I realize it's become the day of the man, but so be it. Check out this segment from last night's show on the crisis of masculinity, hosted by none other than Samantha Bee:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Male Inequality | ||||
| ||||
Bee gets major points for her outfit, creative use of language ("pusswads?" amazing), and making that sociologist look like the bozo that he is, but she also missed out on some awesome opportunities with this subject matter (MRAs? Superbowl controversy? Glenn Beck?).
The Daily Show's deal, of course, particularly in these kinds of segments, is to point out the hypocrisies, ridiculousness, and stereotypes that we so often accept in our social and political worlds. But sometimes it feels like they go after the wrong goat, as in this segment, where they're making fun of guys who actually seem invested in making masculinity less defined by violence and domination.
These guys aren't the oversimplified narrative; they are the ones trying to redefine it. Sure their never ending circle formations are funny and they seem sort of clueless out there in the woods, but that's all easy. It would have been more challenging, and more interesting, to go after organizations that purport to care about masculinity, but only end up reinforcing dysfunctional, oppressive male behavior. The guys featured in this clip, are already being made fun of, I would guess, by people who find them too radical or feminized. The Daily Show's best comedic opportunities aren't in going after the people already challenging the status quo, but addressing those firmly convinced of their own right to stay firmly positioned within it.
One might argue that Bee was trying to position herself as the un-evolved woman--a parody of the kind of lady who doesn't want her man to cry for fear it will challenge the gender role duality and the world will come crashing down. But I'm not so sure that's how people read it. Instead it becomes one more way to laugh at guys who aren't "tough enough."
Your thoughts?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Daily Show Takes on the Crisis of Dudes.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classic.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/18171
My fiance was bothered by this segment for the same reasons you state here. I agree with you and him that they could have found a better target, but I took the position with him earlier today that you also describe here. Sam Bee was representing a ridiculous position you aren't supposed to identify with. But I don't think that comes across clearly enough.
One might argue that Bee was trying to position herself as the un-evolved woman--a parody of the kind of lady who doesn't want her man to cry for fear it will challenge the gender role duality and the world will come crashing down.
I don't really see this in any of Samantha Bee's work, and she often plays the exact same role in most of her work.
I agree, Courtney, and had the same thought watching it last night. Yes, it's silly to say that men don't have any place to gather (or that men are in the same place women were 50 years ago - c'mon dude) - but on the other hand, gathering for a night of beer pong or hanging out at strip clubs doesn't usually lead to the kinds of deep conversations or emotional confessions these men seem to be seeking. The segment felt like it was taking cheap shots at "girly" men who appear to be challenging traditional definitions of masculinity, which is something I totally support (the challenging of definitions that is, not taking cheap shots). There are guys who really do think that traditional masculinity is being threatened, who would be ripe for satire, but this segment didn't address that.
It was hard for me to listen to the rest of the video when I heard Dr. Warren say that men are where women were in the 50's.
WHAT? Seriously? In terms of having options, men are in the fucking 50's and women have it easier?
UGH.
I think you didn't hear the complete sentence. Warren said men are where women were 50 years ago "in term of being understood" as a gender. I think there is some validity to this. There has been much more investigation and scholarship in the area of femininity than masculinity. Even today, while "women's studies" programs are being renamed "gender studies", there is still a much heavier emphasis on the feminine than the masculine.
I am not suggesting that the balance of power in the world favors women over men - not at all! But I do believe we are at a point where a deeper investigation and rethinking of masculinity is warranted - and that this investigation needs to be done with an open, scientific mindset and without ideological pre-conceptions.
I also found this Daily Show clip to be entirely hateful and demeaning to all genders. 'Vagina men' is a remarkable insult to both men and women simultaneously.
While I agree that his statement was pretty stupid, I think that if I sat down to chat with a seasoned journalist for an hour or two, I'm sure they could find some pretty idiotic stuff when they reviewed the tape closely.
I tend to watch The Daily Show in bursts, once or twice a week. In comparison to other interviews, this one is VERY low-key.
Haaaaaaa!!!! Samantha Bee earns a A+!!!!
I agree, Courtney. The clip started off really well - Bee was able to play off of the sociologist very well to highlight his inanity.
But I became more disappointed to the end with the "pusswad" and "vagina men" stuff. Pusswad might be a funny word (maybe? I guess?) but in context it really was used to degrade "feminine" seeming men, and in turn, "feminine" qualities in general. Bee was just kind of role switching by the end; her bit wasn't a victory for women as much as a victory for traditional masculinity played by a woman.
I mostly liked this segment. I agree that Samantha Bee sometimes sacrificed a little substance for sheer silliness but I disagree with your interpretation of the male support group. Yes, they were into gathering together and talking about their feelings etc. but I saw no evidence that they were challenging the status quo or redefining the narrative. Instead they just seemed interested in co-opting the new age "feminine" values of mutual support and communication to just whine about how nobody understands them. "So many of the problems we face in our culture is because men aren't getting what they need." I have an idea: Why don't you try giving women what they need and maybe you'll start getting what you need too. The sociologist's football player/cheerleader example couldn't sum up this self-pitying attitude better. Instead of rethinking the whole football player/cheerleader relationship he just pisses and moans about how cheerleaders aren't supportive enough of football players' sensitive sides. Okay, so now girls not only have to stand to the side and jump around in short skirts to cheer on their guys, they also have to mop their tortured brows and tell them how loving and caring they are? Give me a break! How about not confining women to the support role to begin with? If guys want to have their softer sides appreciated and affirmed then maybe THEY have to learn how to be the cheerleaders sometimes. If you don't want to have to play the impenetrable tough guy all the time, you have to be willing to relinquish a little power. You can't have it both ways. But examining the social conventions that have led men to feel unhappy to begin with doesn't seem to be on any of these guys' agenda. Which means that standing around in the woods feeling each other's pain doesn't make them progressive it just makes them, well, pusswads.
Of course, it would have been nice if Bee went further in making these points instead of stalking wild animals with a crossbow. But seeing her weird those guys out with her total straight-faced absurdity was still pretty damn amusing.
The sociologist was Dr Warren Farrell, the only man to be elected three times to the Board of Directors of NOW in New York City. The stuff about the fifties and cheerleaders comes from points I've heard him make before, they sound ridiculous without the context and build up. But hey, leaving that stuff in wouldn't make for very funny TV.
The dude understands gender roles, he understands power and powerlessness. Your statement "Why don't you try giving women what they need and maybe you'll start getting what you need too." only highlights how much better he gets these things than you.
Read his books. Start with "The Liberated Man." Feminists love that one. Then go to "The myth of Male Power." You'll hate it. But if you can keep in mind that it's from the same guy who wrote the first, you might actually learn something.
Yeah, I'm sorry, Warren Farrell is garbage and is still a favorite of a wide range of MRA orgs today, along with Glenn Sacks. I see some of the most vitriolic MRAs tossing out Farrell rather frequently. Actually, most of Farrell's work lacks context (as anyone can see from his "'50s" remark) and a knowledge and understanding of social history. Because, I'm sorry, any idiot can see that men were not limited from many serious endeavors and/or accomplishments throughout history simply because they were born with a penis. Women WERE, even if they were capable of holding the position or doing the task well - simply for being born with a vagina. This is unequal and unjust, and it is oppression.
Try Allan Johnson's _The Gender Knot_. About a hundred times more thoughtful, rational, and well-researched than Farrell.
I'm pretty sure I don't want to listen to a guy saying that we've done a "great job with women" and that men need empowerment. I don't want to listen to someone saying that women have more in terms of options and men are in the 50's. I don't want to listen to a man saying that a woman's more likely to be hired, making that out as a bad thing even though the people hiring and the higher-ups are MEN. I don't want to listen to someone that says that women needs to cheer for a man that's been removed from his position in the team, instead of talking about how women are confined to support roles and don't have a chance on the football team themselves.
He sounds like a lunatic, with or without context.
"feminists" aren't a homogenous hive mind.
just sayin' South :-)
Dr Farrell is not above critique, there are plenty of 'experts' who publish loads of bollocks about one subject or another.
You might want to try making a point rather than lauding his cred and offering patronising advice on what to read and what feminists like.
You might end up engaging in a meaningful dialogue and accidentally learn something yourself!
Wow, your tone is just so respectful, how could I possibly not take your words seriously?
I simply responded to what I saw, admittedly without much background info. He seems like an intriguing figure at least although I'm not sure yet what I make of his message based on the book reviews I just checked out. Perhaps his work is worth checking out, since I suppose it isn't quite fair to judge someone's philosophies based on a very limited exposure to them. Obviously you're against such behavior, which is why you judged what literature I (and other feminists) would like based on a blog comment.
I read "The Myth of Male Power."
He makes some interesting points, but then he had to go and argue that for a woman to decline a second date after the first date is paid for (by a man) is just as bad as date rape.
Any chance of a transcript for those of us who can't see the video?
If you can't see the video because of country restrictions then it's up on Jezebel here: http://jezebel.com/5464116/samantha-bee-goes-deep-on-male-oppression?skyline=true&s=i
I can watch this version from the UK, and it's worth catching just to hear Samantha Bee call the MRA guy "babycakes"!
Before you feel too sorry for this men's group, you might want to take a peak at their website: http://bettermen.org. While most of what's on the site seems to stop short of directly saying the man should take their place as the head of the household, it's definitely what they are getting at (and I didn't read/view everything available, either). The advice column is particularly interesting reading. They're not quite in Promise Keeper territory, but there is a lot talk about how men should regain their power--one of their key talking points is, "Don't give away your power." There's also a lot of talk about women needing a strong, powerful man to take care of them.
After looking at the site I think the mistake, if any, the Daily Show segment made was in not making clearer what the philosophy of this group really is.
Thanks for posting the link to the wesbite. I checked it out and it is pretty much crap. I actually do think that Samantha Bee highlighted the ridiculousness of this group (see my above comment). But I do agree that she could have gone further and occasionally went off-point in favor of being silly and weird.
Yeah, I got a sneaking suspicion that was the case when they were tossing the ball back and forth and the one guy said, "My wife is in control."
Really? Is she really? And why is it a bad thing?
I don't think I'd like to be in a relationship where the other person controls everything. I suspect most people feel the same way.
I didn't check out the website much, so I suppose "in control" could very well mean that she occasionally insists on making her own decisions and sometimes asks him to take out the garbage, but I'm just saying.
Thanks for posting this from me too--the skit now seems stronger than before.
You did get a bit of a flavor of that in the video - when they were playing dodgeball and one of the men cried out "My wife is in charge
That does nothing to "redefine masculinity" - that's the same old sexist whining you always hear from married guys about their wives - because it would be "unmanly" to actually admit they love their wives or that their wives are important to them.
In my experience spending much of the last 15 years or so working on jobs where most of my coworkers were married men, there is this weird way where they use "I hate my wife whine sessions as a way to bond with other men - this "better men" group appears to fit right into that "traditional male" mindset.
Also, seriously - a bunch of dudes standing in a circle in the woods is kind of ...silly. What's the point?
I don't necessarily have a problem making fun of the people she made fun of, but I do think it is problematic in that it sets up the impression that these "men's rights" groups are representative of anyone who claims that men need a movement to mirror feminism in terms of looking at the way the norms of society bind and limit us.
I don't like any movement that focuses on asking whether men or women are worse off. I think it is more instructive to say both men and women are worse off than they could be in a more equal society without rigid gender lines.
Um, I hate to break it to you, but women are a lot worse off than men
You know, the whole misogyny thing?
The glass ceiling?
Attacks on the right to choose?
Rape culture?
And I could go on...
...for a while...
...but I think you get the point.
I don't know if she was necessarily arguing with that. I think she was just saying that men also suffer as a result of patriarchy. I think an accurate statement which encompasses both of your points would be to say that both men and women are worse off than they could be without patriarchy, but that women still bear the brunt of the damage.
I don't think s/he was suggesting that men and women are equally badly off at all. I think the point is that winning the Oppression Olympics should be secondary to actually attacking oppression.
Just because one situation sucks worse than another situation doesn't mean the first situation doesn't still suck. So yes, women are clearly much worse off than men in today's society, but that doesn't mean that patriarchy isn't fucking over men as well. And I do think that examining the way our very gendered society affects men is a worthy pursuit.
I think Bee was poking more fun at the un-evolved woman. I am an avid Daily Show watcher and that is what I usually take away from her segments. Perhaps I'm not going deep enough...? I felt, though, that these men weren't forming this group for the sake of changing the current idea of masculinity. I feel they were in the woods in their never ending circle because they're pissed that their wives or girlfriends are the heads of the households and they want things to go back to "the way they were". Props to them for being so peaceful about it... but really? Get over it. Women are the majority of the workforce now and the world hasn't gone to hell in a handbasket. I think we'll be okay.
If it had just been the part with the sociologist it wouldh ave been an excellent clip, but I agree with writeoutloud and wish that they would have made the views of the group known because before reading that comment I thought that perhaps the group was just about men making friends or something. I do hwever think the "you're turning me into a lesbian" comment was in poor taste.
Lydia, I like the points that you make. I like that you don't confuse whining with creating a new masculinity.
I did check out their site though, and it's fascinating. Check this part out: http://bettermen.org/articles/handle-the-truth.asp
I think that they've hit upon many of the negative repercussions of the default male role in at least American society. It looks like they're laying out a healthy model for masculinity and they don't appear to be blaming women for their problems. As for their standard version of masculinity, it may not fit everyone, but these men are sheep who just might need to be told what to do. They didn't get into a life that they're unhappy with by being independent thinkers. Overall it looks healthy, but I'll bet that they can be whiny.
Overall I think that I'm glad that these guys are here since I see them teaching dissatisfied men how to take control of their own lives along with some good relationship skills.
I could be wrong, since I'm not an expert on these guys though. I am fascinated though.
You really thought that was a positive article?
"men are afraid of their wives" and so "they go ballistic"
Aside from the paternalistic attitude towards women's displays of emotions, "going ballistic" to me reads as a euphemism for domestic violence.
Men might be afraid of their wives being unhappy but they sure aren't likely to be murdered by them "going ballistic" because they can't control their emotions.
A healthy version of masculinity isn't based on the "we are totally different to women and I don't understand my wife" model. It is based on recognising the humanity of both men and women. We are more the same than different.
A healthy version of masculinity might also address the issues surrounding 'masculinity' for gay , queer or trans men; not just "husbands and dads" who need "fathering".
Yes, yes I thought that was positive because it was an issue that they were addressing as a problem that needs to be fixed. They seem to be reaching out to frustrated mid-life crisis type guys who are unhappy and taking it out on their families, and trying to fix that. I can see those people needing help. Maybe they do need fathering.
There's also a lot about "abandoning your need to be right", "listening", "not arguing", and "being able to admit that you don't have all the answers." I have a soft spot for philosophies that teach some humbleness.
I don't like so much their division of the sexes kind of attitude, since I think that a dude should be able to talk equally to people regardless of gender. The potential for Us vs Them divisions always bothers me. Then again, I'm not a dude who will be married to someone I'm afraid of, so I don't know if I can hold these guys to my standards. Maybe taking responsibilities for the problems in their lives rather than blaming their wives is the best that they're going to do.
"A healthy version of masculinity might also address the issues surrounding 'masculinity' for gay , queer or trans men; not just "husbands and dads" who need "fathering"."
...not to mention single straight men - because not every straight guy has a wife or a girlfriend or children.
absolutely :-)
From the website - "Men think there's something wrong with them because their new house, car, or wife isn't doing the trick anymore."
I have to agree these men are living in the fifties, maybe even earlier. What is it that you call your wife when you think of her as a consumer good? Chattel. These men should feel ashamed if they think of their "new wife" as just something to "do the trick" to make their life better.
I think the clip started off well, but went a little downhill with the crass comments towards the end; particularly her "you are turning me into a lesbian" scene at the end was incredibly offensive.
The insinuation that women would turn lesbian because they hate men rather than simply prefer to love women is horribly insensitive to the struggles many women go through coming out and living honesty as lesbians.
Lesbianism is about loving women, not being anti-men.
Oh. Yeah. The end of the segment was pretty stupid. Not really a fan of the "vagina-men" insult. :/ And there were so many more obvious things wrong with Farrell's little football player/cheerleader anecdote (like the fact that it didn't make any fucking sense) that I don't get why she instead decided to insult men who are loving. I liked the parts in the beginning about men "only" controlling 485 of Fortune 500 companies and three branches of government.
Really, I don't feel entirely sorry for the "men's support group." Allan Johnson and Susan Faludi address the '80s support-group phenomenon in their books (one main figure in the early movement was poet Robert Bly), and most of these groups still buy wholesale into the patriarchal structure, the unquestioning power of the "father figure," and other more mythical masculinities like the "Wild Man." Really, they just buy into a more "compassionate" patriarchy. Which I can't get to jumping up and down over.
And there were so many more obvious things wrong with Farrell's little football player/cheerleader anecdote (like the fact that it didn't make any fucking sense
I suspect there may have been some careful cutting involved in order to make the interviewee look as stupid as possible. It seems like part of a fairly sensible explanation of how standard male roles are enforced by society, including by women: Guys are told that if they're competitive and masculine and victorious in sports, they'll get the hot cheerleaders, and that's what they should want. Girls are told that, if they're hot, they can date the school football players, and that's what they should want and makes someone worth dating.
I still dislike his argument though.
Being on the football team doesn't cut off your communication skills and intellect.
And pretty cheerleader isn't upholding gender stereotypes in the locker room, within all male communities and friends.
It doesn't, but I'm pretty sure it requires embracing a masculine culture in which communication skills and intellect aren't something you allow to show through too much. (Probably not the sort of culture where you can even learn communication skills in the first place, and I don't know if there even is such a thing for guys.)
Yeah, I also thought of Robert Bly. Not exactly revolutionary.
first time posting!
So I can see two sides to this segment. The sociologist was pretty off to say the least (the 50's? really?), but I wouldn't argue for a second with the need to give our sons permission to be pusswads, especially in high school. She doesn't cover the more harmful mens' rights groups, but instead mocks situations where guys want to share their own narratives with each other. You might be surprised how much we dudes don't share with one another. So to see her mocking this was uncomfortable to me, as a guy.
TL;DR - Men certainly have more options, but Bee was satirizing attempts to break certain destructive cycles of silence.
I agree with you that it needs to be become more socially acceptable for men to be emotionally intimate with each other. I've often been surprised at what men who have been close friends for year and years don't know about each other. So the idea of facilitating meaningful communication between men is positive. But the ideology the whole process is upholding in this case seems to be more about, as others have pointed out, "soft patriarchy." And I think men can do much better than that.
It's not a crossbow, it's a compound bow. Even funnier in that context, IMO.
for a positive representation of a man redefining masculinity yall should listen to Musiq Soulchild's "Teach Me"... i love that joint, definitely moving.
The problem is that we can't put all women or all men into one group. The fact is that, in the US, people that aren't white, heterosexual, and from a good socioeconomic class are going to be discriminated against more in the workplace and in their day-to-day lives. We forget how complex people are when we just label everyone as a "woman" or a "man." Sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, education, and many other factors come in to play.