The feminist zeitgeist in the media

[annie24]

Googling isn't exactly a scientific way of identifying articles or meanings.

 

Try googling, "Miserable failure." What is your #1 hit? That's right - the official website for the President of the United States of America.

 

Google, "idiot" GW Bush is the second hit.

 

Just saying... Google isn't the scientific way to conduct a study on communication.

 

I'm simply saying that there are plenty of articles out there that say that women make mistakes in dating. Read cosmo one month, it says that you should play hard to get. The next month, it will tell you to slip secret admirer love notes in your neighbor's mailbox and bake him cookies.

[annie24]

oh yeah... just for giggles, I decided to google a gender neutral search, "Dating and communication." I got:

 

A BDSM website

A sexual assault website from the Univ of North Carolina

5 different online dating services (including a Jewish site, BDSM site, a Filipino site, and a Latino site)

A collection of essays on a university website on dating and communication

 

 

Well.... those were my hits when I did a gender neutral search.

 

PS: BDSM = Bondage Domination Sadism Masochism

[doorik]

ah. excuse me. Sure, look up in that case, any review article on any one of those dating books. Also, often, those authors are asked to give advice in Cosmpolitan or Glamour, or other girlie magazines.

 

Review articles in books that support the thesis are not examples from mainstream media, popular press or e-magazines.

 

Try googling, "Miserable failure." What is your #1 hit? That's right - the official website for the President of the United States of America.

 

Google, "idiot" GW Bush is the second hit.

 

Just saying... Google isn't the scientific way to conduct a study on communication.

 

This is because Progressives/moderates/liberals have been linking "Miserable Failure" and "idiot" to president bush's website. They are using working knowledge of how the google search engine works to skew results (If you want links, I will provide them). That said, I completely agree with you that googling is not a scientific way of way to conduct a study.

 

 

oh yeah... just for giggles, I decided to google a gender neutral search, "Dating and communication." I got:

 

I concede that your search was a "gender neutral" search. However, my interpretation of what corvidae was arguing is that when you have both men and women in the search parameter (gender neutral meaning if you include both, you eliminate skewing results for one),the results/articles for problems in the dating game with respect to communicating intent appear to be "it's the guys' fault, they are doing everything wrong". I guess we need corvidae to chime in and let us know. Anyways, I am enjoying arguing with you Annie, as usual (good mental exercise).

[annie24]

Review articles in books that support the thesis are not examples from mainstream media, popular press or e-magazines.

 

??? I said it very clearly. These magazines (AKA = Mainstream media and popular press) have columns telling women dating tips. Like I said, some tell women that they should make their interest more clear to men by baking cookies. And the next month, it will say to act more mysterious.

 

Now, since I'm guessing you don't read women's magazines, I wouldn't expect you to know this, but trust me, every woman's magazine has a section every month explaining to the single women what mistakes they are making that are keeping them single.

[annie24]

Ok - so, I just did another google, "women men communication" and here is what I got:

 

Employee-employer communication at work

A book on communications skills

Women's and Men's roles in protecting the environment

AIDS

A journal article from Gender and Society regarding male understanding of "women's issues" in Mozambique, Africa

An information packet from Ohio State university

"Effective communication between men and women requires changes in how we approach our work"

 

and so on.

[doorik]

??? I said it very clearly. These magazines (AKA = Mainstream media and popular press) have columns telling women dating tips.

 

Since I am a man, and you are a women, I guess what we have here is a failure to communicate - Ha

 

When the poster posted,

In fact, can anyone give me an example of an article written by a woman on the faults of women's strategies in dating, in the popular press or e-magazines?

 

and your clarified answer was,

 

 

ah. excuse me. Sure, look up in that case, any review article on any one of those dating books. Also, often, those authors are asked to give advice in Cosmpolitan or Glamour, or other girlie magazines.

 

I guess it was the way you got to the magazines, I had to find a book, look for review article, find out if the article's author wrote for a girlie mag, and see if their advice columns placed blame exclusively on the ladies. My bad - But, I do concede that those mags are MSM.

 

Ok - so, I just did another google, "women men communication" and here is what I got

 

I addressed this in my previous post. Yes this a "gender neutral" search parameter. However, I am waiting for corvidae to write what he used to come up with the male negative results.

[doorik]

Oh,

since we are arguing here, I was wondering if you can answer something for me Annie (sorry other readers - off topic). In another tread we were arguing about advantage in the dating game. The question I posed (that no one would answer) was,

 

All things being equal - let's say 1 guy and 1 girl are at the same class/education/career level, and are attractive to the same proportion of the opposite sex, and both decide not to ask anyone out, who do you think will have more dating opportunities?

 

Any comment?

[jurupa]

I think this hole thing is more of a Catch 22 than anything else. Men get blame for our faluts and what we "do" to women, but at the same time it is ok to have ads of women in sexual images and even promote the same images in public. Its just a big circle that will keep on going on until there is a movement to break the circle. Just think about it and you should see it.

[corvidae]

I feel I must say a word on how I perceive the different types of sexism being discussed. I personally don't see the use of scantily clad women to sell a product as intrinsically 'sexist', that's not to say that such adverts are thereforeeee never sexist, just that using something highly desirable, like sex, to sell your product, is not a politcal statement on gender. When I see an advert where a man is portrayed as a sex symbol (that old diet coke advert for example), to me that's not sexist because it is only about the imagery of one particular man in one particular context. It is fantasy, amusement, nothing more. When you have an advert/article/TV show with the message 'all men are stupid', that is sexist because it's a sweeping statement about an entire gender. I simply don't follow the logic that sexual imagery of women is 'sexist'. You may feel it's morally wrong, but that's another issue. In recent times we are moving towards the use of male sexual imagery to sell things. Boy bands are a prime example. In fact, a recent study on how men perceive how a man should look has revealed that most men now-a-days think the muscle-bound look is what is most desirable. This has even had an influence on male action man figures (I kid you not) which are now made more muscley to conform to our new ideas of beauty(the power of the media, for those that question it). The reason I do not, and will never, find the portrayal of the male form in the media sexist is for the simple reason that it offers no transferable comment on me as an individual.

 

You have to admit that now-a-days it is far easier to get away with a sexist statement about men than it is women. Try this as an experiment: just run this phrase through your head 'women are smarter than men' now run the phrase 'men are smarter than women'. Which would you feel for comfortable saying out loud in public? Do you feel more pressure on one than the other?

[I_love_rain_hugs_and_you]

I don't think its just feminism. I think that too many people of all orientations have become cynical about finding love and no longer have any idealism. People read to many horror stories of things going wrong, and forget the success stories of people passionately (and irrationallly) falling in love and being happy forever and things like that. People need to read more of "Romeo and Juliet"

[corvidae]

Romeo and Juliet both committed suicide after knowing each other only quite briefly. I take your point though.

[asdf]

^ that's right. "Romeo and Juliet" is a tragedy of a love story.

 

Um... i never really have any problems with the stereotypes. Because stereotypes are just generalizations, and in the long run, people see you, the individual, by how you carry yourself, not in terms of a stereotype. If you are different from the stereotype, then just let it show, and the stereotype shouldn't affect you.

[I_love_rain_hugs_and_you]

I think more guys need to study romeo and juliet in the same way they would study a math or history textbook (or whatever textbooks you study). Why do we go for years at school learning things we will rarely apply, but not study to be a good husband or wife. All men should read Romeo and Juliet 25x before they get married. Also, all men need to learn how to dance. Girls want a husband who will dance with them. Of course dancing can be difficult for some, but girls atleast appreciate the effort you tried. All guys should be forced to read Romeo and Juliet (and other books on relationships) and be forced to learn how to dance before they get married.

[annie24]

What if they just watch the movie? Would that be acceptable?

 

I dunno - a story of two 14 year olds who can't be together, and thereforeeee commit suicide... On eNotalone, they would have tons of people telling them not to commit suicide and at 14, they have not experienced real love, that they will meet someone better for them, and that they should respect their parents' wishes.

[SkyFire]

I think more guys need to study romeo and juliet in the same way they would study a math or history textbook (or whatever textbooks you study). Why do we go for years at school learning things we will rarely apply, but not study to be a good husband or wife. All men should read Romeo and Juliet 25x before they get married. Also, all men need to learn how to dance. Girls want a husband who will dance with them. Of course dancing can be difficult for some, but girls atleast appreciate the effort you tried. All guys should be forced to read Romeo and Juliet (and other books on relationships) and be forced to learn how to dance before they get married.

 

Romeo and Juliet?

 

Romeo was a little *****. He was NOT a man. More guys need to embrace themselves as men and start acting like it.

 

Romeo should be the ideal example of how NOT to act.

[asdf]

I think more guys need to study romeo and juliet in the same way they would study a math or history textbook (or whatever textbooks you study). Why do we go for years at school learning things we will rarely apply, but not study to be a good husband or wife. All men should read Romeo and Juliet 25x before they get married. Also, all men need to learn how to dance. Girls want a husband who will dance with them. Of course dancing can be difficult for some, but girls atleast appreciate the effort you tried. All guys should be forced to read Romeo and Juliet (and other books on relationships) and be forced to learn how to dance before they get married.

 

You're talking about Romeo and Juliet by Shakespeare? Cause I really don't see what in the play would help people with their relationships or marriage.

[corvidae]

I think the message from Romeo and Juliet is very clear: don't fall in love with the 14 year old daughter of your family's arch enemies, and if you do, and she dies, make sure she really is dead before you then kill yourself. Also, speak in 17th century English.

 

As for learning how to dance, well, what kind of dancing? Fox trot? Tango? Salsa? Break dancing? I can't dance. I can sing though, and play the piano. In fact, every man should learn to play the piano before he gets married, and at least one wind instrument before he has a child. It's just common sense.

 

On an even more serious note, why DO people always focus on what the men should/ought to do? Let's start being just as critical of women.

[asdf]

^ why? you won't get anything out of criticizing other people.

 

it doesn't matter what most females are like, just concentrate on the type of woman you want yourself.

[annie24]

I think you boys may be interested to know this. There's a dating book out there, "Date like a man" by Myreah Moore. I have it. It is interesting. Basically tells us women that we should "date like men." I know... it's filled with a lot of stereotypes, but I think it's got some good advice.

[DN]

The best novel about dating technique is The Hunchback of Notre Dame - ugly but heartwarming hero, flawed heroine, dastardly villain - and everybody gets their bells rung.

[Shidoshi]

It seems like relationships are harder because people are more willing to act on impulse. For instance, people who break up when the butterflies in their stomachs are no longer there. Everything seems so "fleeting" these days. Women are more independent, but they still want a dominant man. That in itself creates problems because men have traditionally been the providers. I think times are changing faster than we're biologically able to keep up. I think feminism has played a large part, but maybe that's something that is an inevitable part of our evolution.

[Santa]

Expanding slightly off-topic from what Shidoshi said about evolution, feminism is actually bad for evolution. When you forget about all this "I don't wanna stay at home, I want to go out and work every day" stuff, it's logical for a parent to have to stay at home and raise children.

It is fact, that due to both men and women in the western world working, the native population of Europe is falling. In the old days the man worked, and the woman stayed at home and raised several children, thus keeping the population expanding. Now however, both people want to work (note - I would be happy to be a house husband), and so they are putting off having children. As a result, if couples do have children, they are in their 30's and usually have on average 1 child (in Europe), maybe 2. Thus the population decreases, and native europeans die out.

 

The logical solution is that one person has to stay at home, and raise children (also society will greatly benefit from having children who have discipline etc). I know this is very hard, especially for 1 parent families, but well, thats life. Perhaps in the future, it will be common for a house husband or housewife. If it isn't, then I suppose children may have to be cared for by robots or something.

I'm not against feminism, but feminism has left drastic problems.

[annie24]

There does not seem to be a problem maintaining the earth's population. In fact, it is quite a problem. I've been to Europe several times - I didn't see a lack of people there at all. If anything - it was over-crowded.

 

What is so wrong with having both parents that have jobs and interests outside of the home? I would go stark-raving mad if I didn't have a job - just raise kids. I know plenty of couples who both work and have completely normal, well adjusted children.

[DN]

In reality, women staying home and men working away is a late nineteenth century/twentieth century aberration. For thousands of years before the industrial revolution most families lived and worked together on the farm, or in cottage industries in town and country or in small businesses. (In Europe anyway). Boys were sometimes sent away to be apprenticed at the age of 14 for seven years but most families stayed together most of the time.

 

When factories came into being, men,women and children worked long hours in them. It was not until later Victorian Britain that the various Factory Acts limited working hours for women and children.

 

Upper and middle class women stayed at home but they were a minority and most had servants to look after their children anyway until they were sent away to boarding school. As wealth increased for working people more women were able to stay at home but for many working class families women always worked. And still do, not by choice because of feminism but because of necessity.

[annie24]

Santa, you neglected to mention that "in the old days," there were no antibiotics and medicine was not as developed, so parents had to have several children to make sure that some survived. Both of my parents were born in europe. My mom was one of 5 children, two of her brothers died in infancy.

 

Nowadays, most people survive to adulthood, hence, there is no need to have many children.