Why Do Men Keep Falling for Women's Manipulative Shaming Tactics?

[dasein]

None of anything you've posted proves what does or does not appeal to the mass female market.

 

I don't have the responsibility here of "proving" anything at all to you. My opinions are accompanied by thoughtful reasoning and analysis, with which you are totally free to disagree. If they weren't, and I just trotted out conclusions or half-conclusions without accompanying reasoning or analysis, expecting my POV to be accepted wholesale via statements such as "Men have oppressed women for thousands of years," for example, you might have a point, as that would make me no better than the average feminist.

 

Any time someone states an opinion that you disagree with, you characterize it as being "tossed out as to be accepted without question".

 

No, no I don't, and that is a slanderous mischaracterization of my posts. Did you or did you not offer "Fails the Bechdel test" without any accompanying analysis or reasoning whatsoever, as to be accepted without question, as implying some unstated conclusion about my example of the GWTDT? Yes or no?

 

That is a value judgment that YOU project on the very act of women having opinions you don't agree with.

 

More of the same, and getting suprisingly close back to the "shaming" topic. Did you or did you not offer "Fails the Bechdel test" without any accompanying analysis or reasoning whatsoever, as to be accepted without question, as implying some unstated conclusion about my example of GWTDT? Yes or no?

 

Your interpretation of the very existence of an idea that you find unpalatable as a requirement that you accept it without question is utterly irrational. It shows that you are incapable of dialogue, let alone debate, thinking that your rights are abridged the moment other people's role in the conversation goes beyond merely agreeing with you. That's your problem, not women's, and certainly not mine.

 

And now we are ALL the way back to the "shaming topic." Bravo! Well played. But the question remains... Did you or did you not offer "Fails the Bechdel test" without any accompanying analysis or reasoning whatsoever, as to be accepted without question, as implying some unstated conclusion about my example of the GWTDT? Yes or no?

 

 

Also, the problem with movies like that isn't so much that women are portrayed unrealistically -- though there is that too -- as that they portray men as the default sex. Once a gender, or a racial or ethnic group is characterized as a "default", it doesn't matter that much whether it is portrayed positively or negatively. If a non-default group is portrayed negatively, the implication is that it should either be decimated or have its liberties curtailed or both. If a default group is portrayed negatively, at most, it is a reflection on how life just sucks and then you die, a/k/a too bad, so sad. Of course, it's more flattering to be portrayed in a positive light than in a negative light, but men being the default, if they are portrayed negatively, they are akin to a destructive force of nature; you can't punish them for this, or stop them from doing it by taking away their liberty any more than you can do this to an earthquake. Thus, men may get annoyed at negative messages about them, but to say that it's a "vastly greater amount" is myopic. Men, whether positive or negative characters, are portrayed as actors who possess free will and exercise it. Women, however, are invariably portrayed as objects for men to act upon, either for good or for ill -- and that portrayal is tremendously negative. Pointing that out is not tantamount to depriving men of the right to be annoyed at being presented as a bunch of rapists and Nazis.

 

Huh?

[Taramere]

What on earth does the above have to do with whether TGWTDT is a fair example of how the mass adult female market enjoys, consumes and responds to over the top negative portrayals of men?

 

You need that explained?

 

I'm not going to put in the time explaining the role of splitting theory in drama. If you can't see it, you can't see it.

 

That show is likely an example of the first type of entertainment I described. And as far as British/American, IME there is a big difference. Did you know that in the U.S. there are several cable channels devoted almost exclusively to low budget movies depicting women in the victim role 24/7? Usually at the hands of men, occasionally at the hands of a competitive "bitch" woman or an evil spirit or demon of some sort, but always victimized. Whole channels of nothing but, I kid you not! I am unaware of similar trends in British entertainment, but am certainly no expert. Yes, it could be more an American thing.

 

Pfft on the "American men are more sensitive" implication. Is that some subtle way to get back to the "shaming topic" via shaming?

 

No. As I've alreadymade clear, my own limited experience of meeting American men doesn't substantiate the notion that American men are more sensitive. All I'm doing is reflecting back at you the impressions that you're giving out....one of which is that American men seem to have an issue with how they're portrayed in the media.

 

 

You are certainly welcome to your opinion (it's wrong)

 

You don't say...

 

and the accompanying straw men it entails.

 

You must dream about straw men by now.

[zengirl]

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was written by a man.

 

Nor is it a chick flick or chick lit, which is a specific genre, in both cases. Mystery novels, in general, are read by slightly more women than men, but that's true across the genre and they are not written solely for women.

 

Also, isn't the newspaper guy in TGWTDT (didn't see it and only read about 1/3 because it was tedious---it was a book club book, and a male friend recommended it to our book club, FWIW) supposed to be kind of a good guy? He seemed nice enough. It doesn't seem like he turns out to be horrible and might even be nicer than the hacker girl for all I know (I really didn't get far into it but she was all edgy and dark and damaged and stuff---quite the cliche; whereas the newspaper guy seemed like an actual character).

[dasein]

The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was written by a man.

 

Noted previously and dealt with previously. As also previously noted, the original title of the book was "Men who Hate Women," LOL. Don't know whether you are attributing it to me, but I never called it "chicklit," nor have I used the term "chick flick" at all. It might surprise you but I don't like those terms myself.

 

This doesn't change the fact that the book's audience is overwhelmingly female.

[Taramere]

Also, isn't the newspaper guy in TGWTDT (didn't see it and only read about 1/3 because it was tedious---it was a book club book, and a male friend recommended it to our book club, FWIW) supposed to be kind of a good guy? He seemed nice enough. It doesn't seem like he turns out to be horrible and might even be nicer than the hacker girl for all I know (I really didn't get far into it but she was all edgy and dark and damaged and stuff---quite the cliche; whereas the newspaper guy seemed like an actual character).

 

Somebody gave me the book ages ago. I read the first page, then put it down and just never went back to it. I remember reading somewhere that the author witnessed a rape one time, was traumatised and used writing as a form of catharsis.

[zengirl]

Noted previously and dealt with previously. As also previously noted, the original title of the book was "Men who Hate Women," LOL. Don't know whether you are attributing it to me, but I never called it "chicklit," nor have I used the term "chick flick" at all. It might surprise you but I don't like those terms myself.

 

This doesn't change the fact that the book's audience is overwhelmingly female.

 

Do you have statistics that cite its audience is overwhelming female? I am sure it skews somewhat, especially in the U.S., as I said (typically, mysteries are read by more women than men), but I question "overwhelmingly." Especially if you factor in all the international markets where men DO read more mystery novels than women.

 

The title is not in itself a problem. It doesn't suggest all men hate women. (Unknown what the author meant, of course. Especially since you consider it wasn't originally written in English. . . and the morphological connotations are unclear. Someone Swedish would have to tell me.)

[dasein]

Also, isn't the newspaper guy in TGWTDT (didn't see it and only read about 1/3 because it was tedious---it was a book club book, and a male friend recommended it to our book club, FWIW) supposed to be kind of a good guy?

 

Dealt with previously also. He is the "stud," he beds many of the female characters. There's usually one or two of him about in this stuff. Sometimes he's a vampire or werewolf. Don't want to further derail, but the character is the "noble socialist" cliche' similar to the "Grisham Formula" campaigning against the smirking evil capitalists and their press toadies, so he is exempt from ire.

[Metis]

I don't have the responsibility here of "proving" anything at all to you. My opinions are accompanied by thoughtful reasoning and analysis, with which you are totally free to disagree. If they weren't, and I just trotted out conclusions or half-conclusions without accompanying reasoning or analysis, expecting my POV to be accepted wholesale via statements such as "Men have oppressed women for thousands of years," for example, you might have a point, as that would make me no better than the average feminist.

 

Your opinions are full of unproven assumptions that are very far from the truth. Now, true, you don't have the responsibility to prove anything to me -- but then, I don't have the responsibility to accept whatever you say on faith, just because you said it.

 

No, no I don't, and that is a slanderous mischaracterization of my posts. Did you or did you not offer "Fails the Bechdel test" without any accompanying analysis or reasoning whatsoever, as to be accepted without question, as implying some unstated conclusion about my example of the GWTDT? Yes or no?

No. At no point did I offer "Fails the Bechdel Test" as something to be accepted without question. The rest of what you said is YOUR interpretation.

 

And go easy with the legalese. "Slander" is a legal term, and you are using it frivolously. Does your definition of "shaming" include making frivolous legal claims? Apparently not, and how convenient. If you believe you've been slandered, go ahead and sue me. After all, anyone with $200 (give or take) and a map to the courthouse can file whatever the **** they want, so file away. I'll be happy to send you discovery demands and take your depo. If not, cool it with the allegations.

 

More of the same, and getting suprisingly close back to the "shaming" topic. Did you or did you not offer "Fails the Bechdel test" without any accompanying analysis or reasoning whatsoever, as to be accepted without question, as implying some unstated conclusion about my example of GWTDT? Yes or no?

No. At no point did I state that "Fails the Bechdel Test" is to be accepted without question. The rest of what you said is an opinionated characterization. And by the way -- your accusation contains a factual lie. You know, speaking of "slander".

 

Incidentally, also, you have yourself dismissed certain claims -- which were discussed at length -- as "lies" without any accompanying analysis or reasoning whatsoever. So: clean up your act first, before you start playing Perry Mason.

 

And now we are ALL the way back to the "shaming topic." Bravo! Well played. But the question remains... Did you or did you not offer "Fails the Bechdel test" without any accompanying analysis or reasoning whatsoever, as to be accepted without question, as implying some unstated conclusion about my example of the GWTDT? Yes or no?

See above.

[zengirl]

Dealt with previously also. He is the "stud," he beds many of the female characters. There's usually one or two of him about in this stuff. Sometimes he's a vampire or werewolf. Don't want to further derail, but the character is the "noble socialist" cliche' similar to the "Grisham Formula" campaigning against the smirking evil capitalists and their press toadies, so he is exempt from ire.

 

Yeah, the character has socialist values because the author is Swedish. It's clearly not an American novel when you read even a bit of it. And what does that have to do with gender issues?

 

And I don't think you can correlate that guy to Edward or Jacob unless the book spins drastically. Frankly, I'm not a huge fan of locked room mysteries, so I'm not saying the book is great.

 

Are you opposed to any book dealing with rape or violence against women? The author was supposedly influenced by a gang rape he witnessed, which is where I imagine the title comes from. How men must hate women to do such a thing, he thought maybe, especially since he was just a kid or teenager (I think). Comprehending why rape happens (and no it doesn't just happen to women, but that's the rape he witnessed) is a pretty impossible task.

Edited November 10, 2011 by zengirl

[dasein]

Do you have statistics that cite its audience is overwhelming female?

 

Not on hand, other than when reading the favorable reviews on amazon, noted most of the more gushy ones were written by women. I introduced this book as an example because it is well-known. If the exact percentage of female readership were an issue, could have pulled examples from the romance genre which is indisputably female audience oriented and found the exact same stereotyping of "evil men" and "studs," even moreso.

 

The title...

 

is indicative of what the book contains, over the top images of bad men doing atrocious things to women.

[Metis]

is indicative of what the book contains, over the top images of bad men doing atrocious things to women.

 

So, you would be equally critical of a book entitled "Women Who Hate Men", containing over the top images of bad women doing atrocious things to men?

[dasein]

Girl with a Dragon Tattoo fails the Bechdel Test.

 

So does every movie (as far as I know) that certain men here like to invoke as some kind of evidence of a feminist conspiracy to malign men.

 

No. At no point did I offer "Fails the Bechdel Test" as something to be accepted without question. The rest of what you said is YOUR interpretation.

 

You didn't even explain what the "Bechdel Test" is and why we should give a crap, let alone how it supports whatever your conclusion was. Then you fib about what you posted?

 

To the thread topic? Shame Shame on you!

[Taramere]

is indicative of what the book contains, over the top images of bad men doing atrocious things to women.

 

What are your thoughts on violent porn? Would you put this amount of effort into arguing that it places men in an unfairly negative light? Or are over the top images of bad men doing atrocious things to women okay in that context?

[zengirl]

Not on hand, other than when reading the favorable reviews on amazon, noted most of the more gushy ones were written by women. I introduced this book as an example because it is well-known. If the exact percentage of female readership were an issue, could have pulled examples from the romance genre which is indisputably female audience oriented and found the exact same stereotyping of "evil men" and "studs," even moreso.

 

is indicative of what the book contains, over the top images of bad men doing atrocious things to women.

 

But there are bad men in the world who rape women and serial killers who target young women. Is it offensive to write about things that really happen? Does the novelist imply that it is natural and manly and that ALL men do horrible things to women? Why is it a problem that he captures a particular social problem? How does it offend men who don't do such things? I mean, what parts in it suggest that ALL men are rapists, etc? I suppose THAT would be offensive, but I seriously think I'd've heard about that controversy by now.

 

As to Amazon reviews, I checked it. On the first page, there's a male reviewer ("Mike") and I didn't see any other names that would alert me of one's gender, not that it's actual data anyway. So, again you state a false fact, that only women read the book/watch the movie.

[Metis]

You didn't even explain what the "Bechdel Test" is and why we should give a crap, let alone how it supports whatever your conclusion was. Then you fib about what you posted?

 

To the thread topic? Shame Shame on you!

 

Oh, so I see you are not above "shaming language". Color me not surprised at all.

 

You don't get to define what constitutes acceptable commenting. Stating that a movie or a book fails the "Bechdel Test" doesn't shame men, doesn't accuse men of bad conduct, doesn't disparage anyone's character. The fact that you a frothing at the mouth over me not putting in several pages explaining what it is and begging you to care indicates pretty strongly that this is just faux outrage and an attempt to shout down opposition on the flimsiest of pretexts. Pretty shameful and underhanded behavior on your part.

 

And disingenous. You say in one breath that you don't have to prove anything to me -- and then attempt to shame me for not putting in enough effort to prove something to YOU. In other words, your position is that YOU get to define the standards by which others argue, while not adhering to those standards yourself. Got it.

[Woggle]

Strangely enough these sitcoms never offended me. The only one that sort of ticked me off was one with James Belushi in it but for the most part everybody on those shows is a moron. Married With Children had pretty much no redeeming characters and you can say the same for Family Guy.

 

I must say I am pleasantly surprised that some women on here and even some who I would have never expected actually looked at both sides. If we ever want to heal the rift between the genders it is going to take honest and frank discussion from both sides.

 

The Dragon Tattoo doesn't offend me nearly as much as a movie like Eat Pray Love. Hunting down and killing rapists and murderers does not bother me in the least but portraying a privileged woman who cheats on her husband and then goes around the world sampling cultures like some colonialist as a poor little victim makes me shake my head.

 

One really encouraging thing is that women seem to be trashing Kim Kardashian as much as men are. I was fully expecting to see her celebrated as some feminist hero who bravely struck out on her own but I must say I was wrong.

[Metis]

The Dragon Tattoo doesn't offend me nearly as much as a movie like Eat Pray Love. Hunting down and killing rapists and murderers does not bother me in the least but portraying a privileged woman who cheats on her husband and then goes around the world sampling cultures like some colonialist as a poor little victim makes me shake my head.

I agree that Eat Pray Love is highly offensive and reeks of wish-fulfillment. Then again, the same can be said of virtually any movie in which Julia Roberts plays the main character.

 

One really encouraging thing is that women seem to be trashing Kim Kardashian as much as men are. I was fully expecting to see her celebrated as some feminist hero who bravely struck out on her own but I must say I was wrong.

Why would she celebrated as a feminist hero? She is famous for being famous. Not exactly what feminists admire.

[zengirl]

The Dragon Tattoo doesn't offend me nearly as much as a movie like Eat Pray Love. Hunting down and killing rapists and murderers does not bother me in the least but portraying a privileged woman who cheats on her husband and then goes around the world sampling cultures like some colonialist as a poor little victim makes me shake my head.

 

Oh, that book/movie is awful! I don't know that I ever saw it as a gender issue (because it's a pretty damning case against women, if we're all supposed to be like that whiny egomaniac!). It worries me more because it's an actual memoir, and the woman writes herself exactly that self-indulgent. I understand seeking happiness (I thought she left her husband rather than cheating on him, but I could be wrong there -- either way, it's stupid), but waking up one day all miserable and thinking so self-indulgently when you're so ridiculously lucky to be able to afford to go soul search on several continents is abhorrent.

 

I don't get the victim part. Is she supposed to be a victim? Even to those who don't think she's a whining prat like I do, I never really thought women considered her victimized. She's just the new face of "I'm never really happy" America to me, which isn't really male or female.

 

(ETA: Only reason I've read that book is that it came out when I was in Korea and English books were scarce. I didn't finish that one either. I only got to "Pray" before I had to throw the book across the room.)

 

One really encouraging thing is that women seem to be trashing Kim Kardashian as much as men are. I was fully expecting to see her celebrated as some feminist hero who bravely struck out on her own but I must say I was wrong.

 

I never know what the Kardashians are doing. Did she cheat on her husband or something?

[Woggle]

I agree that Eat Pray Love is highly offensive and reeks of wish-fulfillment. Then again, the same can be said of virtually any movie in which Julia Roberts plays the main character.

 

Why would she celebrated as a feminist hero? She is famous for being famous. Not exactly what feminists admire.

 

She divorced some guy she tricked into thinking he had a real marriage and she possible did it after a meeting with Reggie Bush which sort of suggests an affair. I expected to see women rallying around her. I always had a theory that if there were ever a female John Edwards or Tiger Woods women would have a you go girl attitude towards it. Maybe I was wrong.

[Metis]

Maybe I was wrong.

 

Apparently so.

[dasein]

Yeah, the character has socialist values because the author is Swedish. It's clearly not an American novel when you read even a bit of it. And what does that have to do with gender issues?

 

Also covered before, he is a sympathetic "right thinking" crusading leftist, one of the few favorable male character types in this stuff. Again, see Grisham for similar formula.

 

And I don't think you can correlate that guy to Edward or Jacob unless the book spins drastically.

 

Seriously? did I even attempt to do so other than describing the "stud" as a vampire or werewolf sometimes?

 

Are you opposed...

 

Once more, I used the book as an EXAMPLE, of which there are thousands similar I could have cited. Not really interested in delving into the minutiae of the motivations of the author, my personal feelings about the book or others depicting violence further, because they have little to do with the overall derail LOL. If you all want to start a thread on that book, feel free, I might join in, probably not.

[dasein]

I am not now, nor have I ever been a "holocaust denier." There is no basis for that accusation whatsoever in anything I've posted here or anywhere else on the internet in my life. I take that kind of accusation very seriously and have no further comment on that post or anything else in this thread.

[MikeT4]

What is wrong with those things? If you like a woman why not do those things for her. She'll like it.

 

I have found that if you are nice to a woman, she'll be nice baack. It works out well for both the man and the woman.

[Taramere]

I am not now, nor have I ever been a "holocaust denier." There is no basis for that accusation whatsoever in anything I've posted here or anywhere else on the internet in my life. I take that kind of accusation very seriously and have no further comment on that post or anything else in this thread.

 

Eh? Did I miss something? Where did this spring from?

 

The only posts mentioning the Holocaust involve your exchange with Zengirl here.

 

Disgusting to compare anything women have experienced, as a gender, throughout history at the hands of men, as a gender, to the Holocaust, and the brave men, and women, who died and suffered to combat that evil.

 

Technically, I was referring to U.S. internment camps (internment of the Japanese). I'm not sure anyone has ever referred to the death camps of the Nazis as internment camps. (clarifying that she was not talking about the Holocaust)But women have suffered --- and in some countries STILL suffer --- evils just as horrific for being women. What would women being forced onto funeral pyres if their husbands died first? (Nothing to do with the Holocaust)What about women being considered the property of their father or husband? (Real laws from history state this explicitly!) (Nothing to do with the Holocaust)What about women in some middle eastern countries who can still be put to death for being raped? (Nothing to do with the Holocaust)

 

It exists. You just don't want to believe it. ETA: Obviously, I don't hold any of that against American men today, unless they don't believe it existed or flagrantly want women to be in those conditions again (the two sentiments are one in the same; those who refuse to learn and understand history are doomed to repeat it). I live a much nicer life than women in most other places or time periods, and I'm thankful, but you clearly don't know your history or want to blatantly lie about it for some reason.

 

 

My bolding. She did not call you a holocaust denier at all. I'm tempted to say a lot right now, but I'll leave it with a simple question. Are you going to apologise for wrongly claiming to have been accused of Holocaust denial?

[dasein]

I missed the below post by ZG.

 

It exists. You just don't want to believe it.

 

The lie is that women have suffered from oppression by men to any greater degree than men have historically suffered from oppression, the implication that the oppression of women is something that men did not also experience. If not intended as a lie, the issue would be couched as the "oppression of people." By dishonestly separating the experience that all people have shared on the basis of gender, the lie polarizes the genders one against the other. All peoples of the world have in fact been the victims of historical oppression, men and women, at the hands of those elites who held power over them, be those elites male or female. The fact behind the lie is that men have had it just as bad if not worse.

 

and as far as holocaust denial:

 

(and I am anticipating a person who believes that "historical oppression of women by men is a lie" probably doesn't believe that such a movement exists anywhere - or that the Holocaust occurred, either)

 

I'm tempted to say a lot right now,

 

What exactly are you "tempted" to say? Holocaust denial is a serious felony in several countries, some of which I travel to on occasion. I have no illusions of strong, protected anonymity here, and see no need for posters to make these kinds of slanderous accusations. This is completely apropos of the topic, as only women are allowed to blithely go around stating or even implying that those they disagree with are "ignorant, ranting, foaming at the mouth holocaust deniers." I imagine you don't see it that way, though, and likely have a convenient rationalization at the ready.

Edited November 10, 2011 by dasein