Article: The Healthy Female Submissive

[eastern sun]

Men have a choice? All of culture's media is cuddled tightly to the bosom of the liberal think tank. Thus men have to be powerless castrated wimps. 99% of Hollyweird are nothing but shameless cheerleaders for the left. Of course their "art" is going to portray their bias. All the right has is talk radio and Fox news. And that's enough to make liberals wet their panties everyday.

Bring back the fairness doctrine you fascists pigs!

And what is the goal of this "liberal think tank" in creating such mind-numbing art?

 

[Recidiva]

Men have a choice? All of culture's media is cuddled tightly to the bosom of the liberal think tank. Thus men have to be powerless castrated wimps. 99% of Hollyweird are nothing but shameless cheerleaders for the left. Of course their "art" is going to portray their bias. All the right has is talk radio and Fox news. And that's enough to make liberals wet their panties everyday.

Bring back the fairness doctrine you fascists pigs!

I'm a moderate and I consider both CNN and Fox to be awash in bias.

Neither are fair or balanced, and they're there to make money. Wolf Blitzer and his "YOU'RE GOING TO DIE RIGHT NOW IF YOU DON'T LISTEN TO ME!" is as offensive as Fox's unwillingness to pronounce the names of foreign heads of state.

I even have trouble watching PBS because I just can't bear to see another interview about the environment edited in such a way as to make it seem that the earth already drowned in its own waste and humans are evil.

There are fairly nasty and distasteful cheerleaders on all sides trying to show up the other side, and it just results in...lots of...oh...ew.

But they keep on making money.

It's the reactionary stuff that's the most damaging, overstating cases in order to make a problem seem worse than it is so more drastic action needs to be taken.

And I think in certain cases the case against men has been made so drastically and loudly that I can't listen to them any more than I can CNN or Fox.

I mean, I'll listen, but my method of gathering news now is to watch as many news outlets as I can and take the average answer, then divide by half.

 

[Netzach]

Youngest daughter is nuts for that stuff. Nuts. She's crazy about all the domestic toys. The pink kitchen year before last was THE Christmas gift. She squealed when she saw it. This year, the big hit was a kid-sized version of the same sort of push cart that the cleaning ladies use.

I don't know where she see ads for this stuff. It's never on when I see them watch TV. It's like it bubbles up out of her gene code.

FWIW, my favorite color at three and now remains pepto pink. I just don't have to have everything be it now. And goddamn, I wanted the easy bake. Maybe that's why I like cooking now.

 

[Netzach]

I'm a moderate and I consider both CNN and Fox to be awash in bias.

Neither are fair or balanced, and they're there to make money. Wolf Blitzer and his "YOU'RE GOING TO DIE RIGHT NOW IF YOU DON'T LISTEN TO ME!" is as offensive as Fox's unwillingness to pronounce the names of foreign heads of state.

I even have trouble watching PBS because I just can't bear to see another interview about the environment edited in such a way as to make it seem that the earth already drowned in its own waste and humans are evil.

There are fairly nasty and distasteful cheerleaders on all sides trying to show up the other side, and it just results in...lots of...oh...ew.

But they keep on making money.

It's the reactionary stuff that's the most damaging, overstating cases in order to make a problem seem worse than it is so more drastic action needs to be taken.

And I think in certain cases the case against men has been made so drastically and loudly that I can't listen to them any more than I can CNN or Fox.

I mean, I'll listen, but my method of gathering news now is to watch as many news outlets as I can and take the average answer, then divide by half.

MSNBC is bizzaro-FOX

CNN being left-biased makes me laugh my ass off. They're basically a corporate whore with a couple of token smart people. (Gergen and Zakaria, if you ask me.)

When companies can quietly take the top off a mountain, dump it into the water supply and have it called "safe" I don't really get much up my ass over PBS.

 

[Netzach]

I doubt if anyone can name a sitcom about a family in which the father was the wisest adult in the house. The less-than-smart male has been a staple of sitcoms for decades.

You're forgetting the "we created these children in a lab" genre wherein women are dead or nonexistent. Those are always fun. I'm thinking of a bunch of cartoons and movies and the death of every Disney mother animal in existence.

 

[Recidiva]

MSNBC is bizzaro-FOX

CNN being left-biased makes me laugh my ass off. They're basically a corporate whore with a couple of token smart people. (Gergen and Zakaria, if you ask me.)

When companies can quietly take the top off a mountain, dump it into the water supply and have it called "safe" I don't really get much up my ass over PBS.

Zakaria is awesome. He's smart and has original thoughts and I love that.

PBS's bias is harder to pick out, and I'm a fan of PBS, no doubt.

But I have done some research (my husband and I were doing a thing about global warming...research-a-thon sorta thing) and I was watching one episode that annoyed me. It was a badly-cut interview from an expert whose interview in whole said "Now, I don't want anybody to panic, and I'm not sure about this..." where the more outrageous allegations were taken as fact. Irritated me mostly because I thought PBS was above that. You had to see the unedited (which I had seen in my research) next to the edited, which bugged me.

That and the assertion that you can't be interviewed on NPR unless you're willing to attribute global warming to strictly human causes.

Stuff like that bugs me.

Can we go back to calling it pollution and clean it up?

I'm a fan of truth and doing the right thing. But this is like the issue of torture. The good guys don't do this stuff. They don't torture. Good guys don't edit in ways to be misleading and fear mongering.

Sure, be afraid when fear is warranted. Take action, great, love that. Be positive, be effective.

Just edit so you're scary? No thanks.

 

[Recidiva]

You're forgetting the "we created these children in a lab" genre wherein women are dead or nonexistent. Those are always fun. I'm thinking of a bunch of cartoons and movies and the death of every Disney mother animal in existence.

I want to see a crime show where the female victim isn't an eighteen year old cheerleader with a scholarship to the Sorbonne or Julliard (she was just starting this fall...she packed her bags early...)

Stop using women as perfect schmaltz.

I like the shows where women get to be crack whore dropouts that sold their children for their next fix.

Or at least alternate.

 

[Netzach]

I challenge anyone to name a family sitcom in which Dad was the wisest adult in the house.

How about non-familial sitcoms wherein there's a woman who isn't a blithering idiot?

Friends? Seinfeld? I mean I like Julia L-D, but the whole of female existence revolves around ha ha I had the worst date last night till you're married, transition to "boy is my husband a doofus."

I was actually kind of sad when Ellen became about coming out, not about this woman who does things other than freak out over dates and weight like some kind of Cathy strip nightmare.

Again, let's be reasonable. Men in these shows are incompetent about anything and everything because the message is "see what will happen if you leave your house for two seconds, ladies?" It's not aimed at making individual men feel any better or worse at all, but preserving the social order.

 

[Netzach]

I want to see a crime show where the female victim isn't an eighteen year old cheerleader with a scholarship to the Sorbonne or Julliard (she was just starting this fall...she packed her bags early...)

Stop using women as perfect schmaltz.

I like the shows where women get to be crack whore dropouts that sold their children for their next fix.

Or at least alternate.

Yes, there's a serious virgin/whore thing with crime victims. It's either that, because it's only really sad when promising young virgins buy it, or she is being punished for sexuality of some kind.

The most common homicide scenarios involving women involve either boyfriends or small girls being killed by mom/dad/other in house. I guess those things are totally buzzkill.

 

[Netzach]

Zakaria is awesome. He's smart and has original thoughts and I love that.

PBS's bias is harder to pick out, and I'm a fan of PBS, no doubt.

But I have done some research (my husband and I were doing a thing about global warming...research-a-thon sorta thing) and I was watching one episode that annoyed me. It was a badly-cut interview from an expert whose interview in whole said "Now, I don't want anybody to panic, and I'm not sure about this..." where the more outrageous allegations were taken as fact. Irritated me mostly because I thought PBS was above that. You had to see the unedited (which I had seen in my research) next to the edited, which bugged me.

That and the assertion that you can't be interviewed on NPR unless you're willing to attribute global warming to strictly human causes.

Stuff like that bugs me.

Can we go back to calling it pollution and clean it up?

I'm a fan of truth and doing the right thing. But this is like the issue of torture. The good guys don't do this stuff. They don't torture. Good guys don't edit in ways to be misleading and fear mongering.

Sure, be afraid when fear is warranted. Take action, great, love that. Be positive, be effective.

Just edit so you're scary? No thanks.

Oh, I just assume I'm always being emotionally played. Always. And follow the money - you can't go on NPR if you're not nice enough to ADM and Cargill.

 

[Recidiva]

Oh, I just assume I'm always being emotionally played. Always. And follow the money - you can't go on NPR if you're not nice enough to ADM and Cargill.

I guess I just felt the betrayal more strongly from PBS.

*sigh*

Clearly I'm not over it yet.

 

[JMohegan]

Men have a choice? All of culture's media is cuddled tightly to the bosom of the liberal think tank. Thus men have to be powerless castrated wimps. 99% of Hollyweird are nothing but shameless cheerleaders for the left. Of course their "art" is going to portray their bias. All the right has is talk radio and Fox news. And that's enough to make liberals wet their panties everyday.

Bring back the fairness doctrine you fascists pigs!

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh my god, WD, sometimes you really do make me wonder what the HELL goes on down in Georgia.

Haven't you ever heard women teeing off on The Bachelor or Gossip Girl series? In what universe do these shows promulgate a "liberal" agenda?

C'mon, man. TV is about ratings and advertising revenue. That's it. Which means the real questions have to do with Netzach's point about images as mirrors vs. destiny, and the feedback loop.

 

[JMohegan]

I was thinking of the Cosby Show as I typed that post and you're right, it was more balanced than most sitcoms (which may well have had something to do with Bill's influence on the show as well as his interests at the time). I wouldn't know a Family Ties episode if it were on right in front of me. I'm guessing that it wasn't about a family that were all deeply into bondage, though, right?

Earlier here Recidiva made the point that if a sitcom aired where the woman of the house was as dumb and clueless as most sitcom dads are, there would be a torch-bearing protest. I find that interesting: why is it that men are so willing to see their worst traits lampooned in a medium that is so central to our culture? Especially interesting in light of the way women would be quite likely to fight such a treatment as hard as they could.

Do you actually know any men who watch sitcoms? I don't.

If the majority of sitcom viewers are women, maybe the lampooning is commercially successful because it's a female release valve of sorts.

 

[midwestyankee]

Do you actually know any men who watch sitcoms? I don't.

If the majority of sitcom viewers are women, maybe the lampooning is commercially successful because it's a female release valve of sorts.

This is a fair point. You may well be right about the primary audience for such shows. But has it always been that way? For example, when Ozzie and Harriet was a leading show, television was so new that it was a common form of family-wide entertainment. Ozzie, while smart and, in fact, the show's primary writer, allowed himself to be portrayed as something of a scatter brain. I'm not sure that was the first-ever family sitcom, but it surely was one of the first. It may have helped set the mold for sitcoms to follow.

I know that we often watched sitcoms as a family when I was growing up. While my father often had to go back out for some evening work, he would sit with us to watch television when he was home. I remember specifically how much he enjoyed watching The Lucy Show, The Honeymooners, and All in the Family. Ricky Ricardo was, perhaps, a more mature character than his wife, Lucy, but he was portrayed in a constant state of agitation over his wife's blunders. She was surely the comic center of the show but he was not a calm and reasonable man, either. Ralph Kramden was the model for all ensuing sitcom husbands who played the role of the bumbling oaf with a heart of gold, including Fred Flintstone, btw. Archie Bunker was clearly another breed of bumbler, but Edith had the better grip on maturity and reality in that marriage.

Most of my own sitcom watching has come when a few popular shows would go into syndication during the dinner-prep time. That's how I saw almost all of the Cosby and Tool Time episodes as I very rarely watch series tv in the evening.

 

[midwestyankee]

You're forgetting the "we created these children in a lab" genre wherein women are dead or nonexistent. Those are always fun. I'm thinking of a bunch of cartoons and movies and the death of every Disney mother animal in existence.

You're seriously stretching my tv memory here. Are we talking such things as Scooby Doo and Jimmy Neutron, where the only adults ever (mostly) are the evildoers who must be brought down to save the planet (or a trapped doggy)?

 

[midwestyankee]

I want to see a crime show where the female victim isn't an eighteen year old cheerleader with a scholarship to the Sorbonne or Julliard (she was just starting this fall...she packed her bags early...)

Stop using women as perfect schmaltz.

I like the shows where women get to be crack whore dropouts that sold their children for their next fix.

Or at least alternate.

Yes, there's a serious virgin/whore thing with crime victims. It's either that, because it's only really sad when promising young virgins buy it, or she is being punished for sexuality of some kind.

The most common homicide scenarios involving women involve either boyfriends or small girls being killed by mom/dad/other in house. I guess those things are totally buzzkill.

Exactly. A couple summers ago I got into the habit of watching CSI in syndicated rerun every evening before coming here to perv out. Thinking back on the female victims, I agree: there's definitely a virgin or whore complex going on there.

 

[midwestyankee]

How about non-familial sitcoms wherein there's a woman who isn't a blithering idiot?

Friends? Seinfeld? I mean I like Julia L-D, but the whole of female existence revolves around ha ha I had the worst date last night till you're married, transition to "boy is my husband a doofus."

I was actually kind of sad when Ellen became about coming out, not about this woman who does things other than freak out over dates and weight like some kind of Cathy strip nightmare.

Again, let's be reasonable. Men in these shows are incompetent about anything and everything because the message is "see what will happen if you leave your house for two seconds, ladies?" It's not aimed at making individual men feel any better or worse at all, but preserving the social order.

I'm not sure I see an Overlord presence among the society of television script writers, but I do see that a lot of television hearkens back to its roots in the so-called golden years of the 50s. At that time, the sitcoms were exaggerated versions of what folks liked to think of as everyday life: Dad went out to earn a living (though Ozzie never ever seemed to go to work) while Mom was the commander-in-chief of the household. Since the shows had to be centered around the home in order to include all the children and assorted goofy neighbors, Mom became the moral core of the plots.

Now, the result was an exaggerated form of cheerleading for the post-war nuclear family concept as conceived by Hollywood. They knew their audience and played to them with consummate skill. The thing is, with relatively few exceptions, we're still stuck with that nuclear family as the constant in an ever-expanding equation of social change.

 

[Netzach]

You're seriously stretching my tv memory here. Are we talking such things as Scooby Doo and Jimmy Neutron, where the only adults ever (mostly) are the evildoers who must be brought down to save the planet (or a trapped doggy)?

Someone spent way way way more time on this than I did:

http://www.tvdads.com/tvdad1.html

OK, single dad has been around in one form or another since 1950.

Sure, there are great single dads in the world, but really look at the synopses
"Where's Mom?"
Dead.
Dead.
Dead.
Dead.
Not sure.
Doesn't say.
Dead.

Remember Murphy Brown v. Dan Quayle? Because you know, this single woman was going to voluntarily GIVE BIRTH?

I rest my case.

 

[Recidiva]

Someone spent way way way more time on this than I did:

http://www.tvdads.com/tvdad1.html

OK, single dad has been around in one form or another since 1950.

Remember Murphy Brown v. Dan Quayle?

I rest my case.

However, that also proves that Candice Bergen has been rocking the good character choices for a lifetime.

Whereas Dan Quayle has only one character, and it ain't so good.

(I'm going to miss Boston Legal, dammit)

 

[intothewoods]

Do you actually know any men who watch sitcoms? I don't.

If the majority of sitcom viewers are women, maybe the lampooning is commercially successful because it's a female release valve of sorts.

Does anyone watch them anymore? Apparently, because Everyone Loves Raymond was on for forever. Gah, I'll take a Tool Time marathon first!

I don't watch any regularly, but sometimes I watch and laugh out loud at The Office and Scrubs.

 

[Homburg]

How old is she? Mine loved the toy vacuum cleaner at a playspace we used to go to. And since I am a good urban progressive parent, of course I bought him a kitchen! He loves it. I also bought him a doll but he repeatedly stuffed that one in the bottom of his toy box. Recently he has been more interested in all things baby though.

Youngest daughter is four. Youngest son will play with the food, but not actually at the kitchen. I think it is indicative of his relationship with food. Food is good, but other people actually make it. I can relate to that.

--

I think men (particularly white men) are accustomed to being cast as the moustache twirling bad guys. It's hard to break out of typecasting. Arguing about it hardly ever helps. The only defense is self deprecating acceptance of the "truth" that men are pigs. "But I'm enlightened and I compensate for my inherent evil!" is the message conveyed by acceptance of that wisdom. Arguing against it just reinforces the entitled moustache twirling, no matter how reasonable.

*shrug* I'm evil, it's cool. My moustache isn't long enough to twirl, but I'd like to. I don't consider myself enlightened or wise for saying this, just honest.

If skin color or gender really aren't supposed to mean anything when we're dealing with accomplishments and potential, I can't wait until that is reflected around me in our entertainment and our laws. We're so much closer than we used to be, but we need a few more generations likely before the crack of the backlash fades.

Skin colour and gender aren't supposed to mean anything, unless the colour is "white" and the gender is "male". The it is okay if it means something. Well, it's okay if it means something negative. This goes back to the moustache twirling.

--

FWIW, my favorite color at three and now remains pepto pink. I just don't have to have everything be it now. And goddamn, I wanted the easy bake. Maybe that's why I like cooking now.

Eldest Daughter decided that she wanted an Easy-bake, so she got it for a birthday or christmas or somesuch. She played with it like five times. Never again. It sat in the kitchen taking up room until viv got fed up with it. Eldest Daughter only wants to bake when it is in the real kitchen. Anything less is unacceptable.

I think she flirted with girly stuff because the girls in the ads looked so happy. Upon realising that it didn't really suit her temperment, her interface with cooking was of a more realistic sort. This is not play, this is serious creation. She is actually not bad at it, and has made a number of very tasty desserts. Some of which she has done largely unsupervised and unnassisted.

Eldest Daughter is actually a really cool kid.

--

Exactly. A couple summers ago I got into the habit of watching CSI in syndicated rerun every evening before coming here to perv out. Thinking back on the female victims, I agree: there's definitely a virgin or whore complex going on there.

Because virgins have the most compelling images and whores have the most compelling stories. Or the other way around, depending on the viewer.

 

[JMohegan]

Again, let's be reasonable. Men in these shows are incompetent about anything and everything because the message is "see what will happen if you leave your house for two seconds, ladies?" It's not aimed at making individual men feel any better or worse at all, but preserving the social order.

I'm not sure I see an Overlord presence among the society of television script writers, but I do see that a lot of television hearkens back to its roots in the so-called golden years of the 50s.

I have a really hard time with the vagueness of patriarchal conspiracy theories. Like you, MWY, I'm always left scratching my head and wondering who, exactly, could be pulling the strings here? How? And why?


TV fact #1. Advertising funds television, and ad revenues are driven by ratings. This is a business, after all! Ultimately, the point is to sell coke and beer.

If the collective "we" weren't watching, then this crap wouldn't be on. Period. As long as a big enough group of people cares more about wheels, thrills, and noise than it does about cutting off funding to terrorist-harboring nations in the Middle East, Miller Lite will keep funding NASCAR air time.


TV fact #2. Advertisers will refuse to fund programs that discourage their products' sales.

Imagine a show portraying and celebrating an adult female character prone to leaving the house in her natural state, or an older woman unconcerned about the physical effects of aging. Would the purveyors of "beauty" and "grooming" products buy ad time for this? Of course not.


The combination of 1 & 2 means that both the consumers' and the advertisers' values are reflected on TV. BUT - nothing is shown that crosses a line for either. To the extent that this = "preserving the social order", then I'd say Netzach is right.

 

[JMohegan]

I was actually kind of sad when Ellen became about coming out, not about this woman who does things other than freak out over dates and weight like some kind of Cathy strip nightmare.

On a related note, I have a friend who was totally disgusted and disillusioned when she learned about this.

 

[Keroin]

TV is the glass teat. Disconnect!

Yes, it's all about money. No other agenda.

Wait a minute, I get royalties from that shit.

I was just joking! Turn on your TV sets, now! Think reruns, lots and lots of reruns!

 

[Netzach]

I have a really hard time with the vagueness of patriarchal conspiracy theories. Like you, MWY, I'm always left scratching my head and wondering who, exactly, could be pulling the strings here? How? And why?


TV fact #1. Advertising funds television, and ad revenues are driven by ratings. This is a business, after all! Ultimately, the point is to sell coke and beer.

If the collective "we" weren't watching, then this crap wouldn't be on. Period. As long as a big enough group of people cares more about wheels, thrills, and noise than it does about cutting off funding to terrorist-harboring nations in the Middle East, Miller Lite will keep funding NASCAR air time.


TV fact #2. Advertisers will refuse to fund programs that discourage their products' sales.

Imagine a show portraying and celebrating an adult female character prone to leaving the house in her natural state, or an older woman unconcerned about the physical effects of aging. Would the purveyors of "beauty" and "grooming" products buy ad time for this? Of course not.


The combination of 1 & 2 means that both the consumers' and the advertisers' values are reflected on TV. BUT - nothing is shown that crosses a line for either. To the extent that this = "preserving the social order", then I'd say Netzach is right.

Well, it's not like Marxist critique totally disconnects from feminism, so I think we're agreeing.

What if women were not rendered totally insecure? How would we sell so much damn soap? The 3900 toxic things that supposedly take the place of water ajax a sponge and some attention? The new 15 blade razor with its proprietary blades?