| Posted: 07 December 2006 at 6:05pm | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
The feminized culture has resulted in the backlash against men. Where once a guy like Reed Richards was looked upon as someone to be admired, a brilliant man of action beyond reproach, he is now categorized as either a cold, calculating machine or a completely clueless dork.
Father figures in America today are generally supposed to be flabby, football-loving morons who are inadequate in bed and forget to put the seat down. Women love this view of men until it comes time to find one to marry. Then they want dependable, upright, men of action who will give them multiple orgasms and healthy children and safe homes. Mr. Fantastic from 1964 in other words. The father on the box for a train set from the 1950s was a handsome middle-aged guy building a train set "with your son". He's having a blast. The kid's having a blast. That's how men viewed themselves and their world back then. Now those men are irascible slope-brows on sitcoms. Whether the 1950s man was a caricature and a lie any more than the current pussy-whipped hairless ape, it's hard to say. I like to believe at least boys had something to look up to, rather than deride.
So even if these men these women eventually seek are Mr. Fantastic, they are still stereotyped now as buffoons, even if they are not. In a feminized culture, men do not have the need or the means to protect or safeguard what is important to them. They are assured that there is someone in authority to take care of them and theirs. Rather than be able to survive on their own, or die on their own if need be, they are never given the scenario to prove themselves, or find out what their limits are. FIGHT CLUB was in part a reaction to this sort of thing.
The publishing industry, once a place where men found ample fiction suited to their tastes, has little or no interest in male-oriented fare. Men are not the ones reading. Women and teenage girls are reading, or so we're told. There's a Richard Stark or Joe Haldeman or Joe Lansdale working still, but they don't write fiction that women want to read at all. And it's a shame. Recently I got into a discussion about Hemingway with some literate older fellows during Thanksgiving. The women all looked like we were talking about rebuilding a transmission, just completely dismissive. The discussion wasn't about whether Hemingway was a great man, it was about a writer who was tortured to his grave by insecurity, but still a great writer. It's tiring to have to justify Hemingway in this day and age, or Connery's Bond, or lurid Nick Carter novels, or Blaxploitation films or films from the 40s and 50s, because women dislike the misogyny they sense in them.
In the feminized society, every one of these things is taken out of context, as are men themselves, and redefined as stupid, offensive, or generally beneath notice. In the current view, to be "feminine" is to be intelligent. To be "male", is to be perverse.
I want women to have every single opportunity and right men have (except frontline combat...it's pointless whether they can do it, it's a morale killer for anyone to watch anyone die, but watching a woman die has to be worse), to make every cent a man makes for the same amount of time and effort. But the willingness of men to allow themselves to believe they are simpering time-wasters and nothing more is a kind of poison, I believe. A psychological de-nutting that doesn't allow for men to be what they are, rather than what women believe we are. And I love to be loved by women, but they should have as open a mind about those films and books of male-oriented fare espoused by creators like Sam Peckinpah and John D. MacDonald. There's a place for it, and it is needed I believe. Desperately.
Edited by Chad Carter on 07 December 2006 at 6:08pm
|
Topic Closed)
