|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While the portrayal of men as fathers has been devolving in the media over the last few decades the problem is even larger than the "father as dufus" image mentioned in the article. The real insidious problem lies in the way father's are seen as parents even when these images are supposedly positive.
Even when the images of fathers as parents are positive they are usually related to women and mothers in the show. When a problem with children arises the father in a show is often saved or taught the right way to handle the problem by a maternal mother image. (It is shocking how often this happens once one becomes aware of the trend.) Phone calls to mothers for help, a talk from a wife, a girlfriend or even a daughter all some of the methods used to undermine the notion that males have the ability to handle parenting without help from a woman. (I also have research paper examining the portrayal of fathers in the film "Mrs. Doubtfire" If anyone is interested.)
I am doubtful of the notion that the tide is shifting in the media toward a more positive portrayal of fathers as long as parenting is seen as a natural condition for women and an unnatural one for men.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think television as a medium should be all but dismantled. This one way medium has to be questioned at every turn simply because of its impact on society. People watch this shit and believe it, they are "indoctrinated" by it. If all the cookies are from the same cutter how will we know the difference. Now, Im not suggesting some sort of mass conspiracy against men just yet, but the industry shows these programs because the industry can sell them. It has to be that simple.
But why are they selling it, how did this become so popular, whose buying it?
I am suggesting women watch these programs as a form of "empowerment". Commercial execs like to soft soap their clients it makes it easier to sell the product.
But what we have as Worhal questioned "does art reflect life, or does life reflect art?"
It is clear that life is reflecting art and that we can be conditioned to think, act and re-act in certain ways, wholescale, for whatever purpose. If this trend of "Devolution" continues men will evolve into the ultimate useless ornament in every house. Raising tension and hostility. Reason being, if men do not conform to this bumbling boob role the "common sence" reaction will go missed and rifts will be created.
I mean seriously ask yourself, why have something around that is useless, ignorant, incapable and whatever other derogatories you would like to add to the list? If this is the constant message one recieves eventually it makes its dent into the psyche' and one will believe it.
What is its meaning, what is it trying to tell us, who are they trying to get their message across to? Why do they feel these are the right solutions to our lives? Why are they trying to tell us these things?
The questions may sound paranoid, but they are just questions. Don't be afraid to ask.
It is one giant classification of an entire group of people a right and natural birth group. They are not just fathers, they are the male of the species that are being portrayed. But it all comes down to marketting and demi-graphs and bread and butter techniques for selling these shows. I doubt we will be able to cancel them or change them over night, but what I do believe is-we can come up with a "response mechinism" in order to deal with it. It could be as simple as saying "you're watching to much television" or " Sorry , I didnt watch Raymond last night, how did he deal with it? Call his mommy?". Whatever. Regardless; this is the condition we are faced with, we have to both dissarm its ignorance and still get along peaceably within our environment. There are definitely more ways to do this you will have to think about it, but it can be done.
Personally; I think our own lives are a great deal more interesting.
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is interesting that this article mentioned CBS's "Misandry Monday" lineup of Everybody Loves Raymond, Yes Dear, and The King of Queens. This is part of a larger media portrayal of fathers (and men by extension) as boorish and inadequate at best. These programs come on soon after the evening news, where the media tends to concentrate on men who are murderers, rapists and abusers (milking that theme for all it's worth). And don't forget the inane commercials that exort a materialistic society to purchase yet more products by portraying fathers and men in the same negative light (presumably an effort to appeal to female consumers).
And then the networks wonder why viewership is down. Men have suffered an accumulation of insults in the media and general society, and are reacting by turning away from many destructive aspects of this phenomenon.
Attached to your TV is a plug that connects into the wall. I exhort men who are sick of male bashing in the media to exercise their right to unplug their TVs, thus sparing themselves from the worst of the anti-male onslaught in the media. There are more constructive ways to use one's time.
Steve aka Equalitarian62
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And then the networks wonder why viewership is down. Men have suffered an accumulation of insults in the media and general society, and are reacting by turning away from many destructive aspects of this phenomenon."
In the past two days I have had two calls from seperate newspapers trying to sell me delivered papers. I tell these telemarketers that the reason I stopped buying their paper is because of misandry in the editorial slants etc... I ask them if they know what misandry is, even if they say yes I tell them anyways. They can call me a kook or whatever they want, but hey they called me. Plus I believe what Im saying is true. Funny, I try to keep them on the line, poor bastards. I wish I had thought of this sooner.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 24, @09:43AM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"According to a survey conducted two years ago by the National Fatherhood Initiative, father characters were eight times as likely as mothers to be shown negatively on prime time network TV. Rating characters on factors such as engagement, guidance and competence, the group found 35 percent of fathers shown in a positive light."
This is a gross understatement. Even the Ads that run to support these shows negatively typecast men. This type of misandry isn't just in adult sitcoms. It now starts in programming geared toward children too.
The biggest issue for Men's Rights Activists should be to correct the continual devolution of masculinity in major the media outlets. As this article mentioned, life is imitating art, and the negative portrayal of men in the media is effecting the credibility of fathers (and men) across the country, and exposing generations of children without fathers in their home to the "father as bumbling ape" stereotype.
How much of this sexism against men is a direct result of feminist influence in the media? I think a lot. Part of moving the feminist agenda into full effect is the direct devaluation of masculine, fatherly (patriarchal) value systems in society. It seems that the major media outlets have become THE medium upon which this social erosion is taking place, and the feminists have a strong say in how gender is represented in such mediums.
Some small steps we can all take:
1.Don't buy from any advertiser that supports shows that depict men as fools.
2. Any advertiser supporting a misandric show should be added to a (new) section of the "media watch" page that tracks misandry enabling advertisers. (By the way, the media watch page here is pathetic, it only represents the 'tip of the iceberg' in a sea of misandry)
3. Turn the TV off.
4. Plan quality events with your children.
CJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First off, the word "devolution" was specially used by the author. The correct word is still evolution. Evolution does not necessarily mean progress, just evolvement and men are evolving into something that is unacceptable.
They are slowing dehumanizing men and de-valueing them every step of the way. (Whoever "they" are). We have to stand up and fight, turning the tv off isnt enough(but its a great start). We have to confront these people on their practices head on. Sure not buying their products etc... may help, but they are not targetting us anyways, they are targetting women who buy most of the goods. Women shop! It's that simple.
I liken this to John Carpenter's movie, (art also reflects life)"They Live". Where the main character had to pass around the focal lenses to show people how to "see" what was happening.
Turning off the tv is a great idea, but we are still surrounded by it. We have to take self defense measures here and learn as many tactics as we can. We have to expose to more and more people of what is happening on our televisions and other media. And explain how it can harm us in the long run.
We have to smash the signal and show the truth. Women complain of being objectified on television as bimbos, maybe there is something to it, but no one is making laws to force women to wear bi-kinnis and ruining their lives if they don't.
Society will not respect us and will devalue us. I think this message should be taken to judges and juries all over. Let alone everywhere else. Challenge their thinking. It is very connected to the "best interest of the child standard". That standard is created by the Judge not some guidline. But if the guideline is dictated to him by outside influences (unless he/she lives in a vacuum) the judge will mark points against the father because of his sex and the perceptions comercialism has instilled into the judge.
And obviosly this goes for every other area of life. Society is treating men rudely on a wholescale basis. This is creating massive hostility for both sexes. People need to be awakened to this.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 24, @02:02PM EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
"First off, the word "devolution" was specially used by the author" -DL
This is obvious. I liked the way the author used this word, so I used it in my posting on this subject.
And, my suggestions on this matter are by design simple, and can be employed by anyman (or woman). Your suggestions in dealing with this matter are a bit more reactionary (that's OK though, I generally like your style).
CJ
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" Your suggestions in dealing with this matter are a bit more reactionary (that's OK though, I generally like your style). "
Years of Self-Defence training has conditioned my mind that way I think.
But expanding our tactics and abilities is good, exchanging these ideas will strengthen us. Thanks CJ.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
""Your suggestions in dealing with this matter are a bit more reactionary (that's OK though, I generally like your style).""
reactionary: adj. -opposed to progress or reform. -n. a person who favours reactionary polices. (cited from oxford dict)
Is this how you see me?? Is that what you meant? Just trying to understand. Im not insulted just clearifying for future reference. : )
.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 24, @10:41AM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
National Review
June 14, 2002
The Marriage Trap
Why feminists won't talk about dad.
by Tom Sylvester
For a disturbing look at the cultural status of fatherhood this Father's
Day, a recent cover illustration for New York magazine says it all. Under
the headline "BABY PANIC," a sophisticated-looking, presumably childless
woman muses, "Investment bankers are so last year.what I need is a SPERM
bank." Not a man, mind you, much less a husband (they're so last century,
I suppose).
Though an extreme example, the New York cover is sadly representative of
the media firestorm surrounding Sylvia Ann Hewlett's latest book, Creating
a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children. Warning of a
"crisis of childlessness" among professional women who neglect their
biological clock, Hewlett provided more than enough spark to re-ignite the
"career vs. family" debate. On television and in print, everyone's been
talking about the tough choices women face. Some feminists are criticizing
Hewlett for supposedly trying to urge young women onto the Mommy Track;
others with a more explicit anti-child streak are bitterly defensive.
Conservatives are saying, "I told you so." And single women are freaking out.
But hardly anybody is talking about dad. Discussion about the role of
fathers has been notably absent, as if having and raising kids is the sole
province of women. This is a shame, for not only is greater father
involvement needed to help overburdened working mothers, research clearly
shows that father presence is important to the well being of children.
The New Republic's Michelle Cottle picked up on this disregard for dads
and powerfully argued that feminists are letting men off easy. By engaging
in a fruitless attack on biological fact, she writes, feminists ignore the
reality that women won't have social equality until men do more at home.
Unfortunately, Cottle neglects to explore why many feminists aren't vocal
about demanding more from dads. For though family-work conflict remains a
"women's issue," the irony is that the Feminist Left wants to keep it that
way. Other than occasional lip service, groups like the National
Organization for Women and the Feminist Majority don't actively exhort
fathers to get more involved. Nor do they ever expound upon the benefits
of father involvement for moms and kids. This is not because feminists
hate men, though. It's because they're afraid of falling into a trap in
which they would be forced to admit the importance of marriage.
If daddy should be expected to bear his share of the dueling demands of
career and kids, you're assuming that daddy is around. If you talk about
mom and dad, you're talking about two parents. Which means you might be
concerned that 33 percent of American children live in homes absent their
father. You might be troubled by the fact that 33 percent of all births -
and 68 percent of births to black women - occur out of wedlock. Or that
three-quarters of children born to cohabiting parents will see their
parents split up before they turn 16. And since all available evidence
suggests that marriage is the most effective pathway to nurturing,
involved fatherhood, perhaps you'd even have to acknowledge that the best
setting for an equal parenting partnership (and, incidentally, for raising
kids) is a married, two-parent family.
And that would be apostasy for the Feminist Left. Just look at their
reaction to the growing fatherhood and marriage movements, which promote
responsible fatherhood and stable, healthy marriages. For instance, "The
Marriage Movement: A Statement of Principles," signed by a diverse group
of over 100 prominent scholars and civic leaders, states, "The empirical
evidence is quite clear: Marriage is our best hope of fostering involved,
effective, nurturing fathers.Support for marriage, we emphasize, does not
require turning back the clock on desirable social change, promoting male
tyranny, or tolerating domestic violence.Nor do we seek to denigrate
single mothers."
Pretty straightforward, innocuous stuff, no? Well, no. NOW sees something
darker. "The marriage movement is giving women the message that a bad
husband and father is better than none at all. Single moms are being
demonized," warned NOW President Kim Gandy. "NOW is committed to
exposing and organizing against this deliberate return to the days of
unchallenged male control." To NOW, "The message is clear: the pro-marriage,
anti-divorce, pro-fatherhood advocates see the progress women have made
toward equality as a feminist-instigated culture of family destruction."
It is understandable that feminists would be wary of efforts to advocate
the importance of fatherhood and marriage. After all, they're feminists.
But that is no excuse for overheated, dishonest rhetoric - the constant
assertions that pro-marriage initiatives would coerce women into abusive
relationships. Even worse, such hyperbole could undermine the credibility
of the valuable work feminist groups accomplish combating violence against
women.
(Speaking of domestic violence, it should be noted that marriage tends to
be the safest place for women. The 1999 National Crime Victimization
Survey reveals that never-married mothers are more than twice as likely to
suffer domestic violence than mothers who are or have ever been married.)
Along with concerns about domestic violence, their support for same-sex
parenting prevents feminists from enthusiastically holding dads
accountable. If feminists were to talk at length about the importance of
fathers being equal partners in child rearing, no doubt social
conservatives would jump upon such statements and insist that, ergo,
Heather should not have two mommies.
But feminists need not be so myopic. Regardless of what one thinks about
gay and lesbian parenting, the reality is that the vast majority of the 19
million children living in single-parent homes grow up not without their
parent's same-sex partner, but without their father. Ignoring the
importance of fathers may or may not help the case for same-sex marriage,
but it certainly isn't helpful for child well being overall. Claiming that
"the presence of a man available for parenting is of dubious benefit," as
University of Florida law professor Nancy Dowd does, is to run into a
brick wall of social science and common sense.
Fortunately, not all feminists agree with Dowd. Janet Gornick recently
made a feminist case for fathers to take a more active parenting role
within marriage. "The rise of egalitarian marriage and the strengthening
of fatherhood," she writes, "could produce healthier children who are
enriched by the balance in their parents' lives and by more contact with
their fathers." Getting dad more involved might also create more stable
marriages. A nationally representative study found that men with
traditional attitudes toward marriage and family life were more likely to
divorce than men with egalitarian attitudes. Mom benefits from more equal
relationships, the kids from more time with dad and having mom and dad
stick together.
Even though feminists overestimate the degree to which gender differences
can be deconstructed away in daily life, there is plenty of room for an
engaging, productive debate. There are also encouraging signs. Fathers in
two-parent families today are spending more time with their children than
their counterparts did two decades ago. In a national survey by the
Radcliffe Public Policy Center, a resounding 96 percent of Americans
agreed that fathers and mothers should share equally in the caretaking of
children. Yet this won't happen without marriage. In theory, feminists are
happy to have fathers join mothers in asking, as a pair, "How can we
balance work and family?" Too bad they don't insist upon it.
NRO Home: http://www.nationalreview.com/
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
