependency.