NationStates Jolt Archive

I have noticed male bashing a long time, but recently I've found more and more people who think it's acceptable.

I don't think it should be.

I kinda "get" being angry at your oppressors.......but not all men are evil, bad, stupid, wrong, lazy, fat, etc.

I often refuse to watch sitcoms because I believe they stereotype men in a bad way. I think it's harmful.

http://www.popmatters.com/tv/features/030109-male-bashing.shtml

What do you think? Is misandry justified? Does it hurt the call for equality between the sexes? Why/Why not?

There's a litany of ways in which men are considered acceptable targets. Payback for the old days of misogyny I suppose. In the media women are superior to men, always. A man won't beat a woman.

I don't think it hurts the feminist movement, or anything else at all. If people found misandry offensive, we wouldn't have the kinds of advertisements and sit-coms that we do. The consumer eats it up. That's all that matters. We all seem to love the stupid guy, the creep, the grovelling husband, etc. - at least according to the ratings. :tongue:

Misandry is sexism, plain and simple.

The feminist movement, by and large, is about liberating women and men from traditional roles that oppress them. Misandry simply blames the male victims of our mostly patriarchal society for the problems of the patriarchy. This is useless for the cause and belittling to the victims of misandry. The truth is that the only men who will hang out with misandrists are usually feminists already, and to be treated like dirt would probably drive some of the less secure men away from feminism.

However, do not think that the levels of misandry in today's society compare with the much higher rates of misogyny.

However, do not think that the levels of misandry in today's society compare with the much higher rates of misogyny.

I don't think they are equal, but I think a lot of men feel beat down and might not appreciate that or appreciate the "women" they feel are responsible for it.

No, it's not ok. Turn about is not fair play, it's revenge and perpetuation of the original problem.

Even worse, it does have an effect on young males AND females who start to build their world view from what they see on the TV.

Oh, ye gods, don't even get me started on how much I loathe the "typical" sitcom family and how many stupid and offensive stereotypes they perpetuate. I could go on for pages and pages.

This relates to the basis of my long standing discussions with Sinuhue. I was arguing that the feminist movement was inherently sexist as it necessarily considered the gender of the person as a matter of primary importance, she was arguing that it was about being gender neutral.

I still don't see how a movement that is concerned with gender equality can possibly be gender blind, and if it is not gender blind then it is making gender important.

However the point started with my criticising the militant feminist movement that is in essence misandrist.

I have noticed male bashing a long time, but recently I've found more and more people who think it's acceptable.

I don't think it should be.

I kinda "get" being angry at your oppressors.......but not all men are evil, bad, stupid, wrong, lazy, fat, etc.

I often refuse to watch sitcoms because I believe they stereotype men in a bad way. I think it's harmful.

http://www.popmatters.com/tv/features/030109-male-bashing.shtml

What do you think? Is misandry justified? Does it hurt the call for equality between the sexes? Why/Why not?

YES, IT VERY MUCH HURTS THE FEMINIST CAUSE. I apologize if the all-caps freak anyone, but SERIOUSLY! Not all men are stupid fat people who's wives could do way better. Roseanne particularly annoyed me on this score.

i think that ALL women diss men and that they have done so for thousands of years.

it has nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with sex role differences.

Does it hurt the call for equality between the sexes?

Yes.

Why/Why not?

It's not equality.

Real men don't give a crap about misandry as long as you look hot doing it.

Yes.



It's not equality.

This.

lol character limit

Is misandry justified?

Certainly not. It also has nothing to do with feminism.

Does it hurt the call for equality between the sexes? Why/Why not?

Yes, both because it stigmatizes men (which is unequal in itself) and because, by encouraging stereotyping, it buys into the status quo. If men are essentially obnoxious, aggressive, and incompetent, there's no point in trying to construct a society where gender relations are healthier. Misandry is inherently anti-feminist: it undermines the entire feminist project.

Of course it does.
Much as Bush and the Neocon's hurt the Republican party, feminists who aren't just pro-women, but anti-men, hurt the feminist movement.
I'd imagine a LOT more people would consider themselves 'feminist' if the loudest and most-seen feminists weren't the stereotypical 'all men should have their testicles cut off with a rusty spoon and be forced to wear maid outfits' type.

Extremists of any type are NEVER good for a movement in the modern era.

What do you think? Does misandry hurt the call for equality between the sexes?
short answer? yes.

Is there any other answer than "yes"?

I don't think the Civil Rights movement got anywhere by black people claiming themselves superior to white people and demeaning them. (That isn't getting black people anywhere today either.)

The truth is that the only men who will hang out with misandrists are usually feminists already,

To the contrary, it's often the anti-feminist men who hang out with the misandrists... the stereotypes can prove very convenient for them.

They're being sexually aggressive? Well, they can't help it--men are just naturally sex-driven pigs.

They won't do the housework? Well, they can't help it--everyone knows men are inherently incompetent at household tasks.

And so forth. Misandry is inherent to patriarchy much as misogyny is. The differences in social power mean they have very different manifestations, but they're both a part of the system.

This relates to the basis of my long standing discussions with Sinuhue. I was arguing that the feminist movement was inherently sexist as it necessarily considered the gender of the person as a matter of primary importance, she was arguing that it was about being gender neutral.

I still don't see how a movement that is concerned with gender equality can possibly be gender blind, and if it is not gender blind then it is making gender important.

However the point started with my criticising the militant feminist movement that is in essence misandrist.

And I suppose I've always taken the more 'purist' approach, where that sort of misandrist shite should never be tolerated.

It's not gender blind, it's working towards gender neutrality. You cannot do that without a recognition of the gender based power imbalances that have shaped the way the genders relate to one another.

It's no more inherently sexist than anti-racism is racist because there is an acknowledgement of the way socially constructed notions of 'race' have impacted our societies.

However the point started with my criticising the militant feminist movement that is in essence misandrist.

There's nothing particularly "misandrist" about militant or radical feminism.

The trouble does not come when people are too feminist--it's not a matter of "extremism." It comes when people are not feminist enough, when they buy into the status quo and the stereotypes it rests upon.

To the contrary, it's often the anti-feminist men who hang out with the misandrists... the stereotypes can prove very convenient for them. You don't actually know any radical feminists, do you?

Because I don't know of one who would put up with an anti-feminist man, much less hang out with one.


Edit: okay I think we're mixing terms. You said misandrist, I said radical feminist, and I shouldn't conflate the two.

There's nothing particularly "misandrist" about militant or radical feminism.

The trouble does not come when people are too feminist--it's not a matter of "extremism." It comes when people are not feminist enough, when they buy into the status quo and the stereotypes it rests upon.
I think you're going in my direction...this has essentially been my argument as well...that the 'misandrists' calling themselves feminists are not really the more 'pure' form of feminism, but rather a poor mix.

You don't actually know any radical feminists, do you?

Because I don't know of one who would put up with an anti-feminist man, much less hang out with one.

I don't believe I've suggested that the "misandrists" I'm speaking of are "radical feminists."

Much to the contrary.

I don't believe I've suggested that the "misandrists" I'm speaking of are "radical feminists."

Much to the contrary.

Noted and edited, apologies.

Bigotry in all its forms is bad, and a movement that strives for equality is always going to be hurt by bigotry within its ranks.

That said, I tend to suspect that misandrists and anti-feminists play off each other more than anything else, fueling each other's stereotypes and propaganda, and together dirtying the reputation of the feminist movement.

Misandrists certainly do hurt the image of feminists, because they are much more noticeable. Feminists now have little left to argue for ("braless movement" mostly just looks funny), so misandrists are much more high-profile. And they never accept they are, always presenting themselves as feminists.

Feminists now have little left to argue for

What world are you living in? Can I move there?

And they never accept they are, always presenting themselves as feminists.

Really? Because I think a lot of the real "misandrists" don't like calling themselves "feminists" at all.

I'm not sure why people think "feminism" (radical or otherwise) when they hear "misandry." Women stereotyping men is surely as old as sex stereotypes themselves; it didn't suddenly come into being with the feminist movement. Its logic, as I've already noted, is in any case anti-feminist, because it is inconsistent with the idea of reform. Misandry says, "Men are awful. Unfortunately, we have to cope with this." Feminism says, "Men sometimes behave in ways that are awful. Let's stop this."

Anecdotally speaking, the women I hear the most male stereotyping from tend to be the apolitical ones, the ones least inclined to talk about patriarchy or theorize about society at all, and also the ones who never call themselves feminists.

(the recently cancelled) Titus

How old is that article?

What world are you living in? Can I move there?
Sure. Just clear your mind and look around again.

Really? Because I think a lot of the real "misandrists" don't like calling themselves "feminists" at all.
They do, all the time.
Even on this board, I've heard "I'm a feminist, so I tend to blame men..." statements.


Misandry says, "Men are awful. Unfortunately, we have to cope with this." Feminism says, "Men sometimes behave in ways that are awful. Let's stop this."
You see, you're doing this too.
Misandry says "Men are worse than women, we should despise, abuse or oppose them".
Feminism says "Men and women are equal, we should explain this and get equal rights and treatment."

How old is that article?

— 9 January 2003

How old is that article?

Old but still relevant because most of the shows are in syndication and all of the new shows are basically the same stuff regurgitated.

Sure. Just clear your mind and look around again.

And see... what? We have a ways to go before we meet even the more minimal feminist goals... like a world where women are not grossly underrepresented in leadership positions.

They do, all the time.
Even on this board, I've heard "I'm a feminist, so I tend to blame men..." statements.

...which is not necessarily misandrist in any way.

"I'm a feminist, so I tend to blame men when they rape women, not their victims."

You see, you're doing this too.
Misandry says "Men are worse than women, we should despise, abuse or oppose them".

Does it? Usually misandry is more about stereotyping than about outright hatred or advocacy of abuse... there's no political movement campaigning against rights for men. Ideological opposition to men doesn't have much of a presence in our society.

Feminism says "Men and women are equal, we should explain this and get equal rights and treatment."

Right. I'm not sure what you're trying to contest. Unless you want to deny that men can behave in sexist ways?

I have noticed male bashing a long time, but recently I've found more and more people who think it's acceptable.

I don't think it should be.

I kinda "get" being angry at your oppressors.......but not all men are evil, bad, stupid, wrong, lazy, fat, etc.

I often refuse to watch sitcoms because I believe they stereotype men in a bad way. I think it's harmful.

http://www.popmatters.com/tv/features/030109-male-bashing.shtml

What do you think? Is misandry justified? Does it hurt the call for equality between the sexes? Why/Why not?
you have 2 interesting points but dont see the connection between feminism and tv sitcoms.

you have 2 interesting points but dont see the connection between feminism and tv sitcoms.

Neither do I and I'd bet most sit-coms that dumb down the male lead are actually scripted by men themselves.

And see... what? We have a ways to go before we meet even the more minimal feminist goals... like a world where women are not grossly underrepresented in leadership positions.
You call equal representation in all positions minimal? What's maximal, then?


"I'm a feminist, so I tend to blame men when they rape women, not their victims." And a non-feminist does otherwise?


Does it? Usually misandry is more about stereotyping than about outright hatred or advocacy of abuse...
Stereotyping is the "status quo", lack of phobias and philias, the average.
Misandry and misoginy are rather going beyond that.

there's no political movement campaigning against rights for men. There's no "Misandrist Party" either.


Right. I'm not sure what you're trying to contest. Unless you want to deny that men can behave in sexist ways?
And you want to deny that women can behave in sexist ways?

you have 2 interesting points but dont see the connection between feminism and tv sitcoms.
Stereotyping men as stupid and useless hurts the feminist cause, in two ways, first because it doesn't promote equality and second because it breeds disgruntledness.
Neither do I and I'd bet most sit-coms that dumb down the male lead are actually scripted by men themselves.
It doesn't matter if men write it. It's actually more convenient for some men to adhere to these stereotypes "can't leave me with the children! I'll lose them!" and "can't cook dinner, I'll burn down the house!".

Shit, I just enjoy bashing people. Male or female, animal, vegetable or mineral, it doesn't really matter.

You call equal representation in all positions minimal?

I'd prefer you attribute to me what I actually say, thanks. Not necessarily exactly "equal", not necessarily "all."

What's maximal, then?

I'm not convinced we can, or should, conceive of the maximal limit from our present position in a society that remains highly sexist... but feminism is also concerned with male power over women that is less material, like sexual objectification, and with, more broadly, challenging the sex stereotypes of both men and women.

And a non-feminist does otherwise?

Often, yes.

Stereotyping is the "status quo", lack of phobias and philias, the average.
Misandry and misoginy are rather going beyond that.

Why? On your usage, we could never call the "status quo" misogynist or misandrist... why not? Maybe it is.

There's no "Misandrist Party" either.

I assume you mean there is no Misogynist Party? True, but social conservatives are a real political force, and historically they have opposed women's rights. They just haven't identified their positions in those terms. (Who would?)

And you want to deny that women can behave in sexist ways?

I've consistently maintained in this thread that they can, and do.

I've merely also argued that this has nothing to do with feminism... and, indeed, is fundamentally opposed to feminist logic and feminist goals.

Stereotyping men as stupid and useless hurts the feminist cause, in two ways, first because it doesn't promote equality and second because it breeds disgruntledness.

It doesn't matter if men write it. It's actually more convenient for some men to adhere to these stereotypes "can't leave me with the children! I'll lose them!" and "can't cook dinner, I'll burn down the house!".

i understand that.

but

what is the CONNECTION between feminism and tv sitcoms?

are you suggesting that sexist tv hurts feminism?

i thought you were suggesting that there is a streak of misandry in feminism that hurts feminism....which leaves the tv thing as a whole different kind of suggestion.

i understand that.

but

what is the CONNECTION between feminism and tv sitcoms?

are you suggesting that sexist tv hurts feminism?

i thought you were suggesting that there is a streak of misandry in feminism that hurts feminism....which leaves the tv thing as a whole different kind of suggestion.

I'm suggesting that misandry hurts feminism. Misandry is becoming common and accepted in our "enlightened" society as evidenced by the TV sitcoms.

Feminism will never move forward as long as misandry is acceptable, just like misogyny hurts equality, misandry does the same.

I'm not convinced we can, or should, conceive of the maximal limit from our present position in a society that remains highly sexist... but feminism is also concerned with male power over women that is less material, like sexual objectification, and with, more broadly, challenging the sex stereotypes of both men and women.
Well, I see, but it's rather a different issue. I mean, it's not the consequence of job representation, but rather the cause. For instance, in a society where the man is expected to initiate contact with the woman and pay for the date, it would be highly unrealistic to expect equal gender representation in leadership positions.


Why? On your usage, we could never call the "status quo" misogynist or misandrist... why not? Maybe it is.
Misogyny is hatred of women, and there's no such hatred in general. There's a patronizing, a bit looking-down attitude, but not hatred.


I assume you mean there is no Misogynist Party? I mean there's no Misandrist Party, that's why no one is seriously campaigning against men rights (apart from some nutjobs).

True, but social conservatives are a real political force, and historically they have opposed women's rights. They just haven't identified their positions in those terms. (Who would?)
Well, but today that opposition has been suppressed. Pretty much the only places with restrictions for women are those involving either extreme physical stress or potential relationship problems (I mean firefighters, military).

The rest is rather social and personal feelings, not formal rights.

I'm suggesting that misandry hurts feminism. Misandry is becoming common and accepted in our "enlightened" society as evidenced by the TV sitcoms.

Feminism will never move forward as long as misandry is acceptable, just like misogyny hurts equality, misandry does the same.
oh ok. thats a whole nother thing.

no i dont think it does. at least not much.

male bashing by women is a long time amusement. its "mostly harmless".

it certainly tends to reinforce sex role stereotypes and to excuse men's bad behavior but i dont see that it carries over into the real world very well.

is it too late to talk about it? i hate to get all thoughtful only to have it ignored.

I have noticed male bashing a long time, but recently I've found more and more people who think it's acceptable.

I don't think it should be.Agreed. Critical reflection on masculinity or maleness is healthy enough (as is critical reflection on femininity or femaleness), but "bashing" is never a good thing.

I kinda "get" being angry at your oppressors.......but not all men are evil, bad, stupid, wrong, lazy, fat, etc.Indeed... though it's usually anti-feminist thought that wants you to think so.

If men are inherently lazy, stupid, childish... then naturally women need to cook and clean and regulate their partner's moods. Sexist thought develops myths such as the notion that men "can't see dirt."

I often refuse to watch sitcoms because I believe they stereotype men in a bad way. I think it's harmful.It is, but there's nothing feminist about it. The moral of the sitcoms you have in mind is something along the lines of, "Men don't really understand emotions (except anger & jealousy), men can't really control their needs (for food, alcohol, sports, and sex)... but they're really sweet and caring in some nonsensical sort of way, if only a good woman will take care of them and invest the effort to understand them."

Nothing feminist there.

Misandry certainly DOES hurt the feminist movement. I don't know about you, but I certainly have a much lower opinion of the feminist movement than I otherwise would because of its misandry.

I have noticed male bashing a long time, but recently I've found more and more people who think it's acceptable.

Ditto here. When I hear misandry and male-bashing, I get very angry.

But not so much at the misandry itself (though that alone does anger me) as at society's double standard that says misogyny is an unpardonable sin, but misandry is OK, or worse, that it's actually a good thing.

I say condemn BOTH or ALLOW both.

If misogyny is wrong (and it IS), then misandry is every bit as wrong.

I don't think it should be.

QFT. Neither do I.

Actually, it's very encouraging to hear... (*remembers I am looking at words on a computer screen, not hearingthem; slaps self*)
SEE this coming from a woman. I mean, I'd EXPECT men to stand up against male-bashing, but when a woman does it,...
how do I say this... it, uh,... helps me have a better attitude toward women, I guess that's what I'm trying to say.

When a woman stands up and denounces misandry, it helps men (or ME at least) not to be misogynistic.

Misandry begets misogyny, and vice versa. Discouraging one helps lessen the other.

I kinda "get" being angry at your oppressors.......but not all men are evil, bad, stupid, wrong, lazy, fat, etc.

EXACTLY. In other words, real life is nothing like what you see on TV.

I often refuse to watch sitcoms because I believe they stereotype men in a bad way. I think it's harmful.

America needs more women to adopt that attitude.


What do you think? Is misandry justified?

NO!
Does it hurt the call for equality between the sexes? Why/Why not?

Yes, it does, because turning discrimination in the opposite direction does not produce equality. The sexes do not become equal by favoring women and vilifying men, they become equal by BOTH sexes showing respect for each other.

Today's society makes a big deal about how men should respect women, and I'm not contradicting that, it's very true, but they're not trying to encourage women to show any respect toward men, and THAT is wrong.

Well, I see, but it's rather a different issue. I mean, it's not the consequence of job representation, but rather the cause. For instance, in a society where the man is expected to initiate contact with the woman and pay for the date, it would be highly unrealistic to expect equal gender representation in leadership positions.

Sure, but what of it? If I suggested that feminist goals are neatly separable, I didn't intend to. The point of my "minimal" characterization was that equality of opportunity, the elimination of "glass ceilings", is something that essentially all feminists and even plenty of non-feminists are inclined to support; it's not particularly controversial, because it's not particularly radical. (Not in conception, anyway. Actually bringing it about might require more radical changes than some people think.)

Misogyny is hatred of women, and there's no such hatred in general. There's a patronizing, a bit looking-down attitude, but not hatred.

I've been following the OP's usage of "misandrist" to refer to stereotyping, and "misogynist" to mirror that.

I mean there's no Misandrist Party, that's why no one is seriously campaigning against men rights (apart from some nutjobs).

Surely this is a reversal of cause and effect? If there were an effective, substantial, political movement seriously campaigning against men's rights, there would be a Misandrist Party... or at least a party that incorporated part of misandrist ideology, just as Democratic Party policy stances incorporate much of liberal feminism.

Well, but today that opposition has been suppressed.

I don't know--abortion rights are still a battleground, even though in most other contexts (that is, ones involving male bodies as well as female ones) we're inclined to respect absolute bodily autonomy.

And let's not forget the international scene.

I still don't see how a movement that is concerned with gender equality can possibly be gender blind, and if it is not gender blind then it is making gender important.Hey, don't lay that one on feminists. Society made gender important a long time before we came around to deal with it. And we can't deal with it by shutting our eyes, covering our ears, and singing "lalalalala" while hoping liberation happens on its own.

It won't.

Much as Bush and the Neocon's hurt the Republican party, feminists who aren't just pro-women, but anti-men, hurt the feminist movement.The funny thing is, I have such a hard time finding them.

I mean, the people making sitcoms are not exactly leading the feminist charge. Most of the people responsible for terrible male stereotypes (which are nothing new in sitcoms) are still men, and not particularly concerned with gender liberation.

Meanwhile, where are the man-hating feminists? Fact is, I've only ever seen them on TV. Fictional TV.

I'd imagine a LOT more people would consider themselves 'feminist' if the loudest and most-seen feminists weren't the stereotypical 'all men should have their testicles cut off with a rusty spoon and be forced to wear maid outfits' type.Loudest and most-seen? Perhaps you'd like to point out a few?

Agreed. Critical reflection on masculinity or maleness is healthy enough (as is critical reflection on femininity or femaleness), but "bashing" is never a good thing.

Indeed... though it's usually anti-feminist thought that wants you to think so.

If men are inherently lazy, stupid, childish... then naturally women need to cook and clean and regulate their partner's moods. Sexist thought develops myths such as the notion that men "can't see dirt."

It is, but there's nothing feminist about it. The moral of the sitcoms you have in mind is something along the lines of, "Men don't really understand emotions (except anger & jealousy), men can't really control their needs (for food, alcohol, sports, and sex)... but they're really sweet and caring in some nonsensical sort of way, if only a good woman will take care of them and invest the effort to understand them."

Nothing feminist there.

I know there's nothing feminist about it, that's my point. If you want things to be equal and you don't want people to be spouting off gender stereotypes then no matter where it comes from it's harmful.

I don't think feminism is about hating men, I think it's about gender equality. The media is painting a horrible and stereotype based picture of men and that's not about gender equality.

I know there's nothing feminist about it, that's my point.Okay. :) I misunderstood, then, to the extent that I read you to imply that this was something "new," perhaps a "symptom" of feminism... which is a common enough charge.

The media is painting a horrible and stereotype based picture of men and that's not about gender equality.Right-o. Just nothing new about it... still, for the most part, the same people running the show(s).

Okay. :) I misunderstood, then, to the extent that I read you to imply that this was something "new," perhaps a "symptom" of feminism... which is a common enough charge.
Yeah, I'm quite aware.
Right-o. Just nothing new about it... still, for the most part, the same people running the show(s).
Should it continue because it's "traditional"?

Should it continue because it's "traditional"?Uh, no. I just want to make sure the criticism is aimed at the right place. The tendency to falsely blame feminism for it is even more damaging than the fact that it exists in the first place.

I'm suggesting that misandry hurts feminism. Misandry is becoming common and accepted in our "enlightened" society as evidenced by the TV sitcoms.

To be fair, the idiotic stereotypical sitcom men have plenty of company from female characters with no personality, no sense of humor, no time spent on their jobs, obsessions with shopping, and so on and so forth - and let's not forget the nearly omnipresent teenage daughter character, who is almost inevitably pretty, vacuous, and completely incapable of independent, rational thought.

Frankly, the overwhelming majority of sitcom families are just stupid in general.

Sitcoms aren't based on reality or even stereotypes of reality, but are instead based on earlier sitcoms. There are a lot of stupid, lazy men who are ruled by their humorless, frigid wives, not because of misandry, but because those are the characters that have been passed down from preceding shows. Basically, Til Death rips off King of Queens rips off Everybody Loves Raymond rips off Home Improvement rips off The Simpsons.
Originally, at the turn of the 90's (Simpsons), having an ignorant, amoral father was clever and new because it parodied the all-knowing fathers of the 70's and 80's. It isn't part of any agenda, other than the agenda of a bunch of talentless writers desperate to get as much cash for as little thought as possible.

Neither do I and I'd bet most sit-coms that dumb down the male lead are actually scripted by men themselves.

In fact, the bulk of the examples were from sitcoms that are vehicles for stand up comics based on their own routines.

This has been a pattern for those kind of sitcoms since the creation of the sitcom with The Honeymooners.

For the most part I just regard it as hack writing. Goofy husband, unbelievably hot wife, eccentric family member, a best friend the husband doesn't like but that his best friend might hook up with in the third or fourth season (a traditional shark jump)-mix in rehashed I Love of Lucy situations and serve cold. It's an old worn out formula, literally as old as the sitcom itself.

It does, however, have the same 'normalizing' effect that any other pervasive portrayal of a group has. To the point where I've excused myself out of things by saying "I'm a dude." even though I know dudes who like or do whatever it is I just begged out of.

Where in reaction to this can cause a backlash against feminism itself is a little more tricky. Certainly men in general 'take' the blame for things like the 'hooker with the heart of gold' regardless of whether they even like those stories much less are responsible for them. And it certainly can undermine a discussion of portrayals of women when men can go, "Yeah, whatever, what about the dozens of tv shows, movies, and advertisements that depict me as a bumbling man child who needs to be saved by women."

Actually, that last bit is the real danger to feminism. Taking the examples given in the article, while the women have narrative victories, they lose in some more subtle ways that has been around for a while. First of all, performatively they lose almost across the board. Without even George Burns' knowing wink, they are little more than straight women for the comedic performance of their male counterparts. Other than that they are shadows in the lives of the more dynamic men-they are the care givers for their manchildren. No longer relegated to raising actual children, they now take care of adult men who act like children. Attempts at finding their own identity, carving their own path, are put in terms of how doing that will affect their duties as care givers and saviors to their manchild husband.

If men are incompetent boobs, then it is up to the women to save them. They are mothers with a child that won't grow up.

So I do think that there is a wound to feminism in misandry, but it runs deeper than just our hurt feelings at being portrayed as someone who doesn't like shopping or can't handle kids.

I still don't see how a movement that is concerned with gender equality can possibly be gender blind, and if it is not gender blind then it is making gender important.

In the end, gender equality requires gender blindness (in most areas - obviously women don't have penises and all that). Thus, I don't see how one could be concerned with gender equality without encouraging and putting forth gender-blind ideas.

I have noticed male bashing a long time, but recently I've found more and more people who think it's acceptable.

I don't think it should be.

I kinda "get" being angry at your oppressors.......but not all men are evil, bad, stupid, wrong, lazy, fat, etc.

I often refuse to watch sitcoms because I believe they stereotype men in a bad way. I think it's harmful.

http://www.popmatters.com/tv/features/030109-male-bashing.shtml

What do you think? Is misandry justified? Does it hurt the call for equality between the sexes? Why/Why not?

I agree with you, and I also think that when feminist start being the "Super-Bitch" also hurt the movement. When the "Super-Bitch" came along, no longer was it about equality, it was about being the loudest, rudest, most unbearable person you can be. Think of Roseanne as a "Super Bitch".

Misandry is for women who belong in the kitchen! :D

(But not for the other ones. * :fluffle: Smunkee*)

Sitcoms aren't based on reality or even stereotypes of reality, but are instead based on earlier sitcoms. There are a lot of stupid, lazy men who are ruled by their humorless, frigid wives, not because of misandry, but because those are the characters that have been passed down from preceding shows. Basically, Til Death rips off King of Queens rips off Everybody Loves Raymond rips off Home Improvement rips off The Simpsons.
Originally, at the turn of the 90's (Simpsons), having an ignorant, amoral father was clever and new because it parodied the all-knowing fathers of the 70's and 80's. It isn't part of any agenda, other than the agenda of a bunch of talentless writers desperate to get as much cash for as little thought as possible.

Marge Simpson is neither humorless nor frigid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Born_Kissers)

I agree with you, and I also think that when feminist start being the "Super-Bitch" also hurt the movement. When the "Super-Bitch" came along, no longer was it about equality, it was about being the loudest, rudest, most unbearable person you can be. Think of Roseanne as a "Super Bitch".

You know what REALLY pisses me off?

Roseanne can say something annoying and she's a Super Bitch.

Some political pundit with a penis can say something even more offensive, and he's not a Super Asshole. He's just a loudmouthed political pundit.

It's like if women are assholes, suddenly it's cuz they're man-hating feminists.

Bullshit.

Some women are just assholes. Just like some men.

Misandry certainly DOES hurt the feminist movement. I don't know about you, but I certainly have a much lower opinion of the feminist movement than I otherwise would because of its misandry. Then you're a fucking idiot.

Oops, was that misandrist of me?

No, because I don't actually know if you're a man or a woman.

See? I'm just being an asshole.

I don't hate Islam because there are a bunch of idiots out there really messing with it and using it as an excuse to commit atrocities. I don't hate USians just because their government is overrun by moronic douchebags. I don't 'have a much lower opinion of the civil rights movement' because it included some racists.

Why? Because I refuse to allow radicals to be the entire picture. Those who scream loudest, and say the most ridiculous things will be the ones you hear the most. That doesn't in any way mean they are representative of the movement as a whole...and frankly, if you lack the basic critical thinking skills to realise that from the get go...if you need to be reminded of this very simple fact?

Then you are an idiot. Sorry.

Then you're a fucking idiot.

Oops, was that misandrist of me?

No, because I don't actually know if you're a man or a woman.

See? I'm just being an asshole.

I don't hate Islam because there are a bunch of idiots out there really messing with it and using it as an excuse to commit atrocities. I don't hate USians just because their government is overrun by moronic douchebags. I don't 'have a much lower opinion of the civil rights movement' because it included some racists.

Why? Because I refuse to allow radicals to be the entire picture. Those who scream loudest, and say the most ridiculous things will be the ones you hear the most. That doesn't in any way mean they are representative of the movement as a whole...and frankly, if you lack the basic critical thinking skills to realise that from the get go...if you need to be reminded of this very simple fact?

Then you are an idiot. Sorry.

It goes further than that-in the examples in this particular question, these are done by the men themselves-Titus, Everybody Loves Raymond, and King of Queens are all vehicles for stand up comics-the stereotypes being mined are not being done by feminists themselves but by the stand up comics. It's like watching someone steal your car and turning to the person next to you and hitting them for it.

Misandrists perpetuate the idiotic belief that a man can't be a feminist.

One Homer Simpson character is funny. Every single male in every comedy program being a clone of Homer isn't. I watch almost no television because it's almost all garbage. Really, the only reasons I keep my TV is so I can have something to plug my PS2 and N64 into and the handful of VHS tapes I occasionally want to watch. This constant portrayal of men as stupid incompetent drunks is overkill, and it's just as bad as the old 'Women can't drive a car for a block without crashing or go shopping without spending hundreds of dollars on fur coats and shoes" stereotypes.

Are some of you actually saying that US sitcoms are a reliable and fair representation of the values of modern society? :eek:

Exaggeration is one of the most basic tools of comedy and stereotypes fall in to exaggeration. What really hurts the feminist movement is the image that feminsts are more inclined to point fingers than to actually do something about their problems.

Uh, no. I just want to make sure the criticism is aimed at the right place. The tendency to falsely blame feminism for it is even more damaging than the fact that it exists in the first place.
I wasn't blaming feminism. Learn to read. I was saying it hurts feminism. Something doesn't have to come from something to hurt it. If I punch you in the face I will hurt you, that punch didn't come from you.
Sitcoms aren't based on reality or even stereotypes of reality, but are instead based on earlier sitcoms. There are a lot of stupid, lazy men who are ruled by their humorless, frigid wives, not because of misandry, but because those are the characters that have been passed down from preceding shows. Basically, Til Death rips off King of Queens rips off Everybody Loves Raymond rips off Home Improvement rips off The Simpsons.
Originally, at the turn of the 90's (Simpsons), having an ignorant, amoral father was clever and new because it parodied the all-knowing fathers of the 70's and 80's. It isn't part of any agenda, other than the agenda of a bunch of talentless writers desperate to get as much cash for as little thought as possible.
Again, because it's "traditional" it's okay?
In fact, the bulk of the examples were from sitcoms that are vehicles for stand up comics based on their own routines.

This has been a pattern for those kind of sitcoms since the creation of the sitcom with The Honeymooners.

For the most part I just regard it as hack writing. Goofy husband, unbelievably hot wife, eccentric family member, a best friend the husband doesn't like but that his best friend might hook up with in the third or fourth season (a traditional shark jump)-mix in rehashed I Love of Lucy situations and serve cold. It's an old worn out formula, literally as old as the sitcom itself.

It does, however, have the same 'normalizing' effect that any other pervasive portrayal of a group has. To the point where I've excused myself out of things by saying "I'm a dude." even though I know dudes who like or do whatever it is I just begged out of.

Where in reaction to this can cause a backlash against feminism itself is a little more tricky. Certainly men in general 'take' the blame for things like the 'hooker with the heart of gold' regardless of whether they even like those stories much less are responsible for them. And it certainly can undermine a discussion of portrayals of women when men can go, "Yeah, whatever, what about the dozens of tv shows, movies, and advertisements that depict me as a bumbling man child who needs to be saved by women."

Actually, that last bit is the real danger to feminism. Taking the examples given in the article, while the women have narrative victories, they lose in some more subtle ways that has been around for a while. First of all, performatively they lose almost across the board. Without even George Burns' knowing wink, they are little more than straight women for the comedic performance of their male counterparts. Other than that they are shadows in the lives of the more dynamic men-they are the care givers for their manchildren. No longer relegated to raising actual children, they now take care of adult men who act like children. Attempts at finding their own identity, carving their own path, are put in terms of how doing that will affect their duties as care givers and saviors to their manchild husband.

If men are incompetent boobs, then it is up to the women to save them. They are mothers with a child that won't grow up.

So I do think that there is a wound to feminism in misandry, but it runs deeper than just our hurt feelings at being portrayed as someone who doesn't like shopping or can't handle kids.
^this.
Are some of you actually saying that US sitcoms are a reliable and fair representation of the values of modern society? :eek:

Exaggeration is one of the most basic tools of comedy and stereotypes fall in to exaggeration.
The attitudes came from somewhere and are being reinforced. I left the kids with my husband for a week last summer....he got lots of jokes about "burning the house down" and lots of offers for people to "bring meals". It's as if it's believed that because he's a man he's incapable of taking care of his needs or his own children's needs.

Yes it does, because it continues to promote the idea of a power struggle between the sexes that need not exist at all.

The attitudes came from somewhere and are being reinforced. I left the kids with my husband for a week last summer....he got lots of jokes about "burning the house down" and lots of offers for people to "bring meals". It's as if it's believed that because he's a man he's incapable of taking care of his needs or his own children's needs.

So a bit of jokes about the perceived stereotypes and offers of help are a clear indication of misandry? Could it possibly be that you are reading too much into this.

I'm not claiming that misandry does not exist at all and I agree that it might be hurting the feminist movement. But humanity has much bigger problems than that if sitcoms have the power to dictate our behaviour.

So a bit of jokes about the perceived stereotypes and offers of help are a clear indication of misandry? Could it possibly be that you are reading too much into this.

I'm not claiming that misandry does not exist at all and I agree that it might be hurting the feminist movement. But humanity has much bigger problems than that if sitcoms have the power to dictate our behaviour.

Do we only talk about the big problems?

Is misogyny a big problem?

What about racism?

Which problems are big enough to talk about?

Shit, I just enjoy bashing people. Male or female, animal, vegetable or mineral, it doesn't really matter.

What vegetables or minerals have personhood rights? :p

About the topic: Yes, misandry inherently damaging, as it allows those who want a way out to have one.

You must have misunderstood me. In no way was I belittling the topic at hand. I just can't agree that sitcoms are much of a factor in reinforcing or establishing sexual stereotypes.

You must have misunderstood me. In no way was I belittling the topic at hand. I just can't agree that sitcoms are much of a factor in reinforcing or establishing sexual stereotypes.

What is reinforcing the sexual stereotypes then?

It's not literature, most Americans read less than 1 book a year, most of them watch 5 hours of T.V. a day.

To my knowledge people don't go about killing other people just because they play violent video games or watch violent TV-shows or movies. I don't have any education is sociology or psychology so the following can't even be descriped as an edjucated guess, but I think it has more to do with your upringing, the people you grew up with and the environment you grew up in.

I guess I'm trying to say that even if entertainment, such as sitcoms, have some factor in shaping up peoples behaviour, it is not the first place where we should try to make a difference. Mainly because it is not the only thing that has an effect on the values of societies and putting restrictions on entertainment would just do more harm than good.

What is reinforcing the sexual stereotypes then?

A short answer would be that people are.

Misandrists perpetuate the idiotic belief that a man can't be a feminist.
How could a man be a feminist? Sounds pretty pussified to me!

Anyway, I don't really care what the man-haters would think about me. Most of them seem to look more man than woman anyway. Probably just bitter that no man would ever touch them, that or they're just lesbians.

I object to the attitudes of insipid liberals who treat feminism like a nice comforting token gesture of 'progressiveness', yet still treat women differently. Liberals tend to act just as chauvinist by patronizing 'different' people, especially other cultures, and that can be applied to the 'token black man' or 'token Indian dude' in a government ad also.

You think all people are equal, then prove it, act like they are. I have no time for petty symbolism.

I have noticed male bashing a long time, but recently I've found more and more people who think it's acceptable.

I don't think it should be.

I kinda "get" being angry at your oppressors.......but not all men are evil, bad, stupid, wrong, lazy, fat, etc.

I often refuse to watch sitcoms because I believe they stereotype men in a bad way. I think it's harmful.

http://www.popmatters.com/tv/features/030109-male-bashing.shtml

What do you think? Is misandry justified? Does it hurt the call for equality between the sexes? Why/Why not?

yep. it hurts the call, In my opinion. its gone so far, that some feminists would like to see a reversal of roles.

Furthermore, capitalism is completely incompatible with feminism. I mean back in the early times of the radical feminist movement you had just as much fucking going on, except that back then at least love, respect and dignity accompanied it. What you have now is a degraded objectification and commodification the of female body, accompanied by a perverse consumerism attached to it. Does not anyone remember that the first act of the anarchists in Spain for the liberation of women by the forcible clearing out of brothels and jailing of pimps?

People have forgotten that if you are a feminist you treat women as equals, no different than any other mate you have.

yep. it hurts the call, In my opinion. its gone so far, that some feminists would like to see a reversal of roles.

To be sure, "Married With Children" had a feminist like that. Of course, it may have more to do with the crapsack world Al Bundy and the cast, also stereotypes, lived in. ;)

My main criticism of the state of feminism today is that it still acts as if it's fighting the old patriarchal conservative 19th century-styled oppression, and while indeed this still exists it is on the fringe. Feminism is refusing to break with their long time allies the old bourgeois mediocrity, but I think that many are beginning to see that all capitalism did was bring women into the workplace for cheap labor, not because it cared about them.

Indeed even in the old repressive paternalistic model the woman had security and direction, but the idea exploiting randomness of this bourgeois mediocrity has just changed the conditions of oppression, not their basis.

Same way the 'triumph' of feminism proper produced not liberation but just changing one oppressive jacket for another, except that this time women are commodified and respect comes with a price tag.

I have noticed male bashing a long time, but recently I've found more and more people who think it's acceptable.

I don't think it should be.

I kinda "get" being angry at your oppressors.......but not all men are evil, bad, stupid, wrong, lazy, fat, etc.

I often refuse to watch sitcoms because I believe they stereotype men in a bad way. I think it's harmful.

http://www.popmatters.com/tv/features/030109-male-bashing.shtml

What do you think? Is misandry justified? Does it hurt the call for equality between the sexes? Why/Why not?
To me

It is not justified, it hurts the movement, but to some (lesser) extent it is understandable. Its human nature to start to get into an "us" against "them" mentality the longer the fight goes on and some of that leads to group think and detracting from your opponent.

Though I am sure some of it also is inharent to the people rather then the situation ... like the male population has its own share of sexists that would be sexist reguardless of the surrounding society I am sure some females are the same way reguardless of social presure

If that makes any sense

I wasn't blaming feminism. Learn to read. I was saying it hurts feminism. Something doesn't have to come from something to hurt it.Whoa! No need to be so defensive! I wasn't criticizing, and I admit I misread--I was merely explaining that the REASON for my misreading is that in the context of the broader debates I mistook your meaning for the more common "feminism is only hurting itself" variety. Sorry.

We're all feminist friends here. :)

EDIT: Oh, right... I think this line also kind of confused me: 'I kinda "get" being angry at your oppressors...' So I thought you were talking about women who feel oppressed attacking men as terrible creatures, rather than men who feel dominant poking fun at themselves as helpless, needy creatures. Both are bad, but I think the latter is more prevalent and more damaging.

To be sure, I only know ONE woman that acts a bit sexist-feminist, and that is my mother... Are there many or are they an invention by Rush Limbaugh?

To be sure, I only know ONE woman that acts a bit sexist-feminist, and that is my mother... Are there many or are they an invention by Rush Limbaugh?

I had a friend back in highschool that was that way ... pretty obviously too. But she is the only one I have ever meet in person

To be sure, I only know ONE woman that acts a bit sexist-feminist, and that is my mother... Are there many or are they an invention by Rush Limbaugh?They're pretty much an invention of Rush Limbaugh. And as a rule you're not capable of judging your mother's behavior objectively until you're at least 25. ;)

(And since I seem to be getting myself in trouble, that wasn't directed at you personally. Just a parenthetical comment. I don't know how old you are.) :)

There are a lot of people, including myself, who say this sort of stuff as a joke occasionally, but people who actually believe it? I suppose radical feminists who advocate revolution and separation from men are often guilty of misandry, but mainstream liberal feminists probably not, as that goes against the whole equal opportunities, respect and rights thing that they fight for in the first place. If it exists, it would be damaging, because it would be hypocritical.

I met one once. And she wouldn't even admit to being misandrist when called on it. Like people who "can't be racist because they have a black friend" but still believe that Mexicans are lazy and steal jobs.

And I've lived most of my life around feminists and lesbians. Perhaps Soheran is correct that most misandrists are busy hanging out with misogynists.

they're pretty much an invention of rush limbaugh. And as a rule you're not capable of judging your mother's behavior objectively until you're at least 25. ;)

(and since i seem to be getting myself in trouble, that wasn't directed at you personally. Just a parenthetical comment. I don't know how old you are.) :)

...27...

EDIT: Oh, right... I think this line also kind of confused me: 'I kinda "get" being angry at your oppressors...' So I thought you were talking about women who feel oppressed attacking men as terrible creatures, rather than men who feel dominant poking fun at themselves as helpless, needy creatures. Both are bad, but I think the latter is more prevalent and more damaging.

I was a bit confused by the OP myself. Yes, misandry hurts feminism, because any hint of a less-than-justified negative opinion of men can be used to justify antifeminist views. On the other hand, it's not at all clear that the sitcoms cited in the linked article are misandrist in intent or that they are perceived as misandrist by their audience.

I'll actually go farther and say that it's pretty clear that the sitcoms aren't misandrist in intent -- and all of the sitcoms cited in the article have a man playing the fool, and in any comedy the fool is the hero. (OK, I'm sure there's a counterexample somewhere in the 8,000 years of recorded narratives. Call those the exceptions that prove the rule.)

Whether the sitcoms are perceived as misandrist by their audience, I'm not sure. The popularity of the bumbling, oafish comic hero pretty obviously predates feminism, and there's no evidence to suggest that after the rise of the feminist movement people perceived comic oafs differently than they had before. What has changed since the rise of feminism is that people, at least in the US, watch much, much more TV than they used to, so I suppose our overexposure to this kind of comedy might alter our perception of real life in a way that it didn't before we started having most of our interaction with the world mediated through glowing screens. ("The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our sitcoms, but in our own couch-potatoness.") There's some evidence this might be the case, but it's not conclusive. There's also evidence from marketing studies -- which, unfortunately, I cannot find any links to at the moment -- that men's perception of themselves hasn't been negatively affected by the glut of comic negative male stereotypes on TV. It's not that they don't recognize negative stereotypes as being negative, it's that they don't see them as having anything to do with themselves or with reality -- instead they simply say "that's not me". (Obviously this is a problem for people trying to market stuff to men, but it's not a problem for men.)

All of this theorizing about how much TV affects our perception of normativeness makes my head spin -- I mean, who knows what secrets lurk in the hearts of people who like Yes Dear? I think it's safe to say that most TV -- commercials, sitcoms, etc. -- is a sexist reflection of our sexist culture, and therefore doesn't help feminism, but whether comic "misandry" is perceived as actual misandry or not is beyond me.

To my knowledge people don't go about killing other people just because they play violent video games or watch violent TV-shows or movies. I don't have any education is sociology or psychology so the following can't even be descriped as an edjucated guess, but I think it has more to do with your upringing, the people you grew up with and the environment you grew up in.

I guess I'm trying to say that even if entertainment, such as sitcoms, have some factor in shaping up peoples behaviour, it is not the first place where we should try to make a difference. Mainly because it is not the only thing that has an effect on the values of societies and putting restrictions on entertainment would just do more harm than good.



A short answer would be that people are.
There's a sharp difference between imitative behavior such as murder or violence and the normalization of attitudes and perceptions. There is a danger to both, the former being the source of the iconic "Don't try this at home," the latter a much more subtle and broad effect.

It's not as direct as watching an episode of King of Queens and then telling your wife that Kevin James doesn't like shopping so you don't either. A single sitcom doesn't do this. Rather, it's the pervasive representation creates the normalization of that attitude. The notion is so common that it then disguises itself as common sense. If it is couched in things that are at least half true (lets say that on average it is true that men don't like shopping-which is something I actually don't know is true, a great example of normalization, I would assume it is true, I don't like shopping, but is it? Why do we think that's true? What studies have we seen that prove it? None. It's true because that's the representation...but let's say it is true), then it's taken with the exaggeration. When that exaggeration is added to the representation (say, that they are in fact incapable of shopping), it too becomes normalized. Again, it's not as 1 to 1 that you find yourself going, "Men can't shop because TV said so." The idea is so pervasive that you don't really even know why you think that directly, it just appears to be true.

And that's how it works.

There's a sharp difference between imitative behavior such as murder or violence and the normalization of attitudes and perceptions. There is a danger to both, the former being the source of the iconic "Don't try this at home," the latter a much more subtle and broad effect.

It's not as direct as watching an episode of King of Queens and then telling your wife that Kevin James doesn't like shopping so you don't either. A single sitcom doesn't do this. Rather, it's the pervasive representation creates the normalization of that attitude. The notion is so common that it then disguises itself as common sense. If it is couched in things that are at least half true (lets say that on average it is true that men don't like shopping-which is something I actually don't know is true, a great example of normalization, I would assume it is true, I don't like shopping, but is it? Why do we think that's true? What studies have we seen that prove it? None. It's true because that's the representation...but let's say it is true), then it's taken with the exaggeration. When that exaggeration is added to the representation (say, that they are in fact incapable of shopping), it too becomes normalized. Again, it's not as 1 to 1 that you find yourself going, "Men can't shop because TV said so." The idea is so pervasive that you don't really even know why you think that directly, it just appears to be true.

And that's how it works.

Yes, let's just blame television for all the bad things in humanity we can come up with. It (the telly) is afterall one of the most convenient scapegoats there is.

I'm not a complete idiot, I do understand the logic behind the idea you're talking about. But unless you can show me, with facts preferably, that watching Titus for a few hours a day for 20 years makes one a misandrist your statement does not hold much value.

I'm trying to point out that television shows, in and of themselves, are not the evil some of us seem to think they are. There are many other factors too, such as everything else in our life, that make us what we are. Television and sitcoms are hardly the root of the problem, more like an side effect.

Pointing the blaming finger at the TV and shouting "That machine is ebil, it is from Lucifer himself, hate it!" just distracts people from the real issue.

P.S. Sorry if that sounded rude or aggressive, it was not supposed to be a personal attack on you. I'm just sick and tired of people in general blaming the TV for almost everything.

sex role stereotyping is a problem no matter where it occurs.

its not more pervasive now than it used to be.

i suppose it can be argued that it HELPS feminism because it gives us a handy point of reference when we are talking about sexual politics to people who are unaware of the issues involved.

life seems a little wierd these days with so much media going at our kids (and us) all day long trying to convince us that the crazy things we see on tv/movies/internet represent real life. the message of "only the upper middle class is truly happy because they own the best stuff" is one that is particularly hard to get past. the "men are emotional cripples who need to be taken care of by women" message of shows like everyone loves raymond are somewhat offset by shows like....oh i dont know...walker texas ranger? where the hero has no problems running his own life at all.

sex role stereotyping is a problem no matter where it occurs.

its not more pervasive now than it used to be.

i suppose it can be argued that it HELPS feminism because it gives us a handy point of reference when we are talking about sexual politics to people who are unaware of the issues involved.

life seems a little wierd these days with so much media going at our kids (and us) all day long trying to convince us that the crazy things we see on tv/movies/internet represent real life. the message of "only the upper middle class is truly happy because they own the best stuff" is one that is particularly hard to get past. the "men are emotional cripples who need to be taken care of by women" message of shows like everyone loves raymond are somewhat offset by shows like....oh i dont know...walker texas ranger? where the hero has no problems running his own life at all.

To be sure, Raymond's mother, a female, is insane.

No, i dont think it does...

I go in the other direction, we should be allowed to insult everyone indiscriminately....

Feminist movement?? Where are they moving to? I'd like to follow some of the more attractive ones, know what I mean?? ;)

To be sure, Raymond's mother, a female, is insane.
its her over-the-top personality that makes the show funny.

she is not meant to be real. she is meant to be an exaggeration of a certain type of mother.

sometimes they went too far and it made the scene too horrifying to be funny for me.

its her over-the-top personality that makes the show funny.

she is not meant to be real. she is meant to be an exaggeration of a certain type of mother.

sometimes they went too far and it made the scene too horrifying to be funny for me.

Oh, I don't know how much of an exaggeration she is... :(

At any rate, I was pointing out that females were also stereotyped.

Feminist movement?? Where are they moving to? I'd like to follow some of the more attractive ones, know what I mean?? ;)

We ALWAYS know what you mean.

Oh, I don't know how much of an exaggeration she is... :(

At any rate, I was pointing out that females were also stereotyped.
oh yeah. the show is a mass of sex role stereotypes.

part of what makes it funny, if it doesnt reflect your own life, is feeling superior to these nutcases who are mired in the stereotypes of the past.

oh yeah. the show is a mass of sex role stereotypes.

part of what makes it funny, if it doesnt reflect your own life, is feeling superior to these nutcases who are mired in the stereotypes of the past.

If... :(

If... :(
lol

my mother in law loved that show. im pretty sure she was very careful to NEVER act like marie.

The funny thing is, I have such a hard time finding them.

I mean, the people making sitcoms are not exactly leading the feminist charge. Most of the people responsible for terrible male stereotypes (which are nothing new in sitcoms) are still men, and not particularly concerned with gender liberation.

Meanwhile, where are the man-hating feminists? Fact is, I've only ever seen them on TV. Fictional TV.

Loudest and most-seen? Perhaps you'd like to point out a few?

Valerie Solaris and the Society for Cutting Up Men. The last few seasons of Roseanne for a more recent example. And the star (Roseanne) directed the writing for that one. (Nods)

You know what REALLY pisses me off?

Roseanne can say something annoying and she's a Super Bitch.

Some political pundit with a penis can say something even more offensive, and he's not a Super Asshole. He's just a loudmouthed political pundit.

It's like if women are assholes, suddenly it's cuz they're man-hating feminists.

Bullshit.

Some women are just assholes. Just like some men.

I personally call bullshit on that one, because (I'm not sure about others) if I say he's a "loudmouthed political pundit" I am implying that he is a Super Asshole.

Valerie Solaris and the Society for Cutting Up Men. The last few seasons of Roseanne for a more recent example. And the star (Roseanne) directed the writing for that one. (Nods)


valerie solaris has been dead for 20 years. she was famous for 15 minutes in 1968--40 years ago.

you would have to cite an actual scene from a rosanne episode to show that she was anything but funny.

its her over-the-top personality that makes the show funny.

she is not meant to be real. she is meant to be an exaggeration of a certain type of mother.

sometimes they went too far and it made the scene too horrifying to be funny for me.

Oh, she's real. She's my grandmother-in-law, a true matriarch of terror. She even looks like the mother and sounds like her. If you close your eyes and listen to the show......it's her........chilling.

Oh, she's real. She's my grandmother-in-law, a true matriarch of terror. She even looks like the mother and sounds like her. If you close your eyes and listen to the show......it's her........chilling.
so you never find marie funny eh?

valerie solaris has been dead for 20 years. she was famous for 15 minutes in 1968--40 years ago.

you would have to cite an actual scene from a rosanne episode to show that she was anything but funny.

I can't remember too well, I haven't watched the show frequently for a couple of years, but a couple of episodes come to mind. The one where DJ gets his first girlfriend (he was like nine or something, I might be off) and the one where her and Jackie run into the actress who played Dharma on Dharma and Greg particularly. And I agree, I probably shouldnt've cited Valerie Solaris, but she was relevant (if only somewhat) to the question I was answering.

I can't remember too well, I haven't watched the show frequently for a couple of years, but a couple of episodes come to mind. The one where DJ gets his first girlfriend (he was like nine or something, I might be off) and the one where her and Jackie run into the actress who played Dharma on Dharma and Greg particularly. And I agree, I probably shouldnt've cited Valerie Solaris, but she was relevant (if only somewhat) to the question I was answering.
you would have to say what about those episodes were misanthropic.

although i dont know how many of the last year or so's episodes i saw.

Jeez... if you can't take a beat down with words, then you need to check yourself into an institute. Although, I agree that sexism is wrong, I don't think we should spend money on social programs to get rid of it.

you would have to say what about those episodes were misanthropic.

although i dont know how many of the last year or so's episodes i saw.

Mostly repeated statements of how all men are bitches.

Yes, let's just blame television for all the bad things in humanity we can come up with. It (the telly) is afterall one of the most convenient scapegoats there is.
Did I say that? Did I imply that the problem lay entirely in televisions lap, or that it was the sole cause of problems? No, in fact, I did not.

I'm not a complete idiot, I do understand the logic behind the idea you're talking about.
You say that, but then you issue this ridiculous challenge-
But unless you can show me, with facts preferably, that watching Titus for a few hours a day for 20 years makes one a misandrist your statement does not hold much value.
This is not a demonstration that you understand the logic. First, it asks that I find causality in a single show when in fact we are talking about a pervasive pattern across the entire medium. Secondly, it again relies on the 'don't try this at home' immitatability that I took pains to separate (and again, you claim to understand) from the notion of normalization. Third, it then asks for a concrete transformation, 'making' someone a misandrist rather than normalizing a set of perceptions.

Now, I will not call you an idiot, but I will challenge your assertion that you in fact understand the theory as you have demonstrated that you do not.

I'm trying to point out that television shows, in and of themselves, are not the evil some of us seem to think they are. There are many other factors too, such as everything else in our life, that make us what we are. Television and sitcoms are hardly the root of the problem, more like an side effect.
Media is the campfire, it is the primary form of information and entertainment for the largest portion of the population. It also has the unique position of being one the only shared experience (and most prominent) among that larger section of the population. As such it has a greater power to do things like normalization in the population at large than other contributing factors. As such, it is a prime focus of criticism.

Yes, there are other factors. But the subject of this thread is misandry and media portrayals. As such, I remain focused on the question at hand.

Pointing the blaming finger at the TV and shouting "That machine is ebil, it is from Lucifer himself, hate it!" just distracts people from the real issue.

P.S. Sorry if that sounded rude or aggressive, it was not supposed to be a personal attack on you. I'm just sick and tired of people in general blaming the TV for almost everything.
And I'm sick of people throwing a tantrum every time they hear a bit of criticism, extrapolating it into "Oh let's blame all the worlds troubles on the" whatever is being criticized. I work in television. If for no other reason that it pays my rent, you will find no greater fan of it here than me. I have joked in the past that it was the relative that really raised me, calling it Uncle TV.

However, this does not make it immune to criticism, nor should I ignore the power it has in modern lives. I could not have spoken critically of the shows mention if I had not spent time watching them. And I have, and even enjoyed a few of them.

Critiquing something is not 'blaming everything on it,' and dismissing critique out of hand as such is ridiculous. You have now created a false dichotomy-it is either harmless, or evil. It is neither. It is television.

How many have noticed that most humor depends pretty much on having a person or a group of people made to look ridiculous? If we eliminated all jokes that did this, what would be left? Just curious.

How many have noticed that most humor depends pretty much on having a person or a group of people made to look ridiculous? If we eliminated all jokes that did this, what would be left? Just curious.

Better stop that kinda thinkin and get back to work, lol...

How many have noticed that most humor depends pretty much on having a person or a group of people made to look ridiculous? If we eliminated all jokes that did this, what would be left? Just curious.

We'd have jokes that make certain behaviors look stupid, probably.

Did I say that? Did I imply that the problem lay entirely in televisions lap, or that it was the sole cause of problems? No, in fact, I did not.

No you did not, but you have implied that television, or rather the television programs, are one of the most prominent problems.

This is not a demonstration that you understand the logic. First, it asks that I find causality in a single show when in fact we are talking about a pervasive pattern across the entire medium. Secondly, it again relies on the 'don't try this at home' immitatability that I took pains to separate (and again, you claim to understand) from the notion of normalization. Third, it then asks for a concrete transformation, 'making' someone a misandrist rather than normalizing a set of perceptions.

Now, I will not call you an idiot, but I will challenge your assertion that you in fact understand the theory as you have demonstrated that you do not.

So let's take this theory a bit further and assume that television has the power to normalize a set of perceptions in societies. To exactly what kind of perceptions is this limited and why? If all the sitcoms were replaced by sci-fi shows about aliens abducting humans, could I assume that it would be normal to believe that abductions actually happen or that aliens were somehow inclined to abduct humans if they ever happened to discover the planet Earth. What if the set of perceptions was so far fetched that it didn't correlate to reality in any meaningful way, could the telly still normalize such a set of perceptions.

Media is the campfire, it is the primary form of information and entertainment for the largest portion of the population. It also has the unique position of being one the only shared experience (and most prominent) among that larger section of the population. As such it has a greater power to do things like normalization in the population at large than other contributing factors. As such, it is a prime focus of criticism.

This is in fact, absolute bollocks. Largest portion of the population, relly? One and only shared experience? Am I to just take your word for it, or could you possibly back it up with facts.

Yes, there are other factors. But the subject of this thread is misandry and media portrayals. As such, I remain focused on the question at hand.

And I'm sick of people throwing a tantrum every time they hear a bit of criticism, extrapolating it into "Oh let's blame all the worlds troubles on the" whatever is being criticized. I work in television. If for no other reason that it pays my rent, you will find no greater fan of it here than me. I have joked in the past that it was the relative that really raised me, calling it Uncle TV.

However, this does not make it immune to criticism, nor should I ignore the power it has in modern lives. I could not have spoken critically of the shows mention if I had not spent time watching them. And I have, and even enjoyed a few of them.

Critiquing something is not 'blaming everything on it,' and dismissing critique out of hand as such is ridiculous. You have now created a false dichotomy-it is either harmless, or evil. It is neither. It is television.

Ah.. now you are putting words to my mouth (or posts). Never did I state that television has to be either harmless or evil. Actually I got out of my way to point out that television might be somewhat of a factor, but not the most prominent.

I have noticed male bashing a long time, but recently I've found more and more people who think it's acceptable.

I don't think it should be.

I kinda "get" being angry at your oppressors.......but not all men are evil, bad, stupid, wrong, lazy, fat, etc.

I often refuse to watch sitcoms because I believe they stereotype men in a bad way. I think it's harmful.

http://www.popmatters.com/tv/features/030109-male-bashing.shtml

What do you think? Is misandry justified? Does it hurt the call for equality between the sexes? Why/Why not?


Meh when it comes to comedy I think all is fair play.

No you did not, but you have implied that television, or rather the television programs, are one of the most prominent problems.
Find me a more prominent mode of representation that's as pervasive and common.



So let's take this theory a bit further and assume that television has the power to normalize a set of perceptions in societies. To exactly what kind of perceptions is this limited and why? If all the sitcoms were replaced by sci-fi shows about aliens abducting humans, could I assume that it would be normal to believe that abductions actually happen or that aliens were somehow inclined to abduct humans if they ever happened to discover the planet Earth. What if the set of perceptions was so far fetched that it didn't correlate to reality in any meaningful way, could the telly still normalize such a set of perceptions.
In 1938 a single radio broadcast made people believe that very thing.



This is in fact, absolute bollocks. Largest portion of the population, relly? One and only shared experience? Am I to just take your word for it, or could you possibly back it up with facts.
Are you seriously asking me to prove to you that television is common? Seriously? What fucking world do you live in?

Maybe we can start with more people have voted for the American Idol than for president of the United States?

By the way, the sky is blue. I'd show you pictures but I don't want you to accuse me of using photoshop...



Ah.. now you are putting words to my mouth (or posts). Never did I state that television has to be either harmless or evil. Actually I got out of my way to point out that television might be somewhat of a factor, but not the most prominent.
If you throw a tizzy over criticism, there is only one conclusion.

If you throw a tizzy over criticism, there is only one conclusion.


That she is a girl?:D

so you never find marie funny eh?

Nope. ....

What hurts any "equality" movement the most is when the minority firmly believes that taking on the worst traits of the majority is what makes someone equal. Women acting like alpha-male jackoffs doesn't make them equal. It makes them assholes.

I don't know whether or not misandry hurt the feminist movement, but apparently anal fissures and tears does...

Check this out...there's a guy SUING Columbia University for offering a "Women's Studies" course but not a "Men's Studies" alternative.

Ah.. now you are putting words to my mouth (or posts). Never did I state that television has to be either harmless or evil. Actually I got out of my way to point out that television might be somewhat of a factor, but not the most prominent.
Nobody is arguing it's the most prominent. So now you agree with us.

Check this out...there's a guy SUING Columbia University for offering a "Women's Studies" course but not a "Men's Studies" alternative.

Ah yes, because "How have men contributed to history?" and "What are the roles of men in society?" remain critically understudied questions that the academy has not properly addressed. The only solution to this is to set up Men's Studies departments.

The same fellow has sued various Manhattan nightclubs for holding Ladies' Nights, claiming that they violate the equal-protection clause. Apparently this lawsuit now has class-action status -- I can't imagine who signed on, since I've found the number of men who are opposed to encouraging pretty girls to go to nightclubs to be rather small.:confused:

The same fellow has sued various Manhattan nightclubs for holding Ladies' Nights, claiming that they violate the equal-protection clause. Apparently this lawsuit now has class-action status -- I can't imagine who signed on, since I've found the number of men who are opposed to encouraging pretty girls to go to nightclubs to be rather small.:confused:You have a citation on that? Is this even being considered by the courts?

I mean, how can a private nightclub violate equal protection? Equal protection applies to governments, not businesses.

The same fellow has sued various Manhattan nightclubs for holding Ladies' Nights, claiming that they violate the equal-protection clause. Apparently this lawsuit now has class-action status -- I can't imagine who signed on, since I've found the number of men who are opposed to encouraging pretty girls to go to nightclubs to be rather small.:confused:

Fair doo's to the man. We have that sort of deal over here in the UK too.

'Ladies night' where the ladies get into the club for free, or cheaper than the men. This can certianly be said to be discrimination based on gender.

You have a citation on that? Is this even being considered by the courts?

I mean, how can a private nightclub violate equal protection? Equal protection applies to governments, not businesses.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1184144791036

Apparently state alcohol regulation of nightclubs is his excuse for bringing in equal protection.

I can't imagine who signed on, since I've found the number of men who are opposed to encouraging pretty girls to go to nightclubs to be rather small.:confused:

Perhaps men who share his view of the legal status quo with respect to sex discrimination:

Hollander also foresees an "uphill battle" in classifying the action as invidious discrimination, since he is arguing on behalf of men and not women, whom he says the U.S. Supreme Court has given "preferential treatment for past invidious, economic discrimination."

"Whether this case succeeds or fails," says Hollander, "it will result in a much needed victory for men."

So it seems that he is not as concerned for changing nightclub policies specifically as he is for convincing us that men are presently neglected and mistreated by the court system.

If this is the best he can come up with, though, I remain rather skeptical.

Lawyer Roy Den Hollander plans 'jihad' against university feminism (http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article4568104.ece)

Uh, I'm no lawyer, but shouldn't he cite things like divorce cases rather than a lack of a "Men's Studies" program?

Lawyer Roy Den Hollander plans 'jihad' against university feminism (http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/article4568104.ece)

Bwahahah that makes fun reading, the man is obviously smarting about the brakeup of his marriage and is now on an anti woman kick. Sorta sounds like my mother-in-law, but the other way around.

Fair doo's to the man. We have that sort of deal over here in the UK too.

'Ladies night' where the ladies get into the club for free, or cheaper than the men. This can certianly be said to be discrimination based on gender.

Of course, it's meant to benefit the men just as much, if not more, than the women. They attract more women to the club so that the men are happier.

Meh when it comes to comedy I think all is fair play.
That's missing the point there somewhat. Which is that it's not fairplay. All recent US sitcoms showed the father figure out to be a lazy buffoon with an intelligent, long-suffering wife constantly cleaning his snafus up (though quite why someone as intelligent as she would want to marry such a twat is never quite explained). It's not fair simply because the negative caricatures are always male and never female. If they made a sitcom or ad that had the roles reversed, the number of feminists jumping up and down about it would probably knock the world off it's axis. But because the idiot's the man, this somehow makes it fairplay?

What bothers me about this negative rolemodelling on TV is it in itself is minor. However, couple this with lack of positive male rolemodels outside of TV - whether due to increasing single parent families or so few male teachers pre-primary and primary (fear of being accused of pedo stops men from wanting to teach those ages) and add in the fallings of male sportstars - and we have a generation growing up without one positive male rolemodel. For some kids the men they see on TV are the only men they see. At home or at school it's all female-dominated. And what they see on TV is that a typical man is a stupid, lazy, slobbish, childish bore (or a violent thug). They have no-one to compare that to, so it's extremely likely that they will grow up thinking that's typical male behaviour. Which is bad for both sexes.

Of course, it's meant to benefit the men just as much, if not more, than the women. They attract more women to the club so that the men are happier.

Yeah and if you include the men in the deal you also attract more men into the club. Or what about leaving women out of the deal and only includeing men, that would attract more men into the club, and the women would be happeir.

the "men are emotional cripples who need to be taken care of by women" message of shows like everyone loves raymond are somewhat offset by shows like....oh i dont know...walker texas ranger? where the hero has no problems running his own life at all.
How is it offset? Basically men have two roles: either a stupid twat or a superhero.
And this makes the caricatures okay?
Using those two as reference, then TV is telling us that as a man, you're expected to be some sort of Kung Fu God or, failing that, an idiot. Nothing in between.
You don't think there's something wrong with that?

Offset would be having a male character who is just, y'know, normal, not superman.

That's missing the point there somewhat. Which is that it's not fairplay. All recent US sitcoms showed the father figure out to be a lazy buffoon with an intelligent, long-suffering wife constantly cleaning his snafus up (though quite why someone as intelligent as she would want to marry such a twat is never quite explained). It's not fair simply because the negative caricatures are always male and never female. If they made a sitcom or ad that had the roles reversed, the number of feminists jumping up and down about it would probably knock the world off it's axis. But because the idiot's the man, this somehow makes it fairplay?

What bothers me about this negative rolemodelling on TV is it in itself is minor. However, couple this with lack of positive male rolemodels outside of TV - whether due to increasing single parent families or so few male teachers pre-primary and primary (fear of being accused of pedo stops men from wanting to teach those ages) and add in the fallings of male sportstars - and we have a generation growing up without one positive male rolemodel. For some kids the men they see on TV are the only men they see. At home or at school it's all female-dominated. And what they see on TV is that a typical man is a stupid, lazy, slobbish, childish bore (or a violent thug). They have no-one to compare that to, so it's extremely likely that they will grow up thinking that's typical male behaviour. Which is bad for both sexes.

Of course from the feminism perspective the same could be said about females being portrayed as sexual objects.

Personaly I belive it's all bunkum. Do you belive for example that all men are stupid, lazy, slobbish, childish bore (or violent thugs?)

Or on the other hand, do you think all woman are nowt but sexual objects?

How is it offset? Basically men have two roles: either a stupid twat or a superhero.
And this makes the caricatures okay?
Using those two as reference, then TV is telling us that as a man, you're expected to be some sort of Kung Fu God or, failing that, an idiot. Nothing in between.
You don't think there's something wrong with that?

Offset would be having a male character who is just, y'know, normal, not superman.
there are plenty of thse in the various dramas on the air. i chose chuck norris because (i have never watched an episode of walker texas ranger) i thought he would be the polar opposite of raymond.

Of course from the feminism perspective the same could be said about females being portrayed as sexual objects.

Personaly I belive it's all bunkum. Do you belive for example that all men are stupid, lazy, slobbish, childish bore (or violent thugs?)

Or on the other hand, do you think all woman are nowt but sexual objects?
I didn't grow up watching those TV shows, nor in a single-parent household, nor had female-only teachers during my formative years (Indeed one of my primary school teachers had a try-out for the Wallabies). So I'm not at all like the group I made mention of in my post. Which makes your questions to me rather redundant I'm afraid. And also rather misses the point I was making as well.
Two from two!

Of course, it's meant to benefit the men just as much, if not more, than the women. They attract more women to the club so that the men are happier.

That's why I think he'll have a hard time proving that it's invidious discrimination. Again, I don't know many men who frequent nightclubs because they like bad music and overpriced drinks.

That's why I think he'll have a hard time proving that it's invidious discrimination. Again, I don't know many men who frequent nightclubs because they like bad music and overpriced drinks.
he could win even if it makes no social sense.

its not really a battle between men who go to the bar to drink and men who go to the bar to pick up girls.

its just one asshole trying to make a point that no one else wants made.

True feminists see the sexes as equal. Bottle is a perfect example of a true feminist.

Misandry hurts, by portraying men as the enemy, they portray men and women to be enemies.. of course that does nothing to bridge the so called gap between the sexes. It only makes it bigger and slows down anything gained by the sexist movement.

Misandry hurts, by portraying men as the enemy, they portray men and women to be enemies.. of course that does nothing to bridge the so called gap between the sexes. It only makes it bigger and slows down anything gained by the sexist movement.

The "sexist movement"?

Bwahahah that makes fun reading

Doesn't it? :)

Nicely demonstrates the mentality with which he's approaching the nightclub issue....

Yeah and if you include the men in the deal you also attract more men into the club.

....which doesn't help you in the least if you already have more men coming to your club. You can only let in a set number of people, and if the ratio remains the same, your straight male customers remain frustrated that they can't find a partner in the crowd.

Or what about leaving women out of the deal and only includeing men, that would attract more men into the club, and the women would be happeir.

That would probably be a good strategy, if the club in question had a shortage of men coming.

there are plenty of thse in the various dramas on the air. i chose chuck norris because (i have never watched an episode of walker texas ranger) i thought he would be the polar opposite of raymond.

IIRC, even episodes of Walker Texas Ranger suggested that Walker couldn't do things like shop for his own clothes or cook for himself. He could just kick ass really well.

IIRC, even episodes of Walker Texas Ranger suggested that Walker couldn't do things like shop for his own clothes or cook for himself. He could just kick ass really well.

oh....well...let me think.....i dont watch macho man shows but....jack lord didnt need a woman to take care of him in hawaii 50?

oh....well...let me think.....i dont watch macho man shows but....jack lord didnt need a woman to take care of him in hawaii 50?
If we're going old-school, there's Magnum PI. He didn't have a woman around to look after him. Though he did have Higgins, who Magnum treated as his bitch.
So we're still back at square one.

I have noticed male bashing a long time, but recently I've found more and more people who think it's acceptable.

I don't think it should be.

I kinda "get" being angry at your oppressors.......but not all men are evil, bad, stupid, wrong, lazy, fat, etc.

I often refuse to watch sitcoms because I believe they stereotype men in a bad way. I think it's harmful.

http://www.popmatters.com/tv/features/030109-male-bashing.shtml

What do you think? Is misandry justified? Does it hurt the call for equality between the sexes? Why/Why not?

Don't let it get to you. Sure there is injustice, racism, sexism and all the no nos in the world but remember. One day...one glorious day! Aliens will attack the earth and in doing so all our illogical hatred will be shifted to them. AND ALL OF HUMANITY WILL STAND UNITED!!!! BWAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Idiot.

Idiot.

Yeah,personal attacks are idiotic. One things for certain, this won't end well. :wink:

Idiot.

Knock it off.

The "sexist movement"?

Beh I was tired. Feminist or Equality movement?