American Enterpise Institute magazine celebrates masculinity

[Cocoa]

The Sept. issue is dedicated to the subject, in what looks to me like an effort to revive the "culture wars" of the Clinton years.

Not just here, but I've seen other signs of a comeback of this kind of meaningless crap. Or maybe it never went away?

This snip is from an article by Kristina Hoff Sommers. Obviously AEI targets the chickenhawk demographic, which explains why Bush and Cheney are considered manly. Hoff also doesn't mention Saddam Hussein, whom I consider to be quite butch.

http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/issues/articleid.17565/article_detail.asp

<snip>

The awesome display of masculine courage shown by the firefighters and policemen at Ground Zero, the heroic soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, the focused determination and exemplary leadership of President Bush,Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and General Tommy Franks, have rekindled in Americans an appreciation for masculine virtues. Many courageous and even heroic women took part in all these endeavors. But fighting enemies and protecting the nation are overwhelmingly male projects.

more...

[rooboy]

1. I've always found Richard Perle's...

eye shadow and layer of "baby fat" to be very masculine indeed. :puke:

[ixion]

2. yeah, J. Edgar Hoover

too... :-)

[Cocoa]

3. and Newt Gingrich is a total stud

especially his manly voice.

[meegbear]

4. Equating the brave men and women of 9/11 to * ...

is like eqauting filet mignon with a McDonalds hamburger.

It's an insult to all those brave men and women.

[OldEurope]

5. Where´s my bucket...

...:puke:

If I were a firefighter, I´d really feel deeply offended by this comparison.

[rman]

6. pathetic chest beating

it's essentially the govt saying "look, we'r brave and though guys!".

well, horay.

[Cocoa]

8. speaking of chest-beating...

what's Jay Garner up to these days? :-)

[OrdinaryTa]

7. Guys Who Worry About Masculinity

Guys who worry about masculinity usually have issues with it. There's a reason for that, I suspect. It's probably because they're dissatisfied with themselves in some way.

I love the names of automobiles that represent manly ideals: Colt. Maverick. Rebel. Charger. Renegade. These names add $1,000 to the price.

[Iris]

9. so these people have never met a woman with "focused determination"

They need to get out more.

[Ripley]

10. Hah! You beat me to it.

I bet they'd include Margaret Thatcher in that club tho.

[Iris]

13. yeah, but they'd have to leave it out of the article to

prove their "masculinity thesis".

[Armstead]

11. So do Real Men always say "Fabulous"?

The leaders of the conservative movement often seem like the waterboys who worship the football players.

[Skittles]

12. ONLY MEN SHOWED COURAGE ON THAT DAY, DONTCHA KNOW

what utter, sexist garbage

[Iris]

15. yeah

This makes me think of my sister and her roommate, both 23 at the time, refusing to leave the city until they found each other that day.

[Nederland]

43. yeah

...like that's what the article says </ sarcasm>

The awesome display of masculine courage shown by the firefighters and policemen at Ground Zero, the heroic soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, the focused determination and exemplary leadership of President Bush,Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and General Tommy Franks, have rekindled in Americans an appreciation for masculine virtues. Many courageous and even heroic women took part in all these endeavors.


Twisting words like this makes you an excellent candidate for working in the Bush White House.

[Skittles]

115. THEY'RE AN AFTERTHOUGHT

I CAN F***ING READ.

and "EVEN WOMEN" like it's some sort of F***ING REVELATION. DON'T INSULT ME.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Utter Republican Nonsense

I'll take decorated Viet Nam War veterans Wes Clark, John Kerry, and Max Cleland over the effete Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, and Dick Cheney anyday.


Fat Dick Cheney, a masculine icon, gimme a break. The only contest that fat tub of goo could win is a pie eating contest.

[Divernan]

16. Gotta admit Bush, Chaney & Rumsfeld do have focused determination

They can think of little else but power and accumulation of personal wealth for themselves and their fatcat friends/campaign donors. As in MORE OIL! and the privatization of all government services and agencies.

[yellowcanine]

17. Rampant Noonanism (as in Peggy Noonan)

This is Peggy Noonan run amok. Does she have an article in this issue?

[Snellius]

18. They should include photos of the AEI "scholars"

Or the editorial board of National Review. All underdeveloped untermensch, with feeble, whinny voices, sporting a little facial hair so no one will notice how callow and wimpy they look.

[Nederland]

19. Confused

I'm really confused by the reaction to this article. Are there actually still people here that believe that men and women aren't fundamentally different? Are there people here that actually believe that gender roles are strictly a social construct? The idea that men and women have biologically determined strengths and weaknesses is not "making a comeback", it is pretty much conventional wisdom at this point.

[Cocoa]

22. you've been had

you've been successfully fooled into thinking that's what feminism is.

Oh, well.

[Nederland]

25. Funny

I never mentioned feminism in my post. Curious that you think I did though...

[Cocoa]

26. if not feminism, then what?

If not feminism, then how about the awareness of gender issues.

You've been fooled into thinking that those who are trying to raise awareness of gender issues think that boys and girls are identical.

Oh, well.

[Nederland]

27. Haven't been fooled into anything

I'm just confused by people's reaction to the article. Is there a part of the article that you belive is false? Which part. Be specific.

[Cocoa]

29. if you want to talk about masculinity and Sept. 11

you have to admit that the display of "machismo" was the attack itself, and the real "macho men" were the terrorists.

If you leave out that part, then the whole thing is false.

[Nederland]

31. Ummm

if you want to talk about masculinity and Sept. 11 you have to admit that the display of "machismo" was the attack itself, and the real "macho men" were the terrorists.

Are we talking about the same article? I don't see where the article defines the term "macho men", so I'm wondering why you bring it up. That's twice now that that you've introduced terms that weren't found anywhere. You appear to make a lot of assumptions and pre-judgments.

[Cocoa]

35. machismo is virtually synonymous with masculinity

if you want to explain how my choice of words distorts the article, please do.

By the way, how do you feel about the fact that the super-hawkish American Enterprise Institute's attitudes toward masculinity apparently totally agree with your own? They agree so much with you on this that you can't even conceive of how someone might take issue with their take on it.

[Nederland]

41. Ok

machismo is virtually synonymous with masculinity

Maybe in your sick world.

[Cocoa]

50. so what's the difference?

is this article not about machismo?

[Nederland]

57. No

No, the article is not about machismo. It is about how men and women are different, and how efforts to get little boys to act like little girls will fail. It is about how to best direct stereotypical male assertiveness in a constructive direction. Primarily, it is an article that does not dispute that men are naturally violent, it merely states that the cure for that nature is not to get them to play with dolls and talk about their feelings.

[Cocoa]

61. really?

So what is the AEI's solution to the problem of male violence, and what are their proposals for the socialization of males to be less violence. If it's not to get them to talk about their feelings, then what is their program? Have they given it a cover story yet?

Are you sure this isn't just part of the overall conservative reaction to the very idea of dealing with gender issues? Or other issues they would lump together under the "PC" umbrella?

[Nederland]

63. Read it yourself

Read paragraph 9 and 10 of your own article.

[Cocoa]

65. oh, the part about the "proven social practices"

The things that Sommers calls "proven social practices" are all very old practices. In what way are they "proven" unless by "proven" she means that's the way we've always done it?

Snip:

Efforts to civilize boys with honor codes, character education, manners, and rules of good sportsmanship are necessary and effective, and fully consistent with their masculine natures.


Ok, "honor codes." Those are prominent in the military, right? If this is a proven social pracitce, then that would suggest that military men would show the most success in preventing the problems of excessive masculinity. Things like spousal abuse, crime, etc.

College fraternities have honor codes, don't they? If honor codes are a proven social practice, then I guess a crime such as, say, rape, would be much less of a problem among fraternity men compared with men who have not had the benefit of this proven social practice.

Don't criminal gangs have honor codes? What's their record on the successful socialization of their males?

[Blue_Chill]

71. So then boys

should be forced to behave more like girls in school?

One word - misandry

[Cocoa]

73. no

one word: strawman.

edit: I'm making an effort not to be overly dismissive and curt in my discussions, so let me elaborate. My post, which you responded to, made a very clear point about what I thought of the AEI's satisfaction with our traditional "proven" practices of dealing with masculinity. Your post replaced what I thought was an intelligent argument, replaced it with something that I didn't say.

[Divernan]

88. No "misandry" here - move on!

Thanks for introducing me to a new word. For all you DUers, misandry refers to hatred of men. It's the topic of a pop culture book on previously unexplored academic terrain (the US Library of Congress has only three books under the heading of Misandry, but thousands under misogyny - hatred of women). The book is titled "Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture" by Drs. Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson at McGill University in Canada. It's an array of evidence from everyday life - movies, tv programs, novels, comic strips, greeting cards which poke fun at men - shows along the lines of Home Improvement. And I thought it was just a comedy!

In post # 72 on this thread, you comment that Misandry is the new Democratic slogan for 2004. Why on earth would you say that? I don't hate men. Should I ask my S.O. for a testimonial?

[Blue_Chill]

96. response

The book is titled "Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture" by Drs. Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson at McGill University in Canada. It's an array of evidence from everyday life - movies, tv programs, novels, comic strips, greeting cards which poke fun at men - shows along the lines of Home Improvement. And I thought it was just a comedy!

Are you telling me male behavior is not being shown as negative? Please.

In post # 72 on this thread, you comment that Misandry is the new Democratic slogan for 2004. Why on earth would you say that? I don't hate men. Should I ask my S.O. for a testimonial?

Place that in context.

post 1 - Fuck men
post 2 - is that how you are winning votes?
my post - new Democratic slogan for 2004.

[Divernan]

117. It seemed funny, not negative - sitcoms exaggerate both male and female

characteristics. Lucille, Desi, Fred & Ethel all acted the buffoons, as do most charecters in ensemble acting - more recent examples would be Cheers, Friends,Frasier - Shakespeare had male buffoons and evildoers - it's the nature of art to exaggerate for impact. Politically correctness gets humorless real fast.

Now if you want to talk bias in the courts against fathers as to child custody, you have a real life issue. Ironically, it is older, traditional male judges who believe fathers cannot be nearly as nurturing as mothers. But then, that would fit in with your position in Post 87 that re feelings: "Boys will never be as open as women because guys simply don't want to hear it."

[TLM]

118. I remeber a movie called the first wives club...

that was all about these evil men who dared to divorce this group of women. A group that in a jealous rage about their ex's newfound happiness and freedom, set out to destroy their ex's lives.

When this movie came out I couldn’t help but think that had the genders been reversed and this been a group of angry ex husbands setting out to destroy their ex wives' lives... it would have been protested by every feminist group out there.

I mean the very idea of an angry ex husband trying to ruin the life of his ex wife conjures up images of stalking and domestic abuse and basically criminal acts that we all see as horrible and unacceptable.

Yet if some angry ex wives want to destroy their ex husbands lives... oh ha ha ha that's a light hearted comedy.

[salin]

125. There was always the Stepford Wives

Wanted to "reprogram" their wives and destroy them that way.

[my_2_cents]

130. I thought it was a movie about three women who were dumped and

financially cheated in their divorce after helping their husbands to achieve success and were later replaced by trophy girlfriends and wives (very much like what happens to many divorced women across America.)

[TLM]

Yeah they were not nice guys...

the point is that a movie about female revenge against men is seen as funny or great and even heroic.

But a movie about a men getting revenge on their ex wives would be seen as promoting stalking or spouse abuse etc.

[my_2_cents]

133. But how is it revenge if they were cheated?

Did Erin Brockovich get revenge on PG and E? I thought it was called justice if one is cheated and rights a wrong.

[TLM]

105. I still remember the day I lost all respect for my female boss...

Myself and a female employee we talking about education. And the topic of gender issues in education came up. We were talking about how the focus on girls in schools, and the drive to weed out, even punish, little boys for basically being little boys was really hurting little boys.

My boss walked in at about the point when I said that while I am all for the new focus on how education styles can be catered to help girls do better, it should not be done at the cost of making boys do worse. Rather we should find a way to lift them both up. THis is why I support gender segregation for classrooms... just for classrooms, not for social periods like lunch and recess and home room etc.

Her response to my saying that this new system was favoring girls' educational needs and learning styles over that of the boys' needs and styles..."It's about time." Yeah her feeling was that since girls had been stuck with a gender bias situation for so long, than now the boys should have to be stuck with it. I pointed out the goal should be to get rid of gender bias, not simply shift it around, and again her response was that boys had it too good for too long and now it was the girls' turn.

This is the same mentality I see over and over again. The idea that men today deserve to be punished for the wrongs of our fathers and grand fathers and so on. It is not about achieving equality for all, but about getting payback.

I left that job shortly thereafter.

[TLM]

97. Yeah that's the same type of thinking that says...

feminist is virtually synonymous to feminazi.


What bothers me about this is that the hate and vitriol directed at men is perfectly acceptable. Just read through this thread and you see tons of heavy handed anti-male generalizations and stereotypes.


I am so sick of the mentality that wants me to apologize for having a penis and to take the blame for all the world's problems. It seems any level of racism and sexism is OK as long as it is directed at white males.

It seems to me that feminism has become more about payback, than equality. As happens so often in history, the oppressed rise up and the first thing they want to do is to themselves become the oppressors to get some revenge.

There is this mentality that in order to value women and to value feminine characteristics, one must therefore devalue men and reject male characteristics. It is ridiculous the way men are being demonized in order canonize women. Any celebration of masculinity is immediately branded evil and sexist… yet a celebration of feminism is embraced and accepted. I think we should all be able to celebrate who we are.

I refuse to apologize for being a man, and I do not expect women to apologize for being female.

[Yaoi_Huntress_Earth]

104. I Know what you mean

Maybe some day society will spiritualy evolve and understand that oppressing others is not the way to go. I remember a multi-cultural studies class that was required at my college. We had a White female teacher and even though I learnt some interesting things, it seemed like she was constantly blaming White people for everything. One girl even asked her why she was so hard on Whites and the teacher said, "Because we deserve it."
Sure some of the Whites/men in the past were total assholes and we should never forget the mistakes of the past, but if we only look back, we'll eventually run into something. Some times you just have to move on and try to make things better.
Love,
Yaoi Huntress Earth

[sangha]

99. Nederland, AEI mentioned "feminism"

The gender activists who fill our schools and government agencies will continue with their efforts to make boys more docile and emotional. But fewer and fewer Americans will support them. Maleness is back in fashion. And one reason is that Americans are increasingly aware that traditional male traits such as aggression, competitiveness, risk-taking and stoicism—constrained by virtues of valor, honor and self-sacrifice—are essential to the well-being and safety of our society.

Who did you think those "gender activists" are?

And please note that while the piece does make reference to research indicating male/female diffs in spatial perception, risk-taking, and verbal skills, there are no references to male/female diffs in stoicism, competitiveness, valor, honor, etc.

[Nederland]

116. Yup

but my post did not.

[Divernan]

30. To glorify such"male" strengths is to move to Hobbes' permanent war

of All against All. It is chilling that the Bush administration now seems to be touting a state of permanent war, with its permanent profits for the Carlisle group/Halliburton et al. As Hobbes wrote in Leviathon (1651):

"To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virutes."

So the reaction to this article is not to deny that there are gender roles that are biologically based. It is to oppose the idea that such gender roles cannot and should not be modified through socialization. Bush's withdrawal from international treaties and flouting the international "law" against preemptive wars are exactly the kind of things that Hobbes warned of. Hobbes warned that Society could become a lifeboat in which all the passengers are fighting each other. In order to excape universal ruin, men will create a great Leviathan, a semi-absolute state that controls its subjects and prevents permanent scarcity from developing into a war of "all-against-all".

[Nederland]

32. Question

Which male strenths are you referring to? I don't see the any place where the article glorifies any typically male strength beyond construction and spatial reasoning. Am I missing something?

[Cocoa]

36. Yes!

you're missing the whole thing!

I don't think the AEI is overly concerned with construction or spatial reasoning. I think the male "strength" that you missed is VIOLENCE.

[Nederland]

38. And the part you missed is this:

Of course, boys’ natural masculinity must be tempered. Social theorist Hannah Arendt is believed to have said that every year civilization is invaded by millions of tiny barbarians—they are called children. All societies confront the problem of civilizing their children, particularly the male ones. History teaches that masculinity constrained by morality is powerful and constructive; it also teaches that masculinity without ethics is dangerous and destructive.

The article does not praise the male tendency toward violence, you merely assume that it does, just as you assumed many things many different times on this thread. Face it, you just can't get past that one little paragraph that kisses Bush's ass. I'm not fond of that paragraph either, but at least I can look past it to understand the authors main point: men and women are different and assuming they aren't will yield disappointing and destructive results.

[Cocoa]

52. It's just a disclaimer

they SAY they think socialization is important.

But look at the opening anecdote. She's so proud of her son for joining his buddies in burning their writing materials. A pretty silly thing for high school seniors to do, but she saves her ridicule for the sensitivity trainers.

The boys burning their stuff for no reason are to be commended, and the people that are upset by this display of stupidity are to be mocked.

[Divernan]

42. The article is replete with references to "typical" male strengths.

And I will quote some of them for you. But I wish to point out that the issue is whether or not it is appropriate to socialize the males of the species out of violent behavior and, if so, whether sensitizing them to feelings and introspection will, evidently in the opinion of the AEI author, make them into unacceptable "girly-men".

The article refers to boys' nature being competitive, rough-housing. . when boys were asked to play with (i.e, nurture) dolls, the reaction was so hostile the teacher had trouble keeping order. Might one see a parallel with our fighting forces being asked to immediately switch to peace-keeping/policing activities? The author discusses her perception of male behaviors/tendencies as an explanation of why more males are in maximum security prisons. Another reference: Maxculinity is aggressive, unstable, combustible; masculinity without ethics is dangerous and destructive.

She also states that fighting enemies and protecting the nation are overwhelmingly male projects. But I think, if we're looking at biologically based behaviors, that the female is the deadlier of the species. The difference is that she fights to defend herself and her young. Perhaps the influence of women in the military, or in the body politic, will be to make decisions based on the common good and overall societal needs, and not for the testosterone based imperative of fighting for the profit making fun of it, as we see the motivations of our administration chickenhawks. Perhaps if our decision makers as to what weapons would be used in Iraq had been socialized to be more sensitive and nurturing, they would not have opted for use of the new, even deadlier napalm.

[Nederland]

44. Read it again

But I wish to point out that the issue is whether or not it is appropriate to socialize the males of the species out of violent behavior and, if so, whether sensitizing them to feelings and introspection will, evidently in the opinion of the AEI author, make them into unacceptable "girly-men".

I think you need to re-read the article because this is not the issue. What the article says is this:

Efforts to civilize boys with honor codes, character education, manners, and rules of good sportsmanship are necessary and effective, and fully consistent with their masculine natures. Efforts to feminize them with dolls, quilts, non-competitive games, girl-centered books, and feelings exercises will fail; though they will succeed in making millions of boys quite unhappy.

Note that the article does not deny that males need to be conditioned out of violent behavior, it simply takes issue with the means. Also note that the article does not claim that sensitising them to feelings and introspection will make them into unacceptable "girly-men", as you claim, but that will make them "unhappy" and ultimately fail.

As with most of the people on this thread that can't seem to get past one simple paragraph that kisses Bush's ass, you didn't read the article carefully and projected simplistic strawman arguments onto the content.

[Divernan]

56. I knew when I chose the phrase "girly-men" that you would whine that

that phrase wasn't in the article. I'm the one with a Ph.D. in sociology who quotes Hobbes and relates it to US actions in Iraq. You're the one who keeps repeating that people on the thread can't seem to get past one paragraph that in your words "kisses Bush's ass". Oh, oh, oh Mr. Kotter. . . none of the accused posters referred to kissing Bush's ass. . . .Nederland misquoted ! ! !"

Note to self: Hobbesian analysis is too simplistic for Nederland. Next time, quote Talcott Parsons.

We return, sigh!, to the issue of sensitizing boys. The author, as you quoted, specifically rejects "feelings exercises." And of course AWOL Bush completely agrees with that rejection: "Who cares what you think?" or his mocking of the woman on death row. . ."Oh, please don't kill me."

I argue, and I think Cocoa would agree with me, that feelings sensitization are the sine qua non of civilizing the male of the species, and that opinion has nothing to do with how much the author praises W. I would disagree with the author's mocking of the desert exercise even if she never mentioned Bush in the article.

[Nederland]

59. Amazing

that phrase wasn't in the article. I'm the one with a Ph.D. in sociology who quotes Hobbes and relates it to US actions in Iraq. You're the one who keeps repeating that people on the thread can't seem to get past one paragraph that in your words "kisses Bush's ass". Oh, oh, oh Mr. Kotter. . . none of the accused posters referred to kissing Bush's ass. . . .Nederland misquoted ! ! !"

Note to self: Hobbesian analysis is too simplistic for Nederland. Next time, quote Talcott Parsons.

This is precisely the type of intellectual arrogance that makes people sooooo attracted to the Democratic Party. I've got a Phd! Listen to me! I am the source of all wisdom and truth! Never mind that your own personal experience tells you that little boys and little girls are very very different. Never mind that exercises that encourage little boys to be more like little girls have been collosal
failures and huge wastes of money. Listen to the "experts". We know everything...

[Divernan]

64. LOL - I knew when I said I had a Ph.D. you'd get your knickers in a twist.

See, I took out student loans and worked really hard to get it - even got a fellowship from the National Institute of Mental Health -so I actually spent years designing, testing, administering and analyzing studies just like the ones you don't cite to, but vaguely refer to, concerning sex role stereotypes, biologically based differences between the sexes, etc. You are the one to discount poster's personal experiences on this topic - I call that intellectual arrogance on your part. And exactly what studies were failures and wastes of money? I do not deny that there are inate differences between the sexes. I do believe society would be better off if the male tendency toward violence was tempered by socialization, and I further believe that that has to include sensitizing men re feelings.

So re: having an advanced degree, I don't apologize for backing up my opinion with an academic credential. And when the golden age of academia went down the tubes in the late 70's, I went back to school and got a Juris Doctor's degree too. I guess if I were a guy, referring to my credentials would be considered having a healthy sense of self. Are women supposed to hide their intellectual accomplishments? Right, and Hilary took up some deserving white guy's place at Yale Law. Even the GOP refer to Condi as Dr. Rice. Gee, do you think the other cabinet members resent her title?

[Blue_Chill]

66. So basically what you're saying is

Boys should be more like girls and we should use public schools as a way to force this kind of thinking on society. We should allow schools to crush the competitive spirit out of ours sons and replace it with playing with dolls and discussing their feelings?

All because people such as yourself feel that this will improve society?

I'll pass on the gender reprograming but I will thank you for alerting me that this kind of crap is being seriously considered.

[Divernan]

74. Nope! Skip the doll playing, but yes, get in touch with feelings.

Look at what you wrote! If you have sons, they are forbidden to discuss their feelings? Whoa! I call that Extreme Parenting. I'm all for competitive spirit, but I simply oppose unnecessary violence such as dropping napalm on Iraqis. I mean, how does the military mind that approved that action sleep at night? Must be someone who can completely block out their feelings. And who said anything about schools crushing the competitive spirit out of our sons? I really enjoyed watching my kids (2 girls/1 boy) compete at soccer and track and even rugby in high school and college. And they also are able to enjoy sports for the sake of sport without competition - like mountain biking, horseback riding, scuba diving and ocean kayaking. And they are each reasonably warm, sensitive, in-touch-with-their-feelings adults.

[Blue_Chill]

87. That I agree with

but that's not what you were saying earlier. Boys need to be taught that its ok to have feelings but they should be taught this in their own way. They will never be as open as women are because guys simply don't want to hear it. Female behavior should never be used as a model for boys, it just doesn't work.

Look at the education system at the moment that has been 'focusing on women' for about a decade. Result? Girls doing much better, boys doing far worse.

[Cocoa]

90. that sounds like Sommers's own thesis

it sounds an awful lot like what I heard her say while she was hawking her book "The war against boys."

During the whole Clinton-era "PC" backlash, I was hearing a lot of things that were supposedly happening on college campuses. What was being described didn't in any way resemble what I was actually experiencing in my acutal college experience. And I was at the Univ. of Wisconsin, which was one of the supposedly more notorious offenders. And this was during the tenure of Donna Shalala, who was one of their biggest boogie men.

So I guess I'm just suspicious when I hear people sounding too much like these people, because I'm pretty sure thetse people are full of shit.

[Blue_Chill]

95. So then studies showing

that boys are failing at a higher rate are just made up fantasy? I'm no expert so please clue me in.

[Cocoa]

107. no

I just was asking if your argument was identical to the one in Sommers's book.

Then I related an anecdote demonstrating that sometimes authors of books write things that aren't actually true, and my suspicion that Sommers might very well be full of shit.

[my_2_cents]

134. But maybe that is because boys get allowances with grades so

they can participate in competitive sports whereas since female competitive sports isn't such an issue girls have to earn all their grades on merit.

Maybe "boy" things are holding boys back.

[Blue_Chill]

136. That's such crap

Your saying boys are failing because they play favorites with them?

I played soccer, baseball, and football in Highschool I never caught a break.

[gottaB]

145. Intellectual wedgie

Talcott Parsons :wtf:

And you be citing your advanced degree to back up your opinions? And now you're bragging about this and that study you yada yada yada. Please. Your argument was fine the way it was, and now you've gone messed it up. Because you are so advantaged with your personal files and your education, and your access to a (publicly funded?) research library, and you know darned well it's not good netiquette to wield that over others in online debates (at least Leviathan you can get a gutenberg of), and your whole attitude in this post is like I earned it I earned it I earned it. But it wasn't a question of whether you earned it. It was whether you deserved to use it to beat up on your opponent in a debate.

And no, your degree does not back up your opinion. Your mention of it was merely a tactic to discredit those who would disagree with you, and limit the field of debate. Or was it about honor?

Whatever. It's like so school.

I'm sorry to jab at you, but I really deplore that kind of argument, the elitism it displays so rudely, the scotomatization of privilege and class differences that is so endemic among intellectuals.

What you just did, I call it a wedgie.

On edit: I had some statements about academic feminism being out-of-touch and not living up to the "movement," but on reflection, I'll confine my criticism to noting the irony that social thinkers of any stripe typically fare miserably when it comes to accounting for the social contexts of thier own thinking. You know, like the way this talk is all so butch.

[salin]

Guess my reaction, as with much bushco related material

is... so thats todays propoganda message. Get machismo images talked about - validated (right or wrong) - then hook back in to our HEMAN president - compared to the "feminized" Democratic party candidates.

I could be wrong, I just find several of the very conservative think tanks to be entertwined with the partisan arms of the White House and/or the RNC (Brock also confirms this relationship between Heritage and the RNC propoganda machine in the eighties), that I am always trying to figure out the bigger picture of message (these folks tend to be Madison Avenue marketing - all the time) and what they might be trying to do with it.

Could be that I have just grown exceptionally cynical.

[Nederland]

39. Exactly

People here can't get past that one paragraph.

[salin]

45. and

since I am not terribly interested in much that AEI puts out- I am not worked up about the article - except to look to see if this is part of a theme that starts developing. If it is - then the paragraph within the article tipped the hand of the new strategy. If it isn't - then there was no there there.

Becoming aware of how the right has been able to change discourse on a number of issues, over time and in very subtle ways, will make it easier to counter these messages before they become adopted as general accepted public perception.

Thus - when stuff may or may not be begining - it is mentionable.

Many of us saw the war propoganda frameup even before the 2002 SOTU Address. Indeed in Bush's first major speech after 911 - he subtly generalized out the language as to be able to start targeting/building an explanation for Iraq. I remember hearing the speech and the phrase (don't remember it now) and commenting - there it is - he is going after Iraq.

Now there are many written accounts that the WH had plans to go after Iraq on the pretext of 911 within weeks of the attack. So my 'catching' where that little bit of language in a speech heralded as so FDR-like, was actually a real catch. It was intentional as were little dribs and drabs before things were stepped up as Cheney made a MidEast trip last spring (2002).

Othertimes the radar goes off - and it never goes anywhere. Not everything is the beginning of a propoganda campaign.

Hence not going ballistic over this.

But do think that the paragraph you contend is making everyone miss the whole (ie the bigger point of the article) - is potentially significant - and that by completely wanting to ignore that paragraph (as it may or may not be framing a future propoganda onslaught) - perhaps you as well, are missing something that may indeed be a small of this whole (article) but a bigger piece of a different whole (a new "theme" to play politics with) in the future.

[Nederland]

53. Thank you

That was easily the most sensible post on this thread, including my own. To answer your last point:

But do think that the paragraph you contend is making everyone miss the whole (ie the bigger point of the article) - is potentially significant - and that by completely wanting to ignore that paragraph (as it may or may not be framing a future propoganda onslaught) - perhaps you as well, are missing something that may indeed be a small of this whole (article) but a bigger piece of a different whole (a new "theme" to play politics with) in the future.

Yes, I guess I'm making a mistake to completely ignore the paragraph entirely. There is no doubt that AEI is a conservative group with an agenda. However, a kneejerk reaction to the facts conveyed in the article is a mistake.

I guess what I'm worked up about is the fact that the people on this thread seem to be in a time warp, and that hurts the Democratic Party. If members of the Democratic Party walk around talking abount how male and female roles are purely social constructs we will lose votes. If we say that what we need to do is to get little boys out of the habit of acting like little boys by putting them through sensitivity exercises we will lose votes.

We will lose votes because the majority of people (most notable anyone who has both male and female children) knows that those ideas are bunk. The idea of gender roles being purely social constructs mever made it out of academia. The average person never believed it, and any academics that did were quickly disproved by numerous studies that show that there are indeed intrinsic differences between men and women. The only people that still believe this crap are a bunch of misguided activists that are trying to push an agenda.

[salin]

60. I would be happy

if when we look at the materials put out by the most partisan of think tanks (not all fall into this category) - rather than diving for the bait (perhaps another point of the article was to pull out the exact reaction you are talking about) - or even giving a whole lot of serious consideration to the article at all (partisan studies - tend to have partisan intentions; go to peer reviewed academic journals - there will still be some researcher bias - but protocals will let the reader see that bias and read the study accordingly).

Instead look for the clue of what it might be intended to do (AEI has long been more involved in partisan warfare, imo, than in simply producing ideological studies - which is how I view some of the think tanks - and note that sometimes ideological studies - are worth a gander).

Then discuss that (what it may or may not be intended to do). Why? Because then one is aware when the other pieces unfold (if they do at all) and can address it head on.

Okay - I am dismissive of AEI (and a few others) work. That came over time. As I have aged (and read a zillion studies, or so it seems) I have given myself permission not to give all studies equal weight or attention. If the ideas are solid - it will come up again in other studies that I am more likely to follow. Or - I just short change myself by occaissionally dismissing something important to quickly. (Oh well, there are always consequences to choice).

Thanks for the compliment. I understand your concern. I think had you articulated it - instead of zeroing in on the focus on the single paragraph - more people might have understood where you were coming from, and been able to dialogue with you about it.

Peace.

Salin

[Cocoa]

58. I think it's more about war than about Bush

getting us more comfortable with the idea of "throwing crappy countries against the wall to show them who's boss" in the words of the AEI's own Mr. Leeden.

Alternatively, it could be to raise these made-for-Joe-Scarborough type "issues", in which case I think there has been a pattern recently. There was that "language police" book that got some play on TV.

[salin]

62. language police... we have heard that recently ...

;-)

The funny thing about the language police police, is they seem to have a funny view about "Free Speech" where only the offensive speaker is allowed to express it.

The person reacting to the offensive speech is attempted to be silenced through charges of "Language Police". Somehow the second person isn't suppose to express her/his free speech - only the first person. :shrug:

---------
Back to you point - it is the bigger and coordinated picture that we need to follow. Sounds like this hyping of the macho (if that is what they are doing) just might serve a number of purposes. We need to be very aware of it.

[rman]

54. how does that warrant

an article by a government-linked thinktank about how manly the government is, and how americans fancy that manlyness?

besides, the focus of the same/different argument wrt gender is not so much on the obvious physical (and some mental) differences, but rather the focus is on (equal) rights.

[Yaoi_Huntress_Earth]

20. What Really Makes Me Sick

Is all the sterotypeing. I know plenty of women who aren't nuturing (check out the Misanthropic Bitch) and I rough-housed a bit when I was a child and had a collection of inanimate objects (that they say only boys are interested in) that I played and made stories up with so what does that make me?

<He chose to honor tennis player Monica Seles who, in 1993, was <stabbed on the court by a deranged fan of Steffi Graf. Jimmy handed <in a muslin square festooned with a tennis racket and a bloody <dagger.

That's just a little disturbing. Maybe these groups are going at it wrong. Let the kids be themselves, but open them to new ideas and teach them caring and respect.
While it's nice that the author mentions that good masculinity is associated with honnor and protecting others, how can she then attribute these traits to Bush and his cronines? One thing I worry about this new "masculinity" is that this may create cruelty toward boys/men who don't fit the mold per say: A boy hugging another boy, prefering to read to playing sports, looking a rather effeminine by no fault of your own, or just being shy. Self-sacrifice, courage, and honnor are traits that we all posses, not just boys.
Love,
Yaoi Huntress Earth

[Nederland]

21. This

Is all the sterotypeing. I know plenty of women who aren't nuturing (check out the Misanthropic Bitch) and I rough-housed a bit when I was a child and had a collection of inanimate objects (that they say only boys are interested in) that I played and made stories up with so what does that make me?

A statistical outlier.

[Cocoa]

23. a real child

a human being.

[Nederland]

24. That too

Most people will turn out to be outliers in at least one characteristic. That's just a statistical fact.

[Iris]

37. you've got to be kidding me

Half the women I know say they never played with dolls.

And most of them had to LEARN how to be nuturing mothers. It didn't come all that naturally.

[Nederland]

40. Then I would suggest

...that you conduct a scientific study using a statistically balanced sample (one not consisting of what "women you know say") to prove your point. Until you do this, you are merely coming to conclusions based upon your own personal experience and bias.

[salin]

46. Which doesn't mean it isn't true

(about her friends) just suggests that it may not be generalizable.

[Iris]

55. ok. How about some links to your scientifcally proven beliefs.

I'm not suggesting that men and women aren't different but we are all made up of traits that are considered masculine or feminine. I don't think either trait should be invalidated in a member who happens to be the sex that is opposite of how that trait is viewed.

As far as the article, it seems to me it is nothing more than an attempt to not only get women's votes based on some idea of someone who will protect them but to also accept the "limitations" of their sex.

[Spentastic]

144. Hold up

Earlier in this thread you were berating someone with a Phd for ignoring experiential data and yet here you are telling someone who disagrees with your point of view to go and conduct empirical study?

[DagmarK]

48. All four of my brothers are more maternal to their kids...than their wives

But they have to take breaks to go out and murder a few bambis every year, and maybe a jaunt to a republican fundraiser or two. But the rest of the time.....the boys in my family are far more maternal. Quite a testament to them -- except the animal killing and repuke stuff.......

[Yaoi_Huntress_Earth]

93. Neither did I

I was more of a stuffed animal and She-Ra action figures type of girl. (To hell with Xena, She-Ra was the original warrior princess.)
Love,
Yaoi Huntress Earth

[UTUSN]

28. If Anybody Knows Masculinity, AEI Does

******QUOTE*****
http://www.aei.org/scholars/filter./scholar_byname.asp
Here's Mr AEI Testosterone Himself:

And 1st Altnernate, in case Mr AEI-T cannot PERFORM:

*****UNQUOTE****

[SpaceCatMeetsMars]

33. So her son and the other boys act like snotty little brats,

disobey the camp counselors' instructions and ruin the exercize for everybody that enjoyed it and she thinks that's wonderful. No wonder she loves Bush and Cheney so much. They are big overgrown snotty and selfish brats.

[robbedvoter]

34. Saved this Freudian Liddy comment (captures the spirit)

LIDDY: Well, I—in the first place, I think it’s envy. I mean, after all,
Al Gore had to go get some woman to tell him how to be a man <. And here comes George Bush. You know, he’s in[br />his flight suit, he’s striding across the deck, and he’s wearing his
parachute harness, you know—and I’ve worn those because I parachute—and
it makes the best of his manly characteristic."

real men, don't need "some woman"!
--

[Cocoa]

49. Gordon Liddy or Liddy Dole?

they both know a thing or two about republican dicks.

[Terwilliger]

47. on behalf of men everywhere...FUCK men

they need to open up to the fact that the world WASNT CREATED JUST FOR THEM!

Masculinity my ass...sounds like more god-pods trying to re-invigorate "family values" or some shit

[DagmarK]

51. It's Plan B for garnering the women's vote in 2004

Plan A, rolled out a couple of months ago, was: appeal to women via the issues (masking the reality of the policies, of course). Then Headstart sued them and all......and well...masking the reality of the anti-family, anti-society policies became impossible.

So......Roll out Plan B:

Propogandize women saying that WAR is good and needed and women need to forget all about everything else. "We are in a an unending war, dontcha know!" There's a big bad scary world out there and women need big protectors!!

[Wonder]

69. Yes these are the woman

that are part of the problem -- they will turn on another woman and bash them as fervent as any of those "neanderthals" that most seemed at odds with here on forum. Interesting these devious control hungry woman, just as much to blame, are generally not called to task.

The whole indocrination is disgusting. And both men and woman have been victimized by it... After all doesn't this harken back to the courts of love and the knights of the round table, when the notion or romance was honored, and specifically because it was used as a device to rally unsuspecting boys to war.

[Wonder]

68. and those woman

with the kinds of manipulative control issues that feed the MALE PROJECT (along with the rape mentality which this part of the male project), both feed the problem and are part of the problem. It is about time they are called to task as well.

[Terwilliger]

80. who are these women?

and, is the point that they have issues, or that men are just terminally ignorant about women and show their misogyny in that refusal to understand?

[Wonder]

89. it is a bit of both

the basic premise is paternal. it is a males game (part of which is machevellian)... Women have had to embrace the patriarchy in doing so they have been corrupted by it as power corrupts absolutely. These women in vieing for what they deserve vie than amongst each other. For what? attention from the Patriarchy. So in essence in getting caught up in the game... they become part of the game. Bonding and competition is much more healthily conditioned into the male, for the most part is part of the business ethic, competition is healthy. I am not sure women are as conditioned to compete in ways where bonding is also encouraged. Rather they play against one another.

In an elitist male paradigm like minorities, woman become as divided.

Of course it is a complex... and then there is all the sexual abbuse, which is denied and much more endemic than people like to admit... there has truly been little evolution since ancient greece. Sex becomes another form of exploitation. This type of exploitation than creates very deep issues (males suffer from this as well).

I find myself wanting to point out that woman do have as much responsibility to bare, although the main premise is patriarchal. Embracing the patriarchy is tricky. ergo, tricky woman at odd with other woman. Not a healthful dynamic. Of course if I focusing on the dis-ease. Not all women can be faulted and women did not set up the rules. But when one considers that women do parent boys it does get one to wondering... so where is the maternal influence that nurturing that is always attributed to the female gender.

Not to exonerate males... it is not a black and white topic. so few are.

[Wonder]

98. more mulling

Interestingly I feel women are much more controlled by men in that they do vie for a males attention (in the mating, dating and rape game). Much more controlled than women think or would feel comfortable considering. In essence the conditioning of the female remains dependent on the male (to a degree -- I am speaking in broad strokes here -- but truisms exist -- in that there is truth to some of what I am mulling over) for approval of herself... I run in to too many young women these days so overly concerned with having power over males... I watch them participate in the dating game.

Many are one way with their boyfriends, and completely different with their girl friends, in terms of their demeanor. In simplistic terms, they are much more girl like and demur, with their boyfriends, wherein with their girlfriends they can be extraordinarily more confrontation and competitive. I have seen this over and over again. This tells me woman are still not setting the standard. Instead they are playing the guy (dumbing it down) because well guys have not really come as long a way as women).

It is why you will still hear a male ask a woman who speaks her mind if she is a lesbian. This type of male response to women who speak their mind is not solely the males fault. Women (in general) still are playing themselves and their strengths down. So, in essence, to a degree women are also responsible for the lack of evolution in the male. On the other hand, some men will side step an intelligent woman at all costs, this is reflected in older males obession with younger woman (of course males are considered more visual)

I feel as women have come more into their own sexual freedom in essence, and even with the liberty itself they feed the basest aspect of the male nature. Just this move toward being so scantily dress (mind you I enjoy a certain sense of my own sexuality and provocativeness -- and expressing it is healthy I believe). Problem is societal conditioning remains archaic. The truth is the "she was dressed as a slut mentality" does live. Again, with women obliging little willy in competing amongst each other for the attention the male (or the patriarchy) again women have some responsibility to bare in they are encouraging in the male that that enables sexism itself...

We have come to a time where much of this is not gender ... but just human factors ... in response to conditioning, repression, and elitism. I feel and in my opinion it is time to call to task humanity... without all the various cards being played, whether they be sexism, racism, antisemitism, etc. Society breeds a kind of power struggle that is anti-human and anti-compassion.

when we genderize this this kickstarts the blame game. The blame game gets us no where. We are all to blame. We have all been victimized by various conditionings, which also makes us all innocent to a degree, but for all the various defense mechanisms, denials, and justification. True consciousness is necessary.

Twillerger this is just a spit in the bucket. It is a complex topic, we all need to take inventory, baring in mind that the fact still remains the ultimate power is patriarchal... little has really been pussified as bill maher seems to fond of saying in his dumb dumb I love young girls but no commitment... the unattractive not really progressive minded person that he is... (this latter comment came out of nowhere --- and I must say it is my opinion and what I feel about bill maher is neither here nor there.

[Nederland]

70. LOL

on behalf of men everywhere...FUCK men

Is this your master plan for winning more votes?

[Blue_Chill]

72. Haven't you heard?

misandry - is the new democratic slogan for 2004.

[Terwilliger]

78. You are so not liberal its not funny

yet you bitch, moan, and complain the loudest

[Blue_Chill]

82. You are so blah blah blah

whatever man hater.

[Terwilliger]

102. some of my best friends are men

[TLM]

120. Since when does one have to hate men to be liberal?

[salin]

127. Never heard that

nor had I heard that most feminists hate men. Never been my experience. :shrug:

[Wonder]

128. however it seems

for all the men articulating such love of women, there remains much angst with feminism (and the angst is not specific to males). Interesting how that works.

on edit (BTW - this is not a personal inuendo to views you have expressed - just a general observation)

[Terwilliger]

81. This is my master plan for having to do away with government

don't need government if you could get men to grow-up a little

[Wonder]

85. good luck

says, "a little evolution doesn't hurt, if only more would try it!"

[JVS]

86. We shall always need government

At the very least you need a good government to exist in order to prevent the formation of a bad one. Havng no government would make society too vulnerable to a tyrannical conspiracy being formed.

[Wonder]

91. "a tyrannical conspiracy being formed"

is one in goosestep formation even as we speak? Bad government a shadow within the constitutional constructs of good government.

[JVS]

94. Yes good government can go bad

but no government can go bad even more quickly

[Wonder]

101. I guess that would than be termed anarchy

which might be needed for a time to call bad government in check especially considering checks and balances is virtually non-existent...

who was it thomas paine... public disobedience... which interestingly was a premise that was obtained by a native american tribe... I have to check which... I can not remember and yet I just read this bit of trivial fact. But it is neither here nor there.

[Terwilliger]

132. you could always expect that people would do what they're supposed to do

and foster an environment that would make that possible

[Nederland]

77. on behalf of men everywhere...FUCK YOU

I now realize that my first post didn't express my feelings adequately.

I'm trying to work on that, thanks for helping.

[Terwilliger]

79. The more I see men and their stupid attitudes....

the more I'm glad I grew out of them

GROW UP!

[Blue_Chill]

84. grew out of what?

I'm sorry but "FUCK MEN!" and "GOD POD" don't seem to show off this maturity you speak of.

[TLM]

121. Yeah but that's how modern feminism defines emotional maturity...

... being wise enough to hate men... being responsible enough to stand up and blame all your problems men... and you be sure enough to openly proclaim as a man how flawed men who do not hate other men are.

[salin]

126. I know many feminists and very few (any?) who hold such a distorted

view.

[Blue_Chill]

137. If anyone holds a distorted view it's because feminist groups

send distorted messages. They pretend to stand for equality yet they get up in arms when the issue of boys failing in schools comes up, equality in custody court, and support nut jobs like Andrea Dworkin.

[salin]

140. who is

Andrea Dworkin?

Also never heard of the getting up in arms about boys failing in schools (as "groups" - not individuals as your post suggests).

Most individuals (not sure where "groups" stand) recognize that custody courts are often not always even handed - on the one hand the view of mother custody is often tilted one direction; on the other hand - for those with money (either gender) it is too easy with good lawyers (that the money can buy) to lead to very funky amounts of support (too often very low due to sheltered money; but sometimes quite reverse). Most people understand that divorce, custody and support are often not very equal and often hurt the child - who is supposed to be the one protected in these situations.

[Wonder]

131. turn that argument around

look in the mirror and by george I think you have just identified a problem that a certain segment of the male population might just be suffering from.

[Terwilliger]

129. as opposed to you

who will brote no idea if you dont approve of it beforehand

[Wonder]

67. yes - fighting enemies and protecting the nation

and raping and pillaging and preemptive invasions, WMD, are all part of the MALE PROJECT...(to a degree also part of the rape mentality) this is the same as it ever was.

What concerns me more are the women that defend some of the male behavior right or wrong...(including the rape mentality) these women are part of the problem... so much so they are now to a large degree intrinsic to the problem itself. This includes the rape mentality as well. There are woman that feed it and are as responsible for it... interestly it is rare they are called to task...

the rape mentality or what is defined in this article as the male project, is always relegated to the domain of males. No longer completely true. There is a percentage of woman with as potent of control issues. They are as much part of the problem and responsible for the societal conditioning (if not more so in some instances), and the feeding of the male projects (the rape, violence and anti-women mentalities) as the males. I bring it up because RARELY are these woman, that are as responsible for feeding it, called to task.

[CBHagman]

75. Oh, yeah, as though Bush II doesn't want us to be docile...

Hoff Sommers gives lip service to the notion that boys ought not be made docile through the current education and work system, but come on! The whole Bush II regime is about squelching dissent and forcing conformity on everyone.

In short, what we have here is fascism!

:puke:

[Divernan]

92. Good point - it is fascism.

But the Bush regime needs an endless supply of young male American cannon fodder for it's endless war policy - and those young men have to be able to drop that napalm and shoot up residential areas without a twinge of conscience or inhibiting feelings. And it would be peachiest of all if they (these young men) would continue to voluntarily enlist, as opposed to being drafted.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

76. Don't let the author know Bush is afraid of horses

It will discredit her fundamental premise.

[Cocoa]

83. or that he was a cheerleader

where does that fit into the way boys should be.

by the way, Bush is also afraid of Segways now. :-)

[Terwilliger]

100. wasnt Lott a cheerleader?

some things never change

[Wonder]

103. I have heard implied

bush sr. is a "sissy" (not my chosen word -- but how it was recounted to me by someone who has moved around a bit on capitol hill) too, but of course I am now out on a limb, because I did not follow the cheerleader sequence, but instead I have just free associated off the word cheerleader... whose usuage might well have nothing to do with sexual preferance.

In either case... walk on by... this post was reflexively free associative. and who cares really cheerleaders are human beings too.

LOL

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

109. LOL thanks for posting it though

The next time people use Somers' studies in certain "other" threads this shall be quite valuable. :D

[htuttle]

119. AEI has a MAGAZINE? What is it called... Illuminati Daily?

Stonecutter's Quarterly?

Sheesh...

:eyes:

[Wonder]

122. LOL - that sums it up

is listening

the illuminati, trilaterateralist ball
whatabilderberger was had by all.

[Wonder]

106. Satircon comes to mind

You know Fellini's "satire" on the greeks. Same as it ever was. Fellini's depiction of men of power and there girl and boy toys, still has much application to current times. The scandal in the catholic church, not so much a surprise, but just a reminder, lest we believe our modes of thinking have really changed that much. I believe barbarism has come back in vogue as well. Hark I hear the lustful rush of a gullitine in the distance.

okay enough babble back to work.

[Zephyrbird]

108. Let's look at this another way.

After reading so many of these posts, I gotta say folks, look at this another way. This is a vast palooza of propaganda laced with emotional hooks. Read just one paragraph again, with my translation:

blah blah blah awesome blah blah masculine courage blah blah let's tie it again to 9/11 blah blah heroic soldiers blah blah blah blah, focused determination blah ::barf:: blah exemplary leadership of blah blah blah rekindled blah blah Americans blah blah masculine virtues. blah blah courageous blah heroic women (BUT not the normals) blah blah blah endeavors. blah blah fighting blah blah protecting blah nation blah blah blah overwhelmingly male blah blah.

Heyzeus Marimba, I can't be the only one to see it. And this isn't the first time I've seen this overblown tripe, this is just the worst example of it.

Folks, I happen to truly and honestly value the guy who is kind and considerate, the guy who stays at home and makes a home while the woman works--I also appreciate the guy who opens the door for me, shows courtesy, who engages me as a complete stranger in conversation over any old thing. I appreciate young men, old men, middle age men. I like big strong guys, I like short slender guys. I know hunters I like, I know artists I like. In short, I know a lot of good humans who are male. And that's what they are, human males.

And I am a feminist from way back. Instead of us arguing male vs. female, why don't we realize how truly manipulative this tripe is? Come on, I mean, here we are arguing over male vs. female when this is just another example of the shameless emotional hooks used by these people to attempt to justify their theories. Geez. And it's absolutely shameful to have, once again, 9/11 dragged into it.

[Cocoa]

111. that's exactly the spirit in which I posted it

I really did not expect anyone here to take this crap as any kind of valuable social thinking. I mean it's the AEI for chrissakes! What kind of insight would they have into gender issues?

I have to say I'm pretty glad some people spoke up on this. It sheds a little light on how the conservatives can slip some pretty obviously regressive ideas past people.

[Wonder]

112. it is victomology

that polarizes the genders and for macheavellian reasons: to keep the power in the hand of a select few. Terms become inverted in that orwellian sense wherein black means white and white means black.

that is why for me this focus on the male as the problem. is only a half truth. In that we are all victims of power elitism. the cycle of oppression continues. victims victimize and create more victims who victimize. The elitists love to watch it. It is as ancient as the nile.

while both genders must reconcile and take needed inventory to identify how they are part of the problem, it is time to humanize these labels. many of the labels are meant to divide and distract. And this strategy has succeeded, potentially might even by why history is so apt to repeat itself... how do those squabbling in the polarized black and white making the other solely to blame remain conscious of what is going on beyond their little battle? amnesia sets in. The elitists like it this way.

[Cocoa]

114. excellent points

her pointing to men being CEO's and their going to prison as being two sides of the same coin was especially Orwellian.

[uhhuh]

143. Part of the problem

I have read all of what you have written here, and really appreciated your opinions. I think you given a very reasoned and supportable argument for the continued divisions between the sexes.

I do. however, feel that there is some lack of care in your own words that may be viewed as a double standard if we don't recognize that it does occur.

There was a thread we all know, that was subsequently locked, that began with the unnecessary use of the word "slut". The point the poster was trying to make was completely overshadowed by this unfortunate choice of words. In fact, I don't think the original topic of the post was brought back up again.

In this thread, you chose the word neanderthal to express a view of males in a certain context. While it may not have all the nasty implications and social baggage the the word slut has, it does make me feel that it is denoting stupidity, extinction, and to a certain degree, non-humanness.
While the use of the word slut was roundly criticized, and rightly so, the continued use of the word neanderthal(which in context, never seems to be applied to anything other than males) in never even challenged of examined. It seems to be taken as a given in the same way that mysoginistic men throw around words like "ho" or "bitch", or even "slut".
I think that if we are to get to the heart of issues that will make a difference, we all have to be aware of our use of language and how it can be divisive, just as you seem to be arguing.
I grew up in the Eighties, when androgeny was really hot. I felt like government sucked, but socially people were really trying to get into each other's shoes and have fun with it. The "moral majority" jumped in and pissed all over that, but there are still a lot of people, myself included, that really grew to gain a healthy respect for the similarities of the genders and the differences.

[TLM]

123. That's the problem with AEI....

they take an issue that has some real relevance, like issues of gender based education, and then they wrap their conservative agenda to push their pro-Bush pro-war position.

That way most liberals and PC type dismiss it out of hand, leaving those who see validity in the issue feeling as if the only ones who even seem to care about the issue, let alone the only ones who agree that it is a problem, are conservatives.

This is how they win the “angry white male” vote... by getting liberals and feminists to ostracize the men who refuse to apologize for being men and who do not think boys should have their masculinity stomped out.

Look around, there are not a lot of guys like me left on the liberal side of the fence because of shit like this. I am a liberal and I refuse to lets sexist women and browbeaten men shame me into being sorry for being a man, or into taking blame I do not deserve simply because of my race and my gender. However there are those within the left who seems to want very much to push guys like me out... and the sad fact is that it is working. More and more guys who are not the sensitive 90’s self-hating guy, are finding no place within the left for them and are as a result migrating to the middle and the right.

[noiretextatique]

135. what is so different about YOU vs. the other guys here?

i HOPE i'm still on ignore so you don't respond...but it sounds like you are whining about being a victim...again.

so...spit it out. exactly how has feminism "oppressed" you and others like you?

[coda]

110. Looks like a coordinated attack. (Mona Charen weighs in)

Whadda looney toon.


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/mc20030808.shtml


Masculinity makes a comeback
Mona Charen (archive)


August 8, 2003


"Real Men: They're Back" proclaims The American Enterprise magazine in its September issue. The firefighter, policeman, fighter pilot and even the spy enjoy renewed respect in a nation that has rediscovered danger and finds that heroes are not all "anti."

All well and good. But when it comes to defining what "manliness" is, watch out. The spirit of feminism still stalks the land, casting withering spells on any sprouts of traditional masculinity that push green shoots through the earth.

The contributors to the "Real Men" issue are not brutes (well, I should hope not, since I'm one). Amid the paeans to hunting, military service and fast cars, there are more circumspect appreciations of male virtues. Harvey Mansfield, for example, writes that "Manliness can be heroic. But it can also be vainly boastful, prone to meaningless scuffling, and unfriendly. It jeers at those who do not seem to measure up, and asks men to continually prove themselves. It defines turf and fights for it -- sometimes to protect precious rights, sometimes for no good reason." So true.

As the mother of three males, I consider myself something of an expert on masculinity. Our eldest, Jonathan, is the Ur-male. Never one for sitting still, Jon was allowed to run around the lawn and shrubs at the outdoor theater called Wolf Trap near our home. When the show was finished, my husband instructed Ben (then 5) to empty his pockets of the pebbles, bottle caps and other treasures he'd collected from the lawn during the performance. "You too, Jon," he instructed. At which point Jon reversed his pockets and let fall a veritable petting zoo of worms, beetles, fireflies and slugs. That's my boy.


more.....


http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/mc20030808.shtml

[Cocoa]

113. dismisses the entire concept of diplomacy

Europeans live in a protected cocoon of civilization, purchased with their own and large portions of American blood. Inside this cocoon, disputes are settled by bureaucrats, not armies and navies. And diplomacy calls upon the feminine more than the masculine virtues. Still, it would be nice if the Europeans might, once in a while, recognize that we Americans have taken on global responsibilities and stand nose-to-nose with some of the nastier characters on the planet -- and that you cannot deal with Saddam and Osama and Charles Taylor across a polished conference table.


When we sold WMD to Saddam, and sold Stinger missiles to the mujahideen, and made mining deals with Charles Taylor, I have a strong suspicion that these meetings did in fact take place across "polished conference tables."

[coda]

124. Yep

Missed that but I gotta admit I didn't finish the whole thing, as it started out so damn stupid I assumed it would finish that way.

I wasn't wrong.


"...stand nose-to-nose with some of the nastier characters on the planet -- and that you cannot deal with Saddam and Osama and Charles Taylor across a polished conference table.

Weeeellll, not exactly across a polished conference table but not exactly nose to nose either. :-)

[efhmc]

138. What I want to know is why this thread has not been closed down as

those on feminism have?

[Wonder]

139. need you ask?

[U4ikLefty]

141. Some of my more sexist brothers need to check themselves

I work at a women's center at my university. Groups like NOW, rape-support & divorce support groups hold meetings there regularly, and I just don't hear this "anti-male" stuff being said by these women. These feminist "man-hating" women are for the most part in your mind. I also think it's really sad when we use the excuse that "boys & girls are different" to make excuses for bad male role-models of masculinity. It is the fear of losing "power" that is the root of a lot of male anger & violence. I think this is why so many otherwise rational men are suddenly posting as if we are a victimized minority...it kind of reminds me of the "reverse-racism" argument against affirmative action.

Maybe you should actually have an honest discussion with a feminist...not a cometitive debate meant to pound home your pre-fab talking points. Who knows, maybe you will learn something!!!

[bitchkitty]

142. Disgusting that

this article compares the true heroism of the firefighters and rescue personnel on 9/11 to chimpy. I wish I could meet this writer, I would very much like to slap him awake.

[shimmergal]

146. Lots of fuzzy thinking here.

In the article for sure, and in some of the replies too.

Can't help but notice that the meditative exercise in the Israeli desert was akin to what male Christian mystics and martyrs have practiced for hundreds of years! The boys' paper burning sounds more like an expression of peer-group solidarity and their background in an American culture that promotes action at all costs, especially over thoughtfulness.

As for getting in touch with your feelings, that's as much cultural as gender-based. Having come from a WASP academic family, I was much more reticent talking about mine than my one-time SO, a gregarious Norwegian-American. (Yes, there are such men, Lake Wobegon to the contrary!)

In fact, her whole list of supposedly "innate" gender differences is based on an American model rather than universal. Sommers claims there are _no_ cultures where women are more aggressive than the men. I've read anthropological accounts of just such cultures. Maybe only one or two, but even one or two disprove the "universal" label.

And aren't any of her audience familiar with the "emotionality" of Russian and East European males? The verbal brilliance that goes on in Britain's House of Commons? The honor that Jewish culture traditionally gave to male Talmudic scholars, while their wives did the practical and competitive stuff like running businesses?

Who says little boys won't play with dolls? All you have to do is label them according to our same gender stereotypes: call them "action figures." Toy mfgrs. seem to be alert to this even though Sommers et al. aren't. Pretty strange for "business oriented" conservatives, huh? If Mattel had been so blinded by ideology they'd have lost out on lots of profits!

I don't deny that there are some inborn differences between the sexes.
Little boys--on average--tend to be more physically active, louder, and more fascinated by machinery. To say they're more "competitive" is nonsense. Both little boys and little girls are just me-oriented at first. Socialization is about overcoming this. Competitiveness is socially-induced in large part too.

OK, my main gripe is Sommers' confusing the stereotypes of American popular culture with the universal patterns. But she undermines even that by her ludicrous statement about the "focused thought and exemplary leadership of President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld..." Bush* capable of "focused thought"?
Bush* as a macho leader? The Stuffed Sock pResident, who uses insulting nicknames to keep his underlings (and everybody else) in line? Who responds testily to criticism, esp. when he can't counter it? Who blew up frogs in childhood (after all, the poor frogs couldn't fight back.)

I'd better stop, I'm preaching to the choir in those last few sentences. Anyway, _this_ feminist admires "Virility without Violence" over macho posturing any day.