Comments

1. Antonio wrote:

   In liberal-land, straight men can be freely metrosexual, embrace each other (briefly) and even speak openly about their feelings, but not even there are they safe from homophobia. Nor is that the demographic the book is concerned with; the metrosexual is usually a sophisticate who has left boyhood, not a college freshman in Colorado. Kimmel is describing a group of intensely frustrated guys who desperately want to connect with each other emotionally and/or physically but can’t do anything that seems even remotely “gay,” which includes things as simple as touching each other nonviolently.

   As a gay man, I definitely find this to be true. My friendships as a closeted straight man lacked a certain level of connection that my non-sexual friendships since coming out don’t.

   I also find some of the homoerotic things I’ve seen straight, fratty college guys do bizarre. Teabagging and limp biscuit spring to mind (google those if you don’t know what they are).

   A high school girl, depressingly, is likely to suspect a boy of being gay “if he’s interested in what she’s talking about” or “is a good listener.”

   I find this funny in a sad, ironic way.

   Posted 18 Sep 2008 at 1:00 pm ¶

2. L. wrote:

   So, I just wikipedia’d limp biscuit and I am thoroughly disgusted.

   I’m fascinated at the prevalence of homo-eroticism amongst young, heterosexual men. I remember in high school when one of the very few openly gay guy students told me and my friend about how a lot of the straight guys get together and have “cock fights” and circle jerks. These were the same guys that discriminated against him for doing openly what they did behind closed doors. I wonder if most societies are as repressive as America’s?

   Posted 18 Sep 2008 at 1:58 pm ¶

3. Minotaar wrote:

   Perhaps this is because I am an educated city dwelling liberal with cosmopolitan values, but if Salon’s paraphrasing of Kimmel’s work is at all accurate, Kimmel is taking a radical and exaggerated perspective about the space of male friendships.

   Frustration is a deep and underlying theme of the male experience before 40, for an expansive number of reasons. Pinpointing a misguided definition of homosexuality as a pervasive cause of this frustration is hypersimplification. Male frustration, while perhaps related in part to some of the issues mentioned at Salon, is also certainly tied up in the general desire to “grow up” to be more than you already are, and being impatient about getting there. Professionally. Sexually. Financially. Spiritually. Why is it that Kimmel pins the frustration on men in their 30s, and then cites examples of college guys? If Kimmel is really pointing out the biggest reason for male frustration, why arent his examples more consistent?

   Having not read Kimmels work, I also find that Salon’s treatment of the review appears to gush a bit. As if Kimmel were ground truth. I find this rather offensive from a liberal perspective. Young men arent all angry sexists who see gang rape as male bonding, and, more importantly, its not even part of the imagination or wild fantasy. I find it hard to believe that Salon could even legitimize Kimmels ridiculous reporting of a young male participant of a gang rape who “reported his pleasure at feeling the semen of his friends inside the woman as he raped [his victim]“. This example is not worth citing because it is random blather that is not representative of a greater trend. I cannot imagine even an infinitesimal fraction of young males who would agree with this assertion.

   What really is going on is a sensationalist simplification of the (very real) frustrations of young males for the sake of personal profit and prestige. Without reading it, and leaning heavily on Salon’s accuracy (a risky lean indeed), I can already say that Kimmel’s book is obviously a pile of tripe.

   Posted 18 Sep 2008 at 2:15 pm ¶

4. Lyonside wrote:

   I will say what many others have said before: Sexism hurts men too. This is how.

   Posted 18 Sep 2008 at 2:32 pm ¶

5. Misspelled wrote:

   One of the comments on that Salon article begins with the sentence, “Women are born, but men must be made.” I literally cannot think of an example of a more myopic male perspective. I mean, wow, mister, you mean the develeopmental years can be hard on boys? They have to struggle with finding the right role models to emulate and figuring out what kind of person they want to be? They have to establish the values they want to live up to and look to the world around them for ways to define themselves? They change during adolescence? They spend a lot of time examining themselves and often despair? They feel frustrated and confused? They get conflicting messages about how they should look and act and be and they don’t always know how to deal with that? They sometimes try to earn the respect of the wrong people? They run a good chance of totally fucking up and losing their footing and being lost to the world forever if nobody’s paying attention and watching their progress and making sure they’re coming along okay?

   Gee, I just can’t imagine. As you know, I was born and I was a girl and then I went off and did whatever and I was still a girl and then I came back from summer vacation one year and I was All Grown Up! How did I do it? I don’t know! Women are mysterious! I’m just glad I’m not a boy! Tee hee hee!

   Good Lord.

   Posted 18 Sep 2008 at 3:04 pm ¶

6. PureGracefulTree wrote:

   Regarding the first link, I initially wondered why it was being posted on Racialicious. But I found (and I don’t know this was the answer) a lot of themes that were common to the problems that people of color face, particularly the idea that “understanding” is a prerequisite for granting humanity. When people grill us (or trans people, or gay people, or women, or disabled people, etc. etc.) wanting to be educated, it begs the question, “Why? Why do I have to sell you on every detail of my experience and endure the pain of recounting it and defending it before you’ll concede one bit of your privilege?”

   I am always fighting the petty part of myself that wants to play the game of “let’s talk about MY oppression right now and why it’s a bigger deal than yours” and I need constant reminding that oppression is oppression, and we all need to work together to eliminate it in all its forms. Thank you for reminding me not to get too focused on too little.

   Posted 18 Sep 2008 at 3:51 pm ¶

7. Lisa Harney wrote:

   I sometimes think that it’s very useful to compare the common ways in which oppression manifests – and I don’t mean hierarchy of oppressions (what some people call “oppression olympics,” but that was rightfully criticized here awhile back) but rather that people who are marginalized in different ways experience that in similar, overlapping ways as well as some rather different ways.

   Or – for me – while I wouldn’t ever say experiencing transphobia is like experiencing racism, my understanding of experiencing transphobia has led me to better understand my own white privilege. I still make mistakes, but when a POC says “You made a mistake” I know how I feel when I tell a cis person “You made a mistake.”

   Hope that doesn’t sound too egotistical.

   And thank you for the link, although the intersex tag is confusing me.

   Posted 18 Sep 2008 at 4:30 pm ¶

8. Free wrote:

   Bill O’Reilly expressed the fear and the need to John McCain in a clip I watched last week: ‘they’re trying to destroy the white male power structure of which you and I are members,’ he railed at a blank faced McCain. Today after the Barack Obama rally in Espanola, NM is realized that I’m voting for Obama to do exactly that: I want to break the back of white male power and privilege. At the same time, male power and privilege over women of all races and ethnicities needs to come to an end: we are your partners not your slaves.

   I don’t feel sorry for these morons. Kimmel is wrong: the problem is 20+ years of macho right-wing indoctrination as well as the Christian Right philosophy of male superiority which has infected American culture. I don’t care if a guy doesn’t listen to Limbaugh or attend Pat Robertson’s church because their ideas seep into the culture. It all started with Dirty Harry and I want to wipe him out.

   Posted 18 Sep 2008 at 9:19 pm ¶

9. gatamala wrote:

   ‘they’re trying to destroy the white male power structure of which you and I are members,’ he railed at a blank faced McCain.

   McCain’s thoughts: shutup…you’re going to undo everything Sarah & Daddy have done…we’ll talk about this later

   Free, do you remember John “go out and breed for the white race” Gibson?

   Check the editor’s pick of comments. It’s interesting to see the reaction some white males have to losing indivduality (personhood) and becoming merely a racialized group (it; them).

   Posted 19 Sep 2008 at 3:20 pm ¶