Feminization of America?

[Pure]

I saw a Bill Maher special, and he spoke of his position that the US has become 'feminized' over the last 20 years. He is apparently referring to 'values'. I'd like to leave the term a bit open to interpretation, but here are two examples of his, and one example, from recent news, which I think might fit:

In the last presidential election, the candidates tried to outdo each other on their devotion to 'monogamy', or as Maher put it, to the message "I fuck only my wife".

In the most popular sit coms, like "Raymond," the male is a not-so-bright bumbler, esp. in comparison to his wife.

Recently the army, in its official regulations made consorting with a prostitute a court martial (and dis honorable discharge) offense.

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=33300&archive=true

 

[entitled]

Are you indicating this is a bad thing?

 

[Guest]

Are you indicating this is a bad thing?

Is this amicus?

And why have you kidnapped Pure?

 

[entitled]

Is this amicus?

And why have you kidnapped Pure?

hehehe...

ssshhh... He's not supposed to know we've figured it out.

 

[Guest]

hehehe...

ssshhh... He's not supposed to know we've figured it out.

I won't tell.

(But oh - ami wants me.)

 

[Penelope Street]

I resent the implication that I am, or should be, for monogamy and against the legalization of prostitution. When a male television personality starts discussing 'feminization', it's probably time to change the channel anyway. As for Raymond, if she was really that bright she wouldn't be married to him.

 

[carsonshepherd]

Maybe it's just a decrease in the good-old-boy mindset. Maybe after all these hundreds of years the power structure is getting more equal.

 

[Pure]

entitled asked:

Are you indicating this is a bad thing?

Well, Maher does, for sure. But one should be able to agree on some facts, apart from the positive or negative 'valence' attached.

My problem is understanding the thesis, the claims being made, for clearly such macho enterprizes as the Iraq invasion, and the "mission accomplished" scening, are occurring in this (supposedly) 'feminized' situation. Also, candidates from both parties stress a 'tough on crime' approach, more police and longer sentences.

I do sense an upping (promotion) of 'family values,' and see a tremendous emphasis being placed on 'sensitivity' (around race, ethnicity, size). These might be called soft or gentle values and hence--by Maher, "feminine,"-- though I'm not sure I would pick that label. (But it could be argued that the new 'racism' sensitivity is mostly window dressing for policies that don't do anything concrete. )

For instance, I see a de-emphasis on competition, or even 'excelling', in my daughter's school. Every month there is an award for 'outstanding student,' and the effort is to ensure that everyone eventually wins--i.e., all will have awards. So they pick something like 'friendliness' or 'doing your homework' not just the more usually cited excellences among students.

 

[entitled]

entitled asked:

Are you indicating this is a bad thing?

Well, Maher does, for sure. But one should be able to agree on some facts, apart from the positive or negative 'valence' attached.

My problem is understanding the thesis, the claims being made, for clearly such macho enterprizes as the Iraq invasion, and the "mission accomplished" scening, are occurring in this (supposedly) 'feminized' situation.

I do sense an upping of 'family values,' and see a tremendous emphasis being placed on 'sensitivity' (around race, ethnicity, size). These might be called soft or gentle values and hence--by Maher, "feminine,"-- though I'm not sure I would pick that label. For instance, I see a de-emphasis on competition, or even 'excelling', in my daughter's school. Every month there is an award for 'outstanding student,' and the effort is to ensure that everyone eventually wins--i.e., all will have awards. So they pick something like 'friendliness' or 'doing your homework' not just the more usually cited excellences among students.

Since we're not argueing good or bad, i'll have to agree that there is a definite movement in that direction. i just don't like Maher's definition. Or Maher himself, but that's just a personal thing.

 

[entitled]

Maybe it's just a decrease in the good-old-boy mindset. Maybe after all these hundreds of years the power structure is getting more equal.

Let's just hope it moves this direction quickly.

 

[Guest]

"Feminization" is generally a derogatory term (e.g., sissification, pussy-whipped) outside academia. It arose after feminist academics began re-reading patriarchal texts and 'redeeming' feminist sub-texts. I've been hearing about the feminization of everything for years (cyberspace, America, Europe, menswear, Christianity, Christ even!)

What Maher actually means I don't know but from what Pure posts it's related to the intellectual definition but more to the disparaging gens.

Perdita

 

[oggbashan]

Army and prostitutes

During WWII in Europe, many soldiers were incapacitated for action by venereal diseases. The public information films of that time are fascinating but didn't do much to stop the infections.

If the US Army had discharged every soldier in Vietnam who had 'consorted with a prostitute' the war might have ended for lack of soldiers...

Prostitutes and soldiers (and sailors and airmen and marines) have been together throughout history. A US Army regulation is unlikely to make much difference.

Og

 

[rgraham666]

Is America becoming more 'feminine'?

God, I hope so. Don't like men much. For the most part they're testosterone addled fuckwits.

So becoming more 'feminine' has to be a step up.

 

[cloudy]

Is America becoming more 'feminine'?

God, I hope so. Don't like men much. For the most part they're testosterone addled fuckwits.

So becoming more 'feminine' has to be a step up.

or, to quote Phoebe from Friends: "Stop being so testosteroney."

 

[hugo_sam]

I usually do not get involved in these threads, but there is a falicy at the root of this one.
Raymond as a bumbling husband is not 'new' by any stretch of the imagination in tv portrayals.

Lucy for all her antics was clearly portrayed as the more intelligent of her and Desi.
Gracie likewise was portrayed as the more intelligent of her and Burns, for all her bumbling.
Alice clearly had the upper hand over Jackiie Gleason.
This goes back even to radio as entertainment, and even futher in books.
They put a new name on it, new character names, but these are far from new stories and certainly not recent.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

entitled asked:

Are you indicating this is a bad thing?

Well, Maher does, for sure.

Maher believes feminization is a bad thing? Since when do men become more feminine than Bill Maher?

Saying things that sound masculine have nothing to do with masculinity.

And as far as the example Pure gave:

Raymond is only comedy, and does reflect many real-life couples (in an exaggerated sort of way), though the opposite can often be said as well.

"I fuck only my wife..." If you're in a conventional marriage, a monogomous marriage, you're not supposed to fuck anyone else. It's not feminine, it's called "Honest."

As for the court martial... Aren't these prostitutes, y'know, women? It brings up the question of porn being degrading to women: I don't see how it degrades more than the women in question.

Q_C

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Lucy for all her antics was clearly portrayed as the more intelligent of her and Desi.

Um... when was this one? Lucy got into trouble and Desi usually got her out, assuming this reference is to the television shows, "I Love Lucy." Otherwise, just say so, and I'll not disagree.

Lucy and Raymond seem to make better parrallels, and Desi and.. well, Ray's wife (Carol?).

Q_C

 

[Liar]

In the most popular sit coms, like "Raymond," the male is a not-so-bright bumbler, esp. in comparison to his wife.

Uuh, if that's a sign of feminization, it's not a recent thing. Thay guy is pretty much the same stereotype that Bill Cosby did so well in the 80's. Or hey, what about Fred flippin' Flintstone?

 

[Pure]

liar, i would agree to some extent, in that Cliff sometimes seemed less intelligent, assertive, and socially perceptive than his lawyer wife; but he was responsible, non-lazy and child-involved-- no doubt as a model Black husband. in these last three characteristics, Raymond clearly falls short.

incidentally, i think the 'feminization' thesis is meant to embrace the last 20-40 years. so if Cliff is somewhat of a 'Raymond,' that would support the thesis.
---
Added: If there is a 'feminization' trend (of which portraying inferior males would be a part), 'two and a half men' is an exception. i find it unique and refreshing (even if Charlie Harper's thinking is a bit retrograde). what do you think of the show?

 

[Liar]

Added: If there is a 'feminization' trend (of which portraying inferior males would be a part), 'two and a half men' is an exception. i find it unique and refreshing (even if Charlie Harper's thinking is a bit retrograde). what do you think of the show?

I don't watch it much. Because Charlie Sheen posesses less comic presence and timing than a dishwasher.

But that aside, it might differ a bit from the stereotype mold. But not that much. There is Chauvinistic Juvenile Man and Neurotic Whining Man. Together, they pretty much have a lot of the Homer Simpsn traits down to a pat. The women of the show are kind of in the margin. Can't say I remember them much. There was some ditzy stalker bi-figure in the episodes I saw.

Take other huge sitcoms of recent years, like Frasier, Friends or Seinfeld. Can't say that the Mumbling Dumbo Man stereotype fits like a glove there either. And the women are equally nuts, most of the time.

 

[sophia jane]

I don't know if this is part of what you're asking here, but I've recently done some research on gender differences in education (and will do more later, as its my topic for my major paper required for my graduation.) Anyway, it is commonly thought that girls do worse in school than boys, that they fall behind in the sciences, particularly, and that there is a definite bias toward boys in the way students are taught. This was true a few decades ago, for sure, but since the women's movement, etc, there has been a definite shift in the educational system. In general, now, it is boys who are falling behind and who are not getting what they need from their teachers.
This is just one example of a shifting in America toward women. The idea, of course, is for greater equality among the sexes. But, I have to say, I don't really like the idea of short changing men either. Sure women were screwed over for centuries and treated like property, but that doesn't make it okay to make men the villains for everything or make it okay to give women so much more priority so that men (and esp young boys) don't get what they need.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Halo_n_horns]

I've seen and heard this debate a number of times from a number of sources. Bill's assessment that America is becoming "feminized" is true in a number of aspects, but there are areas that this will almost assuredly not happen.

The media is easily to carry the biggest blame for this "feminizing" in that the mass majority of television and radio shows, and especially the commercials during the shows, are specifically geared towards women in a number of ways. The bumbling husband that's seen in so many sitcoms has become a regular character in commercials as well. Especially commercials for new cars. The very few advertising buyers that still have commercials catering to men are typically sports, tabacco and alcohol related. And even those have a great deal of crossover to get the feminine demographics.

In the court systems there has been a great number of changes that benefit women over men. I've seen, personally, instances where a woman used a blunt object to beat the crap out of her man and because he punched her in the nose to defend himself he received jail time and a mandatory "anger management" counseling that he had to pay for. I've also seen men get fleeced with vagina-mony in far more instances than the women having to pay the equivelant.

In the workplace women still say that they make less for doing the same job as the men, and some instances this is true. But consider also that men don't take time off for pregnancies and all the doctors visits that come with those. Men don't take time off for periods that come with cramping, and that's one that I've seen at most of the businesses that I've worked at. There are far more men in jobs that have life-threatening hazards. Etc., etc., etc.

But I sincerely believe that these are NOT statements of equality or the lack of. Its not that women can't do the same jobs as men in many instances. We just don't see scores of women lining up to be construction workers on highrise buildings, or firefighters, or miners, and so on. My mindset has always been that its instinctive that men and women are equals but on different plains.

Men are much more capable of compartmentalizing emotions from logical thought under great pressure. This makes men more valuable in work areas where tough decisions need to be made on a regular basis.

Women are much better, from what I've seen, at many of the multi-tasking jobs and things are detail oriented. Women seem to see everything from being a housewife to "just being" and executive assistant as demeaning jobs or jobs that make the women feel inferior in some way. Yet, they are jobs that a man could not do while trying to make a successful life for himself and his family. Granted, there are households where these roles are reversed, but they constitute the exceptions because their numbers are much fewer.

Men typically have greater body strength and endurance in physically demanding jobs.

Women, many of whom will see this as sexist or objectifying, typically have greater aesthetics and are therefore more pleasing to have working in sales positions or positions that deal largely with other women. Can a man sell high-end perfume and make a comission from it? Yes. Can he sell it as well as a woman who can much easier identify with a female clientele? Probably not. And I've known a couple of women who bring home excellent money on commissions from high-end products aimed at women.

I could go on here, easily. But the point is that the feminizing of America is, and has been happening for quite some time, yet both sides are equals, albeit in very different ways.

These things go on into a number of areas, but hopefully I've made some sense with this little bit.

 

[Xelebes]

I usually do not get involved in these threads, but there is a falicy at the root of this one.
Raymond as a bumbling husband is not 'new' by any stretch of the imagination in tv portrayals.

Lucy for all her antics was clearly portrayed as the more intelligent of her and Desi.
Gracie likewise was portrayed as the more intelligent of her and Burns, for all her bumbling.
Alice clearly had the upper hand over Jackiie Gleason.
This goes back even to radio as entertainment, and even futher in books.
They put a new name on it, new character names, but these are far from new stories and certainly not recent.

I think the key to comedic shows is to show the opposite of what we currently have, such that we may laugh at them at their troubles.

Or... er... something like that.

 

[Guest]

I must comment on this paragraph:

In the workplace women still say that they make less for doing the same job as the men, and some instances this is true. But consider also that men don't take time off for pregnancies and all the doctors visits that come with those. Men don't take time off for periods that come with cramping, and that's one that I've seen at most of the businesses that I've worked at. There are far more men in jobs that have life-threatening hazards. Etc., etc., etc.

So it is acceptable to pay women less than men because women are the ones who procreate? Is that what you're saying? It's permissible to punish women financially because they are women?

By the way, in most places of employment the time you take off for maternity leave is non-paid. So the 6 weeks (and believe me, that isn't nearly enough time to recuperate from nine months of pregnancy and six weeks of no sleep with a new baby) that many women take is very taxing to the household income.

Unless you believe the ol' gal oughtta jump right back in the saddle the very next day?

 

[BlackShanglan]

Many commericials are geared toward women because women still do the lion's share of the shopping for basic domestic goods and child-care products. Madison Avenue doesn't really care what cause it's advancing; if they were arrant feminists, they'd be unlikely to be producing commericials designed to make women paranoid about everything from their skin elasticity to their waistlines in order to sell them products to change them. Commercials featuring bumbling men are designed to appeal to women who feel that they spend their time (and shopping dollars) cleaning up male messes. Interestingly, if there weren't many women who thought that this was the case, it seems unlikely that the commericials would succeed. But given that they run side-by-side with beer commercials catering to males who crave buxom and available young women, I can't see much cause for accusations of bias.

I'd also posit this: if the male is a bumbling fool who continually causes problems (like, for example, Homer Simpson) and the woman is a brilliant domestic goddess who spends her life solving the problems created by his behavior - what's the power relationship there? It doesn't seem clear to me that the situation depeicted is one of female superiority, or at least one in which female superiority is rewarded in any useful way.

I believe that Halo is incorrect on the topic of stamina. Men are statistically more likely to build upper body strength. Women are more likely to possess greater stamina. They are also statistically likely to feel pain more intensely, but to manage and bear it better. But all of this is (or should be) irrevelant in the work place, because it deals with general trends that have no bearing on any specific individual. What he or she is statistically more likely to be like is not the issue. What matters is whether the individual is well-matched for the job chosen.

That cuts both ways. It is, I believe, arrant insanity to have two different target ranges for a grenade-throw exercise in the military (as I was told by an applicant there were) - one for men, one for women. The grenade doesn't care what sort of genitals the thrower has. If there's a minimum safe distance for its use, then people who can't throw it that far shouldn't be using them. That seems fairly simple and straightforward. Similarly, one should not be selecting interior designers or primary school teachers because one believes that women might be statistically more likely to do well. The candidate is an individual, and requires to be assessed as such. Women are statistically much less likely to be serial killers, but I'd think that cold comfort to the victims of Myra Hindley and Rosemary West - and the police would have been fools to have ruled them out based on the statistical balance of their genders.

There are some ideas that I think have had their day. Alimony for persons without children is, in my opinion, generally one of them. It's based on an old social structure, one in which a woman, once married and abandoned, was generally doomed to poverty or ignominy and was seen as tainted goods. Part of women taking a more active role in the workplace is taking responsibility for their new freedoms. I don't think it's appropriate, any longer, to suggest that a woman disappointed in her marriage should expect her ex-husband to continue to support her indefinitely. She is capable of supporting herself or of seeking the education she needs to become self-supporting. If that means doing so at a lower standard of living, it is asking no more of her than life would have asked had she never married in the first place. I think that there are exceptions that deserve to be examined; any spouse (male or female) who has sacrificed his or her own advancement for that of a spouse in a joint enterprise (putting him/her through medical school, etc.) is a partner to that joint enterprise and I think has some stake in the financial rewards. But in the simple case of no children and no substantial joint enterprise actions, I think a brief period of support while the less financially well-off spouse gets his or her affairs in order - say a year - as much as anyone can really claim is reasonable.

As for this business of claiming that holding someone responsible for breaking his or her word and/or breaching a legal contract is "feminine" - I confess I can't comprehend it. Marriage is a legal contract; hence the government's involvement in it in the first place. It is also an explicitly worded promise that in most states is legally required to include a promise of sexual fidelity. If one does not wish to make such a promise, one may by all means choose not to. But to break one's promise and violate a legal contract seems to me to be fairly straightforward grounds for legal and financial repercussions. It's curious to me that Maher could define this as "femininization" when it is in fact precisely the same result that would come with any other contractual violation in the "masculine" business world.

I've said before that I think the words "masculine" and "feminine" completely meaningless in this sense anyway, but even if we accept them as terms, the changes Maher cites are actually making marriage law and attendent treatment of it more "masculine." They are treating the contract in the same way as all other contacts rather than pretending that it's a special soft fluffy sort of contract that doesn't actually mean anything. Same thing with prostitution, really. If it's illegal, as it is in most of the United States, then it's a violation of the law, and therefore bad conduct. Treating it like all other laws is the "masculine," objective, unemotional and "tough decision" version of its treatment. Treating it as a special area that has to be handled with kid-glove delicacy strikes me as what Maher apparently thinks is "feminine."