(Extra Credit 2) "Hilarious social commentary", or homophobic-meathead-tough-guy's rant?

So, I'm watching Comedy Central and a commercial comes on. It's advertising some stand-up comedian named Sebastian Maniscalco. The video below will give you a taste of his "humor."



Unfortunately, I could not find a link to the commercial I saw. In it, though, he talks about men in bars these days, saying:

“Go look at what they’re ordering to drink. Apple martinis? You’re 35 years old; you’re walking around with a green drink, a little apple floating on top. You go get a beer or something that tastes like gasoline...”

So to Mr. Maniscalco, alcoholic drinks do define us. Obviously, he sees apple martinis as something feminine and, thus, an undesirable drink to a man. In order to be masculine enough, the drink has to taste like "gasoline," as he says. What I get from this, is that "masculine" men are stupid. They'll do anything that tests their toughness. You think natural selection would have eliminated these "irrational" beings by now.

I'm sorry for laying on the sarcasm so thick, but people with this kind of macho mindset (especially stand-up comedians who have an entire audience roaring with laughter) really annoy me. I swear, if men aren't outwardly projecting MANLINESS, they're automatically deemed feminine by these types of people. Sorry, let me break out my 32. oz bleeding steak, my can of frothy Budweiser and a football, so I can show you how manly I am. Kidding of course. I don't care that much. What is so ironic to me is that, even though Sebastian is so ready to make fun of "wimpy" guys, he looks pretty metrosexual himself, with the gelled, spiked hair and well-manicured appearance.

(Extra Credit 1) Musings on Roller Derby

Sex sells. It’s pretty much a concrete fact at this point. It’s in film, on television, and even here at Old Dominion University. While ODU may not be sponsoring the event directly (maybe they are, I don’t know), it is still advertising it with flyers. The picture below shows one such flyer I found in the BAL building.



Obviously the picture caught my eye and prompted me to write this blog. What is it about this type of image that attracts peoples attention?
One look at the sensual pose and lack of clothes should answer the question. But let's think about this. Does it imply that Roller Derby is actually really boring, to the point that it needs to have scantily-clad girls to attract an audience? I've only seen clips of Roller Derby (or "Roller Jam") on TV before, but it seems like a fairly exciting sport. Its fast-pace makes it seem more appealing than other popular spectator-sports like golf. So why did the makers of this poster (as well as those who decided that the competitors would wear such skimpy uniforms) feel the need to take it step further by making the sport all about sex? What happened to "if it ain't broke, don't fix it?" I guess it boils down to: Roller Derby sells, but sexy Roller Derby sells better. It's just one of those ugly truths that we, as a consumerist society, have to accept.

Another take on this poster and the sport as a whole is that they may even be marketing violence towards women! This may sound like a stretch, but we've already established that the hunched-over girl is a selling point. Just look at the picture. What happens when we add bruises and bandages to the mix? This sport has elbowing, shoving, and sometimes legitimate fighting. I don't think it would attract much of a female audience (how sexist of me!), so the audience would be primarily men. With all that, is Roller Derby really just a practical and legal outlet for misogynists? The scary thing is, yes, maybe it is.

10) What Women Want (in a Video Game)

“Since more women play video games than in years past, it's only natural for guys to give them to their female love interest. Some gift games, however, could get you punched in the face by sending the wrong message. When buying games for your girlfriend, make sure you avoid these potential disasters.”

Last week, a headline, by the name “Don’t Buy These Games for Your Girlfriend,” caught my eye. I always love reading the cheesy countdown lists, provided by AOL or AIM, that are usually based on almost nothing. But this one is more than pertinent with its overwhelming amount of gender stereotypes.

According to the list, men should NOT buy the following “potential disasters” for their girlfriends:
-Weight Loss Games (ex: Wii Fit)
-Brainy/ Educational Games (ex: Brain Age)
-Cooking Games
-“Imagine” Games
-Violent Games(ex: Grand Theft Auto, Mad World)
-“Just ones she hates”
-Erotic Games
-Sports Games

The only ones I can truly understand are “just ones she hates,” “Imagine” games and erotic games. Why would anyone buy a gift for their girlfriend that they would hate? The “Imagine” series is obvious, since it’s primarily for small children (I shudder to think anyone has a girlfriend that is a little girl) and erotic games just seem inappropriate to buy for anyone. If you are into that, then buy it and keep it to yourself.

As far as weight loss, educational, and cooking games, I find the reasoning really silly. The list claims that a woman will think her boyfriend is calling her fat with an exercise game, stupid with a “brainy” game, or her cooking bad with a cooking game. Maybe this reveals something about women in American society, though. Do women really take any kind of gift as an attack on them? If I give jewelry to a woman, will she misconstrue that I’m saying she is poor? I wouldn't be mad if someone bought me Brain Age. So what is it that is different in women’s minds that make them react in such an accusatory manner?

The sports and violent games make the least sense to me, though. What a glaring generalization, that women don’t like sports. Plus, it does not seem very fair to simply say that women don’t “like” violence. Plenty of women enjoy scary/ gory films. Or are the creators of the list really implying that men do like violence?

While it is definitely filled to the brim with stereotypes, it makes me wonder: what were the people who made this list basing their assertions on? Generalizations have to come from somewhere. Maybe the way women respond to certain gifts is an implication that they are more self-conscious than men. But it leads me to another question, what is so unique to women that makes them more self-conscious than men (generally speaking, of course)? Are lists like these, perhaps, perpetuating stereotypes? Are they programming women to think that a gift has some negative signal behind it?

The part on sports and violent games also made me ask myself, why are sports and violence automatically considered masculine interests? I suppose the "aggressive" quality usually tied to masculinity played a part in creating those stereotypes. In reality, most women (and men) are more complex than this article would have you believe, and their likes and dislikes are not really so easily categorized.