tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post5722426857785108422..comments2024-01-25T15:09:03.714-08:00Comments on Whiskey's Place: NBC's Chuck: Men, Romance, and Female EmpowermentWhiskeyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01854764809682029464noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-18690725944670735182012-07-30T04:41:17.226-07:002012-07-30T04:41:17.226-07:00Quite useful information, much thanks for this pos...Quite useful information, much thanks for this post.sitehttp://thpt-thoilong-cantho.edu.vn/forum/member.php?239341-laurencezarate66noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-91272029356966476162008-11-15T08:03:00.000-08:002008-11-15T08:03:00.000-08:00I quote this filth:*********Hispanic women dont wa...I quote this filth:<BR/>*********<BR/>Hispanic women dont wait for Mario Lopez and black women similarily realize that poster boys are just that, ideal realizations instead of attainable men.<BR/>**********<BR/>Black women have an insanely high single mother rate. So I guess they are "waiting" to get married, or not getting married at all.<BR/><BR/>People like the above poster, who just spew obscene lies, make real discussion difficult. Because you always have to deal with the screaming stupid lie crowd, and they never get tired of repeating the same nonsense over and over again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-82721122783119951122008-11-03T21:30:00.000-08:002008-11-03T21:30:00.000-08:00I love analyses of popular entertainment like this...I love analyses of popular entertainment like this one and, despite disagreeing with the conclusion, this is a fascinating one.<BR/><BR/>I do, however, take issue with a few things:<BR/><BR/>What precisely is your source on on the 117:100 ratio? I think that you've been misinformed. The <A HREF="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html" REL="nofollow">CIA World Factbook</A> and <A HREF="http://www.nationalatlas.gov/articles/people/a_gender.html" REL="nofollow">NationalAtlas.gov</A> dispute that number and not by a little.<BR/><BR/>Also, female doctors marry more widely across the echelon than you might think. My wife is an MD and the dominant spouse/boyfriend is not a doctor or lawyer or anything like that, but an engineer or IT grunt. Their careers are not conducive to their partnering up with ambitious men. In fact, Chuck might be ideal for one because his career (such as it is) is portable. I do know of some doctors that married other doctors, but oddly enough they all seem to be older.<BR/><BR/>The last point of disagreement is that Chuck's problems are largely related to the specifics of the show. Had the government not expressed interest in him, Bryce wouldn't have gotten him kicked out, he'd have his degree, and likely would have been better off. He also wouldn't be tied to a side-career where he can't date anyone cause he's officially dating someone else. He almost got together with someone late-ish in the first season, but it was made clear that anybody not-Sarah was a problem because he was publicly tied to Sarah.<BR/><BR/>Even if that weren't an issue, his fascination with Sarah surely is. Given her career, they're not a good match. His pining over her is actually makes less sense (absent the above) than her fascination with Bryce. At least Bryce and Sarah lead compatible lives. Chuck's is tied to the Intersect. Absent the Intersect and even despite his personal shortcomings, I suspect he could find someone. The Chucks I know in real life mostly did.<BR/><BR/>All that aside, I really loved the post. Particularly the part about living outside the system and the alienating effect of that and how it might mirror ambitious women in general. I don't think that it's a crushing sociological problem as you do, but it's nonetheless thought-provoking stuff.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-59601694472811699262008-11-03T12:42:00.000-08:002008-11-03T12:42:00.000-08:00Sestambi -- actually it looks like that the marria...Sestambi -- actually it looks like that the marriage age gap is about 6-7 years. But for simplicity's sake I am using same age cohorts.<BR/><BR/>Anon 12pm: Xander's problem was that as a heroic, but non-physically and socially dominant man, he was crowded out by the "soft polygamy" that Buffy's women engaged in. He braves dangers to save Buffy's life, and ... has to settle with the bitchy, status-obsessed Cordy who is ashamed of his own status. Gay-now Willow had a mild crush on him, but preferred in the end women, with a slight detour for a high status guitarist. He finally settles for an older, far more sexually experienced woman/demon who has big issues with men, and who predictably betrays him while exhibiting not an ounce of compassion or caring or support. [It's odd too how this type seems to show up -- "The Unit's" blonde, unfaithful wife 'Tiffy' could be a carbon-copy of "Buffy's" Anya.]<BR/><BR/>In the empowered female setting, most men have to "settle" for women of dubious commitment, large sexual baggage and history, and general "bitchiness" -- it's notable how lacking in feminine compassion both 'Tiffy' and 'Anya' are to their largely blue collar guys, and how much they yearn for the more powerful, high status guy.<BR/><BR/>Moreover, "Chuck" is presented as heroic, smart, indeed smarter than anyone on the show, and also attractive (as was Xander). Yet ... he can't land a real girlfriend. Even his "smart" and "nice" College girlfriend dumped him for Bryce. <BR/><BR/>It's the soft polygamy effect. Lacking social controls and the disapproval of family and long-time neighbors, highly mobile young women will engage in that defacto "soft" polygamy -- effectively sharing the few Bryces, which has terribly destabilizing and destructive effects on society.<BR/><BR/>Look at Chuck. Instead of actually doing something productive, lacking any incentive (girlfriend, potential family) he "drifts" in the Buy More.<BR/><BR/>Chuck and Xander's problems are not that they don't get Buffy or Sarah -- it's that they don't get anyone. There is a huge anti-nuclear family bias among both creators and (largely female) audiences in TV. The point of Chuck is that a male creator is actually addressing this issue -- straight on. <BR/><BR/>Anon 1:36 -- I think looking at TV, a very populist medium, is important because it is one of the few places where elites (Hollywood writer-producers) interact with the masses (the audiences). Also, TV is a mostly female medium so looking at how audiences react to it helps examine what I view as a deep and perhaps permanent gender divide. <BR/><BR/>My aim here is to look at the "obvious" such as commercials and TV and examine how politics, culture, and demographics intermix and influence each other. <BR/><BR/>Yes, "Chuck" may be a "crappy TV show" but millions watch it, millions are invested in it, and the themes and the response tell us a lot about how some elites and a lot of the masses interact on gender issues. <BR/><BR/>No there are not any "Alpha" secret agent women, but the idea of "secret agent" = driven career woman with status obsessions is pretty obvious. It's another exploration of the "Knocked Up" pairing -- driven career woman with slacker guy, only with a different twist, and with the guy the focus. He's not a slacker out of anything other than being crowded out of the relationship market.<BR/><BR/>I am not optimistic either about this penchant for "soft polygamy" with careerist White women sharing a few "Alpha" guys. The media environment obliterates the demographic and social reality -- the rise of single child families and atomization means that most young women will never see for themselves the social cost of not finding a decent enough guy in their mid-late twenties. The reaction to Palin's marriage and family was telling. Young single women found that "icky."<BR/><BR/>More and more, the choice seems to be for pursuing the few "Bryce Larkin" types, sharing them defacto with other women, and single motherhood, by design, in their thirties when they can no longer pull them in. Many of the women who choose this path complain bitterly that "no one told them" that men would cease their interest in them as they age out of their twenties.<BR/><BR/>The beauty industry gross revenues dwarf that of the Iraq War expenditures, which gives you a sense of the size/scale of the effort to prolong women's attractiveness (to compete for the few "Alpha" men in their thirties) and give the illusion of a much longer period of attractiveness.<BR/><BR/>Black and Hispanic women of course, lead the nation in single motherhood rates. So if anything, they exhibit this pattern of pursuit of the Alpha, then single motherhood, even more than their White counterparts.<BR/><BR/>"Chuck," in showing this dynamic even though in fantasy form, i.e. a driven career focused woman keeps making disastrous choices for the Byronic Bad Boy instead of the much "better" choice of the "smart" but (currently) low status guy, is important. It's significant that it's the only show that actually promotes (through the ancillary characters of Chuck's sister and future brother-in-law) the goal of a nuclear family, and shows the longing of both Chuck and "Sarah" for that goal, as part of being adult.<BR/><BR/>It's the only thing in the elite-mass setting that is TV that cuts through the PC pandering that pretends that women can triumph over biology and limitations in finding a husband and father to create a nuclear family.<BR/><BR/>It's completely opposite the 1990's fantasy of being 29 forever, epitomized by "Friends."Whiskeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01854764809682029464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-63889202476530689372008-10-28T13:36:00.000-07:002008-10-28T13:36:00.000-07:00Jesus Christ Whiskey, that was the longest post im...Jesus Christ Whiskey, that was the longest post imaginable to describe a crappy TV show.<BR/><BR/>I have one comment to add however about the show's heroine. She is getting older, as all women do, and will in time accept a merely "fairly" attractive man or she will end up a lonely old maid with no friends, like many women who were born from 1960-1980 will wind up being in this country. Feminism will end here amongst white females when younger white females, in the next two decades, note that lonely, old, boring, cancer-in-the-room childless unmarried middle-aged-post-menapausal aunt enters the room at every family gathering and blames all her problems (as if anyone there gives a shit) on men. A second factor in the death of feminism will be when whites get outnumbered in schools and colleges which is happening quickly. Primally, being outnumbered by people who dont like you and blame you for all the world's ills is a motivation to make copies of yourself for protection. <BR/><BR/><BR/>You'd think women in general, when they were teenaged girls, could finger their way through the school annuals and notice that less than 5% of men are just --tremendously-- attractive, and after that, they are mostly average guys. Holding out for a man that looks like a gladiator on American Gladiators is ............like waiting to hit the lottery. There really aren't many of them. I think the younger generation will recognize this. Hispanic women dont wait for Mario Lopez and black women similarily realize that poster boys are just that, ideal realizations instead of attainable men. <BR/><BR/>I wonder how many-alpha-secret agent gals there are out there in real life in America tonight? Maybe 1,000 at most? Its laughable that this drivel is put out there as entertainment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-47175046508869439202008-10-28T12:00:00.000-07:002008-10-28T12:00:00.000-07:00Interestingly, my view of Xander was that his roma...Interestingly, my view of Xander was that his romantic problems were his own fault - he repeatedly sought out the romantic attentions of the most dominant, popular females (his crushes were on Buffy, Cordelia, & psycho-slayer Faith). Those last two in particular were, too put it mildly, selfish & bitchy at best, yet he always preferred them to his sweet, nerdy friend Willow who spent a lot of her high school years pining for him and wondering how he could prefer these mean girls to her. But he didn't want her - he wanted the flashy alpha females, even if they were unpleasant people. <BR/><BR/>When he finally found a beautiful alpha woman who wanted to marry him (again, no sweet, kind nerd girl for him) he dumped her at the alter because of some fear of marriage & commitment. Basically, Xander's romantic problems were due to his own poor choices.<BR/><BR/>It's true that it's difficult for an ordinary guy to attract beautiful, exciting, in-demand women like Buffy or Sarah. Such woman, not surprisingly, also want handsome, exciting, in-demand men. <BR/><BR/>Similarly, plain looking women will rarely be able to snag Sarah's male counterparts, no matter how sweet and loyal she is. But that's life. <BR/><BR/>The problem with the Chuck's & Xander's is that they have Bryce tastes. Rather than complain that they can't get the Sarah's of the world, why not seek out their equals? Ordinary nice girls who are not the best-looking or most popular. But no, everyone wants the cheerleader. Is it really a problem that average men can't get top women?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-46732698020788326012008-10-27T09:06:00.000-07:002008-10-27T09:06:00.000-07:00I really don't know where you get this 117 sex rat...I really don't know where you get this 117 sex ratio number, especially as your correspondents contrast this with your citation of 105 at birth. <BR/><BR/>First of all, young males have a higher death rate due to natural weakness, risk-taking behavior, etc. <BR/><BR/>Furthermore, you are making the assumption that people mate from exactly the same age cohort, when this is clearly untrue. A better measurement is that of how many men per women 2-3 years younger, as this is the traditional American marriage pattern.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-42592149079600228642008-10-26T14:07:00.000-07:002008-10-26T14:07:00.000-07:00105 to 100 still prevails at birth in the USA.Rati...105 to 100 still prevails at birth in the USA.<BR/><BR/>Ratios around 120 to 100 prevail at mating ages in the USA due to immigration, which is mostly male. Many immigrant communities don't mix much with native populations, though the largest do. The effect may be attenuated in higher education cohorts, also.<BR/><BR/>But numbers between 120 and 105 are reality. More important is the effect of the larger number of men in the market. Married and divorced men as well as older men are much more likely to seek or get long term girlfriends than are their mates and peers. This guarantees that each nubile woman will be sought by about two men on average throughout the US.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-33871593486823283262008-10-26T00:19:00.000-07:002008-10-26T00:19:00.000-07:00Do you have some statistics that show this 117 to ...Do you have some statistics that show this 117 to 100 ratio? Of course in China and India this is true, but I have understood that in west 105 to 100 ratio is normal during birth. And in past this was reduced to 100 to 100 due higher male child mortality, but nowdays thanks to better medicines 105 to 100 remains till adulthood.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-69461165178435713372008-10-25T15:22:00.000-07:002008-10-25T15:22:00.000-07:00Anon -- sorry was unclear. Historically the ratio ...Anon -- sorry was unclear. Historically the ratio has been 105 to 100, in early adolescence. That's been changed since infant/early childhood mortality, which seems to affect boys more than girls, has been reduced.Whiskeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01854764809682029464noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-51390897637300067772008-10-25T12:09:00.000-07:002008-10-25T12:09:00.000-07:00How did you come to this 117 to 100 ratio? If rati...How did you come to this 117 to 100 ratio? If ratio at birth is 105 to 100, how this will end up to 117 to 100?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-60027905013503960332008-10-25T10:58:00.000-07:002008-10-25T10:58:00.000-07:00Here's a great Larkin poem in the form of a letter...Here's a great Larkin poem in the form of a letter to a friend who is more successful with women, someone like Amis. <BR/><BR/> Letter to a Friend about Girls<BR/>by Philip Larkin<BR/><BR/>After comparing lives with you for years<BR/>I see how I’ve been losing: all the while<BR/>I’ve met a different gauge of girl from yours.<BR/>Grant that, and all the rest makes sense as well:<BR/>My mortification at your pushovers,<BR/>Your mystification at my fecklessness—<BR/>Everything proves we play in separate leagues.<BR/>Before, I couldn’t credit your intrigues<BR/>Because I thought all girls the same, but yes,<BR/>You bag real birds, though they’re from alien covers.<BR/><BR/>Now I believe your staggering skirmishes<BR/>In train, tutorial and telephone booth,<BR/>The wife whose husband watched away matches<BR/>While she behaved so badly in a bath,<BR/>And all the rest who beckon from that world<BR/>Described on Sundays only, where to want<BR/>Is straightway to be wanted, seek to find,<BR/>And no one gets upset or seems to mind<BR/>At what you say to them, or what you don’t:<BR/>A world where all the nonsense is annulled,<BR/><BR/>And beauty is accepted slang for yes.<BR/>But equally, haven’t you noticed mine?<BR/>They have their world, not much compared with yours,<BR/>But where they work, and age, and put off men<BR/>By being unattractive, or too shy,<BR/>Or having morals—anyhow, none give in:<BR/>Some of them go quite rigid with disgust<BR/>At anything but marriage: that’s all lust<BR/>And so not worth considering; they begin<BR/>Fetching your hat, so that you have to lie<BR/><BR/>Till everything’s confused: you mine away<BR/>For months, both of you, till the collapse comes<BR/>Into remorse, tears, and wondering why<BR/>You ever start such boring barren games<BR/>—But there, don’t mind my saeva indignatio:<BR/>I’m happier now I’ve got things clear, although<BR/>It’s strange we never meet each other’s sort:<BR/>There should be equal chances, I’d’ve thought.<BR/>Must finish now. One day perhaps I’ll know<BR/>What makes you be so lucky in your ratio<BR/><BR/>—One of those ‘more things’, could it be? Horatio.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Don't get me started on literature. Tolstoy says things about women that could have come from Roissy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3893665144141962944.post-20552246095867465572008-10-25T10:49:00.000-07:002008-10-25T10:49:00.000-07:00Philip Larkin was famously bad with women. One of...Philip Larkin was famously bad with women. One of his most famous poems, "Annus Mirabilis" mentions the late age in which he lost his virginity. Still, a number of poems indicates that he knew what it takes to get women but was temperamentally unable to go through with it. It also turned out after his death that he was more successful with women than his more self-pitying poems made him out to be, but he was no great pick-up artist. His friend and novelist, Kingsley Amis, however, was. See his _Take a Girl Like You_ for a great, flawed, somewhat evil, pick-up oriented novel. I think the main character's flatmate who hilarious fails with the female protagonist is a stand-in for Larkin.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com