Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    
    GUESS WHAT,you realy hit it on the nose this time.Latly I have been
    very carful about the woman I choose to maybe ask out,or even say
    hello to.And my friends are started to wanderwhy.Like maybe it is
    unhealthy not to comunicate with the opposite sex.Or I have turn
    my way of thinking,or I might have something else in mine.
       Well, to quite be honest,its just that your right.I have decided
    things can be a little more romantic or even fun,if you don"t let
    yourself be run bye your whoremoans.( I KNOW LOWSY SPELLER ),AND
    MAYBE BE ALITTLE OLD FATION.This might seem a little silly more
    orless.But maybe alittle courtship Isn:t as bad as it sounds.A little
    old fation romance,done alittle slower,and being a better gentlemen
    is a lot more fun.With me these days anyway.And yes it still makes
    like a man.Just maybe a little more off a romantic.I like that.
             A little slower,and it might have better opertunities.

    in re .2

    good note, but your misspelling of hormones put me off
    rather badly the first time I read yout note and I nearly flamed
    it till I reread it.

    was that really necessary?

    BJ

    RE .0 The movies don't define me. I know who I am, and who I'm
    not. (I'm not built like Arnold, don't make as many $ as Sly,
    can't fight like Jean-Claude)
    
    The movies and TV shows seem more and more like the commercials,
    and I ignore *those*. 

.0 has a very good point that I think .1 and .4 miss.  
.1 says I guess I don't really care; and .4 says movies don't define
me.  Here are people who are secure in themselves and that's great.

However, stereotypes define people, like it or not.  You can have all the
self confidence in the world and someone can treat you as if all you were
good for was getting what the manipulator wanted (no interchange).

Therefore, yes, I find it insulting when the dominant portrayal of men in
a movies, or type of show is Testoterone Ted, or Hormone Harry.

As for manipulation, it is an everyday occurrence.  "What's for dinner?"
"Spaghetti."  "Groan." "Well, what would you like?"  There is little
manipulations like this one and then there are the TV night soaps where
Jane gets Dick to kill Sally, or Dick gets rich by some other [sleazey] means.

Now Ruthless People was a funny depiction of a male bimbo (is that a valid 
term?) who was the boyfriend to Danny Devito's girlfriend; the guy who used the
dustbuster in bed; must have had a 5 watt bulb for a brain and why on earth
would anyone date someone like that?  The movie was a romp and I didn't mind
this guy being protrayed as a bonehead - hey there are boneheaded people
out there, I guess - ah but maybe I've suckered into that idea.
  
But movies, and sometimes sitcoms, that do it (.0) are not funny to me.

I care about anything that defines me in ways other than I define myself.
That's one reason why exchange is important to me.

Mark

    See also:
    
    Mennotes
    394 - What is television trying to tell the public
    
    Human_relations
    958 - dumb men in advertising
    
    -Jody
    
    p.s.  My uncle played Ted Clark on Another World.  He was the dude who
    got shot in the back and then recovered and moved to Chicago.

Actually the media/popular portrayal of men *really* pisses me off!  Why
should I care, being a woman?  Because I was deceived.

I was led to believe that men had no brains once their hormone level rose,
that I could have absolute control over them as long as they were in that
state, but that they would totally loose interest in me later, that they
were weak, stupid and manipulatable.  That if they didn't do what I wanted,
it was because I wasn't pretty enough or sexy enough to turn off their
"upper brain".  And to a large extent, this was reinforced during 
adolescence, because teenage boys really do tend to be that way.

So I grew up with little respect for men, and thinking that manipulation was
the appropriate way to interact with them.  Boy, did the real world come as
a surprise to me.  Looking back, I find the way I acted abominable.  I'm
angry that *I* was manipulated by the media into believe this stuff.

D!

> were weak, stupid and manipulatable.  That if they didn't do what I wanted,
> it was because I wasn't pretty enough or sexy enough to turn off their
> "upper brain".  

	Bingo.  Thanks for saying this.  For years I felt like a social
	failure because of precisely this phenomenon.  It's surprising
	how strong a hold these images can have on your subconscious, and
	how absolutely pervasive they are... right down to the shelves of
	books in every bookstore with titles like "How to manipulate a man
	into being your love slave".  Then, of course, when the techniques
	don't work, the woman feels like a personal failure all over again
	because she doesn't have "it".

	Makes me wonder who's really being manipulated anyway...

	    Sharon

    
    re: .7 and .8
    
    Your notes were real eye-openers for me. I simply
    had no idea how all of this might affect women growing up and
    how they interact with men.
    
    							Hank

>	Makes me wonder who's really being manipulated anyway...

	double bingo!!
    

   
    	No, it doesn't bother me. Why would it?
    
    	When I was in high school, I had an experience which this note
    reminded me of. My girlfriend and I, fairly serious about each other,
    went to a movie one night. One of the characters in the movie was a
    young man who broke the heart of his girlfriend, in a stupid callous
    way. After the movie my girlfriend was cold and distant toward me and
    when I asked why she blurted out something about "men." She was angry
    about the way the character in the movie had treated his girlfriend and
    felt that I, being a man(not yet, but of that gender), was partly
    responsible. 
    
    	It amazed me then and it amazes me now(learn quick, don't I). I
    would suggest that it makes more sense to learn about life by observing
    and experiencing it. Instead of watching someone else's version, or
    for that matter, listening to someone else's opinion of it. Think for
    yourself, based upon your own experience. 
    
    	I have known men who would say anything to a woman to get what they
    wanted and I have known women who would say anything to a man to get
    what they wanted. I have also known men and women who are sincere and
    caring. 
    
    	The movies are just movies and advertising is just advertising and
    glitter is just glitter. 


	Craig
    
    

Movies presenting men in a bad light?

Bother me??

ME?????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


                             <<whew!! ;-)>>

   Movies exist for one purpose: to entertain. The greatest effect an "easily
manipulated" male character can have on me is to elicit feelings of pity
and/or contempt for the character -- since most of the time I know that 
he is being set up for something and it is so obvious that he really should
see something coming.

   Such stereotypes would anger me if they were the only kinds of characters
portrayed in movies (unlike, for example, blacks whose characters are always
limited and stereotyped). Since they are not, I have nothing to be angry/bored 
about.

   Movies are not real. Their characters are not real. It is, in my opinion,
sheer foolishness to attach any importance to them outside the context in which
they operate.

   I am, however, aware that some people attach more importance to them than 
they deserve. I say: let them. If anyone sees them as portraying real 
characteristics of men, or really describing men, then such people will
inevitably project these stereotypes upon the men they meet. If they do this
with me, then I consider it my advantage for a number of reasons:

1: Projecting such stereotypes upon me will "flag" that person as one who I
   wouldn't want to get to know (and conversely, let that person get to know
   me). This will save me a lot of time and effort which I would otherwise 
   have wasted.

2: Due to the nature of such stereotypes, such people will inevitably 
   underestimate me. There are circumstances when this will be to my advantage.

3: I consider my inner reality to be precious enough so that only those
   who are close to me really know me. Someone who stereotypes me is far 
   enough "off the mark" that s-he has no way of touching that "inner me".


   In other words, I am who I am, you are who you are, and movie characters 
are what they are. I feel no need to be insulted or otherwise bothered by 
movie characters who do not represent who I am, because the only person who
can create characters that represent me is me.

   Isn't that true for everyone?

                                                      -Robert Brown III

    There have been a few notes scoffing at worrying about movie portrayals
    of men.  "I have a strong self-image, they don't bother me, it's just a
    movie..."
    
    The problem that some women have brought up here is that these movies
    are also seen and processed by people who are NOT men!  The movies may
    not stereotype you individually, but that they provide a stereotype of
    the group that you belong to (in this case, men).  You can hold onto
    your *own* personal image of yourself, maybe, but you can't hold onto
    *other people's* images of your group.  THAT'S where this type of stuff
    is scary, to me.
    
    YOU may know where the images are correct and where they are incorrect,
    but not everybody does.  Where do we get a powerful image that men
    don't get bothered by things and never cry and can handle any situation?  
    John Wayne.  
    
    I think the "it's only a movie" argument can only go so far.  People
    are far too easily manipulated for me to EVER believe that we truly see
    movies as movies and not as projections of reality, somewhere deep in
    our minds.  

    Pam

referencing: 170.13 (Pam)

   First, I feel the need to make plain that my entry (I can only speak
for myself) was not intended to "scoff", though I did want to make clear that 
I found the concept of "bad male" images bothering me highly amusing. 

   While I find it amusing, I do take the problems such images can cause 
very seriously. But the question asked was "does it bother you". My answer:
no, not only doesn't it bother me, but the very concept of it bothering me 
is really funny!

  In fact, I'm laughing quietly just writing about this.

   Second: I believe the effects of such stereotypes on women's images of
men should be treated as a seperate topic, since this one was asking "why men
don't get pissed off".

   And frankly, if most men KNOW that the images are not real, then that does
indeed answer the question of why we don't get pissed off. And while you are
correct about movies being projections of someone's (distorted) picture of
reality on some level, and while movies do provide stereotypes of men as a
group to many who are not men, the fact is that if those who aren't men don't
discover, through experience, how untrue these images are then that is their
problem, not mine or any other man's.

   In other words: yes, these stereotypes do sometimes have an adverse effect
on people's idea of what a "man" is(after all: John Wayne images have influened 
men as well as women!), but why should that bother me? If someone wants to "buy
in" to such stereotypes, then so be it. To each hir own. But frankly, I don't
care what people think of me as a member of the male population; if they 
prefer to deal with a stereotyped male image over the reality of my maleness,
then they have very little to offer me. There are plenty of "John Wayne" 
wannabes for them to relate to.

                                                       -Robert Brown III

    
    	Well, I must admit - it really floors me to see these guys laughing
    	hysterically at the idea of being bothered by "male=bad" images in
    	the media (and thinking it's "silly") after we've witnessed them
    	becoming so visibly (and boisterously) disturbed over what they
    	perceive as "male=bad" images in this conference!
    
    	Am I missing something here?  "Male=bad" images that reach millions
    	of people all over the world are harmless and laughable, yet similar
    	(perceived) "male=bad" images that reach 10,000 readers through
    	this conference are as serious as a heart attack??
    
    	Why isn't it just as "silly" to be bothered by what they see here?
    	(Is it because the things we say here are that much more accurate
    	than the media, and thus, FAR more threatening?  Or what?)
    
    	What gives????

    Wouldn't it be interesting if the difference were in the percieved
    gender of the image maker? Is is different when it happens in a female
    oriented arena (womannotes), as opposed to a male-oriented arena 
    (major motion picture studios). Is the difference in who's saying it
    rather than what is said?
    
     

Re: .18 (Alan):

    Sadly, many of those same commercials that portray men as being so 
    stupid are also using that to reinforce the idea that "only women
    really know how to do housework/ handle things around the house"...

    And then there's the commercial that states something like "only a Mom 
    can bake brownies like these"... and then feature a brownie mix that 
    *anyone* could use (even the 8-year-old kids they show).  So not only
    is "Dad" portrayed as an absentee parent, but he's too dumb to use a
    brownie mix with explicit directions on the back??
    
    It all promotes the same stereotypes, in the end.  After all, when
    was the last time you saw a white male was portrayed as being too 
    dumb to use a lawn mower?

	Sharon

    
    
 .19>                      -< WN = movies?  hardly. >-
 .19>
 .19>.16>  Am I missing something here?  "Male=bad" images that reach millions
 .19>
 .19>	Yes, perhaps your ability to reason.
    
    .16> Am I missing something here?  "Male=bad" images that reach millions
       > of people all over the world are harmless and laughable, yet similar
       > (perceived) "male=bad" images that reach 10,000 readers through
       > this conference are as serious as a heart attack??
    
    Completely misunderstand context often, Mike?
    
    DougO

	Media depictions of men ,whether the men depicted are heroic or 
hormonally driven idiots, doesn't bother me too much at all.

	Most of the ones I've seen in movies I've also seen in real life. I've
met men I consider heroic and also have met some idiots. I myself have been
pretty idiotic at times. Interestingly enough I could map pieces of my own
personality to just about any male character depicted, in the best or worst
light.

	Nothing within the context of male silliness depicted in the movies or
T.V. could approach what I done within the same context over the years. I 
can clearly remember praticing cigarette lighting in mirrors thinking I would
later impress females...burned my fingertips a couple of times trying to get
my lower lip to curl just right after striking the match. Oh ..and when I smoked
a Parodi cigar (trying to be Clint Eastwood) only to get sick all over the
bathroom a few minutes later. I think my mother thought I had some strange
thing for our bathroom...I know she was really worried for me.Maybe this is why
we males aren't so threathened by this ....we know we're silly as hell!

	Someone raised the excellent point of males in this file getting
upset over alleged 'male bashing' while claiming indifference to unkindly
media depictions. I acknowledge the truth of that. Perhaps they took the
issues discussed more seriously than the movies or television shows they
usually watched. I personally take the discussions in this notes file much
more seriously than "CHEERS" or the latest Tom Cruise hit. Is this a 
good sign?

-D-

   This entry was originally going to address two things, and was going to
be placed in Topic 170.

   However, under the strange protocols of this conference, I decided that it
would be best to "split" my entry, placing part of it in 170 and the other
part here. Below, seperated and edited, is Part 2:

                        *                   *                  *

Referencing: 170.19 (Mike):

   While reading Suzanne's Note 170.16 briefly evoked feelings in me that were
similar to those expressed in your entry, I do not believe that making a
personal attack on her is an appropriate response. In fact, upon thinking
things over, I realized that her response in 170.16 was the only one possible
within her framework, and does not reflect any inability to reason that either
of us may wish (however briefly) to perceive.

   Surely you can point out any flaws you see in her arguments without
resorting to personal attacks? I think that doing so will increase the quality
of your entries and the respect of the intelligent people in this conference.

   Just a suggestion.

Referencing 170.16 (Suzanne):

   Speaking as one of the men who was "laughing hysterically" at the idea of
being bothered by bad male images in the media, I must say that your
questioning my reaction to that in the context of my percieved reaction to 
"male=bad" images in this Notesfile is way "off base". It is "off base" because
your perception of my reaction bears little resemblence to what my reaction
actually is.

   For a moment, however, I shall pretend that you are "on base" in order to
make a point. That point is that in both my entries I have stated that it is
the UNREALITY of movies that allows me to ignore the badness of the images
presented in them. FYI: the same principle applies to TV commercials. They are
not real, regardless of the "projected reality" of those who make them or the
society they reflect. If I allowed myself to be bothered by stupid movie or TV
images, I'd probably go insane, since the images presented of members of my
race (and that of other minorities) in movies and on TV are overwhelmingly
limited and negative. Why, then, should I be bothered by unreal images put
forth by faceless institutions which are caught up in dreams and stereotypes
and have little touch with the real world? To me, the idea is, as I have said
before, very amusing.

   But through the electronic media of WOMANNOTES (and other Notesfiles), I
deal with real people who have real experiences -- and who sometimes "buy in"
to the stereotypes that the movies project. This is a different situation,
because while some of them get their stereotytpes from the movies, the fact is
that the movies wouldn't thrive on the projection of these stereotypes if
people, as a whole, didn't buy in to them. In other words, Pam makes a valid
point in 170.14 when she speaks of "seeing movies as projections of reality,
somewhere deep in our minds". The difference between her and me is that I see
movies as an effect of what's in our minds, not always or even necessarily the 
cause. So if you were "on base" about my reactions to bad male images in
WOMANNOTES, it would be because in WOMANNOTES I am dealing with real people 
who have real stereotypes -- not the stories and images created to amuse 
those people with the stereotypes. The movies tell me about the stereotypes 
the people have. The people here (and everywhere) are the source of those 
stereotypes. People's stereotypes are theirs, not the movies'.

   But, of course, the points made in the previous two paragraphs assume that
you are "on base" in your perception about my reaction to "male=bad" images in
WOMANNOTES. In fact, you are "off base".

   Any negative images about men that you or any other person in this
conference may have do not concern me. As I've stated often in this Topic, I
know who I am and if you don't (and don't really wish to find out) that is not
my problem. If, in the course of our interaction, you chose to project any
negative images you may have onto me, that again is your concern; mine is
simply to reject your projections and move on.

   I am not bothered by what I "see here"; I am bothered when people elevate
their beliefs to some perceived level of "truth", and put down others for not
agreeing with them, or for not being what they are. If you look closely at all
the angry (or sarcastic) entries I've made in this Notesfile, I'm sure you will
see a pattern of anger at intolerance in all of them.

   Of course I choose to speak only for myself, but I'm sure others have
similar feelings. I reiterate: it is not what I "see" here, or any negative
images of males that some WOMANNOTErs may have that bother me. It is the
refusal to acknowledge that others may not share the viewpoint, and the
denigration of other expressed alternative viewpoints (and most of all, the
denial that such denigration takes place) that angers me.

   Hopefully, this answers the questions you posed in 170.16. If not, I trust
that you will seek further clarification.

                                                     -Robert Brown III

P.S: Referencing 170.18: I don't know about anyone else, but I see no reason
                         why the expression of your displeasure with negative
                         male images in movies and TV commercials should 
                         require "b*lls". Men's opinions were asked for in this
                         topic, and your opinion is no better or worse than
                         mine.

    	RE: .24  Robert
    
    	> If you look closely at all the angry (or sarcastic) entries I've 
    	> made in this Notesfile, I'm sure you will see a pattern of anger 
    	> at intolerance in all of them.
    
    	In all honesty, Robert, I view many of your responses to this
    	conference as being the result of your own intolerance towards
    	us.  Rather than allowing us to discuss our own unique perspective
    	in a forum set up for us to do this very thing, you seem to feel
    	it necessary (along with a number of others) to "police" what
    	we say (by expressing anger and sarcasm at our opinions about
    	things.)
    
    	> I reiterate: it is not what I "see" here, or any negative
	> images of males that some WOMANNOTErs may have that bother me. It 
    	> is the refusal to acknowledge that others may not share the 
    	> viewpoint, and the denigration of other expressed alternative 
    	> viewpoints (and most of all, the denial that such denigration 
    	> takes place) that angers me.
    
    	Why do you feel the need to have us acknowledge that other viewpoints
    	exist (and what makes you feel that we don't?)  Obviously, other
    	viewpoints do exist, or we wouldn't have the difficulties that we're
    	faced with in our society!
    
    	What (precisely) is our social obligation to you as women when it
    	comes to listening to your ideas?  Are we expected to drop everything
    	and defer to your thoughts (keeping quiet about what we really think
    	as a way of keeping from ruffling your feathers?)
    
    	When you talk to men about political ideas, do you always expect 
    	them to stop and tell you that they acknowledge that you have a
    	different viewpoint (or do you each stand up for your own ideas
    	without needing to have your egos massaged by the other in the
    	course of debate?)
    
    	Why is it such an emotional experience to debate political ideas
    	with women?

    
    	RE: .19  Mike Z.
    
    	.16>Am I missing something here?  "Male=bad" images that reach millions

	> Yes, perhaps your ability to reason.
    
    	In other words, you have no explanation for the inconsistency 
    	pointed out by my note.
    
    	I suspected as much.
    

    
    	RE: .28  Mike Z.
    
    	> But, if makes you feel better to believe that, don't let me
    	> disturb your dream.
    
    	If you had an explanation for the inconsistency of your position,
    	you would have offered it.
    
    	Case closed.
    

    I agree with Suzanne and Dawn that there's an anomaly here -- "teehee"
    if movies (screened in Technocolor to millions of people) portray men
    as homicidal maniacs or whatever, but "it's outrageous" if =wn= (read
    by thousands of people) is perceived to have a man=bad theory.

    re: .17 Dawn

      "Is the difference in who's saying it rather than what is said?"

    I would also add that who says it *defines* what is said.

    To me, the male images given out by the media are bad partly for what
    they portray as ideals.

    James Bond, the ultrastud who's constantly saving the world from evil
    -- different woman in every movie (and the one woman he marries gets
    shot in the head).  Is there any female serial character who behaves
    like that?  Why not?


    re: .14 Robert Brown III

    I get the impression, Robert, that you feel that you yourself are
    completely unaffected by stereotypes about other people.

      "Why should that bother me? If someone wants to "buy in" to such
      stereotypes, then so be it. To each hir own. But frankly, I don't
      care what people think of me as a member of the male population; if
      they  prefer to deal with a stereotyped male image over the reality
      of my maleness, then they have very little to offer me."

    Am I to understand that you think it's amusing and ludicrous to worry
    about how blacks are portrayed in movies?  I'm not particularly
    concerned with whether you personally, individually, internalize those
    stereotypes, just whether you feel that it is generally bad for those
    stereotypes to be so prominant.  Does it bother you that those
    stereotypical portrayals exist of blacks?  Of men?  Of women?
    
    I'm also not particularly concerned whether it's movies that create the
    stereotypes for people or it's people who create the stereotypes for
    movies.  That's a chicken-or-the-egg problem to me.  What bothers me
    is that the stereotypes exist in such numbers that it is a constant
    struggle NOT to be influenced by them.

    What's interesting to me is that you do not feel that being viewed
    through a stereotypical male image *limits* you. In contrast, I feel
    that being viewed through a stereotypical female image is something
    that limits women.  Perhaps that's why most men here are not offended
    by being stereotyped in movies or film -- maybe the fact that men
    control the studios and film/TV is why the particular images provided
    aren't ones that bother men too much.

    For instance, William Hurt's character in "Body Heat" did get some
    great sex with a sexy woman, so it wasn't all bad.  John Wayne doesn't
    express emotion and always knows the right thing to do in every
    situation -- pretty powerful image to convey to society about men in
    general, so what if it takes its toll on real men's ability to express
    emotion and feel uncertain about what to do next?  Men in commercials
    who can't do housework demonstrate that women are better at it anyway
    and things should continue as they are.  Al Bundy is a creep but his
    biggest problem is that his wife wants sex too much -- and she is
    willing to have sex with a "creep."

    
    re: .15 mike z

      "Don't take it personally, Pam.

      I just don't understand all the hubbub; it seems silly to me."

    If you are truly unbothered by movie portrayals, then that is your
    business.  Really, I am not distressed that you feel differently than I
    would.  I'm questioning whether the reasoning for being unbothered by
    the hubbub is logical.

    As I understand the reasoning from several notes, it is foolish to
    worry about movies and TV's portrayal of men as walking hormones and
    completely perfect beings, because "hey, it's just a movie.  I know
    it's fiction, other men know it's fiction, and anyone who I want in my
    life will know it's fiction, so what's the fuss?"

    I am truly impressed that some people possess that level of trust in
    other people's judgment and ability to resist subliminal conditioning! 
    I think people are *easily* manipulated -- as, for instance, in the
    film "A Class Divided" which I wrote about in another string.  Children
    were convinced that brown-eyed people were better than blue-eyed
    people; even though they were convinced that blue-eyed people were
    better than brown-eyed people the day before.  We find it all too easy
    to accept stereotypes.

    I think the media (movies, TV, papers, magazines, etc.) are responsible
    for a lot of our societal conditioning.  Those who think that taking
    movies seriously is a "silly" and vastly amusing concept are, in my
    view, denying that societal conditioning happens.  And denying that
    they are ever affected by societal conditioning themselves.

    Pam

    
    	RE: .30  Mike Z.
    
    	Yes, Mike - I arranged to have serious bacterial infections in my
    	lungs and kidneys all for you (so I wouldn't have to meet you.)
    
    	I spent weeks before you arrived being sick (getting a doctor to
    	go along with my scam enough to dose me with anti-biotics and write
    	all sorts of notes to my manager) because he's heard of you, too,
    	and didn't blame me for going through this elaborate ruse just to
    	avoid you.
    
    	You're world famous as being someone worth avoiding at the risk of
    	one's health - everyone in the medical community knows this.
    
    	They've named you the Zarlenga Plague.  You should be flattered.

    	RE: .31  Pam

    	> I agree with Suzanne and Dawn that there's an anomaly here -- "teehee"
    	> if movies (screened in Technocolor to millions of people) portray men
    	> as homicidal maniacs or whatever, but "it's outrageous" if =wn= (read
    	> by thousands of people) is perceived to have a man=bad theory.

    	Yes, this is quite an anomaly, although I think the reason for this is
    	fairly straightforward.

    	> [To Mike Z.] What's interesting to me is that you do not feel that 
    	> being viewed through a stereotypical male image *limits* you. 

    	I agree (and this is true for many men, whether the stereotypical images
    	come from movies *or* are perceived as coming from Womannotes.)

    	The difference between the two is that women are the ones who are
    	perceived as promoting negative images of men in Womannotes, which
    	comes across as emotionally threatening to some men.

    	> In contrast, I feel that being viewed through a stereotypical female 
    	> image is something that limits women.  

    	Women are already being limited, so it's natural for some/many of us
    	to regard many aspects of the stereotyping of women to be part of the
    	overall problem.  

    	Also, I agree with what you said earlier about how some "bad" images
    	still come across as a predominantly positive image (such as William
    	Hurt still having great sex with a sexy woman during Body Heat.)

    	As an example, I wasn't offended by any of the stereotypes of women
    	in "Working Girl" because the predominant images I saw in the two main
    	characters were that they were intelligent, well-educated and knew
    	how to accomplish their goals.  Most of the other women in the movie 
    	were exceptionally likable people, as well.  I didn't feel that these
    	particular images would limit women.

    	> Perhaps that's why most men here are not offended by being 
    	> stereotyped in movies or film -- maybe the fact that men control 
    	> the studios and film/TV is why the particular images provided
    	> aren't ones that bother men too much.

    	Agreed.  In my opinion, this is the bottom line.

    Yes, please DO keep to the topic at hand.  Repetitive two-person
    back-and-forth shots will subsequently be deleted as trashnotes.
    
    If you're going to do it, take it offline....
    
    -Jody
    

    I've had to live with the mass media portrayal of Orientals all
    my life.  The short, yellow guy with thick glasses and crooked teeth
    who ran around saying "Ah-so" and comitting "hari-kari" with his
    chop sticks.  Either that or a Kung Fu expert who can't get his
    lips to synchronize with his voice.  Either that or the Koolie who
    prepared the meals while the good ol' white boys went out and did
    manly things like herding cattle.  Either that or the laundry attendant.
    
    The portrayal of men is no way near as demeaning as that.
    
    Since the minds of most North Americans makes no distinction between
    Orientals, I've had people ask me about the Last Emperor of China, the
    tunnels of the Viet Cong, the Yakuza gangs of Japan, and the use
    of Samurai swords.  (Thanks alot John Belushi.  You could have chosen
    to portray a Roman Gladiator, but nooooooo!  You had to be a Samurai.)
    
    Does it bother me that people actually believe the media stereotypes?
    
    It bothers me that some people are content to be ignorant enough to
    confuse fantasy designed to pull money from your wallet and reality.
    But I'll have to say that I am more amused than offended.  Even when
    I'm approached by English speaking people and asked slowly, "Do you
    speekee Engrish?" ("Careful Martha, he may be a Ninja assassin!")
    
    Kris
    
    

    	RE: .35  Mike Z.
    
    	> Movies consist of actors and actresses, playing characters.
	> This conference consists of real people.

    	Movies are made and watched by real people.
    
	Movies also consist of attitudes and ideas that are part of the
    	current fabric of our society.  The increasing number of negative
    	images presented about men are likely due to the increasing level
    	of criticism that men are subject to (as a group) these days.  In
    	this respect, movies are as real as anything else when it comes to
    	societal indicators.
    
    	> You can insult/slap/embarrass/kill a character in a movie,
    	> yet no one really gets hurt, if you understand that "it's only a
    	> movie".

    	If the audience is convinced that certain groups deserve to be
    	held back due to the reinforcement of negative stereotypes, then
    	movies can and *do* hurt people.  No, they don't hurt the actor
    	who plays the part, but they hurt members of the group being
    	portrayed.
    
    	Men aren't in as much danger when it comes to this, though, since
    	men control the movie industry (and can, therefore, be selective
    	about the kinds of negative images they portray of men.)
    
	> If you insult/slap/embarrass/kill a noter in a conference,
    	> someone really does get hurt, since this is reality, not a movie.
    
    	So, although there are far worse things being said about women as
    	a group in Digital notesfiles, you feel entitled to define the
    	perceived negative images of men in this conference as "reality"
    	(and capable of causing real damage to some men?)
    
    	It must be nice to have this kind of authority in our society.

    	RE: .39  Mike Z.
    
    	> It must be strange to go through life confusing entertainment
   	> with reality.
    
    	It must be strange for you to consider Notes reality (such that
    	you speak of people being able to be slapped or killed by someone
    	else within the confines of a Digital conference.)
    
    	> What say we bring Bruce Willis up on murder charges?
	> He killed some people in Die Hard.
    
    	Where did you see this?  Was it on a SCREEN perhaps (either
    	in a movie theatre or in your home?)
    
    	Where do you read notes?  Do they appear to you on a SCREEN as
    	well?
    
    	Why are some screen images about males a matter of entertainment,
    	while you see other screen images about males to be so serious
    	and/or threatening?
    

    in re .37
    
    Kris,
    
    Having seen a picture of you, I'm surprised that most of the women
    who see you don't ask for an autograph or a kiss.
    
    :-)
    
    Bonnie

Referencing: 170.26 (Suzanne)

   It appears that I cannot attempt to communicate with you rationally 
without being personally attacked (by being called intolerant, implying 
that my debates with women are different from my debates with men -- without
any knowledge to back up that implication, etc).

   And since any real attempt to address what you say will probobly be 
summarily deleted no matter how much I may avoid attacking back (as 
indicated by the moderator response prohibiting "two- person" arguments), 
then further attempts at clarification are, unfortunately, useless.

   All I can do is hope that others in this Conference do not misinterpret 
what I have said in my previous reply the way you have chosen to. 

   And to the others: the points I've made in this Topic are simple: (a) 
that it is extremely amusing for me to worry about stereotypical images in 
movies (of ANY kind since, being Black, if I allowed myself to worry about 
the images of Blacks in the movies then I would go insane wasting energy 
over something I have no control over anyway -- I almost HAVE to be amused 
in order to keep from going insane!), (b) that despite this, I do 
take the stereotypes and the effects of movie images on people's thoughts 
seriously, but (c) the best way I can deal with it is to remember the 
unreality of the images, have a strong sense of who I am, and simply have 
no dealings (no POSITIVE ones, anyway) with anyone who chooses to project 
their stereotypes on me.

   To Suzanne's (and others) questions about why I laugh at movie images 
and get angry at the images found in WOMANNOTES, I stated two things: (a) 
that movie images are unreal and WOMANNOTERs are real, and (b) that I, 
personally, do not get angry at the images, just at what happens when I or 
anyone else tries to present alternative ideas.

   I hope I've made my position clear and have adequately anwered the 
questions put forth in the basenote. Unless someone has questions about 
what I have said, I have nothing more to say in this Topic.

                                                        -Robert Brown III
  

    	RE: .44  Robert
    
    	> It appears that I cannot attempt to communicate with you rationally 
	> without being personally attacked (by being called intolerant, 
    	> implying that my debates with women are different from my debates 
    	> with men -- without any knowledge to back up that implication, etc).
    
    	In your reply .24, you said, "If you look closely at all the angry
    	(or sarcastic) entries I've made in this Notesfile, I'm sure you
    	will see a pattern of anger at INTOLERANCE in all of them." [Emphasis
    	mine.]
    
    	If we look back to find your notes, we can come up with a list of
    	people you are accusing of being intolerant, in other words.
    
    	Why is it ok for you to accuse people of intolerance, but not ok
    	for one of us to state the opinion that you've shown intolerance
    	in your entries?  Do you have more rights in Digital than we do?
    
    	As for implying that your debates with men are different than your
    	debates with women - I asked you a question about it, that's all.
    	Am I not allowed (as a woman) to ask questions about your notes
    	without being accused of launching a personal attack?
    
    	Robert, please understand that I have no quarrel with the idea
    	that you don't take negative images about men in movies seriously.
    	Not everyone *does* take them seriously (women or men.)  Honestly,
    	it's no big deal.
    
    	My only question was how you could regard the idea of taking movie
    	images seriously as so hysterically funny, while at the same time,
    	being known for taking very serious offense (to the tune of having
    	complained to Digital authorities) about the images of men you've
    	seen in Womannotes.  The difference in these two attitudes is an
    	anomaly.
    
    	> To Suzanne's (and others) questions about why I laugh at movie images 
	> and get angry at the images found in WOMANNOTES, I stated two things:
    	> (a) that movie images are unreal and WOMANNOTERs are real, and (b) 
    	> that I, personally, do not get angry at the images, just at what 
    	> happens when I or anyone else tries to present alternative ideas.
    
    	Robert, if your main complaint against this conference is that we
    	stand up for our own ideas, I can't help but wonder why this is
    	seen as such a problem in a file with a female majority.
    
    	If you look at conferences like Soapbox, the debating style of the
    	vast majority of the participants is of the type that you seem to
    	find offensive here - people argue their own viewpoints quite
    	vigorously.  Have you contacted the proper authorities in Digital 
    	about the debating style in Soapbox yet?  If not, why not?
    
    	There is something terribly wrong if the only people being prohibited
    	from arguing their viewpoints vigorously in Digital will turn out to
    	be women.  Somehow, I doubt the Corporation will feel that women should
    	be singled out for suppression.

Referencing: 170.31 (Pam)

   In answer to your questions:

First:

    Yes, I do think it is ludicrous for me to worry about how Blacks are  
portrayed. I also, however, consider it unfortunate (an understatement,
actually. Sometimes late at night it completely p*sses me off!) that 
stereotypes about Blacks (or anyone, for that matter) are predominant in our
society. That they are shows the unwillingness of a large segment of our 
population to GO OUT AND LEARN what men, women, people of other religions 
and races and (of course) my people are really like.

    I did once go through a period of anger about the stereotypes in 
movies. This was after I realized how much I had internalized them in the 
past. The stereotypes were, at one point in my life, still another reason to be 
angry at Whites.

   The problem is that the few times that Blacks are portrayed in movies, 
the stereotypical images predominate. For long periods of time, that is all 
that I would see. Eventually I realized that my anger, being constantly fed 
by a constant stream of bad images, was turning into a scary kind of hatred 
that was isolating me from people who may (unconsciously) perpetuate the 
stereotypes but who were willing to see how untrue they are by getting to 
know me.

   In other words, by worrying about the stereotypes of Blacks in movies, I was 
developing a hatred of Whites that was isolating me from potential allies 
in the fight against such stereotypes in real life.

   Not to mention that my mystical and spiritual beliefs prohibit me from 
indulging in hatred or intolerance of any kind!

   Rather than let movie characters poison my heart and soul from within, I 
chose to accept their existance as an aspect of a larger problem. I decided 
that if I couldn't get them out of movies, I would at least get them out of 
my own inner life.

   I became sensitized enough so that I am aware of the stereotypes portrayed
(one result of this is that I don't watch Kung Fu movies. I went out and 
learned what Kung Fu is really about and found the movies so laughable that
since I generally don't like bad comedies I can't stand to watch them anymore).
I learned to laugh at the images I saw, and then to laugh at the idea of 
worrying about the images. Laughing points out the ludicrousness of the 
images, without any need for the anger or hatred that would spiritually 
destroy me.

   And I learned that the best way to combat stereotypes is to be myself, 
letting those who aren't caught up in stereotypes learn, by living example, 
how untrue the stereotypes really are. This way I was able to avoid wasting my
life- energies hating White people, and now I have a number of White friends
(at one point in my life I even befriended a Nazi!), who have lost a lot of 
their stereotypes about Blacks upon exposure to this educated Black man who
has nothing to do with drugs, speaks english better than some of them do 
(when it suits me! ;-)), likes a wide variety of music, can't play basketball
to save his life, and isn't primarily interested in sex, sports, or "jive".

   They learn that I am different. That my history is different, my 
perspective is different, and my experience is different. But they also learn
that I am human -- as uniquely human as they are.

   That is how I fight stereotypes in real life. Being angry at movie 
images is a waste of time. I've gained a much greater victory over 
stereotypes by giving up my anger, because my way effects a circle of 
friends, who in turn effect their circles of friends, who in turn...

Second:

   I agree that female stereotypes limit women -- as long as women allow 
them to. Stereotypes about Blacks limited me, until I learned not to 
internalize them or tolerate them within my own life. Once that step was taken,
the next logical step for me was to build a life based on what I truley am, and
by living that life reduce the power of those stereotypes in my life and in 
the lives of those around me.

   I know how I did this. I can't say I know how women will do so. I do 
know that many are trying to find a way, and a few have succeeded. Maybe my 
experience can help some who are still searching.

   Maybe.

Third:

   While your entry doesn't say this explicitly, it does touch upon how 
badly stereotypes effect everyone. Male stereotypes do have adverse effects 
on females, female stereotypes have adverse effects on males, and racial 
and religious stereotypes have bad effects on everybody. Unfortunately, 
the only way I can see to combat them is for everyone to somehow learn not 
to internalize them, and for them to take the time to get to know the 
people around them.

   Unfortunately, we can only do this on an individual basis. As long as 
there is a vast segment of the society that is unable or unwilling to do 
so, then stereotypes will continue to exist.

                                                     -Robert Brown III

    
    	Let's hope we all understand that internalizing stereotypes is
    	not the biggest danger that faces women and minority groups
    	when negative images about us are promulgated in various ways
    	throughout the media.
    
    	After all, "being limited" is not the fault of minority
    	groups - it's not something we did completely by ourselves in
    	response to society's negative opinions about our various
    	groups.  For example, women didn't limit our own ability to
    	vote or own property - it was the law of the land, and we
    	were stuck with it until many people lobbied to change it.
    
    	Also, I hope everyone realizes that "hatred" is not irrevocably
    	tied with recognition and anger about negative stereotypes in
    	movies.  When someone says, "Stereotypes in movies bother me,"
    	it's not equivalent to saying, "I hate <some other group>."
    	
    	Emotions are very individual things - no one can say, "I do such
    	and such so as not to hate others" as a way of suggesting or
    	proving that people who *don't* do "such and such" are guilty
    	of hating anyone.
    
    	Myself, I think it's very healthy that so many people recognize
    	that movies portray negative images about various groups.  When
    	groups in *power* see how they are portrayed, for example, it
    	provides additional evidence that the stereotypes about women
    	and minorities were never accurate, either (which is good!)

Referencing preceding entry (Suzanne):

   We are in agreement -- except in a few points.

   Where we disagree is on the internalization issue. I think that 
internalization is the greatest danger, because it prevents members of the 
(fill- in- the- blank) group being stereotyped from effectively fighting 
the stereotypes or, in some cases, even realizing that the stereotype is 
being projected. And if people internalize the stereotypes, they sometimes 
live according to them where otherwise they wouldn't, thus helping
(unconsciously) to perpetuate them.

   And this, of course, is just one more force that limits members of group 
(fill- in- the- blank).

   Also please note that my previous entry does not generalize about anger 
leading to hatred; it merely explains how the realization of my own 
developing hatred was part of the process by which I was able to overcome 
the effects of stereotypes in my own life -- and why I choose to laugh at 
movie images and the idea of being bothered by them. 

  In other words, I was speaking of my own experience only. Given the 
multiplicity of human experience (and the uniqueness of certain aspects of 
my own) I would never imply that those who do not do what I have done 
"hate" anyone -- and haven't in my previous entry.

                                                          -Robert Brown III

    	RE: .48  Robert
    
    	> We are in agreement -- except in a few points.
    
    	Great!
    
    	> Where we disagree is on the internalization issue. I think that 
	> internalization is the greatest danger, because it prevents members 
    	> of the (fill- in- the- blank) group being stereotyped from 
    	> effectively fighting the stereotypes or, in some cases, even 
    	> realizing that the stereotype is being projected.
    
    	While I agree that internalization is a danger, I don't think that
    	recognizing and being angry about negative stereotypes is the key
    	to having internalization take place.  If anything, being angry
    	about negative stereotypes (about one's own group) is one sign
    	that a person *knows* exactly how wrong the stereotypes really are.
    	(Of course, others demonstrate this knowledge in other ways, too.)
    
    	> And if people internalize the stereotypes, they sometimes 
	> live according to them where otherwise they wouldn't, thus helping
	> (unconsciously) to perpetuate them.
    
    	True, but recognizing and becoming angry at stereotypes isn't a
    	factor in *causing* this internalization.  People who are angry
    	at negative stereotypes don't necessarily internalize them.
    
    	> And this, of course, is just one more force that limits members 
    	> of group (fill- in- the- blank).
    
    	One more among many!  (And, as I said, this is not a direct result
    	of having acknowledged and expressed anger about stereotypes.)
    
    	> Also please note that my previous entry does not generalize about 
    	> anger leading to hatred;
    
    	Thank you - in my note, I just wanted us all to keep in mind that
    	your experience with hatred is not a common one for everyone.
    
    	Also, I wanted to be sure it was understood that reacting to negative
    	stereotypes is not an indication that a person is actively limiting
    	oneself (and needs some sort of help to stop doing this.)
    
    	Thanks for the clarification in your reply.

Referencing: 170.49 (Suzanne):

   I don't believe that anger about stereotypes is the key to 
internalization, either.

   Recognizing and becoming angry about stereotypes does not lead to 
internalization. It is, for some, the first step in combatting 
internalization.

   In other words, internalization often prevents awareness of the 
stereotype and its effects. A person who has internalized a stereotype 
accepts it (on an inner level), thus may never become angry unless 
something causes hir to become aware of it.

   Some people never become aware. That is the insidiousness (and danger) 
of the process.

   Those who are angry at least have an awareness of the stereotype and its 
effects. In my experience anger is just a first step -- but I think it is 
better to be aware and angry than it is to have so internalized a 
stereotype that one is unaware of its effects on hir!

                                                       -Robert Brown III

    	RE: .50  Robert

    	> Recognizing and becoming angry about stereotypes does not lead to 
	> internalization. 

    	I agree!

    	> It is, for some, the first step in combatting internalization.

    	Feeling and expressing anger is far, far more than a "first step"
    	for most of us, though.

    	It's a normal human reaction to ongoing events in our lives and
    	in our society, among other things.

    	Expressing emotion is regarded (by many in our culture) as being
    	evidence of weakness and/or a primitive level of effectiveness.

    	Actually, it's a very healthy part of existence as a sentient being.

    It appears that we've reached a consensus.

                                                -Robert Brown III

    
    	RE: .53  Mike Z.
    
    	Yeah, yeah, yeah.  I get it.
    
    	We're far more real and significant than $60,000,000 movies that
    	get shown to millions of people all over the world.
    
    	How thrilling to know you think so highly of us.
    

    	Don't worry, Mike Z. - we've gotten the point by now:

    	Life in the universe as we know it could be gone forever if
    	women were allowed even one small semi-public space to say
    	what we really think without constant policing from men.

    	The billion dollar movie industry *pales* in comparison to
    	the importance of making sure that women are never given
    	the opportunity to speak freely where some men can hear them.

    	The future of our universe is at stake here, and we should
    	never forget it.

    Suzanne,
    
    I must agree with Mike on this.  This group, and it's opinions, are
    more important *to me* than the billion dollar movie industry.  (And I
    think that that is what Mike meant.)
    
    Whilst I realise that the media gets to many more people than =wn=
    could ever hope to, the impact of =wn= on the men who choose to read it
    should not be undervalued.
    
    =wn= can't reach everybody, but each pebble thrown into the pond starts
    a ripple that goes on forever.
    
    Cheers,
    	Bob

    Movies, like notes, are written by real people.  The only difference is
    the actual authors of specific scenes are sometimes seen as "vague 
    entities".  Whom to target for complaint?  The author?  The writer of 
    the screenplay who may have changed what the original author said?  The 
    director who may have asked for more "emotion"?  The actor who may have 
    ad libbed?  
    
    Notes in this forum are written by *known women* and when they portray 
    men in a less than flattering light, they offer a *concrete and known 
    female target* for retaliation and/or complaint.
    
    There is definitely a difference but I believe the difference is not
    "fiction versus reality" but in the context where the images are being
    displayed.  I believe that the context of womannotes, a forum "run" by 
    women, is, right at the outset, fertile ground for breeding fear and
    annoyance in men.  And I believe that *is* proven by the fact that
    negative images of men are mostly "laughed off" when they're in the 
    media while here in notes even the possible suggestion of negativity
    toward males, (as in not using the qualifier "some" when saying anything 
    about a man), is met head on with demands for proof, demands for
    knowing a woman's right to say what she says, demands for apologies,
    demands for disclaimers to be included, demands for notes to be hidden
    and/or deleted.
    
    The negative images of men in the media do not play out in real life to
    the extent that the negative images of women do.  Men don't lose out on
    jobs because they're believed to be "too stupid to bake brownies" nor
    do they get raped or beaten because when the media portrays them as 
    human dildos, women grow up believing it and want their due.
    
    In effect, these images of men ARE just images and men are afforded the
    luxury of simply writing them off.
    
    To Roger Brown, I'd just like to ask you if your anger at the portrayal
    of blacks might have begun subsiding with the rise in positive images
    of blacks on tv?  If the predominant black image on tv was *still* 
    Steppin' Fetchit, and not civil rights *leader* King, *Doctor* Huxtable 
    and *Lawyer* Huxtable and *presidential candidate* Jackson, and others,
    would you still have come to grips with your anger when you did?  Does
    watching the portrayal of black people in the 3 Stooges bother you at
    all when you see it now in 1990?

    Sandy, I think you are getting Robert Brown III, and me, Roger Brown,
    mixed up. He is the author of .12 and .24.
    
    I would agree, however, that television and movies have a long way to
    go in portrying minorities well, and accurately. Why are there no
    dramatic series where the lead and hero of the piece is black? Not
    the sidekick, not the best friend...
    
    -roger
    

    great notes, Robert, by the way...
    
    I think another point is that Hollywood, in general, uses stereotypes
    as it's currency, and as a routine matter of business reduces complex
    human character to simple ciphers. The fact that people believe these
    is attributable to human gullibilty, and ignorance, and a low demand
    for intelligence in entertainment.
    
    It has more to do with bad writing than anything else.
    
    -roger
    

    
    This reminds me of the epic notes battles from 4 years years ago...

    	
    RE: .58  Sandy
    
    > Notes in this forum are written by *known women* and when they portray 
    > men in a less than flattering light, they offer a *concrete and known 
    > female target* for retaliation and/or complaint.
    
    Exactly.  And if the female target happens to stand up for herself during
    such a retaliation, she's the one to blame for the conflict.  Real women
    are supposed to shut up when accosted with violence (physical or verbal.)
    
    > There is definitely a difference but I believe the difference is not
    > "fiction versus reality" but in the context where the images are being
    > displayed.  I believe that the context of womannotes, a forum "run" by 
    > women, is, right at the outset, fertile ground for breeding fear and
    > annoyance in men.  
    
    Right again!
    
    > And I believe that *is* proven by the fact that negative images of men 
    > are mostly "laughed off" when they're in the media while here in notes 
    > even the possible suggestion of negativity toward males, (as in not 
    > using the qualifier "some" when saying anything about a man), is met 
    > head on with demands for proof, demands for knowing a woman's right to 
    > say what she says, demands for apologies, demands for disclaimers to be 
    > included, demands for notes to be hidden and/or deleted.
    
    Amen.

    Sorry, Robert and Roger for mixing you up.  But I see I've made my
    point.
    
    FWIW, in talking about movies being "unreal", make no mistake about 
    the amount of fiction that is in these notesfiles, too!  People trying 
    on personnas and attitudes, playing devil's advocate, speaking
    hypothetically, theoretically and academically.  Actually, I think for
    the most part, that happens more often than not.  This forum may, on 
    balance, be MORE unreal than the media because the images and reputa-
    tions, (social and professional), of real people are at stake here.  
    Notice how much disk space is used up by people defending themselves 
    and "setting the record straight".  Movies don't generally bother.
    
    And, as other noters have mentioned, movies go a lot further in shaping
    the beliefs about you that will be held by the largest number of people
    in your world.  Leaving Digital, your notes personna may never surface
    again.  But the image people have of you as a white American male, or a
    little blonde 'girl' or a black teenager, which they've gotten from the
    media, is not so easy to escape.  And it's my contention that the
    consequences which result from people holding those images are the least 
    insidious, evil and limiting for the white American male for whom it 
    amounts to relatively little more than an annoyance. 

    Sandy:
    
    I basically agree with your argument that the images provided by the
    media are damaging, but, short of censorship, I don't know what anyone
    can do about it. I think that seperating either the images of women, or
    the images of men, out of the overall mix of unreal images in the
    Hollywood product, is artificial; it is all a contrived reality.
    
    Mass media is just that; an art form of the masses. It tries to be all
    things to all people in order to garner the maximum viewership.
    Making films or television shows is enormously expensive, and very
    much a high risk financial gamble. Hollywood generally tries to
    catch a trend without being ahead of it, so you won't seeing it
    advocating a social agenda. It also has a tendency to re-make what
    has gone before, in order to hedge a bet. This can be witnessed in
    how every successful film spawns sequels that try to cash in on the
    success of the originals. Hollywood really has no moral agenda; it simply
    puts out what it thinks will sell.
    
    I think that Mike and Robert see the problem as so basic to the
    entertainment industry that it is unsolvable, and not to be worried
    about, on that basis alone.
    
    How would you change the situation?
    
    -roger
    
    

Referencing: 170.58

   Before answering the questions you asked me in your entry (I knew you were
talking to me and not Roger ;-)), I would like to make one point:

   While it is easy to attribute some of the reactions of men in this
conference to the fact that it is run by women, I think that most of the men
who have replied to this conference have made it plain that the difference
between their reactions here and their reactions to movies has more to do with
the unreality of movies than anything else.

   Roger has stated my position most clearly: why should I bother fighing a 
media whose basic purpose is to create entertainment which usually panders 
to the stereotypes that it perceives people of being unwilling to give up? 

   Speaking for myself, the fact that women "run" this conference does not
annoy me at all; it is only logical that such a conference -- whose existance
is very important to our DEC culture as well as the larger American culture --
be run by women. There is really no need for me to "fear" such a conference or
anyone who contributes to it, since frankly it (and they) poses no threat to me.

   And frankly, I do not understand why anyone would think that I should fear
it. A space like this, created for purposes which have been made clear a number
of times, can't really be a threat to anyone!

   In all other areas, however, I tend to agree with you. Stereotypes about men
do not lead to the kinds of negative treatment that they do with women. Upon
considering this, I realize it is probably easier for me as a man to laugh off
stereotypes about men, since they do not lead to me being sexually
discrimminated against, raped, or otherwise victimized. 

                        *             *              *
 
Now, to answer your questions:

   No, the "rise" of "positive" images of Blacks had nothing to do with the
subsiding of my anger. Even if you assume such a "rise", it would have had no
effect on me since the images that you are talking about are exceptions rather
than the rule.

   But the belief that there are "more" positive images of Blacks in the media
is a fallacy. There are fewer "Steppin' Fetchit" images than before (though I
can assure you that they are by no means extinct. Some Blacks call Eddie Murphy
this generation's Steppin Fetchit!), but the "slow, happy darkey" images (that
is my general term for Steppin' Fetchit images) have been largely replaced by
images of punks, drug- addicts, muggers, rapists, and murderers.

   And while the media has indeed promoted leaders like King and Jackson as
positive examples of Blacks in America, such leaders are not new. For more than
100 years there have been positive Black leadership images in America, from
Booker T. Washington and W. E. B. DuBois to scientists like George Washington
Carver whose work saved the entire post- Civil War Southern economy (I am
deliberately mentioning the more well- known people). The problem is that
whenever White America gets the desire to find positive Black images (this
happens every 100 years or so) it only remembers the more recent ones and
forgets all the others. Consequently, each generation always has a few leaders
to point to, and always says that its period of time is the one that
acknowledges "more" positive Black leaders than ever before.

   In the 1790s, the new nation had its Black leaders which it acknowledged as
Blacks who helped overthrow the British. In the 1890s, post Civil War America
had its Black leaders which it acknowledged as the people who would "lift the
Negro from savagery to civilization". Now in the 1990s we have Black leaders
who we acknowledge as the ones who are bringing Blacks into participation in
the American system (while forgetting the opposition they gave to these same
leaders when they first got started). To me, there really is no difference; the
terms used and the circumstances change, but the treatment hasn't changed in
300 years.

   This is just in America. To give all the examples of this same principle in
other countries would require a few books -- even if I restrict myself to the
countries in the immediate vicinity of America!

   And characters like the Huxtables are not new, either. Since Hollywood was
created there have always been one or two Black actors (and actresses) who have
managed to consistantly portray Blacks in a positive light. Bill Cosby is this
generation's Black actor, Sidney Poitier is the previous generation's (though
he still shows up now and then!). There have been others.

   But like Black leaders, they are largely forgotten. And while this decade
has its positive Black images like the Huxtables, the fact is that when you
look at the entire history of Hollywood you will find many examples of "new"
positive images that at one time or another have been pointed at as "proof"
during their time that America was creating "more, new, fresh" positive Black
images.

   But the fact is that this was never true before and isn't true now. For
every single new positive image that comes out there are a number of negative,
stereotypical images that come out as well.

   And the fact is that few if any of those positive images were ever accepted
in America outside the comedy setting. Aside from the "salt- and- pepper"
series, most Blacks in serious settings are supporters of the hero (who usually
get killed sacrificing hirself for the hero), extremely unimportant characters
(who may as well have not been included in the story to begin with), or (the
usual) punks, thieves, addicts, rapists, and murderers.

   WOMANNOTErs please note this irony: while the media does indeed promote a
number of negative female images, the fact is that (white) women are more
likely to be portrayed as the distinguished doctor, the intelligent and unusual
(fill- in- the- blank), or the heroic scientist than Blacks of either sex are.

   In other words, the "rise" of such images as the Huxtables or leaders like
King can have no effect on how I react to the media. What we see in 1990 is
consistant with the way White America has always treated Blacks in the media.

   What caused my anger to subside was a decision on my part not to be angry at
the stereotypical images I saw. In other words, I decided, on a deep level,
that I would no longer allow myself to be bothered by them, since they were
products of willful ignorance on the part of those who created them.

   And by the way: the Brown family in general has always rejected the 3
Stooges, not because of its portrayal of Blacks, but because my family, as a
group, has always thought that it was/is a generally ridiculous series.

                                                  -Robert Brown III

    RE: .64  Sandy

    > FWIW, in talking about movies being "unreal", make no mistake about 
    > the amount of fiction that is in these notesfiles, too!  People trying 
    > on personnas and attitudes, playing devil's advocate, speaking
    > hypothetically, theoretically and academically.  Actually, I think for
    > the most part, that happens more often than not. This forum may, on 
    > balance, be MORE unreal than the media because the images and reputa-
    > tions, (social and professional), of real people are at stake here.  
    
    Agreed!

    The idea that the main difference between movies and Notes is fantasy
    versus reality - I don't agree with this at all.

    A good number of movies are "true stories," or "based on true stories"
    or admittedly autobiographical for the screen writers or novelists who
    wrote them.  The way we see such stories may be contrived (on film in
    a theatre or at home,) but the ideas for movies don't come from outer 
    space.  They come from people, and they influence MORE people than any
    single Note in the history of conferencing has ever been able to do.

    The biggest difference between movies and Notes (when it comes to
    responding to the images presented in both) is accessibility.  The
    people who back the images presented in movies are not available
    for direct confrontation by most movie-goers.  The only way we can
    have our "say" with them is by not paying to see their movies.  But
    unless millions of other people refrain from seeing their movies as
    well, I'm sure they couldn't care less whether a few individuals
    resent their images or not.  Just keep the cash flowing. . .

    When it comes to Notes, the purveyors of images here are extremely
    accessible (electronically, at least.)  When someone dislikes the
    images presented from someone here, instant verbal violence (as a
    method of retaliation) is quite feasible in Notes conferences.

    The fact that this conference is "run by women" makes such retaliation
    even more attractive (due to the influences present in our culture
    which make women attractive as targets in general, in a number of ways
    and for a number of reasons.)

    So, why not blow off the images presented to us in movies.  They won't
    end up hurting men much anyway, God knows.

    However, there's no reason to blow off the images presented here (when
    retaliation is only a few keystrokes away.)  

    Sure, the images here probably won't hurt men any more than movie images
    do (in terms of limiting men's lives and causing them to be raped or 
    abused,) but some men still probably feel that there is no reason why
    they should tolerate seeing them here when the purveyors of the images 
    are so close at hand.

re: .66  Robert,

Very well thought out reply!  And thanx for letting me slide on the mis-
identification.  ;-)

> I think that most of the men who have replied to this conference have 
> made it plain that the difference between their reactions here and their 
> reactions to movies has more to do with the unreality of movies than
> anything else. 

Yes, this is exactly my point.  The negative images of men never play out
in real life like they do for women.  They have the luxury of seeing it
as *only* an image specifically for that reason.  Likewise, nothing here
in notes will play out for them in real life, either.  To men, this need
be no more than an academic exercise.  To women, it's a discussion of the
real problems of our lives.  One could equate it to a notesfile on Viet Nam
where the soldiers were discussing real issues that affect their lives
and where women also contributed, discussing topics with them, but certainly 
not with the same urgency and acuteness - it's impossible.

> why should I bother fighing a media whose basic purpose is to create
> entertainment which usually panders to the stereotypes that it perceives
> people of being unwilling to give up? 

Because in addition to its basic purpose, there is also its effect which
plays out in real life for women.  Not for men, but for women.

> And frankly, I do not understand why anyone would think that I should 
> fear it. 

No one's suggesting anyone "should". I suggested some do.

> Upon considering this, I realize it is probably easier for me as a man to
> laugh off stereotypes about men, since they do not lead to me being sexually
> discrimminated against, raped, or otherwise victimized. 

Exactly.  That's my point exactly.

> Even if you assume such a "rise", [in positive images of black people] it
> would have had no effect on me since the images that you are talking about
> are exceptions rather than the rule. 

I'll accept that.  I'm just not as sensitized to these images, obviously,
and I thought from the Jeffersons onward, things were getting better.  To
a black person, they may well seem to be exceptions even today.

> But the belief that there are "more" positive images of Blacks in the media
> is a fallacy. 

Oh - maybe here's our miscommunicaiton.  I meant more positive images than
ever before. Perhaps you are meaning more positive images than negative ones?
You're right, of course.  As long as there are more negative than positive,
it doesn't matter how much more than before there are.

>Some Blacks call Eddie Murphy this generation's Steppin Fetchit!)

I tend to agree with them.  He's charming and talented but I agree he plays
to that image a lot and I cringe when he does.  He plays a better gay Ralph
Cramden!  ("Norton!  Come down here!")  ;-)  ;-)

>but the "slow, happy darkey" images (that is my general term for Steppin'
>Fetchit images) have been largely replaced by images of punks, drug- addicts,
>muggers, rapists, and murderers. 

Sigh, you're right.  By not being black I don't notice it as much.  Or
worse, I suspect it plays to my "expectations", (thanx to the media), and
just passes through my conscious mind unquestioned.  Since I'm sure sexist
images of women are often processed by men this way, I can't claim I'm not
similarly affected.  It takes sledgehammer images, (like in the 3 stooges),
to hit home with me.  But no more.  Thank you.

>And while the media has indeed promoted leaders like King and Jackson as
>positive examples of Blacks in America, such leaders are not new. For more
>than 100 years there have been positive Black leadership images in America...

Oh I agree black leaders have always been there, just like intelligent women
have always been there!  But I remember only a little paragraph in my history
book about George Washington Carver and almost nothing about the others you
mentioned.  They were "media censored" in that the books paid much more
attention to John Smith's marriage to Pocahontas and Peter Styvessant's (sp)
wooden leg.  That, thankfully, is changing.  Hopefully someday we can even
show the American Indians for what they really were and what we did to them
rather than always portraying them as irrational savages who only made life
difficult for our "heroes".

>And while this decade has its positive Black images like the Huxtables, the
>fact is that when you look at the entire history of Hollywood you will find
>many examples of "new" positive images that at one time or another have been
>pointed at as "proof" during their time that America was creating "more,
>new, fresh" positive Black images. 

God, I hate when they do that with female images. I can relate!  They
throw a few in there, ("What about Geraldine Ferraro?  You women have come
a LONG way!"  Right.), and that's supposed to shut us up.  It's not the
presence of a positive image that counts, it's the ratio of positive to 
negative.  And I guess the ratio for blacks isn't much better than that for 
women.  Ah, those media mongers.

> In other words, the "rise" of such images as the Huxtables or leaders like
> King can have no effect on how I react to the media. 

I understand now, completely.  I'm sure I'm not the only one who just got
an education.

>What caused my anger to subside was a decision on my part not to be angry
>at the stereotypical images I saw. In other words, I decided, on a deep
>level, that I would no longer allow myself to be bothered by them, since
>they were products of willful ignorance on the part of those who created
>them. 

"Willful ignorance".  I like that.  And I like your attitude.  Your note
has sincerely made my day.  Thank you.
    

re: .70
    
>    <Likewise, nothing here in notes will play out for them in real life,
>    <either.  To men, this need be no more than an academic exercise.
    
>    I think the intensity in the form of hostility, anger, and other
>    eruptions shown by a number of men in this conference suggest that your
>    point needs some refinement.
    
    
    I think what she may have meant was that it won't play out for them in
    "real life" - i.e. the general 2-billion public throng that affects
    most of who they are and what they have done, do, and will do.  Notes
    has no impact on most DECcies and all non-DECcies - so anything that is
    read or written here can have little affect on the world at large, and
    consequently won't "play out" for them in most of their areas of
    activity (outside of notes).  Thus, whatever is said here, need not
    necessarily concern them in the sanctity of their larger, universal
    lives.
    
    -Jody
    

    ?  How can he mention something he can't find?  (Never mind how
    someone would go about "toeing the line" with intensity.)
    
    							Ann B.

	"The negative depiction of male characters in media won't play out
for them in their lives".

	I don't think that's true. I believe that many people (men and women)
do act on these images in certain aspects of their lives. I believe that a 
number op people impose expectations probably formed more by media influences,
particularly those which match the viewers favorite paradigm, then reality.

	One case in point...

	Movies have been depicting men as entities of war ever since their 
inception. It is an expectation that men go to war. This expectation has been
perpetuated by women as well as men; perhaps influenced to some degree by
media reinforcements.

	This is not the place to go into it but there are numerous negative
societal influences, reflected and perpetuated by media, visited on males.
The reaction of the males in this string (me included) who say "no matter" may
also be one of those influences...who knows? The movies I grew up with which
depicted heroic males tended to say men don't fear. Let me say again I'm not
afraid of movie depictions...I know they're not real. I'm not afraid of the
dark either even when my wife wakes me in the night to search out the origin
of some noise she heard. I'm not afraid.

-D-

    RE: .69  Sandy

    >> I think that most of the men who have replied to this conference have 
    >> made it plain that the difference between their reactions here and their 
    >> reactions to movies has more to do with the unreality of movies than
    >> anything else. 

    > Yes, this is exactly my point.  The negative images of men never play out
    > in real life like they do for women.  They have the luxury of seeing it
    > as *only* an image specifically for that reason.  Likewise, nothing here
    > in notes will play out for them in real life, either.  To men, this need
    > be no more than an academic exercise.  

    This is the point I was trying to make earlier, too!  (I guess all three
    of us said it in different ways, that's all.)

    Thanks for elaborating on this, Robert and Sandy.

RE: .74 AKOFIN::MACMILLAN

>Movies have been depicting men as entities of war ever since their 
>inception. It is an expectation that men go to war. This expectation has 
>been by women as well as men; perhaps influenced to some degree by
>media reinforcements.

In what way do you believe women perpetuate the expectation that men go to 
war?  I don't know too many who've turned over their sons, brothers and 
lovers happily.  Are you maybe thinking about the media stereotype that has 
nubile young women foaming over uniforms?  And are you thinking that men 
are thus manipulated, (which you see as by the media rather than by their
own desires to have nubile young women foaming over them), by these images 
into signing up?

So you still haven't convinced me that,

>        "I believe that many people (men and women) do act on these images 
>         in certain aspects of their lives"

and that the results of media stereotypes affect women and men with equal
consequences.

>This is not the place to go into it but there are numerous negative
>societal influences, reflected and perpetuated by media, visited on males.

This is exactly the place to go into it!  Spill the beans!  You're saying 
you know examples but for some reason you won't give them.  That's the same 
as saying you have none or saying "I just know it, that's all".

>Let me say again I'm not afraid of movie depictions...I know they're not 
>real. 

Amen.  That's it. And other male noters have said pretty much the same thing
in this string.  Movie depictions of women however, tho equally "unreal"
at the outset, do tend to *become* real in their lives because it's mostly
men who make decisions about women's careers, women's autonomy, women's 
dignity, women's rights and women's access to the goodies in life.  And
as women's careers, women's autonomy, women's dignity, etc shows, men make
those decisions more often than not based upon the stereotypical depictions 
of women in the media.  It isn't the media by itself so much that's the 
problem, but the combination of the media and the imbalance of power in 
society such that the images portrayed in the media are used by those at 
the top of the power structure, (men), against those at the bottom, (women).
Those at the bottom may SEE negative media images of those at the top, but
they are powerless to USE them in any way.  So even if negative images are
distributed equally between men and women, (which they are not), they are
still more damaging to women simply because women are at the bottom of
the power hierarchy in our society.
    
    PS: Anyone got a copy of the two hidden notes in this string?  I'm
    dying of curiosity.  They were entered - they were made public by the
    author(s) so I don't think I'm stepping on any toes by asking for them
    to be sent to me by private mail if anyone's got them.  Thanx!

    Not that many men have actually responded to this topic.  Based on the
    few who have, the inference seems to be that the men in this
    conference, or men in general, are not bothered by the media portrayals
    of men.  I am not sure if that inference is accurate or not.  Maybe it
    is accurate, but the reason I bring this up is that I *am* sometimes
    bothered by these portrayals.  I recognize that I may be an exception,
    of course, in which case the inference is generally accurate after all.

    Nevertheless, I did want to point out that silence does not equal
    assent.  This, I feel, is the danger in Notes Sociology.  Those who
    write infrequently, or not at all, do not get counted in for purposes
    of generalization.  Unfortunately, notes provides an easy avenue for
    us budding Emile Durkheims to become instant sociologists.  The other
    problem is that, as has already been pointed out here, more than once,
    notes is not the real world, especially when we are talking about what
    is essentially a handful of prolific contributors.

    -- Mike

    With few exceptions, all movies (and all media) depict both men and
    women from some sort of idiosyncratic specialized point of view. (There
    wouldn't be any point in making a movie if it weren't about something
    or somebody at at least little bit out of the ordinary.) 
    
    My wife, daughters, relatives, and friends all know me well enough not
    to let some media portrayal of a man influence their opinion or
    expectation of me. 
    
    Bruce

RE: .78

>In what way do you believe women perpetuate the expectation that men go to 
>war?  I don't know too many who've turned over their sons, brothers and 
>lovers happily.  Are you maybe thinking about the media stereotype that has 
>nubile young women foaming over uniforms?  And are you thinking that men 
>are thus manipulated, (which you see as by the media rather than by their
>own desires to have nubile young women foaming over them), by these images 
>into signing up?

	Numerous of the women in my family going back many generations have
avidly supported their sons going off to war. This kind of patriotism is not
solely a male domain. This doesn't mean these women weren't anxious about their
loved ones...but considered it their obligation to support their country
in this manner.Media depictions of women supporting war efforts in the past
is probably reflective of the times these wars were fought in.

	I apologize I didn't quite get the last part of your question.

	I haven't convinced you that:

        "I believe that many people (men and women) do act on these images 
         in certain aspects of their lives"

	Well I'm not surprised...I'm not too good at convincing...it's just
	my peculiar point of view I guess.

>This is exactly the place to go into it!  Spill the beans!  You're saying 
>you know examples but for some reason you won't give them.  That's the same 
>as saying you have none or saying "I just know it, that's all".

	What I was thinking at the time was that women in this file would not
be too interested in my assessments within this context. Let me be real clear
about this....I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING FOR SURE....just consider the inadequate
tools I have to work with (as do other humans) my language forming my thought
processes against the background of my particularly biased paradigm. I wouldn't
take me too seriously considering all that.

	Considering all the decision making power you credit men with concerning
the aspects of womens lives makes me wonder what your paradigm must be. I
have never experienced this power over women myself. I'm not saying I might
not like to give it a try...maybe I'm kidding here.


	Well I'm off to two week vacation and I'll miss this notes file. I'll
no longer be coming out here from AKOFIN as I'm moving to Westminister after
vacation. See Ya then.

-D-

Sandy:
    
>Are you maybe thinking about the media stereotype that has 
>nubile young women foaming over uniforms? 
    
    I've known several intelligent young women who do exactly that, in real
    life. I have no idea why, but it does happen...
    
    -roger
    

.82>        I've known several intelligent young women who do exactly that, in real
.82>    life. I have no idea why, but it does happen...
    
    Richard Gere in An Officer and a Gentlemen.
    Tom Cruise in Top Gun, Taps and Born on the Fourth of July.
    Mel Gibson in Gallipoli and The Bounty.
    Kevin Costner in No Way Out.
    Sean Connery in Red October.
    Tom Selleck in the Marine scenes from Magnum.
    Tom Berenger in Born on the Fourth of July.
    
    Maybe women are more influenced by media portrayals than men regardless
    of sexist content.   
    
    Men are definitely influenced by their desire to have "nubile young
    women foaming over them". 
    
    Kris
    

    "Where have all the young girls gone? Gone to soldiers, every one. When
    will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?"

    I think women are taught to romatisize soldiers. It's part of the
    societal training that teaches boys to be soldiers. Women are the
    spoils of war. Whoever wins gets them so they have a very real reason
    to want our "boys" to find them worth fighting for.

    Not to be discounted either is the erotic effect of danger. A soldier
    has an inherently more dangerous job than most. liesl

    
    And I thought it was because of those exquistely tailored
    uniforms...

    re .83, don't forget Matthew Broderick in Glory (be still my heart),
    although it's a little late to catch those flashy Civil War uniforms.
    
    Actually, I pride myself in never having dated anyone who was wearing
    a uniform at the time.  I've dated guys who have worn them in the
    past, but not when I was with them.  (I'm not sure I'd be able to
    keep from throwing up.)
    
    Lorna
    

    Umm, Lorna, you've never dated a guy wearing a grey suit with
    rep tie and wingtips ?

    re .88, not that comes readily to mind, no. :-)
    
    (there could have been someone but I haven't made a habit of it)
    
    Lorna
    

    Apropos the basenote, I thought we'd recently discussed a similar
    concern at length in mennotes; and we had, though the rats came out
    early and overstayed their welcome, we chased 'em down myriad holes.
    
    Topic 394, quark::mennotes.
    
    DougO

    I've never been especially enchanted about military uniforms, with
    two exceptions. US Navy dress whites look kind of sharp, but my
    "favorite" has always been the post-Civil War US Cavalry uniforms.
    I'm not sure why, but I always thought they looked cool.
    
    --- jerry

    in re 170.88
    
    Lorna has *much* too much integrity for that!
    
    Bonnie

    re: .90
    
    That and another pointer appeared in 170.6
    
    -Jody
    

    re .92, you *lie*, Zarlenga! :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    Ooops!  I shoulda known better ;-).  Sorry, Jody.  I tripped over an
    extract while cleaning up my directory yesterday, which reminded me
    of that topic.
    
    DougO

    hey mike, maybe you have it wrong.
    
    maybe the postman was walking near lorna....
    

UNIFORMED men?!?!?!?    
Oh, I'm sorry, I thought Lorna didn't like UNINFORMED men.  

Never Mind
					Nigel

    re .99, depends on what they're uninformed about. ;^)
    
    re .98, Mike, I don't have a habit of constantly looking over my
    shoulder when I walk down the street! :-)
    
    Lorna