Where are all the men?

[WriterDom]

The real men are on the professional bull riding circuit. Those guys are insane. Serious injuries about every 15th ride. And you are considered a pussy if you wear any kind of helmet. I'm all for free choice but maybe a spoon full of regulation on that stuff?

Same goes for Donor cycles. Wear a fucking helmet. I don't want you being a tax burden on the state when your ass wipes out. Georgia has a helmet law. South Carolina doesn't.

No smoking in Georgia restaurants either. Best damn law ever passed. Smoke doesn't quite get the concept of "sections" and tends to go everywhere.

 

[Netzach]

This does little to support the notion that western society has perpetrated a massive feminization conspiracy against all men. That some men choose to dress in a way that is proscribed by a few fashion magazines tells us no more about changes in western manhood than does the fact that some men choose to buy cars based on advertisements created on Madison Avenue.

I hear all these people whining and crying about the feminization of men and no one can come up with anything remotely like valid proof. I call bullshit.

I think subsections of the populace are defnitely left having no freaking idea how to act post feminism, how's that? I'm not sure it's feminization, but I do think it's adrift-ness and inability to re-engineer masculinity in a compelling way to hetero women. Or gay men, for that matter.

'Cause let's face it - straight up old skool american patriarchy? Not so good for little dudes either. The problem is you only have everyone telling you what not to do with no clue how you should do - faced with a world of don't you're either going to go for that path like crazy (out of reactionariness though, not so great) or you're just going to run in circles going buduh buduh mom what do i do? Or you're going to figure something brilliant out but probably in middle age by the time you don't care anymore.

 

[Keroin]

The real men are on the professional bull riding circuit. Those guys are insane. Serious injuries about every 15th ride. And you are considered a pussy if you wear any kind of helmet. I'm all for free choice but maybe a spoon full of regulation on that stuff?

Same goes for Donor cycles. Wear a fucking helmet. I don't want you being a tax burden on the state when your ass wipes out. Georgia has a helmet law. South Carolina doesn't.

No smoking in Georgia restaurants either. Best damn law ever passed. Smoke doesn't quite get the concept of "sections" and tends to go everywhere.

Cowboys are a whole 'nother breed. Personally, I love them, at least the ones I worked with. They had a reputation for being uncouth - not completely undeserved, I might add - but they were unflinchingly honest, which was appreciated, and yet still managed to be polite and respectful.

One of our guys was the only pro bullrider to stay on "Bodacious" (world famous bull), for the full eight seconds.

They are starting to wear flak vests and helmets now. It's changing slowly. They're stubborn bastards.

I'm all for mandatory helmet laws for motorcycles/cyclists. I've seen what a good knock to the brain can do. It's all fun and games until someone has to take care of you for the rest of your life.

 

[ChainedEros]

CE, are you an alt? You've been a member of Lit since '03 and have fewer than three hundred posts in almost six years. I hesitate to believe that a six-year member here with that few posts has spent much time in this forum. Either that, or you just didn't have anything to say... ?

Of all the fora in Lit and other boards I've perused over the years, BDSM Talk/Café has offered more free, uninhibited and sometimes completely off-the-wall thought than any dozen of the others. I can't believe you had the nads to make that statement.

As for "opinions that don't match the status quo [being] unwelcome," again I'll have to strongly disagree with you. Those opinions might be debated, debunked, argued (both for and against), and sometimes made fun of... but I can't recall the poster(s) of any "opinion that [didn't] match the status quo" being told their opinion was not welcome, or that the poster wasn't - as long as the opinion was clearly stated and on a topic that fit this forum. Disagreement or debate or debunking is not un-welcoming an opinion; it's merely disagreement or debate or debunking. That's what people DO in a forum.

Sorry, CE - I think you just gave your foot some prime deep throat.

Two things:

1) Since when did the number of posts have anything to do with how much time one spends reading a forum?

2) Do you really think I care anything about what you believe about me?

lol

I have an opinion and you have an opinion. As far as I'm concerned, we're even. You have proven nothing and you know nothing about me.

 

[JMohegan]

I think subsections of the populace are defnitely left having no freaking idea how to act post feminism, how's that? I'm not sure it's feminization, but I do think it's adrift-ness and inability to re-engineer masculinity in a compelling way to hetero women. Or gay men, for that matter.

'Cause let's face it - straight up old skool american patriarchy? Not so good for little dudes either. The problem is you only have everyone telling you what not to do with no clue how you should do - faced with a world of don't you're either going to go for that path like crazy (out of reactionariness though, not so great) or you're just going to run in circles going buduh buduh mom what do i do? Or you're going to figure something brilliant out but probably in middle age by the time you don't care anymore.

Or you're going to figure out what you need, and how to get it, even though there's no model for what you're doing in popular culture. Maybe not at 18, but long before you're too old to give a fuck.

Like you did. And I did. And a lot of other people did, and are still doing, right now. Flying below the radar of mainstream culture, but existing nonetheless.

I'm not so sure that there was less confusion in the pre-feminism, pre-no-fault divorce era. Just because society gives you a model to follow, doesn't mean you'll be able to thrive in it - especially if one or both of the individuals involved are ill-suited to the prescribed roles. Dating customs may have been less confusing, but day to day interaction in long term, committed relationships? I don't know too many people who can sustain an ill-fitting role without acting out in some way.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Two things:

1) Since when did the number of posts have anything to do with how much time one spends reading a forum?

2) Do you really think I care anything about what you believe about me?

lol

I have an opinion and you have an opinion. As far as I'm concerned, we're even. You have proven nothing and you know nothing about me.

So you responded to the first paragraph and entirely ignored the next two... the ones with some meat in them?

 

[ChainedEros]

So you responded to the first paragraph and entirely ignored the next two... the ones with some meat in them?

I addressed those.

"I have an opinion and you have an opinion. As far as I'm concerned, we're even. You have proven nothing and you know nothing about me."

Those two paragraphs are your opinion. As far as I can tell, your opinion is much more important to you than it is to me. There is no "meat" there to me because you have no proof of anything you said. That's simply how you feel. Your viewpoint. Your opinion.

I can accept that you have an opinion different than mine. However, you seem to be on a mission to prove me "wrong". And I couldn't care less. lol

Keep up your mission. Maybe one day you'll "win".

 

[ZRT]

Could you please provide some concrete examples of how "society has become so wrapped up with defining the "feminine/non-masculine" things that tear down a man's masculinity" so we can discuss them in clear terms?

Several people have made similar broad claims here and elsewhere in this forum recently, and I wish someone would man up and provide valid examples.

Well, I don't think I've made any claims of that nature in particular, other than a general disdain for males who won't bear up under responsibility, but I'll man up and share my opinion.

I'm not feeling particularly energetic about chasing sources and data tonight, so this is strictly anecdotal and opinion, and may be dismissed on that basis if you so desire.

Coming back to my definition of manhood, I tie it into responsibility. If you produce a child, you are responsible for that child. If you take a partner, you are responsible to labor for that partner. Now I'm not even picky about how you do the labor, househusband all you want or whatever, but carry your own damned end. And if you have a family, be ready to defend that family. With your life.

These are not espoused as a necessary ethos to manhood these days. There are too many males who think that life is about their fun, their freedom, their security. Now, maybe my disdain for that mindset magnifies the perceived numbers of them that I encounter, but those things I define as manly traits being something not commonly viewed as a requirement of manhood bothers me greatly.

One doesn't have to be kickass. One doesn't have to smoke cigars and shoot guns and swill cheap beer by the keg.

But by god, don't tell me that you can't control your fucking cock, that having a family ruined everything, or that you're unwilling to do whatever it takes and whatever you can to support/defend your partner and/or your children. Because then you're not a man, you're fucking scum and should be driven out of the social herd.

 

[Netzach]

Or you're going to figure out what you need, and how to get it, even though there's no model for what you're doing in popular culture. Maybe not at 18, but long before you're too old to give a fuck.

Like you did. And I did. And a lot of other people did, and are still doing, right now. Flying below the radar of mainstream culture, but existing nonetheless.

I'm not so sure that there was less confusion in the pre-feminism, pre-no-fault divorce era. Just because society gives you a model to follow, doesn't mean you'll be able to thrive in it - especially if one or both of the individuals involved are ill-suited to the prescribed roles. Dating customs may have been less confusing, but day to day interaction in long term, committed relationships? I don't know too many people who can sustain an ill-fitting role without acting out in some way.

True, but I can't say I was as innovative as girls who didn't exist under the green light of Free to Be You and Me etc. etc. in figuring out that I don't have to crank out babies and wear dresses if I don't want. It helps to get some darn validation.

For boys, it seems like not being a jerk is the message, and the goal posts moving more.

You're right about it, though, can't argue with this post either.

 

[intothewoods]

Hey, I said there was nothing wrong with it!

Now I'm curious. What does MM usually wear?

Pink tux look featured above with matching pink loafers.

What?

He's about as anti-fashion as they come. Has a pair of dark denim jeans I love. Otherwise slacks and shirts. I'm happy when the shirt is clean.

hi Sir Winston. first, although i do believe in traditional gender roles and in the natural order, i am also aware that not all women are submissive by nature and i do not feel that a path of submissiveness should be forced any more than the path of "independence" which is popular today should be forced upon anymore.

on the question of girls/women choosing the path that is right for them, i do not agree with such a concept when it comes to dominance or submission. i believe you are what you are, and it is not something that one can choose as you choose a career path. i believe that we live in a society which forces many girls and women to ignore, hide, deny, and be ashamed of who they truly are, because it does not fit the ball-busting, uber-assertive domineering "me" first mentality that is currently considered socially acceptable and proper for females. independence is one thing, the ideology pushed by popular media and the likes of oprah, dr. phil and beyonce is quite another. it is drilled into our heads daily that a woman should not "need" a man, that a man must do whatever is required to "earn" a woman's attention and favor, a woman must control her man and the relationship, and any man who objects or hesitates to this need be questioned as an abuser or control freak. the end result of this kind of social and cultural conditioning is not pretty and frankly terrifying to someone like me.

so yes, i do believe that THIS mentality has greatly contributed to a very sad and possibly irreparable breakdown in society.

I can't really comment on Beyonce, since I haven't followed her career closely, but I disagree that everyone is getting a message to be "independent," certainly not in any meaningful way. It's also been a while since I watched Oprah, but I don't think she's so in favor of women not needing men or women controlling men. If anything, I think that the complexities of relationships, including power dynamics, are just not talked about in any depth or in any sort of realistic way.

There's nothing wrong with not needing a man financially. Frankly, I'm happy to be able to pay my rent and put food on the table without relying on child support. Other friends of mine have not been so lucky, in particular when their husbands left them. I just had no idea how to parent and be a wife at the same time. Or what I should look for/ask for in a potential husband and future co-parent. How to be comfortable with my sexuality at the same time that I balance that with motherhood.

 

[intothewoods]

Or you're going to figure out what you need, and how to get it, even though there's no model for what you're doing in popular culture. Maybe not at 18, but long before you're too old to give a fuck.

Like you did. And I did. And a lot of other people did, and are still doing, right now. Flying below the radar of mainstream culture, but existing nonetheless.

I'm not so sure that there was less confusion in the pre-feminism, pre-no-fault divorce era. Just because society gives you a model to follow, doesn't mean you'll be able to thrive in it - especially if one or both of the individuals involved are ill-suited to the prescribed roles. Dating customs may have been less confusing, but day to day interaction in long term, committed relationships? I don't know too many people who can sustain an ill-fitting role without acting out in some way.

Missed this before. I totally agree. Not everyone thrives under a strict social model.

 

[graceanne]

omg....did you just say that you "love" beyonce?!!?!?!?!!!

beyonce is on my list of top 5 most despised human beings...just behind kim jong il and oprah. her influence on young girls in particular just infuriates me!!!...sigh, but that is a rant for another day.

on high fashion, i will confess to adoring it from afar. the ultra-girly/super retro (even antique-ish) collections especially. sadly i do not have the confidence to even contemplate attempting any of these looks for myself. but i love to peak through the posh shop windows in Georgetown and imagine how i would dress if i were richer/thinner/prettier.

Instead of blaming the 'stars' for our children's messed up self body image, maybe parents should just NOT LET THEM WATCH MTV.

I get so tired of listening to parents complain about these skinny minny pop stars, when it would be as simple as not letting your very impressionable child watch MTV. Limit what they're allowed to watch on TV. Pay attention to what's going on their life. Heaven forbid.

And I just asked my almost eleven year old if she knows who beyonce is and she has no idea. She does know who averill lavigne is, though. *shrugs*

 

[Netzach]

Instead of blaming the 'stars' for our children's messed up self body image, maybe parents should just NOT LET THEM WATCH MTV.

I get so tired of listening to parents complain about these skinny minny pop stars, when it would be as simple as not letting your very impressionable child watch MTV. Limit what they're allowed to watch on TV. Pay attention to what's going on their life. Heaven forbid.

And I just asked my almost eleven year old if she knows who beyonce is and she has no idea. She does know who averill lavigne is, though. *shrugs*

It snakes its way in though, even if you're an adult, there are certain things you can't run in terror (ahem jon and kate and children) from, no matter how hard you try.

M would rather die than watch that, and what should be showing on the plane back from Hawaii?

 

[graceanne]

It snakes its way in though, even if you're an adult, there are certain things you can't run in terror (ahem jon and kate and children) from, no matter how hard you try.

M would rather die than watch that, and what should be showing on the plane back from Hawaii?

I've never seen that show. And when I'm on a plane and they're showing something I don't want to see (in other words, always), I read a book and don't buy head phones.

But I'm being devils advocate.

I know what you're saying. But, people are a lot less easily influenced as adults. If you were raised knowing that people who don't look like beyonce are beautiful, you will still know that as an adult.

 

[ZRT]

Instead of blaming the 'stars' for our children's messed up self body image, maybe parents should just NOT LET THEM WATCH MTV.

I get so tired of listening to parents complain about these skinny minny pop stars, when it would be as simple as not letting your very impressionable child watch MTV. Limit what they're allowed to watch on TV. Pay attention to what's going on their life. Heaven forbid.

And I just asked my almost eleven year old if she knows who beyonce is and she has no idea. She does know who averill lavigne is, though. *shrugs*

It's not just the directly-delivered images, though. If it's influencing a child's peers, then it doesn't matter if you're cutting off objectionable imagery at home. Furthermore, making things forbidden makes them taboo and therefore attractive.

I'll agree that parental responsibility is the key, but not in the direction of cutting off the outside world. Rather, talk to them about what they're seeing and hearing, get their opinions and give yours.

So yes, pay attention to what's going on in their life. I see a lot of people who fail to even communicate with their children beyond the most simple and basic of interactions, and then lament that the kids just don't listen to them.

Well no shit. People don't appreciate being talked at.

 

[graceanne]

It's not just the directly-delivered images, though. If it's influencing a child's peers, then it doesn't matter if you're cutting off objectionable imagery at home. Furthermore, making things forbidden makes them taboo and therefore attractive.

Then maybe I should start supplying them drugs, so that they won't be taboo and more attractive. And, actually, I do influence their peers. This will be harder when they get older, but at this point I have to be cooperative for them to hang out with someone.

I'll agree that parental responsibility is the key, but not in the direction of cutting off the outside world. Rather, talk to them about what they're seeing and hearing, get their opinions and give yours.

I am not going to let them watch garbage in the name of 'not cutting out the outside world'. We watch TV, we see commercials, etc. Currently the girls are watching Hannah Montana (a null influence - not good or bad). They still are not going to be allowed to watch anything that's overly sexual, or shows half naked women (for instance) writhing, soaking wet, on a car. (Jessica Simpson.) Neither are they allowed to watch highly violent movies/shows or things that show drug/alcohol abuse.

So yes, pay attention to what's going on in their life. I see a lot of people who fail to even communicate with their children beyond the most simple and basic of interactions, and then lament that the kids just don't listen to them.

Well no shit. People don't appreciate being talked at.

On this, we agree. People don't see children as people and therefore don't have conversations WITH their children. Not to mention they are RUDE to children. But you don't want to get me started on THAT one. It's equally important to keep the lines of communication open as it is to pay attention to what's going on.

 

[intothewoods]

I totally agree about being really active in what your kid can watch, but the amount of pop cultural chatter just out there is crazy. I'm shocked by it.

 

[ZRT]

Then maybe I should start supplying them drugs, so that they won't be taboo and more attractive. And, actually, I do influence their peers. This will be harder when they get older, but at this point I have to be cooperative for them to hang out with someone.

I didn't say let them run free without restriction, I'm just pointing out that the harder you adamantly cut something off, the more likely a rebellious teenage mind is going to try to scope it out.

I would've been in deep shit for getting stoned in my youth, but my parents were quite happy to discuss with me why it was such a bad habit.

I am not going to let them watch garbage in the name of 'not cutting out the outside world'. We watch TV, we see commercials, etc. Currently the girls are watching Hannah Montana (a null influence - not good or bad). They still are not going to be allowed to watch anything that's overly sexual, or shows half naked women (for instance) writhing, soaking wet, on a car. (Jessica Simpson.) Neither are they allowed to watch highly violent movies/shows or things that show drug/alcohol abuse.

Your kids, your call. I disagree but respect your right to handle the matter as you choose.

On this, we agree. People don't see children as people and therefore don't have conversations WITH their children. Not to mention they are RUDE to children. But you don't want to get me started on THAT one. It's equally important to keep the lines of communication open as it is to pay attention to what's going on.

From what I've seen, there are too many parents out there that flat-out don't like their children. They have fantasy images of what children are like, like having babies around, but when they get old enough to get a mind of their own, the parents start disliking them. They are bound by social image to dutifully state that they 'love' their children, and there are biological imperatives involved as well, but I've seen too many people who just routinely despise their kids. It becomes a vicious cycle where they fob the kids off in day care and on family and babysitters, and the more kids try to get their attention by acting up, the more their parents come to hate them.

One of the most damn chilling things I ever saw was a mother who settled in at a game store, put her kid in the playpen nearby and went to flirting with some of the local gamers. When her kid started tossing stuff out of the playpen to get some attention, she just started screaming at him to shut up and leave her alone. A lady friend of mine intervened and started playing with the kid, but man, that was disturbing.

CPS got involved a little while later with the two of them. Poor kid would be about... sixteen, seventeen by now, and I seriously doubt he's had any quality of life.

 

[Netzach]

I've never seen that show. And when I'm on a plane and they're showing something I don't want to see (in other words, always), I read a book and don't buy head phones.

But I'm being devils advocate.

I know what you're saying. But, people are a lot less easily influenced as adults. If you were raised knowing that people who don't look like beyonce are beautiful, you will still know that as an adult.

I totally laud your responsibility and thought on this one.

It's partly personality and partly parenting.

I grew up with the TV totally on, persistent background chatter. Soaps, game shows, Matlock, everything, news, McNeil Lehrer, 24/7 - total wallpaper.

And I watched sesame street and whatnot. I always had lots of other things I could and did do, and my mother would pay attention to me versus the set.

Overkill worked like a charm, I only have a TV because M came with one. I think I watch SNL when he calls me up from his BF's and says something funny's about to be on.

That is it. The people I knew in school who could pick their one hour a day are the only ones I knew taping and tivo'ing like crazy.

Not always the case either though - my ex was VERY monitored in his choices as a kid and has no interest in the tube.

 

[graceanne]

I didn't say let them run free without restriction, I'm just pointing out that the harder you adamantly cut something off, the more likely a rebellious teenage mind is going to try to scope it out.

I would've been in deep shit for getting stoned in my youth, but my parents were quite happy to discuss with me why it was such a bad habit.

I'm not adamant to them, only here. At home I just say that I won't listen to that garbage and we only have one TV with cable. (That's because I monitor what the kids are watching.) We also only have computer with internet access. If they don't want me knowing what they're doing online, then they don't need to be doing it. That said, I don't stand over there shoulder.

From what I've seen, there are too many parents out there that flat-out don't like their children. They have fantasy images of what children are like, like having babies around, but when they get old enough to get a mind of their own, the parents start disliking them. They are bound by social image to dutifully state that they 'love' their children, and there are biological imperatives involved as well, but I've seen too many people who just routinely despise their kids. It becomes a vicious cycle where they fob the kids off in day care and on family and babysitters, and the more kids try to get their attention by acting up, the more their parents come to hate them.

I agree. My kids drive me batty sometimes, but I like them. They're good kids. People compliment me and I'm always like "I know." One of the reasons I want to lose this weight is because I'll be a better mom if I'm not tired and in pain all the time.

 

[graceanne]

I totally laud your responsibility and thought on this one.

It's partly personality and partly parenting.

I grew up with the TV totally on, persistent background chatter. Soaps, game shows, Matlock, everything, news, McNeil Lehrer, 24/7 - total wallpaper.

And I watched sesame street and whatnot. I always had lots of other things I could and did do, and my mother would pay attention to me versus the set.

Overkill worked like a charm, I only have a TV because M came with one. I think I watch SNL when he calls me up from his BF's and says something funny's about to be on.

That is it. The people I knew in school who could pick their one hour a day are the only ones I knew taping and tivo'ing like crazy.

Not always the case either though - my ex was VERY monitored in his choices as a kid and has no interest in the tube.

My mother hated the television. We only had a TV when she was dating. We were not allowed to watch it when she was home - the background noise bugged the crap out of her. I grew up like her. If it was just me, the TV'd never be on. K's a TV junkie though. He watches stupid stuff, just because 'there's nothing else on'.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

This does little to support the notion that western society has perpetrated a massive feminization conspiracy against all men. That some men choose to dress in a way that is proscribed by a few fashion magazines tells us no more about changes in western manhood than does the fact that some men choose to buy cars based on advertisements created on Madison Avenue.

I hear all these people whining and crying about the feminization of men and no one can come up with anything remotely like valid proof. I call bullshit.

Sorry Mussolini, this ain't Italy, but you get the boot anyway.

Let's start with the first. Vogue has been in print since 1892. In 2006 the NY Times actually printed this drivel. That someone actually thought a men's version was required barely surpasses the stupidity of the progenitor. Look carefully at the cover. CM, do try to ignore George's crotch and nipples.

What they say about us ... the world's ultimate women make you look your best.

Set aside for a moment i could care less about someone's opinion of how i look as long as i meet the basic requirements of the business when i arrive for work. i'm supposed to buy into some dipshit's list of ultimate women, and their opinion? Sorry chicklet, if you're more concerned about how i'm dressed, coiffed and/or scented rather than how i interact with you, i've already called your cab/limo/wtfall to take you home.

The side spot, "Pocket GPS: Phones that know too much" left me barely able to hold down the laughter. Shall we address the cliche/innuendo concerning men that refuse to ask directions, or set it aside with a roll of the eyes and comment directly on 'congrats dipshit on discovering how cells actually work without a user interface for accessing GPS?

And my absolute favorite

The Perfect Gift for Your Wife

takes top prize for gall. Says who? Regardless of anyone's fashion elite sense, if they walked up to you in a store on (the) day(s) leading up to 14 February and chastised you for your lack thereof, would you buy into it? If i were to smart enough to marry her, i think i've got a slight edge on the required mission intelligence to succeed in delivering an appropriate gift.

Thankfully, the POS folded back into the vagina dentata from which it oozed and now only makes a semi-annual appearance.

Sorry CM, but i've got to dog George a little more. Which group of idiots actually thought Batman needed anatomically correct chest armor? What exactly did the costumer hope to convey? Were they supposed to become erect and give him a bat tingle when danger lurked near? Sure Shank, if you really want it, but i think the panties with built in vibrator would give you more bang for your buck.

As for the link to feminization fashion, i admit i went for overkill, and Netz has my sincere apologies for requiring brain bleach.

As for the Charlie Brown link, i suppose those are just guys not in touch with themselves save their Johnsons since real women don't want them anymore.

If you don't think other people in general have the OP's original question in the back, fore, and/or side of their brain, do explain why typing "feminization of men" into Google (which happily completes the text for you btw) yields 1.5 million hits? Sure, some of them are kink related.

Others

• http://www.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith_100/142_dating_advice.html
• http://www.tennistalk.com/en/blog/K...The_21st_century_feminization_of_men's_tennis
• http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell23.html
• http://www.femininebeauty.info/masculinization-feminization-in-men
• http://sunshineforever.blog.ca/2009/02/15/the-feminization-of-men-5580900/

are not.

 

[YourCaptor]

I think the problem is that kids don't have role models period. Entertainers are not meant to be role models, their entire job is to be novelty items, not moral code inspiring.

It would be interesting to do a study into why kids accept such people as models.

Personally, underlying all this I think is money. The idea that money is just a converted form of any happiness you can think of, all you got to do is collect it and exchange it, which honestly, at least for me, does not work.

If kids where taught a more direct approach, money on the side, how diffrent things would be.

No need for a study, I just remembered observational/vicarious learning, which applies here

Its most likely to occur when

the observed behavior is rewarding
the model is admirable
the behavior is simple

So there you have it, makes sense why kids learn form pop stars that got filthy rich by prancing around and looking pretty. Sounds easy and rewarding enough, and everyone loves them.

However it should be noted that this does not make them a role model, people just learn by watching their actions.

 

[JMohegan]

Let's start with the first. Vogue has been in print since 1892. In 2006 the NY Times actually printed this drivel. That someone actually thought a men's version was required barely surpasses the stupidity of the progenitor. Look carefully at the cover. CM, do try to ignore George's crotch and nipples. Set aside for a moment i could care less about someone's opinion of how i look as long as i meet the basic requirements of the business when i arrive for work. i'm supposed to buy into some dipshit's list of ultimate women, and their opinion? Sorry chicklet, if you're more concerned about how i'm dressed, coiffed and/or scented rather than how i interact with you, i've already called your cab/limo/wtfall to take you home.

The side spot, "Pocket GPS: Phones that know too much" left me barely able to hold down the laughter. Shall we address the cliche/innuendo concerning men that refuse to ask directions, or set it aside with a roll of the eyes and comment directly on 'congrats dipshit on discovering how cells actually work without a user interface for accessing GPS?

And my absolute favoritetakes top prize for gall. Says who? Regardless of anyone's fashion elite sense, if they walked up to you in a store on (the) day(s) leading up to 14 February and chastised you for your lack thereof, would you buy into it? If i were to smart enough to marry her, i think i've got a slight edge on the required mission intelligence to succeed in delivering an appropriate gift.

Thankfully, the POS folded back into the vagina dentata from which it oozed and now only makes a semi-annual appearance.

Suffice it to say, the world's "ultimate women" can kiss my ass. I share your response to both the general concept, and specific text, of that magazine.

I'm not sure if your vagina dentata reference meant to imply that female misandrists are behind the feminization of males trend, but I think it's worth following the money trail to expand the discussion here.

True, the editor-in-chief of Vogue is female. However, the magazine is part of Conde Nast Publications, which is part of the privately held conglomerate, Advance Publications, Inc. The scope and reach of the group's holdings are staggering.

I don't know, because I've never picked one up, but I'd guess that Men's Vogue is filled with ads not just for clothing, but also for a wide range of products designed to foster personal insecurity and profit from it. Skin "care" products (that men somehow lived without for millennia, but now must surely need.) Hair removal products (because, you know, a guy with chest hair's gonna end up a 40 year old virgin.) And so on.

The "feminization" trend seems to involve, in large part, an expansion of male insecurities to include those traditionally fostered among females. The old sources of potential male insecurity (e.g. earning power, virility, etc.) are still being fed. New ones are just being added to the list by the voracious fashion/"beauty"/"grooming" industries.

The text you've highlighted illustrates this perfectly. Insecurity sells.

 

[midwestyankee]

Sorry Mussolini, this ain't Italy, but you get the boot anyway.

I don't recall insisting that my interpretation was the only one possible but I'll ignore your snark and sarcasm for the purpose of civil discussion.

My original complaint was worded differently than the one you quoted and your response to my concern about a conspiracy to feminize western men was close but hardly proof of a widespread conspiracy. My guess is that the number of men who actually pay attention to the types of magazines and web sites that you cited is miniscule so their actual influence is likely quite small. Where are the major influences on this feminization that you seem to believe is a trend in current culture?

That said, I still would like to see something other than anecdotal evidence that demonstrates actual changes in mass behavior that would indicate that western men have been feminized in large numbers.