TheMail makes the new gynocratic order explicit

Kilroy M. writes:

Here is the latest in the “public women and their irresistible urge to expose as much upper body flesh as possible” syndrome. From the Mail:

Eyes front, Ryan! Blake Lively’s top leaves very little to the imagination

Actor Ryan Reynolds faced possibly his most demanding role today, trying to maintain his poise alongside his jaw-dropping co-star Blake Lively.

The Gossip Girl star, 22, turned out on the promotion trail in what can only be described as a very revealing white top.

Lively had obviously decided to give the geeks at the Comic-Con convention in San Diego something to get excited about.

Stay focused: Ryan Reynolds speaking as Blake Lively looks on in her very revealing top at the Comic-Con fan convention yesterday

The pair were at the convention, which is running all week, promoting upcoming movie Green Lantern.

It is something you have blogged about in the past, namely, how the very act screams for attention even while men are supposed to ignore it, or else be denounced as sexual harassers or dirty oglers [see below]. This has made me wonder about that perennial pop-cultural question, “What do women want?” Subconsciously, they want what is deemed taboo by the modern feminist culture that they themselves are promoting. On one level they beckon a response that on another level is deemed as criminal. But they set the rules on both levels. I think this is a manifestation of the irrationality or “childish” nature of the female mind that some right wing commentators, such as Roger Devlin, write about. Considering the real risks to their physical safety that this kind of behaviour can result in, would it not be perfectly reasonable of men simply to ignore women’s demands and do what traditional patriarchs have done for eons: protect and run the society on their own terms?

LA replies:

And notice how, in the headline, text, and photo captions, the Mail gets into the act and supports the female power play, repeatedly commanding the man not to look at the woman’s exposed chest. The man hasn’t done anything, but he’s the one who is on probation, solely by virtue of the woman’s exposing herself. And I’m sure the actor, as an up and coming citizen and star of the liberal feminist culture, accepts the situation implicitly.

Comedy cleavage: Ryan Reynolds appears to try to avert his eyes of Blake Lively’s ample cleavage as they head back to their hotel

Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan/Green Lantern and Blake Lively as Carol Ferris

Green Lantern is the supposed superhero, but the woman has her hand placed possessively on him.

Here is my 2008 entry on this subject which Kilroy referenced:

A theory of Viagra

I have previously written:

The way many women dress today, with half their breasts exposed, is an expression of total disrespect for men. Men are left with three possible responses. To grab the woman, which is illegal; to ogle the woman, which is socially unacceptable; or to affect not to notice the woman at all, which is emasculating. A culture that normalizes such female behavior—i.e. not only not noticing or objecting to it, but prohibiting any objection to it—is extremely sick.

To expand on this idea, let us consider a situation we see constantly on television today, particularly on the cable news stations, in which a male guest or host is speaking with a female guest or host (though more often the woman is the host or interviewer) on a political talk show or news program. The man is dressed properly in jacket and tie. The woman is wearing a top with an absurdly plunging neckline revealing half her upper chest and often more besides. It is highly revealing, highly provocative, and totally inappropriate for any forum in which serious matters—war, economic recession, constitutional crises—are supposedly being seriously discussed. Yet, though the woman is exposing her body in a way that is impossible not to notice, and though her exposed body undercuts the very idea that this is a serious news program, the man is not supposed to notice it, or to appear as if he notices it. And, I believe, so profoundly acclimated are contemporary men to feminist mores and liberal expectations generally that the man in fact doesn’t notice it and is entirely cool with the whole set-up. And so the man in sober jacket and tie and the woman with ludicrous acres and declivities of flesh revealed go on talking about terrorism, or the economy, or the next president’s cabinet appointees, with the man’s eyes never even for a micro-second wandering below the woman’s face. Not only does the situation emasculate the man, but the man, by submitting to it instead of telling the woman that she is not dressed appropriately and ought to cover herself (as, I’ve heard, Muslim guests on TV shows have occasionally told female hosts) emasculates himself. He emasculates himself sexually and as a male figure deserving of respect, because he is suppressing his normal reactions both as a man and as an authority figure. Thus have contemporary men turned themselves into passive drones, eunuchs of the gyneocracy.

Carol Iannone speculates that this ubiquitous self-emasculation of men, this psychological turning off and suppression of their normal reactions to women, has affected them to such a degree that when it’s actually time for them to release their normal sexual response, the response is not there, they can’t do it, they need help. And thus the Viagra craze.

[end of initial 2008 entry; there are many comments.]

- end of initial entry -

LA to Kilroy:

I’m interested to find out that there’s a Green Lantern movie coming out. I was a fan of the Green Lantern comic book when I was a kid. He was my favorite, or at least a runner-up to Superman. I liked the idea that he himself had no super powers, but got all his powers from his ring.

As for her revealing outfit, he should say to her, that is disrespectful to me for you to dress like that.

Kilroy replies:

Yes. I think that is one way that we can get our culture back: if men just start saying things like that, putting women on the spot publicly for blatant hypocrisy. It’s an alternative to Game too.

I’ve never been “into” the superhero genre or comics generally, but enjoyed Dark Knight. I think I’m a late commer to the genre—when Green Lantern comes to Sydney, I will probably see it too.

Kilroy continues:

I wonder how many men are offended by this actually. Most (in fact all) of the men I know take the ho-ho approach to this kind of risque behaviour from women, but I feel that deep down inside they would be quite discontent knowing that their wives or daughters were the objects of such “empowerment”. As I said before, I think we can only get our culture back when men start saying no to a lot of what passes for sexual liberation. That, of course, is the exact opposite of “Game.”

Andrea C. writes:

Or couldn’t a man say, “You shouldn’t dress like that. It’s dangerous because you’re provoking a primitive and physical response and it’s disrespectful b/c it lowers the environment to the physical and animal level. Don’t you have more respect for yourself than to just lay your body out there like that?” Or something like that.

Peter G. writes:

That piece from Kilroy M. exemplifies something else far more troubling. Women who brazenly display their sexuality in this manner do so in order impose a socio-sexual hierarchy. As sexual harrassment laws are subjective, women routinely expose themselves to all yet demand that only worthy males may notice on penalty of law. Any average guy foolish enough to gaze too long or think it’s an invitation to solicit them will pay a high price. It’s an in your face this is what you can’t have provocation. Inducing arousal for no other reason than to humilate men.

Every day I come to work here at the University and have to willfully ignore these displays a hundred times over.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 26, 2010 01:37 AM | Send