A strange dose of masculinism(?) ideals

[Shinova]

I recently heard about a viewpoint held by some people, men actually. It appears that they believe that in today's society, it's the men that are being abused, not the women. They state examples such as men getting arrested for simply looking at a woman who is intentionally being exhibitionist. And there are the more ridiculous examples, such as how on comedy shows men are usually the ones who are being the butt end of jokes and gags, instead of women. Also how in movies and books, such as, for example, where the character is going insane, it's always (supposedly) the men who are being depicted that way, not the women. Basically, these people believe men are being the ones being shown as inferior in modern society, not women.


Personally I think these people are a bit stuck in the past---FAR past. What do you guys think?

[Joe]

I recently heard about a viewpoint held by some people, men actually. It appears that they believe that in today's society, it's the men that are being abused, not the women. They state examples such as men getting arrested for simply looking at a woman who is intentionally being exhibitionist. And there are the more ridiculous examples, such as how on comedy shows men are usually the ones who are being the butt end of jokes and gags, instead of women. Also how in movies and books, such as, for example, where the character is going insane, it's always (supposedly) the men who are being depicted that way, not the women. Basically, these people believe men are being the ones being shown as inferior in modern society, not women.


Personally I think these people are a bit stuck in the past---FAR past. What do you guys think?

Sure, there are certain inequities that men face, but we haven't got it bad.

[Stormbringer]

Do I think some attitudes towards men are sexist: yes. I agree that with sexual harassment and discrimination, it's a guilty until proven innocent a lot of times.

All in all though, I think if anyone has the advantage it's still men. The world has historically been male dominated, and except for a few areas, we are equal or still the priviliged sex.

[Darth Wong]

Let's just say that while some of these complaints may be legitimate, it's ridiculous for men to whine about social inequity when we still have almost all the power and money. And when a man commits an injustice against women, it's usually something horrible like beating your wife or raping somebody and then getting a slap on the wrist by a male judge. Whining about the portrayal of Al Bundy on TV is just pathetic.

[Tom_Aurum]

Yes, and you've never been kicked off of a college campus for politely greeting and talking to a woman. I think the view on <both> sexes american society has is seriously wrong. More of a elitist view of class differences, the men accused of such wrongs are hardly ever the ones who are actually perpetrating the crimes. Find a convenient scapegoat, such as that boy who seems slightly out of place, or isn't a proper christian, et cetera.

Not to mention women rarely are taught to have the integrity to simply state how they feel to someone who may be harming them. It's more pandemic than just men being persecuted. More of the latest symptom of the way women in this society are programmed to be weak and dishonest.

[His Divine Shadow]

Whining about the portrayal of Al Bundy on TV is just pathetic.

Hey! Al Bundy is a role model for us all!

[Vympel]

Al Bundy is one of the funniest TV characters ever devised. Just brilliant.

PSYCHO DAD!

[Peregrin Toker]

Whining about the portrayal of Al Bundy on TV is just pathetic.

Hey! Al Bundy is a role model for us all!

(insert NRA joke)

[Peregrin Toker]

Personally I think these people are a bit stuck in the past---FAR past. What do you guys think?

I have problems taking these people seriously.

[Darth Servo]

I think certain idiots in our society are LOOKING for something to complain about. While it is true that sexual harassment lawsuits got way out of hand (like any other type of get-rich quick lawsuit has), the men in the U.S. generally don't have much to complain about.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Let's just say that while some of these complaints may be legitimate, it's ridiculous for men to whine about social inequity when we still have almost all the power and money. And when a man commits an injustice against women, it's usually something horrible like beating your wife or raping somebody and then getting a slap on the wrist by a male judge. Whining about the portrayal of Al Bundy on TV is just pathetic.

It's a little bit more severe than that. As has been pointed out, when a woman accuses a man of a crime involving either sex or violence, or files a sexual harrassment suit, it really is a "guilty until proven innocent" situation. Sometimes quite literally.

I have personally heard women "joke" about accusing men they personally dislike of such crimes, just to fuck up their lives. Personally, I don't think that's all that funny. IIRC, in California and a few other states, it is impossible for a false accuser to recant the accusation. There are even examples of situations where the false accuser has confessed to fabricating the accusation, only to have that confession fall on a deaf court.

I realize that at the moment, this information won't carry much weight; if you like, I will investigate further and bring you links to such cases, and further, cases in which women have committed brutal crimes on the flimsiest of justifications and used the most negligible of defenses with greater success than any male could ever hope for.

Al Bundy isn't the crime here, just an example of the setup that makes the crime acceptable.

[Peregrin Toker]

Al Bundy isn't the crime here, just an example of the setup that makes the crime acceptable.

What's wrong with the character of Al Bundy?? I'm convinced that there are people like him.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Al Bundy isn't the crime here, just an example of the setup that makes the crime acceptable.

What's wrong with the character of Al Bundy?? I'm convinced that there are people like him.

Of course there are people like him. There are also Jewish people who are greedy. There are also African-Americans who commit crimes. That doesn't mean that portraying the average father as a grouchy but kind-hearted half-wit is acceptable. Homer Simpson and Al Bundy are no more inoffensive to the group they caricaturize than any other exaggerated stereotype.

But, to be fair, Married... With Children was Chock Full O' Stereotypes. Kelly Bundy: a walking Dumb Blonde Joke. Peg Bundy: the quintessential Lazy Money-Grubbing Nag of a housewife. Bud: I don't know what the hell Bud was about, unless the writers of the show were following my family from Naval base to Naval base, spying on me. Al: the Ultimate Loser, shackled and chained to a family that would've celebrated (and probably did in a dream sequence or something) if he abandoned them, or better yet, died and left them insurance money. The only one on that show that even remotely resembled a healthy, functional human being was the dog.

But I'll bet you anything when women's groups complained about the show's portrayal of the female characters, they missed all the rest of that shit.

I think men do have a right to bitch about this kind of thing. We had this discussion (sort of) when we talked about Native Americans portrayed in sports mascots. As I recall, the general consensus was that it was pretty fucking offensive. Why is this different?

[Darth Wong]

Of course there are people like him. There are also Jewish people who are greedy. There are also African-Americans who commit crimes. That doesn't mean that portraying the average father as a grouchy but kind-hearted half-wit is acceptable. Homer Simpson and Al Bundy are no more inoffensive to the group they caricaturize than any other exaggerated stereotype.

Except that Al Bundy never claimed to be the average father, and the Bundys were never portrayed as anything but a severely dysfunctional family. As a father, I've never taken offense at the Simpsons or at Married with Children's portrayal of their respective dummy dads.

I think men do have a right to bitch about this kind of thing. We had this discussion (sort of) when we talked about Native Americans portrayed in sports mascots. As I recall, the general consensus was that it was pretty fucking offensive. Why is this different?

Because we haven't been victimized by the same people who are doing this now. We run the show. We control everything. No one has victimized men in any large scale (anecdotal horror stories aside; they do not prove the existence of a wider trend and one can just as easily produce reams of stories about men being let off with a slap on the wrist for legitimate rape crimes). It's like the difference between a Jewish guy making a joke about Jews and a German making a joke about Jews.

[Coyote]

Of course, there's the laws that mandate that in a divorce the children automatically go to the mother unless there are good, hard reasons showing her to be a bad parent. Even then it is an uphill slog for the man.

Men get paid more in jobs because men are more willing to work longer hours, to transfer to new locations, and accept shit jobs for the purpose of greater potential payoff later. There is some glass ceiling going on, I don't deny that, but men ar emore willing to submit themselves to the needs of the job, whereas women typically will fit the job around their other needs.

Again, these are not "every man is like..." and "every woman will.." but generalizations. Some women are real career-builders, some men are more househusbandly, but these are recognized as not the norm.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Of course there are people like him. There are also Jewish people who are greedy. There are also African-Americans who commit crimes. That doesn't mean that portraying the average father as a grouchy but kind-hearted half-wit is acceptable. Homer Simpson and Al Bundy are no more inoffensive to the group they caricaturize than any other exaggerated stereotype.

Except that Al Bundy never claimed to be the average father, and the Bundys were never portrayed as anything but a severely dysfunctional family. As a father, I've never taken offense at the Simpsons or at Married with Children's portrayal of their respective dummy dads.

I think men do have a right to bitch about this kind of thing. We had this discussion (sort of) when we talked about Native Americans portrayed in sports mascots. As I recall, the general consensus was that it was pretty fucking offensive. Why is this different?

Because we haven't been victimized by the same people who are doing this now. We run the show. We control everything. No one has victimized men in any large scale (anecdotal horror stories aside; they do not prove the existence of a wider trend and one can just as easily produce reams of stories about men being let off with a slap on the wrist for legitimate rape crimes). It's like the difference between a Jewish guy making a joke about Jews and a German making a joke about Jews.

No, the character of Al Bundy by itself is not the problem. I've already conceded that. That character is an example of a trend. And as I stated before, even the trend by itself is not the entirety of the problem. The trend is both an instigator and an indicator of the larger problem.

Men in the media are by and large being increasingly portrayed in one of three ways; stupid, evil or somewhere in between. The reason Al Bundy comes up is that he is the most rediculously blatant example, so much so that even those who don't recognize the more subtle indicators recognize them magnified in this character.

On the other note, I think if you examine most intergender laws as it is practiced today, as well as intergender-related policies and guidelines in almost any public or private institution, you will see that men no longer hold the lionshare of power in this country. Both public and private institutions at this time, by and large, favor women. If you will name the evidence you require for acceptance of this point, I have no doubt whatsoever that I can research and provide it.

[Peregrin Toker]

Men in the media are by and large being increasingly portrayed in one of three ways; stupid, evil or somewhere in between. The reason Al Bundy comes up is that he is the most rediculously blatant example, so much so that even those who don't recognize the more subtle indicators recognize them magnified in this character.

Really?? I thought that most movies made today had male protagonists which were presented as somewhat honest.

Just look at the newest installment of the Star Wars trilogy - it had several male characters which neither were stupid nor evil.... Well, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Mace Windu at least. Obi-Wan can be called many things, but not stupid, and anything but evil.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I didn't say all men are portrayed as stupid or evil. All I said was that the number of these portrayals are already quite large, and still increasing.

Take for example the movie Suicide Kings: Four rich-kid types kidnap a mob boss. The mob boss seems like a nice guy at first, but later we find out that he's one evil sonofabitch. The rich-kids start out being portrayed as evil, then we discover later that one of them was a puppet-master pulling their strings. He's the evil one, the rest are stupid for letting themselves be duped by him. The kid whose house they hold the mob boss hostage in is okay, but he got duped into the whole thing as well -- stupid. Denis Leary's hit-man character saves a girl from domestic abuse, but he only accomplishes that by beating the living shit out of a guy with a toaster, so he's evil.

Then there's 8 Millimeter. Nicholas Cage is a P.I. investigating a snuff-porn homicide. Well, he starts off as a nice guy, but he doesn't really accomplish much of anything until he starts becoming evil. He eventually ends the movie not by following procedure, working with law enforcement and assisting in the arrest and conviction of the suspects, but by committing multiple homicide himself.

Just two of an increasing number of examples. Were I to draw conclusions just from these two alone, it might appear that the writers of these things want us to believe that most men are ineffectual and thus not worth having, and that successful men are evil and to be avoided.

[Peregrin Toker]

I didn't say all men are portrayed as stupid or evil. All I said was that the number of these portrayals are already quite large, and still increasing.

Take for example the movie Suicide Kings: Four rich-kid types kidnap a mob boss. The mob boss seems like a nice guy at first, but later we find out that he's one evil sonofabitch. The rich-kids start out being portrayed as evil, then we discover later that one of them was a puppet-master pulling their strings. He's the evil one, the rest are stupid for letting themselves be duped by him. The kid whose house they hold the mob boss hostage in is okay, but he got duped into the whole thing as well -- stupid. Denis Leary's hit-man character saves a girl from domestic abuse, but he only accomplishes that by beating the living shit out of a guy with a toaster, so he's evil.

Then there's 8 Millimeter. Nicholas Cage is a P.I. investigating a snuff-porn homicide. Well, he starts off as a nice guy, but he doesn't really accomplish much of anything until he starts becoming evil. He eventually ends the movie not by following procedure, working with law enforcement and assisting in the arrest and conviction of the suspects, but by committing multiple homicide himself.

Just two of an increasing number of examples. Were I to draw conclusions just from these two alone, it might appear that the writers of these things want us to believe that most men are ineffectual and thus not worth having, and that successful men are evil and to be avoided.

So - in other words, you think that most male characters in movies are presented in a bad light, and we need more of those lantern-jawed, goody-two-shoes heroes we know and love from old John Wayne flicks??

By the way, do you imply that a hero is at heart more or less evil if he uses brute force to accomplish his means??

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I didn't say all men are portrayed as stupid or evil. All I said was that the number of these portrayals are already quite large, and still increasing.

Take for example the movie Suicide Kings: Four rich-kid types kidnap a mob boss. The mob boss seems like a nice guy at first, but later we find out that he's one evil sonofabitch. The rich-kids start out being portrayed as evil, then we discover later that one of them was a puppet-master pulling their strings. He's the evil one, the rest are stupid for letting themselves be duped by him. The kid whose house they hold the mob boss hostage in is okay, but he got duped into the whole thing as well -- stupid. Denis Leary's hit-man character saves a girl from domestic abuse, but he only accomplishes that by beating the living shit out of a guy with a toaster, so he's evil.

Then there's 8 Millimeter. Nicholas Cage is a P.I. investigating a snuff-porn homicide. Well, he starts off as a nice guy, but he doesn't really accomplish much of anything until he starts becoming evil. He eventually ends the movie not by following procedure, working with law enforcement and assisting in the arrest and conviction of the suspects, but by committing multiple homicide himself.

Just two of an increasing number of examples. Were I to draw conclusions just from these two alone, it might appear that the writers of these things want us to believe that most men are ineffectual and thus not worth having, and that successful men are evil and to be avoided.

So - in other words, you think that most male characters in movies are presented in a bad light, and we need more of those lantern-jawed, goody-two-shoes heroes we know and love from old John Wayne flicks??

By the way, do you imply that a hero is at heart more or less evil if he uses brute force to accomplish his means??

I think that a growing number of male characters are presented in a bad light in any media. And there's nothing wrong with heroes who are actually heroes instead of opportunists doing the right thing for the wrong reason, as is the trend for "heroes" lately. Classic heroes used brute violence, sure, but they did it because it was necessary to achieve their objectives. In the first example I quoted above, there are no protagonists. The only male characters in the film we can remotely support are a mob boss (the victim) his pet homicidal maniac, and a putz who is only peripherally involved in the story. But to be fair, the only female character is only seen twice and is herself an accomplice to the actions of the main antagonist.

I'll put it like this: a hero is more or less evil at heart when he uses brute force for non-productive or counterproductive purposes. The story arc for Cage's character in 8 Millimeter is a prime example of this. Had the character done his job correctly, no one but the missing girl he was investigating would have died.

Funny you should mention John Wayne, though. There's not a damn thing wrong with writing characters like the ones he played. In fact, the movie I've been writing for some time now features two characters modeled after the amalgamated characters of John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, respectively. I predict that these characters will be seen as innovative in some circles.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I didn't say all men are portrayed as stupid or evil. All I said was that the number of these portrayals are already quite large, and still increasing.

Take for example the movie Suicide Kings: Four rich-kid types kidnap a mob boss. The mob boss seems like a nice guy at first, but later we find out that he's one evil sonofabitch. The rich-kids start out being portrayed as evil, then we discover later that one of them was a puppet-master pulling their strings. He's the evil one, the rest are stupid for letting themselves be duped by him. The kid whose house they hold the mob boss hostage in is okay, but he got duped into the whole thing as well -- stupid. Denis Leary's hit-man character saves a girl from domestic abuse, but he only accomplishes that by beating the living shit out of a guy with a toaster, so he's evil.

Then there's 8 Millimeter. Nicholas Cage is a P.I. investigating a snuff-porn homicide. Well, he starts off as a nice guy, but he doesn't really accomplish much of anything until he starts becoming evil. He eventually ends the movie not by following procedure, working with law enforcement and assisting in the arrest and conviction of the suspects, but by committing multiple homicide himself.

Just two of an increasing number of examples. Were I to draw conclusions just from these two alone, it might appear that the writers of these things want us to believe that most men are ineffectual and thus not worth having, and that successful men are evil and to be avoided.

So - in other words, you think that most male characters in movies are presented in a bad light, and we need more of those lantern-jawed, goody-two-shoes heroes we know and love from old John Wayne flicks??

By the way, do you imply that a hero is at heart more or less evil if he uses brute force to accomplish his means??

I think that a growing number of male characters are presented in a bad light in any media. And there's nothing wrong with heroes who are actually heroes instead of opportunists doing the right thing for the wrong reason, as is the trend for "heroes" lately. Classic heroes used brute violence, sure, but they did it because it was necessary to achieve their objectives. In the first example I quoted above, there are no protagonists. The only male characters in the film we can remotely support are a mob boss (the victim) his pet homicidal maniac, and a putz who is only peripherally involved in the story. But to be fair, the only female character is only seen twice and is herself an accomplice to the actions of the main antagonist.

I'll put it like this: a hero is more or less evil at heart when he uses brute force for non-productive or counterproductive purposes. The story arc for Cage's character in 8 Millimeter is a prime example of this. Had the character done his job correctly, no one but the missing girl he was investigating would have died.

Funny you should mention John Wayne, though. There's not a damn thing wrong with writing characters like the ones he played. In fact, the movie I've been writing for some time now features two characters modeled after the amalgamated characters of John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, respectively. I predict that these characters will be seen as innovative in some circles.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

I didn't say all men are portrayed as stupid or evil. All I said was that the number of these portrayals are already quite large, and still increasing.

Take for example the movie Suicide Kings: Four rich-kid types kidnap a mob boss. The mob boss seems like a nice guy at first, but later we find out that he's one evil sonofabitch. The rich-kids start out being portrayed as evil, then we discover later that one of them was a puppet-master pulling their strings. He's the evil one, the rest are stupid for letting themselves be duped by him. The kid whose house they hold the mob boss hostage in is okay, but he got duped into the whole thing as well -- stupid. Denis Leary's hit-man character saves a girl from domestic abuse, but he only accomplishes that by beating the living shit out of a guy with a toaster, so he's evil.

Then there's 8 Millimeter. Nicholas Cage is a P.I. investigating a snuff-porn homicide. Well, he starts off as a nice guy, but he doesn't really accomplish much of anything until he starts becoming evil. He eventually ends the movie not by following procedure, working with law enforcement and assisting in the arrest and conviction of the suspects, but by committing multiple homicide himself.

Just two of an increasing number of examples. Were I to draw conclusions just from these two alone, it might appear that the writers of these things want us to believe that most men are ineffectual and thus not worth having, and that successful men are evil and to be avoided.

So - in other words, you think that most male characters in movies are presented in a bad light, and we need more of those lantern-jawed, goody-two-shoes heroes we know and love from old John Wayne flicks??

By the way, do you imply that a hero is at heart more or less evil if he uses brute force to accomplish his means??

I think that a growing number of male characters are presented in a bad light in any media. And there's nothing wrong with heroes who are actually heroes instead of opportunists doing the right thing for the wrong reason, as is the trend for "heroes" lately. Classic heroes used brute violence, sure, but they did it because it was necessary to achieve their objectives. In the first example I quoted above, there are no protagonists. The only male characters in the film we can remotely support are a mob boss (the victim) his pet homicidal maniac, and a putz who is only peripherally involved in the story. But to be fair, the only female character is only seen twice and is herself an accomplice to the actions of the main antagonist.

I'll put it like this: a hero is more or less evil at heart when he uses brute force for non-productive or counterproductive purposes. The story arc for Cage's character in 8 Millimeter is a prime example of this. Had the character done his job correctly, no one but the missing girl he was investigating would have died.

Funny you should mention John Wayne, though. There's not a damn thing wrong with writing characters like the ones he played. In fact, the movie I've been writing for some time now features two characters modeled after the amalgamated characters of John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, respectively. I predict that these characters will be seen as innovative in some circles.

[Peregrin Toker]

I think that a growing number of male characters are presented in a bad light in any media. And there's nothing wrong with heroes who are actually heroes instead of opportunists doing the right thing for the wrong reason, as is the trend for "heroes" lately. Classic heroes used brute violence, sure, but they did it because it was necessary to achieve their objectives. In the first example I quoted above, there are no protagonists. The only male characters in the film we can remotely support are a mob boss (the victim) his pet homicidal maniac, and a putz who is only peripherally involved in the story. But to be fair, the only female character is only seen twice and is herself an accomplice to the actions of the main antagonist.

So - to put it bluntly: You believe that the "anti-hero" trend has gone too far??

Funny you should mention John Wayne, though. There's not a damn thing wrong with writing characters like the ones he played. In fact, the movie I've been writing for some time now features two characters modeled after the amalgamated characters of John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, respectively. I predict that these characters will be seen as innovative in some circles

I didn't imply there was anything wrong with the characters John Wayne played. But he's the only actor I can recall who always played lawful, dedicated heroes.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Hmm, that's a tough one. Perhaps I should clarify. I believe that anti-hero characters, if done well, are fine. Usually this happens when the character arc goes from anti-hero to true hero, as was done with Han Solo.

What I do not appreciate are anti-heroes who remain villainous for the sake of unspoken ideological statements by their authors. Just as Gene Roddenberry was able to make statements of diversity and tolerance by his characterizations in TOS, we are seeing more and more statements of fear, mistrust and contempt of men in more recent media. Whether or not media portrayals of a particular group truly can or cannot affect general opinion of that group is immaterial; it is the apparent attempts to do so which I and many others find offensive.

[Peregrin Toker]

What I do not appreciate are anti-heroes who remain villainous for the sake of unspoken ideological statements by their authors.

Aren't all stories more or less influenced by the author's ideology - and prejudices??