• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Are american men being feminized?

Are american men being feminized?

  • Yes

    Votes: 88 47.6%
  • No

    Votes: 30 16.2%
  • Kind-of

    Votes: 32 17.3%
  • Beta-carotene

    Votes: 35 18.9%

  • Total voters
    185
but we shouldn't say YOUR OPINION IS WRONG!

Yes, we should. Of course if the question is, what's your favorite ice cream flavor or your favorite album of 2009 opinions can't really be wrong. But if the "opinion" is some ridiculous and unsubstantiated notion passed off as scientific knowledge then it most certainly can be wrong.

There's a large number of discussion topics in which reasonable people can disagree and hold valid but opposing viewpoints. Then there's just being wrong.

And to bring things partly back on topic, that's part of the problem. We seemed to have lost the ability in this country (especially with children) to point out when someone is wrong rather than resorting to this "everyone's opinion is valid" nonsense that seems so prevalent today.
 
well I don't know about American men being feminized being the whole story. I explain

In the 1950s, we drank bourbon, ate red meat, smoked cigarettes with total disregard, drove huge fast, powerful cars, had a ton of kids with one breadwinner in the family and WE RULED THE WORLD. The best everything came from us, we were emulated and envied everywhere.

Flash forward to now. We eat bean sprouts, drink lattes and diet water (seriously), drive little foriegn shoeboxes, wallow in our liberal guilt, and look at us. We are in deep doo dah, and we are emulating the mistakes of older nations that have even themselves begun to see the error of their ways.


American Men aren't being feminized, America has itself been nuetered. With that, I will never post to this again or I am gonna get in trouble.
 
Yes, we should. Of course if the question is, what's your favorite ice cream flavor or your favorite album of 2009 opinions can't really be wrong. But if the "opinion" is some ridiculous and unsubstantiated notion passed off as scientific knowledge then it most certainly can be wrong.

There's a large number of discussion topics in which reasonable people can disagree and hold valid but opposing viewpoints. Then there's just being wrong.

And to bring things partly back on topic, that's part of the problem. We seemed to have lost the ability in this country (especially with children) to point out when someone is wrong rather than resorting to this "everyone's opinion is valid" nonsense that seems so prevalent today.

This.
 
well I don't know about American men being feminized being the whole story. I explain

In the 1950s, we drank bourbon, ate red meat, smoked cigarettes with total disregard, drove huge fast, powerful cars, had a ton of kids with one breadwinner in the family and WE RULED THE WORLD. The best everything came from us, we were emulated and envied everywhere.

Flash forward to now. We eat bean sprouts, drink lattes and diet water (seriously), drive little foriegn shoeboxes, wallow in our liberal guilt, and look at us. We are in deep doo dah, and we are emulating the mistakes of older nations that have even themselves begun to see the error of their ways.


American Men aren't being feminized, America has itself been nuetered. With that, I will never post to this again or I am gonna get in trouble.
That's a big helping of correlation that does not, IMO, equal causation at all.

ETA: Also, it's both inaccurate and oversimplified. I, too, am going to avoid trouble by not expounding further on this.
 
Personally, I'd rather the men become feminized than the women become masculine.

This.

f36p85.jpg

See?
 
well I don't know about American men being feminized being the whole story. I explain

In the 1950s, we drank bourbon, ate red meat, smoked cigarettes with total disregard, drove huge fast, powerful cars, had a ton of kids with one breadwinner in the family and WE RULED THE WORLD. The best everything came from us, we were emulated and envied everywhere.

Flash forward to now. We eat bean sprouts, drink lattes and diet water (seriously), drive little foriegn shoeboxes, wallow in our liberal guilt, and look at us. We are in deep doo dah, and we are emulating the mistakes of older nations that have even themselves begun to see the error of their ways.


American Men aren't being feminized, America has itself been nuetered. With that, I will never post to this again or I am gonna get in trouble.

That's a big helping of correlation that does not, IMO, equal causation at all.

ETA: Also, it's both inaccurate and oversimplified. I, too, am going to avoid trouble by not expounding further on this.

So I will.

I can't stand this ridiculous nostalgia for the 50's that glorifies it as some sort of golden age. It was an astoundingly racist and sexist era. Anyone who thinks we should all "smoke cigarettes and have a ton of kids" is seriously ignorant or misguided. As is the unspoken attitude that men should be the only breadwinners. Because that's how it was done in the 50's, so it must be the best way, right?

Personally, I like it that less people are setting themselves up for lung cancer and emphysema now. I like it that women have more rights and that some gender roles that were sexist and pointless are being questioned now. I also like the fact that people aren't institutionally barred from voting or going to a good school based on the color of their skin. I like that some of us drive more fuel efficient cars now (we drive a Ford, actually). It's good for the bank account and the environment.

Did America rule the world back then? Basically, yeah. And we abused it and made a lot of messes. We were so naive back then, assuming natural resources would never run out, and that somehow the world would have enough space for everyone to keep having four kids. How ludicrously ignorant. How could we be champions of freedom when we oppressed more than half our own population in the 50's? Some because of what kind of plumbing they had downstairs, and others because of their skin tone.

Some things are worse, now, admittedly. Parents are more overprotective, for one. I can't stand that. Fortunately, mine weren't overprotective and I skinned my knees plenty of times and walked to school like kids should. Cars, while being more fuel efficient, don't look as cool, though they look better than the monstrosities of the late 70's and 80's. Much of small business and downtown charm of America's small towns has been driven out by malls and big box stores, a process that started in the 1950's. Suburbia has made it nearly impossible in some areas to live without a car, again, a process that started in the 1950's.

But overall, cool cars don't outweigh institutional racism, blatant sexism and rampant environmental degradation. So excuse me for not thinking everything was magically better in the 1950's and we should all go back to how we lived then.
 
I think that men are being given a false image of what masculinity is, and what it was. From what I see, American men are being robbed of a sense of responsibility; American women, too, for that matter.

I don't think that America's manly men of the past were manly because they fixed cars or knew how to hunt. I think they fixed cars or hunted for food because they could save extra cash and enjoyed providing for their families more directly. I think they were stronger physically and tougher emotionally, because it's a side affect of always putting others first. I'm speaking in very general terms, of course; every generation has and will have its share of selfish jerks, but I believe society as a whole used to have more of a sense of duty to others, and of responsiblity for their actions.

As an example, how many young people do you see today willing to work two or three jobs to support their wife and kids? There are a few, but judging from the people I've known in life, these days it's far more common for a guy to ditch the woman he knocked up and complain about the amount she wants in child support. The phrase, "family man" seems to have disappeared from our lexicon...just look at the show named ,"family guy" and you can see how fathers are viewed now. Cause or effect? I don't know, but it's definitely not imparting a sense of the man taking care of his wife and kids and putting himself last.

Or responsibility with a job. I know lots of kids who regularly complain about their crappy job. Really? It's still a job, and you took it voluntarily. Pride in one's work is an attitude that is carried regardless of what the actual job is, and employers can tell who is taking responsibility, and can be trusted with more of it, and who isn't, and can't. I'm sorry some see their jobs as crummy, but I also expect my order to be correct when I fork over my own hard-earned cash for my kids to enjoy a Happy Meal.

I see pop culture reinforcing the idea that pleasing oneself is the highest ideal, and a generation of kids that aren't being taught responsibility at home, in school, or hanging out with friends, and I think that the "feminization of men" is just a symptom. Regardless of whether they're Grizzly Adams or Bill Gates, a man takes responsibility for what they do, and is willing to sacrifice themselves for others, whether it's family or the community at large.

I could rant for days, but I'll stop now.
 
So I will.

I can't stand this ridiculous nostalgia for the 50's that glorifies it as some sort of golden age.

Apparently, you associate different qualities with the 1950's than others. I don't believe anyone here is actually advocating putting a glass ceiling on women or minority employees. I don't think anyone here is actively looking to destroy the environment (I'm not going to bother disputing environmentalism here; but plenty would argue that we weren't, and the environment is fine.).

When someone tells me about the '50s, I don't just think of Elvis and seafoam-green fins on muscle cars. I think of a time when both parents didn't have to work if they didn't want to just to pay a mortgage. I think of a time when college was affordable (again, I know some institutions barred women and minorities; no one here advocated going back to that. The two are separate issues.) I think of a time when it was more important to my grandfather to raise his kids with a work ethic and a desire to improve their lot in life than it was to have "me time" or a bigger TV.

I think of a time when more buying was done with money saved up than on credit. I think of a time when most men (again, there are always exceptions, but the statistics are there) would think twice before having sex with a girl they weren't married to, because they knew that there would be consequences to their actions, and there were less kids being raised in single-parent homes as a result. I think of a time when "family guy" was a compliment to a man who look after his family before his own career, and was known to be loyal, rather than a TV show.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's what a lot of people are thinking when they glorify the '50s, rather than tobacco use and oppression.
 
True, the USSR managed to do some pretty impressive things at times. But a command economy that doesn't really do well on consumer goods turned out not to make people very happy. But that's a whole different discussion.

It is indeed unrelated to misplaced, complacent feelings of security.
 
Apparently, you associate different qualities with the 1950's than others. I don't believe anyone here is actually advocating putting a glass ceiling on women or minority employees. I don't think anyone here is actively looking to destroy the environment (I'm not going to bother disputing environmentalism here; but plenty would argue that we weren't, and the environment is fine.).
Except that it wasn't fine. Rivers don't catch on fire when things are "fine."

When someone tells me about the '50s, I don't just think of Elvis and seafoam-green fins on muscle cars. I think of a time when both parents didn't have to work if they didn't want to just to pay a mortgage.
Both parents shouldn't have to work. But it shouldn't always be the mother who stays home. And this paradise that was the 1950's only applied to middle class and upper class white people. There was also a ton of abject poverty in the 1950's that everyone seems to conveniently forget.

[quoteI think of a time when college was affordable (again, I know some institutions barred women and minorities; no one here advocated going back to that.[/quote]
Universities now are underfunded because we'd rather build prisons. No, I know that's not the whole reason, but yes, because we love tax cuts so much, we've forgotten that taxes used to pay for some great things. When my parents went to the University of California, which, at the time, was considered one of the best universities in the country, if not the entire world, they had to pay for housing and books, but enrolling itself was basically free. Not anymore. The difference? Lower property taxes and income taxes on the wealthy now. And more prisons.

I think of a time when it was more important to my grandfather to raise his kids with a work ethic and a desire to improve their lot in life than it was to have "me time" or a bigger TV.
That doesn't exactly compute. The 50's were an era of commercialism, keeping up with the joneses. However, my family still has a 19" TV made in 1982. It's our only TV, and we mainly use it for movies. I mostly played outside as a kid, though I admit that's unfortunately getting rarer now.

I think of a time when more buying was done with money saved up than on credit.
I agree, that was better. Credit has gotten out of control, everyone thinks it's so acceptable to have all this debt, and it makes me nervous. Of course, as a college student, I can hardly avoid it (as a result of college not being affordable).

I think of a time when most men (again, there are always exceptions, but the statistics are there) would think twice before having sex with a girl they weren't married to, because they knew that there would be consequences to their actions, and there were less kids being raised in single-parent homes as a result.
I am not a fan of "saving it for marriage." If one is responsible, there's no reason aside from emotional maturity not to have sex with one's significant other. I am glad for the invention of birth control, and the increased use of condoms. It's no surprise to me that more conservative states that discourage their use have higher rates of teenage pregnancy.

I think of a time when "family guy" was a compliment to a man who look after his family before his own career, and was known to be loyal, rather than a TV show.
I like the TV show, as it lampoons and points out many things wrong with family life in America, in the midst of absurdist comedy. I still think of being a "family guy" IRL as a good thing, as that matters to me more than career. My dad I think of as one, and I feel blessed to have known him.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that's what a lot of people are thinking when they glorify the '50s, rather than tobacco use and oppression.
Perhaps so, but when one says "things were better in the 50's," they ignore the enormous weight of all the things that were not. The 50's were tranquil family life at home, and yet also a time when it was acceptable to hit one's wife. It was a time when homes were bought with a much bigger chunk of the money down and therefore a smaller amount of debt, but also a time when much of America was destitute and kept from opportunities because of their skin, and when half the population had no career prospects if they wanted them because they were female. It was a time when college was affordable, but also a time when industry could do basically whatever it wanted, even if that hurt the environment or even people. College was affordable, but in many cases not open to everyone.

I'm just saying that people grow so nostalgic for this time that they remember as being better than it was. I think if you're going to remember a time, you should remember the bad things, the things that could be improved, too. Some things were better in the 50's, for example I think it's better for one parent to stay home. But some things were worse. In the 50's, the parent that stayed home basically had to be the mother. I don't think that should be the case. I think there should be no difference in the social acceptability of the father staying home and the mother keeping her job. After all, if my ladyfriend and I get married (as seems increasingly likely, we've been together going on five years, after all), and eventually have kids, which may or may not happen, we'll probably have an arrangement opposite to that which was the standard in the 1950's.

So, in short, yeah, there were some cool things about the 50's, but also some terrible things, and I think it's worth remembering that some of those things have improved since then.
 
Both parents shouldn't have to work. But it shouldn't always be the mother who stays home. And this paradise that was the 1950's only applied to middle class and upper class white people. There was also a ton of abject poverty in the 1950's that everyone seems to conveniently forget.

Define abject poverty. We had, and still have, the richest poor people in the world. I agree that it shouldn't always be the mother who stays home...but what's the deciding factor? Should my wife go out in the workforce in the name of equality alone, or should it be a rational decision based on raw income? Either way, two incomes were not required for home ownership in the 1950s. Lower taxes were a huge part of this.

Universities now are underfunded because we'd rather build prisons. No, I know that's not the whole reason, but yes, because we love tax cuts so much, we've forgotten that taxes used to pay for some great things. When my parents went to the University of California, which, at the time, was considered one of the best universities in the country, if not the entire world, they had to pay for housing and books, but enrolling itself was basically free. Not anymore. The difference? Lower property taxes and income taxes on the wealthy now. And more prisons.

There's a lot of unsubstantiated claims being made here, man. Higher taxes don't equal prosperity; I think you may have your causes and effects mixed up here. Governments don't make money, they only take it, skim a high percentage to feed beaurocracy, and distribute it elsewhere. That's as close to a tax debate as I'm willing to get. The gov't isn't, and shouldn't be, a university's only source of funding.
Prisons only take money away from university funding when they're the only two things being funded. It'd be just as easy to say that congressional pensions and the six-figure salaries that university adminstrators receive drove up the cost of higher education. It's also just as easy to say that if the government didn't tax me so much, I could afford a college education without the need for a loan.

That doesn't exactly compute. The 50's were an era of commercialism, keeping up with the joneses. However, my family still has a 19" TV made in 1982. It's our only TV, and we mainly use it for movies. I mostly played outside as a kid, though I admit that's unfortunately getting rarer now.

I'm glad to hear your personal situation is atypical of the way too many kids these days are raised. Commercialism is what drives capitalist economies; a certain amount of it isn't bad. I would argue that today's commercialism has tipped towards the point of making 'stuff' the new god; the more stuff, the happier you'll be. This was not the case in the 1950s, at least not in my family's experience. People who didn't have money were not encouraged incessantly to buy things on credit at their local Best Buy, see the latest movies, own the latest computers, buy the latest iPod, etc. "Living within your means" was a concept that was imparted to my father, at least, and most of his contemporaries that I've met; I don't see it so much now.

I am not a fan of "saving it for marriage." If one is responsible, there's no reason aside from emotional maturity not to have sex with one's significant other. I am glad for the invention of birth control, and the increased use of condoms.

I am a fan of saving it for marriage, but that was beside the point. I highlighted the relevant part, which you already mentioned; see my previous post on responsibility. I like birth control, too, but my kids are living proof that nothing is 100%. There are plenty of people I know who have found this out the hard way, and then abandoned kids or been abandoned. It's far, far more prevalent now than it was a few decades ago.

It's no surprise to me that more conservative states that discourage their use have higher rates of teenage pregnancy.

I'd love to see your source for this assertion. I can find absolutely nothing, even from unreliable sources, to back up this claim.


I like the TV show, as it lampoons and points out many things wrong with family life in America, in the midst of absurdist comedy. I still think of being a "family guy" IRL as a good thing, as that matters to me more than career. My dad I think of as one, and I feel blessed to have known him.

Glad to hear it. I used to like the show; when they devoted entire shows to making fun of my personal beliefs, they ceased to be funny to me, and the fact that it's only one in a long string of shows that shows the American father in a horrible light disturbs me. Again, I don't know if it's cause or effect, or both, but some shows depicting fathers doing their jobs right would be nice, for a change.


So, in short, yeah, there were some cool things about the 50's, but also some terrible things, and I think it's worth remembering that some of those things have improved since then.

I completely agree.