TV is more violent than ever before. Violent deaths, assaults, and other brutality fill the screen. At a time when TV has never been more oriented towards the female viewer? What gives? The answer of course lies in the type of violence. Women viewers in general don't like the masculine violence, seen in movies like "the Wild Bunch" or any realistic combat movie and series (such as HBO's "Band of Brothers.") Women DO like violence that establishes the main male character as dominant and therefore sexy. And it seems that Hollywood is happy to oblige, almost to the point where it has become an exercise in picking middle aged, not particularly sexy character actors and making them hot-damn! sexy symbols on TV. Call it TV producers inside joke.
Cue the Sopranos James Gandolfini. Not exactly a Brad Pitt look-a-like, his characters brutal and violent behavior, including the on-screen murder of a pleading woman (the secret informant girlfriend of his protégé) made him more not less sexy. As did later murders of his protégé, and numerous other characters. Bryan Cranston ("Walter White") of Breaking Bad is not exactly the stuff dreams are made of either. But the characters arc from nebbishy suburban husband to super-bad nascent drug kingpin and killer took him from chump to champ, in sex appeal. You see the same thing with Rescue Me's Dennis Leary, playing a "bad" firefighter who does awful things (like rape his ex-wife onscreen) and becomes even sexier. Showtime's "Dexter" about a "good" serial killer (who only kills other serial killers, sadistically) is par for the course. The whole point is that the characters brutal violence makes him more sexy not less, to the female audience (which is who watches Dexter, mostly). Michael Chicklis in "the Shield" is another such character. Boardwalk Empire's Steve Buscemi who portrays a character that is on-screen violently brutal and murderous, is probably the outer boundary of physical unattractiveness combined with physical dominance to see how "sexy" and physically unattractive a character can be and still play among the female audience.
Quite clearly, producers and writers are well aware of the female audience's desire for brutal and unrestrained violence among "sexy" and "bad" male characters. And they are giving the audience what it wants, full throttle. Sexy bad boys not limited by anything, not conscience, mercy, ties of family, patriotism, anything. Damien Lewis in "Life" played a guy who could be brutal but had definite self-imposed limits when it came to revenge, and a bit of compassion. No doubt those character qualities made the show a failure with the female audience. Playing a variation of the same character (one long and unjustly imprisoned) but with no patriotism, conscience, remorse, or even independence (he is dominated by a stronger, more charismatic jihadi) … the character has gone over like gangbusters.
Why is this? Well like the demand under Prohibition for ever more of the hard stuff, because casual drinking legally was impossible, the demand for "sexiness" in brutal dominance including the ultimate taboo, murder, being violated left and right, is nothing more than a reflection of the lack of sexiness in men around them. If most men were "sexy" then women would not want this hard-stuff.
Ultra-machismo Mexico and Columbia produce telenovela after telenovela that feature hard-working, often "ugly" women who become beautiful, powerful, and successful and snag that Alpha male. Who is the traditional "Fabio" type of character, strong and successful, but not violent. Ugly Betty is well within the range for that type of entertainment, wildly popular throughout Latin America. Men in those countries are plenty violent, women there don't need a fantasy of violence to get their thrills. They can see decapitated bodies, others hung mutilated off bridges, to what the real violence is. Instead their fantasies run towards being rich, famous, powerful, and with a devoted but hot/desirable husband who is "sophisticated" (think Fernando Lamas, not Lorenzo Lamas).
You can see this at work in "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" where gee, give Apes the power of human intellect and speech, and they are "superior" and rule because modern (White) men are just too wimpy to fight back. Yeah, right.
Ordinary White women in sheltered, suburban America, have no idea of what any man is capable of, and tend to judge off superficial posturing. Equal and status-quo feminism in the workplace, in schools, in larger society, leave most women judging wrongly that only a few men are sexy, because they posture overtly as dominant, violent, or both. Hence the hunger for fantasy dominance through ultra-violence. Not impersonal violence showing people blown apart, but personal violence showing the male character is one without any limits and able to dominate other people and make it stick.
If we ever hit sustained, violent hard times (which is likely, to my horror, I am a comfortable middle class American, with much to lose) then obviously the female audience won't demand fantasy violence. They'll have real ones at their doorstep, or more, every day. Even if America degrades, slowly, as the "best option" then things will soon sort themselves out. Women who face being hassled every day by gangs of illegal aliens congregating on street corners for day labor, do not find fantasy violence arousing. Nor do women who live in real fear of being assaulted, robbed, and killed, at home or going to and from work. Nor indeed do women who must deal paying the rent or buying food or buying gasoline to get to work.
The desire for fantasy violence comes from the illusion of control, safety, security, and stability. Seen on First World Problems:
“Exurban growth has led to people I used to think of as hillbillies being socially promoted to mere hicks.”
[Yes elites HATE HATE HATE the "hillbillies."]
Not enough "sexy men" in the cubicle next to you? Too much deferential "niceness" and boring behavior? Not enough dominance and control in the men around you? THAT is a First World problem, soon to go away with the First World itself.
Look for this sexy bad boy killer trend on TV and movies to go away. Soon. ...Read more
Steve Sailer has written on the 20th anniversary of the Highway of Death, and the awesome power of American air power. Which is undeniably potent. But also an undeniable failure, in achieving American national security goals. Obama's war but not war, against Libya and Khadaffi, and removal but not removal, of Khadaffi from power, is only the latest failure (and possibly the largest one yet) of American power in the Middle East. To put it bluntly, every President from Carter onwards has failed, in different ways, in achieving national security goals in the Middle East. They have failed, because they did not appreciate the need for infantry power, and the limits of American Air power, no matter how magnificent that power might be. It is still, limited. And as such, relying upon it has brought nothing but failure to American goals in the Middle East.
First, what are the American goals in the Middle East? FDR said on Feb 16, 1943, "the defense of Saudi Arabia is vital to the defense of the United States." This doctrine was further articulated in the Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, and Carter Doctrines. The Carter Doctrine stated explicitly that the US would use military force to defend its interests in the Persian Gulf. Now, what might those interests be? Why, the free flow of oil, at prices the US consumer can afford. That is, really, the only interest the US has in the Gulf, and one that goes all the way back to the middle of WWII.
Reagan, and George Herbert Walker Bush, articulated variations of the Carter Doctrine, as did Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. But the basic outline of the Carter Doctrine has stayed in place. The US would use military force, to shape the outcome of power struggles in the Persian Gulf, to the US national security advantage. Which boils down to the free flow of oil, at prices that at a minimum do not choke off economic activity in the US.
As long as Americans like eating safe, relatively clean, and affordable food, like affordable cooling and heating for their homes, like homes that are affordable and far from crime and violence of the ghetto and barrio, and incomes befitting First World people not Third World slum dwellers, the need to shape Persian Gulf and Middle East politics and power struggles will remain. Oil, and the free flow of it at affordable prices, remain in the US national security interest. You might argue that absent nuclear terrorism or attacks by foreign countries with nuclear weapons, securing the free flow of oil from the Middle East at reasonable prices is the supreme goal of American foreign policy.
There are those who would argue, and have argued, that the best way to secure America's interests is one long apology, followed by withdrawal from the region. That America has "original sin" and only makes things worse, being mostly White, mostly Christian, and thus generates pure hatred. That withdrawing from the Middle East will bring rainbows, unicorns, and rivers of chocolate. And that if it does not work out, well America doesn't need or deserve cheap energy anyway. God must want us punished for being wicked, or something. It is not a serious argument, but one made anyway. As Machiavelli noted about Savonarola, unarmed prophets preaching a new millennium come always to martyrdom and failure.
America was generally lucky, in the years following 1943 to 1979. America had allies, scared out of their wits by the Soviets and their sponsoring of Arab Nationalism, of a secular character. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Morocco, the Persian Gulf States, the Shah of Iran, and later Sadat's Egypt all looked to the US for support against Soviet subversion. This stable set of affairs (for the Middle East anyway) was blown apart by the Iranian Revolution, and direct confrontation in the Persian Gulf over control of its oil. By the Mullahs of Iran, who sought out actively a confrontation with the United States.
Carter of course failed miserably, not the least of which he was constrained by post-Vietnam desire to avoid casualties at all costs. Which led to a disastrous reliance on air power alone. Operation Eagle Claw was only the first in a set of disasters. Ronald Reagan was chased out of Lebanon by Iran and Hezbollah bombing the US Marine Barracks and US Embassy. An overt act of war that caused the Gipper to retreat, in panic. Desultory attempts to use the USS Iowa to shell Lebanese villages with its 18 inch guns had no real effect. In order to either rescue the hostages, or control valuable real estate in the Eastern Mediterranean, the US needed to commit ground troops and accept some considerable measure of casualties. Air power alone, cannot hold ground. It cannot take cities, rescue hostages, or defeat militias. Only troops on the ground can do these things. And inevitably, doing these things cause large amounts even with Western advantages, of casualties. A price no President save George W. Bush has been willing to pay.
This failure only accelerated in the Gulf War. While Sailer correctly notes how devastating the attack on the Highway of Death was, from Saddam's viewpoint he won the Gulf War. He was still in charge of Iraq. Air power failed to dislodge him from power. So he lost a good part of his army? So what? They were replaceable from his point of view. So his people suffered? So what? They existed merely to serve him, from his point of view. His army could be rebuilt. Sanctions endured and then evaded. And the experience of Iraq, and the thirteen years from the end of the Gulf War to the start of the Persian Gulf War, perfectly illuminates the failure of Air Power alone to achieve US objectives.
The US objective in fighting Saddam in the first place was to secure the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, at a reasonable price. The flow of oil at a reasonable price being the key to America's economic security. Kicking Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait did not achieve that objective. Saddam could always come back, and this time drive all the way to Yemen, taking Saudi oil fields. Only constant, grinding, combat air patrols over Iraq, kept Saddam on a leash. Not truce agreements, United Nations resolutions, various informal agreements, all of which Saddam signed and soon reneged upon. Bill Clinton had to launch Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 in response to Iraq failing to comply with various UN disarmament resolutions and Saddam kicking out arms inspectors. Of course, constant combat air patrols and periodic bombing campaigns against Saddam required extensive use of Saudi airbases, itself something sensitive and cited often by Osama bin Laden as "justification" for jihadi attacks against the US and certainly US civilians inside America.
Just as important, however, was the manifest failure of US airpower. Osama and other Jihadis studied the results carefully, and as Lawrence Wright wrote in "The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11," argued persuasively that Saddam, not the US, had won the Gulf War. Won it by surviving, and staying in power. That in the opinion of Osama bin Laden, the US was a paper tiger, with no staying power, that could be safely attacked in any form, provided that the attackers were willing and able to shelter, take some acceptable level of casualties, and then advance to their goal once America tired of the effort.
This argument won the day, particularly after the debacle of Somalia, and the fairly impotent US response. The US did not level Mogadishu (which would have been the response of an Arab leader) nor did it kill masses of Somalis. The deadliness of the US defense (about 3,000 estimated Somalis killed in exchange for the roughly 19 Americans killed) did not register. Clinton's fairly impotent cruise missile response to the 1998 African Embassy bombings, and non-response to the assault on the Cole, only increased the view among jihadis, and Muslims world-wide generally, that the US lacked the will and the ability to impose its will upon the Middle East, and that the US and its interests could be safely attacked provided the attacker was willing to take some casualties like Saddam, and hunker down until the US got tired.
For those wondering why the Taliban ever agreed to Osama's plan to attack the US on 9/11, this is why. More importantly, this perception also colors the Iranian response. Iran did try to blockade the Persian Gulf, with its Navy, and mining efforts. Resulting in Operation Preying Mantis, which showed US air power was decisive in destroying targets at sea and in port. Naval warfare is not the same as guerilla warfare on land. Iran has been careful not to repeat the experience, and has put most of its assets into a nuclear ICBM program and paramilitary operations (principally Hezbollah) which operating on land can employ the Saddam strategy: hunker down, take casualties, outlast the Americans as they get tired.
After 9/11, George W. Bush tried a different strategy. US Air power proved decisive in defeating the Taliban in concert with the Northern Alliance and small groups of US Special Forces. US Air power again proved decisive in allowing US ground forces to dominate and destroy the forces of Saddam Hussein. Pre-War predictons of a "battle of Baghdad" rivaling that of Stalingrad or Berlin proved nonsense. US casualties were very light.
But occupying Iraq to achieve the US national security aims: providing the free flow of oil to the world market at a reasonable price, proved far more difficult. Iraq's broken, and tribal society proved a perfect setting for massive bloodletting. America expected US Air and armored warfare dominance to be matched by infantry dominance, and was angered when it was not, with (light by historical standards but) casualties they found simply too high. Bush never explained in any way the interests of the United States in securing Iraq's oil, and territory (against the Iranians and AQ) to further the free flow of oil on reasonable terms to the world and thus US markets. It was a simple proposition. Blood for oil. The point being that only some limited amount of US bloodshed could secure the oil, without which the US economy would grind to a massive halt, with widespread poverty due to sky-high energy prices. And that the territory of Iraq needed to be secured, lest Iran use it against us to disrupt the flow of oil. Iran having a built-in desire to jack up oil prices sky high. [To pay for their thug-security army.]
Bush never made this simple explanation, was appalled at the suggestion of "blood for oil" (well, of course) and behaved like the mainstream, JFK-style liberal the man was and remains. Bush simply stopped explaining or defending his policies, much less challenging critics on how they would secure the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf at reasonable prices, to secure the US economy and provide growth.
And as casualties mounted, the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan learned how to cope with US airpower. Mounting time-limited attacks (often no more than fifteen minutes, timing the distance and availability of US aircraft to provide close air support). Using IEDs as equalizers, and using attrition style ambushes aimed at political defeats at home, not decisive victory against the US. Whose ability on the ground also grew, as US forces became better as well in infantry fighting.
Which leads us to Libya. It is in the interest of the US to secure the oil from Libya, to the global markets, as quickly as possible. Unrest in Nigeria, delays in bringing Iraq's oil to market, and unrest in the Persian Gulf have left markets without much spare capacity. Japan will need diesel generators for years on end, to provide power to a significant portion of its population. Driving up oil usage. Libya provides ten percent of the global market, and its oil unlike the Saudis is relatively free of sulfur and other impurities. Making it easier and cheaper to refine.
It is also in the interest of the United States to demonstrate its power to remove a troublesome leader. This is because the Middle East and Persian Gulf in particular, is unstable, and new leaders can quickly arise who are hostile to the US. It is useful to remind such men that the US has powers if it chooses to use them, that can greatly aid in the removal of such men.
It is further in the interest of the United States that Libya not become an embarkation point for mass migration of North Africans and Africans to Europe, nor a Disneyland resort for Al Qaeda and other jihadis, nor Somalia upon the Mediterranean. These are important, and complementary goals of the US. To achieve one, it is required to achieve them all.
At this point, Air Power alone cannot achieve them. Air Power used against Khadaffi three weeks ago might have defeated him, as his regime was reeling, he had many desertions, and he appeared to be on the outs. Now that he has a mercenary army, quickly assembled, and paid by with gold held personally in the Bank of Libya in Tripoli (Khadaffi was not stupid, and observed the seizure of assets in Switzerland and other countries of such leaders as Pinochet, Charles Taylor, and Kabila). Khadaffi has reportedly, enough gold to pay his army for years.
The rebels are a rabble incapable of military order or much of anything. They are untrained, undisciplined, and refuse to listen to anyone with military experience on the need for good order, conservation of ammunition, hygiene, conservation of water, and so on. Even with US air power, about all that can be accomplished is a de facto partition of Libya, with the oil out of the world market for decades, Libya likely turning into a Disneyland for AQ and other jihadis (in Khadaffi's and the rebel's partitions) and Somalia upon the Med. With a cherry upon top of US defeat, yet again, and visible defeat. To embolden America's enemies in the Gulf, intent on interfering with the free flow of oil at a reasonable price.
To achieve US goals, US military forces on the ground, including considerable amounts of infantry and armor, will be required to drive upon Tripoli, and oust Khadaffi. This means casualties, bloodshed, and US pain. It will require money, and a military occupation of Libya that is costly and painful and divisive.
Can it be done? Certainly? Should it be done? On balance, I would argue yes. Obama's stated reasons for bombing Libya, that the UN "responsibility to protect" civilian populations from massacres by their own leaders, is laughable. The Ivory Coast, Liberia, Sudan, Haiti, Nigeria, Rwanda, and East Timor have all either recently experienced this, are experiencing it now, or will likely experience it again in the future. And no one seriously suggests that the UN can order the US military, which cannot refuse the order, to protect these people. Nor does the UN have any role in ordering the US military, at all, either to permit it to do something, or not, or order it to do something. This madness is Obama's one-world anti-Americanism, reflexively at work.
This madness does not mean that the US has no interests in Libya. Quite the contrary. Nor does it mean that the US should shy away from any and all confrontation. Nor does it mean that the US cannot or should not ever engage in military action in pursuit of its national interests. What it does mean, is that it needs to clearly define, in terms every average citizen can understand, what is the national interest. Not abstruse concepts of "Muslims yearn for freedom" or such liberal garbage (something that George W. Bush had in common with JFK, which is why Liberals loathe Bush so much, he is basically a liberal heresy). But rather, the US depends on cheap global oil, which allows us to keep places like Florida and California clean of oil rigs, and the inevitable oil spills, and still have a good quality of life and an economy that functions and grows.
This means, use of military force, basically combined arms of naval forces, infantry, armor, and air power together, to remove regimes that threaten the free flow of oil, at a reasonable price, when the opportunity for success is at hand, being aware that an occupation will be likely more costly and bloody than the overturning of the regime itself.
This is not the end of the world. This is neither invade the world, invite the world (Sailer's catch phrase for Bush's policy) and does not mean intervention in say, the Ivory Coast to put its cocoa production back into the market. It does not even mean intervention to remove regimes hostile to America's goal of free flow of oil at reasonable prices at every turn. It does mean, however, re-running Iraq at some point. Because the US has no partners to off-load fighting to, on the ground. And therefore must do it, itself. Which means casualties and bloodshed and treasure all spent.
Everything costs. Ike was able to rely on scared, and compliant Arab regimes to do the dirty work of ground fighting and policing, without a global Jihad network. The cost of that was a constant, hair-trigger nuclear standoff between the US and the USSR. Which led Ike to pull the plug on the French-UK-Israeli attempt to overthrow Nasser and retake the Suez canal. The US then relied upon the Saudis, and later Egyptians, in what amounted to a swap for the Shah of Iran, to police much of the Middle East.
The ability of these regimes to police the Middle East for us, is now an open question. They remain precarious and unstable, even those that seemed invincible: Khadaffi, Mubarak, and Ben Ali. Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, Miyamoto Musashi, and Clausewitz all advised against outsourcing military campaigns, or even any part of it, to others. The American people will have to be told, and required to choose, if they want to be poor, and live poorer lives, to avoid entanglement in the Middle East, or if they like living in nice houses, driving nice cars, eating nice and affordable food, buying nice and affordable clothes? If the latter, then the price is periodically, the US using combined arms to achieve a fairly quick victory over unstable regimes, and policing the tribal populace afterwards so that oil interests are not interfered with. Understanding that there is no cheap and easy way to set up an occupation and transition to self-rule, without some considerable level of American casualties.
Or the US could abjure such measures, and live substantially poorer lives, even with drilling in the US, and the inevitable spills and oil pollution of the beaches and oceans, and inland waterways, and destruction of fragile habitat. Even with substantial US oil production at home, there simply is not enough oil to make the global market (oil is traded globally, as the critical resource) affordable. There just isn't enough US oil available at prices that can sustain long term economic growth (oil at roughly $50-$60 a barrel at today's prices).
This is a case that an American President or candidate must make to the American people. That there is no free lunch, that there is not something for nothing, that US prosperity rests on cheap oil which means periodically US military personnel fighting and dying in ugly Middle East lands, to remove threats to the free flow of oil at reasonable prices. Not every threat, at every time, but periodically when the US must intervene to keep oil prices down or remove threats that cannot be put off any longer.
Libya, under these circumstances, meets none of these criteria. Obama is sure to create a total disaster in Libya, an ignoble, and stupid American defeat. Khadaffi remaining (which is victory for him), constant fighting, degeneration into Somalia "plus" and an open invitation for AQ and other jihadis to shelter there, with either Khadaffi or the rebels. Obama is unable and unwilling to lead America to victory, which requires boots on the ground, American forces, and a clear explanation of what victory looks like: the oil flowing, a pro-American regime in power. Instead we are likely to get the worst possible outcomes. Obama is an incompetent Affirmative Action President and his people are even less competent than he is, something shocking.
Very disappointing is Hillary, who had an up close view of Clinton's failure to unseat Saddam or gain permanent compliance with US objectives. Rice and Power acted as one could expect, and Biden was, well, he was Joe Biden. A man long believed to be mentally impaired due to a brain aneurism. If he did not have one, there would not be any functional difference.
The only "good" thing to come of this is the experience in France and Britain, of how unreliable American power has become, how unserious, and how exposed they are to regional threats (principally North Africa imploding and sending masses of refugees onto their shores ala Camp of the Saints). If either government, and people, in either country, has a brain or a clue, they will rapidly ditch austerity budgets, and re-arm like crazy, particularly with naval and air forces, to maintain control of the seas around them. There is no reason Britain and France cannot each have six air craft carriers each, for a total of twelve, plus support ships. Construction of which, on an emergency basis, along with fighter planes, and other ancillary aircraft, could put nearly all their unemployed back to work, immediately, and stimulate Eurozone demand. True Keynesian economics at work. America has shouldered far too much of Europe's defense burden, and the Europeans must come out of their post Suez, "America and the Soviet Nuclear Arsenal make us irrelevant" funk. The Europeans have real enemies, intent on really occupying their lands.
True, they are mostly an illiterate, Muslim rabble from North Africa and Africa, but that does not make them any less dangerous. Far easier to build a whacking great Navy and keep them in North Africa than deal with five, ten, twenty million refugees in a tidal wave on their own shores. America's very rapid (Obama is already looking for the exits) process of leaving France and the UK holding the bag, will prove instructive. America is unwilling to use its power, instead believing in Unicorns and Rainbows.
As he told a gathering of high-rolling Democratic donors in Washington last week: "As time passes, you start taking it for granted that a guy named Barack Hussein Obama is president of the United States. But we should never take it for granted. I hope that all of you still feel that sense of excitement and that sense of possibility."
America bet everything on unicorns and rainbows. On the excitement and sense of possibility that a man named Barack Hussein Obama is President of the United States. That having a Black guy with a Muslim name will magically make the world love us. Obama certainly hasn't forgotten. He believes himself to be Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, and Allah all combined. He really does think he walks on water, with unicorns prancing in the background. That he really is a lightworker. That:
Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.
The unusual thing is, true Lightworkers almost never appear on such a brutal, spiritually demeaning stage as national politics. This is why Obama is so rare. And this why he is so often compared to Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., to those leaders in our culture whose stirring vibrations still resonate throughout our short history.
Largely, this is the sort of person around Obama. Who believes as they did yesterday, that Obama is the racial redeemer and "New and Improved" Jesus come to save the sinful America and restore the world's place on top of the sinful nature of America. This sort of President, who clearly believes in his own worship and hype, is not able in any way of projecting military power in defense of America's interests. Why would he? All he has to be is Mr. Wonderful himself! Nor are his people capable of finding their behinds in the dark with a flashlight and a map.
The complete disappearance of America up, basically, its own asshole, has serious consequences for Europe, which they are now finding out. It will have serious consequences for America too, as most of America will find out once the worship of the media is no longer able to keep the lights on.
The dialog at the end of "Three Days of the Condor" is instructive. America has been living on luck and seed corn, for decades. The argument between Higgins (Cliff Robertson) and Joe Turner (Robert Redford) turns on invasion plans for the Middle East:
Higgins: It's simple economics. Today it's oil, right? In ten or fifteen years, food. Plutonium. Maybe even sooner. Now, what do you think the people are gonna want us to do then? Joe Turner: Ask them? Higgins: Not now - then! Ask 'em when they're running out. Ask 'em when there's no heat in their homes and they're cold. Ask 'em when their engines stop. Ask 'em when people who have never known hunger start going hungry. You wanna know something? They won't want us to ask 'em. They'll just want us to get it for 'em!
Obama, and the media, asserted that Obama being so wonderful, a lightworker, and a man with a Muslim name, and Black to boot, would make every Muslim and Muslim nation love us. So that there would be no fighting, no war, no conflict, no sacrifice needed, no bloody call to duty, to keep the lights on, the power running. To keep people who have never known hunger from being hungry. All of that is about to end, and the total Libyan debacle will be part of that.
Eventually, out of pure necessity, America will adopt some form of the Carter Doctrine backed up by infantry forces. As the limits and failure of air power alone to remove regimes and install friendlier ones comes apart with sky high oil prices. Oil is already over $100 a barrel. It will go far higher. Sadly. This alone should prove the failure of American Air power alone to gain our objectives (look at the prices!) but sadly Americans and American elites will require being hit over the head with reality until they are bloody before reality sinks in. ...Read more
I half expect a South Park Episode to come out any day now, based on the tween girl explosions over vampires and fantasy: "Reading is Gay." Fantasy, a realm formerly associated with nerdy males and authors like Robert E. Howard ("Conan the Cimmerian") or H Rider Haggard (King Solomon's Mines, Allan Quatermain), or Edgar Rice Burroughs (Tarzan, John Carter of Mars), is now thoroughly the province of tween girls. Not only did the Twilight fans (including Twilight Moms) take over Comic-Con, but even lesser works such as "the Vampire Diaries" far overshadow conventional fantasy in sales and attention.
This marks another, mostly male sphere, that is now switched to a mostly female sphere. However, the problem for publishers, writers, and the entertainment industry at large is that males will simply withdraw from something so absolutely, and irrevocably female. Making fantasy a tough sell once the tween fad runs out (as mega-stars Leif Erickson and Scott Baio). Which means in an extended recession/depression, the regular income streams that male readers used to give fantasy publishers simply won't be there any more. As males consider fantasy just another female-gay ghetto, and tween girls inevitably grow up, and move on to the next fad. The cultural damage, both to girls views about men and male behavior, and the erosion of the male-heroic fantasy, are far worse than the commercial impact, of course.
Part of the problem is structural. Female editors, agents, and publishing executives only want female writers, catering to female readers, writing female subjects because that is all they know (female editors, agents, and publishing execs are of course clueless about what men and boys want to read). Because the market for tween girl fantasy, for now, is lucrative. Catering to fantasies about powerful, "sexy" girls and women who have several super-powered, supernatural male beings competing for their favors. A look at the audiences for say, the Harry Potter premiere, can tell a careful observer why these themes are so remunerative: see here, or here, or here.
Even Disney does not get it. "the Kid Whisperer" as focus group guru Kelly Pena styles herself, is not the person I'd bet on to discover what sort of entertainment boys like. The quote from the article says it all:
While Disney XD is aimed at boys and their fathers, it is also intended to include girls. “The days of the Honeycomb Hideout, where girls can’t come in, have long passed,” said Rich Ross, president of Disney Channels Worldwide.
Of course boys need their separate spheres of entertainment. Anything intended to include girls will have boys abandoning it in haste. As you get inevitably, entertainment and attitudes that are far too "girly" for boys to enjoy. Boys have different needs when it comes to stories and entertainment, simply making "Lizzy McGuire" a guy won't cut it, note Disney's increases have come mainly from girls attracted by the marketing push to Disney XD.
There's no denying that girls and women have disposable income. That it's wise to target them. But relying almost exclusively on women and girls for entertainment customers means that men and boys are driven out of the marketplace by "girly" emphasis on emotions, masculine behavior men and boys find distasteful, particularly competition over women and girls, and men and their expected behavior and status no male could ever approach, or want to approach.
TV, over the decades, starting in the 1970's, most likely, has become a female (and gay) wasteland. So too, most movies excluding big action-adventure comic book and similar type movies. Men don't watch TV, for the most part, and have abandoned everything but the Michael Bay extravaganza at the multiplex. This means increased reliance on "hits" instead of steady, money-making films that can be produced by formula, as Hollywood did in it's Golden Age: Gangster pictures, Westerns, Romances, Family films, broad comedies, and the like.
Then of course, there is the impact the Twilight fans had at traditionally male, nerdy, Comic-con. Negative reaction here (there were also complaints about how the Twilight fans disrupted the other events staged at the same time). Video below:
The website Dlisted had an account of the Twilight Moms showing up at Comic-Con here. Below are the Twilight Fans at Comic-Con:
[Click Image to Enlarge]
[Click Image to Enlarge]
[Click Image to Enlarge]
[Click Image to Enlarge]
[Click Image to Enlarge]
General reaction by long-time male fans attending Comic-Con was not positive. Though some did not feel it was all that bad. Check the link for the sign saying Twilight ruined Comic-Con. That was not uncommon reportedly at the site.
You can see this in the marketplace. For example, "Vampire Diaries: the Awakening and the Struggle" by L. J. Smith had a ranking of #277 in books (overall), and #1 in Books > Teens > Series, #11 in Books > Teens > Literature & Fiction > Love & Romance, and #15 in Books > Children's Books > Literature > Science Fiction, Fantasy, Mystery & Horror > Spine-Chilling Horror.
The Editorial Review is:
Elena: the golden girl, the leader, the one who can have any boy she wants.
Stefan: brooding and mysterious, he seems to be the only one who can resist Elena, even as he struggles to protect her from the horrors that haunt his past.
Damon: sexy, dangerous, and driven by an urge for revenge against Stefan, the brother who betrayed him. Determined to have Elena, he'd kill to possess her.
Collected here in one volume for the first time, volumes one and two of The Vampire Diaries, the tale of two vampire brothers and the beautiful girl torn between them.
L. J. Smith has written more than two dozen books for children and young adults. She lives in the Bay Area of California, but is happiest in a little cabin near Point Reyes National Park, which has lots of trees, lots of animals, lots of beaches to walk on, and lots of places to hike.
The editorial review for "Cruel Zinc Melodies" is:
"Garrett's newest visitors are a pack of lovelies led by his main squeeze Tinnie Tate and her friend, Alyx Weider, the spoiled daughter of the largest brewer in town. Her father needs Garrett's help-his workers are being attacked by everything from giant insects to ghosts. Garrett takes the case. After all, working for the Weiders means free beer. But it also means serious danger."
Clearly, if you are a publisher, you'd rather have the Vampire Diaries than Cruel Zinc Melodies. But there is a catch. Smith's older books do not sell very well, Witchlight is ranked #2,913,969 in Books, while Sweet Silver Blues by Cook, an older title, is ranked #232,307 in Books, an order of magnitude better than Smith.
Vampires are a fad. The very fact that all those tween girls are screaming their lungs out at Comic-Con, means that six years from now the whole concept will be as dead as Lonely Werewolf Girl (sales rank #315,308 in Books) and Hanson.
In the meantime, however, publishers and entertainment houses will have convinced men and boys that "reading is gay" and moreover, fantasy is a place where tween girls and their moms scream over tween girl idols. Not anything for them. The cost of all that tween girl money today is no male money in years to come in the fantasy genre.
The result will be even more young girls with rather skewed and unhealthy ideas about men, male behavior, and greater contempt for "beta males" who don't measure up to the standards of fantasy. Many but not all the type that would not generate much male attention on their own (clearly some attractive girls like the stories):
[Click Image to Enlarge]
We will see more ordinary men and boys, as a result further alienated and disconnected from ordinary women and girls. Religion in decline, particularly church attendance, and harried single mothers, amplify the effect that popular culture has in teaching girls and boys how "correct" relationships are formed, and what the image of the opposite sex should look like in behavior and dynamics. Twilight is perhaps the most single hideous conception yet perpetrated on the American public.
For boys, Twilight paints a deeply offensive model of masculinity, one that almost none of them can reach, and one that runs counter to every tale of masculine heroics from the Odyssey to Beowulf, to say Indiana Jones. The traditional values of protection, self-sacrifice, honor, duty, loyalty, and so on which are rewarded, are inverted into a bleak and bitter parody that boys (and men) know that they can never reach. Captain America and Superman may be beyond copying as far as actual abilities, but men acting like those characters in terms of basic behavior in daily life is a net plus, and in fact Western Society has depended on it (which is why it's told those stories, over and over again, from 1200 BC or so with the Odyssey). This male behavior, which is deeply Western, pre-dates Christianity (see Beowulf) though it is compatible with it, unsurprising considering how Greek-humanist Christianity really is, and is unique to the West. No other culture tells these stories of male self-sacrifice that in the end wins the girl, over and over and over again. Men don't act like Edward Cullen in the West, at least that is not many Middle Class White Men. Most don't want to. Still.
Edward Cullen wins the girl in Twilight by being the most dominant and controlling male in Bella's life. Superman wins Lois Lane by being ... mostly Clark Kent, the mild mannered reporter. Lois herself is independent, and while lacking powers has opinions and a mind to match her beauty. This is the male heroic model that worked, that built Western Civilization, and males resent it's overthrow by the female-tween fantasies of Twilight and other vampire-fantasy fads. Lois is desirable because she's winnable, and winnable by more than just superpowers and wealth and power, otherwise Lex Luthor would have married her. Her very independence and intelligence make her winnable, by Clark Kent not Superman, and it means she stays won. Clark does not have to constantly mate-guard her like Cullen does Bella.
For girls, Twilight teaches them to be passive, eschew education and a career, forget a traditional family with a traditional husband who while not "sexy and dangerous" is faithful and loving, and sacrifice warm, loving, and emotionally intimate relations based on the mind as well as raw sexual desire, for pure adrenaline based excitement. Twilight explicitly teaches girls to abandon their minds and intellect for their emotions and lusts. In short, a how-to for girls to enter into inevitably abusive and emotionally destructive bad-boy relationships, in the desire to "change" and control a powerful, dangerous man.
But even more destructive is the myth that a girl can be seventeen forever. That age will not take it's toll on beauty and male attention, that a woman can be free of adult responsibility and duty, including that of family and career and earnings and compromises that human beings must always make, in favor of an adolescence that never ends.
That is the true horror story of the feminization of fantasy. A more horrible story than H.P. Lovecrafts Cthulhu could possibly imagine. ...Read more
Stephenie Meyer's "Twilight," based on the best-selling novel of the same name, opens today in movie theaters across the nation. Deadline Hollywood Daily has predictions of a $60 million weekend box-office. By all accounts, "Twilight" is a huge marketing and social phenomena. Yet it is bad, truly bad, fantasy, just on it's own accounts, and even worse in it's social effects.
"Twilight" is basically female wish-fulfillment fan fiction, full of completely shallow characters (who never really grow in depth), centered around a Mary-Sue of the worst kind and a supernatural being for whose love a compelling reason is never given.
More so, the characters also never face true challenges. The Twilight vampire type is immortal, wealthy, has a superhuman physique and is, quite frankly, indestructable. From a standpoint of character development and story suspense, those vampires and the world they roam in are about as interesting as a heap of bricks. Nothing of true impact is ever done with them (which is already symbolized through the first novel: its 600 pages could just as well have been 300, so little does truly happen).
This is quite true. Moreover, "Twilight" is not alone. Other examples, would include Laurel K. Hamilton's "Anita Blake" series (which skews slightly older, young adult women rather than teen girls as with the "Twilight" series) or the "Sookie Stackhouse" novels by Charlaine Harris. All of these novels have various female fan-fiction characteristics. This would include "Mary Sue" wish fulfillment, resolution of conflict through rather icky sexual situations and encounters, mostly devoid of any mention of the word "Love" or any depiction of realistic romantic love, and a huge dose of "specialness" in relation to the female characters powers of sexual attraction and control, of powerful, dominating, supernatural male characters. All of whom are far older and more powerful than the female characters.
Other examples of this kind of fusion of female fan-fiction meets "Chick Lit" would include "Lonely Werewolf Girl", and "Cry Wolf" which provide a werewolf instead of vampire setting.
In all cases, with these new female fan-fic fantasies, the traditional settings of fantasy, which are mostly rural, fantastic worlds far removed from mundane settings, are up-ended. Instead, magic exists right alongside the modern, urban setting, with magical societies being merely jumped-up versions of the publishing, fashion, advertising, and public relations occupations/industries that dominate Chick Lit. While certain male-oriented authors such as Tim Powers ("Last Call" and "Expiration Date") have used modern urban settings (modern Southern California and Las Vegas), the magical secret societies exist outside and completely separate from the mundane world, and have no rules save that of the jungle.
The main concern of the female heroines are that of Chick Lit. Finding the most dominant guy, remaining thin and beautiful, becoming successful in a "cool" field filled with status and "important people." The important people may be werewolves or vampires, the field may be a magical private eye, or a vampire, or werewolf, instead of fashion or publishing, but the strong appeal to single young women are the same: STATUS.
This is a far cry from traditional female romance novels that centered on family, romance, the word "Love" and the desire to find or create the right family. It is also a departure from the traditional female fantasies written by authors such as Ursula K. Le Guin ("Wizard of Earthsea") or Anne McCaffrey ("Dragonriders of Pern") where tensions between utopianism and necessity, feudalism and modernism, tradition and the future, all collide. The mostly female heroes have things to accomplish that are more than merely status-climbing and becoming important, with an important boyfriend.
The female fan-fic type of works, whether "Twilight" or "Anita Blake," are of recent vintage. The Blake series is the oldest, and dates only back to 1993. These novels are as commenter Wiredgrenadier noted, poorly written, with little dramatic structure, tension, or resolution. Things just happen, the protagonists are "Mary Sues" with a strong resemblance to Chick Lit characters, and sex as the solution to all problems (often the ickier the better) characterizes the novels. Even the "Twilight" series, that many clueless older female conservative columnists love, has lots of graphic sex, though no sexual intercourse.
The novels themselves are terrible influences on young women, particularly given the collapse of traditional culture and institutions. Young women are mostly influenced by peer groups and the media and entertainment environment. Thus, these fan-fic novels have an outsized influence. An influence that is toxic and bad for young women and society.
The heroines enter into relationships with powerful, much older men, that are controlling and socially isolating. Rather than achieve anything by their own independence, they merely exert power through their relationships with these powerful, older men (who merely look young and "hot"). The relationships are characterized by violence, with rape a common theme. Often the female characters have sex with characters they do not love to control or influence those characters. Remarkably absent is the Western ideal of romantic love, of consensual choice by two roughly equal young men and women, who form a lifetime partnership for both child-rearing and mutual support and affection, including deep romantic love after physical passion has burnt itself out.
The relationships the female characters have is built on pure lust and physical passion. The reason they love the older, socially dominant, male characters is never explained. Nor is the reason the older, dominant male characters love the female characters explored, save youth and beauty. The young women in the stories don't struggle and sacrifice, don't accomplish concrete, physical goals, have no plans for advancing themselves outside a relationship, and are merely pretty and desired. Jane Austen would be horrified.
Because the choices the young women make are abysmal. Violent, bad-boy brooding men, who have no capacity for compassion, integrity, self-control, cooperation (with other men), leadership (that does not include sheer intimidation through physical violence), or providing for a family. The stories, and "Twilight" is among the worst, read like a how-to manual for one bad-boy, abusive relationship followed by another, leading to single motherhood and the pattern repeating. Since in real life, not fantasy, girls turn into young women, who turn into older women. "Twilight" alone, with both the book and the movie, will turn out quite a number of single mothers who perpetuate misery and unhappiness from generation to generation through stupid choices in men, and rejection of the proven ways to advance in wealth and status: education, wise choice of career, saving money, and deferred gratification.
Be that as it may, it's instructive to examine the possible reasons WHY these fan-fic stories are so popular. As noted, the earliest of them (Hamilton's "Anita Blake" novel "Guilty Pleasures") dates to only 1993. The earlier female fantasy authors wrote strong, independent heroines who's primary accomplishments lay outside relationships, and even echoed the structure of male fantasy. Only instead of "save the day and get the girl" it was "save the day, win the heart of the proper guy."
What has happened is demography and marketing. There is a huge entertainment market, focused on women, young and old. Disney makes a considerable amount of it's money marketing one wish-fulfillment Pop Tart after another to pre-teen girls. If it's not a young Britney Spears it's Miley Cyrus as "Hannah Montana" or the "Cheetah Girls" or the "High School the Musical" actresses. Older girls, in their teens, have "Gossip Girl" and various other conspicuous consumption tales, in luxury goods or luxury sex, to amuse them. Women in their twenties, thirties, and beyond, have "Sex and the City" to titillate them. Though "Sex" has as the Wall Street Journal noted, a substantial teen and pre-teen female audience, through the repeats (censored) on various cable outlets. Women are getting married later and later, earn more money than male counterparts (in urban areas) and have more educational achievement (often an indicator of income). Indeed, the American Medical Association lists women as making up fully 50% of all incoming medical students. All that delayed marriage, higher disposable income, and free time leads to consumption of luxury goods including tales of luxury and luxury sex-relationships. A demographic and cultural shift that moves downwards into teens and tweens, as well.
Note the pattern of wish-fulfillment. A "career" where the girl or woman is "important" in some industry like fashion or pop music (never say, classical music where rigorous and demanding regular practice is required). In many cases, fame and celebrity are on offer. Wealth and status among an insular, wealthy in-group is the major part of the story. Romance with various bad-boys of dubious character is on offer, and the men are always quite literally at the top of the heap ("Mr. Big"). Nowhere are the themes of Jane Austen, i.e. choosing carefully the right man for a husband (or boyfriend) evident. Nor are the other concern of Austen and female writers like her anywhere in these stories: deep romantic love, and romantic love explained to the viewers/audience.
It's a consumerist approach to live, and sex, with love and human connections completely absent.
This sort of approach, which Disney pioneered, and the publishers of junk like "Twilight" copied, rests of course on the assumption of good times. Disney depends on enough disposable income from parents to pay for Hannah Montana related T-Shirts, concert tickets, movies, and more. Not the least of which is the cable or satellite package for the Disney Channel where the "tween" girl stars like Cyrus and company are launched. [Amusingly enough, to the constant consternation of Disney, the young women who portray the "tween" wish fulfillment idols regularly engage in the practice of posting inappropriate to provocative photos of themselves on the Internet, no doubt preparing themselves for overtly sexual roles as they inevitably age out of their Disney roles and can no longer credibly play teen agers. The path of a parent of young girls is not an easy one.]
Decades long expanding economies, a whole series of industries built on disposable female income, from either parents ("tweens") or single young women, have built the economic and demographic and marketing structure to create the environment for "Twilight" and the books like it. However, this structure looks increasingly shaky.
Chick-Lit books, and the fantasy cousins of "Twilight" and "Lonely Werewolf Girl" are dependent on disposable income. As the publishing, public relations, fashion, beauty, and advertising industries come crashing down, during what looks to be a prolonged, lasting recession, there won't be that many employed in those industries, and women young and old will have less disposable income. [High incomes for women are disproportionally distributed in these professions, plus the legal, and medical professions. There are relatively few female Mechanical or Chemical engineers, for example, but many female publicists, lawyers, fashion designers, and associates and assistant in book and magazine publishing.] It is possible, of course, that female readers would want even more feel-good fantasy of wealth, power, and luxury, and increase rather than decrease the appeal of these books and stories. However, there is far too much competition among the female market in books, magazines, television, and movies, and so far indicators are that the appeal of these kinds of luxury goods sex-status stories have peaked.
ABC's "Dirty Sexy Money," which was an adult version of "Gossip Girl" has been canceled due to poor ratings. "Gossip Girl" is struggling to stay above 3 million viewers, and so far is on track to repeat last season's performance, of about 2.5 million viewers. Viewers and readers generally don't have an appetite for contemporary based luxury, status, and relationships characterized by the same, during economic hard times. Preferring instead to be taken out of the present day for fantastical settings of the past, an alternative reality, or the future.
So far, in the extraordinary run of general economic good times from the early 1990's to the present day, the fan-fic vampires of "Twilight," and other supernatural versions of "Gossip Girl" are seemingly immortal. But just as sunlight kills most vampires, prolonged hard times and the required shift by women along with men to sheer economic security rather than luxury good consumption (including luxury good relationships and sex) may kill vampires like "Twilight's" Edward Cullen after all. It is not set in stone, but quite possible that female fantasy may return to traditional themes of accomplishment and actual, real, romantic love-based romance (instead of icky and violent sex) that used to characterize the genre. Let's hope so.
Update: reader/commenter Wiredgrenadier passed on this link with the quote by the actor who plays "Edward Cullen" in "Twilight" :
"When you read the book," says Pattinson, looking appropriately pallid and interesting even without makeup, "it's like, 'Edward Cullen was so beautiful I creamed myself.' I mean, every line is like that. He's the most ridiculous person who's so amazing at everything. I think a lot of actors tried to play that aspect. I just couldn't do that. And the more I read the script, the more I hated this guy, so that's how I played him, as a manic-depressive who hates himself. Plus, he's a 108-year-old virgin so he's obviously got some issues there."
The actor also complained that fans, including a six year old, asked him to bite them.
Historically vampires have never done well in recessions, quickly turning into figures of ridicule as the real scary monsters are poverty and unemployment. The ridiculed "nerd" or "beta provider" may well win out for a while as incomes crash and single motherhood becomes unaffordable, a luxury good of good times long past.
Posts
