"There are 10^11 stars in the galaxy. That used to be a huge number. But it's only a hundred billion. It's less than the national deficit! We used to call them astronomical numbers. Now we should call them economical numbers." ~ Richard Feynman
Castration as Entertainment
In today's society there is no longer any reason to leave the house to rejoice in someone else's misery or suffering. Citizens used to have to make their way to Coliseums or to the town square to see beheadings and executions. Now, in these zero effort days, all one has to do is turn on the television to witness 49% of our population emasculated for free.
The New York Times is aware of this, and that is why they published an articled about it this morning. It is written by Alessandra Stanley and matter of factly titled, 'On TV, Men are the New Women.' Such pieces in The New York Times are to be expected nowadays and surprise few who follow the paper's not even remotely daring exploits.
The story begins with a rarely acknowledged truth: 'The effect of 30 years of feminism on television is a little like an old folk legend: a crippled peasant asks God to make both his hands the same and awakens to find that both are shriveled.' Amen. If that was the writer's sole conclusion, then I'd have no issue with her work.
However, she goes on to say that while women are sometimes demeaned by female leads presenting themselves in skimpy outfits on the little screen [thus implying that women never choose to wear low cut tops in the real world'a truly risible observation], and that the trend with men is to represent them either as 'dads or cads.'
While feigning offense, Stanley actually appears to be quite pleased with the current Manichean representation of men. She even attempts to biologically justify her position:
Recent genetic research suggesting that the Y chromosome is devolving ' turning men into what Steve Jones, a British geneticist, labeled the "second sex" ' has found support in prime time. From CBS to the WB, the fall shows depict men the way women were once depicted: as supporting characters propelled by their biological imperative. And perhaps because science has made it so much easier for women to conceive children without a partner, these television fathers do not know best.
This is the second time, that I'm aware of, when a NYT employee has covered the Y chromosome debate and presented a misleading view of the evidence. Her statement regarding the de-evolution of males is as wrong as it is repugnant.
In a particularly delicious and ironic twist, we are now aware that the Y chromosome is able to fix itself: 'The new work reports evidence that the Y chromosome makes extensive use of a process called gene conversion. The chromosome carries backup copies of its important genes, and it can use one copy to fix a flaw in the other.' This fact, as it suggests male ingenuity, should make feminists snort with anger. Of course, if they do react negatively to such facts, they do it in private, as publicly, they refuse to acknowledge such facts exist.
As for her quip about father not knowing best, this is belied by her refusal to mention the toxic after effects of so many women reproducing without the support of men. It is our society that pays for the media's lies about the functionality of single motherhood. More crime and offspring who are far more likely to end up incarcerated is the common byproduct of a fatherless home. This article devoutly avoids reciting such truths.
What is undeniable is that the boob tube has quite literally becoming the domain of women:
More women watch television than men, surveys show, and women increasingly select, write and produce the shows that go on television. Advertisers, too, are increasingly represented by female agents, who place their clients' money on shows they think will succeed, and that they themselves like.
The bottom line is that if the networks believe depicting men as weak and useless increases their market share, then they will continue to depict them in such a fashion. I have no doubt that they will, but we should acknowledge that it is feminism that has perverted the taste of their viewers and rendered them susceptible to vile, anti-masculine propaganda.
Stanley does not object to women being more of the focus of today's programming, but what appears to bother her is that men are now being portrayed as victims. This is not something for which most feminists would ever condone.
Yet, one thing they would approve of is the texture of prime time's current male characters. Feminists must love their androgynous meanderings through life. In one drama, 'The Brotherhood of Poland, N.H.,' the writer argues that the show's structure is merely an inversion of traditional roles because the plot centers on three male stars and their 'midlife insecurity and consciousness-raising.' If all males were like that, Phil Donahue would be on 12 hours a day.
The sexual revolution syphilitically continues on and Stanley non-judgmentally reports that another program: ''It's All Relative,' the ABC comedy about warring in-laws ' two prissy bourgeois gay men against an Irish Catholic bartender and his wife ' stretches the social boundaries the furthest by suggesting that a man can be a mom and a dad at the same time.' What the writer misses is that cultural warriors have been suggesting this for 30 years, but they've never stopped to examine the possible costs of their crusade.
On the aggregate, television has always been a tremendous waste of time. Now that the networks are attempting to politically indoctrinate us, it has gone from being merely a waste of time to becoming downright evil. My father gave me great advice on this topic and, incidentally, always knew best. I can still hear him admonish throughout my childhood to 'turn that damn TV off.' He was as correct today as he was in 1980.