good sentiments, but I do think you missed the point of the Wrestler. What you had were two lead characters, on the downsides of ill-chosen careers. Tomei’s character clearly didn’t enjoy her work, or take pride in it. She was, as ‘the Ram’ described himself to his daughter, ‘a worn out piece of meat’, and she realized it. No, it wasn’t an uplifting paean to the hardworking successful woman. It wasn’t meant to be.
And, unlike your choice of last month, that movie did have something very serious to say, and did it well.
You wonder aloud,”What ever happened to positive female role models with naked passion for equality and respect?”. I’d venture that they are out there, for those who seek them out, even in mainstream entertainment. More notably, in politics, in business(your neighbor’s example to the contrary, there are some true female leaders out there)and in the fine arts. You are right, however, insofar as the mass market goes, sex sells, both for males and females, and appealing to the lowest common denominator has always been profitable. Still, it’s up to the individuals to reject that, and seek out more positive images and role models. At the end of your piece, you
refer to ‘highly idolized’ Miss America contestants? I’d venture that few in America care about that pageant in the least, and probably no more than 1 in 10 even realize that Atlantic City doesn’t host it any more. Perhaps reality is brighter than your fears permit you to see it…….?

The audacity of the bathing suits leaving Atlantic City. Shocking, why wasn’t I informed of this earlier. Oh well life is full of surprises.

In my opinion women are on the path to becoming the voice of the future and I mean the near future. Today there are more women enrolled in both Law and Medical School. In addition twenty two year olds that are graduating today are comprised of 185 women to 100 men. This seems to be a sobering fact and at the same time a wake up call to the imbalance that would seem to be a game changer.

Anyone care to predict the future based on these trends?

callmeslick, say it ain’t so.

LT you make a good corollary to my exact points. I noted with glee today that Miss America cannot even find a minor cable network willing to televise the pageant. No one cares anymore.

I think it matters not the quantity of females versus men but the quality. My daughter and I were out one night and we ran into a friend of hers. This young lady said she had just graduated from college with a degree in journalism (this is where I could see my daughter cringe). So I asked her who her favorite journalist was. She was dumbfounded by my question. I asked her if she liked Amy Goodman. She said “Who?”
Do you read Naomi Klein?
“Who?”
I asked her if she read Mother Jones (co-editors both women who recently had babies), and she said “Who?” I have yet to find any single young woman - and I’m talking about the $100,000 college graduates - who know about Democracy Now or The Huffington Post or any media outlet that emphasizes female empowerment and education.
I’m batting 1,000.
My point in this column is that as long as women are objectified and told every second of every day the outside takes priority over what’s on the inside, we will continue to have women struggle to understand what the hell is wrong with them.
I grew up in a house that was dominated by a man whose political/social/economic/female views made Archie Bunker look like Mike Stivic. It was suffocating and it took decades to understand there’s nothing wrong with me (OK work with me here!) and to feel comfortable in my own skin.
Miss America is alive and well. Make no mistake about it. Haven’t you seen WE (which stands for Women’s Entertainment) channel’s programming that showcases the little Miss Perfect pageants? very popular.
Maybe we should have a Miss American Peace Pageant. I can think of tons of qualified candidates.
We need to re-shape the mold…and hurry. We’re losing ground with every wink of Sarah Jessica Parker’s (plastic surgery) eye.

wait a minute, Lynn…….if I understand you correctly, you just stated that you are finding that educated young women are completely ignorant of (what you feel are)
key outlets for the discussion of women’s issues. And, you are blaming this willful ignorance on objectification?? Please, spare me. Ignorance is not an externally caused condition. As long as folks continue to blame external forces for the outcomes due to the choices of individuals, our society will continue to devolve into
a soft collection of victims. The facts are this: as time goes on, more women than ever HAVE gotten in touch with important self-worth values, and more and more women have greater impact than ever in our society. It’s a process, for crying out loud!
A century ago women couldn’t even vote in the US, let along make up over half of the elite University enrollment or dream of being entrepreneurs and CEOs of major corporations. Hold elected office? And, you’re willing to dismiss massive process because you and your daughter don’t like the fact that young women you encounter aren’t fascinated by your select reading list? Geez, what a tolerant view of your fellow citizens!! I’m sure that smug feeling of superiority warms you, but frankly,
your argument makes utterly no sense at all. It lacks statistics, lacks proof or even provable theory, it lacks intellectual weight. Sorry to be so harsh, but your whole thesis reeks of ideological elitism. Just what the nation cries out for……

a few follow-up points:
First, I agree about the fact that we live in a very superficial society. Where I differ is that it has anything whatsoever to do with gender. I’ve stated here several times that far too many Americans can ID the American Idol finalists, and too few know who the Supreme Court justices are. To paint it as a ‘women’s issue’ is both erroneous and divisive.
Second, as pointed out above, more women than men are going into the professions at present. That fact would argue that the women you were questioning might already be self-empowered, by dint of their own educational or professional achievements. Thus,
they probably don’t feel the need to immerse themselves in MJ, Huffington, et al.
In fact, that they are largely unaware might merely illustrate how irrelevant such outlets are to a younger, professional woman. A little further questioning might reveal that they DO read the trade and professional press essential to advancement of knowledge in their chosen career.
Finally, that last line of mine points to the issue bothering me about your post….
there is evident a true lack of probity. You ask a few questions and leap to a conclusion that the facts don’t support. In other words, you use your sketchy data to support a conclusion you had drawn before even starting to question. And that, I’m sorry to say, is intellectually weak.

I’m guessing that you are a white male who has never experienced life as a woman..or as a minority woman (and who does not expect to have a sex change experience within the near future).
So tell me, why do you post?
here?
again?
and again?
and again?
and again?
and again?
what threat do I pose to you?
what does a man know…what could a man possibly know…about life as it is thrown at us women?
(ps it took women 75 years to gain the right to vote - that is THREE generations - or FOUR)
You, my dear sir, are what the Spanish call (referring to my high school days taught by Miss Fox - no relation to the current FOX network) as
“el idiot”
(not sure of the translation because it is in Spanish and I don’t speak that language…and I’m only quoting my high school Spanish teacher here who made less than her male counterparts in in 1972 so don’t blame me).
signed the intellectually weak one
(as indicated above)

using gender as an excuse,now, are we? In an equal society, one would think that equal standards of intellectual discourse apply. I note you don’t, in any way, try to address my actual comments, merely deflect(none too deftly, nor subtly)with the
old saw, “you could never understand”. As a male, who has worked closely with a ton of women in the Medical Laboratory field for 30 years, I think I’ve listened pretty damned well, thank you, to the issues, concerns, suffering and roadblocks which women confront. Lack of two X chromosomes hasn’t prevented my capacity to learn and understand.
Why do I post here? Again and again?? Because no one else seems to have the temerity to state the obvious. You have no real deep insight into culture, you clearly have no business reviewing movies, and you insult the intelligence of anyone who really cares about the real issues facing the nation, with your glib analysis, weak factual arguments, misunderstanding of obvious artistic intentions and blind ideology. If this passes for cultural criticism, then Glenn Beck passes for a journalist.
I’ve tried to avoid stating it so bluntly, but there you have it, as you asked the question. You’re in over your head, and it’s painful to read. Sorry.

You’re right CALynn. Callmeslick is slick, as in slithery. He is threatened by you as was evidenced last month when he completely misinterpeted your review of The Blind Side. He tried to cover up the fact that he missed the whole point of the review with mountains of bluster. I’m sure most readers saw through his two-bit cheap shots for just what they were. He claims that it’s “painful to read” your column-yet he does so month after month–must be a masochist. Here’s one reader who turns to your column first thing every month. I think it’s the best thing in a very good magazine. As to you Mr. Call Me Slithery: You couldn’t shine Lynn’s shoes as a writer or thinker.
The Nature Boy

whatever, Nature Boy……frankly, I think a lot of folks, especially those of my generation, when a Bachelor’s degree was the result of 4 years’ immersion in critical thinking, would differ. Yes, I do read her posts, as I do all here. There are a lot of contributors to this site with keen insight and clear logical thinking.
Perhaps, you are right….I’m merely a masochist. My view of things is this: for a few decades now, this nation has sunk under the weight of a society controlled by those whom Hunter Thompson aptly titled “greedheads”. Their rise is, and has been, fueled by ideological bickering of such a shallow intellectual level, from both sides of the political scene, as to render the thinking public almost null and void.
Further, the decline in critical thought and overall importance of intellect and education, has set the nation up for impending doom. I consider myself Progressive, in a Teddy Roosevelt sort of way. In other words, I believe that the only way to maintain a healthy society is for all people, or at least as many as possible, to live better. I work for that, I spend my personal money to help achieve that, I advocate publicly for that. In so doing, I resent like Hell those who would help contribute to the notion that Progressives are shallow-thinking wingnuts, expounding unrealistic solutions and embracing ideological hyperbole. This is what brings me to criticize Lynn above. She is dismissing a century of slow, but steady societal progress to whine about a new generation with more possibilities and promise for our society than could scarcely be imagined 50 years ago. Women’s rights and empowerment is on a continuing upswing, similar to the generation to generation progress in racial equality. Has society approached perfection? No, and I suspect ‘perfection’ would be impossible to achieve. But, any intelligent analysis of the current state of affairs will tell you that our nation’s key issues sure as Hell don’t revolve around women’s empowerment. For that matter, as I pointed out last month, our economic issues will never be resolved by folks complaining about a $7.00 per hour minimum wage, and wearing shoes made in Vietnam for 2 cents/hr. I want to see the nation progress, and turn a society which has badly veered off course back to a better path. As such, I have little tolerance for either the Glenn Beck right, or the extreme Left.
Threatened by Lynn? That’s a hoot. I could live just fine, thanks, without Lynn or those who view the world through such a clouded lens, just fine. In fact, I have every confidence that the world will be just fine, if I only focused on my immediate family. However, I don’t, as I don’t wish my daughter or grandchildren(if any appear)to inherit a world in which they have to live, barricaded from the masses of the disenfranchised and downtrodden. And, that, as it was for Teddy Roosevelt, or a later Roosevelt with his New Deal, is how being a Progressive matters to me. So, “Nature Boy”, feel free to dismiss me. Like I said in the previous post, I tried to tiptoe around the obvious fact that what has been put forth as cultural criticism on these pages is lacking in cultural insight and intellectually small in terms of critical thought. I really didn’t want to hurt the feelings of Lynn, who seems sincere, if nothing else. Still, there gets to be a point where you have to call people on their claims. As I wrote to Stefan, elsewhere, I’m a pretty blunt guy, because this nation matters to me. My family goes back over 340 years on these shores, and what they suffered for, fought for and died for isn’t something I take lightly. IMHO, neither should any of you, for, despite a host of shortcomings and imperfections, the USA still a nation with the most potential for maintaining a society that allows it’s citizens to live in freedom and pursue fulfillment. It’s just up to us, the citizens, to pull together and work to ensure that it remains such a place…….

Boy, did I just catch a quote from Sen. Evan Bayh that hits the nail on the head:
“Everybody has got to check their ideology at the door in order to get to practical solutions.”

Please don’t pretend to be noble about your purpose here!

You do far more than argue issues or philosophical points of view. You aim to diminish people you don’t agree with. It has become painfully obvious. These actions are not only less than honorable, they discourage comment by many of our readers, depriving the community of valuable feed-back that would surely enhance the readership.

Please reconsider your purpose here, for if you truly want us to pull together, how do you hope to affect that by continually tearing people down as if it were some form of sport?

To Stefan: Right on my man!!
To Lynn: You Go Girl!

Pat Banacek

As a white male these hostilities seem to emanate from my posting positive female accomplishments. CALynn, I see from your vantage point that these results were probably flawed without any collaboration to their accomplishments and your guidance as to the preferred reading list you so kindly provided to the rest of us clueless people.

I did a little survey in my own family with the females and their recent and present studies from colleges, some of which are the $250K schools, and I was not at all surprised by the results based on your list. No one admitted to me that they were reading from your list, however most were aware of their existence. As with most serious students, their lists are more toward serious literature.

However, I will admit to enjoying the back and forth, especially callmeslick, who is an advanced debater. If this were a prize fight it would have been stopped.

An interesting conclusion to your comment, LT.

Slick claims he is interested in bringing Progressives together to affect change, yet as you so aptly describe it, beats people into submission.

One can futilely argue whether or not that is an acceptable debating tactic, but I hope no one misses the bigger picture and the effect it is having on a once robust community of commenters.

nice to see LT gets it, and hardly surprised that Stefan doesn’t. Now, I’ll return to chuckling over the picture of Chuck in boxing garb on the front page.

oh, and if my presence is having a ‘effect’ on a ‘once robust community of commenters’, why weren’t those commenters doing anything other than congratulating one another on their collective brilliance before. Chuck himself noted that Progressives need to encourage debate, and critical thinking. He also noted that many in the Kutztown Democrats were averse to this. Robust, even edgy, debate is how good ideas emerge and how consensus to move forward is forged.
As for personal attacks, anyone reading my posts here will, I think, find that I am extremely restrained in attacking the person, but will bluntly attack weak messages or weak thinking on issues. The more personal stuff, which I’d rather avoid altogether, seems to emerge when folks cannot reply or debate without taking personal offense. Unable to defend their logic, they tend to resort to ad hominem attacks on me. And, yes, I’ll fire back.

So once again, non-agreement with you = inferiority. That is the problem here. One wonders if you don’t “get it” or you just don’t care?

where did I write that, Stefan(non-agreement equals inferiority?)….? Please find the quote for me, as I don’t recall having ever stated or inferred that thought.
As for the other question, in your case, and specific to your case, I’m moving toward the ‘just don’t care’ column. What I ‘don’t get’ is how you never answer the question asked, which was,this time, How come this Robust Community of Commenters wasn’t evident before?? Hell, beyond testy exchanges with onenastybeast, there was little that would pass for debate here at all. That fact was noted by the site owner himself, when he posted, encouraging my efforts to stimulate debate. I agree with that concept, as politics is a matter of debate, leading to development of policy, more debate and finally compromise(as all democracies rely on compromise in order to
legislate).

I am all for debate, never once stated or implied otherwise. What I have repeatedly protested is the ugliness towards those who express views you don’t agree with.

You surely implied inferiority by choosing to state that I don’t “get it,” though if you wish to say you meant something else, by all means have at it.

Other than that, I am not wasting my time debating or arguing one’s opinion with you. It is my opinion that there was a time, back in the begining of this publication, where we had a much more robust commentary from many different people. Certainly we can review the archives and see that. Sadly, a few of these people have expressed to me privately that they are not interested in commenting here anymore because of the snide, personal remarks that are returned for merely expressing a different point of view.

Well 12 articles presented and most do not receive a comment. Either the articles are not of any interest or there is hardly anyone here to read them. Stefan, you seem to have a small cadre that like to defer to you and your opinions, that are certainly on target but from my short time here if callmeslick were to disappear so might all comments along with him. The “you go boy” and give it to him, seem to pass for comments.

Maybe we should bring up religion and sex, as that always seems to draw a crowd. Stir pot, turn up the heat, see if anything comes to the top. Back to cleaning my dark green pool.

As I stated, there used to be far more comments from a variety of individuals on the articles presented here, and I am not talking about the “you go girl” type of snippets.

Viewership is up, according to the web tracking statistics, yet the number of individuals commenting is down.

Nor am I suggesting that anyone not comment here, including our resident bully. I only desire the comments to be of a more respectful nature towards one another, so that we may, over time, entice people to return to expressing their opinions here.

Thank you…

Sorry if my responses to this post are far and few between. Just got back from meeting with 15 clients - mostly widows and WWII veterans and Vietnam veterans and Korean Veterans - and those who make minimum wage working for the fast food biggies. They are kind and wonderful and amazing people whose stories I love to hear. Every story starts at the personal level…
So just logged on and I do apologize.
It should be noted that there are indeed differences between men and women. On my way to work tomorrow, if I’m unfortunate enough to get a flat tire, I do know how to change it. I understand the mechanics and I’m smart enough to perform the task. I’ve been there. I can pull over and I can put on my flashers and I can open the trunk and pull out the spare tire and I can get the jack and jack up the car. What I do not have…what I do not possess is the testosterone to get a 7 year old bolt to move forward with a crow bar. No matter how hard I try. I need help with that. So in the past when I’ve had flat tires and I’m with that damn 7 year old bolt, I’ve been forced to sit by the side of the road and wait for testerone aid…like a lady in distress. Another thing: I can have babies (well, not now and not easily in the past) and I can/could produce milk. Obviously men cannot.
So it is important to note that our inequalities are what makes us equal.
It is a give and take that American capitalism refuses to recognize because it would sell less products and produce more educated masses.
The divide that our system prostelizes on us (like a - little bug in our ear) not only forces - but mandates - belief that men and women are SO different that women could never be equal to men (easier to sell to - more things to “correct”). I can’t even begin to name the media channels that promote this difference. I see how it affects girls and generations firsthand.
Case in point: I cannot recount how many times at work I’ve heard male colleagues say, when referring to their spouse: “The” wife. No first name just “The” wife, like she is a horse.
Or here’s an oldie but a goodie “I can’t go to see the Philly’s this weekend because I have to babysit.”
Huh?
I always say to those men “I didn’t realize they weren’t your children. Your wife was married previously? It’s so nice that you’ve welcomed them as your own.”
(yeah, I’m popular!)
So here’s my question to everyone: What female role model is currently in the minds of girls…
Ask the 7 year old
Ask the 15 year old
Ask the 25 year old
Ask the 35 year old
Ask the 55 year old
and get back to me.
(I’ll keep an open mind)

I would hope that the 7 year old would cite her mom. By 15, it would go a bit deeper.
The same question of men would bring massively variant answers, but I’ll bet a big percentage of the mature men cite their fathers. I’m not sure I see what your point is here, Lynn.
As stated earlier, I work with a slight majority of women at work. They refer to their spouses, often, as ‘the husband’ so it may not be a gender thing, so much as an age-group thing. And, yes, there are a lot of men still out there, raised in old fashioned type homes, that feel that despite both parents working, it is not their job to do childcare, cook or clean. They are wrong, but they are also a dwindling number. And, that gets to my intitial point here: progress has been, and still is, being made. It may not be happening overnight, or as fast as you would wish it, but it IS happening. Slow and gradual is how human nature, en masse, evolves, whether it be relationships of gender, race, sexual orientation, whatever. And those facts completely negate your premise: that society is forcing some twisted system down the throats of modern women. It just isn’t so. To cite an example you used earlier, the young, educated women of today may well not read the Huffington Post because Ariana Huffington and her ilk are shrill and irrelevant to a professional woman. Like most professional men, I suspect they are reading material that advances knowledge pertinent to doing their jobs, not material which assumes that ANYONE considers them inferior. Because, at the root of it, that is what you are conceding: that women are still in a vastly inferior position. All the while, education achievement and hiring data of people under the age of 35 show that, clearly, not to be the case. And, to my mind, that is great news. I look forward to women not only participating, but running things in high percentages(senior positions will come with age and experience), as women ARE different from men, and the blending of the skillsets and outlooks can only better society.

Stefan, not a debate, but just my observation. I’ve subscribed here since mid 2008.
There, to my observation, was NEVER robust participation in the comments sections beyond congratulatory backslapping. Never back and forth, never disagreement, just one ‘attaboy’ after another. You, apparently, saw a different scenario.

Oh, and Lynn:
could only poll two…..21 year old–Patti Smith
52 year old–Oprah

my data points yield little……

Slick.. Insofar as your comments during this volley, I’ve concluded you are both intellectually disingenuous and a bully. I get it. Its self defense. Cognitive dissonance is the mental conflict people may experience when their beliefs or assumptions are challenged.

In my view, many thoughts you have expressed help support Lynn’s premise … many of us are blockheads (Archie Bunker types) who fail to acknowledge all which is happening around us…. and try to hang onto one’s own set of beliefs and convictions.

You write well, and I look forward to your upcoming(?) essay which, I suspect, will be laden with narrow convictions…. to which you are entitled…. and lets see if they can withstand the light of day.

OK thanks CallMeSlick. I’m glad a man could set me straight that my half-century experience as a woman is way off base because you “work with a slight majority of women” and observe their behavior/customs/socialization. But what when you’re not at work? Do you dressup in drag and go out? Very savvy. And thanks for the heads up on Huffington and her “ilk”. Let’s see they are “shrill”, which means penetrating. Definetely a word a man would use to describe women. Thanks for making my point.

I got the ’shrill’ word from my 21 year old daughter, Lyn. Thanks. I’m not trying to change your view, but I am challenging the accuracy of it.
Oh, and for NJDave, sorry if I come of as a ‘bully’ to you, but I stated pretty clearly above why this stuff matters to me. Whether you accept that or not is your call, and not really for me to concern myself with. The bottom line difference of opinion between Lyn and myself is that I feel change is and has been steady and positive. She seems to feel that women are trapped in a static position by society.
I would argue, and have, that the facts extant clearly prove her wrong. She has yet to provide ANY data to counter my claims. My other, tangental, point was that she clearly didn’t get the artistic intent of the movie mentioned. Not a big thing in life, overall, but in an essay on popular culture, sort of a serious no-no. For the record, the female lead in ‘The Wrestler’ was critical to the intent of the movie, was clearly not gratuitous(no matter how her husband behaved while watching), and spoke to the frustration and pain of a woman clearly unhappy with that archaic role of ’sex object’ which her choices in life had led her to.
Narrow convictions, Dave? I don’t think anyone who knows me would accuse me of holding narrow views on much of anything. I do think about and challenge virtually any view I come across, and I sense that it is the challenge that some folks have issues dealing with…….

CALynn, would I be off base in assuming if you were to have a choice at another bite of life as we know it, you would push the male preference button? I ask this not in a shrill way, but from an objective point of view and how the sexes perceive each other.

by the way, Lynn, I heard a report on BBC morning report on public radio this am that both of us might agree is blood-curdling: A woman, professor at a college in Britain, is releasing a book that espouses the concept of “erotic capital”. This would refer to the financial advantages of being ‘attractive’, which she views as every bit as important to pursue as intellectual or labor based capital. Thus, she views media definitions of ‘attractive’ as benchmarks, and feels that women and men should be encouraged to consider plastic surgery to up their “erotic capital”. I had to check my calender to see if it was April 1, I was so appalled.