Sexism against Men in Media/Entertainment/Culture (Feminism and Misandry Gone Wild)

[SentinelMind]

But that doesn't stem from any kind of "conspiracy" to portray women as superior to men, it in fact stems from misogyny. It stems from the notion that women are weak and harmless, and that any violence inflicted by a woman on a man isn't worth taking seriously, and is in fact comical because the man wasn't man enough to defend himself when a girl tried to hit him.

Male victims of domestic abuse who's abusers are female aren't taken seriously because it's still burned into our brains that women are weak and "real men" should be strong enough to defend themselves from a "little girl."

That attitude isn't misandrist , it's misogynist.

Sure, there are misandrists in the world, and they're bigoted jerks, but misandry isn't a systematic form of oppression in our society. Misogyny, on the other hand, is.

So we agree there is a recent systematic marginalization of men where violence against men is portrayed as comical. Check. You justify it because you perceive woman having been slighted historically. I don't see how more marginalization of violence is beneficial to society.

You're suggesting that violence against men is "misogynist"...I don't see how VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN BY WOMEN can be seen as beneficial to men in anyway and I think you're engaging in semantics game, unaware of the subtle, sinister motive behind the game.

When you keep saying Real Man...you're implying that a man has a responsibility to tolerate EVERYTHING. Tolerate violence. Tolerate hardship. Tolerate abuse. Tolerate theft. Tolerate everything...because a REAL MAN can take it. Feminists are using this term to oppress men psychologically. If man is being mistreated in anyway...he should be able to take it...so we don't need to pass laws or policies to protect him...he has an innate responsibility as a man.

Notice how the term REAL MAN and REAL WOMAN is contrasted in our public usage in public.

A real woman is typically defined as "regular, everyday woman"...common woman...woman who may be slightly overweight....dresses average..not like a supermodel, but the everyday wife enduring everyday struggle. A real woman is perceived as more valuable than a barbie doll supermodel because her beauty is within her character and depth and effort. "You can't handle a real woman...you just want a young, superficial babe..."

The "realness" of the woman is defined by how everday/average she is..her imperfections and humanity describe the "realness". Because she's imperfect human, the standards for her are lower.

Not so for men... A REAL MAN has to be perfect...he better be muscular, be able to bench press 250, handle his finances...and his wife's finances..pay her bills, accomodate her....solve her problems, fix her car, make sure she is comfortable..and not complain about anything. He has to be perfect handyman...who solves women's problems.

REALNESS for men is defined as being a perfect TOOL for women.

So that works against men because standards are higher...he is expected to endure more...and because of that, laws and society is fixed against him...because screwing him over seems fair.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

Next thing you know women will be asking to vote or something, it'll be anarchy

 

[redhawk23]

There is a dominant masculine status within our society. It is true that full achievement of dominance is impossible for the majority of men on the basis of race, class, appearance and ability.

That said it is entirely impossible for women by virtue of being women.

The dominance over men and women is instigated by men.

Men are being marginalized by other men.

Women are being marginalized by men.


Feminism largely deal with examining and counteracting marginalization.

 

[Snow Queen]

Why would anyone create such a ridiculous thr-*sees username* Oh. That explains it.

 

[redhawk23]

And it is laughible to say that the feminine ideal in our culture is some kind of low-hanging fruit/ everyday woman.

The women presented in our media as the ideal represent an unattainable aim largely rooted in male desire.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

This is my fault guys. I told him to go make a thread on it. He took my advice.

I'm sorry guys.

 

[The Question]

This is my fault guys. I told him to go make a thread on it. He took my advice.

I'm sorry guys.

I'm having fun.

 

[Snow Queen]

This is my fault guys. I told him to go make a thread on it. He took my advice.

I'm sorry guys.

No need to apologize. We all need a good laugh.

 

[SuperFerret]

I must see evidence of this violence against men by women. I must.

 

[redhawk23]

The whole basis of this thread is puzzling because it fails to address a single actual talking point of feminism.

Even if what he is describing exists, it has nothing to do with "feminism."

Everything thing he keeps siting, and especially the links he has posted, show a clear misunderstanding who run politics and even who are the content creators at advertising agencies.


Quite puzzling, and yet this entire stance is frustratingly common.

The Ned Flanders avatar almost led me to believe I was being trolled, that I was facing a caricature, but he has proven, unfortunately, to be sincere in his ignorance. And I don't mean ignorance in an insulting or dismissive manner, but again, in a literal manner in that he has yet to show any knowledge or understanding of any actual feminist philosophy or the activities of actual feminist groups.

Since he has has also proven completely unwilling to actually discuss that fact and is not open to any counter example to his complete mis-understanding of what actually constitutes feminism, this thread is moot.

 

[SentinelMind]

More evidence of sitcoms systematically portraying men as idiots....dumber than their own children.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuZLAdacM1M

wow...most long distance calls on mothers day....most collect calls on father's day...dad still has to pay to be 'thanked'..wow...

 

[Sawyer]

SentinelMind, I'm not sure how the Women getting Tattoos thread didn't get your thread-making privileges taken away, but God willing, this thread get might just get the job done.

 

[redhawk23]

The continuing emphasis on violence and the domination of others as a fundamental element of the predominant masculine ideal is problematic for almost everyone.

Violence towards women is certainly an obvious, continuing problem.

Less talked about is the fact that men are victims of male violence. Men are more likely to be murdered and it is predominantly men who murdering them.

This is particularly evident in the high mortality rates among young, minority males.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Wait SentinelMind made the Women getting Tattoo's thread?

It all makes sense now.

 

[SentinelMind]

The whole basis of this thread is puzzling because it fails to address a single actual talking point of feminism.

Even if what he is describing exists, it has nothing to do with "feminism."

Everything thing he keeps siting, and especially the links he has posted, show a clear misunderstanding who run politics and even who are the content creators at advertising agencies.


Quite puzzling, and yet this entire stance is frustratingly common.

The Ned Flanders avatar almost led me to believe I was being trolled, that I was facing a caricature, but he has proven, unfortunately, to be sincere in his ignorance. And I don't mean ignorance in an insulting or dismissive manner, but again, in a literal manner in that he has yet to show any knowledge or understanding of any actual feminist philosophy or the activities of actual feminist groups.

Since he has has also proven completely unwilling to actually discuss that fact and is not open to any counter example to his complete mis-understanding of what actually constitutes feminism, this thread is moot.

I'm stunned how all these responses to unconvential, rather conservative, informed opinions seem to come down to personal attacks. Half this entire page is filled with attacks against me...for no reason because it goes against the conditioned norm talking points.

Men and fathers are systematically being marginalized in our society...and instead of talking about the evidence...let's talk about my avatar.
The feminist imperative of silencing debate...is working..that even male foot soldiers are on the move.

 

[The Question]

So we agree there is a recent systematic marginalization of men where violence against men is portrayed as comical. Check. You justify it because you perceive woman having been slighted historically. I don't see how more marginalization of violence is beneficial to society.

I don't either. But seeing as how I at no point justified it, I don't see why you're arguing with me about that point. I flat out said that the portrayal of domestic abuse where the man is the victim and the woman was the aggressor was harmful and stems from toxic cultural attitudes. And no point did I ever say that it was in any way beneficial to society. Please point out where you thought I did, because I'd hate to be unclear.

You're suggesting that violence against men is "misogynist"...I don't see how VIOLENCE AGAINST MEN BY WOMEN can be seen as beneficial to men in anyway and I think you're engaging in semantics game, unaware of the subtle, sinister motive behind the game.

I didn't say violence against men was beneficial to men. It's not. Nothing that is a result of misogynist trends in our society are beneficial to anyone in any way that's healthy. But the stigma against men who've been victims of domestic abuse is a result a cultural trend that, in general, gives men power over women. That is the notion that men are strong and women are weak.

When you keep saying Real Man...you're implying that a man has a responsibility to tolerate EVERYTHING. Tolerate violence. Tolerate hardship. Tolerate abuse. Tolerate theft. Tolerate everything...because a REAL MAN can take it.

No I'm not. I'm saying that that is what society expects of men, and that's what people usually mean when they say someone is a "real man," and I'm saying that it's wrong and it's harmful to society.

Feminists are using this term to oppress men psychologically. If man is being mistreated in anyway...he should be able to take it...so we don't need to pass laws or policies to protect him...he has an innate responsibility

Feminists don't do that at all. Feminists are the ones saying that that notion of masculinity is wrong and harmful to society, because it hurts both men and women.

Notice how the term REAL MAN and REAL WOMAN is contrasted in our public.

A real woman is typically defined as "regular, everyday woman"...common woman...woman who may be slightly overweight....dresses average..not like a supermodel, but the everyday wife enduring everyday struggle. A real woman is perceived as more valuable than a barbie doll supermodel because her beauty is within her character and depth and effort. "You can't handle a real woman...you just want a young, superficial babe..."

The "realness" of the woman is defined by how everday/average she is..her imperfections and humanity describe the "realness". Because she's imperfect human, the standards for her are lower.

Not so for men... A REAL MAN has to be perfect...he better be muscular, be able to bench press 250, handle his finances...and his wife's finances..pay her bills, accomodate her....solve her problems, fix her car, make sure she is comfortable..and not complain about anything. He has to be perfect handyman...who solves women's problems.

REALNESS is defined as being a perfect TOOL for men.

So that works against men because standards are higher...he is expected to endure more...and because of that, laws and society is fixed against him...because screwing him over seems fair.

That's because the two terms are used differently. Feminists use the term "real woman" in defiance of what society expects women to be, that being submissive, emotionally fragile sex objects. People (and by that I mean people who aren't feminists, feminists don't use this phrase that way except when explaining why it's wrong and terrible) use "real man" to dictate what men are allowed to be by societies standards.

One is in defiance of oppression, the other is a form of oppression. They don't come from the same place.

 

[SentinelMind]

SentinelMind, I'm not sure how the Women getting Tattoos thread didn't get your thread-making privileges taken away, but God willing, this thread get might just get the job done.

Why do you want to censor debate so much?

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Debate usually implies two logical opposing points, not one.

 

[The Question]

Men and fathers are systematically being marginalized in our society...and instead of talking about the evidence...let's talk about my avatar.

Alright. Produce evidence that men and fathers are systematically being marginalized in society.

Also, for further measure, provide evidence that women aren't marginalized in society.

The feminist imperative of silencing debate...is working..that even male foot soldiers are on the move.

That's not the feminist imperative. The feminist imperative is to get to a point where people aren't treated differently from one another based on their gender.

 

[SentinelMind]

have I attacked anyone in this thread personally? I'm getting arrayed with attacks...for posting links and research proving my point? Trying to "win" debate by character assissination is really poor and underhanded move.

 

[redhawk23]

More evidence of sitcoms systematically portraying men as idiots....dumber than their own children.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuZLAdacM1M

wow...most long distance calls on mothers day....most collect calls on father's day...dad still has to pay to be 'thanked'..wow...

Yes but their break from the masculine ideal is the source of the comedy. They are an object of ridicule for other men to laugh at.


The man of buffoon also serves male interest though. A lot of the time the humor comes from the men failing at domestic tasks normally performed by women. This further reinforces the idea of domestic and childcare work as "women's work." It drives home the idea that men are just naturally bad at such things (even though what the yell does a penis and y chromosome have to do with changing a diaper?)

As we have discussed before, by tying women to these domestic tasks, it limits their ability to succeed in work outside the home or limits the roles outside the home that they are able to pursue.

The man as bufoon offers men an example of what not to be. The men in the shows are fumbling, hen-pecked fools. Real men then, in order to not be the butt of the joke, must then be dominant over their wives and children.

These shows are written almost always by men for networks owned by men, selling products for companies that are owned by men.

 

[zeroapoc]

Well I do find "Stupid Dad" commercials irritating.

 

[redhawk23]

I'm stunned how all these responses to unconvential, rather conservative, informed opinions seem to come down to personal attacks. Half this entire page is filled with attacks against me...for no reason because it goes against the conditioned norm talking points.

Men and fathers are systematically being marginalized in our society...and instead of talking about the evidence...let's talk about my avatar.
The feminist imperative of silencing debate...is working..that even male foot soldiers are on the move.

I've offered my arguments in other posts above and on the previous page. I was merely commenting on the fact that I wasn't sure that I wasn't being trolled, which happens quite often on these boards.

You keep saying feminist this and feminist that and yet your use of the term is entirely out of whack with any actual iteration feminist theory.

 

[The Question]

Depictions of sexuality in media are, nine times out of ten, geared toward heterosexual male sexuality and no other kind.

Proof and link?

A more site-appropriate link:

http://thehawkeyeinitiative.com

 

[Showtime]

What