American men, American media, and the villification of men by the american media.

“Be true to the thought of the moment and avoid distraction. Other than continuing to exert yourself, enter into nothing else, but go to the extent of living single thought by single thought.”

“It is said that what is called "the spirit of an age" is something to which one cannot return. That this spirit gradually dissipates is due to the world's coming to an end. For this reason, although one would like to change today's world back to the spirit of one hundred years or more ago, it cannot be done. Thus it is important to make the best out of every generation.”
― Yamamoto Tsunetomo

I hear people don't agree with the article, but don't explain why...

The article is someone's opinion about a book (which retails at USD150) and concludes with "This book will help many of us in our struggles to create a better society – one which values and
encourages men and women, boys and girls. We are all in this life together : we need to think
positively of others who are different from ourselves. Finally, all of us need to work much harder to
make the media account for the way they portray men. "

ren, i dont agree heres why..
the whole person, is one who sees more thank the task at hand. The whole person can see the need and fill it. The whole person is not gender specific or promesquis in nature, the whole person understands the problems. What the article implies to my knowledge is that there are problems because of gender. IIIt answers the gender problem with a gender answer. The true answer is found in the whole person. Only then when a person takes responsibility and action can we change things, SAVY?

Can you give any particular examples?

yes there is a lot of blame on man. man is not being a man. What defines a man? there are expectations of fools.. But if a person, male or female becomes a whole person in a sence that HE or SHE is responsable and has character, there seem to be no problems.

if you teach a child character by example... he or she learns character.
then there are no sissy girly manly things about the child just...character good caracter, by adding gender based characteristics you also add room for insult and hurt, remove those and there is only truth, the child has responsability and character. doesnt have to be manly but he is full of good character.

I still think its pretty balanced, with both men and women getting some bad luck in various areas of policy, media and culture.

Feminists focus on the issues effecting women, and mens right people focus on the issues effecting men.

Those who focus on each other instead of the actual issues (from either side) are confrontational and probably constitute the 'radical' element - rather then 'radical' being reserved for the minority fringe furthest from conservatism. At least that is how I view it. Confrontation between groups trying to achieve the same thing using the same methods but from polar different positions is hilarious in its <insert profane insult>, though of course they cannot see it that way because they have beliefs structured to avoid seeing it that way.... like using the most radical statement from the most radical elements to label entire movements to hide the reality that they are both in effect working towards equality, whether they like it or not society will not accept anything but equality.

I guess at the heart of this topic is to what extent does the Y chromosome alter the otherwise female human form. If its only limited to the reproductive organs, then being a male is the result of them and the hormones (and their impact) they create. Either way it would be then simpler to define a male spiritual movement along those elements which do most actually create distinction from the non Y chromosomal human form we are all born with.

ren wrote: I hear people don't agree with the article, but don't explain why...

The article is someone's opinion about a book (which retails at USD150) and concludes with "This book will help many of us in our struggles to create a better society – one which values and
encourages men and women, boys and girls. We are all in this life together : we need to think
positively of others who are different from ourselves. Finally, all of us need to work much harder to
make the media account for the way they portray men. "

I think my specific example would be from the above comment which states that the media has some sort of bias against men. I don't believe it does. I haven't read the book and I don't feel that the price is relevant to the conversation. The book can end with whatever nice words about working together and positive thinking it wants, but if that is preceded by bias and false information, the nice ending loses any credibility. If you would like me to find specific examples from the book itself I will absolutely do that because I feel this is important. I don't mean to be argumentative and I will genuinely have this conversation.

I don't mean from the book itself but from the article. My experience of TV tells me it's rubbish, with the only guy on TV that looks normal to me being norm from "new yankee workshop". though I'm sure there are other instances of men not being mis-represented. I know of at least one show that makes fun of women ("real housewives of some town"), but i find it particularly distasteful, my wife is the one who watches this sort of rubbish (This stuff genuinely makes me feel like after 10 years free of TV I should never have hooked it up to an aerial)

ren wrote: I don't mean from the book itself but from the article. My experience of TV tells me it's rubbish, with the only guy on TV that looks normal to me being norm from "new yankee workshop". though I'm sure there are other instances of men not being mis-represented. I know of at least one show that makes fun of women ("real housewives of some town"), but i find it particularly distasteful, my wife is the one who watches this sort of rubbish (This stuff genuinely makes me feel like after 10 years free of TV I should never have hooked it up to an aerial)

Well yes, I will absolutely concede the point that TV is 100% rubbish except for Looney Toons. That is just pure gold.

I think my biggest problem with the points made in the article is that they are all based on the idea that (to put it simply) the media controls the way you think. I only believe this is the case if someone does almost nothing except immerse themselves in media. If all someone does all day is watch TV, then all they're going to know is what they see on TV and that will shape their world view. But by that logic I could say the same thing about a person who only reads books by a single author on a single subject. In both cases their perspective will be limited, but do we criticize publishing company's for printing books? No because that would be crazy and there are plenty of books to choose from so nobody is limited. That is why it is important to be mindful of our thoughts and strengthen our mental resolve so that we are not influenced by this outside noise, but rather stay focused on our internal clarity so our perspective can be open instead of limited.

I understand the worry that children won't be able to maintain a clear enough mind to resist all the messages in the media, but that's why education is so important. If a child is well educated and well rounded, they will be able to see through all the rhetoric and labels and half-baked sound bytes and find the truth. This article only adds to the noise they'll have to cut through. It comes from the exact same place in someone's heart as the messages it's trying to counter: fear. Fear is not an appropriate tool to teach people.

This brings me to my specific examples from the article. I need not read further than the first line to find one. The first thing the writer does is quote Orwell's 1984 and then talk about totalitarian societies. If you're allowed to quote Orwell, you don't live in a totalitarian society. I feel like that's the first book that would get burned.

Another example is "Feminism is an ideology, or systematised way of thinking. Many influential feminists have been outspokenly angry about and encouraged violence to men." Aside from the grammatical errors and misidentification, the author doesn't even bother to define feminism. He just says it's an ideology and then jumps right into "violence to men." Through a blatant omission of information, he effectively associates feminism with violence against men. That is being purposefully deceptive in order to make a point.

"While there has been some university study of men, it is taken for granted that this will be done from a feminist perspective." That's not what taken for granted means. It doesn't mean automatically assumed, it means to expect someone or something to be always available to serve in some way without thanks or recognition; to value someone or something too lightly. The misuse of a simple phrase speaks to the intellectual value of the article's author.

"HOW MEDIA PUT MEN DOWN
Some influential media images of men can be found in The Simpsons. The father character, Homer, is lazy, chauvinistic, stupid and irresponsible." I don't watch Simpson's often but I can name a few dad's on TV that are good men: Ned Stark-Game of Thrones, Jerry Stiller-Seinfeld, Jay Pritchett-Modern Family, Burt Hummel-Glee. I could name more. For every "bad" example there is also a "good" example. The article cites a single father figure TV and extrapolates a whole point from it, completely omitting (again) any information to the contrary.

If someone is worried about being told how to think, they should steer clear of this article and Jim Macnamara's book because all it does it tell people how to think by focusing on and twisting things to fit a world view instead of looking at the totality of information and developing an unbiased viewpoint from it. the funny thing is, this is exactly the tactic used by the media to do exactly what this article is warning people about: controlling the way you think.