Cracking the Bro Code

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

55 posts / 0 new

Film: The Bro Code, how contemporary culture creates sexist men

The generous posting of the script of the film can be found here.

From the script: Thomas Keith: “And so for many kids, these stars are role models who tell boys how to be men. And beyond the lure of drugs, money, and fame, an alpha male – by the measurement of music videos – is a man who possesses and controls women. In this world men never view women as equals. Rather women are objects to use sexually, to show other men that you have power. But it is important to note, this womanizing attitude is not a black thing or a Latino thing, this is a man thing. We find it across all cultural backgrounds. An example of this can be seen on university campuses, where the slogan “Bro’s before hoes” permeates college parties across the nation...

“Notice how Stagliano degenders the language of this sentence to cast blame away from the male perpetrator, as though this may be a problem between people instead of, overwhelmingly, men victimizing women. But when even the founder of Gonzo porn is concerned about how his product influences the people who watch it, you can clearly see that in this business, profit is more important than people and in their more candid moments, they admit it. A typical example of the degradation found in mainstream Gonzo porn comes from JM Productions, makers of racist hate porn, where a man has sex with a woman, and then pushes her head into a toilet and flushes. The production company states, and these are their very words, “Every whore gets the swirlies treatment. Fuck her, then flush her.”

Filmmaker Thomas Keith, a professor of philosophy at California State University, Long Beach, provides an engrossing look at the forces in male culture that condition boys and men to dehumanize and disrespect women. Breaking down a range of contemporary media forms targeted explicitly at young men, Keith teases out the main maxims of ‘bro culture’ and ‘the bro code,’ and examines how this seemingly ironic mentality reinforces misogyny and gender violence in the real world. Whether he's looking at movies and music videos that glamorize womanizing, pornography that trades in the brutalization of women, comedians who make fun of sexual assault, or the recent groundswell in men's magazines and cable TV shows that revel in reactionary myths of American manhood, the message Keith uncovers in virtually every corner of our "entertainment" culture is clear: that it's not only normal -- but cool -- for boys and men to control and humiliate women. Along the way, The Bro Code makes a powerful case that there's nothing normal, natural, or inevitable about this toxic ideal of American manhood, and challenges young people to fight back against the resurgent idea that being a ‘bro’ -- and a man -- means glorifying sexism, bullying, and abuse. http://www.mediaed.org/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?preadd=action&key=246

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

Eric Erickson of Red State blog, and a slurry of fox bots are promoting the cause of cutural decline is women, they aren't in the kitchen anymore. A few traders [men] on stage discussing the lack of women traders said 'When a woman has a baby, when she feeds her child with her breast milk, her value assesment of any equity or commodity in active trade goes out the window' then giggles from the other men, boys.

A computerized trading system with a mom entering the data will fail because she can't hit the send button if she's nursing?

anything in blue is spam, not a link

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote douglaslee:

Eric Erickson of Red State blog, and a slurry of fox bots are promoting the cause of cutural decline is women, they aren't in the kitchen anymore. A few traders [men] on stage discussing the lack of women traders said 'When a woman has a baby, when she feeds her child with her breast milk, her value assesment of any equity or commodity in active trade goes out the window' then giggles from the other men, boys.

A computerized trading system with a mom entering the data will fail because she can't hit the send button if she's nursing?

Can you believe it, Douglalee? You know, we thought society had gotten hip to this s**t forty years ago, but here it comes again, with a drooling, knuckle-dragging sexism like never before.

http://politix.topix.com/homepage/6317-fox-contributor-says-men-should-dominate-women

Quote Erick Erickson:
“I'm so used to liberals telling conservatives that they're anti-science. But liberals who defend this and say it is not a bad thing are very anti-science. When you look at biology - when you look at the natural world - the roles of a male and a female in society and in other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it's not antithesis, or it's not competing, it's a complimentary role.”

I mean, this is the same ol’ same ol’ argument. What’s funny is that nature offers scads of examples where the female plays a dominant role— who does the hunting among the lions, for example? And female praying mantises devour the male after mating. What could be more dominant than that? ;-) But don’t bother bringing up all the exceptions to their theory; they aren’t listening— “la la la, I’m not listening...la la la...”

Not that I’m telling you anything you don’t already know, but these dunderheads fail to notice a number of things. First, the economy: social forces that drive women with children out of the home and into low-paying, dead-end jobs; and if they have husbands, their husbands may not be able to find a job at all these days.

Not that I'm anti-"homemakers," not a all. But it’s only upper middle-class families that can afford to be a one-income family. Any marginally aware person knows that.

Then, if they’re upset about single women with children, how about looking at the violence women face in their relationships with men, men who have been indoctrinated in misogyny beginning in their teens, a misogyny that tells them their masculinity depends upon their dominance and control of women, as the documentary The Bro Code exposes so well. If women are the only breadwinners in family units of mothers with children, well, can you blame them for having left the men who abused them?

These old white guys —boys— talking out their butts on Fox News put new meaning to the expression “out of touch.” Clueless is more like it.

P.S.: If right-wing throwbacks find the current state of the family regrettable, perhaps they should take Robert Reich's advice: Reframing The Argument Against Right Wing Extremists. I can't think of anything that would do more for family health and solidarity than his suggestion to rescue the economy. (Isn't he a great cartoonist too?!)

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Zenzoe, good luck dragging yourself away from DynoDon. :)

To answer your question here, let me qualify what I say as one possible response.

Enlightenment, in the religious sense, involves humiliation. Only by adventuring can one learn. This humiliation, in the form of historical awareness embedded in a system teaching which conveys its message in the form of myth, is something the west has tried to rid itself of through various "cultural revolutions." The sense of shared sin is no longer so pervasive in society. Rather, religion is tailored to specific class and caste sets. As for the role of religion in history, one might ask whether it can aid in accentuating the idea of equality by focusing on a set of social goals such as purveyed by the Kennedy administration.

On a short term computer. Sorry I can't deliver my original thoughts they were better.

One may be enlightened to the "dharma".

nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

"Enlightenment involves humiliation"? Been reading Sri Chimnoy lately I see. What an idea-here's a blog that explains it better than I could.

"Humiliation was a theme that ran through almost all Sri Chinmoy's
teachings. As I mentioned recently, he announced out loud that
humiliation is the opposite side of the coin of illumination. You
could call it the S & M path. The people who agreed to be humiliated
year after year believe that this was a method used by their teacher
to dismantle their egos, thereby making them ready for prime time
receptivity.

People who believe in loving kindness as the best teacher are
appalled at the humiliation method, but I see that it is rampant in
many spiritual paths.

Once he held an " ugly contest " whereby all the boys and girls had to
write down the name of the physically ugliest woman in the room while
he read out all their responses and declared a winner. The winner of
this contest accepted her crown with the attitude that she had been
given a great blessing toward getting rid of her ego. I think Sri
Chinmoy uses cruelty and humiliation as a way to get people to
the " Thy Way, Not Mine " state."

Ugliest woman contest-doesn't sound very enlightened.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am
Quote nimblecivet:

Zenzoe, good luck dragging yourself away from DynoDon. :)

Ha ha...well, at least he has guts enough to be upfront with his questionable attitudes about women. I should be grateful— most guys here shrink from the subject. And I'm glad you don't do that either.

Quote nimblecivet:

To answer your question here, let me qualify what I say as one possible response.

I'm not sure which question you mean— this one, perhaps?: "If women are the only breadwinners in family units of mothers with children, well, can you blame them for having left the men who abused them?"

Quote nimblecivet:

Enlightenment, in the religious sense, involves humiliation. Only by adventuring can one learn. This humiliation, in the form of historical awareness embedded in a system teaching which conveys its message in the form of myth, is something the west has tried to rid itself of through various "cultural revolutions." The sense of shared sin is no longer so pervasive in society. Rather, religion is tailored to specific class and caste sets. As for the role of religion in history, one might ask whether it can aid in accentuating the idea of equality by focusing on a set of social goals such as purveyed by the Kennedy administration.

On a short term computer. Sorry I can't deliver my original thoughts they were better.

One may be enlightened to the "dharma".

Well, I don't know if DynoDon's response to your comments about humiliation hits the mark or not (Sri Chinmoy's approach to enlightenment), but I would tend to agree with him on that (oh my god!). I don't see humiliation as a path to enlightenment. Usually, it works very well as a path to low self-esteem, hurt, anger, and if done consistently and painfully enough, to rage and criminal acting out. No— humiliation? Not so great. And, as it's applied to women and women's status in society, which is a built-in humiliation for women on many different levels, no again. I cannot buy into that one.

As for my rhetorical question about women who leave abusive husbands, I can't see, if that's what you meant to address, how staying with an abusive husband could ever provide a context for a path to enlightenment. More, it's a path to damage and death. (but I realize you may not have been bouncing off that subject.)

I also don't see it as an appropriate punishment for men either, even though I've tried very hard to humiliate DynoDon when he expresses attitudes that come across to me as sexist. ;-) I don't think it's good for men, either. In fact, I do believe that a possible underlying driver of rape may be humiliation: Men who rape may have experienced gross humiliations as boys, or by the constant and relentless pressure to live up to the Bro Code, that is, by culture's toxic hypermasculinity demands on them, which they cannot achieve without suffering important losses of soul, heart and mind.

However, if you're talking about humility, now that's a different story. I think one needs to make a distinction between the adoption of a humble attitude, where one accepts oneself as imperfect and as no better nor no worse than others, and humiliation. Humility lacks the ego aspect that blocks consciousness of others' needs and emotions. But one doesn't get to enlightenment, or conscious awareness of others, via humiliation. Those who inflict humiliation on others do so out of ego, not humility or love. To punish someone else in a way that humiliates them requires an ego, and a very definite impulse toward aggression and violence. (btw, I don't exclude myself from that criticism.)

See, one of the problems with objecting to the notion that men should dominate women is that some people tend to think there's only one other option— that women should dominate men. So much of opposition to feminism comes from this fear, i.e., that feminists supposedly think women should have all the power, and that men should be turned into submissive, low-status, impotent dorks. It's a baseless fear. It leaves out the option of equality— nobody should dominate anybody else. Domination is not a positive value, guys, not in your world, and not in mine.

I sure hope you don't miss it: The Bro Code, playing today on Free Speech TV. My local Dish listing has it at 1:30 p.m. PST. But you can still see it streaming live online... :-)

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Beyond the film, I’ve also noticed a few websites devoted to the Bro Code, among them a Facebook group, as well as one with some interesting rules on dealing with women: The Sixteen Commandments of Poon.

From the Facebook Bro Code list of 150 rules fro Bros:

"1) Bros before hoes. The bond between two men is stronger than that between a man and a woman because on an average, men are stronger than women. That’s just science.

4) A bro never divulges the existence of the bro code to a woman. It is a sacred document not to be shared with chicks for any reason.

NOTE: If you are a woman reading this, first let me apologize: it was never my intention for this book to contain so much math...

10) A bro will drop whatever he is doing and rush to help his bro dump a chick...

14) If a chick enquires about another bros’ sexual history, a bro shall honor the Bro code of silence and play dumb. Better to have women think that all men are stupid than to tell the truth.

77) Bros don't cuddle."

Interestingly enough, though, the major emphasis on the list revolves around an implied homophobia. Such as in the following:

"15) A bro never dances with his hands above his head.

20) A Bro respects his Bros in the military because they've selflessly chosen to defend the nation, but more to the point, because they can kick his ass six ways to Sunday.

23) When flipping through TV channels with his Bros, a Bro is not allowed to skip past a program featuring boobs. This includes but is not limited to, exercise shows, women's athletics, and on some occasions surgery programs.

27) A Bro never removes his shirt in front of other Bros...

30) A Bro doesn't comparison shop.

33) When in a public restroom, a Bro (1) stares straight ahead when using the urinal...

42) Upon greeting another Bro, a Bro may engage in a high five, fist bump, or a Bro hug, but never a full embrace...

44) A Bro never applies sunscreen to another Bro..."

And my personal favorite at #118): "When a Bro is with his Bros, he is not a vegetarian." Yes. If a man is a vegetarian, his masculinity is suspect.

What a pack of idiots.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Very sad to learn that about shri Chimnoy's 'technique'. He needs to consider the 'do no harm' idea. A cause no pain method would make him a better humanbeing.

I really don't understand why some men want to cause women pain of every kind. Does it make those men feel alive? Or better/superior somehow? Why have these men no obvious empathy? Why do they seem clueless, like Chimnoy in this example of humiliation stupidness? They can't really be clueless, can they?

In ancient Greece the MILITARIZED CULTURE was greatly a man-on-boy subculture with relations with women being pursued merely for progeny production. So, could our many problems today be proof that our MILITARIZED NATIONAL SECURITY STATE -- and a very isolated male subculture it creates -- stimulate male behavior like the Bro'Code, the Stubenville-style Rape Culture (where rapists are protected) that we see acted out in our Federal Military, and even the fetish of causing PAIN we see in the TORTURE POLICY that is now in place and protected by Obama (I maintain that indefinite detention is in itself a technique of PSYCHOLOGICAL TORTURE)?

The interview below explores a new approach for the 21st century (hope springs eternal) -- based on PAIN. From the aspect of causing pain, we get a perspective on the bullies and torturers who hold themselves separate from the little animals, factory farm animals, foreigners who a "different", children, women and others they prey on.

This is an interview with the Dr. Richard Ryder, who coined the term 'speciesism', and he has a lot to say about the seamlessness between the way the slavers cause pain to animals and to people. He seems like a very positive person, attempting to bring clear ways of thinking about pain, and to use it as a measure of how to stop as much pain as possible.

http://animalvoices.ca/2013/04/09/the-word-that-started-it-all-dr-richar...

nora's picture
nora
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Bro Code is weak-Leykis 101 is the original and still the best! Watch while Zenzoe's head explodes-lol!

http://blowmeuptom.com/leykis101/

"Leykis 101 Rules

1. Spend no more than 40 dollars on a date.
* You worked hard for it and you should keep it. Spending more won't get you laid anyway. Optimally you should set up an after dinner date for cocktails.

2. Never date single mothers.
* You already know her stance on abortion, she won’t have one. Don’t risk paying vaginamoney. Plus her kids will always be #1 in her life and you will always be in the back burner. Why would you want to be in second place to some spoiled brat. They already made a mistake once, twice or more. Note: Child support if for 18 years boys!

3. 3 dates and no poon....?....you are outta there.
* If you haven't got laid by the 3rd date you are travling down the "friends" road and she is just sponging off you. (Leykis' 3 date rule is for guys who ONLY want sex - they don't WANT a relationship. If you're looking for a relationship, then that rule doesn't apply).

4. Leave if a chick if she answers her cell phone during a date.
* Most likely she has set up the bogus emergency call to get out of the date early because she's not going to bang or, she just talked to the bad boy that will bang her after you just bought the meal. If she answers the phone and you get that vibe, excuse yourself to the restroom and leave her there.

5. No coffee dates, no lunch dates.
* These are non-humping dates. You want alcohol involved.

6. There should be as little time as possible from drinking to banging. Don't detour to Denny's for breakfast or anything like that. She'll sober up and she won't want to bang.

7. Thursday-Saturday is offlimits for a girl unless its definite poon. This time is spent hanging out with your friends and having a good time.

8. Never answer your phone during the weekend.
* You want women to believe you are too busy out doing stuff.

9. Do not have a serious relationship until you have realized your personal dreams.
* Women are dream killers and will suck the life out of what you always wanted to do.

10. (For beginers) To get it done, Leykis says start with chunky chicks who are experienced or older women.
* Older women will love a young guy hitting on them and will show them the ropes. Remember: To play in the game, you have to warm up in the bullpen. This method gives you lots of room for player mistakes.

11. Never bang any chick from work.
* Unless you want to be fired. Yea, lots of people have met at work and it worked out for them but, there are also lots of sexual harassment suits ahppening and you don't want to be one of them.

12. YOU ARE PROUD TO BE AN ASSHOLE...wear it like a badge.
* Tons of women seem to respect guys that act like jerks. If it's not true why are they alway running after "Bad Boys"?

13. USE A CONDOM DURING EVERY ENCOUNTER. NO EXCEPTIONS!
* You don't want the crap she brought home and you don't want to pay child support for 18 years right? NOTE: When your done get rid of the condom good....some chicks are just crazy enough to remove the contents.

14. From Tom himself: The best chicks are the ones who aren't totally americanized. Those girls are pretty much faithful, are hot, good in bed, and will treat you well.

15. Try the best you can to make sure you don't bring a chick back to your place to bang.
* You don't want a girl who knows where you lived after you dumped her and gone to the next girl.

16. Your income will reflect the quality of poon you get. Strive high, don't settle, stay hungry. Girls upgrade all the time, and guys should be able to also.

17. Do not leave voicemails.
*Your number will show up on her caller ID and that will be enough to get her interest in many cases.

18. Show any way possible that you don't need her. Make her feel like she matters, but she is easily replaceable.

18. NEVER call a bitch twice in the same week.
* This was in the movie Swingers, and Tom's played it before.

19. Don't discuss that you are a Leykis listener and follow his rules.
* Many women think Tom is a pig and won't bang just because.

20. Christmas, New Year's eve and Day, Valentine's Day, Thanksgiving, her birthday or yours, these are days that are off limits. You do not make plans with chicks you are dating on these days.

21. If you have a dinner date, eat a hearty meal before taking her out.
* Tell the waiter that you'll just have a salad. Tell your date your eating healthy. What girl is going to eat more than you?

22. Never do what you don’t want to do.
*You make the money, you decide on what you want to do and where you want to do it.

23. Don’t ask a woman what she wants. Women never know what they want.
* You're driving this ship.

24. No Spooning, No cuddling, No staying over. Get in and get out!

25. Don’t speak to women you work with unless it is work related. Don’t tell them they look nice, don’t comment on anything except on what work needs to be done. Your conversation should be limited to Good morning and goodnight with exception of the occasional good afternoon. Saying anything more may and most likely will lead up to a lawsuit.

26 Men don’t dance!
* The only exception is if you are Gay or Latino.

27. Never compliment a woman. Never.
* It raises her self esteem and she will look down on you. It will actually decrease your chances of getting pussy.

Of mention:

Hold off on marriage as long as possible. There is no benefit for a man getting married.
* Proof- your husbandly responsibilties include but not limited to the following
1. pay for rent or mortgage(full or portion of the house will be hers in case of divorce)
2. pay for her credit card bills
3. pay for her medical bills
4. pay for her dental bills
5. pay for the gas she puts in her car
6. pay for her car
7. pay for her car repairs
8. pay for childbirth
9. pay for childs clothes.
10. pay for her groceries
11. pay for her shoes
12. pay for her clothes
13. pay for furniture
14. pay phone bill, gas bill, electric bill, water bill
14. pay for her traffic citations
15. pay for gifts she buys for her own family
17. pay for her school loans
18. pay for girlie things like new carpet, designer minibilinds, wall paper, new paint, plants, decorations etc......

A woman's wifely responsibities on the other hand require an almost infinitely less expenditure of blood and sweat- suck and fuck the husband and be nice. A man's ordeal doesn't end there, the load only gets greater. Once a husband makes more money and fulfills all of the above and thinks he can relax a bit the wife will add more load on which the husband must deliver. Examples are: moving into a larger more expensive house, buying another expensive car, having more children, shopping more frequently, picking up expensive habits (eating out, expensive vacations, visits to the salon, cosmetic surgery etc). In other words most husbands will be chained to the office until death.

It doesn't end there. Women today are vastly different from their 1950's counterparts. Most wives of 50 yrs ago expected little from a husband- just have a decent job and fuck me and most stayed in the marriage for better or worse. Today's female is a totally different breed of cat. Look at divorce rates. Now if the husband and/or wife decides to divorce the husband will PAY. After divorce court all the husband will own are his shrivelled balls and a ton of bills and bad credit while the wife will enjoy the house, cars, children, and a pound of the husbands flesh and blood every month(alimony & child support payments). Now the husband will never get laid. What woman will fuck a broken down loser with a lifetime of alimony payments. Remember, none of you guys are special and divorce can and will happen to any of us."

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am

Ha. Glad you stopped by, Dyno. Read on and learn about the “chauvinist mind.” I'll be interested in your response. As to your litany of Leykis quotes, you know what I think about those.

Nora, thanks for introducing me to Dr. Ryder and his ideas. I do believe the term “speciesism” makes a lot of sense. I have the book, In Defense of Animals, edited by Peter Singer, whose ideas have contributed to my own sense of ethics.

I listened to the entire hour of interview with Ryder. I’m not entirely convinced about “Painism” as a description of the fundamental, driving philosophy of our times, that is, as a description of what ails us. It works for me in some ways, but I’d have to read more on the subject to accept it completely.

It does seem to me that as many “Isms” exist as there are philosophers to name them. One of my favorites is Rankism, as named and described by Dr. Robert Fuller:

Quote Robert Fuller in Rankism: The Poison that Destroys Relationships:

...nobodies are on the lookout for allies, and wary of banishment. As social animals, banishment was long tantamount to a death sentence. It's no wonder we're sensitive even to the slightest indignities.

Dignity matters because it shields us from exclusion. It assures us that we belong, that we have a place, that we're not in danger of being "nobodied," ostracized, or exiled.

This article makes the case that there are no valid justifications for treating anyone as a nobody -- that is, for rankism -- any more than there ever was a justification for racism, sexism, ageism, ableism, or homophobia...

Rankism is what people who think of themselves as somebodies do to people they take for nobodies. Rankism is pulling rank, putting people down, advantaging oneself at others' expense. Rankism is dominating or exploiting others... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-fuller/rankism-the-poison-that-d_b_...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-fuller/somebodies-and-nobodies-u_b_264283.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-fuller/what-is-rankism-and-why-d_b_465940.html

I think that works pretty well as a description of the spirit that underlies the most of the ills we face. Rankism describes what’s going on with the Bro Code, as it describes what goes on within hierarchical organizations and institutions that accept the rape culture, or where an entire city excuses the behavior of football players guilty of gang rape and misogynistic assault (just to use your preferred language).

Quote nora:
I really don't understand why some men want to cause women pain of every kind. Does it make those men feel alive? Or better/superior somehow? Why have these men no obvious empathy? Why do they seem clueless, like Chimnoy in this example of humiliation stupidness? They can't really be clueless, can they?

Good questions. I could leave them alone as rhetorical assertions of dismay over such realities. Or I could easily attempt to summarize the complexities suggested there. But others have done the job already, so I might as well mention my favorite: Susan Griffin, Pornography and Silence: Culture’s Revenge Against Nature. Perhaps you’ve read it—I wouldn’t be surprised based on the spiritedness of your comments. If not, you’ll enjoy reading this book. She puts the grace of original language, as opposed to jargon, on every page, so that you want to read those pages over and over again.

Anyway, just to connect the book to your questions, she argues that because the “chauvinist mind,” which is not only the mind of the individual misogynist but also the mind of culture, has disconnected itself from its own nature and has designated the female as the embodiment of its alienated self (“emotional,” “weak,” “feminine”), he will be in constant struggle to “kill” that which reminds him of his own nature. Thus, the sadism he inflicts upon women represents an expression of self-hatred more than anything else. When he beats, rapes or murders a woman, he unconsciously tries to control and dominate himself, to rid himself of his own “femininity,” an aspect of himself he loathes and fears above all things. And that’s why such sadism becomes more intense with time and why it will never end, as long as the chauvinist mind remains unhealed, as long as a taboo exists against knowledge of the male self as a part of nature— vulnerable, tender, and sometimes powerless in relation to others. Because it’s a part of himself, he can never get rid of it, and so the cruelty, sadism and the wish to humiliate continues on and on.

That’s basically what the Bro Code is all about: notice how much of it shames any association between bros and their bros that suggests homosexuality, or femininity, although it is, by default, essentially a homosexual cultural expression, metaphorically speaking. Bros love their bros above all else, after all. It’s the same with your references to the military, with Steubenville, and ancient Greece’s “man-on-boy” subculture. As studies have shown, the more patriarchal and chauvinist a culture (the more hypermasculine), the higher the incidence of “down low” activity, that is, hidden homosexual activity on the part of self-proclaimed heterosexual men. This makes perfect sense: the best of sexuality usually happens between equals; a tremendous amount of sexual excitement naturally gets lost in the sexual equation between chauvinist, "superior," men and women deemed inferior, hardly human, stupid and worthy of disdain. A person who has no substance beyond the surface of physical beauty ultimately can't compare for sexual attraction to a whole, thinking and feeling person.

As I've stated before, I do believe war is a homo-erotic wet dream. And hypermasculinity —not masculinity itself— has its roots in an exaggerated attempt by men to deny any association of themselves with homosexuality.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Dyno, are you in any measure serious about this shit, or is it a great, elaborate hoax designed to show how stupid men can be? As comic material, it could work, but only if the context were clearly not serious. This is why Adult Boys may belong in their Caves, with locks on them until they grow up.

It is really not all that funny because it is real. Pathology involves serious autopsies with serious stench.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm

Saw it here first, then had to find it here and here to believe it. An escort was shot and killed (dying after seven months) because she did not deliver what apparently was expected by her john. I don't defend decieving a person if that's what the escort did, but it should be obvious that this Texas law placed all property rights before every other right, to the point that a person claiming to defend their private property rights is innocent in the eyes of the law even when violating any other law on the books. On the one hand, part of me wants the individual to be able to defend their own interests. But on the other hand, I think there needs to be a counterbalance such that taking a person's life or causing greivous bodily harm is illegal and will generally result in punishment unless the person's life is in immediate danger.

Its a sorry sight to see these overgrown juveniles rework our entire social fabric around their petty avarice. The likely response from the right-wing talk radio crowd will be that this man was in the right; they will characterize the story in a certain way in order to generalize the notion that men are entitled to the services of women.

nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

RE: The Military Rape Culture hearings.

Those generals were sitting there and not one of those senators brought up this history of how the Military actually utilizes sex as motivation and a reward. It shows how we women are really out-of-touch with the DEPTH of the sickness of our society.

This is a book that retells the history of the Military's use of sex: "What Soldiers Do: Sex and the American GI in World War II France" by Mary Louise Roberts. Excerpted here--

http://www.amazon.com/What-Soldiers-Do-American-France/dp/0226923096%3FS...

nora's picture
nora
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

See it for what it is. Leykis 101 is a guide for younger men to get laid-nothing more. Just hooking up-not looking for a relationship. I'm too old for this stuff but apparently it works. If it didn't-there wouldn't have been thousands of calls from guys saying how it worked for them. This is a male response to female psychology. Maybe the question is what is it in female psychology that allows men to bed a woman.

Zenzoe should be at least pleased that he advocates always using a condom. And please not their is no use of force involved-implied or otherwise.

"Women marry the richest man they can attract and men marry the best looking woman they can afford."

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am
Quote drc2:
Dyno, are you in any measure serious about this shit, or is it a great, elaborate hoax designed to show how stupid men can be? As comic material, it could work, but only if the context were clearly not serious. This is why Adult Boys may belong in their Caves, with locks on them until they grow up.

It is really not all that funny because it is real. Pathology involves serious autopsies with serious stench.

Smells big-time to me too, Drc.

I decided that if Leykis can have his jokes at the expense of women, we can have ours too at the expense of men. Fair turn-around, it seems to me. What follows is part serious, part kidding (“half-jokes” as Tayl would say), though I’m not at all advising the instrumental uses of others, even if deserved (I've re-framed Bro Code or Leykis code to Cad Code, because any man who wants to be a player is what we used to call a cad).

Cad Code #1: Spend no more than 40 dollars on a date.
* You worked hard for it and you should keep it. Spending more won't get you laid anyway. Optimally you should set up an after dinner date for cocktails.

V-Code #1: Gals: Always pay your way, especially if you don’t know the size of his dick yet; why obligate yourself, if there’s no upside —i.e., sexual satisfaction— to the obligation?

Cad Code #2: Never date single mothers.
* You already know her stance on abortion, she won’t have one. Don’t risk paying vaginamoney. Plus her kids will always be #1 in her life and you will always be in the back burner. Why would you want to be in second place to some spoiled brat. They already made a mistake once, twice or more. Note: Child support if for 18 years boys!

V-Code #2: Never date morons who listen to Tom Leykis.

Cad Code #3. 3 dates and no poon....?....you are outta there.
* If you haven't got laid by the 3rd date you are travling down the "friends" road and she is just sponging off you. (Leykis' 3 date rule is for guys who ONLY want sex - they don't WANT a relationship. If you're looking for a relationship, then that rule doesn't apply).

V-Code #3: If on the first date he talks constantly about himself and his interests, interrupts you every time you begin to talk, all the while keeping his focus on your chest, you’re outta there. Just get up an leave. Ain’t no big thing.

Cad Code #4. Leave if a chick if she answers her cell phone during a date.
* Most likely she has set up the bogus emergency call to get out of the date early because she's not going to bang or, she just talked to the bad boy that will bang her after you just bought the meal. If she answers the phone and you get that vibe, excuse yourself to the restroom and leave her there.

V-Code #4: See #3: Other reasons to just get up and leave: He’s silent, focuses on his meal, without looking at you once or trying to engage in conversation; or this— he sits there looking desperate, then tells you, “Gosh, I’m afraid to bring you to this meeting— everybody’s going to be thinking,Oh, here comes Walter with his piece-of-ass...’” In that case, you have every right to shove your banana cream pie in his face, then douse him with water, all without apology.

Cad Code #5. No coffee dates, no lunch dates.
* These are non-humping dates. You want alcohol involved.

V-Code #5: No dates with men who won’t meet for coffee or lunch. You don’t want alcohol involved on your first date, and if he can’t function without alcohol, he’s probably impotent and not worth the bother anyway.

Cad Code #6. There should be as little time as possible from drinking to banging. Don't detour to Denny's for breakfast or anything like that. She'll sober up and she won't want to bang.

V-Code #6: Don’t drink and date, period. For one thing, if he’s had a lot of drinks, he’ll be useless as a lover. And if you do accept a drink from a date you don’t know well, never never leave your drink alone with him. Bro-stunted guys think a woman isn’t attractive until she’s been rendered unconscious by the ROOFIE they put in her drink. Nothing turns them on like blotto, apparently.

Cad Code #7: Thursday-Saturday is offlimits for a girl unless its definite poon. This time is spent hanging out with your friends and having a good time.

V-Code #7: Never date a man who has demonstrated an aversion to friendship. A man who cannot be a friend will never be a true lover.

Cad Code #8. Never answer your phone during the weekend. * You want women to believe you are too busy out doing stuff.

V-Code #8: Never date a man who plays games.

Cad Code #9. Do not have a serious relationship until you have realized your personal dreams. * Women are dream killers and will suck the life out of what you always wanted to do.

V-Code #9: Never try to have a serious relationship with a man who: puts down your dreams and aspirations; wants to isolate you from friends and family; doesn’t like cats; thinks he’s a hot shot; votes Republican; belongs to a fundamentalist religion of any kind; never helps with the housework; can’t pull himself away from the TV, video games, sports programming long enough to be with you; refers to the movies you enjoy as “chick flicks” and won’t watch them with you; is selfish in bed—worse, tries to choke you during sex; watches violent pornography and gets off on it; hates his mother; loves WWE Wrestling; wants you to get breast implants or a facelift; thinks rape jokes are funny; is anti-abortion; thinks women enjoy being hurt and dominated...and on and on...add your own.

Cad Code #10. (For beginers) To get it done, Leykis says start with chunky chicks who are experienced or older women. * Older women will love a young guy hitting on them and will show them the ropes. Remember: To play in the game, you have to warm up in the bullpen. This method gives you lots of room for player mistakes.

V-Code #10: Never date players. They’re pretty easy to spot —they have an agenda that you can smell a mile off— but if you happen to date one once, you’ll notice the signs there too, according to the Cad Code you now know all about.

And that’s only for starters. Anybody want to add some?

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote nimblecivet:

Saw it here first, then had to find it here and here to believe it. An escort was shot and killed (dying after seven months) because she did not deliver what apparently was expected by her john. I don't defend decieving a person if that's what the escort did, but it should be obvious that this Texas law placed all property rights before every other right, to the point that a person claiming to defend their private property rights is innocent in the eyes of the law even when violating any other law on the books. On the one hand, part of me wants the individual to be able to defend their own interests. But on the other hand, I think there needs to be a counterbalance such that taking a person's life or causing greivous bodily harm is illegal and will generally result in punishment unless the person's life is in immediate danger.

Its a sorry sight to see these overgrown juveniles rework our entire social fabric around their petty avarice. The likely response from the right-wing talk radio crowd will be that this man was in the right; they will characterize the story in a certain way in order to generalize the notion that men are entitled to the services of women.

OMG! I can hardly believe it either, but, yeah, that’s Texas for ya.

I once brought a wide gold band (ring), one with a beautiful hammered surface, to a local jeweler (I wanted it enlarged) who took it, then had his assistant forge another out of who knows what, to very unprofessional effect, and when I insisted it wasn’t my ring, that he had stolen mine, he just smirked in my face. I called the police, but they said that because it was a commercial business, all I could do was sue him.

I wish I’d been in Texas and knew about this case: I could have shot that jeweler in the face and gotten away with it.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote nora:

RE: The Military Rape Culture hearings.

Those generals were sitting there and not one of those senators brought up this history of how the Military actually utilizes sex as motivation and a reward. It shows how we women are really out-of-touch with the DEPTH of the sickness of our society.

This is a book that retells the history of the Military's use of sex: "What Soldiers Do: Sex and the American GI in World War II France" by Mary Louise Roberts. Excerpted here--

http://www.amazon.com/What-Soldiers-Do-American-France/dp/0226923096%3FS...

That’s amazing, Nora. I’ve always had a picture in my mind of our good, decent soldiers in full rescue mode, as they moved into France after having defeated the Germans. Now I have to replace that image with something far less heroic. The thing is, a man cannot be both a hero and a rapist. If a man’s a rapist, he’ll never be a hero, no matter how many medals the military pins to his chest. Damn!

They dismiss this behavior as “boys will be boys.” Well, the operative word there is “boys.” They’re certainly not Men. REAL MEN DON’T RAPE.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote DynoDon:

See it for what it is. Leykis 101 is a guide for younger men to get laid-nothing more. Just hooking up-not looking for a relationship.

This accepts the sexist notion that having an agenda of getting laid above all else, in young men’s approach to women, is a legitimate, healthy way to express manhood. It assumes that all young heterosexual men think this way, that it’s normal and ethical. Gone is the notion of the male as a protector of women, of honoring women, loving them and being a strong, decent ethical human being in relation to other human beings. It posits the ideology that women are not persons, that, instead, women are objects to be used and discarded like trash. In fact, it assumes women to be trash.

And I'm supposed to accept such crap!

Quote DynoDon:

I'm too old for this stuff but apparently it works. If it didn't-there wouldn't have been thousands of calls from guys saying how it worked for them.

Hooray for manipulation, lies, the objectification of others! Wow, isn’t that amazing? Women are vulnerable, and it’s possible to take advantage of their vulnerability! Who cudda thunk it! Being a sociopath works! Isn’t that great?

Quote DynoDon:

This is a male response to female psychology. Maybe the question is what is it in female psychology that allows men to bed a woman.

And, yay, you get to blame it all on women! They’re human beings! Look how you can exploit the vulnerabilities of human beings for the purpose of stealing something significant from them! How clever the bros are! How stupid women are! Yay!

Quote DynoDon:
"Women marry the richest man they can attract and men marry the best looking woman they can afford."

Wow. Brilliant. So, what you’re saying is that women are smart, and men are stupid? Oye.

So many examples exist out there to refute that sexist belief that one can only laugh at its stupidity.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Now we are getting some truth from Zenzoe. She claims to seek equality for women.

"Gone is the notion of the male as a protector of women". If women are equal to men-why do they need protection?

"This accepts the sexist notion that having an agenda of getting laid above all else, in young men’s approach to women, is a legitimate, healthy way to express manhood. It assumes that all young heterosexual men think this way, that it’s normal and ethical." Obviously, you know nothing about the biological urges of males under 30. And we are not talking rape or pregnancy here. Just horny young men venting their sexual urges with willing females.

"Women are vulnerable, and it’s possible to take advantage of their vulnerability!" Which is it-women are equal or women are weak creatures that need to be protected?

"Look how you can exploit the vulnerabilities of human beings for the purpose of stealing something significant from them!" With all the hooking up the younger generation is doing-girls apparently don't think they are giving up something significant.

"So, what you’re saying is that women are smart, and men are stupid?" Nature programs women to seek the best provider and programs men to seek the most attractive.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am
Quote DynoDon:

Now we are getting some truth from Zenzoe. She claims to seek equality for women.

Quote Zenzoe:

"Gone is the notion of the male as a protector of women".

If women are equal to men-why do they need protection?

I'm glad you dropped by to voice your opinion. It gives me a chance to explain a few things to you.

"Equality" does not mean "the same." Gender equality has nothing whatsoever to do with an assertion that women and men are the same. For example, nobody ever said men were not, on average, stronger than women. That men are stronger on average than women, however, does not translate to superior, nor does it entitle them to better and more opportunities, to social privileges, to higher wages, or to the sexual services of any and all women.

Despite men's superior strength, many women do not require the protection of men; in fact, some would be offended at the idea that they need it. However, the reason I brought it up was simply to contrast the attitudes of today's young men, or Leykis-enthusiasts, with those of my father's generation, which, despite Nora's history lesson, felt a strong obligation to protect women, by virtue of their superior strength. In my father's own words, "any man who would hit a woman is a coward," and he would insist that manhood required the love and honoring of women. The mind-set of such men —and many men of such integrity exist still— contrasts starkly with the mind-sets of your basic bro-code bro— both are men: the former are secure in their masculinity and don't need to bolster it with the objectification of women; the latter are insecure in their masculinity and feel the need reassure themselves that they're not gay by every dishonorable means possible.

Quote DynoDon:
Quote Zenzoe:

"This accepts the sexist notion that having an agenda of getting laid above all else, in young men’s approach to women, is a legitimate, healthy way to express manhood. It assumes that all young heterosexual men think this way, that it’s normal and ethical."

Obviously, you know nothing about the biological urges of males under 30. And we are not talking rape or pregnancy here. Just horny young men venting their sexual urges with willing females.

I am quite well aware of biological urges and raging hormones. But apparently you're not aware of something called the pre-frontal cortex. And, btw, even males under thirty have those, although these days they're not expected nor encouraged to exercise them. That one has sex hormones and urges does not excuse the instrumental uses of others as the code de rigueur for a generation of males. Respect for others can be de rigueur instead, as it is for many good men, despite their lusts and urges. Everybody has those, but that's not the totality of a person, nor should it be.

Your Leykis, Bro-code ideology is just that— a guiding social doctrine that legitimizes the reduction of others to things to be exploited. It's really quite consistent with capitalism too, btw. And I'm sure we could discuss the parallel between the increase in the Thinging of Others, as evidenced by the Bro Code, and the current trend of uber-totalitarian-capitalism.

Quote DynoDon:
Quote Zenzoe:

Look how you can exploit the vulnerabilities of human beings for the purpose of stealing something significant from them!

With all the hooking up the younger generation is doing-girls apparently don't think they are giving up something significant.

To you the something significant that is "given up" is about the body; to me the something significant stolen is dignity and self-respect, the agency of self-care, and one's power. It's one thing if a woman is only interested in sex as well; in that case, there's no necessity for games. It's mutual and apparent. However, if she has been "played," either by coercion, or by humiliation, or by a pretense of friendship, or lies and/or promises, or in any way that strips away her autonomous power of personhood, then she has been defrauded: something of significant value has been stolen from her—her power as an equal.

We are equal, btw, by virtue of our basic humanity, and that's the basis of the respect one should show others, especially with regard to sex.

Quote DynoDon:
Quote Zenzoe:

"So, what you’re saying is that women are smart, and men are stupid?"

Nature programs women to seek the best provider and programs men to seek the most attractive.

I suggest you read the book The Mismeasure of Woman, Why Women are Not the Better Sex, the Inferior Sex, or the Opposite Sex, by Carol Tavris. In that book, the myth that you've posited there gets a proper debunking. But, if you don't get around to reading that, here's more from the primatologist Sarah Blaffer Hrdy (a reading) on our subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCa1ou-4eTw I do pray you listen well, so that we can move this discussion along, beyond your stumbling blocks of poor information.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I appreciate your comments on this topic. (And this thread-- I wish I had all the time it would take to digest it all. I keep trying to get back.)

Why is the truth about what happened to women at the hands of our own soldiers kept secret? why is it FORBIDDEN HISTORY when it comes to general knowledge of something like WWII? My take is this: It is inherent in the situation. As soon as the chaos of war takes hold, meaning as soon as the local government can no longer remain in charge or have any authority, there is no protection for anyone, and especially none for women and children and anyone more vulnerable or downtrodden.

(I know my heart jumped when I heard that one of the first things Bush/Rumsfeld did during the invasion in IRAQ was open the prisons and free everybody; in a time of chaos the thugs were set loose (not just the political prisoners alone) and the security of the locals would suffer and THAT means women and kids would suffer. Also a friend, a Vietnam vet, I knew who went over with the FIRST troops in the mid-1960s told me how the US military authorities in Vietnam early on set up a village out of the way that they then "stocked" with what they called "prostitutes". I think it is more likely that local thuggery and the US Authorities had an operation using coerced young Vietnamese as sex slaves no different than the Japanese did during WWII. Doing this in an out-of-the-way village meant the girls and women couldn't seek help readily or get away, I would guess.)

War Profiteers really don't want their War Profitstream disrupted in any way. The TRUTH would do that.

Truth of the unhindered brutality against women in war is kept a secret in order to keep people receptive to jingoism and to garner and preserve support for wars.

The Truth is suppressed so mothers don't discourage their children from joining the military, so women (half the population) don't stand up and oppose wars, so the growing number of working women who pay taxes outright don't realize their money is being used to destroy lives for no strategic reason whatsoever -- just for sheer misogyny and lust and twistedness and profit.

And so the lid is kept on it as much as possible so no one will know that wars bring collapse of culture and the degeneration of so many lives -- one person at time, including women civilians.

Only once in a while -- like this book or the exposure of the Military Rape Culture -- will we get a glimpse. What made me sick about the hearing recently is -- once again -- it appeared that business-as-usual like the rape problem would not be exposed as business-as-usual but as an aberration, just a temporary scandal rather than a way of military life, war life. The only glimmer of possible reform came with the REVEALED STATISTICS that the Military judgements letting rapists go were so damningly in favor of rapists that there can be no denial it is part of the ingrained worldview of the Military Subculture -- showing nothing has changed since the American WWII soldiers terrorized females in France without the Military leadership halting the terror.

nora's picture
nora
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

It's ironic. Many of the characteristics you look for in your definition of a secure masculine man are exactly what Alison Armstrong talks about in my previous posts that you dismissed. In a relationship, you treat a man like a man and he naturally wants to protect, provide for and support a woman. It's not manipulation, just allowing the natural sexual characteristics of the sexes play out. Watching her interviews, as a man, where she exhibits pure feminine mannerisms and speech patterns, just makes her so naturally appealing on a basic level. Maybe a woman can't understand.

Here's a taste I hope doesn't make your head explode.

http://www.understandmen.com/ktp/perceptive.html

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am

Dyno, your presumption that cultural is natural is wrong. Cultural masculinity retains the myth of the "protector" in its patriarchal images, but mutuality brings a partnership where both look out for each other. I find the strong man/vulnerable woman to be unnatural, and how many areas of life are men more vulnerable than women? Caring and intimacy, for example. Particularly, if a man is carrying a macho insecurity load and finds feelings a threat to his protector image and role.

The mars/venus bullshit never made any sense. All that nonsense about how "women" are beyond the ability of men to "understand," is just the patriarch being confused by an equal. Give up partriarchy and discover masculinity in mutuality. It does not require playing any roles.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
Quote DynoDon:

It's ironic. Many of the characteristics you look for in your definition of a secure masculine man are exactly what Alison Armstrong talks about in my previous posts that you dismissed.

I don't recall listing characteristics in a definition of a "secure masculine man." I emphasized that equal does not mean same, but that in no way advocates for extreme difference between the sexes, nor the kind of extreme polarization of gender roles and expression advocated by your Alison Armstrong. In fact, in many significant ways men and women are more alike than we are different. Drc mentioned caring and intimacy, implying that men are more vulnerable than women. But I would say men and women share a need for caring and intimacy and have similar vulnerabilities in that regard.

I have not listened to your "understanding men" link. I am familiar enough with that woman's point of view. Suffice it to say, I realize you'd prefer a world of John Waynes and Dolly Partons, with nothing in between, but such simply cannot be. Most of us aren't built that way, and to try to live up to such extremes only serves the industries of drugs, plastic surgery, sex-change ideation, psychotherapy, diet fads, sports and, might I add, war, all the while adding to the scourge of domestic violence and rape.

Furthermore, for culture to insist on such sex stereotypes compels individuals to engage in artifice, that is, the practice of female impersonation by females and male impersonation by males. Drc will remember the anecdote about Marilyn Monroe, how, during a walk down some boulevard, she turned to her girl friends and asked them if they'd like her to "be her," that is, put on the Marilyn Monroe act. In other words, the hyper-feminine creature Marilyn created —or was demanded by the movie industry— was not herself; when she behaved as herself as by nature, nobody recognized her on the street. But as soon as she put on the act, she would be recognized, especially by men.

Quote DynoDon:

In a relationship, you treat a man like a man and he naturally wants to protect, provide for and support a woman.

Try saying it this way: "In a relationship, you treat a man like a human being and he naturally wants to protect, provide for and support a woman." And vice versa— "Men, treat a woman like a human being, and she naturally wants to care for and protect you."

Quote DynoDon:

It's not manipulation, just allowing the natural sexual characteristics of the sexes play out.

See Drc2's response at #23.

Quote DynoDon:

Watching her interviews, as a man, where she exhibits pure feminine mannerisms and speech patterns, just makes her so naturally appealing on a basic level. Maybe a woman can't understand.

Actually, I do understand: the stark contrast of her style to yours reassures you and makes you feel more like a man.

Tell me, how do you feel about yourself when watching Rachel Maddow? Also, should the Rachel Maddows of the world be allowed to exist? Also, is Rachel Maddow's style the result of feminist propaganda, or is she just being herself?

Okay, a questionaire: Do you relate to any of the following characteristics?:

1. An inability to identify and express a range of feelings in oneself and others.

2. Difficulty responding appropriately and empathically to the feelings and needs of close associates and intimates.

3. Use power, silence, withdrawal, and/or avoidance rather than negotiation in the face of interpersonal conflict or difficulty.

4. Believe that women are responsible for the bad things that happen them, and the good things are due to their own abilities, achievements, or efforts.

5. Need to inflate the importance and achievements of males and undervalue those of women.

6. Feel a personal entitlement to the services of 1) any woman with whom one is personally associated, 2) females in general for males in general, or 3) both of the above.

7. Believe women like to suffer and to be ordered around.

8. Believe physical force is the best method of solving interpersonal problems.

9. Believe sexual and aggressive impulses are uncontrollable in 1) oneself, 2) males in general, 3) both of the above.

10. Believe pornography and erotica are identical.

11. Believe women control most of the world's wealth and/or power but do little of the world's work.

12. Believe the existing inequalities in the distribution of power and wealth are products of the survival of the fittest and that, therefore, allocation of greater social and economic rewards to the already privileged are merited.

13. Have a tendency to categorize spheres of functioning and sets of behavior rigidly according to sex, such as the belief that housework is women's work.

14. Have a tendency to use a gender-based double standard in interpreting or evaluating situations or behavior.

15. Need to affirm one's social importance by displaying oneself in the company of females who meet any three of the following criteria: a) are conventionally physically attractive; b) are younger than oneself; c) are shorter in stature than oneself; d) weigh less than oneself; e) appear to be lower on socioeconomic criteria than oneself; f) are more submissive than oneself.

16. Have an approach to sexuality, which displays itself in one or both of these ways: a) a need for flattery about one's sexual performance and/or the size of one's genitalia; b) a tendency to equate large breasts on women with their sexual attractiveness.

17. Have a tendency to feel threatened by women who fail to disguise their intelligence.

18. Have an inability to derive pleasure from doing things for others.

19. Have a tendency to react with emotionally uncontrolled resistance to reform efforts that are oriented toward gender equity.

Based on our discussions on this forum, I'm guessing that you can identify with #s 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 19. Hm-m-m-m? ;-)

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Hey, Zenzoe was the one who was advancing the position that women were vulnerable and needed protection from men.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am
Quote DynoDon:

Hey, Zenzoe was the one who was advancing the position that women were vulnerable and needed protection from men.

There ya go again, misrepresenting and misconstruing what I said, as well as missing and ignoring the points I made. Did you not read my response to your questioning of women's needing protection while wanting equality: "Despite men's superior strength, many women DO NOT require the protection OF [not "from] men; in fact, some WOULD BE OFFENDED at the idea that they need it. However, the reason I brought it up was simply to contrast the attitudes of today's young men, or Leykis-enthusiasts, with those of my father's generation, which, despite Nora's history lesson, felt a strong obligation to protect women, by virtue of their superior strength."

You're a live one, that's for sure.

Is that your only defense? C'mon. I'm sure you can do better than that.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Nora, I dare say the officials of the military who should be doing something about the rape culture in the military do fit many of the characteristics I've listed at #24 on this page, especially characteristic #9: "Believe sexual and aggressive impulses are uncontrollable in 1) oneself, 2) males in general, 3) both of the above." That's why the perps get promoted, while their accusers get run out of the military without benefits, and without recourse. And, of course, a version of the Bro Code informs the system throughout— "bros before hoes."

Maybe women in the military need a version of Florida's "stand your ground" laws: "Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the 'stand your ground' law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit." Somebody rapes, or tries to rape you, you have the right to use deadly force. Seems reasonable to me. Self-defense, plain and simple.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Snooki is still looking great. http://perezhilton.com/category/Snooki/#.UbeNh9zn928

Here's an example of ungentlemanlyness punished in the public forum: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/soccer-dirty-tackle/argentinean-player-sent-off-throwing-dog-off-field-144536031.html An admonition regarding animal rights in the sports section!

nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Stephen Colbert's interview tonight was Daniel Bergner who has written a book I'm going to have to read, though it looks like a popularized version of info we've already seen from science writer Natalie Angiers, and scientists Sarah Blaffer Hrdy and Carol Tavris: What Do Women Want, Adventures in the Science of Female Desire.

Read it and weep, DynoDon:

Lifestyle Mirror: What is the biggest misconception about women's sexuality in our culture today?
Daniel Bergner: Maybe the biggest one stems from the theory we've been fed by evolutionary psychology: that while men are programmed by evolution to spread their seed, to be promiscuous, women are, relatively speaking, driven to seek one good man [and] this makes women innately better suited to monogamy. Mixed in here is the idea that women have lower sex drives than men. Say all this enough times, and everyone starts to believe that these are genetic truths, biological inevitabilities. But there's very little evidence for any of this. And the emerging science in my book gives a very different—and I think empowering—understanding of female desire.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

So basicly this whole thread is men should not be men any more it is offensive to women if the man is chivalrous and tries to protect them from the evils of the world. So I am guessing when they get married they do not want to be treated like a queen any more or am I reading to much into this thread.

firearm owner
Joined:
Jan. 18, 2013 9:52 am
Quote firearm owner:

So basicly this whole thread is men should not be men any more it is offensive to women if the man is chivalrous and tries to protect them from the evils of the world. So I am guessing when they get married they do not want to be treated like a queen any more or am I reading to much into this thread.

The underlying point of the thread, if I had to sum it up, is that men and women are people, that people deserve dignity and respect, that our dealings with each other should be humane, that is, characterized by care, compassion, mercy, kindness and consideration. The Bro Code, by contrast, is not about men being men; it's about men being jerks. Men will always be men by virtue of their biological endowments; but those endowments do not entitle them to dominate and use women in self-serving, dishonorable ways. If a man is in a position to protect others and does so, he's being an outstanding human being; the same could be said for a woman who is in a position to protect others and does so. And, if treating someone like a "queen" means love and care, fine; but if it means depriving her of her autonomy, her equal standing and dignity, her opportunities for growth, then that wouldn't be so welcome.

On a lighter note, maybe you can tell me why men might need "ball ironing":

In an interview with Italy’s Max magazine this January, the 52-year-old actor [George Clooney] said: 'I never fixed my eyes, but I spent more money to stretch the skin of my testicles.

'I did not like the wrinkles. It’s a new technique, many people in Hollywood have done it. It’s called ‘ball ironing.'"

He also touched on 'ball ironing' in a 2008 interview with Esquire. Surgeons say such intervention can boost a man’s self-confidence by tightening the skin and muscle around the testes.

Why would the treatment boost self-confidence? Do men get rejected for having wrinkles on their balls? Seems odd to me, but this might lead to a discussion of the little-known insecurities of males. You'd think George Clooney wouldn't have anything whatsoever to worry about; I mean, his balls could hang down to his knees and nobody would care. With that face, you can get away with anything.

Just how much of the bluster is about over-compensation for feelings of inadequacy? I mean, the pressures associated with being a man must be horrendous. Well, women have understood this forever. It's why girls pretend to be helpless.

Instead of responding to women's increasing self-confidence and strength by feeling a threat to one's manhood, perhaps the Bros should consider it as a compliment—women now think you're man enough and grown-up enough to accept them as they are, without the pretense. I think the idea is to be yourself, not some dishonest version of yourself driven by fear.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

You're right-here in SoCal the tats and breast implants have increased women's self confidence. It is getting a little tough though for women to keep the love me for who I am mantra when they are cosmetically altered. Or the Cami-Shaper.

http://www.camishaper.com/beforeafter.php

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am

How come they never make a TV show out of this stuff?

http://www.alternet.org/cop-shot-litter-kittens-front-screaming-children

http://www.alternet.org/drugs/cops-plead-guilty-helping-plant-drugs-woman-sexually-harassed-judge?page=0%2C4&paging=off

nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Nimblecivet— corruption and cruelty. What can I say? Or, what's on your mind?

DynoDon wants to criticize women, rather than discuss the issues related to men's behavior. Whatever. Maybe he'll save those thoughts for a thread I'll be starting about women. I just don't know when that's going to happen though.

FSTV aired another excellent lecture, this time one entitled, Understanding Hookup Culture, all about the sociology of college-age hook-ups and dating behavior. The upshot— not much has changed with regard to double standards and inequality, despite the disappearance of the "saving myself for marriage" meme. You can judge for yourself. DynoDon, this should interest you in particular: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3Q2L7YQ2Hk

I do think the lecture, above, should be informed by the book I mentioned earlier: What Do Women Want, Adventures in the Science of Female Desire. And I sure hope both men and women begin to adjust their understandings of female sexuality to fit the reality. Time to drop the myths.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Just observing here in SoCAL-not a criticism.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am

https://www.facebook.com/?ref=tn_tnmn#!/photo.php?fbid=546792745363126&set=a.204542062921531.45848.184599864915751&type=1

Somebody please tell me the comments in the photo do not represent the new normal.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Zenzoe:

V-Code #3: If on the first date he talks constantly about himself and his interests, interrupts you every time you begin to talk, all the while keeping his focus on your chest, you’re outta there. Just get up an leave. Ain’t no big thing.

Cad Code #4. Leave if a chick if she answers her cell phone during a date.
* Most likely she has set up the bogus emergency call to get out of the date early because she's not going to bang or, she just talked to the bad boy that will bang her after you just bought the meal. If she answers the phone and you get that vibe, excuse yourself to the restroom and leave her there.

V-Code #4: See #3: Other reasons to just get up and leave: He’s silent, focuses on his meal, without looking at you once or trying to engage in conversation; or this— he sits there looking desperate, then tells you, “Gosh, I’m afraid to bring you to this meeting— everybody’s going to be thinking,Oh, here comes Walter with his piece-of-ass...’” In that case, you have every right to shove your banana cream pie in his face, then douse him with water, all without apology.

I do not understand anything about V-Code #4 - what is this scenario?

chilidog
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote chilidog:
Quote Zenzoe:

V-Code #3: If on the first date he talks constantly about himself and his interests, interrupts you every time you begin to talk, all the while keeping his focus on your chest, you’re outta there. Just get up an leave. Ain’t no big thing.

Cad Code #4. Leave if a chick if she answers her cell phone during a date.
* Most likely she has set up the bogus emergency call to get out of the date early because she's not going to bang or, she just talked to the bad boy that will bang her after you just bought the meal. If she answers the phone and you get that vibe, excuse yourself to the restroom and leave her there.

V-Code #4: See #3: Other reasons to just get up and leave: He’s silent, focuses on his meal, without looking at you once or trying to engage in conversation; or this— he sits there looking desperate, then tells you, “Gosh, I’m afraid to bring you to this meeting— everybody’s going to be thinking,Oh, here comes Walter with his piece-of-ass...’” In that case, you have every right to shove your banana cream pie in his face, then douse him with water, all without apology.

I do not understand anything about V-Code #4 - what is this scenario?

There are two scenarios there. Which one confuses you?

Anyway, much of the Bro Code is about males owning their power in relation to women they're not interested in having relationships with, often in sexist ways. V-Code #4 responds and gives two examples, scenarios that grant permission for women to own their power, when men are being jerks.

The thing is, Chilidog, my V-Codes mostly bounce off of Tom Leykis' rules for men, but I certainly don't consider myself a spokesperson for young women, who ought to be the ones to write the serious V-Codes. They're the ones who know the terrain and know best how to own their power in the face of this stuff. I'm not exactly a part of the "hookup culture" at this time in my life. ;-)

I wonder if you watched the lecture Understanding Hookup Culture. Lots of interesting insights there: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3Q2L7YQ2Hk

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

40 years of women's lib and the newest generation of girls has hookup culture.

Zenzoe, my mission has always been to provide a counterpoint to your blame men for women's problems point of view. I remember in the early 70's women shouting give us equality and power and we will flourish and fulfill our destinies.

Here we are, 40 years later and what do we have? All the 'criticisms' you complain I make were illustrations of what have women done with their 40 years of 'liberation'. It's to the point that all 15 year old girls might as well take a HD picture of their hoo-hoo and post it and get it over with. These girls seems to have no shame or privacy concerns.

So what have women done with their liberation? The' criticisms' I make are examples of women acting like teenagers with their 1st credit card-going wild-often against their best interests.

For you Zenzoe, my point has always been that women should put their own house in order rather than spend all your time blaming men for your problems. What did the mothers of all these rapists teach them? What are mothers doing about their daughters sexting? Why the obsession with celebrity culture, cosmetic surgery etc.? Why do you gravitate towards lowing paying careers?

There always have been problems between the sexes and always will be. The behavior of the sexes is the study of thousands of books. It's neverending. I just say women should look at themselves first before waging war against men. There are certainly issues with men-but 1 battle at a time.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am

I don't blame men for ALL of women's problems; I only blame men, and a culture that grants to men higher status and better opportunities (inequality), for the things MEN do to hurt and disrespect women. Is it your opinion that men do not behave in sexist ways toward women, or that there are no misogynists, and that discrimination against women does not exist? If so, I have to wonder what planet you're living on.

I also don't blame ALL men for the things stupid men do. Apparently, you're looking at my views through the distorted lens of anti-feminism, and therefore you're missing the reasonable stuff.

I also do not think women are perfect either. The thing I don't forget, though, is that women are as vulnerable to sexist propaganda and sex-obsessed, celebrity culture as are men.

It's frustrating to read your continuing distortion of my positions. Honestly, DynoDon, you don't get me at all. I realize I'm the scapegoat for your resentments against feminists and other strong women, but, really, I'd appreciate some fairness here.

Looks like I'm going to have to start the thread I've been holding off on. It's going to include some of the complaints about women's complicity in the indignities that bring them down, the complicity you have mentioned here.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/mom-faces-more-jail-time-drunk-driver-killed-135900784.html:

The message Nelson's case sends is: You're black and single with three kids and you don't even know how to cross the street you pathetic worthless excuse for a human being. Now go to jail and think about how you killed your kid. Swallow the shame and the deflected blame. That's what you get for needing to take the bus I pay for with my taxes.

http://news.msn.com/videos/?ap=True&videoid=89275c22-08fd-e601-2c12-d9c51d8b31da&from=en-us_msnhp

"A San Diego school teacher lost her job at a Catholic school, not because of anything she did, but because the school deemed her ex-husband too dangerous."
Read another article about this one; the guy is in jail now but due out soon. He had already shown up at the school which had to go into "lock down" mode. I think if he provides a written statement that he will not come back around she should get her job back. If not, he should be liable for her loss. But I don't know if that's practicable. Chances are he already owes her back child support but I can't remember if she has kids by him or not.

Quote http://news.msn.com/world/is-jealousy-the-cause-of-brutal-witch-hunts-in-papua-new-guinea:

She said villagers were envious because Rumbali's husband and son had government jobs, they had a "permanent house" made of wood, and the family had tertiary educations and high social standing.

nimblecivet
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I thought the law in California regarding pedestrians crossing the street required vehicles to stop for them, regardless of whether they were jaywalking. I thought pedestrians always had the right-of-way, although a pedestrian could be cited for jaywalking, that is, crossing the street other than by a crosswalk. But, apparently I was wrong:

"Every pedestrian upon a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway so near as to constitute an immediate hazard.

(b) The provisions of this section shall not relieve the driver of a vehicle from the duty to exercise due care for the safety of any pedestrian upon a roadway." https://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d11/vc21954.htm

Obviously, the mother who was held responsible for her son's death should file an appeal. That was a ridiculous decision, one most likely based on prejudice against single black moms, as the article states. Perhaps she might have received a misdemeanor citation for jaywalking, but that's all. Poor woman.

And that's to say nothing about the inequity of her experience with the justice system in Georgia compared to the male drunk driver's experience with it. Oye! I wonder if this further evidence of men's greater entitlements and privileges compared to women's will be noted by DynoDon...

As for your second story, what can I say— mix together San Diego and Catholic school, and you've got a recipe for stupid decisions. Have you ever noticed how geography is everything? I doubt that woman would have lost her job over her husband's bad behavior in San Francisco. Right?

And if that weren't bad enough... how about this one: "A Carlsbad woman whose ex-husband is in prison for sexually assaulting her in 2008 has been ordered to pay spousal support and $47,000 in attorney fees that her attacker accrued in their divorce." Nice.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Geez Zenzoe-you find female victimhood behind every bush, hidden in the shadows and crouching in the corners. Take off the pink glasses for a minute and get a different perspective.

Funny how when men do bad things-they are evil.

When women do bad things-it's not their fault.

http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2947...

http://www.uiowa.edu/~030116/158/articles/dershowitz1.htm

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am

When have I ever used PMS as an excuse for abusive behavior on the part of women? In fact, I have never bought into that excuse, nor have I ever experienced the syndrome. It's BS, as far as I'm concerned.

And when have I ever said women don't do bad things, or that women are the "better sex." In fact, I have argued against that whole theme. That's BS too.

You need to take off your glasses yourself— you know, the ones with the warped lenses.

Alan Dershowitz is a putz, though, just the same.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

This one's for you, DynoDon: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yUwwmeBvKA

Carol Gilligan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yUwwmeBvKA

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I'm waiting for an American military leader to stand strong against the degradaton, humiliation and rape of women in the military too: Get Out: Australia's Army Chief Is Evidently Not Cool With Sexual Assault.

Now that's a man.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Oh that feared Australian Army.

http://www.army.gov.au/Our-work/Current-Operations/Operation_ANODE_Solom...

Operation ANODE is the name of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) contribution to the Australian-led Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands (RAMSI). RAMSI's assistance is known as Operation HELPEM FREN (Pidgin for 'Helping Friend').

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am

Darn-check out the link for a picture. It shows up in preview when I paste it, but not in the post.

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am

What— guys in camouflage practicing some sort of exercise routine? I must be missing your point.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Did you notice they were holding sticks? Makes wonder wonder how advanced the Australian Army is. lol

DynoDon
Joined:
Jun. 29, 2012 10:24 am

Oh. Now I get it. See, I saw phallic symbols, not sticks. ;-)

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

What Do Democrats Really Want?

Thom plus logo Thomas Friedman, the confused billionaire, told us decades ago that "free trade" is what made the Lexus a successful product when, in fact, it was decades of Japanese government subsidies and explicit tariffs that did so.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system