http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz-qN9aIm9k
According to Wikipedia, NO MAAM (The National Organization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood) is a fictional group of men on the sitcom Married With Children.
(1)Its "political goals" is to fight the increasing power of women all over society, but the organization tends to just be a social club in which the men in the neighborhood hang out, bowl, and frequent the Jiggly Room. However, there have been instances of actual "political activities" such as kidnapping Jerry Springer; countering a breast-feeding sit-in organized by Marcy with a Beer Belly dance-off; causing a riot over a proposed beer tax; going to Washington to appeal to Congress when Psycho Dad is cancelled; and even forming a short lived misogynistic religion, whose chief theology is blaming all the world's problems on Eve--the first woman, joining the national guard in which Al receives the 'bronze dumpster'. Al shows great leadership skills, being the organizer of many of NO MA'AM's activist projects, and authoritatively breaking into NO MA'AM members' squabbles with "Order! Order, gentlemen!"
In light of our discussion on feminine jurisprudence, I was curious to see what individuals (specially females) thought of misogynistic groups such as NO MAAM.
If females can have groups that support their rights, cannot males? The answer to this question lies in determining whether feminism is an opinion or an objective truth. If the former, then groups such as NO MAAM have their right to weigh in on the argument. If it is the latter, then feminism need not be defensible. If feminists do not support the idea of male groups then they, in my opinion, would be hypocritical.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that if males were to form a misogynistic group in real life, it would be looked down about and would be met with protests. It would be considered wrong since men are already considered to be empowered over women. A similar reaction would be if a new channel, White Entertainment Television, were created; people would be outraged.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alex. This would definitely be met with outrage and protests. I've talked with my friends before about having a television channel that is WET (White Entertainment Television) and we agreed that in theory it should not be a problem, but realistically that channel would only be on TV for a few weeks before it took enough criticism.
ReplyDeleteI am entertained by this idea of male misogynistic groups in modern society. Although not explicitly defined, male groups have existed in mainstream society for decades. For example, through examining the participation of women in professional athletics within the past century, the concepts of male dominance and empowerment are illustrated. In 1972, legislation known as Title XI was implemented and stated that "no person in the U.S. shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, or denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program." This legislation included athletics for women. According to the Women's Institute on Sports and Education, despite the obvious triumphs of our women athletes at the Olympics and beyond and society's growing acceptance of females as competitors, Title IX remains a favorite target for politicians and educational institutions eager to cut financial corners -- at the expense of girls and young women. Gross inequities still exist in coaching salaries, quality and availability of locker rooms, practice and competitive facilities, quality and quantity of equipment and supplies -- and the list goes on." Thus, male dominance as illustrated through the treatment of women in professional athletics illustrates the existence of implicit male misogynistic groups in mainstream society. And as for the group NO MAAM, I feel males and females should have the innate right to proclaim their beliefs freely, yet groups that preach specific morals against women just enforce the fact that chivalry is indeed dead.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of your comments--there is creedence to each of them. While a group like NO MAAM is not something I would actually support in real life by any means (I just always found them funny and it came to mind when I was thinking of a male group), I think they should, if desired, have the right to that group--even though the group may not be the best in their practices. I view it similiarly to religion, that is, there are indeed "satanic" groups within the USA. Would this be something I would join. No. Never. However, do they have the right to do this. Yes.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I agree with the "WET" channel: Why can there be a "BET" channel and not a "WET" channel? It seems that the idea of a "WET" channel ever actualized there would be screams of racism everywhere. Yet, BET does not receive any of these claims. If there is no difference among individuals based on color, then why does BET even exist? I think BET, by making a channel designed for African Americans, is making the idea stronger that there is a difference between races. And this, clearly, is something nobody wants.
ReplyDelete