Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    	Maybe men don't get upset by these things simply because they
    	do not see them as true.  Or at least they (at least I do) merely 
    	view a movie for entertainment and do not want to view it for
    	literary and artistic merit.  The more I think about that, the
    	more I believe that movie critics probably DID complain about
    	the depiction of males in Body Heat.
    
    	Maybe certain women get upset about the depiction of women in the
    	movies because it is closer than not to true.  Many times these
    	depictions ARE ones that are (or were) true, but are also ones
    	that the offended women want to change or dispel.  Perhaps women
    	dislike certain depictions, because in these depictions they can
    	see themselves.
    
    	Joe Oppelt

    
    If you feel insulted, excersize your freedom of choice upon the
    channel selector..

I think it's possible to have been manipulated by a woman and still have your
brain in the proper part of your anatomy. We've all been made a fool of at one
time or another, but we learn. (hopefully)

Regardless of how men might be portrayed in some of these movies, I still know
what I am.

Wes

This reminds me of a discussion that I once had with a lesbian friend
of mine.  Our conversation got into the topic of AIDS, then it got to
lesbians in the AIDS movement, then it went to anonymous gay sexual
encounters, and then it got to many lesbians not understanding male
sexuality (either by being male or by having sex with men).   At this 
point, my friend described the actual mechanics of her sexual arousal 
(it was fascinating to me; she described being aroused--slowly--over 
the course of days), and then she pantomined what it was like--from 
her perspective--for a man to get sexually aroused (she had been 
married at one time).

I never laughed so hard in my life.   Mainly because her portrayal was 
very accurate with what I've felt and seen.

She is the only woman--heterosexual, bi, or lesbian--who has convinced 
me that she has a good understanding of men's sexuality, to the point
of empathy, even.  When I hear most women talk about men's sexuality,
I detect an undercurrent of "Why can't they be more like us."  Well,
errr, we just aren't; we need to work with what we've been given.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not justifying criminal sex or lack of
control.  However, in my opinion, any person who says "Why do so many
men think with their crotches?" doesn't have a good understanding of
male sexuality.  And anyone who asks why we men might not object to
depictions of being swept away by sexual desire probably doesn't
understand how real a threat that is for men, and how our sexual
make-ups play into that obsessive/compulsive behavior more than
women's sexuality does (more women are bulemic/anorexic, more men are
sexually compulsive). 

If I can relate to something portrayed in a film, I tend not to object
to it.  When I look at films critically (for instance, in gay themes
and charaters), I look first for truth in that one film and then for
balance across lots of films.  I don't think that it is a bad idea to
portray men as being sexually compulsive or being thoughtless about
their sexual encounters.  However, I think it is a bad idea to portray
_all_ men in movies as being powerless over their sexual urges _all_
the _time_.  And I don't think this is happening across the board. 

There is also the traditional way of thinking: if men have the power 
in society, then we will let the women have the power over us in 
getting us into the bedroom.  A traditional trade-off, you might say.  
This might have something to do with some men's reluctance to complain 
about such depictions.  When one has a lot of control and power, it 
can be appealing to surrender control and power in one area: sexual 
attraction.  It also has the advantage of not being responsible for 
ones actions in one area of life, and that can be appealing to people 
who are enamored of control and power in all other aspects of their 
lives.  One chance to let go, in one area of life.

...but then again, who knows for sure.


							--Gerry

    Well, finally, someone besides me has brought up the topic of the media
    depiction of men!  Thank you. I have been watching the sitcoms,
    commercials, movies portray men in an increasingly more a negative light. 
    Thank goodness people can see through it all.  I expect I kind of brush this
    depiction off with a shrug because I am secure in my view of myself
    that I know these depictions are not true.
    
    If you want to see a negative portrayal of human
    beings as manipulative, deceitful and full of wiles, then view
    Dangerous Liaisons.  The two main characters, male and female,
    represent the depth of degradation humanity can reach.  The movie is a
    case study of the decay of French aristrocracy, but more so a study in
    human deceit, a deceit that is neither male or female, just plain old
    deceit.

    re .5, oh, I don't think Valmont was all bad.  I sort of liked him.
    He was charming, intelligent and witty, as well as deceitful.
    
    Lorna
    

	I tend to think that most men don't get too upset at the way the
	movies portray men is because men know the difference between
	reality and the movies. For myself I don't watch the movies to
	see reality. I'm living quite enough reality myself thank you.

	There are probably some men who are putty in a woman's hands. Most
	of them probably don't see anything wrong with it. Why would they
	object? Other men know that such charactors are not them. Men, that
	I know, don't seem to believe that they fit stereotypes or movie
	characterazations. They don't object to some fantasy role that they
	can't identify with themselves.

			Alfred

    This is as wild as being afraid of birds since having watched "The
    Birds" by A. Hitchcock!
    
    -dwight

    Are movies just movies?  IN some cases yes, in some no.  When they
    attempt the artistic, then they attempt to mirror life, or present a
    moral issue for consideration.  Such is the case for Rainmain, Kiss of
    the Spiderwoman, Field of Dreams, Beaches, Dangerous Liaisons, etc,
    etc.  In these cases the devevelopment and definition of character,
    rather than plot, is very close to reality.  It is these situations
    that I scrutinize for accuracy in  the portrayal of the human heart,
    either female or male.  For in these portrayals we seek to define,
    understand our inner selves, our hearts and souls.  
    
    So do not be so quick to write off "movies as movies" when yes clearly
    some are entertainment and whimsical, but others touch closer to home
    and become "classics" for their portrayal of some human condition. 
    Consider the timelessness of Casablanca, African Queen, It's a
    wonderful life, Of human bondage, etc.  It is in these movies that we
    recognize ourselves, our masculinity, our femininity, our humanity.
    
    I guess I get upset when I see our natures, either male or female or
    human, portrayed in the most negative, unrealistic, and degrading
    situations.  The sitcom Married with Children is the most offensive
    one I know of, both to women and men.
    
    Well, enough of this moralizing for today.  Just my opinions.

    my initial reaction to the base note:
    
    men don't complain loudly about such characterizations because men are
    not caught up in a movement which is trying to assert, change, and
    control the image others have of them.  i think men are generally
    comfortable with themselves, and don't feel threatened by such images.
    
    of course, i cannot possibly speak for "all" men...since i am just one of
    them.  but, i've lived for nearly 50 years now...and "think" i am
    right.
    
    tony

    I wouldn't be upset by *anything* Charlie Babbitt did - even if
    he sold Volkswagens!  ;-)  Yeow!
    
    I think .12 hit it - men are generally not displeased with the relative
    image they have in this society, since the images portrayed do not
    affect their job opportunites and do not result in taunts and jeers 
    by the opposite sex and/or rape and assault.  They are free to see the
    image as "just" an image since they do not live in a society where they
    are at the economic and physical mercy, (and I mean in a threatening 
    sense), of the opposite sex.  
    
    I've often asked men what they thought of their media portrayals and 
    every one of them just laughed and said something to the effect of, 
    "What's the big deal?"  You ask them if they mind being pandered to
    with a woman in a bathing suit trying to sell them tires and they don't
    really care!  Most of them seem to think, "Start pandering!"  
    
    The men I ask also say that if they were women they'd be the biggest 
    pigs going.  Which leads me to believe that although over and
    over again the image can *become* offensive to some men, basically
    they're so obsessed with sex and women that they willingly accept the
    label in exchange for the opportunities they believe such behavior
    brings them.
    
    If there weren't truth in it, Ted Danson's character would be more
    pathetic than funny, as would John Larroquette's character in Night
    Court.  But people laugh.  Because they can relate.

    RE -.1
    
    I think some men (myself included) are starting to see a pattern
    develop because men in general are so non-carring/upset at images
    portrayed  in the media and movies/TV. This pattern is to blame
    everything wrong with everything on men and white males more
    specifically. As a sidelight to this, white males of Italian decent are
    becoming very vocal about the portrayal of their people in movies and
    TV. If this continues by other groups, except white males, they (the 
    white males) by not 'defending themselves' will become even more the
    targets for negative characters. After all, you MUST have some negative
    characters in movies and TV.
    
    RE John Larroquette (sp) of Night Court: He is the sum of all the DOMs
    (dirty old men) that you have ever met. He is portrayed as shallow,
    singleminded and ruthless in his quests. I have met some people who
    meet these traits, but certainly no all men.
    
    Men can think with their big head, or with their little head. Many, not
    all men, if they were women would be looser than most women they know.
    
    Steve

    To Steve in .15
    
    This note has nothing to do with the topic and may generate a new one. 
    But, in a recent discussion with a person running Valuing Differences
    in DEC, I asked for a clarification of "white".  I was told that white
    generally "of European descent".  But here in the US it also has a
    narrow definition, Anglo-Saxon or northern European.
    
    Being of Southern European descent (French and Italian), I wonder if I
    should now list myself as non-white?   How do you feel about the media
    portrayal of your white or non-white maleness ethnic or
    Anglo-Saxon/Teutonic (or any other ethnic group)maleness?
    
    I, personally, have never had an affinity with stereotypicial Italian
    maleness because having lived in Italy, I  saw a different Italian male
    than that shown in the media.
    
    Likewise I lived in France, and the French males are not like Yves
    Montand, Maurice Chevalier, Jean-Paul Belmondo or others I know of.
    
    Having an English wife and extended family has also shown me the stiff
    upper-lip British male is far from the diverse range of males I have
    encountered in my family and visits to England.
    
    Maybe that is why men dismiss the stereotypes so readily.  They are a
    composite of all the good/bad (or whatever) within the whole of
    MANkind, but are not representative of a specific man.
    
    By the way all of the above also applies to women as well.

    There's a particular scene which haunts me: in "Annie Hall" Woody and
    Diane are shown in split screen, each answering the question "How often
    do you have sex?" They respond:
    
        Woody: Practically never - three times a week.
    
        Diane: Constantly - three times a week.
    
    I've always abhored the characterization of men as rutting animals...
    the men who "take" their women, to satisfy their "sexual needs,"
    regardless of the attitude of the woman. I'm never the seducer, always
    the seducee, because I hate that image so much. And Woody Allen's
    capsule depiction of an apparent disparity in male/female sex drives
    highlights my personal conflict: I won't (do anythink LIKE) insist, and
    my wife takes the initiative about as often as the Space Shuttle flies.
    
    - Hoyt
    

    RE .16
    
    I agree that 'ethnics' are still diverse. However, if you portray
    a group of people that are easily defined in a bad light, or in a
    stereotypical manner and it is never countered, it will eventually
    become the accepted truth. This is why I have a problem with the 
    white male be the source (if you listen to some groups) of all/most of
    mankinds/Americas problems. If males, and especially white males ignore 
    these protrayals and depictions for a generation or so, that new
    generation, having only having  been bad thing about this group, and
    not seeing any counter arguments, will tend to believe these negative
    portrayals and stereotypes. 
    	I believe this is happening now. The movies and TV are only the
    tip of the berg. 
    
    Steve

re .15 MAMIE::KEITH

>    I think some men (myself included) are starting to see a pattern
>    develop... This pattern is to blame everything wrong with everything 
>    on men and white males more specifically. 

Exactly.  Women have always lived with the negative consequences of the
images portrayed of them, (they don't seem smart enough for the good jobs,
they're stupid enough to get themselves raped, etc), and as such, have had 
problems with those images.

Men traditionally have not had negative consequences from media images of men
so traditionally haven't been concerned.  "It's only a movie".  Women know
different.  And now, because of feminism, some men are beginning to see that
our media is as pervasive as religion and that there may be undesireable
consequences for men because of the "tenets" of that media.  As usual,
I think the more feminist among men will notice it first - notice that
they don't *want* to be portrayed as, (and consequently thought of as),
hormones with feet.

> If males, and especially white males ignore these protrayals and de-
> pictions for a generation or so, that new generation, having only having
> been bad thing about this group, and not seeing any counter arguments, 
> will tend to believe these negative portrayals and stereotypes. 

I would amend that with only one thing - not so much that they don't see
any counter arguments, but that everyone is convinced that such counter
arguments represent only the unusual and the unique - a fluke.

Take a look at what the average 16 year old girl thinks about men.  I think
an ever-increasing number of them believe men are hopelessly lust and
control-driven and marriage to them is often just a disastrous waste of 
time and not nearly as rewarding as a good job and a good lay.

The sooner men see the danger *to themselves* in these images, the sooner
they'll become just as intolerant about them as women are.  Most of the men
of our generation still have the traditional dominant stance of being
untouchable.  Your sons won't have a chance.  Many of them are already
embracing the hopless Bart Simpson as their hero, convinced, (by whom?),
perhaps that men are 'stupid' and 'to blame for everything' anyway.

> I believe this is happening now. The movies and TV are only the
> tip of the berg. 
    
Amen. 
    

    Re .17
    
    My husband takes the initiative as often as your wife!
    
    I am ALWAYS the initiator with not much enthusiasm shown in return.
    I find this interesting, frustrating, and sometimes demoralizing. 
    
    However it is not a perfect world we live in!
    
    
    

    A few thoughts:
    
    In these notes, no one is distinguishing between comedies and dramas,
    which have quite different purposes. Comedies are meant to be satirical
    in nature, and make fun of our faults, so getting outraged about them
    is silly; everyone is sent up in "Married With Children" or "Roxanne"
    or "Cheers"; their pretensions are skewered on a regular basis. Drama
    on the other hand, is meant to be a realistic depiction  of things as
    they are, although many Hollywood dramas are as fantasy material as
    well. Hollywood, in general, re-inforces stereotypes, rather than
    breaking them; their depiction of minorities is as shameful as their
    depiction of women.
    
    Most men I know dismiss soap operas out of hand, as being unreal. In
    the world of soaps, men are but tools to be manipulated by women.
    As men don't take these depictions seriously, they are not offended.
    
    I don't usually go to movies to escape from reality; I think reality
    is generally more interesting than fantasy, so I don't see a lot of
    movies. Hollywood fantasy gets very predictable, reality is full of
    newness.
    
    I think more poisonous messages than the idea that men think with
    their genitals, are the other Hollywood messages, that men are strong,
    silent, totally self-reliant, unemotional, and impervious to pain.
    
    -roger
    

  
   > that men are strong, silent, totally self-reliant, unemotional, 
   > and impervious to pain.
    
   The fact that some of us are make it not necessarily a stereotype...
   
    

    what, Robert, no smiley face?
    

    
    The women I talk to *LOVE* both richard gere and mickey rourke.
    Both these *ACTORS* treat women "in movies" as objects.  Yet the
    gals go gaga over it.    
    j

    If you find the *right* woman, it works in the real world too !
    
    Jerry (who knows it for a fact ...)

    
    There are *no* right women..

    > There are *no* right women..
    
    Bob, there's a word for that attitude:
    
    misogyny
    (mi soj <schwa>  ne, mi-), n.
    hatred of women.
    [ <  Gk misogynia hatred of women. See MISO-, GYN-, -Y 3]--misogynic,
       misogynous, misogynistic, adj.--misogynist, n.
    
    Check out "Don Juan in Hell", I bet you'd like it...
    
    	-- Charles

    > Ah, then gay men are misogynists (they must also say "there
    > are no right women").
    
    The difference is that gay men say "There is no right woman for me."
    Only a misogynist says "There are no right women - period."
    
    Further, last I checked Bob Holt did not claim to be a gay man. In
    fact, last I knew he claimed to be "het" (or "Straight" - wouldn't want
    to not offend someone accidentally.) Of course you might know better.
    Do you?
    
    > Hmm, and people who marry into their own race are bigots.
    
    I wouldn't know about that. :-) I'll take your word for it, you may
    well be more expert than I on that particular subject.
    
    > See, I can be just as silly as you can.
    
    I doubt it. But who asked you to try, anyway? Are you just being
    gratuitously silly, are you just disagreeing because it was me who said
    it, or are you disagreeing because you agree with Bob? If so, you are a
    misogynist too. It would not surprise me.
    
    	Have a NICE day.
    	-- Charles

>    > There are *no* right women..
    
>    Bob, there's a word for that attitude:

 Charles,

 I have a tough time believing that Bob is misogynistic because of that 
statement, especially in the context of the previous notes (in which a "right
woman" was defined as one who accepted being treated poorly by her male lover.)
I think you are parsing the statement as "women are bad," a translation which
I believe to be in error (though Bob can elucidate and eliminate the guessing
game).

 The Doctah

>	Ah, then gay men are misogynists (they must also say "there
>    are no right women").

Don't you think it might be nice to ask the gay members of this file 
instead of inventing something?  I know that there was probably some 
humor intended here, but this is reinforcing a myth about gay men.

Being a gay man has nothing to do with women and everything to do with 
men.  It is ego-centric of heterosexuals to view homosexuality in the 
context of failed heterosexuality ("they couldn't love women, so...").

I passionately and romanticly love men.  This says nothing about my 
relationships with women.

							--Gerry

    
    
    Thank you, Gerry!!!  To put it in my own words:  I'm not capable of
    physically (sexually) loving women.  I've tried (15+ years ago) --
    there was, shall we say, no response.  I'm capable of physically loving
    men.  None of this is to say that I'm not capable of emotionally loving
    both women and men.  There are some men I dislike -- there are some
    women I dislike.  To equate "being gay" with "disliking women", even
    when said in humor, well, I find it extremely offensive.  The
    stereotypes that I try so very hard to overcome are, indeed,
    perpetuated by such (seemingly) innocent humor.
    
    	Greg

...we aren't gay because we hate women.  Women--sexually speaking--are a 
moot point.

							--Ger

    Oawwwww Come on guys?!
    
    do we have to use the "M" word here too?????
    
    Tis bad enough that in other files, males are accused of hating women,
    but to see it here, in MENNOTES, is pathetic.....

>>> There are *no* right women..

>> Bob, there's a word for that attitude:

> I have a tough time believing that Bob is misogynistic because of that
> statement,

Me too. :-) I think that if Bob IS misogynistic, that it isn't because of that
statement... :-)

> especially in the context of the previous notes (in which a
> "right woman" was defined as one who accepted being treated poorly by her
> male lover.)  I think you are parsing the statement as "women are bad," a
> translation which I believe to be in error (though Bob can elucidate and
> eliminate the guessing game).

I was judging from Bob's penchant for what I consider "cheap shot" one liner
replies, and his previously expressed attitudes. However, you are right about
how I parsed his note, you are probably right that I am mistaken, and you are
certainly right that we are playing a guessing game.

My apologies. I'll go back to picking on Mike Zarlenga's more obviously and
admittedly silly note.

Hey Mike! In the tone of your mock serious questions:

So, then it's ok to offend people as long as it's not serious? You know -
"f*ck 'em if they can't take a joke." Is considering other people's attitudes
too "PC"? or is it just wimpy?

	-- Charles
    

    
    Charles, I fear you have misunderstood.
    
    My answer was actually considered and thoughtful, though
    necessarily short (gotta get work done too, as you well
    know -;).
    
    Someone was intimating that "the right woman" would have an
    effect on a gay man's libido. My "cheap shot" was a reply
    to that statement.
    
    There are no such magicians extant, if my (limited) understanding of
    gay men is anywhere near correct.
    
    Whatever gave you the impression that I am even the slightest bit
    misogynous? Women are valid members of the human race, and, as suprising 
    and as hard as it may be to understand, I bear them no ill will. 
    
    I do have a weakness for "cheap shots", though... Are you recommending
    a 12 step program?
    

    Re: .39
    
    > Charles, I fear you have misunderstood.
    
    You're right, I did. My apologies.
    
    > Whatever gave you the impression that I am even the slightest bit
    > misogynous?
    
    How about over a beer sometime? Somehow I feel that this is not the
    place. You still in Mountain View?
    
    > I do have a weakness for "cheap shots", though... Are you recommending
    > a 12 step program?
    
    Cheap shot, Bob. :-)
    
    	-- Charles

    Re: .36 By AMARTIN (Alan?)
    
    > Oawwwww Come on guys?!
    
    > do we have to use the "M" word here too?????
    
    > Tis bad enough that in other files, males are accused of hating women,
    > but to see it here, in MENNOTES, is pathetic.....
    
    I'm glad to see that "knee-jerk" and "liberal" aren't completely
    inseperable. Or are you claiming that your note had some relationship
    to the particulars of this case? Sounds to me like "misogyny" is not
    "PC" to you.
    
    By the way, I admire your rapier wit and keen logic.
    
    	-- Charles

    
    You don't owe me any apologies, Charles...but the brew would hit the 
    spot after a day of twiddling with dbx(1)..;-)  
    

    If we may get back to the topic of the base note:
    
    This weekend I watched the movie "Major League" with my wife and her
    70+ parents. We'd selected it because my in-laws LOVE it and have been
    showing it to all their friends. It IS a pretty good movie, by the way.
    
    There's tons of HollywoodMen in the movie, but one scene in particular
    was disturbing. The wife of a baseball player has seen her slime-ball
    second-basemen husband leaving a nationally-televised victory
    celebration party with another woman, so she retaliates by dressing up
    sexy and going after her husband's main antagonist on the baseball
    team, a pitcher. She walks up to the pitcher in a bar, and announces
    that she thinks he's the SEXIEST thing she's ever seen. His response is
    to look at her for no more than three seconds, then turn and ask the
    barkeeper for a check, so they can go home together.
    
    It was the usual characterization: Men are about as mindless as plants,
    only instead of turning to face the sun, they follow women home. We're
    vulvatropic. The pitcher knew exactly NOTHING about this woman, except
    that she looked good in a dress, AND SHE WAS WILLING. The movie made
    this a plot feature: he asks her her name, as she puts her dress on in
    the morning (!), and she mentions that she's the second basemen's wife.
    And naturally, the guys work it out in the end by winning the big game,
    punching each other, then hugging. Yuck.
    
    Has any (straight?!) male out there ever turned down a chance to have
    sex, for reasons which require any higher-reasoning abilities? I have,
    I think, but I'm not sure after watching too many movies.
    
    - Hoyt

Re: 43 

Yes, but I think if you put together a man and woman who had been influenced by
films such as this you'd get a different answer. I don't see why fewer men than
women should fall victim to cinemas greatest lie, that sex has to happen within
1 hr 33 mins of you meeting (so as to fit the scene into the film).


Mark (who is sorry if he made this point already)

    Re: .43, yes.  I believe the ignored line was:  "I'd do anything for
    a good grade."

    There appear to be two themes at work, and I should like to quickly
    address each:
    1. Men depiction in the medias - I resent the depiction of a male as
    a fumbling imcompetent.  Ignoring sex (see below) I was raised on a
    farm and can weld, wire, glue, carpenter, plumb, etc etc, if not at a
    professional level, at least as well as those I see hired.  The
    "Flintstone" kind of idiot image offends me.
    2. Men and SEX.  Please, look at the hydrolic problem.  Men are
    physically different from women.  Wonen TEND to have about a monthly
    libido cycle.  The male gets horney when the Vas Deferins gets full.
    One proof of God's sense of humor is the general rule that women peak
    sexually at 35, and men at 17.  We just have incompatable plumbing.
    I have been happily married 30 years, and have learned to live with the
    incompatability of cycles.
    The MEDIA seeks to get your interest, and that requires CONFLICT. 
    Without CONFLICT things are boring.  We are the dominant animal
    because we thrive on conflict.  The Female-Male conflict is just one of
    the gimmicks used to hold your interest.    Phil

>    1. Men depiction in the medias - I resent the depiction of a male as
>    a fumbling imcompetent.  Ignoring sex (see below) I was raised on a
>    farm and can weld, wire, glue, carpenter, plumb, etc etc, if not at a
>    professional level, at least as well as those I see hired.  The
>    "Flintstone" kind of idiot image offends me.

Is the problem that all men in the media are portrayed as fumbling 
incompetants?  Or is it that blue collar men are portrayed as fumbling 
incompetants?  I'm not so sure that this is as much a men's issue as 
it is a class issue.

As I type this, I cannot think of a single depiction of a plumber in 
movies that didn't paint him as an idiot.  The scene that first comes 
to mind is the one with the plumbers in "Brazil."

Perhaps the issue is showing more respect towards blue-collar workers, 
and not preying on the "fumbling" stereotype.


						--Gerry