What is Your Idea of "Being a Man"?

This thread IS.

 

@alicecullen

I believe I've found the book: Susan Faludi's, Terror Dreams. Here is a 45 minute video of her speaking about the book, at Google. I haven't watched but a little of it, but it has a very convenient "important moments" feature, to access various parts of the video. If you choose the one for the 5:15 point, she introduces her subject, giving examples from the MSM which were openly tying 9-11, with a return to traditional values & a shelving of Feminism. She notes that the NY Times, one of the former employers, on her impressive resume, had 4 different articles, at the time, predicting that women would now hurry up to get married, & perhaps even move out of their careers, & into the home. Interestingly, in my search, before coming to this link, I saw numerous, glowing reviews of Faludi's book, and one panning of it. Care to guess as to which bastion of journalistic integrity, did not think highly of Faludi's work?



https://www.google.com/search?q=susan+faludi,+terror+dreams,+interview&oq=susan+faludi,+terror+dreams,+interview&aqs=chrome.0.69i59.23159j0j4&client=ms-android-americamovil-us-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:7769298f,vid:6Q_j82L_XSo,st:1984

 

No reason for offense to be taken. That aside, is known as, speaking "facetiously." In other words, I was not being serious. It is somewhere in- between joking, and sarcasm. That's why I started by saying that this idea of yours, "notwitstanding," then went on to delve into the time- travel element, as if it were a serious, worthwhile point, you had made. This should only make clear, to us both, that you don't get my, admittedly dry, sense of humor.

More to the point, the reply I wished make, was at the other end of the asterisk-- but not the question about your screen name. I see now, that the text that I thought I had merely lost, in the middle of composing my reply, actually got posted. I am, therefore, assuming that you only saw this first version, which does not get to my main point. Please go back, to see my intended reply:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-of-being-a-man.596261/page-4#post-1073318911

This responds to your speculation, which I had bolded, in your quote: "I think society has reached or is rushing towards a point where the gender roles are no longer relevant." I allude to a book, which shows just how untrue your statement is. I have since found, I believe, that this book is Susan Faludi's Terror Dreams. Here is my post (just above this one), with a link to her, speaking on the topic.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-of-being-a-man.596261/page-5#post-1073320230



@Pixie, and @David Landbrecht . You may have done the same as Cristiansoldier, & read my incomplete reply, which I had unknowingly posted. Unfortunately, that was before I had reached the meat of my post. Please see the link to my intended version-- #95, which immediately follows my mis-post.

 

I saw the reply with mention of Susan Faludi's book The Terror Dream. I read the overview for the book and a bit of the author's background. I can't really give an opinion of her book since I have not read it.

What is your opinion of her book? You seem to have mixed feelings about what she presented in the book but it seems you were won over by her arguments that traditional gender roles have become more prominent since 9/11.

 

Nor have I read the book, only heard an interview with the author, many years back. The particular example which most stood out, in my memory, was the most objectively true of her examples, which involved a scientific study, showing that environmental pollutants were actually more damaging to male infants, than to female ones. As I think it has, at least by now, come to be accepted that, physiologically, if not physically, women are stronger than men (generally speaking, of course, on both counts), I do not find these results particularly surprising. But when that study came out, shortly after 9-11, the findings were essentially shunned by all, including not just the media, but also the science- community. This was because, according to Faludi, our society had turned on its ear, regarding our conceptualizing of "men," and women, of masculine ideals, versus feminine perspectives.

My point, regarding your stated belief, that gender was moving towards becoming a moot issue, was that you-- like probably most people-- are blind to the strong, instinct- based role that gender images play in our society and, because they are so ingrained in our human essence, that they will continue to play, for the foreseeable future. The best spin, I guess, that you might put on it, is that we can, collectively, move on from gender stereotypes-- until some danger in the world, jars us back, "to our senses."*


Since you did not go back to read my intended point, I will bring it here, to you (but, I recommend that you listen to at least a little of her presentation, beginning at the 5:15 mark):

DEFinning said: ↑
I had heard an interview/ book review on NPR (national public radio), maybe 15 years ago, with this woman who had written about the way that the attack, on 9-11, had affected our group psyche, in America, and I found it fascinating. The author spoke about (her own?) biogical research, presented at the time, that male children were more susceptible to negative repercussions, from some environmental toxins. And, though the data was irrefutable, the scientific community, even, rejected it.

The reason-- and the author provided numerous other examples which did not stick with me, like the fact that male children were more vulnerable, than females-- was that, across all facets of American culture, there was an exalting of masculine ideals, and a rejection of anything implying weakness, or sensitivity, among men. In other words, the 9-11 attack, caused a society-wide, reflexive tightening up, of our male stereotype, concurrent with a suppression of manifestations of things deemed feminine, throughout our society-- wild, right?

And most never realized this had occurred. That is, it was not a conscious choice, that people made. It was instinctual.

[end quote]



*Note my use of quotations, around "to our senses." This is my wit's facetious use of a phrase, which we have identified as a likely point of miscommunication, between us, going forward. So, I will explain that I am being ironic, in that these ideas about gender do appear to be part of our human nature, while at the same time, can cause us to be anything but sensible.

 

will read this shortly, thx. in the meantime please take a moment to skim a style guide - i'm worried there'll be a shortage of commas if you continue using them at this rate

 

I do not see a link to an interview. Did you embed it in some text? I selected everything and nothing stands out.

EDIT: NVM I found it. It was in another post.

 

@DEFinning

Sorry I watched over 25 minutes of the of the video and stopped watching. I realized I did not give it much of a chance since the clip is over 1 hour long but I saw nothing of real substance. A lot of anecdotal story telling. I have no problems with anecdotal evidence because often that is what gives us the clues we need to find a cause or solution but 25 minutes in I heard nothing quantitatively to back up her assertions. Much of what she talks about could have been easily backed up or debunked if she examined the data. She even mocks some of the publications by saying that there was no increase in marriages after 9/11 which some un-named journalist must have asserted so obviously she knew there was no statistical increase in marriages after 9/11. The other thing that made watching the video unbearable is the laughing by the audience when she is telling her stories of what took place in the media 1 month after the event. I don't know how closely 9/11 impacted you but in 2001 I was still relatively new at my company. I worked as a junior programmer and at that time did not know many of our people on the business side and our clients. But my industry is in financial services and our head office is in New York. Although our NY office was not in the towers many of our clients were. My coworkers were deeply impacted because many knew those lost in those buildings. The laughter when she talks about the event are still opening old wounds 20 years later.

 

Kind of a cheap shot, considering the predominant grade of writing, among these posts. I see a couple of commas in my quote, which could have been omitted-- big whoop. Really, amongst the other posts on this forum, that is the offense that leaves you too aggrieved, not to speak out? As you are probably aware, the trend toward fewer commas has been ongoing, so that the way I use them was the norm, when I was in school.

It may surprise you to learn that I, and many others I would wager, write posts when they are tired, or in a hurry, as after taking the time to search the web for something which another poster requested, and then composing a quick post, to accompany that link, so that the requesting poster need not wait any longer than necessary, to get it. Well, I'm glad that you got your link; too bad, you don't get that criticizing my use of commas is hardly an alternative way to show one's appreciation. All it does, is provide a disincentive for me to hurry to any future requests, from you, if bother with them at all. FYI.

 

okay i realize this is going to make me seem like a b word and is kind of off topic but honestly it is so so so annoying i need to speak out

only one other poster i've seen so far has had as disruptive of a posting style as this and that's because he used like a 24 pt bold font.

then your teachers were wrong. using a comma before every single prepositional phrase has never been prescriptively correct.

are all of your posts written when you're tired and in a hurry? because so far, every one i've seen has had way too many commas. there were 10 extraneous commas in this post alone.

boo hoo, i'm so upset by this!

i watched the video btw, i pretty much agree with what cristiansoldier said, i don't have much more to add.

 

As I am not aware-- nor do I think, are any of us-- of your unassailable qualifications, as an authority on writing, please back up your accusations with specific examples. What is your excuse not to? You don't have to trudge off into the web, to look them up-- you're staring right at them! So please cite these "10 extraneous commas," and perhaps you will actually learn something, from me, when I explain their justifications.

Against your ambiguous generalizations, I can, of course, offer no specific defense. But, from what you have thus far cited, the only reasonable conclusion one could make, was merely that you do not care for my style. That is a subjective matter. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but that is all you are expressing, to this point.

Out of curiosity, how may spurious commas do you find, in the following, familiar text:


When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and, accordingly, all experience has shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature; a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;

For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;

For imposing taxes on us without our consent;

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses;

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies;

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection, and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions, we have petitioned for redress, in the most humble terms. Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

 

You asked for the name of the book, which I found out, for you. I assume you know how to use Amazon, or one of the cheaper alternatives, for used books. The video, I posted as a bonus, so you could merely have some sense, as to her work. As I had said, I only watched a few minutes of it, so I was offering with it, no endorsements (as should have been obvious). Also it should go without saying, but perhaps not among current company, that any argument that is spoken about, in a 45 minute presentation to Google employees, is going to be far more sparse, than what would be contained in an entire book.

I will present a couple of reviews of that book, however, as if I were not talking to a wall:


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.huffpost.com/entry/terror-dreams-and-warning_b_67547/amp

[snip]

This weekend I attended a reading of The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, by Naomi Wolf, and finished Susan Faludi's new book, The Terror Dream: Fear and Fantasy in Post-9/11 America. Perhaps it is no coincidence that, within months of each other, two of the most prominent feminist voices of the 1990s have hit the ground running with stirring takes on the social, political, and cultural fallout of 9/11. Who better to expose the myths and media narratives that have justified the increasing power of a Cowboy President, gun slinging blusters on a global scale, and the erosion of democratic rule of law here at home than feminist critics?

Neither writer disappoints. With characteristic laser-like focus, Faludi documents the cultural response to an assault on American omnipotence. At the moment our nation felt most vulnerable, she argues, our media responded with a frenzied summons to restore virility, calling up images of John Wayne masculinity and trembling "security moms" in need of rescue. "No doubt the fantasy consoled many," Faludi concludes. "But rather than make us any safer, it misled us into danger....There are consequences to living in a dream..."

...Both books end with pleas for action. "September 11 offers us, even now, the chance to...imagine a national identity grounded not on virile illusion but on the talents and vitality of all of us equally, men and women both," writes Faludi. Wolf calls on citizens across the political spectrum to join the war to save our democracy from within: "Each one of us needs to enlist. We have no one to spare."

[end]


https://www.cram.com/essay/Malala-Essay/P3ARSX53GZ3W#google_vignette

[Snip]

The media plays a major role in our society today. It makes us look at the world in another perspective based on how they want us to see it. The media has a way of choosing what stories to report and what stories to leave out. After 9/11 the myth of invincibility is destroyed and causes America to become weak and insecure. To rebuild this image, the media starts to portray America as the strong nation it once was and that nothing like that will ever happen to them ever again. Raymond Bonner, comments how “after the attacks, journalists were swept up in the national feelings of fear and outrage—and failed to do their job.” Post 9/11 journalists all over were consumed with fear and were not reporting accurately to the American people...

These men in these stories are described as someone the women need to be saved from. Captivity narratives are created after 9/11 to show how strong America is and how they are working to restore their security.* The idea is to be able to conceal America’s vulnerability. Going back to olden day tradition of restoring their faith through heroic stories regardless of whether or not it is the truth, “we restored our faith in our own invincibility through fables of female peril and the rescue of ‘just one girl.’”* One particular story Faludi talks about is Jessica Lynch. When the story first came out the media painted her as a war hero. The media became uncomfortable with a woman being seen as a hero which caused them to change their story. She was now seen how they believed a woman should be and in a sense blame her. They do not give her the chance to explain her story and what really happened. Instead they create false stories about supposed abuse that took place, supporting the idea the men in the middle east are...less civilized than those in America. She later comes to say that the real hero was her friend Lori, however the whole idea was ignored. The media would not allow for the American people to know about the hero of the story according to Lynch especially because she was a Native American woman and did not fit into the role of a hero...

[end]


*It might interest some to learn that, in ancient times, in the Middle East, the way armies used to encourage their warriors into combat, was for an army to tie some of the women from its own populace, onto camels, then after riling up the men, sending the camel(s) off toward the opposing army, so that the only way to prevent their being raped by their enemies, was to attack and drive them off. This is the history of our species, even if some like not to think about us, this way, and prefer to believe-- evidence to the contrary-- that we have evolved so far from that.

 

no i didn't. i asked for the interview you were referencing and nothing more. (i'm not going to discuss your comma usage anymore bc it's completely off topic but seriously PLEASE just stop.)

 

Oh, so you thought it was reasonable to have me dig up something I heard, 15 years ago, on my car radio?

Well that changes the complexion of things, entirely: no wonder you didn't bother to thank me for merely the name of the author & the title of the book she'd been discussing, in that interview; I guess I should owe you an apology, for only giving you a link to her, speaking in public about the ideas of that book, but not an interview at all and, even less, was it that exact interview.

The only thing I can present, in my defense, is my answer to your original request:

Forgive my misstatement, above. I see,now that you did thank me:

I must have passed over your abbreviation of that troublesomely long word, "thanks."

So this^^^, is your style. Out of the blue, you decide to attack my use of commas-- hey, you've got to have some principles, right?-- and throw all kinds of unsupported charges my way, but when I merely call you, on your bullchit, you act as if I am the one, who has been attacking you. Is it only NOW, that you are recognizing that talking about my use of commas, is "completely off topic?" Did this never occur to you, when you brought up the matter? Oh, wait, I see you did, sort of, acknowledge this:

But please inform me of all the whatever I have been doing, that I should, "just stop." I should stop defending myself, from your baseless attacks-- is that what you mean? Did I say anything remotely derogatory, about you?

Very bold talk there, from the next e.e. cummings; the woman who uses no capitalization, is lecturing me on proper "style." Here was my reply, broken into halves, to make it easier for you to pinpoint for us, where it is that I am doing something, that I should just stop.

Asking for you to back up your accusations-- how dare I!?

Well anyone, looking at that, can understand why you were compelled to beg for me to relent. Then, I also provided you some additional links to, and snips of, reviews of Ms. Faludi's book-- oh my God, does my impertinence, have no bounds!?

Actually, I would guess your decision to call off your attack was based on my quoting of the comma- ridden, Declaration of Independence, which uses this mark of punctuation, as liberally as myself. So what's a spineless critic to do, when one of her victims, effectively shows there is nothing to her criticism? Why, she acts as if I have been the one, who has been acting like a brute-- again, unsubstantiated. And, if we consider this, we could say that I am actually being, at the moment, rather on topic: looking at the situation of man, being verbally assaulted by a woman-- how is it expected that a "man" should react? The technique that you are disingenuously employing, of feigning that I am being the bully, here, is also quite instructive, w/ regards to our debate (aside from what it says about your own character).


Of course this still leaves open the question as to what compelled you, to go off topic, in the first place. If I were to offer an, admittedly wild, guess, I might wonder if you knew someone who'd worked at the NY Times, since I took a poke at that publication's seeming, self- serving lack of objectivity. Perhaps it is just that you don't care for my style, and think of yourself as some sort of writing "expert," which allows your own self, to flout style rules, at will.

I am reluctant, however, to take advice which is being offered hypocritically.

There's that, too.

 

Can change oil, make a fire, shoot a gun.... Drink beer chew tobacco, spit, cuss and holler!

And fight.... Don't forget fighting.

 

i mean, if you're gonna cite something as evidence for your stance, you should be able to produce it. the video was fine as an alternative

i did say thanks, so. also the video is fine, i don't actually care about it not being the exact interview. my point was just that i was never asking for, nor was i intending to read, the book itself.

(ignoring the rest of that post bc i Do not care)

 

why is alcoholism a prerequisite to being a man in your book?

 

I said drink beer not necessarily be a drunk.

Out of all the cliches I posted you chose that one?

 

You put on your oxygen mask first. I didn't. I apologized and still got lambasted. It's funny (not ha ha) but I read your replay and knew exactly the other party in that discussion was. I'm taking my next cues from you.

 

the context in which you said it very heavily indicates to me that the amount of beer consumed by your ideal man probably wouldn't be healthy but i'll, uh, take your word for it ig

yeah well honestly there's so much there to unpack that it's better to just go one at a time

 

All men don't do those things well, and women can do any of those things.

 

But this thread is about men, not women.

 

Christiansoldier wrote:
Put a woman in a M1 tank today and send her back in time and she could mow down a highly trained Roman legion of all men.

How do you think the Roman Empire was finally lost?
Clearly men couldn't do it... LOL.

 

An entire legion? Yeah, I don't know about that.

 

Is it a trait of masculinity to display your prowess in active combat?