Who thinks he's a Miranda.

Seriously, I find it deeply troubling that more women don't find SATC unspeakably offensive but, hey, I've been told I'm a misogynist so what do I know?

There is all kinds of things in the media that is unspeakaby offensive, manipulative, demeaning, divisive, racist, sexist. SATC, seemed like it had racist and misogynist and misandrist elements.

I have only seen parts of a few episodes SATC. My wife is queen of the TV, but its not one she watches. What I saw seemed demeaning, made me sad for whats being done to women, to us. Maybe I just saw the wrong bits.

Misandry, in pacticular, is noted by many people today as a growing destructive social undercurrent the last forty years, a quick google search just told me.

<link>

Thanks blueskies. I needed to hear Rodgers and Hammersteins, or rather Cole Porter's Kiss me Kate version of Taming of the Shrew.......not.

As for examples of modern misandry, just watch contemporary cartoons and child's shows: 90% of father figures are either stupid, deviants, evil, or buffoons. Peter Griffin & Homer Simpson are typical. Even Stevens included. Hanna Montana differs insomuch that Billy Ray Cyrus who apparently has a lot of control over the show essentially is a normal man. Yet his daughter's character still overtakes him all the time.

How about that Vonage commercial where the woman uses her hips to push the man off the screen? I actually have visceral sensations from that commercial, not to mention the annoying music. You do not have a single example of this in reverse, where a man uses his pelvis to push a woman off the screen, except on porn channels, I suppose.

I have seen a lot of SATC and the men have control over the women BIG TIME.

Now that show APPEARS to be about women who control their own lives but that is only on the surface and it is all just a lot of talk.

As every story line develops the women cave in to men. Some of these men are good guys (Steven) while others are not so good (Mr Big), but in all cases the women change THEIR lives so they can get the man.

jazzguitarman wrote: "I have seen a lot of SATC and the men have control over the women BIG TIME.

Now that show APPEARS to be about women who control their own lives but that is only on the surface and it is all just a lot of talk.

As every story line develops the women cave in to men. Some of these men are good guys (Steven) while others are not so good (Mr Big), but in all cases the women change THEIR lives so they can get the man."

So it just another reality TV show!

Having seen this reality in action, its probably mild compared to the real thing. For most women, to catch Mr. Right (Who is almost always really Mr. Wrong) requires throwing the feminist play book in the fire. These guys know all the moves.

A great many women want to be dominated, tamed, controlled, what have you. They want someone strong who will put them in their place.

Sorry about the retreaded old jokes & videos- but don't think I can stop completely. A lame sense of humour frequently overwhelms me, and everybody suffers.

I have seen some of what you mention. It's pervasive in the media. But who is responsible? Who wants to create and maintain animosity between men and women? Especially white men? Our women? Why? My wives loved me and always helped me, and vice versa. Whose interest was it to turn the genders against each other? Who pays for all this propaganda? My wife notices it, she is not blind. She calls me in to see some show, or commercial, wanting me to explain what they were trying to do or meant by it. I can't explain it.

A related thought that's lurked in the back of my mind for many years, watching all the equally pervasive ZPG propaganda, the Planned Parenthood and similar organisations. Where did their money come from? Who wanted us to stop reproducing, to change our ways so we have few children? If these people are our friends, why do they want to stop us from having children? What was the benifit to them?

What I saw of SATC, the little unconnected bits, seemed sad. Undignifying for at least a couple of the characters. I thought it negative to both sexes in different ways, but mostly it seemed like it was anti romantic.

Today we have some sort of political forces constantly pounding on every division in our once fairly unified society. People are trying to stir up racism, sectionialism, genderism, ethnicism, religous strife. Lookup Lee Atwater, he typifies proffession. His 'deathbed' confession is about how doing just that was his career, a political scientest/engineer working for his employers. Magnify him by a few hundred or thousand.

Google 'Behind the Veil of the Bush and Clinton Years"

<link>

There are very valid reasons why mankind should limit its total population.

Also the main reason society was 'fairly unified' was because most people were from the same religion, race and culture.

This is no longer the case. And while the USA could change immigration laws and assocaited enforcement to limit people from other races and cultures there is nothing the USA can do legally to limit the number of people wishing to be agnostic (non religious).

These shows of which you speak- the ones with men acting like buffoons? Do you want to know who writes them, Usama? Men! I've been asking for years why men like to portray themselves as such. The only men who tend to talk about it are the ones like you who are complaining. Truth is that most men are NOT complaining about that. And quite a few american men pride themselves on being as stupid as the buffoons on the screen- taking pleasure in lowbrow humor and sterotypical behavior.

To me, embracing a stereotype is a classic sign of idiocy, or if that's being too harsh, let's say limited capability for nuanced thought. It's done by women and men alike in many different cultures. You, yourself are guilty of this, Usama, in this post. Note that when it comes to children's television, it's much more about children being smarter than the parents regardless of gender. About the Vonage commercial? I have not seen it, but I suspect that your revulsion to it is more about a complete misunderstanding of Culture as opposed to anything else.

Which brings me to another point. How can it possibly make sense to try and judge a culture that you don't understand (obviously) based on your own cultural perceptions? It's not that it can't be done, it can. But it serves no purpose and is intellectually dishonest. Apples and oranges, so to speak.

The above posters are very valid reasons why we should limit our total population!!!

;)

You know what a better question would be, blueskies? Why you feel the need to complaim about a show that you've never really seen and don't like? Why are you acknowledging it as important and valid and then saying it shouldn't be so? You give views and only half ass back them up. I don't really understand your purpose. If you truly have a question, ask it and people will try and answer. But your posts seem mostly rhetorical and masturbatory.

I find that a lot of men who complain about misandry are really just having an issue with woman trying to assert their equality. It's fine if you don't like equality. But be honest about it instead of trying to turn yourself into an alternate victim. It's the same thing when you hear people complaining about how the country is racist to white men. Understand that when one group has been oppressing another group for a long amount of time, it is hard to bring things to a balance. It is not an immediate thing that is remedied with the passage of one law. It requires in years of changing paradigms as well as laws. Often there is a backlash where people overcompensate to try and help the oppressed parties. It is not some form of persecution as you ridiculously assert.

Back to SATC, though. If you don't like the show, don't watch it. And don't see the movie. That's all that it requires.

you are more of a Carrie.

Happy to report that, {(besides not having the slightest clue as to the meaning of "SATC"), (having discovered what it is an acronymn for)}, I have nothing to report.

With regards to my immigration comment and limits; I meant that the US policy should limit the number of people from any ONE specific culture, race or religion.

In other words immigrants should represent a mix of cultures, race, religions and of course agnostics!

Immigration today doesn't increase diversity here in the USA since the vast majority all come from the same culture.

"

jazzguitarman:

"There are very valid reasons why mankind should limit its total population."

Sure. The island earth. The US population growth was stabilised by the end of the 60's. You know only a few countries are providing all the worlds population growth?

"Also the main reason society was 'fairly unified' was because most people were from the same religion, race and culture."

Do you know of Lee Atwater's confession/apology? There are lots of different forces in play. What I was getting at, is there are political operators at work deliberately provoking things. Divide and conquer.

"This is no longer the case. And while the USA could change immigration laws and assocaited enforcement to limit people from other races and cultures there is nothing the USA can do legally to limit the number of people wishing to be agnostic (non religious)."

This is not really what I was getting at, but it does add to the confusion. The government of the USA is not structored for multiculturalism. It's a national government, which assumes one loosly related people, which as you just mentioned we were, but, increasingly so, no longer. The government, It's creaking.

Here is a Rand Corp. study on population implosion and immigration.

<link>

here is a example of a sample mind manipulation, a viral marketing meme, designed to sell Smirnoff's vodka.

<link>