Home

Previous Entry | Next Entry

You Say Girly-Man Like It's A Bad Thing

  • Mar. 6th, 2008 at 11:00 AM
Cartoonist for Peace
Lately I've been seeing a lot of articles that call Obama out for supposedly being a 'girlyman'.

Here's a selection of comments I snagged from various blogs and news portal sites (if you want in on the fun, just type "Obama girlyman" into Google and marvel at the flood of results).

Obama is a girly man who would ignore the threats the same way President Clinton did then when something happens he'll claim the writing on the wall just wasn't there. (I guess real men don't believe in the power of punctuation.)

WWWOOOOWWWW!!!!

Obama just beat down McCain....yet AGAIN! I thought he wasn't tough. (look, Ma - a back-handed compliment!).

Obama is a girly man, cannot control what his wife says!!!

Michele runs at the mouth, how can we consider Obama as a future President? (This one comment alone could drive a whole other post, so I'm just going to leave it alone for now.)

Hell, even Newsweek jumped into the fray with an article titled, Obama: First Woman President? (And no, I DON'T agree with their logic that Obama could be the first woman president any more than I bought Clinton as the first black president.). Ironically, the Newsweek article upholds traditional gender stereotypes while pretending to promote Obama's supposed undermining of said stereotypes.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is taking a more traditional (and male?) authoritarian approach.

And, of course, who can forget Governor Schwartzenegger's famous "girly-man" comment?

Los Angeles - Arnold Schwarzenegger, the weight lifter and Hollywood actor turned California state governor, accused the state legislature of being "girly-men" and called on voters to "terminate" those that oppose his budget plans at the polls, California news media reported on Sunday. (Ahahahaha! Because joking about murdering those who disagree with you is always a total knee-slapper! Sigh. That's my crazy governor!)

Well, I've got something to say about all this. I'm sick and tired of stereotypical "girly" traits being lobbed around as an insult.  After all, supposedly no greater insult to a man's ego exists than to label him "girly" or "femmy".  I'm sick of this gender stereotyping.  I don't see anything wrong with so-called "girly-men" and here's why:

They're compassionate.

They're slow to anger.  They prefer to think, rather than fight, their way out of a situation.

They're not afraid to cry when an animal they've loved dies in their arms.

They're secure in their sexuality, and have no problem being friends with gay people or strong outspoken women of any age or body type.

They're patient and usually good with kids.

They want life partners, not chattel.

They aren't slaves to gender roles. 

They don't have to put down others to feel powerful.

They aren't threatened by feminism. They understand that feminists want to free men from constrictive gender roles, too.

They love their daughters as much as their sons.

Mostly importantly: they talk to a woman's face, not to her boobs.

So please, enlighten me if you can: how are these negative traits? Maybe if we had more "girly" men and women in office, we'd get a government that cares more about its people than its pride. 

*I have decided to restore the use of the phrase "girly-man" in my rant.  I think the best way to strip negative meaning from words is to reclaim them.  My sources tell me that "girly-man" started out as a spoof-phrase on Saturday Night Live used to make fun of Schwarzenegger's over-the-top machismo.  Schwarzenegger himself then stripped the humorous meaning from the phrase by using it as an epithet to attack his opponents.  I think it's time we, in turn, strip it of the negative connotations he added.  In fact, I think we should make T-Shirts : Girly-man And Proud Of It!

Comments

( 29 comments — Leave a comment )
[info]komejo wrote:
Mar. 6th, 2008 07:30 pm (UTC)
I embrace all of those traits, but don't think I could embrace the term "girly-man". The problem is mostly semantics I think, since the term originated in an SNL sketch. As such, it's always struck me as an intentionally juvenile remark. The fact that it has entered the language in a way that's transformed it into a legitimate though mild pejorative is fascinating, because the opposite (boyish-woman? manly-girl?) is so nonsensical.

Still! I can see the point. Girlie + Man = Insult. It shouldn't.
[info]ndgmtlcd wrote:
Mar. 6th, 2008 09:04 pm (UTC)
That was a long-running series of sketches on SNL in the 80s with reruns through the 90s. They were a riot. I'm not the only one who's seen them and laughed his fool head off. The trouble with trying to put something positive (or negative, or anything serious) in the "girly-man" term is that anybody who's seen "Hans und Frantz" using it will laugh it off.
[info]joamette wrote:
Mar. 6th, 2008 07:35 pm (UTC)
Maybe if we had more "girly-men" (and actual WOMEN) in offices, we'd get a government that cares more about its people than its pride.

I actually take issue with the term "girly"-man because it implies that all of the pros you listed above are inherent in women. Not all women are compassionate, not all women are slow to anger, not all women are patient or good with kids, et cetera - in fact, those things may not even be true of any given male labeled as a "girly"-man. The term attacks men and women with equal strength based on the premises that "women are one way, men are another" and that "the superior sex should no emulate the inferior one."

I personally wouldn't care if all of our legislatures were comprised entirely of males if they all happened to possess the qualities of a decent, sensible human being, a lot of which you listed above. The genital ratio doesn't matter - women can be chauvinistic, husband-slapping, child-neglecting, power mongers, too.
[info]ldragoon wrote:
Mar. 6th, 2008 07:35 pm (UTC)
Good point! I think I know how to fix the post. Gimme 5 minutes. :)
[info]joamette wrote:
Mar. 6th, 2008 07:37 pm (UTC)
Oh humbug. xD
[info]ldragoon wrote:
Mar. 6th, 2008 07:38 pm (UTC)
OK, go look.
[info]joamette wrote:
Mar. 6th, 2008 07:53 pm (UTC)
Better... but it poses the exact question I just answered: "They're perceived as negative traits because people still think men are supposed to be 'above' women or womanliness; and people still refuse to throw out the what wimmins is like handbook."

I guess I just want to see a spectacular Leigh Dragoon assault upon the actual root of this issue. ;P
[info]ldragoon wrote:
Mar. 6th, 2008 08:07 pm (UTC)
Agreed, but that's a whole 'nother post, I think. Once you get me going on that rant, I'm not going to be able to stop. Actually, it would tie in perfectly to a rant I was planning for tomorrow, about traditional women's roles in films and books. @_o
[info]joamette wrote:
Mar. 6th, 2008 09:29 pm (UTC)
Tehehehehehe - score!!

Funny little tidbit: the first time I tried typing the word "score" above, it came out "soccer." >
[info]crowhen wrote:
Mar. 6th, 2008 08:15 pm (UTC)
I agree that the term attacks both men and women and dishonors them equally, but I will always want there to be equal amounts of vaginas to penises in control. When you get too many of the same thing up top, then you get exclusivity. I would not trust my country to a handful of white men, no matter how pure their intentions may be. They just don't have enough perspective.
[info]ldragoon wrote:
Mar. 6th, 2008 08:19 pm (UTC)
Agreed. That's why I hate when they labeled Clinton "the first black prez" and now they're touting Obama as a woman. Um. Does Obama have a yimyam and has he had to walk around his entire fucking life with one? NO?! Then he is NOT a woman, and he does NOT know what it's really like to be a woman in this country, anymore than Clinton really knows what it's like to be a black man.

This gets me pissed because I feel like they're trying to sell us a bag of goods, like, "Oh, silly wimmin, quit your complaining. You got a woman prez in '08 - it was Obama! Newsweek even said it, so it must be true! Man, you feminists are NEVER happy!"

ARGH!

*head-splodey*

Edited at 2008-03-06 08:23 pm (UTC)
[info]joamette wrote:
Mar. 6th, 2008 09:26 pm (UTC)
Good point, Rache. Perspective is important. I know that my choice of words made it sound as if good intentions are the key to success; I just want to make clear that what irks me is when people get hung up on genitalia as opposed to what a person can actually bring to the table.
[info]silveradept wrote:
Mar. 6th, 2008 07:53 pm (UTC)
Girly men aren't supposed to be fit for big powerful jobs, because they're compassionate and caring and negotiating rather than ruthless, stubborn, and waving their phalluses (and surrogates) around in size-comparison contests. If our President showed a hint that he wasn't the most macho of macho men, then every other country would walk over him, the terrists and the illegals would come in droves, and horror of horrors, we might institute programs that take their inspiration from..... socialism! (Aieeeeee!)

If that doesn't do it, then there's that bit in some religious book or another that says men are supposed to be all tough and providers for the family and undisputed heads of their household. So if their wives are uppity or their kids are independent, it somehow reflects badly on him for not providing discipline (but even worse on his wife, because she's supposed to have been able to raise children to be angels.)

It's all rubbish, of course, but that doesn't mean we don't get plenty of that rubbish spewed at us daily.
[info]joamette wrote:
Mar. 6th, 2008 07:56 pm (UTC)
If our President showed a hint that he wasn't the most macho of macho men, then every other country would walk over him, the terrists and the illegals would come in droves, and horror of horrors, we might institute programs that take their inspiration from..... socialism! (Aieeeeee!)

Just thought I'd let you know that made my whole day. x3
[info]silveradept wrote:
Mar. 7th, 2008 08:25 am (UTC)
On occasion, the phrasing comes out just right on something like that. Glad to know I was good for a laugh. (Even better, it didn't require me to hit something with my head!)
[info]shininghalf wrote:
Mar. 6th, 2008 07:58 pm (UTC)
And remember Arnie at the RNC 2004: "There is another way you can tell you're a Republican. You have faith in free enterprise, faith in the resourcefulness of the American people ...and faith in the U.S. economy. To those critics who are so pessimistic about our economy, I say: Don't be economic girlie men!"

To the critics who point out that everyone but the upper classes is losing ground, that the poor are falling further and further behind with the social safety net in tatters, that people are losing their houses at record rates, that people are dying because the health care industry is is a house of cards held together with airplane glue, stop being girlie men! Ya know, Darwin, gotta break some eggs and stuff, sheez! If you were a Republican, you'd know this!

(But I'm just bitter...)
[info]shininghalf wrote:
Mar. 6th, 2008 08:08 pm (UTC)
But yes, hear hear! I agree with Joamette that the traits should be decoupled from sex, but I think it's equally important to stop the groundless denigration of "girly" traits. Taken to the extreme, they become dysfunctional of course (as many many traditionally-raised women can attest), but in many ways they're simply better. "Girliness" is less competitive and more cooperative (Alfie Kohn, No Contest. Read. Now.), more sympathetic and reciprocal as opposed to brash, violent, and other-denying, etc. etc.

See, a "Girly Man" or "Strong Woman" is really dangerous, because they can combine the "girly" spirit of coming together with the "manly" spirit of standing up strongly. Nobody wants the masses to do that, so we have to delegitimise that combination of traits, you see.
[info]joamette wrote:
Mar. 6th, 2008 09:53 pm (UTC)
See, a "Girly Man" or "Strong Woman" is really dangerous, because they can combine the "girly" spirit of coming together with the "manly" spirit of standing up strongly. Nobody wants the masses to do that, so we have to delegitimise that combination of traits, you see.

I <3 you so much! :o
[info]ldragoon wrote:
Mar. 6th, 2008 08:09 pm (UTC)
Come up on my bitter boat. There's room for one more. :)
[info]foxfirefey wrote:
Mar. 6th, 2008 10:14 pm (UTC)
Hahaha, that's going to be very funny to him this year, as the resourcefulness of the American people inspires them to walk away from grossly overpriced Californian homes whose values have plunged below the cost of their subprime mortgages.
[info]ldragoon wrote:
Mar. 7th, 2008 04:39 am (UTC)
That's really happening, too! I'd never heard of walk-aways, but I've been reading tons about them in the media. It's freaky!

Still want to eat the eggs. @_@ Oh, how I envy that lucky fox.

Edited at 2008-03-07 04:39 am (UTC)
[info]tscheese wrote:
Mar. 6th, 2008 09:02 pm (UTC)
Some days I feel like the Nice Guy and the Angry White Man somehow reproduced and had fifty thousand buttbabies that do nothing more than post really terrible "journalism" that insults people of both genders.
[info]ldragoon wrote:
Mar. 7th, 2008 04:38 am (UTC)
somehow reproduced and had fifty thousand buttbabies

This made me laugh so hard I almost puked. OMG, you are a funny lady, Therese.
[info]jinnayah wrote:
Mar. 6th, 2008 10:25 pm (UTC)
I'm just too gobsmacked at a major publication thinking "Obama: First Woman President?" is an even remotely acceptable headline. I know, I know, I shouldn't be surprised at anything they do anymore. But... *shakes head* I swear things are getting worse.
[info]hshamilt wrote:
Mar. 6th, 2008 10:59 pm (UTC)
I read the "Obama: First Woman President?" article and its odd in how the author makes a few thoughtful points interspersed with random moments of insanity. I'd hope the author fell victim to an ignorant and ham fisted editor. The insulting title, odd asides and bizzare conclusion that John McCain is somehow the true electoral demigod neither Obama nor Clinton could be almost seems like someone got drunk and went and rewrote what could have been a promising article (gender sterotypes are dumb) into the mess that sits before us now.
[info]ldragoon wrote:
Mar. 7th, 2008 04:40 am (UTC)
That seems to be how it goes a lot of the time.

Salient sane point, salient sane point

BIG STINKING PILE OF CRAZY!

Salient sane point.

And there's your article! ;)

It's like some kind of weird newsy sandwich.
[info]greenanimal wrote:
Mar. 7th, 2008 02:19 am (UTC)
yayy for girly men
I sure know I have one
but ssshhhh don't tell him ;)
[info]ldragoon wrote:
Mar. 7th, 2008 04:38 am (UTC)
I got one of the "girly-men", too. They're like the best kept secret in the world. :)
[info]joamette wrote:
Mar. 7th, 2008 05:09 pm (UTC)
Yay! I've got one too! We should totally start a club with t-shirts that say, "My Hubbie Can Beat Up Your Hubbie (While Wearing A Skirt)!" x3

( 29 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

Regular Self Portrait
[info]ldragoon
ldragoon

Latest Month

December 2009
S M T W T F S
  12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
2728293031  
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Taylor Savvy