Friday, December 30, 2005

Philling them not-so-softly with his b.s.?

Now here’s a take on Love Smart, new this morning, that even your host would have to say is inappropriate for a book review, and no doubt will be removed by Amazon—as it probably should be—within hours. Still, it’s kind of fun and, in a way, is a fitting counterpoint to all the fawning “he’s my god! he’s my hero!”-type blather that Amazon does allow to go up (and stay up) daily. It comes to us from “The Mad Zapper,” who resides in “parts unknown,” and is titled “Fills house wives [sic] heads with b.s. on a daily basis”:

This guy is everything that is wrong with America and Day Time TV. He makes life hard on men who work their asses off to support their family while their wives sit home and listen to his propaganda. Nagging is at an all time high now, and I can't get any peace because of this jerk.
And no, I did not write this one, either.

There’s a serious point here that’s worth considering, however, and that is SHAM’s femme-centric view—if not its outright feminization of—American culture, which I address in the conclusion of my book. While I wouldn’t go so far as to say that “nagging is at an all time high,” I think most of us would agree that male-bashing remains a culturally entrenched sport—how are guys portrayed in sitcoms and commercials?—that it may have had its most insidious impact on the psyches of young men, and that folks like Oprah and her chief protégé, McGraw (who, yes, is a guy, some would even say a tough guy, but who knows that his bread is buttered by his female fan base, so he panders to them) have been major contributors to today’s anti-male spirit. Beyond that, even in a McLuhanistic, medium-is-the-message sense, SHAM, as we’ve seen, puts out the vibe that feelings count more than thoughts, which—some would argue—is an inherently female posture (albeit one that many top-achieving females would recoil from, of course. I doubt you’d get much buy-in on the point from Carly Fiorina or Condi Rice).

So what do you folks believe? Do women feel more than they think? If so, are they innately, biologically programmed to be that way? Something to ponder.

Again, have a Happy New Year (though at the rate I've been going, I'll probably post a half-dozen more times before then...)


Two Write Hands said...

"So what do you folks believe? Do women feel more than they think?"

Realizing the inherent danger in generalizations, my view is that we (women) feel while we think.

I trust that's what enables me to make sound choices without being a jerk. Being a "feeler" I can anticpiate another's emotional response. It works out nicely as, for example, I don't create unneccessary obstacles for myself by ticking of a coworker on my way to a raise or a promotion. Maybe those who have their thinking and feeling under control are the ones branded peacemakers?

Just a little something to consider...

Steve Salerno said...

Thanks Mad Secretary! Glad to have you aboard. An interesting comment. As I point out in my book, the self-help movement has had an inherent feminizing effect on society (that is, by the standard definition of what constitutes "feminine," which may be flawed/inaccurate to begin with). Overall, this effect has not been for the good, I think. At the same time, there's no question that having women in such "nontraditional" roles as, say, police work, has helped defuse an awful lot of dangerous situations that once would've gotten out of hand, had they been left solely to men, with their overabundance of testosterone, to sort out. So maybe the "think while you feel" theory is an apt one, and pays definite benefits in peacemaking. As you observe.

On an unrelated note: "A Few Good Men"? Doesn't seem to fit with your others--but hence, as you also observe, the danger in generalizations, right?