Celluloid Heroes: Men and Masculinity in the Media

[Serpentine]

Should be pretty obvious where this thread came from. I thought I'd open this up for a discussion on the portrayal of men in the media, in film and TV and fiction and so on. What's changed? What's good? What's bad? What's just different or interesting? What tropes relating to men and masculinity do you dis/like?
To get us started, the title comes from a unit I did at uni. Here's some of what we studied, and what was discussed:

The Terminator movies (1 and 2, specifically, though I'd be interested to see how the rest fits in): In the first movie, the Terminator represented the "old school", pre-women's liberation man. Hard, emotionless, distant, brutal and demanding, a relic of a different era, he was the enemy of Woman, an implacable foe who could only be fought by Kyle Reese. This was the New Man, a real human in opposition to the fake, mechanical one, capable of emotion and loyalty and love. He has to fight the Old Man to defend Woman.
By the second movie, there was a cultural backlash against New Man. He is portrayed as fake, capable of faking emotions without really feeling them, as malleable and flexible and good at hiding his true awful nature. The Old Man has become the new saviour of Woman from this devious fiend: Emotionlessness becomes stoicness, brutality becomes capability, distance becomes compelling. Woman, at the beginning terrified of this Old Man, comes to appreciate his "traditionalness", his reliability and his determination.

Tootsie and Mrs Doubtfire: These are about crossdressing men, but are surprisingly unprogressive in their messages. Their masculinity is constantly reinforced - in the incident with the kitchen for Mrs Doubtfire, for example - and it is often made very clear that this is a costume, temporary, removable. Both movies, for example, have distinct "dressing up" scenes, that go through every bit of the change. IIRC, at the end the titular characters still exist, and publicly, but both are distinct and separate from the original.
Sexual attraction comes up, but it's always played for laughs, mostly at the expense of homosexuality: The joke's on the amorous other, because unbeknownst to them it is a homosexual attraction, not heterosexual as they believe, and this misunderstanding in considered amusing. There is a point in Tootsie where the female love interest is falling for the person she knows as Tootsie, and feels confused and scared. When she's revealed to be a man, her response is extreme relief - the implication being that it is okay for a woman to fall for a man, even if she's not aware of that, but not for her to fall for another woman.

Falling Down and Fight Club: These are examinations of the claustrophobia and perceived emasculation of men in post-feminist society, and the ways in which they respond - mostly, violently. Falling Down is interesting because he never actually goes out of his way to hurt anyone. Instead, it's almost all in self defense, or people hurting themselves while trying to hurt him. Although he sets out to be "proactive", in practice he largely just reacts, albiet in a more extreme manner that is socially acceptable. The police officer, the "good guy" of the story, is in a similar situation to the main character, but deals with it in a more socially acceptable manner, ultimately snapping his nagging wife back into her proper place.

Note: I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with this sort of claim. It's just an interesting angle to view this sort of media from, and of course literature study generally involves reading far more into a piece than is ever intended.

So. Discuss.

[Worira]

I'm pretty sure the Terminator movies were about a robot one or more robots shooting people with guns, actually.

Also, being shot with guns.

Explosions happened too.

[Eldan]

I'm not sure that Fight Club is only about Men and their role in society, even though it really only portrays Men. (I have only seen the movie, by the way). They speak about middle children of history, people wasting away their lives in office jobs they hate and which seem entirely pointless, and how they really lose all their connection to anything meaningful around them, eventually reacting with violence. It doesn't seem to be about men exclusively, more about an entire class of people.

[Serpentine]

Well, I don't know that many movies are only about one thing. If it is about this not-only-men class of people, why do men make up such a big part of it? And why, for example, are women (iirc) banned from (or at least not invited into) the fights?
I'm pretty sure the Terminator movies were about a robot one or more robots shooting people with guns, actually.

Also, being shot with guns.

Explosions happened too.If Sarah Connor can - and frequently will - be examined from a feminist/gender studies point of view, why can't the men in the movie, too?

[Worira]

Your response presupposes that I consider a feminist examination of Sarah Connor a meaningful undertaking.

[Ragitsu]

How about Bruce Willis as John McClane?

[Serpentine]

Certainly, discuss.
Your response presupposes that I consider a feminist examination of Sarah Connor a meaningful undertaking.Plenty of people disagree with you *shrug* Hell, it was one of the first female characters to be brought up in that other thread.

[rayne_dragon]

Random example, totally off the cuff, before I go to bed (and possibly try to think of something more thoughtful tomorrow):

Stanley Tweedle and Kai in Lexx. See, Stanley represents the power that the recent deconstruction of traditional manhood has come into. He's a selfish, greedy, insensitive moron who eventually will come around to do the right thing - the traits of the modern "idiot husband/boyfriend" we see in sitcoms. Kai is the stoic, handsome, and physically powerful man that has been the more standard chivalrous, positive male archetype that used to prevail. The female protagonist rejects Stanley and desires Kai, in spite of Stanley being the only living male available to her and Kai being undead. Stanley is given the key to the most powerful ship in two universes in the show, while Kai is on constant life support/suspended animation having only a limited time before he is truly dead. The entire dynamic represents that the chivalrous man is a dead concept clinging onto life beyond its time in spite of itself, while the idiot man is the new norm and influencing factor of our age, yet that without both archetypes society would be unable to flourish. Only with the combined efforts of the idiotic man and the heroic man do the heroes collectively manage to survive their ordeals. Balance is essential to survival.

I'm sure this would get quite bizarre and interesting if I expanded it to include His Divine Shadow and the implications thereof, but sleep sings her siren song....

[Serpentine]

Ha! Very nice :biggrin:

[Closet_Skeleton]

When she's revealed to be a man, her response is extreme relief - the implication being that it is okay for a woman to fall for a man, even if she's not aware of that, but not for her to fall for another woman.

Compare to Some Like it Hot?


I'm pretty sure the Terminator movies were about a robot one or more robots shooting people with guns, actually.

Also, being shot with guns.

Explosions happened too.

The guy who directed Aliens made a film just about guns and explosions?


Your response presupposes that I consider a feminist examination of Sarah Connor a meaningful undertaking.

Then why are you in this thread?

If you must state your lack of interest in discussing a topic, do you have to do it in a sarcastic dismissive way?


I'm not sure that Fight Club is only about Men and their role in society, even though it really only portrays Men. (I have only seen the movie, by the way). They speak about middle children of history, people wasting away their lives in office jobs they hate and which seem entirely pointless, and how they really lose all their connection to anything meaningful around them, eventually reacting with violence. It doesn't seem to be about men exclusively, more about an entire class of people.

It is mainly about men. Part of the plot is that the protagonist treats his girlfriend badly because he doesn't really think about her. Pretty sure even when he uses gender neutral terms he's only thinking about men. The film protrays women by showing how men treat them.

[Serpentine]

Compare to Some Like it Hot?Yes, actually, excellent call. I'd like to see that again from a feminist* point of view...


*is there are more gender-neutral term that means the same thing? Like "gender equalityist" except better?

[Brother Oni]

For an interesting view of cultural changes affecting depictions of masculinity, take the Japanese chanbara (period dramas about Samurai).

Originally we had actors like Toshiro Mifune (http://www.celebrityring.info/zoom.php?pic=Toshiro-Mifune-1.jpg&celebrity=Toshiro%20Mifune), now we have people such as Gackt (http://people.tribenetwork.com/stixs-briarpatch/photos/26cef94e-403c-470a-ac2b-9db90c3ad19f).

This could be linked with the rise of 'Soshokukei danshi' or 'grass eating boys', that is effeminate, non aggressive men, which could be identified with the 'new man' label in western society.

I believe it's also linked to the Japanese cultural value of 'parental protection', but I forget the actual term for it at the moment. This value is why almost everything in Japanese media appears 'cute', even things that shouldn't normally do.

The only problem is that I'm a fairly traditional view depicition of masculinity, which leads me getting labelled as 'macho' by my Japanese in-laws and 'macho' has a very different meaning over here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macho_Man_(song)). :smallsigh:

[Eldan]

Interestingly, I've read a newspaper article about two or three weeks ago about a sociological study done in Japan. It revealed, amongst other things, that a large part (I don't remember the exact number, I'll try to dig it up, something like 20-40%) of all people aged 18-24 (and about the same percentage in men and women) in Japan claimed to have no interest in sex or relationships at all.

[Frozen_Feet]

^ I've seen several studies that link that observation to the ubiquitousness of Kawaisa and fetishication of sex. I think the hypothesis was that people grow disillusioned with the reality of relationships and sex when it no longer matches with idealistic portrayals of them.

[bladesyz]

The Terminator movies (1 and 2, specifically, though I'd be interested to see how the rest fits in): In the first movie, the Terminator represented the "old school", pre-women's liberation man. Hard, emotionless, distant, brutal and demanding, a relic of a different era, he was the enemy of Woman, an implacable foe who could only be fought by Kyle Reese. This was the New Man, a real human in opposition to the fake, mechanical one, capable of emotion and loyalty and love. He has to fight the Old Man to defend Woman.
By the second movie, there was a cultural backlash against New Man. He is portrayed as fake, capable of faking emotions without really feeling them, as malleable and flexible and good at hiding his true awful nature. The Old Man has become the new saviour of Woman from this devious fiend: Emotionlessness becomes stoicness, brutality becomes capability, distance becomes compelling. Woman, at the beginning terrified of this Old Man, comes to appreciate his "traditionalness", his reliability and his determination.


I really like this analysis of the Terminator movies!



For an interesting view of cultural changes affecting depictions of masculinity, take the Japanese chanbara (period dramas about Samurai).

Originally we had actors like Toshiro Mifune, now we have people such as Gackt.


Asia in general (meaning China, Japan and South Korea, more specifically) seems to be promoting the "effeminate" man recently. I'm not familiar with Japanese cultural background of this, but in China, the more "scholarly" man has always been preferred to the more "warrior" type. Still, there is a clear trend in Chinese pop culture toward promoting ever more feminine-looking male stars.

[Brother Oni]

Thinking about this subject has reminded me of a video which demonstrates the cultural, social and political differences perfectly: US Navy versus JSDFN recruitment ads (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNdPPEwguDQ&feature=related).



Asia in general (meaning China, Japan and South Korea, more specifically) seems to be promoting the "effeminate" man recently. I'm not familiar with Japanese cultural background of this, but in China, the more "scholarly" man has always been preferred to the more "warrior" type. Still, there is a clear trend in Chinese pop culture toward promoting ever more feminine-looking male stars.

I think the promotion of the 'effeminate' man can be traced in part to the impact of Hong Kong and Japanese culture and media on the region.

With regard to the Japanese origin, Frozen Feet has mentioned 'kawaisa' (thanks for that), which according to the wikipedia article started back in the 1970s. The rejection of the typical masculine male image in Japan could also be due to the low standing the JSDF have compared to 'proper' military forces in the west, traditionally a bastion of masculinity (unless you're in the Navy :smalltongue:).

While I agree that China has valued the scholar more than the warrior, the idealised man will have elements of both - this dates back all the way to youxia, Chinese knight errants.

China's mostly been influenced by Hong Kong pop culture and that is a weird mix of these two elements - you have the cantopop stars who have definite effeminate elements, but you also have the more traditional masculine models, like the actor Chow Yuen Fat (out of interest, I believe his breakthrough role in HK was as a 'New Man' type of character, while the role that catapulted him to international notice was a 'Old Man' role in A Better Tomorrow).

More recently though, China has been copying the 'pretty boy' trend and with the artists in the region diversifying their fan base with multi-lingual records, this will only continue.

[Traab]

Whats the outlook on Mel Gibson's What Women Want? :p

As far as fight club goes, I always saw it as a mentally ill man desperate to justify his crappy life and trying to prove that his way was better in the end by attempting to destroy the establishment that ruined his life. It was an escalating cycle. First it was a way to blow off steam and stress by beating the crap out of each other. Next it was justified as people breaking out of the social structures that imprison us. All the accepted behaviors and expected actions that society forces on us. Then it turned into bringing down the establishment, wether the world wanted it or not.

Honestly, the only reason there even WAS a woman involved in my opinion was to give us clues about what was really happening. I dont know how to explain it, it could just be something like, the director felt it wouldnt be enjoyable to the public to watch women beating each other toothless, or, god forbid, men and women beating each other bloody. Can you imagine the backlash that would likely ensue the first time some female member of fight club gets beaten by some random guy to the point where she looks as screwed up as they did after some of their fights?

There are some things that just arent acceptable period in our entertainment industry, its rare you see more than a smack or two or something along those lines being committed by say, an abusive husband. You may see the aftermath, but you almost never see the guy knock his wife to the floor then proceed to punch her till her face is swollen shut. The Godfather is an excellent example of this. Sonnys sister gets beaten by her husband, but its all off camera, all you hear are the sounds taking place and then seeing her bruised face later on. Even in horror movies you rarely get to see much done to the women. Its usually a quick lethal stab and done. Half the time you dont even see it happen directly, She stiffens up, a look of shock on her face, blood dribbles out her mouth, then she falls over with a machete in her back as jason stands there staring.

[Brother Oni]

Even in horror movies you rarely get to see much done to the women. Its usually a quick lethal stab and done. Half the time you dont even see it happen directly, She stiffens up, a look of shock on her face, blood dribbles out her mouth, then she falls over with a machete in her back as jason stands there staring.

Depends on the movie. I believe A Texas Chainsaw Massacre had a rather extended scene depicting a hammer and a woman.

Again, HK action movies tend not to pull punches when it comes to showing violence against women, but I think we're drifting back into the original thread that spawned this one now.

[Traab]

Oh I know, im just trying to explain one reason why there wouldnt have been many women in Fight Club. It may very well be some sort of message he wanted to portray, but it also might have been the fact that most of his audience would have likely not enjoyed seeing women getting beaten to those levels.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Depends on the movie. I believe A Texas Chainsaw Massacre had a rather extended scene depicting a hammer and a woman.

There are genres of horror pretty much centered around doing nasty stuff to women. I don't have the stomach to research them.


Yes, actually, excellent call. I'd like to see that again from a feminist* point of view...


*is there are more gender-neutral term that means the same thing? Like "gender equalityist" except better?

From the last bit of stuff I read about "male feminists", sadly not.




Asia in general (meaning China, Japan and South Korea, more specifically) seems to be promoting the "effeminate" man recently. I'm not familiar with Japanese cultural background of this, but in China, the more "scholarly" man has always been preferred to the more "warrior" type. Still, there is a clear trend in Chinese pop culture toward promoting ever more feminine-looking male stars.

In Korean manwha there seems to be a lot of effeminate looking men who are still expected to be violent thugs. So in that case there's no real association between looking feminine and being softer.

[Worlok]

is there are more gender-neutral term that means the same thing? Like "gender equalityist" except better?
Why not "gender-neutral"? :smallconfused:

[Valameer]

I see too many men around me buying into the whole Homer Simpson / Peter Griffin stereotype. Even if the original examples are intended as a parody, more men seem to be identifying themselves as beer-guzzling brutes.

Even Homer and Peter have become stupider / more arrogant over time.

I hope this isn't true of the rest of the world, but it seems that around here (Western Canada) men are not expected to be intellectual, reserved, or considerate. Even to the point where people have been taken aback because I don't have a zealous lust for sports, binge drinking, or cars.

The notion of the thinking man seems to be gone. Even if you're a nerd, you're supposed to like beer and sports. The "dumb dad" stereotype is played for laughs on a wide variety of television shows and commercials. Usually these dumb dads can get it together long enough to learn a moral lesson or connect with their kids - but soon after they are off being buffoons again.

There seems to be more latitude given to women on how they can define themselves within social norms. They will not be questioned if they are (stereotypically) more masculine, feminine, reserved, or buffoons. They may wear pants or skirts. However people have no qualms about being sexist to a man for being too feminine or too reserved, and heaven forbid you wear anything close to a skirt - even kilts are usually the objects of ridicule (this is why claymores should come standard with kilts).

I've heard some feminist thought that postulates the (sexism) pendulum has to swing both ways for a while before we can truly rid ourselves of sexism. That may be true. Male stereotypes certainly varied wildly through the 80's, 90's and new millenium, whereas female stereotypes seemed to progress and then hit a post-progression period.

I don't know what I'm getting at - other than as a heterosexual man I feel very judged and uncomfortable whenever my behaviour is outside the norm. Can't wait for the day when I can talk about fashion, makeup, and my emotions without people making judgements on my sexuality.

[rayne_dragon]

Yes, actually, excellent call. I'd like to see that again from a feminist* point of view...


*is there are more gender-neutral term that means the same thing? Like "gender equalityist" except better?

I usually just say gender neutral point of view when I want to express what I think you're trying to. Most things get clunky and aren't quite right.


Ha! Very nice :biggrin:

Thanks! I totally made it up as I was writing it, but I'm actually rather pleased with my analysis of it as concerning the evolution of male figures in media.


Your response presupposes that I consider a feminist examination of Sarah Connor a meaningful undertaking.

I kind of debate if any literary analysis is worthwhile. Once in a college english class I decided to make up the most obscure, bizarre, illogical analysis of the story we were studying just to see if the teacher would notice how full of crap it was. I got an A :smallannoyed:. Still, I think the value isn't in what you analyze, but in the analysis itself. Even if the author of a work had no intention of portraying such ideas in their work, the imposition of human experience onto the work is relavent because it is the analysis of that particular experience.

EDIT:


I see too many men around me buying into the whole Homer Simpson / Peter Griffin stereotype. Even if the original examples are intended as a parody, more men seem to be identifying themselves as beer-guzzling brutes.

Even Homer and Peter have become stupider / more arrogant over time.

I hope this isn't true of the rest of the world, but it seems that around here (Western Canada) men are not expected to be intellectual, reserved, or considerate. Even to the point where people have been taken aback because I don't have a zealous lust for sports, binge drinking, or cars.

The notion of the thinking man seems to be gone. Even if you're a nerd, you're supposed to like beer and sports. The "dumb dad" stereotype is played for laughs on a wide variety of television shows and commercials. Usually these dumb dads can get it together long enough to learn a moral lesson or connect with their kids - but soon after they are off being buffoons again.

There seems to be more latitude given to women on how they can define themselves within social norms. They will not be questioned if they are (stereotypically) more masculine, feminine, reserved, or buffoons. They may wear pants or skirts. However people have no qualms about being sexist to a man for being too feminine or too reserved, and heaven forbid you wear anything close to a skirt - even kilts are usually the objects of ridicule (this is why claymores should come standard with kilts).

I've heard some feminist thought that postulates the (sexism) pendulum has to swing both ways for a while before we can truly rid ourselves of sexism. That may be true. Male stereotypes certainly varied wildly through the 80's, 90's and new millenium, whereas female stereotypes seemed to progress and then hit a post-progression period.

I don't know what I'm getting at - other than as a heterosexual man I feel very judged and uncomfortable whenever my behaviour is outside the norm. Can't wait for the day when I can talk about fashion, makeup, and my emotions without people making judgements on my sexuality.

Some consider the dominance of the "idiot husband" archtype a reaction to feminist impowerment. By reducing the man "the wife" archtype is married to it manages to make women look good, but only by making men look as bad as some the old female stereotypes. In a way its saying that women aren't capable of being the equal or superior of a non-idiot man, thus perpetuating sexist stereotypes while looking like it supports the progress of feminism.

[Don Julio Anejo]

I personally think it's simpler than what you guys make it out to be. Simply put, there's a man's notion of a "manly man" and a woman's notion of a "manly man."

What they have in common? Dominance, confidence, will power, forceful personality. If you look at "effeminate men" from modern East Asian or 18th/19th century European media (yes, the archetypal Victorian gentleman was an English effeminate pretty-boy bishonen), they have these traits just as much as macho, muscle-bound thugs. Compare and contrast, say,

What's different? There's mountainloads of data on how men are selected to be competitive (and hence value competitiveness) and women are selected to be cooperative (and hence value cooperativeness).

Which leads us to... Men will consider more competitive men manlier. This type is more likely to be use (instrumental) violence (whether physical violence or "social" violence like insults/putdowns), be more ambitious, probably act somewhat more thuggish than the other type. They will also place less value on social skills than on ambition. Intelligence will be valued but focus will be on the type of "cold, calculating" type of intelligence rather than, say, humour since this is more conductive to achieving high status in society.

Women will prefer a more effeminate man. Warmer, more openly emotional, better social skills, chivalrous, etc. Someone easier to get along with... A warrior poet (think Samurai), for example. Maybe artsy in a way. And less likely thuggish. Still just as dominant, just that he leads through charisma rather than brute force.

Both types are just as attractive... Manly men because they're high status (= more resources from an evolutionary perspective), effeminate manly men because they're sensitive, emotional, etc. Now, I know there's also non-manly artsy, sensitive, non-confident men who are attractive (emo archetype, for example) and non-manly ambitious men who have strong personalities but aren't manly in other ways who are attractive, but this isn't relevant to the conversation at hand.

So what I'm getting at: compare and contrast Prince Charming or White Knight archetypes and Achilles. Achilles, whether the Brad Pitt or the original Homer version is a manly man and is brutal and thuggish, I don't think anyone will question that. White Knights are literal warrior poets. They read poetry, play music, compose limericks and perform deeds in the name of a lady. At the same time, they kill all enemies who stand in their way.

Is Achilles really that much manlier than a White Knight? You could say yes. Or, you could say no - a White Knight is confident enough that he can get away with doing effeminate things and no-one will question his masculinity.

[bladesyz]

In Korean manwha there seems to be a lot of effeminate looking men who are still expected to be violent thugs. So in that case there's no real association between looking feminine and being softer.

ummmm.... Maybe they sometimes *play* the role of violent thugs in movies, but I seriously doubt the Korean public expect those *actors* to be violent thugs!

[Frozen_Feet]

Don Julio's analysis seem apt. However, I've seen studies that suggest women are more likely to be swept from their feet by macho men, but tend to look for more effeminate men for longer-term relationships.

So it isn't just men's "manly men" and women's "manly men", it's two different kinds of men looked up by women.

[bladesyz]

Don Julio's analysis seem apt. However, I've seen studies that suggest women are more likely to be swept from their feet by macho men, but tend to look for more effeminate men for longer-term relationships.


Ehhh.... I could easily say the reverse.

[Brother Oni]

Is Achilles really that much manlier than a White Knight? You could say yes. Or, you could say no - a White Knight is confident enough that he can get away with doing effeminate things and no-one will question his masculinity.

I agree with most of your analysis, but I think some comment needs to be drawn with regard to cultural shifts over the perception of activities.

The acts listed by your White Knights would be regarded as intellectual back then and perfectly acceptable, compared to now; a male who reads poetry and plays music these days would be considered more effeminate than intellectual.

I'd also be careful about lumping in samurai with the White Knight archetype. The code of Chivalry and the code of Bushido seem similar on the surface, but there are fundamental differences - for example I believe there was a story about King Arthur where he ordered a knight to go slaughter a village. The knight agonised about it (duty to his lord versus the morality of his order) but finally refused to do it.
King Arthur was happy as he wanted his knights to think about what they were doing and not just follow orders blindly.

Compare to a daimyo ordering a samurai to do the same, the samurai would have been disgraced for even delaying in performing his lord's order, let alone question it.
About the only thing the samurai could do to protest without running away and becoming a ronin, would be to request permission for seppuku (kanshi or funshi).


Ehhh.... I could easily say the reverse.

Not really - you must know of the whole 'bad boy' appeal that some men have for women. :smalltongue:

[BRC]

In my mind, the primary "Manly" trait is Confidence, a certainty that one is in the Right, either factually or morally.
The thing about using Courage or Physical Strength as the defining trait is that sometimes they don't really apply. Fight Club wasn't about who was the best fighter, it was about proving you were confident enough in your abilities to get in the ring and try.
From confidence comes Competition, you compete because you are Confident in your ability to win. From Confidence comes Courage, you take risks because you are Confident in your ability to achieve your goals.
Last fall I worked on a production of Death of a Salesman, so that's what came to my mind when I skimmed through this thread, and the idea of Manliness is prevalent in the play.
For the archetypical "Manly" character, you have Ben Lowman, Bill's brother. Ben's defining philosophy is to "Walk into the Jungle and come out rich", to take a huge risk and reap a huge reward. Bill tries to impress the importance of this sort of Manly confidence onto his sons. He encourages them to be competitive, to lie and steal while remaining confident they are doing the right thing.
Bill mocks Biff's intellectual friend/neighbor Bernard as being "Anemic".

Of course, we see the downfall of this philosophy. The focus on being Confident means that Biff's expectations are too high, he is so confident in himself that he can't stand working for other people.

aand I should get homework done, but yeah.

[Lord Raziere]

yea, two stereotypes seem to have cropped up: dumb dad and crude teenage guy. the dumb dad drinks beer and watches football is fat, doesn't understand their kid etc.

and the crude teenager is some guy who constantly swears, wears "rebellious" clothes, is constantly listening to their iPod and generally doesn't care for their future or anything.

the sad thing is that IRL I see examples of the latter stereotype all around my school, and my own father fulfills most of the former stereotype except the intelligence thing- he is smart in his own way but.....y'know.

now you know where my love for individuality, freedom and chaos came from: defying these two things.

[Valameer]

Some consider the dominance of the "idiot husband" archtype a reaction to feminist impowerment. By reducing the man "the wife" archtype is married to it manages to make women look good, but only by making men look as bad as some the old female stereotypes. In a way its saying that women aren't capable of being the equal or superior of a non-idiot man, thus perpetuating sexist stereotypes while looking like it supports the progress of feminism.

I don't think I was too clear in my original post, but my main problem with the "idiot husband" archetype is that it's spilling over into real life.

Many guys I know identify themselves this way. I shudder to think that the media has such a profound influence on society, but honestly I think this is something that's come up recently. Most All of my married male friends let their wives do the primary planning and decision making in their relationships.

Don't get me wrong - if that works for them, that's fine. But that they also expect my relationship to work this way is grating. Not only that, but they expect me to love getting drunk, watching football, talking about cars and hunting.

I hope he doesn't mind me quoting him, but in another thread Sipex (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10331653&postcount=111) hit the nail on the head for me. (the second half of the post)

If men see themselves portrayed as loveable, but useless goofballs in the media enough, will we start emulating it?

[Closet_Skeleton]

ummmm.... Maybe they sometimes *play* the role of violent thugs in movies, but I seriously doubt the Korean public expect those *actors* to be violent thugs!

Manwa is comics, I don't know much about Korean movies despite being a film student.

But it is kind of common to assume that an actor is "like their characters", especially in old style Hollywood publicity.

[rayne_dragon]

I don't think I was too clear in my original post, but my main problem with the "idiot husband" archetype is that it's spilling over into real life.

Many guys I know identify themselves this way. I shudder to think that the media has such a profound influence on society, but honestly I think this is something that's come up recently. Most All of my married male friends let their wives do the primary planning and decision making in their relationships.

Don't get me wrong - if that works for them, that's fine. But that they also expect my relationship to work this way is grating. Not only that, but they expect me to love getting drunk, watching football, talking about cars and hunting.

I hope he doesn't mind me quoting him, but in another thread Sipex (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10331653&postcount=111) hit the nail on the head for me. (the second half of the post)

If men see themselves portrayed as loveable, but useless goofballs in the media enough, will we start emulating it?

I wonder. Is it that men are acting more like the male characters they see on TV or are the characters on TV a reflection of a change in society? Or is it neither and it simply is that because TV emphasizes the stupid, but lovable male that we are noticing when a man's actions fit this role more?

[Haruki-kun]

I don't think I was too clear in my original post, but my main problem with the "idiot husband" archetype is that it's spilling over into real life.

I've talked about this with people and reflected on it a lot. I've come to the conclusion that sitcoms are especially unfair to men, as men in sitcoms seem to be the archetype stupid parent. Homer Simpson, Peter Griffin, Raymond Barone, Jim... they always seem to fit the trope.

And then there's the non-domestic sitcoms where men tend towards being... Charlie Harper. Enough said.

EDIT: Something else I discussed with other playgrounders was that Friends, in particular, was a good example of a show that did not do this. All characters were treated fairly equally, and Ross usually ended up being the butt of the joke not for being a man, but for being Ross.

[Ragitsu]

Yep. Especially Everybody Loves Raymond. In that show, domestic abuse is okay if it's female on male. Can you imagine if a male husband on some show hit his wife in the groin? There would be an outrage.

[Valameer]

I wonder. Is it that men are acting more like the male characters they see on TV or are the characters on TV a reflection of a change in society? Or is it neither and it simply is that because TV emphasizes the stupid, but lovable male that we are noticing when a man's actions fit this role more?

The whole cycle of art imitating life imitating art. The bad part is - I find some of these shows pretty darn funny. Home Improvement, in particular. Although, is it just me, but is Tim a lot more three dimensional than the standard dopey dad? Sure, he plays up the gruff buffoon, but it's for laughs, even within the context of the show. He's still a capable, successful, intelligent (though he really tries to hide it) man.

Tim is still mocked for being a man, especially by the feminist Jill, but the show seems to subvert the tropes as often as it commits them.

[rayne_dragon]

Home Improvement is a good example of that trope being done well. I'd say Red Green is another example, actually. He has all the same incompetencies as the other "idiot husbands" combined with a certain brilliance in some areas. Plus he's interesting because you never see his wife, yet an important enough of a character that he mentions her in every show.

I think these ones maybe a little better than the others because they benefit more from being closer to the start of the "idiot husband" trope where it was a deconstruction of "father knows best" shows where the dad was super perfect at everything (Morel Orel puts another interesting spin on that, BTW). Looking at the Simpsons, you can see Homer's intelligence and competence decline over the years as the show goes on. It's so funny simply because it is being played to the extreme. Kind of like anime girls who are normally sweet and demure, then occassionally whip out a giant hammer and knock flat someone who upset them. There are women who act a little like this in real life, but nowhere as extreme as the anime depiction of the behavior.

[Worira]

Then why are you in this thread?

If you must state your lack of interest in discussing a topic, do you have to do it in a sarcastic dismissive way?


Because I never claimed that an analysis of characters in fiction from a feminist perspective is an unworthy endeavour, just that I don't think Terminator is a particularly deep film.

[Don Julio Anejo]

I agree with most of your analysis, but I think some comment needs to be drawn with regard to cultural shifts over the perception of activities.

The acts listed by your White Knights would be regarded as intellectual back then and perfectly acceptable, compared to now; a male who reads poetry and plays music these days would be considered more effeminate than intellectual.
It's simply activities themselves that shifted, not our perception. Nowadays poetry simply isn't very popular (emos notwithstanding), while back in the day it was a sign of both class and high standing - nobles were _expected_ to write poetry and be refined. Of course there were also brutes who marched off to war to kill things, but the ideal was, in essence, a warrior poet.

A good example of a modern "effeminate" manly man would be any Pierce Brosnan role. Take Thomas Crown - he's intelligent, suave, sophisticated and enjoys many fairly feminine things like classic art, fine wine and good literature. Or James Bond - same thing, fine wine (well, Martinis, but he knows his wine), good literature (Bond seems to be well versed in classics), a degree of wit. Yet no-one questions either character's masculinity.

Now contrast him with Sylvester Stallone. Sure, the Italian Stallion may be more macho, but his characters pretty unemotional and one-dimensional.

I'd also be careful about lumping in samurai with the White Knight archetype. The code of Chivalry and the code of Bushido seem similar on the surface, but there are fundamental differences - for example I believe there was a story about King Arthur where he ordered a knight to go slaughter a village. The knight agonised about it (duty to his lord versus the morality of his order) but finally refused to do it.
King Arthur was happy as he wanted his knights to think about what they were doing and not just follow orders blindly.

Compare to a daimyo ordering a samurai to do the same, the samurai would have been disgraced for even delaying in performing his lord's order, let alone question it.
About the only thing the samurai could do to protest without running away and becoming a ronin, would be to request permission for seppuku (kanshi or funshi).
I used knights and samurai as examples of men who can do traditionally feminine things and yet be all the more manly for it. In this sense, they're both quite similar, even if the particular things they would do are different (limericks vs. haiku, playing the lute vs. ikebana... etc).

As to your point, it's a cultural distinction. In Europe, the concept of a noble descended from Celtic/Germanic chieftains, which in turn were tribal warriors. They were seen, first and foremost, as protectors of their people. Serving the lord came later, and was a development new to the Middle Ages, originally coming from Frank warriors who were given land in return for service. And it honestly wasn't a very high priority. In fact, it was a lot more along the lines of knights serving the lord out of personal loyalty to him rather than because he's the lord, and changing seigniors wasn't uncommon if you didn't get along well with the one you had and geography allowed for it.

In Japan, samurai were first and foremost, feudal warriors. Therefore, serving the daimyo had a much higher priority than it was for Europeans.

[Ragitsu]

A good example of a modern "effeminate" manly man would be any Pierce Brosnan role. Take Thomas Crown - he's intelligent, suave, sophisticated and enjoys many fairly feminine things like classic art, fine wine and good literature. Or James Bond - same thing, fine wine (well, Martinis, but he knows his wine), good literature (Bond seems to be well versed in classics), a degree of wit. Yet no-one questions either character's masculinity.

{Scrubbed}

[rayne_dragon]

{Scrubbed the post, scrub the quote.}

I'm not even sure those are stereotypically feminine things. Wine, art, and literature are more distinctive of class than of gender.

@ v - True, but it is still more classist; there just isn't a have/have not divide, like you mentioned it's a matter of cheap wine vs. fine wine.

[Ragitsu]

I'm not even sure those are stereotypically feminine things. Wine, art, and literature are more distinctive of class than of gender.

Fair enough, though i'd say that was a stronger issue in the past (say, a century ago), when such things were less available to the "middle class".

Now, you just have finer wine, art, and literature, though i'd be willing to argue literature doesn't often come into the same high end price range as do wine and art.

[VanBuren]

I'm not even sure those are stereotypically feminine things. Wine, art, and literature are more distinctive of class than of gender.

@ v - True, but it is still more classist; there just isn't a have/have not divide, like you mentioned it's a matter of cheap wine vs. fine wine.

Yeah, I look at those things and think words like "classy," "distinguished," "High class," etc.

Not "feminine."

[ThunderCat]

I don't think I was too clear in my original post, but my main problem with the "idiot husband" archetype is that it's spilling over into real life.

Many guys I know identify themselves this way. I shudder to think that the media has such a profound influence on society, but honestly I think this is something that's come up recently. Most All of my married male friends let their wives do the primary planning and decision making in their relationships.I actually think that's fairly normal. We don't have many of those sitcoms here (they send some American ones but they rarely enjoy even half the popularity they do in their country of origin), but it's still the same. My mother sometimes refers to my father as Onslow, and he to her as Hyacinth (from the British sitcom Keeping Up Appearances, which was very popular here), because those characters represented an exaggeration of certain traits they'd noticed in each other, but they had that perception long before the show ever aired.

It's actually very old-fashioned, letting women keep track of birthdays, family obligations, the household budget, etc.., my grandmothers pretty much run the house, while their husbands are more defined by their jobs (which became a problem after they retired) – not that my grandmothers didn't have other jobs, they just weren't paid as much, and one of them stopped working outside the house entirely when she got married. The main difference is that in the 50s and 60s it was more acceptable for husbands to wield authority in areas they weren't qualified for, such as making decisions regarding house and kids, even though the wife did most of the actual work (and had the most experience) in those areas.

I think we have three generations now (at least in Denmark), the pre-feminist generation where women ran the house but usually had to cede authority over it to their husband, the feminist generation who decided that authority and duties should be equally shared but failed to live up to it in real life, and the post-feminist generation where people have mostly internalised the idea that women shouldn't have to cede authority to men just because of their sex, but haven't managed to change who runs the house (i.e. still usually the woman).


EDIT: Something else I discussed with other playgrounders was that Friends, in particular, was a good example of a show that did not do this. All characters were treated fairly equally, and Ross usually ended up being the butt of the joke not for being a man, but for being Ross.Friends also had they advantage of having an equal amount of characters of both sexes. Comedy protagonists are flawed per definition, and the more you push one sex in the foreground, the more unequal the portrayal will be. Will & Grace is another example of a series with a more equal amount of a male and female characters, with equally big roles, followed by a more equal portrayal (if anything, Will was the semi-flawless one).

Notice how many of the 'worst' shows refer to a man in the title. It's not 'The Queen of Queens' or 'Everybody Loves....' OK, I never watched the show enough to figure out what the token female was called, but that pretty much tells you how forgettable she was. If one or more male characters are pushed in the foreground of a comedy, with female characters being fewer and having smaller roles, said male characters will be more flawed, because that's what being a comedy protagonist is about. Keeping Up Appearances, which I mentioned earlier, is an example of a female-fronted sitcom (but with plenty of male characters), which, if anything, ridicules its women more than its men. And people find it to be the opposite of sexist, because a woman receives top billing.

[Coidzor]

If men see themselves portrayed as loveable, but useless goofballs in the media enough, will we start emulating it?

I'm-a go with a misanthropic, pessimistic Yes on this one. :/


I'm not even sure those are stereotypically feminine things. Wine, art, and literature are more distinctive of class than of gender.

A man who is of a certain socio-economic class (or attempting to woo a woman of a certain socio-economic class) is, after all, expected to know his wines and be able to order for himself and his woman. And loses status if he isn't able to do so.

[Serpentine]

Why not "gender-neutral"? :smallconfused:Because that's not what I want to do :smallconfused: I don't want to look at it from a gender neutral standpoint, I explicitely want to look at it from a gendered standpoint - just both genders, not just women. I guess a gender or gender studies standpoing might be the best, for all it's very awkward.
Yep. Especially Everybody Loves Raymond. In that show, domestic abuse is okay if it's female on male. Can you imagine if a male husband on some show hit his wife in the groin? There would be an outrage.Ugh, I hate that show, and no, not because of the "imagine if they did that to women! That's so unfair!" angle. Because everyone in it is awful. Everyone. All the men are sarcastic, henpecked buffoons, all the women are overbearing arrogant cows. The exceptions (from memory) are Raymond's brother, and his girlfriend - and they're the confirmed butts of all the jokes.
Because I never claimed that an analysis of characters in fiction from a feminist perspective is an unworthy endeavour, just that I don't think Terminator is a particularly deep film.Well, I put it to you that a "shallow" film has its own interest from a gender viewpoint - if they didn't think about it at all, couldn't that make it a bit more revealing?

I'll probably get to the rest eventually...

[Xondoure]

Because I never claimed that an analysis of characters in fiction from a feminist perspective is an unworthy endeavour, just that I don't think Terminator is a particularly deep film.

Funnily enough that is exactly what makes it worth looking at in my opinion. Terminator wasn't really written to tell a deep story about the human condition, it was made to make a lot of money with flashy action sequences. Which means all of the characters were written from more of a marketing perspective. Specifically what archetypes will make these scenes compelling when we aren't blowing stuff up? What appeals to the general public? The decisions made based on this are thus fairly indicative of the social structure it was made in.

[Serpentine]

Yeah. That too.

[rayne_dragon]

Because that's not what I want to do :smallconfused: I don't want to look at it from a gender neutral standpoint, I explicitely want to look at it from a gendered standpoint - just both genders, not just women. I guess a gender or gender studies standpoing might be the best, for all it's very awkward.

I never thought that the term gender neutral denied the existance and impact of gender. I always took the view that it isn't biased toward either - or, more accurately, any - gender.

[Serpentine]

Gender neutral would be neither gender. I was looking for something that's both genders.

[Haruki-kun]

Ugh, I hate that show, and no, not because of the "imagine if they did that to women! That's so unfair!" angle. Because everyone in it is awful. Everyone. All the men are sarcastic, henpecked buffoons, all the women are overbearing arrogant cows. The exceptions (from memory) are Raymond's brother, and his girlfriend - and they're the confirmed butts of all the jokes.

Which is actually my reason for hating Two and a Half Men. Not because of the jokes, the show has some rather funny moments. I just hate the fact that the only half-decent human being on the show, Alan, is always the one who ends up as the loser.

[rayne_dragon]

Gender neutral would be neither gender. I was looking for something that's both genders.

How's "gender inclusive" then? That sounds like you're covering all possible varients of gender plus gender neutral territory. And it doesn't seem too awkward to me.

Yes, it seriously took me this long to think of that.

@ v - Ahh. If that's the kind of term you're looking for then yeah, you're probably stuck with it. I've tried using "human rights" perspective for that sort of thing, but it's a bit clunky too.

[Serpentine]

But, again, that's not the sort of term I'm going for. I'm looking for a field from which to examine it - like watching House from a medical standpoint, or The Core from an ecological standpoint (done that, was very disappointed), or Tolkein from a WW2 history standpoint. I think the best I'm gonna get is a gender or gender study standpoint.

[Zaydos]

I'm not sure I agree with the analysis of the Terminator movies but it's been too long since I've watched either one.

Yeah got to agree with the Mrs. Doubtfire interpretation.

With Fight Club I think the book was more about how modern society is destructive towards the human spirit in general, but it was the main character's ousting from his means of social relief via a woman that led to his final break down and in a way an emasculation.

As for Rayne_Dragon's Lexx interpretation. It's quite nice. I don't really think the show was trying to show this, but it does do so. Bravo I must say.

Also yes the dumb dad stereotype is rather destructive. When people take such characters as their role-models, and they invariably will, it leads to even worse results.

[Ragitsu]

I didn't realize calling something out as a stereotype was trolling. Gosh...

[Eldan]

How about Dr. Horrible?

On the one hand, we have Doctor Horrible. He has a few aspects of "The Modern Man". He's a bit quieter, he's a nerd (obviously), he likes to sing about his feelings (okay, it's a musical, but still), he's versed in technology.
He is, however, also cripplingly shy and socially awkward. Captain Hammer, the more traditionally male character, bullies him, so Horrible begins to blame Hammer, and by extension all of society, for all his own shortcomings. Hammer, who is obviously not good enough for it, steals his woman (which is a surprisingly archaic idea for someone who at first appears to be a New Man). Hammer is responsible for foiling all his plans.
And so, his solution is violence. Murder, even. He plans to control the world with violent means, because he can't seem to get a grip on it otherwise. He wants to change it to conform to his own ideals, while Hammer actually seems happy with the present situation.

[Ragitsu]

Is that the show with Neil Patrick Harris?

[Xondoure]

Yup. You know the first time I watched it I was entirely on Billy's side and my only qualm was I wished it had a happier ending. After about the tenth time I began to notice just how bitter Dr. Horrible was. He's still a good guy but by the time we come in contact with him is seriously messed up and sees Penny as his one connection to the world. When Captain Hammer takes that away he's broken. He has nothing to connect him and all of his pent up bitterness at how the world has treated him comes tumbling out. One act of rage later and his dreams lay impaled with his own device. I still don't think he actually had the ability to kill, but he has to live with the consequences.

Important to note that he loses everything to his anger, it's a particularly masculine way to fall.

I also find it interesting that the modern man in this case is so disconnected with the modern world. The old man is revered and respected, not only fitting in but excelling. Revealing that society still has a hard time accepting a modern man into itself. At the same time we are meant to empathize with him as an outcast. A bit... ironic I think is the word I'm looking for that feeling shut out from everyone else is something most people can relate to.

[Avilan the Grey]

I have skipped a lot of posts here.

From my perspective I don't think there is much you need to change in the modern portrayal of men in media with one exception. The bumbling dad. I know it is easy to make fun of the White Heterosexual Male, because we are in power, and deserve it (seriously). Other than that there are enough diversity: evil monsters, male pigs, sensitive young men, nerds, geeks, action heroes...

However if I am allowed to make another connection from the other thread: I definitely enjoy when the "typical male" shines through. Like the Burger King ad "I'm a man", which was deemed sexist in Sweden (for some reason) and taken off the air. All it really showed as a bunch of guys fed up with having to do what their girlfriends wanted (eating at expensive French restaurant where you pay $90 for two asparagus and a piece of meat you can swallow in one bite, etc) and just walking out on her and across the street to a Burger King and getting a decent size meal. Or the movie the Expendables.

The reason I like things like this is because of the debate we had in the other thread; there is this misconception that men needs to behave more like women just because they are men, which irritates me to no end. This also connects to the "Bumbling dad" problem above; the woman in the family is always right (and when she is not the clown has starved to death in the 70ies...) and all arguments against her is because the man is an ass.

A male character should be able to be very manly, without being an ass. Or ignorant. Of course we can argue what exactly "manly" is...

A few male characters I really like (because of how they are written) in fiction:

Chelsea's dad in 2½ men
Grissom from CSI.
Gibbs, McGee and Ducky from NCIS (incidentally the two female leads are two of my absolute favorite female characters, too)
Harry Dresden from the Dresden novels
Jackie Chan's character in the Rush Hour movies

[revolver kobold]

On the subject of bumbling idiot men in media: mandatory watching. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7vtyheqPVU)

Her whole series is fantastic, this one just happens to be more relevant to the subject at hand.

[Eldan]

I think the clue is in the name, personally. He's called "Horrible", after all.

Alternative interpretation: society worships the Archaic man, despite his treatment of society with a mixture of contempt and demand of that same worship. The New Man is either ignored, when he sits in his basement or, when he tries to change the world with more direct means(for what he sees as the better), he is violently put down by the Archaic Man who is just better at the direct means.

Edit: to get the debate going: Old Spice Guy. New Man or Old Man?

[VanBuren]

I think the clue is in the name, personally. He's called "Horrible", after all.

Alternative interpretation: society worships the Archaic man, despite his treatment of society with a mixture of contempt and demand of that same worship. The New Man is either ignored, when he sits in his basement or, when he tries to change the world with more direct means(for what he sees as the better), he is violently put down by the Archaic Man who is just better at the direct means.

Edit: to get the debate going: Old Spice Guy. New Man or Old Man?

Only Man. Look at the commercials: at one moment he can be manly as they come and the next he can be smooth and charming. He is the pinnacle of male evolution.

As we are, he was. As he is, we shall become.

[Avilan the Grey]

I think the clue is in the name, personally. He's called "Horrible", after all.

Alternative interpretation: society worships the Archaic man, despite his treatment of society with a mixture of contempt and demand of that same worship. The New Man is either ignored, when he sits in his basement or, when he tries to change the world with more direct means(for what he sees as the better), he is violently put down by the Archaic Man who is just better at the direct means.

Edit: to get the debate going: Old Spice Guy. New Man or Old Man?

This irritates me to; but unfortunately what irritates me even MORE is when it's the women that puts down the New Man. And then berates the Archaic Man for being what he is. It's a no-win situation, really.


Only Man. Look at the commercials: at one moment he can be manly as they come and the next he can be smooth and charming. He is the pinnacle of male evolution.

As we are, he was. As he is, we shall become.

...While on a horse.

[Coidzor]

I'd say The Man Your Man Could Smell Like is a mixture of the ideal traits of both, coming up with something greater than either whole, with a bit of magic added in for good measure.


Hammer, who is obviously not good enough for it, steals his woman (which is a surprisingly archaic idea for someone who at first appears to be a New Man). Hammer is responsible for foiling all his plans.
And so, his solution is violence. Murder, even. He plans to control the world with violent means, because he can't seem to get a grip on it otherwise. He wants to change it to conform to his own ideals, while Hammer actually seems happy with the present situation.

Well, I've never heard of humans excising all of their vices before, especially not jealousy, his views of what it would take to win her over are stereotypically "Nice Guy" though, which is another issue that was brought up relatively recently in another thread. Actually, aside from a few pretty much obligatory lines as part of his villainous aspirations, most of his issues there were all from his being a "nice guy," and even then a few of the obligatory lines were very heavily filtered through his "nice guy" character flaw.

And, it's important to note, that he's intentionally sent up as flawed and non-ideal as the story is one of how he becomes a true villain. He is not so much a representation of the new man but of the failures created in the process of trying to make the new man. As a "nice guy," he believes himself to be without flaw in and of himself and that all flaws are with the world and others not being ready for someone as progressive/enlightened as he is. So he at first appears to maybe be the new man, but over time his facade is seen through and it's clear that he's an embodiment of the failure in transitioning...

Captain Hammer is pretty much all about the casual abuse of power though, so he's a great example of that aspect.

So my main question is whether it's a result of the surrounding environment not allowing/being ready for the new man to develop there or the new man is actually impossible and all we can do is try to force the old man into a different shape by beating and wrenching and cutting bits off of him or if it's just that he just has a flawed intrinsic nature that can't become or live up to either standard...


I know it is easy to make fun of the White Heterosexual Male, because we are in power, and deserve it (seriously).

Well, you had me until you said that I deserve to be punished with ridicule for the actions of others. :smallannoyed:

[Eldan]

I'm not sure I can answer that question on Billy, but he certainly has the insecurity that comes with the transition. He has an idealistic vision, and can't seem to conform to it, so something must be wrong.

[Serpentine]

Edit: to get the debate going: Old Spice Guy. New Man or Old Man?Awesome Man :smallamused:
He's interesting, actually... (generally speaking) He's the ultimate "women want him, men want to be him" man, which makes him an interesting reflection (and subversion, of course) of what both men and women consider ultimate manliness, and how they are not, in fact, mutually exclusive.
He's capable, but romantic; tough, but sensitive; practical, but intelligent. I wonder if there is - or can be - a female character that incorporates so much duality of ideals, and (not to derail it with female stuff, but that thread got taken away :smallfrown:) what she would be like if she can, and why if she can't...

[Brother Oni]

A good example of a modern "effeminate" manly man would be any Pierce Brosnan role. Take Thomas Crown - he's intelligent, suave, sophisticated and enjoys many fairly feminine things like classic art, fine wine and good literature. Or James Bond - same thing, fine wine (well, Martinis, but he knows his wine), good literature (Bond seems to be well versed in classics), a degree of wit. Yet no-one questions either character's masculinity.


I agree with the others in saying that knowing fine wine, classic art and good literature is more a sign of class, rather than being feminine. Coidzor and the others have discussed it far more eloquently than I could.

James Bond though is an interesting point as he's evolved from the cultured upper class ideal of masculinity to the more down-to-earth rugged ideal.

Take the actors from Connery to Brosnan (ignoring Dalton for now), and you can easily see the Naval Intelligence roots of the character. He's an officer and a gentleman first and a spy second.
Meanwhile both Dalton and Craig show a more brutal portrayal, Craig's especially since I believe the character's roots have been rebooted as ex-SBS, rather than Intelligence.



I used knights and samurai as examples of men who can do traditionally feminine things and yet be all the more manly for it. In this sense, they're both quite similar, even if the particular things they would do are different (limericks vs. haiku, playing the lute vs. ikebana... etc).

I'd argue whether they're traditionally feminine activities, since they weren't regarded as feminine back then, not to mention the class/gender classification.

However the point I was trying to make was that samurai shouldn't be lumped in the White Knight archetype, rather than whether they're warrior poets (which they are) or do feminine things (which we disagree on).

[Eldan]

I'd actually say that poetry, while not MANLY! necessarily, was still, in many cultures and for much of history, done by men. Skalds, troubadours, minnesänger, bards. All men.

[Serpentine]

We know two female ancient Greek poets, and one of them isn't considered any good...

Also, Persians were considered effeminate by the ancient Greeks/Romans because they wore pants and beards.

edit: Annnnnd another thing! For the Romans, it wasn't considered unmanly to be in a sexual relationship with another man. What was considered unmanly - and, therefore, condemned - was being the "bottom" - the passive, feminine partner - beyond the age they were considered a proper man. That is, it was considered totally fine for a man to be in a sexual relationship with a male youth or slave (although perceived excess could be ridiculed), even proper and beneficial for both members. However, it was only proper if the adult male acted like a proper adult male. That is, the sex was about power, not about romance, and deviation would be condemned legally or through ridicule (although that didn't stop romantic homoerotic poetry being written).

[Closet_Skeleton]

Because I never claimed that an analysis of characters in fiction from a feminist perspective is an unworthy endeavour, just that I don't think Terminator is a particularly deep film.

I don't think how deep the film is is really relevent. A by the numbers rom com will tell you more about society than an art film aimed at art film fans.


Nowadays poetry simply isn't very popular (emos notwithstanding), while back in the day it was a sign of both class and high standing - nobles were _expected_ to write poetry and be refined. Of course there were also brutes who marched off to war to kill things, but the ideal was, in essence, a warrior poet.

The poetry in question was often about violence, sex and treasure. So 'refined' may or may not come into it.

[Zaydos]

I'd actually say that poetry, while not MANLY! necessarily, was still, in many cultures and for much of history, done by men. Skalds, troubadours, minnesänger, bards. All men.

And the Norse did consider it MANLY! Your ability to insult someone wittily while fighting them proved you were a better warrior. So I really have to say writing poetry !/= feminine...

And I'm not just saying this because I like trying to write poetry.


We know two female ancient Greek poets, and one of them isn't considered any good...

Also, Persians were considered effeminate by the ancient Greeks/Romans because they wore pants and beards.


I always heard the Greeks had beards, hence all their bearded busts. The Romans, though, considered it unmanly.

Also there are those who think Homer was a woman, or a group of people, or two completely distinct and unrelated people.

[Valameer]

I know it is easy to make fun of the White Heterosexual Male, because we are in power, and deserve it (seriously).

I don't mean this rant to be directed at you, Avilan. I agree with a lot of what you said, but this part just caught my attention. A white male saying we deserve the abuse (a bit) feels like battered person syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battered_person_syndrome).

Do I deserve to be ridiculed for being a white male? I don't understand this. I have been ridiculed for being a white male, many times, and it's not something I would wish upon anyone else. My friend's wife can mock how I dance (without ever having seen me dance - and I can dance) on the grounds that I'm a white male. She also can tell me I have "Idiot Man-Eyes" because I couldn't find an item in her cluttered fridge, when obviously it was right there. Man-eyes. Really.

She gets away with this, with everyone else in the room laughing - because it's socially acceptable to mock a white male. We can take it.

Where I'm from, opportunities are more sparse for white males than they are for Native Americans or females. I understand that these individuals require more opportunities in the short term before things can truly even out (they need to establish a foothold in many predominantly white male dominated industries). But even so, I get to feel sexism directed against me. I have less opportunities in fields of work (especially in fields like fire-fighting or the police where they require to fill a number of minorities, but white males are not required, leaving us with 20 positions to vie for whilst they have 35 positions available) and have significantly less scholarships available to apply for. It's not nearly what other oppressed people have gone through, but it's still not pleasant.

None of this affects me because of who I am, it is simply a result of my sex and the colour of my skin. Sexism and racism can affect anybody.


He's capable, but romantic; tough, but sensitive; practical, but intelligent. I wonder if there is - or can be - a female character that incorporates so much duality of ideals, and what she would be like if she can, and why if she can't...

I'm not familiar with the Old Spice commercials, so bear with me.

I can imagine a woman with exactly those qualities you listed - Capable, romantic, tough, sensitive, practical, and intelligent. She would usually show one side of her personality to the world: Capable, tough, and practical. Though these qualities would be strong, she wouldn't flaunt them or attempt to make people off guard. They would show through to others as a quiet confidence (sexy in a male, too, imo). Those close to her would also see the romantic, sensitive, and intelligent side to her personality, able to dream and connect with her friends. She would not be cold or jaded from the world, but capable of dealing with life's hardships and still be able to be close with her emotions and fulfill her dreams.

I think a lot of women approach this ideal, actually. In media... I'm not so sure. Usually characters aren't so three dimensional or well rounded. Besides, characters without flaws aren't always that fun to write for or read. Characters from children's stories probably come the closest to being fully realised role models like this.

[bladesyz]

Do I deserve to be ridiculed for being a white male? I don't understand this. I have been ridiculed for being a white male, many times, and it's not something I would wish upon anyone else. My friend's wife can mock how I dance (without ever having seen me dance - and I can dance) on the grounds that I'm a white male. She also can tell me I have "Idiot Man-Eyes" because I couldn't find an item in her cluttered fridge, when obviously it was right there. Man-eyes. Really.

She gets away with this, with everyone else in the room laughing - because it's socially acceptable to mock a white male. We can take it.


Depending on the exact details of the circumstances (which I have no clue of), you're either being overly sensitive, or your friend's wife is being rude. It's not unique to you by any means.

I'm Asian, male, and a bit overweight. I've had people make jokes about all 3 of those factors. Sometimes I laugh with them, sometimes I feel embarrassed, sometimes angry, and sometimes I don't like what I hear but I realize the speaker didn't mean to be insulting. It's all about my relationship with the speaker and how and what they say.

So I don't think there is any basis for you to bring racism and sexism into this. Awkward social moments are part and parcel with any social interaction.

Some examples:

Once I was discussing restaurant service with a couple of friends who were white. One of them said that service was important because a trained monkey could bring you food. I replied that if a trained monkey brought me food, I'd eat it just fine. Then my other friend chimed in and said that if a trained monkey brought me food, I would eat the monkey too! Even though I'd never entertain the thought of eating monkeys, I wasn't the least bit offended by his comment since he was an old friend of mine.

In contrast, there was this one time a group of us asian friends were gathering, and we talked about our birth sign. Since were were all around the same age, most of us were Monkeys. Then one guy, whom I didn't know very well, commented that I was more like a gorilla. I was pretty offended by that and thought it was kind of rude.

[Valameer]

Depending on the exact details of the circumstances (which I have no clue of), you're either being overly sensitive, or your friend's wife is being rude. It's not unique to you by any means.

I should have been more clear. She's particularly outspoken against men - all men. That's what bothers me. It isn't her random little insults to me (though my examples were from the first time we had hung out together, so it's not like she's comfortable teasing the men she's well familiar with in an endearing sort of way), it's that every comment she has about a man is very critical or dismissive.

I guess it especially bothers me because she does it aggresively to my friend - and where he used to be an intelligent and boisterous guy, he's now dopey, submissive to her, and not allowed to play D&D with us any more. :smallannoyed: (my outrage is hyperbolic, but still!)

I don't know whether I should keep trying to reach out to him or not, seeing as I find his wife to be very difficult to get along with, and he has to ok everything by her. It's like she's molded him into a dumb dad by making him believe that's how he should act.


So I don't think there is any basis for you to bring racism and sexism into this. Awkward social moments are part and parcel with any social interaction.

You're right. It was more of a "I've experienced sexism from an individual, and it bothered me. Here's an example," rather than a "I get put down all the time based on race/sex."

EDIT: This shouldn't be the "Help Lyceios keep in touch with his friends" thread, though, so I bolded the only relevant part.

[bladesyz]

I should have been more clear. She's particularly outspoken against men - all men. That's what bothers me. It isn't her random little insults to me (though my examples were from the first time we had hung out together, so it's not like she's comfortable teasing the men she's well familiar with in an endearing sort of way), it's that every comment she has about a man is very critical or dismissive.

I guess it especially bothers me because she does it aggresively to my friend - and where he used to be an intelligent and boisterous guy, he's now dopey, submissive to her, and not allowed to play D&D with us any more. :smallannoyed: (my outrage is hyperbolic, but still!)

I don't know whether I should keep trying to reach out to him or not, seeing as I find his wife to be very difficult to get along with, and he has to ok everything by her. It's like she's molded him into a dumb dad by making him believe that's how he should act.

You're right. It was more of a "I've experienced sexism from an individual, and it bothered me. Here's an example," rather than a "I get put down all the time based on race/sex."

EDIT: This shouldn't be the "Help Lyceios keep in touch with his friends" thread, though, so I bolded the only relevant part.

Okay, yeah, it sounds like she's simply a rude person then. It's sad to say, but some people just don't realize how rude they are.

[Worlok]

We know two female ancient Greek poets, and one of them isn't considered any good...
Interestingly, the Ancient Greeks - now that they've been mentioned - had a certain school of philosophy which defined five, rather than two, genders. I just can't remember what it was named and how influential it came to be. Anyhow, they had an array that might be translated (roughly, mind) as "Man-Man", "Woman-Man", "Neither", "Man-Woman", and "Woman-Woman".

The first would be a paragon of in-your-face "manliness", all dominant, confident and probably aggressive, being definitely male (or rather, masculine) by both sex and demeanor (perhaps the equivalent of the "Old Man" in that these were expected to have pride, strength, willpower and all that jazz and to use it according to their principles); the second one would be more on the contemplative and cautious side of things, someone to support or discuss, but not usually the leader type (perhaps, the "New Man" in that these were expected to have wisdom, principles, intellect and a way with words, used according to their perception of were it was used best); the third, a recluse, not necessarily part of society as a whole, without any defining traits of one side or the other, probably not given to sexuality or other such things (unsurprisingly, both sexes could get in on the Neither-deal); the fourth would be the "Modern Woman" - confident, independent, smart and "upwardly mobile", to use that odd bit of business speech at least once; while the fifth would be closer to the pre-liberation ideal of "womanly virtues", submissive rather than dominant, probably active within a very limited area - such as that unfortunate "kitchen" stereotype - and with a clearly-defined level of expertise and control.

It should, however, be noted that none of those types had any sort of stigma or varying "power level" attached to them, they were merely considered various implications (or results) of personality affecting nature to a varying degree - a "Woman-Man" was no "less of a man" than a "Man-Man". Just a different kind of man. A "Man-Man" was no less powerful or important than a "Woman-Woman" by default, he was simply considered more likely to try and get there as a result of his (pre-)installed personality, for example. A "Man-Woman", on the other hand, would show the same drive to greatness, "out-manning" both kinds of man in certain cases.

The underlying assumption being that while both sexes show that inherently human pursuit of - I don't know, could we call it "freedom"? "Self-governance"? "Happiness"? - the male sex will more regularly strive to actively dominate nature and its surroundings by means of actively influencing both, (And seeing how in very early stages of civilisation, males tended to be the hunters and fighters due to certain traits coming naturally with male development, such as muscle growth and the "immunity" to mobility-reducing pregnancy, that may make sense in a "relic of evolution" kind of way.) leading to a dominant woman being called "Man-Woman", while the female sex will more likely try to come to terms with nature and its surroundings by means of adaptation (And, well, nine month gestation periods and having to keep the result alive in an "Everyone may die horribly any moment now" environment can force you to think strategy, even out of the box, much more convincingly then the obligation to hit animals with rocks, and may justify this being chalked up to the "relic" argument as well), leading to a follower or thinker type man being called "Woman-Man".

My personal pet theory has it that the shift in presentation of both sexes - be it in the media or in public perception overall - is rooted in some sort of subconscious rediscovery of that - or a related - concept. Especially in pieces where the need for balance between "Old" and "New" ideals is highlighted, one could possibly make out a growing tendency to provide a greater degree of gender options to the species as a whole.

But then again, I'm probably not the most qualified to comment much on gender issues. Still, consider this my proverbial two copper pieces.

[VanBuren]

Hold on a tic, there was definitely some stigma attached to "masculine women" especially if you look at The Orestia and compare Clytemnestra and Electra.

[Coidzor]

I'm not familiar with the Old Spice commercials, so bear with me.

I believe all of them are available on (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqoc6wTNotI&feature=relmfu) Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLTIowBF0kE&feature=relmfu) through the (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFDqvKtPgZo&feature=relmfu)Old Spice (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt6iEGzLPjg)channel. They did a pretty impressive thing with the videos they put out in a short time period while also responding to viewer input.

[Worlok]

Hold on a tic, there was definitely some stigma attached to "masculine women" especially if you look at The Orestia and compare Clytemnestra and Electra.
True (I think). But one guy writing a tragedy does not alway represent the opinions of the great mass of the people, much less a single school of philosophers who might well not have been around in Aeschylus' time. Therefore, no matter how apparent a stigma may be in the works of the guy, or even the overall public opinion, it won't necessarily influence the opinions of a bunch of philosophers. The concept of "Ancient Greece" encompasses a couple thousand people and a very long time, after all. Not to mention lots and lots of different brands of philosophy. (I do not, in any way, intend to ridicule or offend anyone here. It's just a thought.)

[zimmerwald1915]

The underlying assumption being that while both sexes show that inherently human pursuit of - I don't know, could we call it "freedom"? "Self-governance"? "Happiness"? - the male sex will more regularly strive to actively dominate nature and its surroundings by means of actively influencing both, (And seeing how in very early stages of civilisation, males tended to be the hunters and fighters due to certain traits coming naturally with male development, such as muscle growth and the "immunity" to mobility-reducing pregnancy, that may make sense in a "relic of evolution" kind of way.) leading to a dominant woman being called "Man-Woman", while the female sex will more likely try to come to terms with nature and its surroundings by means of adaptation (And, well, nine month gestation periods and having to keep the result alive in an "Everyone may die horribly any moment now" environment can force you to think strategy, even out of the box, much more convincingly then the obligation to hit animals with rocks, and may justify this being chalked up to the "relic" argument as well), leading to a follower or thinker type man being called "Woman-Man".
It's a Victorian rather than a Greek word, but I'm pretty sure you're looking for "autonomy".

[Valameer]

Or "eudaimonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia)?"

[Worlok]

"Autonomy"! "Eudaimonia"! Thanks, those really do work well. :smallsmile: (Perhaps "Independence" could be used, too? Anyhow, I think the concept has been clarified sufficiently.)

[VanBuren]

True (I think). But one guy writing a tragedy does not alway represent the opinions of the great mass of the people, much less a single school of philosophers who might well not have been around in Aeschylus' time. Therefore, no matter how apparent a stigma may be in the works of the guy, or even the overall public opinion, it won't necessarily influence the opinions of a bunch of philosophers. The concept of "Ancient Greece" encompasses a couple thousand people and a very long time, after all. Not to mention lots and lots of different brands of philosophy. (I do not, in any way, intend to ridicule or offend anyone here. It's just a thought.)

Oy, understatement of the year right there. I'm glad and all that we have the "cream of the crop" so to speak of Greek drama, but it'd be nice to have a little more in the way of disposable pulp "blockbusters".

[Worlok]

I'm glad and all that we have the "cream of the crop" so to speak of Greek drama, but it'd be nice to have a little more in the way of disposable pulp "blockbusters".
Would semi-obscure 1980-ish New German Cinema productions count? Because I could illustrate the theory I described above with some weapons-grade Klaus Kinski. :smalltongue:

[Zaydos]

Aristophanes also talked down on the feminine man in The Clouds and both were attacked in another of his plays (I'm trying to remember which one). The Spartans were well known to have manly women, too, and celebrated that. At least according to Athenians.

[Worlok]

But if I remember correctly, the Spartans had a habit of making a reversed, if similar statement on Athenians... Still, that's another point: Ancient Greece was far from unified, it might well be that we're all completely missing each other's points or talking of entirely different societies here. :smallconfused:

Anyhow, Aristophanes and Aeschylus were around at about the same time, just about a century apart, unless I'm mistaken. I'll try to get the guy who told me about those philosophers to tell me what they were called, so I can actually provide some evidence. I am, however, quite sure that they were around when Aristotle was, so, still about a century later.

[GenericGuy]

I will admit that the over saturation of androgynous and “weak” main characters have turned me off a lot of Anime and JRPGs. Granted that a lot of these are the classic boy hero grows into a man (so its kinda the point), but there still plenty of characters who are more “mature” but still make me roll my eyes in contempt at their lithe build and childish faces. It’s a little petty I know to dislike someone just for how they look, but it’s how I feel.

On to characterization, which this topic seems to mostly be about.

I notice that even when the male character is more feminine than how males are traditionally portrayed he’s still presented as being “dominate” over the female love interest. Edward Cullen is the first that comes to mind; he is extremely overly emotional and “sissy” but still has the most power in the relationship and controls the relationship.

So one thing doesn’t change, most women prefer the male to be the more aggressive of the two no matter how feminized he may be.

As to the stupid Dad Trope, I’ve always liked and respected my dad so it generally makes me:smallfurious:.

[Serpentine]

The poetry in question was often about violence, sex and treasure. So 'refined' may or may not come into it.I have a whole book of ancient Greek and Roman erotic poetry. It ranges from sweet, romantic odes to lusty bits of pornography to horrible, brutal diatribes.
Moreover, The Illiad is poetry about violence, sex and treasure. Would you really consider that "unrefined"?

I always heard the Greeks had beards, hence all their bearded busts. The Romans, though, considered it unmanly.I always get 'em mixed up...

Also there are those who think Homer was a woman, or a group of people, or two completely distinct and unrelated people.Never heard the woman theory. I think it's pretty established, though, that even if Homer was a real person, his works have been heavily altered over time.
She also can tell me I have "Idiot Man-Eyes" because I couldn't find an item in her cluttered fridge, when obviously it was right there. Man-eyes. Really.This woman sounds just plain awful. But, to be fair to this tiny bit here, that apparently has some biological basis. Men's eyes, apparently, have evolved to tend to be good at spotting movement, while women's are good at picking out particular items in a mass of stuff. Generally speaking, of course.
Hold on a tic, there was definitely some stigma attached to "masculine women" especially if you look at The Orestia and compare Clytemnestra and Electra.I think it's worth pointing out that there is often a big gap between ideals and even laws, and actual everyday practice. One of the more interesting things I learnt at uni was that if there's a law telling people to/not to do something, then that means that people are or have been not doing/doing that thing. If you see a text condemning a woman for being strong or lusty or whatever, then not only do you get a glimpse into the ideals of that person and that they can find an audience that presumably supports them, but also you are informed that there are women who are capable of being strong or lusty or whatever, do so publically, and get away with it at least to an extent.

...crap, women again. That applies to men, too, though - see Ovid's love affair with a young man.

So one thing doesn’t change, most women prefer the male to be the more aggressive of the two no matter how feminized he may be.That is a terrible and deeply flawed thing to claim. Among many, many other things, fiction like Twilight is purely fantasy. Just because someone fantasises about one thing doesn't mean that's what they want to happen in real life. Claiming that the horrible relationship in Twilight means that's what "most women" really want is... absolutely awful (and damn scary to the (limited) extent it's true).

[GenericGuy]

That is a terrible and deeply flawed thing to claim. Among many, many other things, fiction like Twilight is purely fantasy. Just because someone fantasises about one thing doesn't mean that's what they want to happen in real life. Claiming that the horrible relationship in Twilight means that's what "most women" really want is... absolutely awful (and damn scary to the (limited) extent it's true).

I didn’t mean that women wanted an abusive relationship (well there are those who write love letters to serial killers, but they’re definitely in the minority) like in Twilight. He was just the best example I could come up with on the spot, who while “un-manly” is still “manly” in that he is more dominate of the relationship than Bella. And that is something that most women still want in a feminized man, him being the more assertive of the two.

[Serpentine]

1. "Assertive" is different to "aggressive".
2. Wanting an "assertive" partner is not the same as wanting to be dominated by said partner.
3. I expect it's as (or increasingly) common the other direction, too - I think people want assertive partners, not just women.

[Hida Reju]

While there are many blogs and websites I would gladly read and comment in this issue is way too close to politics or religion for comfort on this website.

I would suggest the thread be closed or taken to another venue for further discussion.

I have found that personal blogs or sites like Shakesville and feministe are better places to comment on ideas that are borderline political.

[Serpentine]

...why? :smallconfused: It's just (or is meant to be... We've gotten a bit off-topic, sorry :smallredface:) a discussion of depictions of men in media.

[GenericGuy]

1. "Assertive" is different to "aggressive".
2. Wanting an "assertive" partner is not the same as wanting to be dominated by said partner.
3. I expect it's as (or increasingly) common the other direction, too - I think people want assertive partners, not just women.

Not necessarily there are a lot of men who actively seek a more submissive partner and most woman I’ve talk to seek a more dominate partner.

Example: there are men who won’t date a woman who makes more money than them

There are woman who won’t date a man who makes less money than them

There are men who won’t date a woman taller than them

There are woman who won’t date a man shorter than them

All these things carry conations of dominance (more wealth and height=more power, smaller less wealth=the weaker one)

I’m not saying any of this is good or bad, it’s just the closest thing I see as “universal” in what each sex finds attractive in the other. Of course there are exceptions.

[Serpentine]

I'll just say I disagree with your claim of universality, and leave it at that.

To get more on-topic: "Coming of age" and "rite of manhood" films. Are they representative of what you have experienced growing up? Are they still relevant today? Are/why are they specifically masculine?

[GenericGuy]

To get more on-topic: "Coming of age" and "rite of manhood" films. Are they representative of what you have experienced growing up? Are they still relevant today? Are/why are they specifically masculine?

Well I can’t remember the last time I defeated an evil overlord:smalltongue:, but leading instead following is something I notice about my adult self.

In high school I was far more likely to differ group decision making to others and care far more about my appearance to the social group. Now that I’m in college I care much less about what others think of me and generally lead a group than follow one.

But I have noticed that most fiction that stress female independence and leadership tend to be much more blunt. Do they think that viewers (meaning young girls) can’t figure out the message of these stories without a character mentioning it every ten seconds?

[Xondoure]

Highschool depictions in media are getting irritating. Just because I'm a nerd doesn't mean I get dumped in a dumpster every day. Hostility has become a much more subtle brand of nastiness but thankfully one most people can avoid with a few solid friends.

Edit: shoot needs more on topic. uhmmm... Coming of age films usually symbolize responsibility and well, sexuality. Interesting to note the differences of how that's handled between boys and girls. In general there are tons of films about guys trying to lose their virginities, I find them crass and dumb, but so is most of the mainstream.

[Coidzor]

I notice that even when the male character is more feminine than how males are traditionally portrayed he’s still presented as being “dominate” over the female love interest. Edward Cullen is the first that comes to mind; he is extremely overly emotional and “sissy” but still has the most power in the relationship and controls the relationship.

So one thing doesn’t change, most women prefer the male to be the more aggressive of the two no matter how feminized he may be.

He's not a good example of the feminine in men due to the rather isolated cultural lexicon of the author. Sure, he's dressed up nice, but he's still very much the old man. He puts on airs and acts nice, but in the end he's cold and dead, inhuman and brutal in his sexuality. Many have brought up points elsewhere about how he displays the archetypal patterns of an abuser of women as well.

[VanBuren]

To touch on a earlier point of discussion: I, personally, can't imagine myself in a lasting and meaningful relationship with a person significantly more submissive than myself.

So I suppose I defy the universal in that I very much find myself attracted to assertive women. Not in the sense that I want to be submissive either, but confidence is sexy no matter who is wearing it.

[Serpentine]

Edit: shoot needs more on topic. uhmmm... Coming of age films usually symbolize responsibility and well, sexuality. Interesting to note the differences of how that's handled between boys and girls. In general there are tons of films about guys trying to lose their virginities, I find them crass and dumb, but so is most of the mainstream.Actually, in that regard, I found American Pie to be surprisingly mature in that regard.

SPOILERS BELOW, I guess.

The boys all start out with a very idealised and stereotypical view of sex and sexuality. They definitely buy into the A Man Is Not A Virgin torpe (or whatever it's called), and they are focussed on the idea of sex for sex's sake.
By the end of it, they all come to more adult understandings of sex: It's an expression of love, it's not necessary for the expression of love, it doesn't really matter all that much... not sure what the fourth guy's lesson was. His was really more of a less subtle "I'm a man now!" thanks to the older woman... Maybe, if I'm stretching, that it doesn't matter what your peers think, you don't need their approval to be a man. Basically, it's not so much as an achievement you can unlock, as something you do either as an expression or just as something that doesn't really matter.
Sex, in other words, is symbolic of their development into men, but not in the way they originally expect it to be.

I'm curious to see what the males of the Playground's take on it is.

[Coidzor]

To understand and take mastery of one's sexuality away from others so that one is the sole master of it and it is only one's chosen values remain.

[GenericGuy]

I think “that Guy with the Glasses” commented on this, but he saw the ending when they all lose their virginity anyways as a betrayal of the message

I agree so I prefer the “40 year old Virgin” in its handling of a man who was past his “due date.” In the movie the more sexually experienced men are shown to not be all that emotionally mature despite having sex, while the main character has his “man-boyish” qualities he is still a far more responsible adult than they are.

[Serpentine]

I think “that Guy with the Glasses” commented on this, but he saw the ending when they all lose their virginity anyways as a betrayal of the messageTo be fair, one is left ambiguous.

I agree so I prefer the “40 year old Virgin” in its handling of a man who was past his “due date.” In the movie the more sexually experienced men are shown to not be all that emotionally mature despite having sex, while the main character has his “man-boyish” qualities he is still a far more responsible adult than they are.I'm not a fan of that movie, but there was one bit in particular that annoyed me: In order to get the girl and be "truly a man", he pretty much has to sacrifice his entire identity by selling off all of his treasured possessions.

[Zaydos]

Actually, in that regard, I found American Pie to be surprisingly mature in that regard.

SPOILERS BELOW, I guess.

The boys all start out with a very idealised and stereotypical view of sex and sexuality. They definitely buy into the A Man Is Not A Virgin torpe (or whatever it's called), and they are focussed on the idea of sex for sex's sake.
By the end of it, they all come to more adult understandings of sex: It's an expression of love, it's not necessary for the expression of love, it doesn't really matter all that much... not sure what the fourth guy's lesson was. His was really more of a less subtle "I'm a man now!" thanks to the older woman... Maybe, if I'm stretching, that it doesn't matter what your peers think, you don't need their approval to be a man. Basically, it's not so much as an achievement you can unlock, as something you do either as an expression or just as something that doesn't really matter.
Sex, in other words, is symbolic of their development into men, but not in the way they originally expect it to be.

I'm curious to see what the males of the Playground's take on it is.

Haven't seen the movie but I must personally agree with the bolded portion at least. Sex is an expression, not the ultimate one, of love.

Sex does not make you a man.

I now kind of want to see American Pie.

On the Homer is female theory I believe Robert Graves was one of the believers in it, but I have heard it from other sources as well. I haven't heard convincing evidence (although I've heard a fairly convincing argument against the theory that the author of The Odyssey and the author of The Illiad didn't know the other story well).

[GenericGuy]

I'm not a fan of that movie, but there was one bit in particular that annoyed me: In order to get the girl and be "truly a man", he pretty much has to sacrifice his entire identity by selling off all of his treasured possessions.

He didn’t sell them all; they met under his lie that he wanted to use her shipping business to get rid of some of his stuff. she even tried to reassure him that if he didn’t want to sell them he didn’t have too, but he started freaking out as the date they were planning to have sex was approaching and used it as an excuse to break up with her. Besides he never learns to drive a car while she was teaching him, she even buys him a new bike showing she supports his lifesyle.

[Serpentine]

At the end, though, they still sell all of his stuff. The implication is that if you want to be a grown-up, you have to give up childish things - and that does not include the desire to be very grown up.

[VanBuren]

At the end, though, they still sell all of his stuff. The implication is that if you want to be a grown-up, you have to give up childish things - and that does not include the desire to be very grown up.

I think the implication wasn't that those things were wrong in and of themselves, but that they were innately tied to the initial stasis we find him in at the beginning of the movie. Discarding the items becomes a way of overcoming his past.

[Serpentine]

Mrregh. I guess, it just rubbed me the wrong way...

[VanBuren]

Mrregh. I guess, it just rubbed me the wrong way...

It's been a while since I've seen the movie admittedly. Besides, strange things like that happen when you mix romantic comedy and what's essentially a Bildungsroman (even if the protagonist is a wee bit older than the norm for it.)

[Frozen_Feet]

Not necessarily there are a lot of men who actively seek a more submissive partner and most woman I’ve talk to seek a more dominate partner.

Example: there are men who won’t date a woman who makes more money than them

There are woman who won’t date a man who makes less money than them

There are men who won’t date a woman taller than them

There are woman who won’t date a man shorter than them

All these things carry conations of dominance (more wealth and height=more power, smaller less wealth=the weaker one)

I’m not saying any of this is good or bad, it’s just the closest thing I see as “universal” in what each sex finds attractive in the other. Of course there are exceptions.
Recent statistical studies show that men are more likely to "date down" or date someone of equal status than them, while women are more likely to "date up". However, I don't think it has much to do with dominance - and more to do with different standards of a "succesful" partner between sexes. The "lower" party can be very much dominant in the relationship.

Remember also that these are statistics - expections happen all the time.



To get more on-topic: "Coming of age" and "rite of manhood" films. Are they representative of what you have experienced growing up? Are they still relevant today? Are/why are they specifically masculine?

They are somewhat representative of my experiences, as my peers have shown equal obsession towards sex or other "manly" goals as movie characters. They are not representative of me, though. Their relevance... eh, much of their relevance comes from the fact that the audience still buys into them. They reflect a certain kind of culture and reinforce it in turn. Overall, I don't think they're very consequential.

They are masculine, in the sense that they portray typical masculine behaviors and attitudes. As a man who does not consider it specially worth it to be a "manly man", they often just strike me as oafish.

[Serpentine]

What about things like Stand By Me, though? That was actually what I was thinking of when I said "coming of age films". Interesting that you all leap to "losing virginity films" :smallamused: :smalltongue:

[Lurkmoar]

What about things like Stand By Me, though? That was actually what I was thinking of when I said "coming of age films". Interesting that you all leap to "losing virginity films" :smallamused: :smalltongue:

I took Stand By Me, and the short story The Body as the loss of innocence more than a coming of age tale.

[Frozen_Feet]

What about things like Stand By Me, though? That was actually what I was thinking of when I said "coming of age films". Interesting that you all leap to "losing virginity films" :smallamused: :smalltongue:

That's because I haven't actually seen a lot of obvious "coming of age" films. The few I can remember are stuff akin to American Pie. I'd really have to do some digging to recall anything else.

[Closet_Skeleton]

I guess it especially bothers me because she does it aggresively to my friend - and where he used to be an intelligent and boisterous guy, he's now dopey, submissive to her, and not allowed to play D&D with us any more. :smallannoyed: (my outrage is hyperbolic, but still!)


Reminds me of a film called "how to murder your wife" where one of the side characters is a lawyer how eventually realises how terrible his marriage is and how he was a better person before he got married.

Despite the title, its not really a sexist film. No one actually gets murdered for one thing. While it does imply that a man that lets a woman be in charge isn't a 'real man', its more of a case of saying that situations where a man is only married because its expected of someone of his age and social class and the wife is controlling, dismissive and stops the man having any fun is a bad thing and the man should get divorced but that a more equal marriage where both people love each other and compromise equally is a good thing.

[Avilan the Grey]

One stereotype that unfortunately seems quite real is the "Woman must change man" (or maybe rather "Woman assumes man needs changing") one

Of course I have my own take on it:

"The only real difference between a man and a woman in a relationship is that he KNOWS he can't understand her, so he doesn't even try. She "KNOWS" that she understands him, and therefore get confused and angry when he doesn't behave like she assumes he should".

Sexist yes. True way too often.

It is far more common for men to abandon friends and hobbies to please the woman than the other way around. This is why divorced men and widowers tend to be more depressed; they don't automatically have a support group anymore. Of course when it makes it to the (IRL) news, it tends to be the extreme cases of the other way around, when a man is extremely possessive and abusive. (I am not saying this with any kind accusatory voice, I am just saying that the times it gets bad enough to be on the news, it tends to be males isolating females).

[Marillion]

I took Stand By Me, and the short story The Body as the loss of innocence more than a coming of age tale.

Isn't that really the same thing, though? Coming of age means leaving behind your childhood innocence. In Old Yeller, Travis may have not become a man when he shot his dog, but that action put him on the path.

[Zaydos]

Those extremes also comes from the same reason divorced men and widowers tend to be more depressed. At least according to what I've read on the subject, men are by nature more likely to emotionally invest themselves entirely into one person (not talking sexually here, as much as I wish I could be) while women naturally spread out with friends and other means of support.

In normal cases this means the woman can manipulate the guy more easily and get him to do what she wants (very important during time periods where the male had total outer power). In extreme cases this means the male gets completely possessive and abusive.

The silly thing is my girlfriend and I had the exact same set of friends but she still tried to stop me from being around them. She would get jealous if I was hanging around them even while she was in class :smallsigh:. I should have listened to them when they did tell me to get out of that train wreck.*

*: I recognize that my ex is not necessarily a good representation of the female gender, but a self-admitted extremely strange case.

Edit: On Stand By Me, my response what specifically what do I think of your summary of American Pie. On the others... Coming of age to males traditionally meant being emotionally and psychologically able to make difficult decisions and do what had to be done even if you didn't like it and not break under the weight.

[Themrys]

One stereotype that unfortunately seems quite real is the "Woman must change man" (or maybe rather "Woman assumes man needs changing") one

That turns up a lot in bad romance novels. The man is a slut, the woman is a virgin, but of course, her love changes him into a suitable partner and faithful husband. As if.
It would be interesting to know for how many bad relationships this trope is to blame.

I think the realness of this stereotype stems from its omnipresence in media. Women read it and think they can change men. And refuse to believe they can't, even when they obviously don't succeed.

[Zaydos]

That turns up a lot in bad romance novels. The man is a slut, the woman is a virgin, but of course, her love changes him into a suitable partner and faithful husband. As if.
It would be interesting to know for how many bad relationships this trope is to blame.

I think the realness of this stereotype stems from its omnipresence in media. Women read it and think they can change men. And refuse to believe they can't, even when they obviously don't succeed.

Possibly mine. I think there were other factors at work, but I think that she decided she had to change me was one of them (because she succeeded to a large part and then got upset with it). Then again I was the virgin of the two of us (and the one everyone described as a Paladin). That and when she cheated on me, I thought it was possible to salvage it because people can change.

I still believe that most people are good, but I'm a lot less idealistic now and a lot more cynical.

[VanBuren]

I still believe that most people are good, but I'm a lot less idealistic now and a lot more cynical.

The best Paladins are.

[Zaydos]

The best Paladins are.

Eh I need an atonement spell at least. But thanks :smallsmile:

Still let's not steer this thread towards me and self-pity. I'm actually rather interested in where this thread is going (and the number of ways to look at the issues; evolutionary psychology, psychology, historically, philosophically, etc).

[Jallorn]

-snip-What's different? There's mountainloads of data on how men are selected to be competitive (and hence value competitiveness) and women are selected to be cooperative (and hence value cooperativeness).
-snip-

This is a common belief, but is mostly unsupported by evidence(as far as I've seen). In fact, most recent studies have been showing that men are more cooperative because of structured competition that establishes a merit-based (for some definition of merit) hierarchy, enabling more efficient organization. While women, at least competitive women, tend to be passive aggressive, sneaky, and backstabbers in competition with each other, they never admit defeat and so no hierarchy can be established.

These are, obviously, generalizations and by no means useful in judging an individual.

[snoopy13a]

That turns up a lot in bad romance novels. The man is a slut, the woman is a virgin, but of course, her love changes him into a suitable partner and faithful husband. As if.
It would be interesting to know for how many bad relationships this trope is to blame.

I think the realness of this stereotype stems from its omnipresence in media. Women read it and think they can change men. And refuse to believe they can't, even when they obviously don't succeed.

Actually, this trope is true. Many promiscious men will find a woman that they love and enter into a monogamous life-long relationship. However, until they meet someone that they feel is suitable as a life-long partner, they'll have no problem sleeping around in the singles scene. In fact, this is model behavior under the "guy code":

1) Single men are allowed to sleep with any woman that they want as long as she is not dating a friend
2) A man in a relationship should be loyal

Thus, it is very common for a man who is willing to sleep with anything that moves while single to become monogamous once they find someone that they love or believe that they will potentially love.

The reason some women pursue these men (who are usually "high-status" men) is that they believe that they'll be the one that changes them. Chances are that they won't be the "one" but sooner or later, one woman will change them and the man will "settle down". After all, most hetereosexual men do want to get married and have children. It is just a question of how soon they want to do it.

[Themrys]

Actually, this trope is true. Many promiscious men will find a woman that they love and enter into a monogamous life-long relationship.

You might believe in the character-changing power of love...I don't. Sure, men want to settle down and have children. However, this doesn't automatically prevent them from cheating.

There are men who sleep around and there are men who don't, and I think it is preferable to choose one who doesn't.

Maybe some men truly change...certainly some women are rescued from their boring lives by a prince on a white horse.
However, the belief that such things happen on a regular basis has made the lives of many people worse, not better.


Anyone seen Tangled?
The main guy changed a lot. I wouldn't count on that in real life.
The end was... a bit annoying. Maybe I am the only one who thinks like this but I would be very, very angry at Flynn/Eugene. If I want to make a heroic sacrifice I don't want people to interfere with that, unless they have an idea how they can save everyones lives, including their own.
She wouldn't even have died!

Back to topic: Anyone know a movie where it isn't the man who makes the heroic sacrifice?
(Harry Potter doesn't count. Lily didn't die to save her husband, she died to save her child.)

[Avilan the Grey]

You might believe in the character-changing power of love...I don't. Sure, men want to settle down and have children. However, this doesn't automatically prevent them from cheating.

There are men who sleep around and there are men who don't, and I think it is preferable to choose one who doesn't.

Maybe some men truly change...certainly some women are rescued from their boring lives by a prince on a white horse.
However, the belief that such things happen on a regular basis has made the lives of many people worse, not better.


Anyone seen Tangled?
The main guy changed a lot. I wouldn't count on that in real life.
The end was... a bit annoying. Maybe I am the only one who thinks like this but I would be very, very angry at Flynn/Eugene. If I want to make a heroic sacrifice I don't want people to interfere with that, unless they have an idea how they can save everyones lives, including their own.
She wouldn't even have died!

Back to topic: Anyone know a movie where it isn't the man who makes the heroic sacrifice?
(Harry Potter doesn't count. Lily didn't die to save her husband, she died to save her child.)

First of all I think you are confusing "cheater" and "promiscuous". I am all for having tons of sex with different people, as long as you are single. And the two things has NOTHING to do with eachother.

As for Tangled:
Sorry, I don't even get your point. I *think* you are saying that you are angry with the male lead because he didn't let his love of his life be enslaved forever. If that is really what you mean... *mind boggling*

(Oh and did you pay attention to the plot at all? It is very clear he HAD an idea; after all he knew exactly what he did when he cut her hair off)

[Jallorn]

Now that I have read through the whole thread, I have more to contribute. First, I'd like to respond to the whole "changing" thing.

I hate it. Why the heck would you get together with someone if you're just planning on changing them? It's the height of hubris, the idea that you know, better than the person you're changing, how they should be. It's selfish too.

Maybe I'm being a little idealistic and naive, I admit I'm a romantic. I would like to qualify this. I don't have a problem with people choosing to change for their significant other, in fact, at some point in the relationship it's rather necessary as the dynamic shifts (from, say, dating to marriage, for example, or couple to parents) What I have an issue with, is people trying to make their significant other change.

Enough of that though, my second contribution is that once again, to some extent, I feel like an outlier. It's an interesting, if often irritating, location from which to observe the world. It's not that I don't find anything to relate to, I do in fact see several things that impact me, however, I find it interesting that this discussion is ultimately predicated on the notion of peer influence. While I don't deny the power of peer influence, and indeed don't claim it has no effect on me, I have always been (not counting the period where I wasn't really a person in the way I am now) a very individualistic person. That is, when I form opinions on values, I give very little weight to what others feel. Oh, I certainly give weight to the opinions of close friends and family, but people as a whole, and popular culture specifically, contribute very little in the short term. I am also extremely logical despite being extremely empathic (not in a psychic way:smallwink:). Ultimately, this means that, at least in my opinion, I am pretty far from the stereotypes of modern society, for the most part. I forget where I was going with that last point, but I think what I'm trying to say here, is... um, this is interesting? I dunno anymore. :smallredface::smallamused:<-sheepish smile

I apologize for the garbled quality of the above post, everything was much more clear to me when I started out, but I kept thinking as I wrote, and things shifted a bit, and also something was lost in transcription.

[Brother Oni]

Back to topic: Anyone know a movie where it isn't the man who makes the heroic sacrifice?
(Harry Potter doesn't count. Lily didn't die to save her husband, she died to save her child.)

Alien 3? :smalltongue:

The anime Ninja Scroll is a better example, where the fatally injured love interest hangs on long enough to cure the protagonist, allowing him to face the antagonist.

There's a HK action film called Painted Skin, where a man's wife sacrifices herself to save her husband:

A demon falls in love with a virtuous man and disguises herself as a human so she can be near him. The man's wife realises that she's a demon, but doesn't have any proof to accuse her. Meanwhile the demon is secretly murdering people in the city for their hearts so she can maintain her human disguise.

Eventually, the demon grows tired of trying to oust the wife, but realises that simply killing the wife would only hurt her chances with the man, so she makes a offer to the wife - she will stop killing and live with the man, if the wife confesses to be the demon.

The wife agrees and the demon grants her temporary powers to go on a rampage. Even when the husband confronts his 'demon' wife, she continues the charade and says she is the demon, even up to the point where he is forced to kill her.


I don't have a problem with people choosing to change for their significant other, in fact, at some point in the relationship it's rather necessary as the dynamic shifts (from, say, dating to marriage, for example, or couple to parents) What I have an issue with, is people trying to make their significant other change.


Well a lot of the time, you're blind to your own behaviour and it takes someone close to you to point out your flaws and make suggestions as to how to change.

For example, I used to to do a lot of martial arts and physical training back in uni. This lead to me being very aggressive at times, due to the excess testosterone - this behaviour is perfectly acceptable as I could burn off that aggression during training/competitions and my girlfriend didn't see most of it as we didn't live together at the time.

Fast forward a couple years and we're now married. I decide to take up training again and the excess testosterone kicks in, making me very difficult to live with, thus my wife asks me to stop training.

Looking back in hindsight, it was a perfectly reasonable request, although it didn't feel like it at the time.

[Lurkmoar]

That's a pretty family unfriendly aesop there... :smalleek:

[GenericGuy]

what is the aesop?:smallconfused:

[Lurkmoar]

what is the aesop?:smallconfused:

That your husband will never believe you, so it's best to fake being a demon and letting yourself get killed by him so the real demon will stop killing people. But it's okay, because it turned out alright in the end!

[Brother Oni]

what is the aesop?:smallconfused:

I think he's referring to my half synopsis of Painted Skin.

I did gloss over a lot of the film details and the ending for the purposes of this thread:


There's two interlinked love triangles in the film, the man, the former commander and the wife, plus the demoness (who's a fox), the man and a lizard demon.

Years before, both the man and the ex-commander are in love with the woman, but the ex-commander deserts his post after a particularly brutal battle, returning after several years where he finds the man and his former love are now married.

There's also the lizard demon, who loves the fox demon, but his love is unrequited as she loves the man.

Back to the plot:
The husband is heartbroken at his wife's death and refuses to leave her side. The demon tries to make her move, but realises that no matter what she does, the man will always love his wife.

She then decides to use her life essence to bring the woman back - she realises that she's properly fallen in love with the man and that his happiness is worth more than her life.

However the lizard demon shows up and steals her essence, saying that a demon of her power shouldn't waste her life on a worthless human and tries to flee with her now incapacitated form.

Big fight at the end, the man dies in the battle and the former commander just barely wins. The fox demon crushes her life essence along with that of the lizard demon, to bring the man and his wife back to life then she dies.

The former commander leaves again, seeing that he has no chance with the woman.


That your husband will never believe you, so it's best to fake being a demon and letting yourself get killed by him so the real demon will stop killing people. But it's okay, because it turned out alright in the end!

More like your husband will not believe you without proof of your accusations, since getting it wrong will result in the death of an innocent woman.

Put it this way - your Significant Other thinks your next door neighbour is a serial killer and that he has a victim right now in his house. Do you break down the door all gung ho, or do you call the police to check the house?

[GenericGuy]

I think he's referring to my half synopsis of Painted Skin.

I did gloss over a lot of the film details and the ending for the purposes of this thread:


There's two interlinked love triangles in the film, the man, the former commander and the wife, plus the demoness (who's a fox), the man and a lizard demon.

Years before, both the man and the ex-commander are in love with the woman, but the ex-commander deserts his post after a particularly brutal battle, returning after several years where he finds the man and his former love are now married.

There's also the lizard demon, who loves the fox demon, but his love is unrequited as she loves the man.

Back to the plot:
The husband is heartbroken at his wife's death and refuses to leave her side. The demon tries to make her move, but realises that no matter what she does, the man will always love his wife.

She then decides to use her life essence to bring the woman back - she realises that she's properly fallen in love with the man and that his happiness is worth more than her life.

However the lizard demon shows up and steals her essence, saying that a demon of her power shouldn't waste her life on a worthless human and tries to flee with her now incapacitated form.

Big fight at the end, the man dies in the battle and the former commander just barely wins. The fox demon crushes her life essence along with that of the lizard demon, to bring the man and his wife back to life then she dies.

The former commander leaves again, seeing that he has no chance with the woman.

Ah it’s a true love conquers all story; at first I thought it was a Space Whale Aesop.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SpaceWhaleAesop

[Avilan the Grey]

Anyone know a movie where it isn't the man who makes the heroic sacrifice?
(Harry Potter doesn't count. Lily didn't die to save her husband, she died to save her child.)

I don't see the distinction, really. Male is male, even if it's your son.

Anyway, Ripley inAlien 3, as stated.
Supergirl in Crisis On Infinite Earths.
Phoenix / Jean in both the comic and the movie.
Ashley in Mass Effect if you pick her to guard the bomb.
Vasquez, Aliens.
Merlin's (the clownfish) wife (Nemo's mom), in Finding Nemo.

[MammonAzrael]

I don't see the distinction, really. Male is male, even if it's your son.

I think the idea with excluding Lily is that it isn't female sacrificing herself to protect the male (or whatever else she could be protecting). Its a parent sacrificing themselves to protect the child. Their gender doesn't enter into it.

And heck, James had just sacrificed himself, albeit ineffectually, to protect the child and his wife, so the man still was sacrificing himself to save the woman. Now if Lily had been the one to go downstairs while James was upstairs with Harry, I think it would apply.

[Serpentine]

Those extremes also comes from the same reason divorced men and widowers tend to be more depressed. At least according to what I've read on the subject, men are by nature more likely to emotionally invest themselves entirely into one person (not talking sexually here, as much as I wish I could be) while women naturally spread out with friends and other means of support.

In normal cases this means the woman can manipulate the guy more easily and get him to do what she wants (very important during time periods where the male had total outer power). In extreme cases this means the male gets completely possessive and abusive.That is a really interesting way of looking at it. I wonder to what extent it is demonstrably true...

Regarding female self-sacrifice: The one that comes to my mind didn't quite come to tragedy, but I think it still counts. It's an old fairy tale.
A witch, for some reason, curses a girl's numerous brothers (can't remember the exact number, but lets go with 12). They are trapped in the form of swans. The girl can free them, but only if she sews them 12 shirts - one for each brother - within a year (I think out of thistles), without speaking a single word. So, in silence she gets to work.
Several months in, a prince, as they do, comes across her and falls in love. She never says anything to him, just smiles and keeps sewing. He soon marries her.
The other women in the castle grow jealous and suspicious. They accuse her of something - probably of being a witch. The prince begs her to speak and deny the charges, but she won't. Thus, tearfully, he has no choice but to condemn her to the stake.
The girl keeps on sewing madly, right up until the day of her execution - which is also exactly a year since the curse. She takes the shirts with her onto the pyre, and just as it's set alight 12 swans swoop down. She throws the shirts up to them, and they all turn back into young men - except the youngest, whose shirt was incomplete, who kept one feathered wing. They take their sister down from the pyre and, with tears of joy, she tells her prince the whole story.

So, it has a happy ending, but at the very least she was willing to make that sacrifice for her brothers. It does seem to be fairly rare, though... Hey, what about Deep Blue Sea? That probably counts.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Hey, what about Deep Blue Sea? That probably counts.

I thought she died because she was an idiot. Its been a while since I saw that film.

[Coidzor]

Its a parent sacrificing themselves to protect the child. Their gender doesn't enter into it.

And heck, James had just sacrificed himself, albeit ineffectually, to protect the child and his wife, so the man still was sacrificing himself to save the woman. Now if Lily had been the one to go downstairs while James was upstairs with Harry, I think it would apply.

What I love is how his sacrifice doesn't count. Only the completely sexist, stereotypical and dumb one did.

And his sacrifice actually made some sense in comparison with her just giving up on trying to do something to save her son and herself and instead dying on top of him.


What about things like Stand By Me, though? That was actually what I was thinking of when I said "coming of age films". Interesting that you all leap to "losing virginity films" :smallamused: :smalltongue:

Because you asked about coming of age films in the context of sexuality. :smalltongue: It's not a clever observation that's telling about our natures if it's the topic that was already at hand.

And in regards to the movie you mentioned, I've never seen it. Seems like a dark, movie version of a wonder years era boy meets world.

[Serpentine]

It may (or may not, I forget) have been a needless sacrifice, but I'm pretty sure it was still a noble sacrifice.

edit: I was actually intending to move on to a new topic independent of that. But, I guess I can see how it'd lead you into it.

[Coidzor]

It may (or may not, I forget) have been a needless sacrifice, but I'm pretty sure it was still a noble sacrifice.

Nobility does not excuse the stupidity of the situation. ...In fact, it usually just reinforces how much of a dumb thing it was...

Edit: ...Come to think of it, I wonder why that is. Is it just Good is Dumb as part of our cultural lenses? :smallconfused:

[Serpentine]

Yes, but the stupidity of the sacrifice doesn't change the fact that it's an example of a female sacrifice.

[Coidzor]

Yes, but the stupidity of the sacrifice doesn't change the fact that it's an example of a female sacrifice.

Indeed. Female sacrifice that seems to paint the male sacrifice it was paired with as inferior...Rather interesting that, actually. I don't think I've ever run into a situation other than this where both male and female sacrifice are present without being simultaneous and the same, shared act of sacrifice. And the man's sacrifice seems to be devalued and not a sacrifice because it actually tried to change the situation, like by giving the genius magical virtuoso time to get away with the baby. Whereas her sacrifice was what, accepting the situation and wanting to die first rather than watch her baby be killed? But her sacrifice is not only what activates the super-special magic that lets good prevail in the end, but is the only one really sold to the reader as well.

Actually, come to think of it. Her sacrifice actually disrespects his sacrifice by squandering the opportunity and the point of his sacrifice by virtue of its surrender.

I wonder if this is usual for when male and female sacrifice are touched upon in the same work... but I'm going off on a tangent.

[Serpentine]

Uh... I think we're talking about different movies. I mean the one in Deep Blue Sea.

[Coidzor]

Uh... I think we're talking about different movies. I mean the one in Deep Blue Sea.

Yes, yes we were. I was responding to when Harry Potter was brought up.

...Mostly because I can't remember if I've seen Deep Blue Sea. Part of me wants to think it was when they decided to make a genius shark and it predictably broke free and started eating the people involved.

[Serpentine]

Yup, that's the one.

And I think maybe Good is Dumb (which, as we all know, is Why Evil Always Wins) is because we mix up innocence/naivity with stupidity.

[VanBuren]

Indeed. Female sacrifice that seems to paint the male sacrifice it was paired with as inferior...Rather interesting that, actually. I don't think I've ever run into a situation other than this where both male and female sacrifice are present without being simultaneous and the same, shared act of sacrifice. And the man's sacrifice seems to be devalued and not a sacrifice because it actually tried to change the situation, like by giving the genius magical virtuoso time to get away with the baby. Whereas her sacrifice was what, accepting the situation and wanting to die first rather than watch her baby be killed? But her sacrifice is not only what activates the super-special magic that lets good prevail in the end, but is the only one really sold to the reader as well.

Actually, come to think of it. Her sacrifice actually disrespects his sacrifice by squandering the opportunity and the point of his sacrifice by virtue of its surrender.

I wonder if this is usual for when male and female sacrifice are touched upon in the same work... but I'm going off on a tangent.

The situations were different. He was going to die anyway, she wasn't.

[MammonAzrael]

The situations were different. He was going to die anyway, she wasn't.

Hows that now? IIRC James went downstairs to fight Voldemort, which both assumed was a sacrifice, in an effort to give Lily the time to flee. The only reason he was going to die anyways was because he was sacrificing himself. Whereas for some reason Lily couldn't scoop Harry up, run out the back door, and then disapparate somewhere.

[Themrys]

Indeed. Female sacrifice that seems to paint the male sacrifice it was paired with as inferior...Rather interesting that, actually. I don't think I've ever run into a situation other than this where both male and female sacrifice are present without being simultaneous and the same, shared act of sacrifice. And the man's sacrifice seems to be devalued and not a sacrifice because it actually tried to change the situation, like by giving the genius magical virtuoso time to get away with the baby. Whereas her sacrifice was what, accepting the situation and wanting to die first rather than watch her baby be killed? But her sacrifice is not only what activates the super-special magic that lets good prevail in the end, but is the only one really sold to the reader as well.

Actually, come to think of it. Her sacrifice actually disrespects his sacrifice by squandering the opportunity and the point of his sacrifice by virtue of its surrender.

I wonder if this is usual for when male and female sacrifice are touched upon in the same work... but I'm going off on a tangent.


Maybe this is because male sacrifice is expected and female sacrifice is considered extraordinary?
On the other hand, mother's sacrifice to save the baby is pretty cliché...

Harry Potter Spoiler:
I need to read that scene again. Can't remember why Lily couldn't just run away. J.K. Rowling is a good author, so probably there is a good reason for that?

And it is really strange that James' sacrifice didn't save Lily. Doesn't make sense. Okay, Voldemort probably would have killed James anyway just to make Snape happy, but James didn't know that, so it shouldn't change anything.
James intended to make a heroic sacrifice, that should be good for something.

[KnightDisciple]

*Looks up at talk about how guys can totally go from horndog to completely monogamous*

...Yeah, let me know when statistics bears that out.


Anyways, looping back to something more in line with the original post.

One of the best portrayals of genuine Masculinity in fiction (in this case, both film and book)? Samwise Gamgee.

Think about it. Sure, he may have been just a gardener, a quiet guy. But when he saw that his good friend needed him, and the world needed his friend, he stepped up. He went through the closest physical equivalent of Hell, facing down demons in the flesh (to some extent orcs, but moreso Shelob), and dragged Frodo up a volcano. Just to name a small few things.

Through it all, he was unafraid to show emotion, including despair at how bad things were. Yet, he pressed on through that despair.

And in the end, he doesn't want riches or fame. He just wants a family and a quiet life. The man had his priorities in order; who cares about riches when you've got family and friends? I mean, granted, he did end up pretty rich, since Frodo left everything to him. But still.

In conclusion, Samwise Gamgee is The Man (c). :smallcool:

[Avilan the Grey]

*Looks up at talk about how guys can totally go from horndog to completely monogamous*

...Yeah, let me know when statistics bears that out

I still don't get the "having sex a lot while single" = "something bad" equivalent. It is completely false.

[Zaydos]

Maybe this is because male sacrifice is expected and female sacrifice is considered extraordinary?
On the other hand, mother's sacrifice to save the baby is pretty cliché...

I need to read that scene again. Can't remember why Lily couldn't just run away. J.K. Rowling is a good author, so probably there is a good reason for that?

Far as I can remember nope, none. She did actively try and perform a defensive spell on Harry, one that would cost her her life.

Also it was really presented as a mother's sacrifice which really means Serpentine was right in dismissing it as a woman sacrificing herself for a man. As for the activation of the super magic: 1) Lily died trying to do just that. 2) It used a mother's love which is often presented as far more pure than a father's love (this would upset me, but when I look at animals and differences in reproduction strategy between males and females that are common across species I have to agree). 3) James didn't die to save Harry, James died to save Lily and Harry.

The invalidation of James's sacrifice is silly since I always got the impression that it enabled the other.

As for why women sacrificing themselves for men is rarer than vice versa, I have a theory. We're sad when a woman sacrifices herself; when a man does it we cheer him on. An easy, and sexist, accusation would be the former wounds male pride; a more scientifically sound one would invoke the several dozen hormones that activate in social animals that see a female of the species in danger (biologically speaking the male of the species is expendable; as one I'd say it sucks, but it's better than the alternative).

[KnightDisciple]

I still don't get the "having sex a lot while single" = "something bad" equivalent. It is completely false.My explanation is really so tied into my particular worldview that I can't fully state it on the boards.

However, more generally, it shows a habit of treating women like objects for sexual gratification. As well, a guy who sleeps with a bunch of different women forms a habit. How easy is it to break that habit when they get married? There's no magical force in a wedding ceremony that suddenly makes them not want to sleep with a bunch of women. At best, they have to exercise massive self-control to curb those impulses.

And one has to wonder...how much would it take for his gaze to stray again?

[Zaydos]

However, more generally, it shows a habit of treating women like objects for sexual gratification. As well, a guy who sleeps with a bunch of different women forms a habit. How easy is it to break that habit when they get married? There's no magical force in a wedding ceremony that suddenly makes them not want to sleep with a bunch of women. At best, they have to exercise massive self-control to curb those impulses.


This.

Also while it's not proof of causation but promiscuity (in both genders) is correlated with lots of things, only one of them good (it tends to also be a sign of resources/power).

[Eldan]

Another explanation for the woman/man sacrifice thing:

Humans are continually sexually active and fertile. Therefore, one could assume that, form an evolutionary standpoint, a woman would almost continually be pregnant or with a child, if she is in a relationship. The man, therefore, has already done his part in reproduction, now they only need to raise the child to spread their genetic material. And for that, the woman is more (immediately) important.

[Avilan the Grey]

However, more generally, it shows a habit of treating women like objects for sexual gratification. As well, a guy who sleeps with a bunch of different women forms a habit

I don't agree at all (not to mention that I wonder what you call a woman that has many partners while single...). I find this comment a little odd actually because it indicates a belief that A) women has to be treated like objects for casual sex to occur and B) women can't also be on the prowl for casual sex.

[Themrys]

As for why women sacrificing themselves for men is rarer than vice versa, I have a theory. We're sad when a woman sacrifices herself; when a man does it we cheer him on. An easy, and sexist, accusation would be the former wounds male pride; a more scientifically sound one would invoke the several dozen hormones that activate in social animals that see a female of the species in danger (biologically speaking the male of the species is expendable; as one I'd say it sucks, but it's better than the alternative).

Both of those explanations are...sad.

It would hurt my pride if someone forced his heroic sacrifice on me, especially if he loses more than I gain through it.
This is what I didn't like about "Tangled".

And since humans are so proud on being different from every other animal, I don't see why we should see the males of our species as expendable and therefore cheer when they sacrifice themselves. A person is a person, and a father is missed as much as a mother.



Samwise Gamgee...yeah, he's a true hero. Doesn't do stupid things just to prove he's a manly man, just does what needs to be done. We need more men like him.


@Avilan the Grey: You know, I don't care much about how much a guy sleeps around, or how much a woman does this, and I only use pejorative words for this behaviour so I don't have to use a long sentence and show how much I fail at English.

I just wouldn't start a relationship with someone who is so much more interested in the opposite sex than I am, because I don't think people who are so much into casual sex can change all of a sudden. They're probably okay in open relationships with each other...but not good partners for virgins with romantic ideals.

[Eldan]

Sorry, Themrys, but:
While there are differences between humans and other animals, we are certainly not as different as some people would like us to be. If it comes down to it, we are still bundles of instincts and hormones.

[Zaydos]

I never said either of my explanations weren't sad. And yeah human pride on being different from animals... is not the best founded thing. We have actually used various things as the defining difference beginning with either tools (apes, monkeys, birds, even some ants) or language and communication (a common occurrence among animals), ability to remember where you placed something and know what kind of effects the passage of time would have on it (I forget the actual wording, but that was the most impressive ability included; birds do this), and eventually even we have wars (chimpanzees do too). At this point I don't know what the official difference line between animal and sapient is but we don't really seem to have one.

That said I do believe that humans can and do rise above their animal nature, but we're talking about why a certain media occurrence is more common than the reverse and ultimately that comes down to that basic nature as very few people stop to struggle to rationally overcome such things instead of just watching a movie.

Edit

It would hurt my pride if someone forced his heroic sacrifice on me, especially if he loses more than I gain through it.

Samwise Gamgee...yeah, he's a true hero. Doesn't do stupid things just to prove he's a manly man, just does what needs to be done. We need more men like him.

It would hurt my pride if anyone forced their heroic sacrifice on someone; but my point is why the viewers respond better to one than the other.

And yeah Samwise is a/the true hero. He actually uses the ring for a few moments in the book and laughs off the corruption (although I have the theory that he does so because he never thought of it as "his ring" but always "master Frodo's ring"). I do think Frodo doesn't get the credit he's due for carrying it so far; even if he failed in the end he went through more than enough to make any character in the story break (of course he only made it nearly that far because he had Samwise to support him).

[KnightDisciple]

I don't agree at all (not to mention that I wonder what you call a woman that has many partners while single...). I find this comment a little odd actually because it indicates a belief that A) women has to be treated like objects for casual sex to occur and B) women can't also be on the prowl for casual sex.Well, "nicknames" aside, I treat the concept of promiscuous males and females exactly the same.

What else are you treating the opposite gender as, if not a fleshy object to give you your own selfish gratification? I spoke on men since that was first brought up, but so far as I'm concerned, it holds true for both genders. If someone is looking for casual sex all the time, how exactly are they suddenly switching to total monogamy? The implication between hopping partners is that you're bored easily with any one partner, or not interested in forming actual emotional attachments. How is that conducive to a marriage?

This doesn't even touch on the way our culture uses, abuses, tramples on, and tears up the concept of "love". The word is used far too casually, and includes someone stating they like a particular flavor of pizza or whatnot (and I've been guilty of over-using the word in the past in that context), let alone for a movie scene set 1 day after you meet someone. "Love" has become equated with "fuzzy feelings of lust", and we're poorer for that.

Looping back around, I have to ask: If casual sex isn't about love, or emotional connection, or anything along those lines...what else could it be about other than selfish sexual gratification on the part of both parties? What's left for a reason beyond "it feels great!"? :smallconfused:

[MammonAzrael]

Also it was really presented as a mother's sacrifice which really means Serpentine was right in dismissing it as a woman sacrificing herself for a man. As for the activation of the super magic: 1) Lily died trying to do just that. 2) It used a mother's love which is often presented as far more pure than a father's love (this would upset me, but when I look at animals and differences in reproduction strategy between males and females that are common across species I have to agree). 3) James didn't die to save Harry, James died to save Lily and Harry.

The invalidation of James's sacrifice is silly since I always got the impression that it enabled the other.

How did James's sacrifice enable Lilly's pleading and death? Couldn't she have done that just as easily if James had stayed with her, or wasn't there? He wasn't part of the magic, and the time he bought her was squandered because she didn't flee; she sure didn't spend it preparing a ritual love-protection spell.


I was under the impression that the love-protection granted by Lily's sacrifice was a primal, accidental thing. Not something Lily was deliberately trying to invoke. I was under the impression she didn't even realize such magic existed.
I disagree with a mother's love being more pure. The reproduction activities of animals are in no way based on love, but rather instinct. What about all the animals that eat their young? That sure isn't love. A father's love should be no less pure than a mothers. A mother may feel a greater connection to their children, on account of hauling them around for nine months, but the emotion of love isn't somehow better than the father's.
Yes. James died actively trying to defend his wife and child, and his sacrifice is well, not really focused on or given much weight other than "he died." Whereas Lily...sat there and ask Voldermort nicely to not kill her child. Yeah, that's gonna work.


Of course its been a long while since I've read the various renditions of the scene, so please forgive me if I'm wrong (or if we're arguing on the same side)!


Looping back around, I have to ask: If casual sex isn't about love, or emotional connection, or anything along those lines...what else could it be about other than selfish sexual gratification on the part of both parties? What's left for a reason beyond "it feels great!"? :smallconfused:

Why is "it feels great!" an inherently bad reason? If both parties know what they're doing and aren't expecting anything else from the other, what is the problem with them both engaging in something they will both enjoy?

[Themrys]

Sorry, Themrys, but:
While there are differences between humans and other animals, we are certainly not as different as some people would like us to be. If it comes down to it, we are still bundles of instincts and hormones.

While it is absolutely true that we are nowhere as different from animals as most people like to think, I wonder why some kinds of instinct-driven behaviour are looked down on in media while others are glorified.

It doesn't have to be this way, you know?
I just remembered a story about four daughters who sacrificed themselves so their father could live.
To some cultures, the children-parent loyalty is more important than the instinct to save females.

[KnightDisciple]

Why is "it feels great!" an inherently bad reason? If both parties know what they're doing and aren't expecting anything else from the other, what is the problem with them both engaging in something they will both enjoy?It devalues something wonderful into the equivalent of going out for midnight munchies pizza. It turns the whole purpose of the thing on its head.

And again, it begs the question later in life: What reasoning stops them from cheating on their spouse "because it feels good"? Habits, once formed, are hard to break.

[Zaydos]

How did James's sacrifice enable Lilly's pleading and death? Couldn't she have done that just as easily if James had stayed with her, or wasn't there? He wasn't part of the magic, and the time he bought her was squandered because she didn't flee; she sure didn't spend it preparing a ritual love-protection spell.


I was under the impression that the love-protection granted by Lily's sacrifice was a primal, accidental thing. Not something Lily was deliberately trying to invoke. I was under the impression she didn't even realize such magic existed.
I disagree with a mother's love being more pure. The reproduction activities of animals are in no way based on love, but rather instinct. What about all the animals that eat their young? That sure isn't love. A father's love should be no less pure than a mothers. A mother may feel a greater connection to their children, on account of hauling them around for nine months, but the emotion of love isn't somehow better than the father's.
Yes. James died actively trying to defend his wife and child, and his sacrifice is well, not really focused on or given much weight other than "he died." Whereas Lily...sat there and ask Voldermort nicely to not kill her child. Yeah, that's gonna work.


Of course its been a long while since I've read the various renditions of the scene, so please forgive me if I'm wrong (or if we're arguing on the same side)!


I more meant with James that it enabled the primal magic. All hope had to be lost first and he was the last hope.


1: I might be wrong as Dumbledore seemed to flip-flop on it (he first describes it as just love and later as their being a spell involved).
2. In this case it also comes to phyllum and order as to how animals interact with their young; for example most mothers that eat their young are invertebrate; conversely even among the higher mammals males will sometimes eat their young. That said I agree one should not be viewed as better than the other, but it is a very common theme throughout media going back to... I don't know when but at least hundreds of years.
3. We're talking magic here, but yes as I person I always liked James's sacrifice more because he was fighting for wife and child (and what better cause can one have to fight for). For magical effects, though, that's very different.


I don't think you're wrong. I was just presenting why I thought she did it, and the reasoning that showed up in the book. I can agree that a lot of it is flawed, but it does show trends in the media which is what this thread is exploring. So I was more playing the devil's advocate, than anything else.

Edit:


It doesn't have to be this way, you know?
I just remembered a story about four daughters who sacrificed themselves so their father could live.
To some cultures, the children-parent loyalty is more important than the instinct to save females.

And some Norse myths which turn most modern reader's stomach where a character kills her sons to get back at her husband for killing her family. I was in a class on Norse myth and she became the most hated character in the story (even I felt revulsion towards her; and I think I was the least vehement in my dislike). 14 people aren't statistically significant, but from what the teacher said she was presented even back in the day as something of a bad guy for doing so.

[Avilan the Grey]

It devalues something wonderful into the equivalent of going out for midnight munchies pizza. It turns the whole purpose of the thing on its head.

And again, it begs the question later in life: What reasoning stops them from cheating on their spouse "because it feels good"? Habits, once formed, are hard to break.

I don't get this argument at all. It is a biological function, like eating or going to the bathroom. It might FEEL wonderful but it isn't any more wonderful than any other bodily function. As for "purpose"... what?

As for your question: I don't see the problem. I really don't.

[KnightDisciple]

I don't get this argument at all. It is a biological function, like eating or going to the bathroom. It might FEEL wonderful but it isn't any more wonderful than any other bodily function.

As for your question: I don't see the problem. I really don't.I fundamentally disagree with you about the nature of sex due to my worldview.

And I'd say the emotional impact of sex, as likely born out by most any survey on the subject ever, as well likely asking anyone who's just had their "first time", whatever the situation, is likely just a bit higher than watering the porcelain garden.

And you don't see a problem with someone making vows to their spouse to be true to them...and then stomping those vows into the dirt because they saw someone with 5 fewer wrinkles? You see no problem with someone cheating on their spouse because they like the tingly feeling it gives their nether regions? :smallconfused:

[Zaydos]

I think that this whole discussion of promiscuity is getting a little too heated. So maybe we can tone it down a bit or drop the subject entirely?

@KnightDisciple: I agree with you, but I don't think Avilan was ever talking about post-marriage but only when outside of a steady relationship. While even then I disagree with him, changing it to the latter is sure to cause hurt feelings and an escalation of the argument.

[KnightDisciple]

Should have known I shouldn't bother expressing such a "radical" opinion around here. I'll stick to good examples of men in media now.

Another good one, in my mind: Michael Carpenter, from the Dresden Files. Really, not sure what else needs to be said; the Fist of God pretty much speaks for himself. :smallwink:

[Avilan the Grey]

And you don't see a problem with someone making vows to their spouse to be true to them...and then stomping those vows into the dirt because they saw someone with 5 fewer wrinkles? You see no problem with someone cheating on their spouse because they like the tingly feeling it gives their nether regions? :smallconfused:

Well you apparently started an argument without reading my post? :smallconfused:

I have never said that cheating is okay. What I have said is this: There is NOTHING morally wrong with two single people doing whatever they like with each other and that the number of sexual partners before you enter a commitment is completely irrelevant from a moral standpoint. It might be a health issue, but that is a completely different issue and I hope adults know how to demand their partner to use protection at all times.

As for Michael: He is a good example of a man; although I find Harry a much more interesting example.

[Jallorn]

I'm curious what you guys think of the 9th and 10th Doctors with respect to "masculinity." Heck, The Doctor as a whole could be explored as an interpretation of evolving ideals.

My thoughts on this topic are not yet cohesive enough to contribute.:smallredface:

[MammonAzrael]

I'm on my phone and cannot write a detailed response, I just wanted to say I'll respond when I have the opportunity.

That said, KnightDisciple, I find part of your argument flawed and the dismissiveness of your last post a bit insulting.

[VanBuren]

Hows that now? IIRC James went downstairs to fight Voldemort, which both assumed was a sacrifice, in an effort to give Lily the time to flee. The only reason he was going to die anyways was because he was sacrificing himself. Whereas for some reason Lily couldn't scoop Harry up, run out the back door, and then disapparate somewhere.

As I understand it, he was going to kill all of the Potters, but offered to spare Lily as a favor to Snape. Lily refused to take that opportunity, and in so doing created Harry's protection.

[Frozen_Feet]

While it is absolutely true that we are nowhere as different from animals as most people like to think, I wonder why some kinds of instinct-driven behaviour are looked down on in media while others are glorified.

The simple answer: some instincts are beneficial, some are not. Which instincts are which varies by place and time, but the basic principle should be fairly easy to get behind with. Just because something is natural and good, doesn't mean all things that are natural are good. :smallsmile:

[KnightDisciple]

I'm on my phone and cannot write a detailed response, I just wanted to say I'll respond when I have the opportunity.

That said, KnightDisciple, I find part of your argument flawed and the dismissiveness of your last post a bit insulting.My argument isn't "flawed", it's incomplete. I'm making sure to stay inside forum rules, and thus cannot fully express my views on the topic. I got frustrated when I realized that it's something of a "radical" view, when all factors are considered. At least on these boards.

I'm not dismissing arguments. I'm disagreeing with them, but not dismissing them.

But I'm stopping the debate because it likely won't go anywhere good. So, again, I'm leaving it alone in favor of the core topic of this thread.

[Coidzor]

My explanation is really so tied into my particular worldview that I can't fully state it on the boards.

And one has to wonder...how much would it take for his gaze to stray again?

Well, then. I'd say that your biases are causing you to overemphasize the worst of the spectrum as the only part of the spectrum and leave it at that.


I more meant with James that it enabled the primal magic. All hope had to be lost first and he was the last hope.

That he was the last hope and she couldn't go on without him is exactly the kind of sexist blemish that ruins her and her actions for me. He died to give her the chance to run. She was better at magic than him, smarter than him, and yet when he dies for her she can't go on living without her man. :smallyuk: It's horrible. On the one hand his sacrifice doesn't mean anything from how the story treats it and how she wastes the opportunity by disrespecting his memory by giving up. On the other hand, she only gives up because he's dead and now she doesn't have a man.



2. In this case it also comes to phyllum and order as to how animals interact with their young; for example most mothers that eat their young are invertebrate; conversely even among the higher mammals males will sometimes eat their young. That said I agree one should not be viewed as better than the other, but it is a very common theme throughout media going back to... I don't know when but at least hundreds of years. Sure, they shouldn't, but they are, and you just said so. So, yeah.


3. We're talking magic here, but yes as I person I always liked James's sacrifice more because he was fighting for wife and child (and what better cause can one have to fight for). For magical effects, though, that's very different.


And when we're talking magic, we're talking the author. You can't dismiss magic as outside of the scope of critique because it most purely demonstrates the author's intent. J.K. Rowling, intentionally or thoughtlessly set up this situation where male sacrifice is dismissed and ultimately meaningless.

[Serpentine]

One of the best portrayals of genuine Masculinity in fiction (in this case, both film and book)? Samwise Gamgee.

Think about it. Sure, he may have been just a gardener, a quiet guy. But when he saw that his good friend needed him, and the world needed his friend, he stepped up. He went through the closest physical equivalent of Hell, facing down demons in the flesh (to some extent orcs, but moreso Shelob), and dragged Frodo up a volcano. Just to name a small few things.

Through it all, he was unafraid to show emotion, including despair at how bad things were. Yet, he pressed on through that despair.

And in the end, he doesn't want riches or fame. He just wants a family and a quiet life. The man had his priorities in order; who cares about riches when you've got family and friends? I mean, granted, he did end up pretty rich, since Frodo left everything to him. But still.

In conclusion, Samwise Gamgee is The Man (c). :smallcool:I love that guy! :biggrin: He's my favourite character in the books. My main disappointment with the movie is that his real practical strengths are completely ignored - he's the one who handles the logistics, who makes sure they have everything they need - ESPECIALLY rope. He's useful, not just moral support.
Speaking of which, I saw the extended version of the first movie yesterday. It annoyed me when the elf-witch-lady told Pippin and/or Merry that "someday you will find your courage". They hadn't exactly been cowardly at that point - in fact, by that point in the film they had already squared up against an impossible foe twice for Frodo's sake :smallconfused: Then one of the people I was watching it with said "Yeah, but they lost" and I pointed out that just because you lose, doesn't mean you're not brave :smallsigh:

Serpentine was right in dismissing it as a woman sacrificing herself for a man....I haven't said anything one way or another about it.
And some Norse myths which turn most modern reader's stomach where a character kills her sons to get back at her husband for killing her family. I was in a class on Norse myth and she became the most hated character in the story (even I felt revulsion towards her; and I think I was the least vehement in my dislike). 14 people aren't statistically significant, but from what the teacher said she was presented even back in the day as something of a bad guy for doing so.On the other hand, the Greek Medea, although feared, is also considered a tragic, abused figure, despite killing her children to get back at her husband.

[Lurkmoar]

On the other hand, the Greek Medea, although feared, is also considered a tragic, abused figure, despite killing her children to get back at her husband.

Man, Jason was a real jerk even for Greek heroes. Medea gave up pretty much everything for him, and he dumped her as soon as they got back. I can understand why she did what she did... but I can't condone it.

I do think that Jason's fate was his own making though.

[Serpentine]

She slaughtered her own brother for him. She was a horribly broken woman, but man, you'd think Jason would think twice before crossing her...

[KnightDisciple]

I love that guy! :biggrin: He's my favourite character in the books. My main disappointment with the movie is that his real practical strengths are completely ignored - he's the one who handles the logistics, who makes sure they have everything they need - ESPECIALLY rope. He's useful, not just moral support.Exactly! Frodo wouldn't have gotten far without his Sam. The movie only touches on the logistics thing.

I think one of my biggest disappointments in the 3rd movie is how they have Frodo just dismiss him; in the books, they just got separated in the Evil Dark Cavern of Spidery Doom. Which is pretty understandable. It felt like a bit of a cheap shot at both Sam and Frodo, really, but eh.


Speaking of which, I saw the extended version of the first movie yesterday. It annoyed me when the elf-witch-lady told Pippin and/or Merry that "someday you will find your courage". They hadn't exactly been cowardly at that point - in fact, by that point in the film they had already squared up against an impossible foe twice for Frodo's sake :smallconfused: Then one of the people I was watching it with said "Yeah, but they lost" and I pointed out that just because you lose, doesn't mean you're not brave :smallsigh:Well, I think calling Galadriel an "elf-witch-lady" is a bit harsh, but that line is a bit odd. Especially since, yeah, they'd faced a cave troll and freaking Nazgul to help their friend. Maybe the dialogue writers thought they needed to be all portentous-like?

[Serpentine]

They do call her a witch, you know :smalltongue: I'm just hopeless with names.

I reckon Samwise is the real hero of the story... Yes, Frodo carries the burden of the ring and attracts most of the danger and so on but, well, he has no choice. Samwise, on the other hand, could just give up and leave anytime. But he doesn't.

[Closet_Skeleton]

There are men who sleep around and there are men who don't, and I think it is preferable to choose one who doesn't.

That's kind of naive in an odd way. There are men who are more likely to sleep around then others are, but circumstances could cause a guy who wants to cheat on his wife to never get to or a guy who would never normally sleep around might get drunk after an arguement once and cheat 'accidentally'.

I don't think its easy for people to change and changing completely is probably impossible. What's important is "desire for change". If our theoretical promiscuous male (gender reversable) gets bored of having to find a new woman every time he wants companionship and decides to become monogomous his habits might be so ingrained that he fails a few times. If he apologises to his significant other then its their choice whether or not they dump him or forgive him.

If a promiscuous man or woman has no intention of changing and one of their lovers tries to force them to then that lover is just being intolerant of the promiscuous lifestyle and is probably nearing control-freak status. They should try and find someone who has the lifestyle they want from a partner rather than forcing someone to give up their lifestyle to be with them.



If casual sex isn't about love, or emotional connection, or anything along those lines...what else could it be about other than selfish sexual gratification on the part of both parties? What's left for a reason beyond "it feels great!"? :smallconfused:

As long as the bit I bolded is true I don't see anything wrong with it. Taking advantage of someone that wants a long form relationship when you don't is bad.


And you don't see a problem with someone making vows to their spouse to be true to them...and then stomping those vows into the dirt because they saw someone with 5 fewer wrinkles? You see no problem with someone cheating on their spouse because they like the tingly feeling it gives their nether regions? :smallconfused:

The important thing is the whole "breaking the vows" thing. Partly its societies fault for pushing people to get married. If people with personalities and habits incompatible with marriage didn't get married the divorce/failed marriage rate would be a lot lower.

Society says "men and women get married, stay monogamous to each other and raise children". Stories where the man who doesn't stay monogamous is converted into a loyal husband by the good woman could just as easily be about society's victory than about the woman's victory. The woman is just a proxy for what the story considers the inherently correct way things should be and how that will somehow win out in the end.



And some Norse myths which turn most modern reader's stomach where a character kills her sons to get back at her husband for killing her family.

Sounds like Jason and Medea. The Norse did copy the Greeks a bit.

Euripedes' play Medea is interesting because its one of the few Greek stories that takes the female side in an arguement. Electra has a female lead but she's siding with her dead dad over her mother and Antigone is similarly all about a woman trying to serve her male relatives.

[MammonAzrael]

I more meant with James that it enabled the primal magic. All hope had to be lost first and he was the last hope.


1: I might be wrong as Dumbledore seemed to flip-flop on it (he first describes it as just love and later as their being a spell involved).
2. In this case it also comes to phyllum and order as to how animals interact with their young; for example most mothers that eat their young are invertebrate; conversely even among the higher mammals males will sometimes eat their young. That said I agree one should not be viewed as better than the other, but it is a very common theme throughout media going back to... I don't know when but at least hundreds of years.
3. We're talking magic here, but yes as I person I always liked James's sacrifice more because he was fighting for wife and child (and what better cause can one have to fight for). For magical effects, though, that's very different.


I don't think you're wrong. I was just presenting why I thought she did it, and the reasoning that showed up in the book. I can agree that a lot of it is flawed, but it does show trends in the media which is what this thread is exploring. So I was more playing the devil's advocate, than anything else.

Is it ever mentioned anywhere that hope had to be lost before this "primal magic of love" could work?


I haven't read anything regarding it in a long while, so I'm not sure either. From what I recall he flipflopped between just the "power of love" and then the "power of love magic," but I don't recall him ever implying there was a spell involved, just base magic.
I agree that it is a very common theme, and can be found many places. I disagree with the theme.
Magical effects only consider it different if the writer considers it different. The world's rules, especially magical rules, are dictated by the author, so the only reason a mother's love would be more pure is because the author wants it to be. I doubt that Rowling was intending to send that kind of message, but the fact is that she did. James's sacrifice didn't have to be ineffectual.


I totally understand playing devil's advocate, and that is always needed. Especially when none of us bother to actually go and check the books. :smalltongue:


As I understand it, he was going to kill all of the Potters, but offered to spare Lily as a favor to Snape. Lily refused to take that opportunity, and in so doing created Harry's protection.

I kinda remember reading that in HP and the Methods of Rationality. Was that offer made in the actual books as well? I don't recall.


My argument isn't "flawed", it's incomplete. I'm making sure to stay inside forum rules, and thus cannot fully express my views on the topic. I got frustrated when I realized that it's something of a "radical" view, when all factors are considered. At least on these boards.

I'm not dismissing arguments. I'm disagreeing with them, but not dismissing them.

But I'm stopping the debate because it likely won't go anywhere good. So, again, I'm leaving it alone in favor of the core topic of this thread.

PM'd :smallsmile:



On the note of TV figures, what do you all think of the men in Modern Family? The one that leaped to my mind, Phil, is a very interesting case. While he can certainly come off as a doofus idiot-dad, he has never bothered me in the way that most others have. He reminds me of Tim Taylor from Home Improvement - a good-natured, well meaning, and generally capable father that can do stupid things.

[Don Julio Anejo]

The real reason divorce rates are higher now than, say, in the 50's is that now it's socially acceptable to divorce someone. Before, if you were divorced, especially if you were a woman, you were looked upon as broken and damaged. So women put a lot more effort into trying to make the marriage work, if only on the surface - they'd close their eyes on minor transgressions, occasional occasions of infidelity, etc. Because given the social and legal situation of the time (say, 50's), they'd be out on the street, along with their kids.

Relationships failure rate is exactly the same since it's defined by human nature.

[Xondoure]

On the note of TV figures, what do you all think of the men in Modern Family? The one that leaped to my mind, Phil, is a very interesting case. While he can certainly come off as a doofus idiot-dad, he has never bothered me in the way that most others have. He reminds me of Tim Taylor from Home Improvement - a good-natured, well meaning, and generally capable father that can do stupid things.

Phil is made tolerable by the fact that Claire is equally if not more flawed, and their flaws compliment eachother. Unlike most doofus dad stereotypes where the woman is a goddes and the husband a dolt, you can see why the two of them fell for eachother in the first place.

Out of all the men on the show, Manny is clearly the manliest.

[VanBuren]

I kinda remember reading that in HP and the Methods of Rationality. Was that offer made in the actual books as well? I don't recall.

I would think so, since I've that fic, and only know it from the narmwothy dementor scene.


On the note of TV figures, what do you all think of the men in Modern Family? The one that leaped to my mind, Phil, is a very interesting case. While he can certainly come off as a doofus idiot-dad, he has never bothered me in the way that most others have. He reminds me of Tim Taylor from Home Improvement - a good-natured, well meaning, and generally capable father that can do stupid things.

Well first of all, it's not like Claire is perfect either. And most of the time they're working together rather than in some kind of conflict against each other.

Secondly, like Tim Taylor, he's competent at his job.

[Serpentine]

I find the gay couple interesting and pretty well-done. In particular, neither of them consistently plays "the husband" or "the wife" more than the other. One likes flowers but also football, while the other is useless at construction but is less camp. The main thing might be their (shared) vanity and jealousy, but any character can end up with those traits.

[MammonAzrael]

I find the gay couple interesting and pretty well-done. In particular, neither of them consistently plays "the husband" or "the wife" more than the other. One likes flowers but also football, while the other is useless at construction but is less camp. The main thing might be their (shared) vanity and jealousy, but any character can end up with those traits.

Very true. And all the male characters in the show are distinctly different, but none of them seem over the top or caricatures. I think it may be one of the reasons its one of my favorite shows at the moment.

[Closet_Skeleton]

The real reason divorce rates are higher now than, say, in the 50's is that now it's socially acceptable to divorce someone. Before, if you were divorced, especially if you were a woman, you were looked upon as broken and damaged. So women put a lot more effort into trying to make the marriage work, if only on the surface - they'd close their eyes on minor transgressions, occasional occasions of infidelity, etc. Because given the social and legal situation of the time (say, 50's), they'd be out on the street, along with their kids.

Relationships failure rate is exactly the same since it's defined by human nature.

Yeah, that's kind of obvious. A divorce rate of 0% is pretty easy, you just outlaw divorce.