Neo-macho and pop-culture, which are your thoughts on this article?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flyinghorse
  • Start date Start date
F

Flyinghorse

Guest
It is quiet long, and there is no link (unless you have a subscription to Questia where you can find the whole article).
Therefore I will just post some relevant excerpts:

"Not so long ago, you couldn't say "macho man" without thinking of the Village People. Hypermasculinity was so thoroughly discredited that it seemed fit for camp. Now it's back, in earnest. But this revival was no bolt from the blue. The neo-macho hero has a history.

He sprang from the reaction to feminism that began in the 1980s and advanced in the '90s, even as the empowerment of women became a tenet of Democratic politics. As women rose, so did male anxiety, and in this edgy climate a new archetype appeared in pop culture: the sexual avenger. His rage often focused on personal betrayal, but implicit in his tirades was a sense of the world turned upside down.

By 1990 the revolt against feminism was a hip commodity. Shock-jocks like Howard Stern and Don Imus dominated drive-time radio, misogynistic comics like Sam Kinison and Andrew Dice Clay were late-night TV sensations, rock marauders spat variations on Axl Rose's final solution for bitchy women: "Burn the witch." Meanwhile, at the multiplex the sexually cornered male, embodied by Michael Douglas in a series of films from Fatal Attraction (1987) to Disclosure (1994), was the new Dirty Harry.

At first, these performers combined racial and sexual resentment for a double thrill. Imus and his sidekicks did cottonfield imitations of black celebrities, Axl railed against "immigrants and faggots [who] come into our country and...spread some fucking disease," the Diceman vowed vengeance on immigrants. But racism was an impediment to crossover success. Misogyny, however, was not. In the Clinton era, the backlash reached a fever pitch--and Hillary was hardly its only target. Pop culture invited men of all races and ages to bond over bitch-bashing, and as the 1990s progressed every market niche had its version of the sexual avenger.

The most commercial hip-hop fronted for this backlash. Veering from its radical roots in the black community, gangsta rap became a spectacle of male conquest. Its paragon was the player (pimp) ruling over abject hos and raining violence on resistant bitches. Because these top dawgs trafficked in sadism, they were sexy in a way that angry white males of the 1980s could never be. And because they were for the most part black, their rage could be cast as progressive. Many liberals who would never buy into Rush Limbaugh's "feminazi" rants were drawn to neo-macho rappers who carried the imprimatur of the street. Postmodernists saw this music as an exercise in role-playing or an outlet for fantasies that would never be carried out in life, certainly not in politics. Armed with denial, even a pro-feminist man could enjoy the spectacle--and critics called it art.

The most unexpected boost to backlash culture came from young women who gravitated to its forbidden games. It was hot to play the ho and cool to call yourself a bitch. You could always tell yourself that this was just an erotic pose. But the return of fetishized femininity was about more than sex. Men were not the only ones made anxious by the new female agency. Many women feared the loss of desirability that their power might bring--and teenagers were especially prone to these uncertainties. The new model offered a way out for boys and girls alike.

Without the backlash, other, more progressive tendencies in hip-hop might have prevailed. But the flight from feminism had created a huge market for bitch-bashing anthems. By meeting this demand in a powerful musical form, gangsta rappers tapped into the choice demographic of suburban teens. Sexual violence was only part of the thug package, but it turned millions of white kids on, resonating with the broader culture of misogyny. The male avenger was emerging as the insignia of rebellion for a new generation"

Neo-Macho Man: Pop Culture and Post-9/11 Politics Even before the Attacks, a Backlash against Feminism Had Brought the Return of the Authoritarian Male. Now, Macho Is Equated with Keeping Us Safe

Magazine article by Richard Goldstein; The Nation, Vol. 276, March 24, 2003.
 
I find myself rebelling against so much American feminist writing because it persistently fails to engage on class and poverty, or the role of celebrity culture and the American dream in creating and sustaining gender division.

Instead articles like this invoke a mythical period (what the 1960s or 1970s maybe) when feminism won its goals, men weren't macho and all was well with the world.

This is rubbish, it never happened. Women won some freedoms due largely to mass protests which happened in parallel with immense social and political changes driven through on the wave of middle class student uprisings, but these changes happened against a backdrop of extreme social conservatism and firmly entrenched ideas of mens roles.

While laws changed, and rights changed, there has always been a strong persistent image of men as "macho protector", it was never ridiculous at any period.

Charting changes in how men are portrayed in film, in music and making out that attitudes to women have somehow devolved is again deceitful. Mick Jagger, 60s icon, anti war singer...penned "Under My Thumb" at the heart of the most socially progressive era of the 20th century. Modern rap musicians would have a hard time getting away with such sexist lyrics in the mainstream even now.

I think perhaps modern feminists are simply relearning what those in the 1960s and 1970s knew at the time. There is always a backlash. If there is a reason in the western world to sustain an active feminist movement, it is because without vigilance, freedoms will lost.
 
The author is just as bad as the misogynists he rails against. What does this article do except rile people up to bash another group of people? I also find it disgraceful how the author tries to tie race/ethnicity with feminism, just trying to get the reader huffed and puffed up even more.
 
Marilyn Monroe ruled men with sex in Hollywood way before Demi Moore, music was 'misogynistic' as far as they're defining it way before Tupac, and women were peddling their pelts way before the 1980's...so I'm kinda inclined to think this article is this person's way of trying to link it all to feminism when really the "observations" they're making had already existed.

I thought the entire thing was pretty dense to be honest =/
 
Sounds like you are just bitter nobody is going poppippita poppippita on your bum. You are acting all childish and immature ranting against the macho men. Jajajaja its all like waaaah misogynie and yaaay victimhood.

Dont be like bitchyabitchbitch and scorn and scowl and you too will find a macho man to molest your buttcheeks.
 
Back
Top