"... and (having mutual friends) we applaud him mightily for it. He looks and sounds more like his father than ever. His nothing-can-take-me-down attitude, in the face of this wimpy, middle class, wet rag nanny state finger-wagging opinion is winning. This is a man, owning his actions and insisting everyone else come clean and take responsibility for theirs as well.... [A]ll too often, we see too many powerful beta males in this country... We've become a cautious, conformist, inoffensive, non-risk taking, arrogant, lying bunch of NewAge pussies who think if any woman... says she or others don't approve, then some form of public contrition and apology is called for. Well, screw that. Neither she, or the public, are Charlie Sheen's mother and even if his parents disapprove, he's a grown-assed man who refuses to be a part of whatever milquetoast existence the rest of you think is good for gaining social approval from a worthless feminized culture-killing clique. He didn't ask for it, doesn't need it, and isn't angling for it. He's a man. He's rich. And he's free."
It's funny, I was just saying to Meade that people don't rant against "conformity" anymore — not like they did in the 50s and 60s. What got me going wasn't Charlie Sheen. It was my Bloggingheads with Timothy Noah, which, for various reasons, made me think about the way liberals, including liberal media folk, talk to each other and feel emotional rewards for saying what they all say back and forth to each other. They become so immersed in this feeling of belonging that they don't even hear the things that are not the things that they've been saying back and forth to each other. And my question is: Why does that feel so good? Why doesn't that immersion feel like drowning? Why don't you want to surface into the air and be free — to think about everything, from any perspective, and to find out for yourself what is true and what is good? You are a human individual: Don't you want that?
Let's talk about the degree to which it's currently considered acceptable to ascribe lawyerly skills to gender.
Is the NYT being sexist? Is it okay because it's kind of subtle? Is it okay because if there's a special goodness in femininity, it lends momentum to the progressive trend of including more and more women in the legal profession?
If the answer to the last question is yes, imagine a similar statement made about a male lawyer, suggesting that his maleness brought extra value to his lawyering: Would that not be okay? If not, is that because you can say (in so many words) that it's better to be female, but it's retrograde to say (subtly as well as unsubtly) that it's better to be male?
If you've bought into the notion that it is acceptable to say (with some subtlety) that it's better to be female, because that seems progressive, why is it progressive to promote women using the traditional stereotype of women as maternal and nurturing? Why isn't that precisely what is sexist?
Do you think, in the long run, it is helpful to the success of women in the legal profession to portray them as good at mothering and being sensitive to other people's feelings?
Cookware as a Valentine's Day gift? Isn't cookware a famously bad Valentine's Day gift? I say that out loud. And Meade says: "Don't you know? Everything has flipped. It's for women to give to their men — the proud men who do all the cooking now — the proud men of true Mandom, like me and Glenn. Men, who see cookware as their tools."
***
Whatever you buy, if you don't buy it through Instapundit, please start here:
#24 on a list of 99 reasons why baseball is so much better than football. Actually, #24 reads in its entirety: "Marianne Moore loved Christy Mathewson. No woman of quality has ever preferred football to baseball." Oh, good lord. "Woman of quality." Marianne Moore. Christy Mathewson.
I got to that page via Peter Hoh, who said I should check out #19 on the list. Okay:
Pro football players have breasts. Many NFLers are so freakishly overdeveloped, due to steroids, that they look like circus geeks. Baseball players seem like normal fit folks. Fans should be thankful they don't have to look at NFL teams in bathing suits.
Great. Moobs. Let's take a closer look at those moobs. That list was written back in 1987, and it's my observation that a lot of those football players have very attractively V-shaped bodies. The ones who are tubby are tubby for a reason. What explains the tubbiness of baseball players?
And the fact is we don't have to see either football or baseball players in bathing suits. We see them in their uniforms — their costumes. And the football costumes are glorious and sexy, while the baseball uniforms these days look like children's pajamas.
***
I like to call the uniforms "costumes," because spectator sports are entertainment and because I'm looking for the traces of the feminine within the manly... and because it drives the guys crazy and I'm all about driving the guys crazy.
ADDED: I guess Firedoglake is flouting the "civility" bullshit that's been bandied about lately.
AND: Here's the link to Hoft, where there is a nice juxtaposition of photographs along with my quote about the President's hair color change. (Let's call it his "mood hair.")
I think it's important to talk about the way politicians use their visual image in communicating their message. Clearly, we talk about female politicians' hair all the time. It is different to talk about men's hair, of course, because men aren't supposed to care much about their hair.
It's part of the conventional manly image not to pay attention to hair, and when a man runs afoul of that image, he gives his opponents raw material that... well, that can make a hilarious video. (That video was much funnier before the pricks that own the "Theme from Rawhide" asserted their candyass rights.)
AND: Here's how female politicians are treated when they change their hair:
"But pressure is the last thing that would make me want to 'join' a community... The massive backlash against me in the gay media and community only made me dig my 'closeted' heels in further."
So, what do we learn from this? Possible lessons:
1. Although in the past, it was fear of negativity from heterosexuals that kept gay people in the closet, these days, a gay person might choose the closet because of the negativity of other gay people.
2. If a celebrity wants to write a successful book about himself, he needs to withhold at least one juicy piece of information. For Weir, this was that news — even though the only real news was that he's saying what he'd never said before.
3. Some people think of themselves as, above all, individuals, and when others think the most important thing is their membership in a particular group, they resist. They don't want to be defined by a single quality, especially when it's a quality that makes other people see them in terms of the group stereotype, and not personal uniqueness. There was a special playfulness to this notion in Weir's case, because he engaged in the very open "flamboyant" style that people think of as stereotypically gay.
4. Just because you're gay doesn't mean you like other gay people and want to join their team. Heterosexuals don't naturally love all the other heterosexuals. Gay men may need to look for their sexual partners in the pool of gay men,* but there's no reason why you have to like everyone in your category of potential sexual partners, and, indeed, it's a good idea to reject the vast majority of potential sexual partners. You only need one (at most). You're entitled to think that most of them are jerks.
"To say men are being like women when you want to say they're being cowardly and weak — I don't like it ... Also, some chickification is a good thing. Women have a lot to offer. Think about it."
Sissy says she's been saying it for a while: "postmodern, identity-politics 'feminism'" is not the same thing as "feminization." And that makes me want to remind Rush and everyone else that there are many different manifestations of the feminine. You have something in mind when you say "chickification" or "feminization." I get it. But if you want to be able to criticize the forms of the feminine that you loathe, don't sweep all women into a stereotype. If you do, you are, ironically, acting like a cartoon of a radical feminist — a woman who thinks of men as sexist brutes.
Now, I know that Rush Limbaugh isn't a sexist. I listen to the show. I know he doesn't think women are all alike, and I think he loves women. He's first in line to promote the women who embrace conservatism. That's his thing: He loves conservatism. He's enthusiastic about conservative women in politics and critical of those who try to drag down Sarah Palin (and, for example, Christine O'Donnell). He does the thing that I do: He points it out when a liberal says something about a female conservative that liberals would call sexist if it were said about a female liberal. He notices — as I do — the way liberals expect women to be liberal and discipline us harshly when we are not.
Also, Rush isn't exactly the model of stereotypical masculinity. And I'm not just referring to the fact that he hasn't kept his body in optimum shape over the years. I'm talking about the hours of show time he's spent telling us about the details of his wedding. The times he's admitted getting emotional over some movie. And just yesterday, he went on and on about his pets. He's got 2 dogs and a cat. And the dogs are because of his wife. When he was living alone, he was living alone with a cat. A pussy!
And let me invite Rush to go on Bloggingheads.tv and diavlog with me about the so-called chickification problems that plague our world today.
ADDED: Here's the show transcript including the text of what's in my video clip. Rush continues, with some talk about the Wikileaks leaks, a few paragraphs, and then:
And you have this little sissy, Julian Assange, thrown in the middle of it. Assange is a community organizer on the world stage, and who's his enemy? The United States of America.
... I mean, look, to those of you who are offended by my description of Assange as a sissy, would you want him in the foxhole with you?...
Look, the chickification of our culture and society is rampant. We've become defensive. We've become politically correct. We've been overly concerned with everybody's feelings about things...
Ironically, this sounds defensive. Keep thinking about it, Rush. (I want to live rent-free inside his head.)
Let's look at Julian Assange. In a contest between Janet Napolitano and Julian Assange, who do you think would win? Big Sis, there's no question about it. Now, if Janet Napolitano, Big Sis, can put her hands down our underwear at any airport in America she chooses, why can't she get her hands on the State Department leaker? Why can't she get her hands around the scrawny little neck of Julian Assange and all the other people at WikiLeaks? This little guy, this little waif, this little Peter Pan, Julian Assange, does anybody really believe that is his real name?...
I'm in the mood to listen to a sissy, and we have an audio sound bite here from Julian Assange, who looks like a sissy and is a sissy....
No, I just don't like the guy in general principles. I don't like the name. I don't like the way he looks. I don't like the way he sounds. He's a sissy; he's a waif, purely and simply an Internet creation.
Here's the graphic:
Limbaugh seems to have a general aversion to effeminate men (not to mention mannish women), and he's not processing this rather low reflex into much of anything but the repetition of the word "sissy." I like Rush Limbaugh and have defended him many times, in front of people who tend to hate you if you say anything good about him, so I think my opinion on the subject of Rush Limbaugh has special weight. I think this "sissy" business is beneath him.
There's something in the linked rant that was worth saying. If you read the whole thing, you'll see that Limbaugh was criticizing our government for not being able to catch Assange. In that context, the apparent feebleness of the man is relevant. If Limbaugh wants to say Assange is a weak little man and he's making us look weak, that's fine. What I don't like is the implication that in general men who look small, thin, and weak don't count as real men.
Now, Limbaugh's own critics frequently, gratuitously point out that Limbaugh is fat. I'm sure that creates a temptation for the big man to swing back at little men. I'm not saying he has to resist that temptation every single time, but process it into something better than saying "sissy" over and over. The subject, after all, was strength and weakness, and that was weak comic rhetoric.
"... that preclude opportunities for self-definition and coerce men into stifling identities. The Equal Protection Clause should not... presumptively tolerate such burdens on a man’s right of self-definition."
Lawprof John M. Kang argues that the law of gender discrimination should not protect men merely as "collateral beneficiaries of the protection afforded women, but in their own right." The article is called "The Burdens of Manliness."
Kang denies that he's a throwback to the "the sensitive troglodyte yearnings of the 1980s Men’s Movement," and I hear echoes of criticisms he must have received on drafts of this article. I was already a law professor back then, and my school (Wisconsin) was a hotbed of feminism theory. My own orientation at that the time — and now — was to see gender roles as limiting freedom for everyone. I remember suggesting to one of the most prominent feminist lawprofs that I thought feminism would be better if it expanded more generally into concern about the burdens of gender roles, which men felt too, in interestingly different ways. Individual freedom for all could be the overarching goal.
The response was not, as I'd naively anticipated at the time, that I had a great idea or that it was at least an intriguing proposal that we could casually converse about for a minute or 2. No, not at all. I mean, I'm still alive. But there was pushback. Swift, sharp snapback. Men get nothing from feminism. They must give ground. Much ground. For all that they have taken from us, for all the crushing and raping. Never give them the hint of a glimmer of hope that there is anything more that they can get. This is for us.
But —I tried to defend my humble, untenured self — wouldn't more freedom for everyone be better? No! My elder laid down what was, she assured me, the lesson of long political experience: If men think there's anything in it for them, they will use their superior power to take more and more, and the subordination of women will worsen. We must all follow the same strategy: to demand that men give up power and wealth for the benefit of women.
As for the Men's Movement... remember "Iron John: A Book About Men"? Remember thinking it was important to hate Robert Bly?
And what are the burdens of manliness? Ironically — ironjohnically — men are made to feel unmanly for developing their set of grievances and whining and moaning about the unfairness of it. But please don't let that stop you from expressing yourself in the comments.
ADDED: By the way, during the same period, you'd get similar sharp pushback from lefties if you said you thought gay people had the right to marry each other. That was viewed as a conservative position that would undermine the feminist critique of marriage as patriarchy. I also got an instant, angry response from a lefty feminist law professor when I said that the cause of gay rights might be advanced by scientific findings that homosexuality may have a biological cause. Back then, you see, homosexuality was supposed to be a choice, and scientists were condemned even for researching the matter. Today, of course, lefty lawprofs will get mad at you if you don't endorse gay marriage and the biological origin of homosexuality. Oh, how I wish I'd had a blog circa 1990! And I hope this post gives you a glimpse of why there is so much emotional energy behind my blogging.
1. There were several points in this movie where, if I didn't know it was a true story, I would have turned it off. It's incredibly melodramatic. But if it's true, it's not incredible. It's credible.
2. I loathe movies about children in danger, both because I don't enjoy seeing children suffer and because I don't want to watch an actress ham it up pretending to be a mother who is agonizing over her suffering child. But I shielded myself from knowing what the story was going to be because I was told — by my son Chris — that the movie contained the greatest acting performance of the last decade and once I decide I will see a movie, I avoid reading anything about the plot.
3. I'd never seen an Angelina Jolie movie before. Looking at the list of movies she's made, I can see why. Although she seems like the biggest movie star in the world, she hasn't made many movies, and they aren't very good. She's done genres that I don't much follow (anymore). For example, she did one of the voices in "Kung Fu Panda." When I think of "Kung Fu Panda," I think of the Joshua Ferris short story "The Dinner Party":
“They just got their dates wrong, is all,” he said, “and tomorrow, when they call, they’ll tell you how sorry they are. They had to turn their phones off during the late showing of ‘Kung Fu Panda’ or something.”
“So they went to see ‘Kung Fu Panda’ tonight,” she said.
“Or something like it.”
“And they turned their phones off so they wouldn’t ring during ‘Kung Fu Panda.’ ”
“Or,” he said. “Or.” He put his finger up. They were standing near the bedroom doorway. There was dim light coming from the dark room and he was suddenly irrationally afraid, as he had been as a child, that if anyone stepped inside, if she stepped inside, she would plummet to the center of the earth. He lowered his finger. “I’m sorry,” he said. “I don’t think they went to see ‘Kung Fu Panda.’ ”
One wouldn't see "Kung Fu Panda."
4. Jolie emotes. That's for sure. It's what's called for and she does it. She goes all out and does it. She's the female Jack Nicholson. And this movie has a good dose of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" in it. Now, take your medication. Or we'll give you an electroshock treatment. "Changeling" also made me think about another great Jack Nicholson movie, "Chinatown." Lots of L.A., lots of corruption.
5. Did Jolie out-act Kate Winslet? Winslet won the Oscar that year — for "The Reader." "The Reader" is also a melodrama, but it presents itself in less of a melodramatic style. Although "The Reader" is set in the Holocaust, the character is fictional, and her story is presented in a more dignified Oscar-worthy vehicle.
6. Quite oddly, there is a scene in "Changeling" in which the main character is listening to the Oscars presentation on the radio and rooting for her favorite movie to win. The movie is "It Happened One Night," and Jolie's character expresses her fondness for Claudette Colbert, who won an Oscar for her role. "It Happened One Night" swept the top 5 categories at the Oscars, and it wasn't until "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" that another movie swept the Oscars. I wondered what Clint Eastwood thought he was saying to the Academy by putting that Oscars scene in "Changeling." I don't think he was kissing their ass trying to get Oscars. Maybe it was a way to say Oscars are amusement for the people and they don't really matter to me anymore. But it would be pretty funny for Jolie to win an Oscar for a role where we'd have a clip of her in character getting excited about an Oscar win. It would be cute. Maybe she got some votes from Academy members who liked that.
7. Like "The Reader," "Changeling" has a scene that depicts
a hanging and uses a closeup of the hanged person's dangling feet — or is it just the shoes on the floor in "The Reader"? I forget.
(Mouse over Highlight to reveal spoiler.)(I think that's the first time I've used HTML that way.)
8. If you like red lipstick, this is the ultimate red lipstick movie. You've got, first of all, Angelina Jolie's famous, immense lips, and then you've got red red lipstick — of the historically accurate matte texture. And it looks like it was put on amateurishly by the character.
9. You like cloche hats? You will see cloche hats. Angelina Jolie's character seems to require a cloche hat — and gloves. (I couldn't figure out how she avoided getting red lipstick all over her gloves.) This is the ultimate cloche hat movie. What does the cloche hat mean? It speaks of the character's vulnerability and need for armor, which makes it
especially painful for us to see her without its protection when she's thrown into the psycho hospital.
11. Jolie calls Clint Eastwood "very much the ideal man":
Maybe it's generational, but I think we could use more of it. People look up to him. He is absolutely who he is. He doesn't apologize to anybody. He has very, very strong, decisive opinions and is very gracious as a man, as a friend and somebody on set as a director, too.
She tags on the wifely niceness — "Brad knows that he's my ideal man" — but, reading that, I hear the emphasis on "my." Brad may be her ideal man, but Eastwood is the ideal man.
Oh! I went to 11. I thought it would be hard to get to 10. Ha. I guess I enjoyed that movie. Maybe I'll watch it again with somebody who hasn't seen it before. Back in the 80s, we used to love showing "The Terminator" to people who hadn't seen it yet. All the surprises would be new again. Last week, I was flipping channels and came to rest on "From Dusk to Dawn," which had just started. I'd seen it before, but Meade hadn't. Great vicarious fun for me.
That's Mother Jones objecting to some press release purporting to identify the top 10 "chick cars" that men should never drive. MJ sayeth:
I suppose it’s not that surprising that the idea of a gendered car exists or that certain members of the doucheoisie wouldn’t be caught dead in a Mini Cooper. After all, driving is fraught with gender stereotypes and assumptions....
[I]sn’t it time we shifted male virility away from large, gas-guzzling automobiles, especially in light of the recent, horribly costly, and damaging oil spill in the Gulf? Maybe the sexes will never agree on who’s the better driver; but can’t we at least, for the sake of humanity, retire the phrase “chick cars” and the embarrassing PR it inspires?
I don't see anything wrong with thinking about the masculinity and femininity of the inanimate objects you associate yourself with. I can decide to wear a frilly dress or a mannish pantsuit or to paint my living room a girlie pink color or a manly dark gray. So what's wrong with shopping for a car and thinking about whether I want a chicky Mini or a tomboyish pickup truck?
Ah, I see. The real problem isn't the gendered object. It's the way men avoid feminine things.
She got sent home last night, so it's alternate reality speculation. But look at the song list — after the jump — it's real. "American Idol" will do Sinatra next week. (Via Throwing Things, where Adam realizes he can't understand America's taste.)
Which of the 5 that are left will do best with this sort of material, and what do you want to hear each one sing?
Here are the songs — all painfully better than any of the Shania Twain stuff they did this week:
All or Nothing At All
All the Way
Anything Goes
As Time Goes By
Blue Moon
Blue Skies
Come Dance with Me
Come Fly With Me
Come Rain or Come Shine
Fly Me to The Moon (In Other Words)
I Get A Kick Out of You
I Love Paris
I Only Have Eyes For You
I’ve Got a Crush On You
I’ve Got the World on a String
I’ve Got You Under My Skin
In The Still of the Night
In The Wee Small Hours of the Morning
It Had to Be You
It Was a Very Good Year
Just One of Those Things
Love and Marriage
Love is Here to Stay
Love Walked In
My Funny Valentine
My Kind of Town
My Way
New York, New York (From “On the Town”)
Night and Day
One For My Baby
Pennies From Heaven
Put Your Dreams Away
Someone to Watch Over Me
Somethin’ Stupid
Strangers in the Night
Street of Dreams
Summer Wind
That’s All
That’s Life
The Best is Yet to Come
The Good Life
The Lady is a Tramp
The Way You Look Tonight
They Can’t Take that Away From Me
What Is This Thing Called Love
Witchcraft
You Do Something To Me
You Make Me Feel So Young
You’re Getting to Be a Habit with Me
Young at Heart
I hope no one thinks it's a good idea to do "My Way" or "New York, New York." I love "Someone to Watch Over Me" as sung by Sinatra, but it's a dangerous song for a man to sing without sounding like a pussy — or a little lamb that's lost in the woods. I would advise Aaron not to sing "You Make Me Feel So Young." (He's 17.) "One For My Baby" is also a dangerous song — very heavy on the drinking and driving.
Last night on "American Idol," it was Shania Twain night. There was some talk about how the guys — there are 4 left — would sing such feminine songs. After Michael Lynche sang "It Only Hurts When I Breathe," Simon Cowell said "I thought the performance, however, was a little bit wet, as if you were in a musical acting out the words."
Wet, eh? Questioned about what that meant, Cowell was coy: "the opposite of dry." Further grilled, he said "It was a little bit girly for you." I think he was signaling the people at home that it's time to let go of poor Michael, who is a big burly guy whose fatherhood the show has touted since his first appearance. Now, when they'd like us to dump him, Simon injects doubt about his manhood into the American mind.
Meanwhile, Kara DioGuardia snarked about how the little guy, Aaron Kelly, wisely changed the words "when we made love" in Twain's "Way About You." Kara wriggled around as though she was uncomfortable referring to the fact that he's so young he must be a virgin. (He just turned 17.) And then Aaron upped the discomfort level by letting us know he was "singing the song to my mom." A wave of "aw" rose up in the audience, and Aaron bit his lip as if he might sob with love for his mother. No way he's voted out! Moms watch the show, and moms vote. If they were trying to signal that we should drop Aaron, they botched it.
The dentist pipes in music that most resembles the kinds of songs that contestants on American Idol sing. When I'm at the dentist I'm hyper-aware of how much I hate that kind of music, which makes me wonder what strange force makes me watch American Idol. Oh, the Motown stuff last night was good--I like Fantasia--but it's that generic bellowing anthemic crap that I can't tolerate (for example, at the dentist today, Melissa Etheridge singing something along the lines of "It only hurts when I breathe....," where the approach seems to be come up with one line that appears clever and just emote the hell out of that one line over and over). But that is all to say: I really do have a lot of work to get on to. I've got a Conlaw class at 11...
Ha ha. More than 5 years later, I'm still watching "Idol," and they finally do that song. (And I did correct the Melissa Etheridge mistake in an update at the time, even though I don't really care which lung-y woman is which.
And, actually, I've got a Conlaw class at 11 today too. The last class of the Spring semester....
