let me ask you if you agree with The Feminine Mystique. Friedan cited a few short stories in (I think) McCalls which depicted career women as unhappy and unfulfilled and stay-at-home-moms as, well, happy and fulfilled, for the proposition that popular culture promoted those stereotypes and that that was inappropritate because it tended to make women think that having a career was dangerous, unfeminine, etc.

So doesn't the same thinking apply here? You seem to think that popular culture has no effect on consumers, viewers, etc. Of course if that were true, advertising wouldn't be effective, but we know it is. I know it's considered a "masculine" virtue to act like you're too tough to be concerned, but shouldn't we be? After 35 years of popular culture depicting men as idiots, men make up only 42% of college enrollees. Are you sure there's no effect?

I have a friend who teaches high school in a really small Texas town. She casually remarked one day that, among the boys of her school, being smart means you're gay. I remember being that age in the 60s. My friends and I, and my brothers and their friends were all smart and college bound, etc. and it never occurred to any of us that that was demeaning or meant we weren't manly. Why the change? I think I know the answer.

Oh please. This is not about power. If I want power, I promise you I will seek it other than by posting to Broadsheet threads. It's about noticing the obvious which Broadsheet editors have a positive genius for not doing. These people claim to support gender equality but it takes them this long to notice what countless others have noticed and commented on literally for years. Doesn't that raise any questions with you? Or suggest anything?

While we're on the subject of missing the obvious...

I understand that Broadsheet has a feminine slant. That's OK with me. But it also has a feminist slant, which, according to the dictionary definition and to countless pieces written in Broadsheet entails support for gender equality. If you don't believe me, look it up. And Broadsheet does comment on popular culture, so that's not beyond its purview. Therefore, the failure to comment on anti-male popular culture is hypocritical, inconsistent and I would argue intellectually dishonest. The fact that they published this piece seems to prove conclusively that they think the subject is worth discussion and so asking why it took them so long to figure out what others have known for years is appropriate.

You pretend that this is in some way an issue related to men only and therefore of no relevance to women. That is plainly not true. Aside from the (what I thought would be) obvious point that men and women are in this life together, let me spell out for you why this is a feminist issue: To the extent that ads or any other form of pop culture portray men as incompetent around the house or at child care, they tend to discourage men from engaging in those activities; to the extent they discourage men from engaging in those activities, they are left to women to perform; to the extent that housework and childcare remain the purview of women, employment and advancement in the workplace tend to remain the purview of men, which tends to keep women poorer and less independent than men. Ergo these ads impact core feminist principles and any self-respecting feminist publication would be in the vanguard of opposing them. We can argue the extent to which these depictions of men in popular culture matter, but as I said, to the extent they do, they have the above-described impact on men and women.

See?

please accept my apologies. I am indeed prickly on this subject. In future correspondence with you I will try to be less so.

because I don't get it. How can any team come into an elimination game for the championship and play as indifferently as the Lakers did? All in the world it takes to play defense is hustle. Do that and only that, and you have a chance to win any NBA game. But this was to give them a shot at the title and they played like it was the fourth road game in five nights in February. 131 points for the Celtics? Boston was the better team and deserved to win it, but this was disgraceful. No intensity, no hustle.

On the plus side, Boston showed what it takes to win in the NBA. Here's a hint: it starts with D.

was good old fashioned hustle. Boston did and the Lakers didn't. Check out the Lakers-Spurs series in which the Lakers hustled like mad on every defensive possession. Compare that to Pierce, Allen and Rondo shooting uncontested layup after uncontested layup. Compare it to Allen, Pierce and House standing unguarded at the three-point line. How many times did the Lakers deflect a pass? Step into the passing lane and intercept one? Once you know your defensive rotations, which the Lakers should have in about February, all it takes is hustle to play good defense in the NBA and the Lakers gave up 131 points. That says it all.

The Celtics were the better team and should have won the series anyway, but gee, it's the championship series and you can even pretend to want it?

An article that trashes straight male sexuality. You see so little of that these days.

And CanBob, isn't it great to comment on straight people, since we're all alike?