Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cioran]

It's clear that a central theme of the strip is masculinity. Onstad asks: What does it mean to be a man in modern America?

Each of the various male characters is an answer to the question. Onstad examines them both individually and relation to one another. He studies both their internal and their external characteristics.

Some roles are approved of (Beef), some regarded with compassionate condescension (Lyle), and some dismissed as inappropriate or false roles (Pat).

Onstad looks to the past for help in answering the question. Older characters, pre-eminently Cornelius and Ramses Luther Smuckles, are held up as paragons of masculine virtue.

[Bobby Isosceles]

Onstad asks: What does it mean to be a man in modern America?

It means you have a c*ck and testicles and live between Canada and Mexico during the 20th or 21st centuries.

Not rocket science, people.

[jay-ell]

I think that modern feminism has, in many ways, emasculated the straight American male.  Ray and Beef represent two extremes of man's attempts to re-invent himself and his relationship with women to adapt to the changing emotional landscape. 

[Cioran]

It's not an accident that the Great Outdoor Fight is one of the most famous arcs. It is exclusively about manhood. The first three men defeated by Ray are three utterly rejected male roles: the aggro husband, the new age freak, and the redneck.

I am still not sure of the meaning of Ray's final victory.

Phillippe, the immortal unstained child, is different: he does not represent a possible answer. He is a special symbol of something that sustains all the other characters. They will come together as one and fight without quarter to protect him. Ray accidentally hitting him with a missile remains one of the most shocking moments in Achewood.

[Bobby Isosceles]

I think that modern feminism has, in many ways, emasculated the straight American male.  

I don't understand how feminism has emasculated the straight American man. Let's see. Women can vote. OK, so can I; I'm not disenfranchised. Women can work, and let's assume the feminist ideal that women make as much per dollar as men. Doesn't negatively affect me, I'm still getting paid.

So basically, what it boils down to, is that feminism means that I do the dishes and other household chores half the time instead of none of the time.

Anyone who calls his manhood into question over taking out the trash never had much to begin with.

[Bobby Isosceles]

Guess what: you are not the only person in the world.

I'm the only one that matters. Everything else is Not My Damn Problem.

[jay-ell]

I don't understand how feminism has emasculated the straight American man. Let's see. Women can vote. OK, so can I; I'm not disenfranchised. Women can work, and let's assume the feminist ideal that women make as much per dollar as men. Doesn't negatively affect me, I'm still getting paid.

So basically, what it boils down to, is that feminism means that I do the dishes and other household chores half the time instead of none of the time.

Anyone who calls his manhood into question over taking out the trash never had much to begin with.

What's emasculating is that feminists have argued that "anything men can do, we can do better."  And this has led not to equality, but to a increasingly large sub-class of women who expect little of their male partners and relatives and then hold themselves up as morally superior. 

We have an entire generation of man-children who always have been (and possibly always will be) taken care of by women (mothers, girlfriends, and wives) because women have convinced ourselves that men, being men, are inherently irresponsible and incapable of taking care of themselves.  The expectation fulfills itself, and men become more and more dependent on the women in their lives to care for them as we devolve into a downward spiral of female-superior inequity inside the home while economic male-superior inequity continues to dominate outside of it. 

Meanwhile, men attach their identities still more firmly to their job titles and salaries, which, in this economic climate, can only spell disaster. 

Okay, I admit I'm just trying to start a fight here.  But somebody run with this one, please?  This board has been TOO QUIET lately. 

[Cioran]

Read any Sunday comics page: every single week, many of the punchlines involve a man being mocked for his stupidity, laziness, venality and turpitude.

The Simpsons is paradigmatic in this regard. The male Simpsons are all morons, while the females, even the baby, are quietly heroic.

[CortJstr]

It's not an accident that the Great Outdoor Fight is one of the most famous arcs. It is exclusively about manhood. The first three men defeated by Ray are three utterly rejected male roles: the aggro husband, the new age freak, and the redneck.

I am still not sure of the meaning of Ray's final victory.

Ray could not have achieved final victory without Beef. Symbiosis was needed.

[wombat]

What's emasculating is that feminists have argued that "anything men can do, we can do better." 

I have never noticed feminists arguing that. I always thought that the argument was simply, 'anything men can do, we should be allowed to do and get paid the same for.'

[AugustWest]

This board has been TOO QUIET lately. 

Yeah, but I'm not sure making the board into an undergrad Sociology seminar would be an improvement.

Bring less exegesis and more funny, Poindexter.

[Bobby Isosceles]

We have an entire generation of man-children who always have been (and possibly always will be) taken care of by women (mothers, girlfriends, and wives) ...
...

Okay, I admit I'm just trying to start a fight here. 

A Fight CLUB is more like it.

[jay-ell]

I have never noticed feminists arguing that. I always thought that the argument was simply, 'anything men can do, we should be allowed to do and get paid the same for.'

Do you think?  Is it possible I'm playing devil's advocate for the sake of inspiring conversation?  

Nah.  

What I mean to say, is that some feminists have over-exaggerated women's inherent strengths in a violent backlash against centuries of perceived oppression.  It's a natural reaction, but not necessarily a helpful one.  

[Cioran]

I have never noticed feminists arguing that. I always thought that the argument was simply, 'anything men can do, we should be allowed to do and get paid the same for.'

What's occurring is a change from distinct sex roles to no sex roles. A new stable source of identity has not yet been found.

This change is occurring because of economics and technology. Feminism as an ideology is a product of industrialization.

[Bobby Isosceles]

Read any Sunday comics page: every single week, many of the punchlines involve a man being mocked for his stupidity, laziness, venality and turpitude.

The Simpsons is paradigmatic in this regard. The male Simpsons are all morons, while the females, even the baby, are quietly heroic.

Yeah, and most comics aren't funny. Even when they are, they're not always true. Don't tell me you think the zeitgeist is all trippin' that cats can talk and run record labels or that stuffed animals are alcoholic line cooks.

You wanna prove that men aren't intrinsically stupid, lazy, venal and possessed of turpitude, well... then behave in an intelligent, hardworking, deep and upstanding way.

Boom. Problem solved.

Whining about how the mean ol' zeitgeist has your little pecker in a vise grip sounds like deflecting responsibility and thus perpetuating this alleged conception.