Syndicate
Special Thanks To...
The following organizations were early supporters of Mensactivism.org, and we thank them for their support. If you'd like to trade links with us, see our Mensactivism.org supporters page.
"Lost in Castration"
Submitted by Matt on Mon, 2009-01-19 18:59
I never thought I'd see it. But anyone who knows even a little of Dirk Benedict's background knows he isn't afraid to tell it like it it. Read it here. Title: "Lost in Castration". Excerpt:
'Starbuck was meant to be a lovable rogue. It was best for the show, best for the character and the best that I could do. The Suits didn’t think so. “One more cigar and he’s fired,” they told Glen Larson, the creator of the show. “We want Starbuck to appeal to the female audience for crying out loud.” You see, the Suits knew women were turned off by men who smoked cigars, especially young men. How they “knew” this was never revealed. And they didn’t stop there. “If Dirk doesn’t quit playing every scene with a girl like he wants to get her in bed, he’s fired.” This was, well, it was blatant heterosexuality, treating women like “sex objects.” I thought it was flirting. Never mind, they wouldn’t have it. I wouldn’t have it any other way, or rather Starbuck wouldn’t. So we persevered, Starbuck and I. The show, as the saying goes, went on and the rest is history for, lo and behold, women from all over the world sent me boxes of cigars, phone numbers, dinner requests, and marriage proposals.
...
There was a time, I know I was there, when men were men, women were women and sometimes a cigar was just a good smoke. But 40 years of feminism have taken their toll. The war against masculinity has been won. Everything has turned into its opposite, so that what was once flirting and smoking is now sexual harassment and criminal. And everyone is more lonely and miserable as a result.'
- Log in to post comments
Comments
The new Starbuck
Actually I rather like the new Starbuck as well as the whole new series. I understand where Dirk is coming from entirely, though. The acting and development in the new series is phenomenal but indeed, the male characters are, overall, total shmucks.
It seems H-wood is hell-bent on *not* having it both ways, which is really too bad. It can be done-- I know it can, I've seen it!
I must admit when I read the
I must admit when I read the title of this article, it sent a chill down my spine. I'm glad that it was just a euphemism.
I see what Dirk means, though. It seems that nowadays in movies and on television for that matter, the heroes tend to be more like girly men, and less masculine than the heroes of earlier times. A good example which was mentioned in the article was smoking. It seems you actually see women smoking more often than men on the big screen these days. Generally, the heroes just aren't as macho as they used to be.
But that's not really a bad thing per se. Sometimes I get tired of males being held up to this unrealistic masculine image, which almost none of us could be. I'd rather see more diverse characters. Besides, as Matt said, you can have it both ways. It's possible for a male character to be manly, but still sensitive, and intelligent.
Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!
Actually I rather like the
Actually I rather like the new Starbuck as well as the whole new series...the acting and development in the new series is phenomenal
and then...
the male characters are, overall, total shmucks.
Aren't you contradicting yourself? Maybe you like it because the women act masculine and the men act feminine.
Take a look at the pictures posted with the article, Starbuck looks like a lesbian and acts like one too. The whole show is feminist/lesbian fantasy, women acting like men and men acting like women. And you think it's "phenomenal"? Why are men like you interested in mens rights if you support feminist propaganda? I'm sick of feminist men and women trying to make everyone believe women can be just like men, they can't, and the idiot men who actually come around to liking it and supporting it. See what happens when you treat the female Starbucks of the real world like an equal. Their masculinity act will be exposed for the fraud it is and you'll be locked up.
Indeed
Yes, it does seem contradictory.
I don't find the female Starbuck unappealing, possibly because the actress herself is 1) hot and 2) her actual personality is nothing like her character's - but I agree that she has more testosterone in her left arm as Starbuck than the Lee Adama character has in his entire body. But that doesn't make her a bad person-- it makes her a woman with masculine traits.
The point I think of Dirk's article is that it is now all right for women to be either feminine or macho (or both) in TV/movies but not all right for men to have the same range of options of self-expression. Before, men had to be macho. Now, they have to be not-macho ("Please, anything but THAT!"). In fact no man can be macho nor can any man be both at different times in the same character. If a man is actually portrayed as macho then he is always made out to be some sort of villain or his macho-ness exists exclusively to serve the interests of women (eg: macho cop character types on such TV shows as the "CSI" series). The macho female Starbuck is not made out to be a villain, but largely made out to be a heroine who also has "personal issues". [Hey, do we even use the feminine version of "hero" anymore-- it's gotten to be like "actor"-- I almost never hear "actress" used to describe female actors, just "actor".]
I can see the qualities in a female Starbuck character and in strong female characters, and appreciate them. In fact I am glad when I see women act in real life from their own strength and self-confidence; really, I can't say I respect people of either sex who are not able to stand on their own, of course within limits ["No man (or woman) is an island." - this is true]. Everyone is vulnerable and likes to be treated well and with respect, but we also don't like others to be childish in their dependency on others for affirmation or to get things done for them. Such people are sometimes called "high-maintenance drags," and no one likes them in either sex, even though females seem to get a bit more slack on the rope along these lines than males do-- actually, a lot more slack... just ask any man who's been to Mommy Court...
I find simperiness to be very unattractive whether it is coming from a man or woman. Is this because of social values or my own personality? I don't know, maybe some of both. But the problem I have (and I think xtrnl too, though he can speak for himself) is the 2x-standards of acceptability for 'macho' v. non-'macho' personnas: 'macho' is now fine for women, but not for men. That's the issue here and I think that was the main point of Dirk's essay.