Thank you so much for being here today.

Welcome, Susan.

I’ve been recommending this book to everyone I know. It’s a fantastic effort and if anyone hasn’t got their hands on it yet, I highly recommend it.

I think this is one of those situations in which silence reflects deep admiration.

Or screwed up time zones.

Hi everyone, I’m delighted to be here today. Thanks for coming and I’m looking forward to the conversation.
–Susan Faludi

Hi, Susan. I have to say that this book has been applicable to most everything I’ve been writing about recently. The section on Rudy and the firefighters/radios was particularly prescient.

Do you think that in the clash of myths, Rudy vs. the firefighters, Rudy can survive?

Susan,
Welcome to the lake.

Welcome to the lake, Susan…

Susan, welcome to FDL — I’ve been looking forward to this discussion all week. Fantastic book, with a fantastic dissection of the misuse of language, and the delusions or misunderstandings that can come with lack of critical thinking.

And the relationship of all of this to the personal really brings it home, over and over again. Fantastic read — thanks so much for putting it altogether in one readable work.

Welcome, Susan. Backlash was an incredibly wonderful book and I look forward to reading The Terror Book. I really appreciate your visiting Firedoglake’s book salon.

Welcome, Susan.

I’m reading the book now and it’s at once a breath of fresh air and a bleakly disconcerting reminder of what we have had to live through these last few years.

It’s an odd imperative for survival, to try to live life as if all is normal, and yet, all is not normal.

For us who are activists, we channel that cognitive dissonance into our political activism and writing. For others, denial and cynicism are the refuge of choice, and still for others, blame and vilification of those like you who bear an unwelcome message of truth.

The country is beginng to catch up to you, and the rest of us. . . but what will be left once the as the current nightmare fades, if it indeed does in the near term future.

I know you can’t answer that, but I wanted to take a moment to thank you for joining us today.

As your critique demonstrates, it is the feminist perspective that is perhaps best positioned to deconstruct the path we’ve taken together as a country these last few years. That accounts I think for the success in part of this site.

Can you comment on what other women are doing, people you see who may be waking up and speaking up as the terror mists begin to wear thin?

Hi Susan.

Is this new terror-driven masculinity cult really different from the one you described in Backlash?

Is there some pernicious dark synergy between fear and machismo?

Welcome, Susan.

“Backlash” was a pivotal book for me, because you so eloquently put words to what I felt but couldn’t express.

Do you see this “masculinization” rhetoric by the media is a return to that era of Faith Popcorn, etc?

Welcome, Susan Faludi and thanks for coming. Do you see us coming out of the 9/11 mindset, and what should we look for as indicators?

Jane Hamsher @ 6

Hi, Susan. I have to say that this book has been applicable to most everything I’ve been writing about recently. The section on Rudy and the firefighters/radios was particularly prescient.

Do you think that in the clash of myths, Rudy vs. the firefighters, Rudy can survive?

Rudy’s managed to survive so far, despite the fact that the facts are not on his side. This may be less a clash of myths than a clash of myth v. reality, where Rudy’s much-trumpeted “story of heroism” (as he put it before the 9/11 Commission) trumps the NYC firefighter union’s repeated attempt to get the facts on the record–malfunctioning radios that prevented firefighters from hearing the Mayday warning, a failure of leadership to come up with a plan to deal with terrorism despite the 1993 attack on the WTC, Rudy’s insistence on an emergency command center placed in lower Manhattan, despite all advice to the contrary, etc.

Welcome Ms. Faludi,

This war on terror as an act of propaganda to instill fear (how I look at it) is the same as all the other buzz words like red menace, communism, even liberalism. We are manipulated on a 24/7 basis 365 days a year, what frightens me is the ignorance and acceptance of this as true fact, not to mention the fact that the sheer fortune in money it takes to maintain this charade is a crime in itself, Do you have any thoughts on countering this.

And, thank you for being here.

Susan, I confess I haven’t read the book yet. But I wonder how getting your message out through book tours might be affected by the media landscape that leaves much to be desired these days. Any observations?

watertiger @ 13

Welcome, Susan.

“Backlash” was a pivotal book for me, because you so eloquently put words to what I felt but couldn’t express.

Do you see this “masculinization” rhetoric by the media is a return to that era of Faith Popcorn, etc?

Funny, I feel that way about “Stiffed” could it be a gender thing?

This may be less a clash of myths than a clash of myth v. reality, where Rudy’s much-trumpeted “story of heroism” (as he put it before the 9/11 Commission) trumps the NYC firefighter union’s repeated attempt to get the facts on the record–malfunctioning radios that prevented firefighters from hearing the Mayday warning, a failure of leadership to come up with a plan to deal with terrorism despite the 1993 attack on the WTC, Rudy’s insistence on an emergency command center placed in lower Manhattan, despite all advice to the contrary, etc.

Isn’t that directly attributable to the media’s fascination with “codpiece politics”? And why, after deifying the firefighters, are these people so loath to listen to what they have to say?

Susan, I confess I haven’t read the book yet.

Gasp!

Heh.

Seeriosly, folks: buy the book!

How ironic that the “manly”, particularly the pro-torture, pro-premptive war types male or female, are the ones who seem scared witless.

Susan Faludi @ 15

Jane Hamsher @ 6

Hi, Susan. I have to say that this book has been applicable to most everything I’ve been writing about recently. The section on Rudy and the firefighters/radios was particularly prescient.

Do you think that in the clash of myths, Rudy vs. the firefighters, Rudy can survive?

Rudy’s managed to survive so far, despite the fact that the facts are not on his side. This may be less a clash of myths than a clash of myth v. reality, where Rudy’s much-trumpeted “story of heroism” (as he put it before the 9/11 Commission) trumps the NYC firefighter union’s repeated attempt to get the facts on the record–malfunctioning radios that prevented firefighters from hearing the Mayday warning, a failure of leadership to come up with a plan to deal with terrorism despite the 1993 attack on the WTC, Rudy’s insistence on an emergency command center placed in lower Manhattan, despite all advice to the contrary, etc.

I guess in the end it’s going to come down to Rudy’s ability to distort the story in the media vs. the efforts of the firefighters (and Rudy’s opponents, whoever that might be) to get the story out there.

It may be that his supporters in the end just don’t care, but Rudy myth being constructed on the same scaffolding as the firefighter myth, and both being incompatible seems awfully tenuous.

On the eve of the attack on Iraq, coming from St. Petersburg Russia to the United States, I was overwhelmed by the chasm we seemed to have fallen into. From a European perspective, attacking Iraq was completely insane.

But then when I arrived back in Washington, a town that had been brutalized by the Pentagon phony missile strike [Ask yourself, what happened to the plane’s wings? Did they shear off and vanish? Few broken windows, little exterior debris] “attack” and the subsequent anthrax threat which amazingly only hit Democrats and others who had stood up to the administration.

So all of a sudden it made sense. We needed to regain our ?manhood and kill people somewhere. Did it really matter where? And hey, take all our civil liberties while you were at it. Mission Accomplished, indeed.

watertiger @ 19

This may be less a clash of myths than a clash of myth v. reality, where Rudy’s much-trumpeted “story of heroism” (as he put it before the 9/11 Commission) trumps the NYC firefighter union’s repeated attempt to get the facts on the record–malfunctioning radios that prevented firefighters from hearing the Mayday warning, a failure of leadership to come up with a plan to deal with terrorism despite the 1993 attack on the WTC, Rudy’s insistence on an emergency command center placed in lower Manhattan, despite all advice to the contrary, etc.

Isn’t that directly attributable to the media’s fascination with “codpiece politics”? And why, after deifying the firefighters, are these people so loath to listen to what they have to say?

That is a very good question.

What is your idea of the ideal man?

lahoma

Pachacutec @ 20

Susan, I confess I haven’t read the book yet.

Gasp!

Heh.

Seeriosly, folks: buy the book!

Hey, settle down Pach! :P

No offense Ms. Faludi! I do actually purchase the books recommended here. kaching!

xebecs @ 12

Hi Susan.

Is this new terror-driven masculinity cult really different from the one you described in Backlash?

Is there some pernicious dark synergy between fear and machismo?

What I’m talking about in the book is a reflex deeply embedded in the American psyche that comes to the fore whenever we feel threatened. In those times, we reach for our most cherished myth of ourselves as an unassailable nation of Daniel Boones and John Waynes protecting helpless women. It’s a mythology that has been crafted over hundreds of years–inspired originally by the fear and humiliation experienced in colonial America by repeated failures to protect the settler community from incursion.
The machismo is certainly related to fear, which gives machismo its opportunity.
On the Backlash question, I like to think this book goes beyond Backlash. In Backlash, as in life, I was watching up a feminist movement thwarted by forces that were hidden. 9/11 brought some of those forces into plain view.

And why the firemen were elevated to deity status was because they never anticipated losing 300 firefighters because of crappy radios. This was always supposed to be a low kill mission. Ooops.

do-si-do @ 17

Susan, I confess I haven’t read the book yet. But I wonder how getting your message out through book tours might be affected by the media landscape that leaves much to be desired these days. Any observations?

Susan Faludi @ 27

xebecs @ 12

Hi Susan.

Is this new terror-driven masculinity cult really different from the one you described in Backlash?

Is there some pernicious dark synergy between fear and machismo?

What I’m talking about in the book is a reflex deeply embedded in the American psyche that comes to the fore whenever we feel threatened. In those times, we reach for our most cherished myth of ourselves as an unassailable nation of Daniel Boones and John Waynes protecting helpless women. It’s a mythology that has been crafted over hundreds of years–inspired originally by the fear and humiliation experienced in colonial America by repeated failures to protect the settler community from incursion.
The machismo is certainly related to fear, which gives machismo its opportunity.
On the Backlash question, I like to think this book goes beyond Backlash. In Backlash, as in life, I was watching up a feminist movement thwarted by forces that were hidden. 9/11 brought some of those forces into plain view.

It was very weird to watch a lot of those forces come into plain view — there had been much cloaking of things that suddenly became explicit and acceptable.

Jane Hamsher @ 24

watertiger @ 19

This may be less a clash of myths than a clash of myth v. reality, where Rudy’s much-trumpeted “story of heroism” (as he put it before the 9/11 Commission) trumps the NYC firefighter union’s repeated attempt to get the facts on the record–malfunctioning radios that prevented firefighters from hearing the Mayday warning, a failure of leadership to come up with a plan to deal with terrorism despite the 1993 attack on the WTC, Rudy’s insistence on an emergency command center placed in lower Manhattan, despite all advice to the contrary, etc.

Isn’t that directly attributable to the media’s fascination with “codpiece politics”? And why, after deifying the firefighters, are these people so loath to listen to what they have to say?

That is a very good question.

Because they were given hero status in place of the practical help and tools they needed to do their jobs effectively, just as the soldiers in Iraq were given lip service, but not the armor and medical care (not to mention leadership) that they needed.

Personal pet peeve — p. 45 — when the State Department wanted to “help women become full and vibrant partners in Iraq’s developing democracy,” they gave a grant to — The Independent Women’s Forum.

Started by — Kate O’Beirne. (Fondly referred to around here as “Ol’ 60 Grit,” for reasons that are largely self-evident.)

It makes sense that terrorism would brainwash us into following any leader who says “I’ll protect you” if Safety is #1 on the Maslow pyramid of needs.

The sense of safety we took for granted, generally speaking, went up in smoke on 9/11. That’s why Rudy keeps bringing it up.

I wish and hope voters realize that was Rudy’s peak moment and he and his PR hits are not going to get any better than that.

I don’t know if you get to this in the book, as I’m not done yet, but one of the more bizarre elements of this warrior pre-adolescent myth regression comes to the fore in the way we absolutely shit on our wounded warriors.

Troops coming home, once they are wounded and in need of care, therapy, suffering from traumatic disorders, depression and brain injuries. . . these no longer pure and perfect avatars of the ideal are “feminized” as weak failures and traitors.

Deep public psychosis at work.

Because they were given hero status in place of the practical help and tools they needed to do their jobs effectively, just as the soldiers in Iraq were given lip service, but not the armor and medical care (not to mention leadership) that they needed.

And the anti-war side is accused of not supporting the troops (as substitutes for the firefighters). Go figure/

G’day, Susan

I just checked Dymocks online and The Terror Dream isn’t even available in Australia. Grrr.

Ordering via Amazon is an option but it just takes so long for things to arrive. I’m always behind!

How does HRC fit into all this?

Scarecrow @ 14

Welcome, Susan Faludi and thanks for coming. Do you see us coming out of the 9/11 mindset, and what should we look for as indicators?

Well, on the one hand we see widespread disenchantment from the American electorate over go-it-alone militarism, as reflected in the low poll ratings on Bush’s performance and the Iraq War. ….But will it inspire people to question the myth? I’m not sure. Today’s latest poll result in the NYT in that regard is not encouraging: 52% of Americans now support a preemptive strike on Iran.

Oklahoma kiddo @ 37

How does HRC fit into all this?

I would rephrase that into a question of Susan about the ways women in politics felt pressure to accommodate to the new national imperative to propel the warrior myth.

How did they tend to cope, or what survival strategies did they pursue? What happened, if you know, to any who refused to go along with the game? Not everyone is Barbara Lee. Do you see things changing for women in leadership now?

How soon before the myth that Iranians flew the planes into the Twin Towers gets circulated?

[smacks forehead preemptively]

I’m also curious about the impulse to torture. I’ve never believed in the “few bad apples” theory, but I thought this was interesting from your book (p. 139):

A Human Rights first study found that acts of torture on prime-time television had gone from fewer than four a year before 9/11 to more than a hundred – and the torturers, who in the past were almost entirely villains, were now often the show’ heroes.

Do you think this is in response to bad leadership, or arising from some deeper collective impulse?

Pachacutec @ 34

I don’t know if you get to this in the book, as I’m not done yet, but one of the more bizarre elements of this warrior pre-adolescent myth regression comes to the fore in the way we absolutely shit on our wounded warriors.

Troops coming home, once they are wounded and in need of care, therapy, suffering from traumatic disorders, depression and brain injuries. . . these no longer pure and perfect avatars of the ideal are “feminized” as weak failures and traitors.

Deep public psychosis at work.

That’s an extremely interesting observation. A central argument I make in the book is that our frontier myth was created precisely to conceal the wounded state of colonial America, its inability to protect settlers in their homesteads and villages. (one fourth of women taken captive in New England towns in the colonial era were never rescued, as were 60% of girls). And here we are again, wanting the story of triumph and victory (which is a major reason why the Bush White House wanted to shift the fight to Iraq in the first place), and turning away from the bloody wounded results. If this were a practical fight, we might take better care of the wounded. Since it’s a fight to repair a myth and an image, the wounded are embarrassments to be swept aside.

Has there been any recent polling of how many actually identify themselves as “security moms,” and if so, do they express a clear preference in the Presidential polls? Any guess on how Hillary Clinton is perceived, compared to, say, Romney or Edwards?

Scarecrow @ 43

Has there been any recent polling of how many actually identify themselves as “security moms,” and if so, do they express a clear preference in the Presidential polls? Any guess on how Hillary Clinton is perceived, compared to, say, Romney or Edwards?

I think even Anna Greenberg finally came to the conclusion that the “security mom” was a “myth” (p. 162).

Pachacutec @ 34

I don’t know if you get to this in the book, as I’m not done yet, but one of the more bizarre elements of this warrior pre-adolescent myth regression comes to the fore in the way we absolutely shit on our wounded warriors.

Troops coming home, once they are wounded and in need of care, therapy, suffering from traumatic disorders, depression and brain injuries. . . these no longer pure and perfect avatars of the ideal are “feminized” as weak failures and traitors.

Deep public psychosis at work.

Pach, I cannot tell from this comment if you see this as unique to this war? My reading indicates that this has always been true. That society will reject its darker aggressive side by rejecting the ugly effects that return home. They don’t know and don’t want to know what horrors these warriors were put through…etc. I think collectively we also don’t want to pay for anything that doesn’t directly “get the job done” ie we’ll buy big war machine that make us feel mighty. we don’t get the same self protective buzz by caring for the wounded.

Pachacutec @ 34

. . . these no longer pure and perfect avatars of the ideal are “feminized” as weak failures and traitors.

This takes my breath away. It’s so true and so disturbing. Please comment. It applies to all the injured, weakened, helpless, in need. I live in New Orleans…a feminized city if there ever was one.

Was deeply influenced by Backlash and look forward to reading this latest.

If this were a practical fight, we might take better care of the wounded. Since it’s a fight to repair a myth and an image, the wounded are embarrassments to be swept aside.

Y’know, between this outrageous callousness and Naomi Klein’s thesis on crisis as enterprise, I’m about ready to take hostages.

Jane Hamsher @ 41

I’m also curious about the impulse to torture. I’ve never believed in the “few bad apples” theory, but I thought this was interesting from your book (p. 139):

A Human Rights first study found that acts of torture on prime-time television had gone from fewer than four a year before 9/11 to more than a hundred – and the torturers, who in the past were almost entirely villains, were now often the show’ heroes.

Do you think this is in response to bad leadership, or arising from some deeper collective impulse?

The latter answer scares me the most, especially when I try to imagine the nature of those impulses.

Pachacutec @ 39

Oklahoma kiddo @ 37

How does HRC fit into all this?

I would rephrase that into a question of Susan about the ways women in politics felt pressure to accommodate to the new national imperative to propel the warrior myth.

How did they tend to cope, or what survival strategies did they pursue? What happened, if you know, to any who refused to go along with the game? Not everyone is Barbara Lee. Do you see things changing for women in leadership now?

Women who don’t support the myth’s master narrative of frightened women grateful for male protection came under fire in the aftermath of 9/11. Look at the Jersey Girls, who were denounced after they dropped the role of helpless homemaker victim and began to push the government for an accounting of the missteps and failures that left us vulnerable on 9/11.
As for Hillary Clinton, she is both an indication of the rising frustration now over the cowboy myth’s failure to protect us–note her promise in a recent rally to put an end to “cowboy diplomacy”–and an example of how much female candidates need to accommodate the myth. Witness the Iran resolution.

And here we are again, wanting the story of triumph and victory (which is a major reason why the Bush White House wanted to shift the fight to Iraq in the first place), and turning away from the bloody wounded results. If this were a practical fight, we might take better care of the wounded. Since it’s a fight to repair a myth and an image, the wounded are embarrassments to be swept aside.

This I take it would explain the competition over the narrative, and indeed the policy, over what we do vis-a-vis Iran.

For those of us who see the puny frightened man behind the red white and blue curtain, we see also, as El Baredei does, that Iran is not a meaningful threat to us, and not close to having nukes. We also see that Pakistan is a far more dangerous situation, and we saw it before today’s headlines.

However, those who can no longer get it up to the myth with Iraq as the playing field need another place to serve as their fantasyland, and Iran is the target of choice.

The poll numbers you cite show the state of play: people see that Iraq was sheer idiocy, but the underlying imperative to sustain the illusion remains, at least for 50-ish percent of the population.

We have far more work to do.

Susan Faludi @ 42

Pachacutec @ 34

I don’t know if you get to this in the book, as I’m not done yet, but one of the more bizarre elements of this warrior pre-adolescent myth regression comes to the fore in the way we absolutely shit on our wounded warriors.

Troops coming home, once they are wounded and in need of care, therapy, suffering from traumatic disorders, depression and brain injuries. . . these no longer pure and perfect avatars of the ideal are “feminized” as weak failures and traitors.

Deep public psychosis at work.

That’s an extremely interesting observation. A central argument I make in the book is that our frontier myth was created precisely to conceal the wounded state of colonial America, its inability to protect settlers in their homesteads and villages. (one fourth of women taken captive in New England towns in the colonial era were never rescued, as were 60% of girls). And here we are again, wanting the story of triumph and victory (which is a major reason why the Bush White House wanted to shift the fight to Iraq in the first place), and turning away from the bloody wounded results. If this were a practical fight, we might take better care of the wounded. Since it’s a fight to repair a myth and an image, the wounded are embarrassments to be swept aside.

And of course the BushCo doesn’t believe we really should have “lost” Vietnam. So who’s to blame?

Zogby poll 52%

” strike to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon”

Jane Hamsher @ 44

Scarecrow @ 43

Has there been any recent polling of how many actually identify themselves as “security moms,” and if so, do they express a clear preference in the Presidential polls? Any guess on how Hillary Clinton is perceived, compared to, say, Romney or Edwards?

I think even Anna Greenberg finally came to the conclusion that the “security mom” was a “myth” (p. 162).

Yes, the security mom turned out to be an invention, originally of a GOP pollster who based it all on rather flimsy evidence. Security moms were said to rate terror as their first concern, but exit polls found that only one fourth of the women regarded as security moms actually rated terror as their top worry, the same rate as other women voters.

Pach, I cannot tell from this comment if you see this as unique to this war? My reading indicates that this has always been true. That society will reject its darker aggressive side by rejecting the ugly effects that return home. They don’t know and don’t want to know what horrors these warriors were put through…etc. I think collectively we also don’t want to pay for anything that doesn’t directly “get the job done” ie we’ll buy big war machine that make us feel mighty. we don’t get the same self protective buzz by caring for the wounded.

I want to keep this on topic for Susan, but briefly, after WWII, the federal government saw the soldiers suffered from “battle fatugue” and subsidized lots of study that led to the creation of the modern practice of psychology and psychiatry.

Much that passed for treatment in those days was ridiculous or even sometimes harmful, but there was an impulse, backed by national investment, to help. That we took the opposite approach following Viet Nam suggests even more about the motivations behind that military campaign, akin to our current national psychosis.

Pach — It is awfully “Lord of the Flies” sometimes in the public discourse and justifications, isn’t it?

Susan Faludi is way ahead of the pack on this one, as she usually is — and the work she’s doing here to deconstruct these narratives is incisive and important.

I just don’t understand how the O’beirne-type narratives came to dominate the talk show airwaves. And I O’Beirne and her fellow conservatives are out of touch with reality and popular culture. Its not what I grew up with. But then again, maybe I am sheltered coming from a university town/area.

mui @ 48

Jane Hamsher @ 41

I’m also curious about the impulse to torture. I’ve never believed in the “few bad apples” theory, but I thought this was interesting from your book (p. 139):Do you think this is in response to bad leadership, or arising from some deeper collective impulse?

The latter answer scares me the most, especially when I try to imagine the nature of those impulses.

One remarkable aspect of the myth is how the model of the protector devolves into a rapacious brute. It was demonstrated in the myth’s formulation in the Victorian era, when Daniel Boone, a man who grieved over the 3 Indians he killed in his lifetime, was recast by his many hagiographers as a proud Indian killer who had slaughtered more “savages” than he could count. In our current day, in shows like “24,” we’re replicating the old formula.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 55

Pach — It is awfully “Lord of the Flies” sometimes in the public discourse and justifications, isn’t it?

Yes, and “Piggy” is a woman, a queer or a simmering infection of people with “extra” melanin. . in other words always the weak.. . . or, I should say, the outnumbered or those perceived to be weak.

Susan Faludi @ 49

Pachacutec @ 39

I would rephrase that into a question of Susan about the ways women in politics felt pressure to accommodate to the new national imperative to propel the warrior myth.

How did they tend to cope, or what survival strategies did they pursue? What happened, if you know, to any who refused to go along with the game? Not everyone is Barbara Lee. Do you see things changing for women in leadership now?

Women who don’t support the myth’s master narrative of frightened women grateful for male protection came under fire in the aftermath of 9/11. Look at the Jersey Girls, who were denounced after they dropped the role of helpless homemaker victim and began to push the government for an accounting of the missteps and failures that left us vulnerable on 9/11.
As for Hillary Clinton, she is both an indication of the rising frustration now over the cowboy myth’s failure to protect us–note her promise in a recent rally to put an end to “cowboy diplomacy”–and an example of how much female candidates need to accommodate the myth. Witness the Iran resolution.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around that one — did public disgust with codpiece diplomacy create the space for an “alternative” candidate to run (Clinton/Obama) or was it coincidental? And to what extent has the need to play into the “war on terror” frame hamstrung everyone’s ability to present realistic policy alternatives?

I’m remembering “The Best Years of Our Lives” and what a powerful impact it had then. And thinking also I seldom remember seeing ‘crippled’ veterans.

I’m fascinated with the link between today’s machismo and colonial american failure – the tensions we face now between chosing domination or collaboration were active then as well, in fact, writers like Cooper I believe were working in that space in many ways.

Hi Jane. Hi Ms Faludi. I really LOVED your book. I read it in three days and I learned SO MUCH!

Well, ma’m, I just don’t quite understand what your whole point is. But that’s just me. Let me ask you this:

After 911, did you oppose, or support United States efforts to hunt down and kill bin Laden? And why?

Ghostman

Susan Faludi @ 57

One remarkable aspect of the myth is how the model of the protector devolves into a rapacious brute. It was demonstrated in the myth’s formulation in the Victorian era, when Daniel Boone, a man who grieved over the 3 Indians he killed in his lifetime, was recast by his many hagiographers as a proud Indian killer who had slaughtered more “savages” than he could count. In our current day, in shows like “24,” we’re replicating the old formula.

Well sometimes I think this country has a sort of amnesia about the nature of slavery as described by Frederick Douglass, and the brutality of segregationists.

mui @ 56

Susan Faludi is way ahead of the pack on this one, as she usually is — and the work she’s doing here to deconstruct these narratives is incisive and important.

I just don’t understand how the O’beirne-type narratives came to dominate the talk show airwaves. And I O’Beirne and her fellow conservatives are out of touch with reality and popular culture. Its not what I grew up with. But then again, maybe I am sheltered coming from a university town/area.

After 9/11, other voices were drowned out. In particular, liberal and feminist minded female pundits, who were vilified for even mildly dissenting opinions (Susan Sontag called “morally deranged” for her brief comment in the New Yorker, suggesting we might have a “few shreds of historical awareness” or Katha Pollitt who was called a “bad mother” for not being eager to hang a flag out her window. We saw dramatic declines in female voices on opinion pages and female guests on talk shows (a drop of 40% on the Sunday news shows in the 7 weeks after 9/11), but when you look closely at who was eliminated, it was overwhelmingly left of center women. Hence, the power of the O’Beirne, Independent Women’s Forum types, who had an even greater showcase after 9/11.

Susan Faludi @ 65

mui @ 56

I just don’t understand how the O’beirne-type narratives came to dominate the talk show airwaves. And I O’Beirne and her fellow conservatives are out of touch with reality and popular culture. Its not what I grew up with. But then again, maybe I am sheltered coming from a university town/area.

After 9/11, other voices were drowned out. In particular, liberal and feminist minded female pundits, who were vilified for even mildly dissenting opinions (Susan Sontag called “morally deranged” for her brief comment in the New Yorker, suggesting we might have a “few shreds of historical awareness” or Katha Pollitt who was called a “bad mother” for not being eager to hang a flag out her window. We saw dramatic declines in female voices on opinion pages and female guests on talk shows (a drop of 40% on the Sunday news shows in the 7 weeks after 9/11), but when you look closely at who was eliminated, it was overwhelmingly left of center women. Hence, the power of the O’Beirne, Independent Women’s Forum types, who had an even greater showcase after 9/11.

O’Beirne and her eliminationist rhetoric needs to be swept back into the wingnut ghetto where she belongs.

Jane Hamsher @ 59

Susan Faludi @ 49

Women who don’t support the myth’s master narrative of frightened women grateful for male protection came under fire in the aftermath of 9/11. Look at the Jersey Girls, who were denounced after they dropped the role of helpless homemaker victim and began to push the government for an accounting of the missteps and failures that left us vulnerable on 9/11.
As for Hillary Clinton, she is both an indication of the rising frustration now over the cowboy myth’s failure to protect us–note her promise in a recent rally to put an end to “cowboy diplomacy”–and an example of how much female candidates need to accommodate the myth. Witness the Iran resolution.

I’m still trying to wrap my head around that one — did public disgust with codpiece diplomacy create the space for an “alternative” candidate to run (Clinton/Obama) or was it coincidental? And to what extent has the need to play into the “war on terror” frame hamstrung everyone’s ability to present realistic policy alternatives?

Yes and yes. Disgust with codpiece diplomacy did open a window for an alternative candidate. And yet, we aren’t out of the terror frame, by any means, so that any “alternative” candidate finds her/himself still having to deal with the demands of the myth and its stereotypes.

Women who don’t support the myth’s master narrative of frightened women grateful for male protection came under fire in the aftermath of 9/11. Look at the Jersey Girls, who were denounced after they dropped the role of helpless homemaker victim and began to push the government for an accounting of the missteps and failures that left us vulnerable on 9/11.
As for Hillary Clinton, she is both an indication of the rising frustration now over the cowboy myth’s failure to protect us–note her promise in a recent rally to put an end to “cowboy diplomacy”–and an example of how much female candidates need to accommodate the myth. Witness the Iran resolution.

Hillary is running through a political mine field that is gender driven. Is she tough enough? If she fights, she is shrill or a bitch. She has been a target of this crap for thirty years. “Her political success is the result of riding on Bill’s coat tails” I’ve seen that on more than one lefty blog..bullshit.

Another thing about The Frontier Myth is the glorification of bums: Wyatt Earp was hardly more than a tinhorn gambler, and the outlaws in never-ending stories.

Yet the backbone of the country was the hardworking farm man and woman, and children. Their stories don’t get much play.

Jane Hamsher @ 66

Susan Faludi @ 65

After 9/11, other voices were drowned out. In particular, liberal and feminist minded female pundits, who were vilified for even mildly dissenting opinions (Susan Sontag called “morally deranged” for her brief comment in the New Yorker, suggesting we might have a “few shreds of historical awareness” or Katha Pollitt who was called a “bad mother” for not being eager to hang a flag out her window. We saw dramatic declines in female voices on opinion pages and female guests on talk shows (a drop of 40% on the Sunday news shows in the 7 weeks after 9/11), but when you look closely at who was eliminated, it was overwhelmingly left of center women. Hence, the power of the O’Beirne, Independent Women’s Forum types, who had an even greater showcase after 9/11.

O’Beirne and her eliminationist rhetoric needs to be swept back into the wingnut ghetto where she belongs.

Jane has a powerful voice.

Now I have not read the book, but reading the comments makes me wonder how some of the folks driving the fear mongering ever managed to survive to reach their current ages.

I’m a man who grew up in the “duck and cover” era. I served in the Air Force during the “Cold War” where we actually had the exercises where we all crowded into the fall out shelter (and played cards until the end of the exercise).

I’m just amazed at how the fear mongers are still able to cow people that have been through these experiences or combat in Vietnam, Korea, or WWII. Seeing the stories about the massive car accident Friday on I95, makes me wonder why there’s no fear of the big trucks on the highway as it seems they are far more likely to kill us than any folks using “terror tactics” against us in the US.

Is it the using of all the war terms by football players or those who never served that drive this? It really does confuse me. I don’t think it’s much ado about nothing but it sure isn’t worth the cost to our Constitution and the mortgaging of our future.

Ghostman @ 63

Well, ma’m, I just don’t quite understand what your whole point is. But that’s just me. Let me ask you this:

After 911, did you oppose, or support United States efforts to hunt down and kill bin Laden? And why?

Ghostman

I certainly supported, and continue to support, all practical efforts in confronting our enemies and bringing them to justice. But that’s exactly what didn’t happen. Our government traded practical strategies for cowboy bluster. One hope I express in my book is that by confronting the mythical structures that derange our culture, we can free ourselves to mount more realistic and effective defenses of our security. Our myths were dangerous enough before this era of increased global threat. They are even more perilous now.

Susan, thank you for appearing today.

What Jane said at 59:

“And to what extent has the need to play into the “war on terror” frame hamstrung everyone’s ability to present realistic policy alternatives?”

The answer: almost completely.

The issue is: What is this community (and the politicians it supports) going to do about it?

moose @ 69

Another thing about The Frontier Myth is the glorification of bums: Wyatt Earp was hardly more than a tinhorn gambler, and the outlaws in never-ending stories.

Yet the backbone of the country was the hardworking farm man and woman, and children. Their stories don’t get much play.

My whole understanding of the west is kinda backward I think. When I was little I watched Dr Quinn Medicine Woman ALL THE TIME.

moose @ 60

I’m remembering “The Best Years of Our Lives” and what a powerful impact it had then. And thinking also I seldom remember seeing ‘crippled’ veterans.

Remember “Born of the 4th of July” as well.

The meme I have found from both Jane H and similarly in this work of Susan F’s re: Pivot and Attack, reminds me of the Zen answer “mu” in response to Zen koan/riddles.

To un-ask the question asked, thereby re-framing it.

To that end, thank you both Susan and Jane. Excellent work.

Susan Faludi @ 72

Ghostman @ 63

Well, ma’m, I just don’t quite understand what your whole point is. But that’s just me. Let me ask you this:

After 911, did you oppose, or support United States efforts to hunt down and kill bin Laden? And why?

Ghostman

I certainly supported, and continue to support, all practical efforts in confronting our enemies and bringing them to justice. But that’s exactly what didn’t happen. Our government traded practical strategies for cowboy bluster. One hope I express in my book is that by confronting the mythical structures that derange our culture, we can free ourselves to mount more realistic and effective defenses of our security. Our myths were dangerous enough before this era of increased global threat. They are even more perilous now.

Ok, that’s good enough by me. Thank you for the answer.

Ghostman

I was actually watching a Mark Crispin Miller one-man show on film. And he talks about how Dan Savage(?)or one of his ilk when asked to justfify his hatred of Bill Clinton, said “he’s (paraphrase) so soft so . . . (other feminine adjectives.)” I can see the same being said about any soft-spoken thinking man.

moose at 69 — Well, except for that whole Laura Ingalls Wilder phenomenon, anyway. *g*

Susan Faludi @ 38

Scarecrow @ 14

Welcome, Susan Faludi and thanks for coming. Do you see us coming out of the 9/11 mindset, and what should we look for as indicators?

Well, on the one hand we see widespread disenchantment from the American electorate over go-it-alone militarism, as reflected in the low poll ratings on Bush’s performance and the Iraq War. ….But will it inspire people to question the myth? I’m not sure. Today’s latest poll result in the NYT in that regard is not encouraging: 52% of Americans now support a preemptive strike on Iran.

This poll is actually misleading; I was reading somewhere – forget where – but the same question was asked 6 months or a year ago (?) where the respondents were something like 60 something per cent in favor.

Which proves to me that we in the blogosphere are having an effect on the bogus neocon military industrial congressional complex’s blood thirsty narrative of death and destruction

Susan, thanks for your interesting comments so far. Fascinating discussion for a feminist (me) to read. I have to confess I have not read the book yet, and my point may be off base.

However, I recently came upon an interview wherein Bush stated, prior to his first “election”, that he wanted to be a war president. This seems credible, tho I have only seen this one interview.

The general drift of his statements was that his father (BushI) had not finished the job of taking out Saddam… etc… and that HE was the guy to to that. Prove that he was a better man than his father.

Thus, it seems likely to me that we were set up for the “tough guy” saves nation mind set long before 9-11.

I hope my point makes sense. I have more thoughts, but can’t formulate them yet.

dakine01 @ 71

Now I have not read the book, but reading the comments makes me wonder how some of the folks driving the fear mongering ever managed to survive to reach their current ages.

I’m a man who grew up in the “duck and cover” era. I served in the Air Force during the “Cold War” where we actually had the exercises where we all crowded into the fall out shelter (and played cards until the end of the exercise).

I’m just amazed at how the fear mongers are still able to cow people that have been through these experiences or combat in Vietnam, Korea, or WWII. Seeing the stories about the massive car accident Friday on I95, makes me wonder why there’s no fear of the big trucks on the highway as it seems they are far more likely to kill us than any folks using “terror tactics” against us in the US.

Is it the using of all the war terms by football players or those who never served that drive this? It really does confuse me. I don’t think it’s much ado about nothing but it sure isn’t worth the cost to our Constitution and the mortgaging of our future.

dakine, you are so right. I too grew up in that era (born 1946). These morons don’t know from fear. I was probably no more that 3 when I saw my first holocaust photos…piles of corpses, living skeletons, human lampshades. Now that was terror. I was forced by Louisiana law to take a six weeks high school course called Communism v. Americanism. Now THAT was terror. It’s so obvious movement conservative and anti-feminists are yearning to turn back the clock to those bad old days when we were all so terrified and malleable and conventional and obedient. A pox on all their houses!

raven @ 75

moose @ 60

I’m remembering “The Best Years of Our Lives” and what a powerful impact it had then. And thinking also I seldom remember seeing ‘crippled’ veterans.

Remember “Born of the 4th of July” as well.

I think also movies like Go For Broke or To Hell And Back where folks just did their duty and served.

raven @ 75

moose @ 60

I’m remembering “The Best Years of Our Lives” and what a powerful impact it had then. And thinking also I seldom remember seeing ‘crippled’ veterans.

Remember “Born of the 4th of July” as well.

Thank you. Some of my critics have complained that in turning the clock back to 1950s John Wayne masculinity and Doris Day femininity, we were actually returning to a triumphant period. It’s important to remember that the 1950s, despite our victory in WW2, was a period in which we felt newly vulnerable, thanks to our own weapons. The atomic age left us terrified over the possibility of home-soil invasion. And look how ’50s America responded–with that same trumped-up domestic drama of helpless incapable women and puffed-up cinematic male heroes.

Ms. Faludi, last night I posted my own book review/reaction piece to your book. I am 16 and I thought maybe you’d like to see how your book influences younger women.

Chickenhawks. How do they play into this whole false bravado theme? You have the keyboard warriors, the Alabama National Guard veterans like Bush, 5 deferment Dick et al wanting to be “manly”. This seems to be a deep undercurrent, and not just a slur we cast as those who were “too busy” to serve but savor militarism, torture, and the “WOT”.

Fair enough, Christy :-)

But you could a line at “High Noon” as mostly the end of the Old Mythology of the West, Hollywood style.

One might compare “All Quiet on the Western Front” against “Sergeant York” (1941) and draw an interesting conclusion on applied mythology and timing.

Susan Faludi @ 84

raven @ 75

Remember “Born of the 4th of July” as well.

Thank you. Some of my critics have complained that in turning the clock back to 1950s John Wayne masculinity and Doris Day femininity, we were actually returning to a triumphant period. It’s important to remember that the 1950s, despite our victory in WW2, was a period in which we felt newly vulnerable, thanks to our own weapons. The atomic age left us terrified over the possibility of home-soil invasion. And look how ’50s America responded–with that same trumped-up domestic drama of helpless incapable women and puffed-up cinematic male heroes.

Yeah I don’t remember people of color faring too well, either. It’s a hagiographic vision of an America that never was, where people just sat on their complaints and let Daddy run everything.

Obviously better for some than others.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 79

moose at 69 — Well, except for that whole Laura Ingalls Wilder phenomenon, anyway. *g*

Let’s talk about the casting of the long-running show. Laura Ingalls Wilder in her pictures looks like she could plow a field or two and probably did since her father referred to her as his little working pony or something like that. That makes me respect her. I like strong women. She got feminized in the show. I wish Hollywood&etc would get with it and really just show all body types as good and natural. It’s the 21st century.

Valley Girl @ 81

Susan, thanks for your interesting comments so far. Fascinating discussion for a feminist (me) to read. I have to confess I have not read the book yet, and my point may be off base.

However, I recently came upon an interview wherein Bush stated, prior to his first “election”, that he wanted to be a war president. This seems credible, tho I have only seen this one interview.

The general drift of his statements was that his father (BushI) had not finished the job of taking out Saddam… etc… and that HE was the guy to to that. Prove that he was a better man than his father.

Thus, it seems likely to me that we were set up for the “tough guy” saves nation mind set long before 9-11.

I hope my point makes sense. I have more thoughts, but can’t formulate them yet.

While Bush and Co. were certainly poised to play the tough-guy-saves-nation card prior to 9/11, they couldn’t have done it without the complicity, not to mention cheerleading, of the media culture. After 9/11, it wasn’t just the Bush White House calling for a reconsideration of torture, secret prisons, and the contraction of civil liberties; we heard that from mainstream pundits in Newsweek, the Washington Post and Atlantic Monthly, to name just a few.

Jane Hamsher @ 88

Susan Faludi @ 84

Thank you. Some of my critics have complained that in turning the clock back to 1950s John Wayne masculinity and Doris Day femininity, we were actually returning to a triumphant period. It’s important to remember that the 1950s, despite our victory in WW2, was a period in which we felt newly vulnerable, thanks to our own weapons. The atomic age left us terrified over the possibility of home-soil invasion. And look how ’50s America responded–with that same trumped-up domestic drama of helpless incapable women and puffed-up cinematic male heroes.

Yeah I don’t remember people of color faring too well, either. It’s a hagiographic vision of an America that never was, where people just sat on their complaints and let Daddy run everything.

Obviously better for some than others.

They just want to be kids again and have a daddy. They should do go-karts or bumper boats instead.

Speaking of Doris Day femininity, I have always enjoyed this Oscar Levant quote: “I knew Doris Day before she was a virgin.”

Pachacutec @ 39

I would rephrase that into a question of Susan about the ways women in politics felt pressure to accommodate to the new national imperative to propel the warrior myth.

How did they tend to cope, or what survival strategies did they pursue? What happened, if you know, to any who refused to go along with the game? Not everyone is Barbara Lee. Do you see things changing for women in leadership now?

Pach, I would say that this is nothing new. Women have always had to operate within (or challenge) the playing field as dictated by men- call it the warrior mode, or whatever. It’s not as if there were a huge number of Barbara Lee’s before 9-11. It is a rare women who has the courage to challenge the male frame on things. Despite the feminist movement in the 60s, things have not really changed all that much. Many of the high visibility women now are what I would call Queen Bees.

moose @ 87

Fair enough, Christy :-)

But you could a line at “High Noon” as mostly the end of the Old Mythology of the West, Hollywood style.

One might compare “All Quiet on the Western Front” against “Sergeant York” (1941) and draw an interesting conclusion on applied mythology and timing.

You can also do that with Catch 22 and Gunner Asch Goes To War by Hans Helmut Kirst (German version of Catch 22.

Jane Hamsher @ 88

Susan Faludi @ 84

Thank you. Some of my critics have complained that in turning the clock back to 1950s John Wayne masculinity and Doris Day femininity, we were actually returning to a triumphant period. It’s important to remember that the 1950s, despite our victory in WW2, was a period in which we felt newly vulnerable, thanks to our own weapons. The atomic age left us terrified over the possibility of home-soil invasion. And look how ’50s America responded–with that same trumped-up domestic drama of helpless incapable women and puffed-up cinematic male heroes.

Yeah I don’t remember people of color faring too well, either. It’s a hagiographic vision of an America that never was, where people just sat on their complaints and let Daddy run everything.

Obviously better for some than others.

I thought the recent “The War” did a good job of laying out the reality of what African Americans and Japanese Americans faced in that time.

The wingnuts never seem to discuss the tax rate of the 1950’s, or the ratio between CEO and worker pay, or the strength of unions back then when they wax all nostalig.

Those are the icky parts of the Ike period.

trifecta @ 86

Chickenhawks. How do they play into this whole false bravado theme? You have the keyboard warriors, the Alabama National Guard veterans like Bush, 5 deferment Dick et al wanting to be “manly”. This seems to be a deep undercurrent, and not just a slur we cast as those who were “too busy” to serve but savor militarism, torture, and the “WOT”.

Overcompensating for deep-rooted feelings of inadequacy? That’s always a good combination for the leader of the free world.

trifecta @ 96

The wingnuts never seem to discuss the tax rate of the 1950’s, or the ratio between CEO and worker pay, or the strength of unions back then when they wax all nostalig.

Those are the icky parts of the Ike period.

Those are the IMPORTANT parts.

trifecta @ 86

Chickenhawks. How do they play into this whole false bravado theme? You have the keyboard warriors, the Alabama National Guard veterans like Bush, 5 deferment Dick et al wanting to be “manly”. This seems to be a deep undercurrent, and not just a slur we cast as those who were “too busy” to serve but savor militarism, torture, and the “WOT”.

A good point. And historically, the architects of the frontier myth have not been our warriors and protectors but those who’ve failed at the job. In my book, I trace some of this all the way back to the Salem witch trials, where a deadly domestic drama was presided over by exactly those men who had failed to protect the colonies during King William’s War.

Valley Girl @ 93

Pachacutec @ 39

I would rephrase that into a question of Susan about the ways women in politics felt pressure to accommodate to the new national imperative to propel the warrior myth.

How did they tend to cope, or what survival strategies did they pursue? What happened, if you know, to any who refused to go along with the game? Not everyone is Barbara Lee. Do you see things changing for women in leadership now?

Pach, I would say that this is nothing new. Women have always had to operate within (or challenge) the playing field as dictated by men- call it the warrior mode, or whatever. It’s not as if there were a huge number of Barbara Lee’s before 9-11. It is a rare women who has the courage to challenge the male frame on things. Despite the feminist movement in the 60s, things have not really changed all that much. Many of the high visibility women now are what I would call Queen Bees.

Yes and no.

Susan documents in her book some very interesting searches for articles about women, feminism, and other topics from the 70’s and up to more recent times.

The differences in what was said and what was printed, and the dwindling amount of content, are all striking.

There was indeed a Backlash, and it’s not quite accurate, I think, to say that the most recent period is like the one that immediately preceded it. So there are variations across time.

SnarKassandra @ 85

Ms. Faludi, last night I posted my own book review/reaction piece to your book. I am 16 and I thought maybe you’d like to see how your book influences younger women.

Thanks for the thoughtful review. And happy birthday!

I have been wondering for years how to define masculinity in terms other than john wayne. I don’t think anyone who knows me would doubt my claim to be a man: I was ROTC, joined the Army in 1968, married to a great woman for decades, have kids who like me and are good citizens, have always held a job, and know how to fix a toilet. Why do those weenie cowards, senile faux cowboys who never interacted with their kids, and those pill-popping blabbermouths, get to be masculine, and I don’t?

trifecta @ 96

The wingnuts never seem to discuss the tax rate of the 1950’s, or the ratio between CEO and worker pay, or the strength of unions back then when they wax all nostalig.

Those are the icky parts of the Ike period.

And the fact that the “Greatest Generation” carefully crafted the most extensive system of “entitlements” for themselves and then bitched about them for everyone else forever.

Part of the reason of modern ‘myth-ing’ is because the grim facts of history are not taught. Rather, American Exceptionalism was always emphasised.

There are many people now who truly believe the assault on the Constitution began with Dubya & co.

No one ever told me in school back in Florida about Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson suspending habeas corpus and jailing dissients, or draft riots.

The real story, warts and all, would serve maturity better than idolising.

Susan Faludi @ 101

SnarKassandra @ 85

Ms. Faludi, last night I posted my own book review/reaction piece to your book. I am 16 and I thought maybe you’d like to see how your book influences younger women.

Thanks for the thoughtful review. And happy birthday!

Thank you!!! And thanks for reading it!

masacchio at 102 — They don’t. I’m married to another good egg who is as masculine as they come, and who rescues spiders and taken them outside, and has no problem at all sitting around sipping tea with The Peanut. Real men nurture, care and helps others to thrive. If a man has to live up to some image on teevee, then he has bigger issues than the size of his…swagger.

masaccio @ 102

I have been wondering for years how to define masculinity in terms other than john wayne. I don’t think anyone who knows me would doubt my claim to be a man: I was ROTC, joined the Army in 1968, married to a great woman for decades, have kids who like me and are good citizens, have always held a job, and know how to fix a toilet. Why do those weenie cowards, senile faux cowboys who never interacted with their kids, and those pill-popping blabbermouths, get to be masculine, and I don’t?

You didn’t ask me, masaccio. You’re my kind of man. LOL. Oops, I forgot this isn’t MySpace.

Susan Faludi @ 90

While Bush and Co. were certainly poised to play the tough-guy-saves-nation card prior to 9/11, they couldn’t have done it without the complicity, not to mention cheerleading, of the media culture. After 9/11, it wasn’t just the Bush White House calling for a reconsideration of torture, secret prisons, and the contraction of civil liberties; we heard that from mainstream pundits in Newsweek, the Washington Post and Atlantic Monthly, to name just a few.

Susan, thanks. AHA! The bell of truth just rang for me.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 106

masacchio at 102 — They don’t. I’m married to another good egg who is as masculine as they come, and who rescues spiders and taken them outside, and has no problem at all sitting around sipping tea with The Peanut. Real men nurture, care and helps others to thrive. If a man has to live up to some image on teevee, then he has bigger issues than the size of his…swagger.

Like “family values”, the ones who don’t have it shout the loudest about it.

raven @ 103

trifecta @ 96

The wingnuts never seem to discuss the tax rate of the 1950’s, or the ratio between CEO and worker pay, or the strength of unions back then when they wax all nostalig.

Those are the icky parts of the Ike period.

And the fact that the “Greatest Generation” carefully crafted the most extensive system of “entitlements” for themselves and then bitched about them for everyone else forever.

Very good point. In fact, it was WWII vets who vilified VietNam vets as pussies and losers…not the dirty f**king hippies as the right would have us all believe.

SnarKassandra @ 91

Jane Hamsher @ 88

Yeah I don’t remember people of color faring too well, either. It’s a hagiographic vision of an America that never was, where people just sat on their complaints and let Daddy run everything.

Obviously better for some than others.

They just want to be kids again and have a daddy. They should do go-karts or bumper boats instead.

funny, what really began to irk me about Lieberman as “my senator” was his patronizing “Father knows best kind of answers” to war protesters. He used to say his childhood was like “Happy Days.” When I started to ask myself why he did the things he did (e.g. Alito vote), I began to think that the Happy Days thing was part of his psychosis

My favorite example of the media being part and parcel is Mort Kondracke, who for a long time has been considered a “centrist”. He argued that the solution to Iraq was “ethnic cleansing” of the Sunnis.

That would fix things. He has not been shunned, shamed, looked at in horror for these views. He’s on FOX now, so that is it’s own indictment. The media was so gung ho about being imbedded, about getting the bad guys.

Let’s not forget Anthrax. That happened right after 9/11 and targeted journalists. They were afraid, full of rage, and ready to jump off any cliff Bush offered them.

Susan — I’m curious about the section that you have on the “9/11 widow status” and how that narrative has become shorthand for so many of the folks left behind in the wake of the tragedy. We have seen how several of the widows and widowers have been vilified when they have spoken up to correct the narrative where they think it has gone awry. The Coulter attacks on “The Jersey Girls” spring to mind here.

So many of the media myths build up, at least from what I have seen, due to the sort of herd menatality and in-crowd shorthand that far too many in the media use — due to laziness? Ease? Fitting into what Digby calls “The Heathers”? I dunno. But how do we break through that and get back to critical thinking…and soon.

masaccio @ 102

I have been wondering for years how to define masculinity in terms other than john wayne. I don’t think anyone who knows me would doubt my claim to be a man: I was ROTC, joined the Army in 1968, married to a great woman for decades, have kids who like me and are good citizens, have always held a job, and know how to fix a toilet. Why do those weenie cowards, senile faux cowboys who never interacted with their kids, and those pill-popping blabbermouths, get to be masculine, and I don’t?

You may be the ideal man that Oklahoma Kiddo was asking about in post #25!

Sharon @ 110

raven @ 103

And the fact that the “Greatest Generation” carefully crafted the most extensive system of “entitlements” for themselves and then bitched about them for everyone else forever.

Very good point. In fact, it was WWII vets who vilified VietNam vets as pussies and losers…not the dirty f**king hippies as the right would have us all believe.

I’m sort of familiar with that.

Susan Faludi @ 90

Valley Girl @ 81

Susan, thanks for your interesting comments so far. Fascinating discussion for a feminist (me) to read. I have to confess I have not read the book yet, and my point may be off base.

However, I recently came upon an interview wherein Bush stated, prior to his first “election”, that he wanted to be a war president. This seems credible, tho I have only seen this one interview.

The general drift of his statements was that his father (BushI) had not finished the job of taking out Saddam… etc… and that HE was the guy to to that. Prove that he was a better man than his father.

Thus, it seems likely to me that we were set up for the “tough guy” saves nation mind set long before 9-11.

I hope my point makes sense. I have more thoughts, but can’t formulate them yet.

While Bush and Co. were certainly poised to play the tough-guy-saves-nation card prior to 9/11, they couldn’t have done it without the complicity, not to mention cheerleading, of the media culture. After 9/11, it wasn’t just the Bush White House calling for a reconsideration of torture, secret prisons, and the contraction of civil liberties; we heard that from mainstream pundits in Newsweek, the Washington Post and Atlantic Monthly, to name just a few.

How do we return to good sense and not Fear! Fear! FEAR! all the time, after this administration finally leaves power?
I mean, if the media has to help…oh dear.

The american head is completely anti intellectual. You can see it in all the pop movements, nascar, all other sports, pop music, celeb worship. We are a nation of idiots which respond to very primitive behaviors, fight, winning, dominance and so forth.

It’s more about dominance and submission and that’s how American see things. Winning is everything, and how you win is not even important except THAT you win. So all laws, ethics and so on have no standing in this culture. Money, power, wealth and fame are everything.

Our foreign policy is about domination and having the world’s nations and peoples submit to out hegemony.

Sucks don’t it?

I’m thinking of all the macho slandering of Valerie Plame Wilson. And Sibel Edmonds. All part of a false and vicious narrative.

Susan Faludi @ 114

masaccio @ 102

I have been wondering for years how to define masculinity in terms other than john wayne. I don’t think anyone who knows me would doubt my claim to be a man: I was ROTC, joined the Army in 1968, married to a great woman for decades, have kids who like me and are good citizens, have always held a job, and know how to fix a toilet. Why do those weenie cowards, senile faux cowboys who never interacted with their kids, and those pill-popping blabbermouths, get to be masculine, and I don’t?

You may be the ideal man that Oklahoma Kiddo was asking about in post #25!

This is part of what I wrote in my reaction to this book:

Chapter 2: Donald Rumsfeld was supposed to be a sexy hero? GAG me! Brain bleach please! And George Bush? No Way! His leadership was reading to second graders (isn’t that a woman’s job?!?) and hugging girl and women victims. Those guys were supposed to STOP the attack and make the country safer by protecting the shipping ports, not by having photo-ops.

I like superhero cartoons. I watched all the Spiderman and Superman movies. I’d love to have them help keep us safe, but in the real world I want the government to do it’s job. My brother is in the army and he is a tall, strong hero-type. For much of my childhood he was like Superman to me, and some days he still is. But he and his gun are not going to protect me from terrorists —- that is what people pay taxes to the government for.

Hmmm… I don’t question my masculinity despite being a progressive ‘Liberal’! *g*

Christy Hardin Smith @ 113

Susan — I’m curious about the section that you have on the “9/11 widow status” and how that narrative has become shorthand for so many of the folks left behind in the wake of the tragedy. We have seen how several of the widows and widowers have been vilified when they have spoken up to correct the narrative where they think it has gone awry. The Coulter attacks on “The Jersey Girls” spring to mind here.

So many of the media myths build up, at least from what I have seen, due to the sort of herd menatality and in-crowd shorthand that far too many in the media use — due to laziness? Ease? Fitting into what Digby calls “The Heathers”? I dunno. But how do we break through that and get back to critical thinking…and soon.

Part of the problem is the long-term shift from a working press that gives us the information we need to be educated citizens (the whole point of the founders wanting to guarantee protections to the press)to a “media” that mainly wants and needs to entertain us to attract the maximum number of consumers (who used to be called readers).

SanderO @ 117

The american head is completely anti intellectual. You can see it in all the pop movements, nascar, all other sports, pop music, celeb worship. We are a nation of idiots which respond to very primitive behaviors, fight, winning, dominance and so forth.

It’s more about dominance and submission and that’s how American see things. Winning is everything, and how you win is not even important except THAT you win. So all laws, ethics and so on have no standing in this culture. Money, power, wealth and fame are everything.

Our foreign policy is about domination and having the world’s nations and peoples submit to out hegemony.

Sucks don’t it?

Not as long as Indy beats the Pats.

just wondering out loud what impact reenactment of the Fairness Doctrine would have on all of this.

The entire move to fascism was the result of studying how Americans can be manipulated by images. 911 was a false flag operation and it was the kick start to all the neofascism we are seeing today.

When they stole the 2000 election and there was no push back, they knew that had it made. And they have continued to this very day to turn this country into the 4th reich.

Pach- the “male frame” (meaning the larger world women operate in) on things has shifted since the 60s to be more female friendly. As as has society as a whole. But, there is still a huge gap between the expectations of equality for women that looked possible in the 60s, and what women now are allowed to do and accomplish and be rewarded and paid for. No, it’s not as bad as it was, but it’s not equality.

moose @ 118

I’m thinking of all the macho slandering of Valerie Plame Wilson. And Sibel Edmonds. All part of a false and vicious narrative.

The prototype was what was done to Hillary Clinton. From the get-go she was the anti-Christ, hysterically demonized far out of proportion to anything she ever said or did. That she’s survived and prevailed is nothing short of miraculous. George Bush and Dick Cheney would curl up in a fetal position and suck their thumbs if they had ever been put through half as much.

Sharon @ 110

raven @ 103

And the fact that the “Greatest Generation” carefully crafted the most extensive system of “entitlements” for themselves and then bitched about them for everyone else forever.

Very good point. In fact, it was WWII vets who vilified VietNam vets as pussies and losers…not the dirty f**king hippies as the right would have us all believe.

Sharon,
I think there were at least two different types of WWII vets. This is a generalization obviously but I think the ones who were super negative about Vietnam vets and were hyper active in the VFW and American Legion were not the ones who spent a lot of time in combat. The vets who were long time combat may have joined those orgs but they didn’t brag about everything they’d seen and done.

blushes

Susan Faludi @ 121

Christy Hardin Smith @ 113

Susan — I’m curious about the section that you have on the “9/11 widow status” and how that narrative has become shorthand for so many of the folks left behind in the wake of the tragedy. We have seen how several of the widows and widowers have been vilified when they have spoken up to correct the narrative where they think it has gone awry. The Coulter attacks on “The Jersey Girls” spring to mind here.

So many of the media myths build up, at least from what I have seen, due to the sort of herd menatality and in-crowd shorthand that far too many in the media use — due to laziness? Ease? Fitting into what Digby calls “The Heathers”? I dunno. But how do we break through that and get back to critical thinking…and soon.

Part of the problem is the long-term shift from a working press that gives us the information we need to be educated citizens (the whole point of the founders wanting to guarantee protections to the press)to a “media” that mainly wants and needs to entertain us to attract the maximum number of consumers (who used to be called readers).

Interesting.

I was just over reading MoDo’s column and thinking she represents a huge problem but it’s going to be an incredibly difficult one to dismantle.

Susan at 121 — I was watching a Bill Moyers speech about the corporate culture ruining the media the other day. It is so frustrating. I do know several people who take the journalism portion of their jobs seriously. The fact that I could name them all in ten minutes is the frustrating part of it — especially knowing what some of them go through with the editorial process watering down their work.

Incredibly frustrating, and no easy solution in sight.

Sharon @ 110

raven @ 103

And the fact that the “Greatest Generation” carefully crafted the most extensive system of “entitlements” for themselves and then bitched about them for everyone else forever.

Very good point. In fact, it was WWII vets who vilified VietNam vets as pussies and losers…not the dirty f**king hippies as the right would have us all believe.

You know what, that’s EXTREMELY interesting. It’s a good portion of the conservative vietnam vets that I know now who deride the ones currently deployed as wimps, not fighting a REAL war, all huddled up in their compounds or getting blown up (BFD) on the side of the road etc, etc, etc. I’ve been absolutely appalled by that mentality (but can’t say much b/c when I do, they counter YOU’VE never been in a war, which is quite true).

But that sure sounds like the same thing you say the WWII vets did…very interesting.

I think there were at least two different types of WWII vets. This is a generalization obviously but I think the ones who were super negative about Vietnam vets and were hyper active in the VFW and American Legion were not the ones who spent a lot of time in combat. The vets who were long time combat may have joined those orgs but they didn’t brag about everything they’d seen and done.

My old man spent 3 years in “combat” in the Pacific and, while he totally disagreed with my actions in the VVAW, he supported my right to do so.

SnarKassandra @ 119

Susan Faludi @ 114

You may be the ideal man that Oklahoma Kiddo was asking about in post #25!

This is part of what I wrote in my reaction to this book:

Chapter 2: Donald Rumsfeld was supposed to be a sexy hero? GAG me! Brain bleach please! And George Bush? No Way! His leadership was reading to second graders (isn’t that a woman’s job?!?) and hugging girl and women victims. Those guys were supposed to STOP the attack and make the country safer by protecting the shipping ports, not by having photo-ops.

I like superhero cartoons. I watched all the Spiderman and Superman movies. I’d love to have them help keep us safe, but in the real world I want the government to do it’s job. My brother is in the army and he is a tall, strong hero-type. For much of my childhood he was like Superman to me, and some days he still is. But he and his gun are not going to protect me from terrorists —- that is what people pay taxes to the government for.

Kassandra’s awareness here is extremely important and telling, because young women are put in the role of acting the needy party. The formula goes like this: the nation is strong because its men are capable and brave protectors, but they can’t be capable and brave unless women are weak and in need of a male savior. One place to start in answering the question, What do we do about all this?, is to begin to dismantle the connection between a sense of national security and a demand for feminine weakness.

Jane- MoDo is a Queen Bee.

Jane at 129 — I read that this morning, and it so reminded me of Digby’s “Heathers” pieces. You could almost do a point/counterpoint from the movie dialogue on it.

Owning the media was part of the plan. We all read about that in Brave New World and they simply followed the script. If you control the information, you control the people.

Our people get their news from the corporate militarists MSM who sell advertising with all that war jingoism.

Were it not for the internet we would be completely isolated from one another. But they are going to take this too in the not too distant future. It’s too democratic. The bought MSM is up in arms about the emerging power potential of the blogs and the net. This too will go the way of the MSM.

Valley Girl @ 125

Pach- the “male frame” (meaning the larger world women operate in) on things has shifted since the 60s to be more female friendly. As as has society as a whole. But, there is still a huge gap between the expectations of equality for women that looked possible in the 60s, and what women now are allowed to do and accomplish and be rewarded and paid for. No, it’s not as bad as it was, but it’s not equality.

Agreed. And in my other mailbox, one of my grad school students just sent me this link.

La plus ca change. . .

Christy Hardin Smith @ 113

So many of the media myths build up, at least from what I have seen, due to the sort of herd menatality and in-crowd shorthand that far too many in the media use — due to laziness? Ease? Fitting into what Digby calls “The Heathers”? I dunno. But how do we break through that and get back to critical thinking…and soon.

Conservatives create a story and stick to it. The MSM enthusiastically disseminate and repeat it. It doesn’t matter how many times we debunk and shoot it to pieces. We and the candidates that we support are the critical thinking. Republicans and most of the media are beyond hope.

I was just over reading MoDo’s column and thinking she represents a huge problem but it’s going to be an incredibly difficult one to dismantle.

Thers’ lovely wife Molly Ivors has some opinions about MoDo’s latest drivel.

I live in a lovely, small beach village now, and most of the time wear a sarong and a t-shirt. Not the usual costume in Queensland, that’s for sure.

Neither of my wives nor my two sons ever doubted I was male. LOL, some locals weren’t so sure. But I told one bloke, as I’d lived in Samoa and got used the comfort of a different style, well, I’d rather be the village eccentric than the village idiot.

I can wear pink and purple and lipstick and pretty dresses and still be strong. I don’t need a man to save me. How I dress and how I act in the world don’t have to be dependent on each other.

I was just over reading MoDo’s column and thinking she represents a huge problem but it’s going to be an incredibly difficult one to dismantle.

Where do you start? I think that’s what baffles so many people.

You know even with codpiece fatigue, I just had this argument with someone. I read a piece in the LA Times, where Musharraf cited the War on Terra as part of his reason for his “state of emergency.” I don’t follow events in Pakistan all that well, but I am not convinced his opposition is *really* terrorists. The person I argued with thought that Musharraf was a bulwark against Al Quaeda, and actions were justified, because he’s an oppressive dictator (basically.) As if a “strong” dictator is the *only* means keeping terrorists from getting Pakistan’s arsenol.
It’s the same mentality as 9/11 “strong leader” equals oppressive leader, still and yet the same people who might justify Musharraf’s actions can now see through the Bush administration.

It’s not so much an anti feminism thing as much as it is dominant/submissive paradigm.

Women have been forced to play the submissive by religion and royalty and so the argument is often framed as misogyny.

It’s really a hatred of the submissive as a weak and ineffective position.

Hugh @ 138

Christy Hardin Smith @ 113

So many of the media myths build up, at least from what I have seen, due to the sort of herd menatality and in-crowd shorthand that far too many in the media use — due to laziness? Ease? Fitting into what Digby calls “The Heathers”? I dunno. But how do we break through that and get back to critical thinking…and soon.

Conservatives create a story and stick to it. The MSM enthusiastically disseminate and repeat it. It doesn’t matter how many times we debunk and shoot it to pieces. We and the candidates that we support are the critical thinking. Republicans and most of the media are beyond hope.

What I learned the MOST from this book was how the media INVENTS the whole story and don’t even check to see if it’s true. It doesn’t matter.

Christy Hardin Smith @ 130

Susan at 121 — I was watching a Bill Moyers speech about the corporate culture ruining the media the other day. It is so frustrating. I do know several people who take the journalism portion of their jobs seriously. The fact that I could name them all in ten minutes is the frustrating part of it — especially knowing what some of them go through with the editorial process watering down their work.

Incredibly frustrating, and no easy solution in sight.

As someone who has worked at many newspapers over the course of a career in journalism, I feel the same way. It was a depressing aspect of my book tour last month that as I traveled around and saw old friends at many of those papers, I kept hearing horror stories about cutbacks, layoffs, elimination of investigative reporting, proliferation of meaningless consumer “lifestyle” sections, and demands for stories that get a lot of clicks instead of stories that have actual import.

mui @ 143

You know even with codpiece fatigue, I just had this argument with someone. I read a piece in the LA Times, where Musharraf cited the War on Terra as part of his reason for his “state of emergency.” I don’t follow events in Pakistan all that well, but I am not convinced his opposition is *really* terrorists. The person I argued with thought that Musharraf was a bulwark against Al Quaeda, and actions were justified, because he’s an oppressive dictator (basically.) As if a “strong” dictator is the *only* means keeping terrorists from getting Pakistan’s arsenol.
It’s the same mentality as 9/11 “strong leader” equals oppressive leader, still and yet the same people who might justify Musharraf’s actions can now see through the Bush administration.

Did you ask that person what he’d think of Bush doing that here as part of fighting terrorism?

BTW, someone yesterday posted a very interesting link to the origin of the word “terrorist”…
&oref=slogin&oref=login”>Bush’s Dangerous Liaisons (might be behind nyt’s registry wall).

raven @ 132

I think there were at least two different types of WWII vets. This is a generalization obviously but I think the ones who were super negative about Vietnam vets and were hyper active in the VFW and American Legion were not the ones who spent a lot of time in combat. The vets who were long time combat may have joined those orgs but they didn’t brag about everything they’d seen and done.

My old man spent 3 years in “combat” in the Pacific and, while he totally disagreed with my actions in the VVAW, he supported my right to do so.

Which is pretty much my point. I loved my father and he was ahead of his time in many ways but he was also one of the VFW types who would sometimes question the guys from ‘Nam era. Although he was more likely to go after the DFHs.

I gotta walk the dogs… but I think we are as a nation pretty brainwashed and there is little hope on that score.

The change we need will come after catastrophe and perhaps something rational can rise from the ashes. We are on a collision course with our own destruction and the sane voices are completely marginalized.

dakine01 @ 127

Sharon @ 110

Very good point. In fact, it was WWII vets who vilified VietNam vets as pussies and losers…not the dirty f**king hippies as the right would have us all believe.

Sharon,
I think there were at least two different types of WWII vets. This is a generalization obviously but I think the ones who were super negative about Vietnam vets and were hyper active in the VFW and American Legion were not the ones who spent a lot of time in combat. The vets who were long time combat may have joined those orgs but they didn’t brag about everything they’d seen and done.

You’re right. I was just struck by the accuracy of the earlier observation about how the greatest generation evolved a solid safety net for themselves…GI Bill, etc…during the Great Compression. But, you have to admit, a huge number of these were staunch conservatives…in the respectable sense of the word…who fought tooth and nail to deny those same entitlements to women and minorities.

BTW, if I don’t make a lot of sense, it’s because I’m absolutely starstruck to be taking part in a conversation with Susan Faludi whose been one of my personal heroes for at least 15 years.

What I learned the MOST from this book was how the media INVENTS the whole story and don’t even check to see if it’s true. It doesn’t matter.

Now if you tell two friends, SnarKassandra, and they tell two friends, and they tell two friends …that’s how revolutions get started.

;-)

peanutbutter @ 147

mui @ 143

You know even with codpiece fatigue, I just had this argument with someone. I read a piece in the LA Times, where Musharraf cited the War on Terra as part of his reason for his “state of emergency.” I don’t follow events in Pakistan all that well, but I am not convinced his opposition is *really* terrorists. The person I argued with thought that Musharraf was a bulwark against Al Quaeda, and actions were justified, because he’s an oppressive dictator (basically.) As if a “strong” dictator is the *only* means keeping terrorists from getting Pakistan’s arsenol.
It’s the same mentality as 9/11 “strong leader” equals oppressive leader, still and yet the same people who might justify Musharraf’s actions can now see through the Bush administration.

Did you ask that person what he’d think of Bush doing that here as part of fighting terrorism?

BTW, someone yesterday posted a very interesting link to the origin of the word “terrorist”…
&oref=slogin&oref=login”>Bush’s Dangerous Liaisons (might be behind nyt’s registry wall).

No I didn’t because I was afraid it would have brought up ugly charges of racism and counteraccusations.

Very good point. In fact, it was WWII vets who vilified VietNam vets as pussies and losers…not the dirty f**king hippies as the right would have us all believe.You know what, that’s EXTREMELY interesting. It’s a good portion of the conservative vietnam vets that I know now who deride the ones currently deployed as wimps, not fighting a REAL war, all huddled up in their compounds or getting blown up (BFD) on the side of the road etc, etc, etc. I’ve been absolutely appalled by that mentality (but can’t say much b/c when I do, they counter YOU’VE never been in a war, which is quite true).

But that sure sounds like the same thing you say the WWII vets did…very interesting.

It is the same. It’s also the case that plenty of vets dinminsh the service of anyone that was not in their outfit. Ever meet a Jar Head that wasn’t a grunt? Some of my buddies and I joke that every other Nam vet we meet walked point. If it were true there would have been no one to walk slack or drag.

Pachacutec @ 137

Valley Girl @ 125

Pach- the “male frame” (meaning the larger world women operate in) on things has shifted since the 60s to be more female friendly. As as has society as a whole. But, there is still a huge gap between the expectations of equality for women that looked possible in the 60s, and what women now are allowed to do and accomplish and be rewarded and paid for. No, it’s not as bad as it was, but it’s not equality.

Agreed. And in my other mailbox, one of my grad school students just sent me this link.

La plus ca change. . .

Thanks for the link Pach. Just went off and skimmed the article. La plus ca change indeed.

Valley Girl @ 134

Jane- MoDo is a Queen Bee.

what is a queen bee?? is it code or something?

Ghostman

America is about money, power and control. Everything else is subordinate to that. The press is a means to make money. The military is a huge cash cow. Politics are about money.

Capitalism is about moving wealth to the few and turning the many into a means to more wealth.

SanderO @ 149

I gotta walk the dogs… but I think we are as a nation pretty brainwashed and there is little hope on that score.

The change we need will come after catastrophe and perhaps something rational can rise from the ashes. We are on a collision course with our own destruction and the sane voices are completely marginalized.

Don’t despair just yet, though I know things seem very bleak. For all the horror that we’ve brought on ourselves after 9/11, that catastrophe still gave us a chance to observe longstanding subcurrents of our history in the raw. And for that, 9/11 could also represent a historic opportunity for us as a people to address and correct a dangerous underlying myth.

watertiger @ 151

What I learned the MOST from this book was how the media INVENTS the whole story and don’t even check to see if it’s true. It doesn’t matter.

Now if you tell two friends, SnarKassandra, and they tell two friends, and they tell two friends …that’s how revolutions get started.

;-)

I am trying to figure out how to use this book for my history fair project and then tell the whole 10th grade about it!

Ghostman @ 155

Valley Girl @ 134

Jane- MoDo is a Queen Bee.

what is a queen bee?? is it code or something?

Ghostman

Joan Crawford movie?

There’s gonna be no revolution in this country. People are into Nascar, Paris Hilton, Ipods and sports.

A queen bee (my translation) is a woman who has become successful, but then fears and loathes any other woman who might supplant her place at the top of the pecking order.

See MoDowd. It’s not about sisterhood, it’s all about I got mine.

Susan Faludi @ 99

trifecta @ 86

Chickenhawks. How do they play into this whole false bravado theme? You have the keyboard warriors, the Alabama National Guard veterans like Bush, 5 deferment Dick et al wanting to be “manly”. This seems to be a deep undercurrent, and not just a slur we cast as those who were “too busy” to serve but savor militarism, torture, and the “WOT”.

A good point. And historically, the architects of the frontier myth have not been our warriors and protectors but those who’ve failed at the job. In my book, I trace some of this all the way back to the Salem witch trials, where a deadly domestic drama was presided over by exactly those men who had failed to protect the colonies during King William’s War.

When kids in high school have to write about archetypes I hope your work will inform the very archetypes they study. Thank you.

This is the kind of work that rips the nuts off the tree.

Sharon @ 150

dakine01 @ 127

Sharon,
I think there were at least two different types of WWII vets. This is a generalization obviously but I think the ones who were super negative about Vietnam vets and were hyper active in the VFW and American Legion were not the ones who spent a lot of time in combat. The vets who were long time combat may have joined those orgs but they didn’t brag about everything they’d seen and done.

You’re right. I was just struck by the accuracy of the earlier observation about how the greatest generation evolved a solid safety net for themselves…GI Bill, etc…during the Great Compression. But, you have to admit, a huge number of these were staunch conservatives…in the respectable sense of the word…who fought tooth and nail to deny those same entitlements to women and minorities.

BTW, if I don’t make a lot of sense, it’s because I’m absolutely starstruck to be taking part in a conversation with Susan Faludi whose been one of my personal heroes for at least 15 years.

Sharon, you sound like you’re making sense to me. (And thanks.)

I must note, as a Canadian, that the “band of shrieking harpies” includes our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper.

Ghostman @ 155

Valley Girl @ 134

Jane- MoDo is a Queen Bee.

what is a queen bee?? is it code or something?

Ghostman

Ghostman- here’s a quick link

~~~”The Queen Bee Syndrome,” is where women who have attained senior positions do not use their power to assist struggling young women or to change the system, tacitly validating it.~~~

When I was an Army journalist in Washington, DC, in 1961, I wrote a couple of stories on the re-enactment of the Battle of Manassas/Bull Run. And was censured by the Pentagon.

Some people just hate the truth — I did my research on the facts at the Library of Congress. So it goes.

Later, as a freelance, I research the life and work of Nikola Tesla. But got sidetracked finding things about Thomas Edison I never knew. So wrote a revisionist piece and sent it to a major magazine.

Got a two-page letter from the editor castigating me over it and said it was quite unpublishable.

I got it published nonetheless. Twice.

These days, though, facts don’t matter. Just spin.

Bah!

Valley Girl @ 165

Ghostman @ 155

what is a queen bee?? is it code or something?

Ghostman

Ghostman- here’s a quick link

~~~”The Queen Bee Syndrome,” is where women who have attained senior positions do not use their power to assist struggling young women or to change the system, tacitly validating it.~~~

sounds like typical republican meaness to me!

I am trying to figure out how to use this book for my history fair project and then tell the whole 10th grade about it!

Thank you. You give me hope.

moose @ 166

When I was an Army journalist in Washington, DC, in 1961, I wrote a couple of stories on the re-enactment of the Battle of Manassas/Bull Run. And was censured by the Pentagon.

Some people just hate the truth — I did my research on the facts at the Library of Congress. So it goes.

Later, as a freelance, I research the life and work of Nikola Tesla. But got sidetracked finding things about Thomas Edison I never knew. So wrote a revisionist piece and sent it to a major magazine.

Got a two-page letter from the editor castigating me over it and said it was quite unpublishable.

I got it published nonetheless. Twice.

These days, though, facts don’t matter. Just spin.

Bah!

That is why I am so glad we have blogs!

trifecta @ 161

A queen bee (my translation) is a woman who has become successful, but then fears and loathes any other woman who might supplant her place at the top of the pecking order.

See MoDowd. It’s not about sisterhood, it’s all about I got mine.

Oh! That is a great definition. Much better than the one I quoted.

SnarKassandra @ 167

Valley Girl @ 165

Ghostman- here’s a quick link

~~~”The Queen Bee Syndrome,” is where women who have attained senior positions do not use their power to assist struggling young women or to change the system, tacitly validating it.~~~

sounds like typical republican meaness to me!

Alas, they come in all political stripes.

trifecta @ 161

A queen bee (my translation) is a woman who has become successful, but then fears and loathes any other woman who might supplant her place at the top of the pecking order.

See MoDowd. It’s not about sisterhood, it’s all about I got mine.

Which made her the perfect bookend to Judy Miller.

Good evening, Ms. Faludi. Looking forward to reading the book-you’ll be amused to hear that I discovered Backlash after hearing Christina Hoff-Sommers lambasting it. In critcizing it, she piqued my curiousity enough to make me go buy it. I’m sure that wasn’t her intended goal…I found it a very perceptive and important work. Again, welcome to the Lake, and I look forward to reading the new one.

Susan, what is a viable myth that could replace the current one we are operating on?

What emotion can we progressives tap into that would override the emotion of fear?

Thank you so much, Susan, again, for participating in this forum.

I can’t wait to read the book.

do-si-do @ 174

Susan, what is a viable myth that could replace the current one we are operating on?

What emotion can we progressives tap into that would override the emotion of fear?

Have everybody learn their attitudes from Dr Quinn instead of the Sunday talk shows.

do-si-do @ 174

Susan, what is a viable myth that could replace the current one we are operating on?

What emotion can we progressives tap into that would override the emotion of fear?

Making sure history has some reality in it. Make those kids read Upton Sinclair, Frederick Douglass, civil rights narratives etc. Idea? In other words it’s not America the beautiful or America the bulwark against communists and terrorists, it’s America the land where we can try better.

Ok, got it, and thanks to tri and VG.

Ghostman

RonD @ 173

Good evening, Ms. Faludi. Looking forward to reading the book-you’ll be amused to hear that I discovered Backlash after hearing Christina Hoff-Sommers lambasting it. In critcizing it, she piqued my curiousity enough to make me go buy it. I’m sure that wasn’t her intended goal…I found it a very perceptive and important work. Again, welcome to the Lake, and I look forward to reading the new one.

I also highly recommend “Stiffed, the Betrayal of American Man”by Ms Faludi. It’s great!

SnarKassandra @ 158

watertiger @ 151

What I learned the MOST from this book was how the media INVENTS the whole story and don’t even check to see if it’s true. It doesn’t matter.

Now if you tell two friends, SnarKassandra, and they tell two friends, and they tell two friends …that’s how revolutions get started.

;-)

I am trying to figure out how to use this book for my history fair project and then tell the whole 10th grade about it!

You’re a wonderful girl!

do-si-do @ 174

Susan, what is a viable myth that could replace the current one we are operating on?

What emotion can we progressives tap into that would override the emotion of fear?

Well, one possibility is to return to the vision of the founders (putting aside for a moment the painful fact that they represented only one sex….), which, coming right after America’s original experience of terror, did not succumb to fear and repression but instead expanded liberties and embraced tolerance and freedom (albeit so partial at the time….). The model is out there. It just needs defending.

When I was little, my mom made up a whole bunch of “Princess Starlight” stories, about a princess-hero who solves problems and saves people and stops wars, all while wearing a diamond and gold tiara. My mom had about 20 of these stories in her head and I think that’s part of what makes me so strong.

SanderO @ 160

There’s gonna be no revolution in this country. People are into Nascar, Paris Hilton, Ipods and sports.

Sez who?

mui @ 177

do-si-do @ 174

Susan, what is a viable myth that could replace the current one we are operating on?

What emotion can we progressives tap into that would override the emotion of fear?

Making sure history has some reality in it. Make those kids read Upton Sinclair, Frederick Douglass, civil rights narratives etc. Idea?

You know, Americans also love an underdog story. Rocky, Hoosiers, Rudy (the notre dame rudy), just to name a few. You know, people who have overcome the odds.

Nowadays it seems like we love the superpower 1000 lb gorilla we’ve become.

trifecta @ 161

A queen bee (my translation) is a woman who has become successful, but then fears and loathes any other woman who might supplant her place at the top of the pecking order.

See MoDowd. It’s not about sisterhood, it’s all about I got mine.

It’s what we in New Orleans call the Crabs in a Basket Syndrome. As soon as one crab crawls up to the rim to escape, the other crabs pull her back down.

do-si-do @ 174

What emotion can we progressives tap into that would override the emotion of fear?

How about lovingkindness, which takes a lot of courage and hope? I’m leaning towards living by the principles of the Earth Charter these days.

RonD @ 173

Good evening, Ms. Faludi. Looking forward to reading the book-you’ll be amused to hear that I discovered Backlash after hearing Christina Hoff-Sommers lambasting it. In critcizing it, she piqued my curiousity enough to make me go buy it. I’m sure that wasn’t her intended goal…I found it a very perceptive and important work. Again, welcome to the Lake, and I look forward to reading the new one.

As you probably know, Christina Hoff Sommers’ book was funded by the same right-wing foundations that have supported so much of the neocon literature of the last several decades. In that regard, I’m doubly pleased to hear her writing inspired you to take a look at my work!

Got a question here …

How many sheeple do each of you know? Those Nascar types, American Idol watchers, the ones who always fall for “Look over here, shiny” distractions. Sometimes I feel this is a ‘divide and conquer’ ploy.

Of course, I live in Australia. Last time I was back in Florida, 2002, I met numerous people, most all ordinary folk like most of us. And yes, a few from the bottom end of the gene pool … even a couple of redneck cousins.

But I also think the declining poll numbers for Dubya reflect more of American society as a whole.

Susan Faludi @ 181

do-si-do @ 174

Susan, what is a viable myth that could replace the current one we are operating on?

What emotion can we progressives tap into that would override the emotion of fear?

Well, one possibility is to return to the vision of the founders (putting aside for a moment the painful fact that they represented only one sex….), which, coming right after America’s original experience of terror, did not succumb to fear and repression but instead expanded liberties and embraced tolerance and freedom (albeit so partial at the time….). The model is out there. It just needs defending.

And now we will no longer put ourselves aside. There’s been terror, and the women are here… strong, smart and standing side by side with the archetypes of colonial times.

We. are. here.

Berlynn @ 164

I must note, as a Canadian, that the “band of shrieking harpies” includes our Prime Minister, Stephen Harper.

LOL! Has there ever been a more shrill group than the radical right always fainting and fanning over liberal insults? What a bunch of pussies!

9/11 syndrome has countenanced the rise of the archetype house frau tied to the kitchen and the vacuum making babies, wearing pink and stiletto heels (modern-day footbinding), and otherwise being subservient to the alpha male. Even HRC has jumped on the Leave It to Beaver juggernaut. Disgraceful!

Valley Girl @ 165

Ghostman @ 155

what is a queen bee?? is it code or something?

Ghostman

AKA the Clarence Thomas syndrome.

Ghostman- here’s a quick link

~~~”The Queen Bee Syndrome,” is where women who have attained senior positions do not use their power to assist struggling young women or to change the system, tacitly validating it.~~~

SnarKassandra @ 182

When I was little, my mom made up a whole bunch of “Princess Starlight” stories, about a princess-hero who solves problems and saves people and stops wars, all while wearing a diamond and gold tiara. My mom had about 20 of these stories in her head and I think that’s part of what makes me so strong.

Your mom did a good job..your are a remarkable young women.

Boston1775 @ 189

Susan Faludi @ 181

Well, one possibility is to return to the vision of the founders (putting aside for a moment the painful fact that they represented only one sex….), which, coming right after America’s original experience of terror, did not succumb to fear and repression but instead expanded liberties and embraced tolerance and freedom (albeit so partial at the time….). The model is out there. It just needs defending.

And now we will no longer put ourselves aside. There’s been terror, and the women are here… strong, smart and standing side by side with the archetypes of colonial times.

We. are. here.

And I’m so glad you are here. Thank you all for a stimulating conversation. In case you didn’t know, it’s lonely writing a book, and it’s wonderful to meet thoughtful readers when the writing’s done. Thanks. Best, Susan

Sharon- good point!

Steve-AR @ 193

SnarKassandra @ 182

When I was little, my mom made up a whole bunch of “Princess Starlight” stories, about a princess-hero who solves problems and saves people and stops wars, all while wearing a diamond and gold tiara. My mom had about 20 of these stories in her head and I think that’s part of what makes me so strong.

Your mom did a good job..your are a remarkable young women.

it takes a family…

Susan Faludi, it is such a privilege that you are here. It would be nice if the mainstream press would have you on all their shows.

Thanks Steve-AR.

Thank you Susan! I learned a lot and look forward to reading your book.

SanderO @ 149

The change we need will come after catastrophe and perhaps something rational can rise from the ashes. We are on a collision course with our own destruction and the sane voices are completely marginalized.

Consciousness is opaque.

We’ve collected the wealth and wisdom of history and yet we shun the vestiges of foresight in order to embrace the perception that to survive we must “crush the opposition”.

Could we be facing a more bitter denouement? The battle of the sexes should never be won.

Unity is not about fighting — it is about not fighting.

Americans seem to think the opposite for some reason. Perhaps it is because…

Consciousness is opaque. (OK, except Tesla’s…)

do-si-do @ 184

You know, Americans also love an underdog story. Rocky, Hoosiers, Rudy (the notre dame rudy), just to name a few. You know, people who have overcome the odds.

Nowadays it seems like we love the superpower 1000 lb gorilla we’ve become.

Then there is the story of the down and out millionaire drunk and bully who through hard work (which mostly involved clearing brush), daddy’s rich friends (who made their money the old fashioned way: they stole it), and a rigged election was able to become President. The underdog story is still there. It has merely been perverted.

Susan Faludi @ 194

Boston1775 @ 189

And now we will no longer put ourselves aside. There’s been terror, and the women are here… strong, smart and standing side by side with the archetypes of colonial times.

We. are. here.

And I’m so glad you are here. Thank you all for a stimulating conversation. In case you didn’t know, it’s lonely writing a book, and it’s wonderful to meet thoughtful readers when the writing’s done. Thanks. Best, Susan

Thanks so much for being here, Susan. We really appreciate it. And again, I can’t stress enough — I loved the book and advise everyone to pick it up, it’s really an important work.

I can’t begin to describe what a real woman is. But I know it when I see it. And right now she’s sitting on the couch waiting to beat me at chess. Again. She says I play a good game though.

Jane Hamsher @ 202

Susan Faludi @ 194

And I’m so glad you are here. Thank you all for a stimulating conversation. In case you didn’t know, it’s lonely writing a book, and it’s wonderful to meet thoughtful readers when the writing’s done. Thanks. Best, Susan

Thanks so much for being here, Susan. We really appreciate it. And again, I can’t stress enough — I loved the book and advise everyone to pick it up, it’s really an important work.

And give it to your relatives in HS.

Sharon @ 185

trifecta @ 161

A queen bee (my translation) is a woman who has become successful, but then fears and loathes any other woman who might supplant her place at the top of the pecking order.

See MoDowd. It’s not about sisterhood, it’s all about I got mine.

It’s what we in New Orleans call the Crabs in a Basket Syndrome. As soon as one crab crawls up to the rim to escape, the other crabs pull her back down.

Bit of a non sequitur. Sorry.

Susan Faludi @ 194

Boston1775 @ 189

And now we will no longer put ourselves aside. There’s been terror, and the women are here… strong, smart and standing side by side with the archetypes of colonial times.

We. are. here.

And I’m so glad you are here. Thank you all for a stimulating conversation. In case you didn’t know, it’s lonely writing a book, and it’s wonderful to meet thoughtful readers when the writing’s done. Thanks. Best, Susan

You’re lighting the torch

Actually, I was just using me as an example, most of the progressive men, and plenty of conservative men, I know have similar or better characteristics. No one ever calls them masculine. Why?

I’m guessing that people who are secure in their masculinity don’t have to talk about it. Just like women don’t have to justify their femininity.

Susan,

Thank you so much for spending time here. I will read the book however long it takes to get here! :-)

Jane Hamsher @ 202

Susan Faludi @ 194

And I’m so glad you are here. Thank you all for a stimulating conversation. In case you didn’t know, it’s lonely writing a book, and it’s wonderful to meet thoughtful readers when the writing’s done. Thanks. Best, Susan

Thanks so much for being here, Susan. We really appreciate it. And again, I can’t stress enough — I loved the book and advise everyone to pick it up, it’s really an important work.

Thanks so much, Jane. And by the way, I loved your characterization of the Kakutani review. And thank you for a well-run and interesting forum. Best, Susan

Thank you so much for writing the book!

Sharon @ 185

trifecta @ 161

A queen bee (my translation) is a woman who has become successful, but then fears and loathes any other woman who might supplant her place at the top of the pecking order.

See MoDowd. It’s not about sisterhood, it’s all about I got mine.

It’s what we in New Orleans call the Crabs in a Basket Syndrome. As soon as one crab crawls up to the rim to escape, the other crabs pull her back down.

hmmm, that strikes me as being reactions on either end of the spectrum to a member of a marginalized group succedding. The ones “left behind” attempt to pull the successful one down; the successful one doesn’t try to help anyone up.

Crab theory comes up lots of times in different marginalized groups.

moose @ 188

Got a question here …

How many sheeple do each of you know? Those Nascar types, American Idol watchers, the ones who always fall for “Look over here, shiny” distractions. Sometimes I feel this is a ‘divide and conquer’ ploy.

Of course, I live in Australia. Last time I was back in Florida, 2002, I met numerous people, most all ordinary folk like most of us. And yes, a few from the bottom end of the gene pool … even a couple of redneck cousins.

But I also think the declining poll numbers for Dubya reflect more of American society as a whole.

You’re right. I believe this Nascar thing is a bit of an urban legend. Does seem to me this is if not the dawning of the age of Aquarius at least the dawning of some awareness in the American people. I do have a faint glimmer of hope. Blogging helps.

New Thread…

http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..itch-fest/

One page I have turned down for this sentence:

IN a society where the family relationship was the template for state hierarchy, and at a time when the political and religious establishment, looking for evidence of male effectiveness, was struggling to reinstate an image of womanly weakness, such female impudence would almost certainly have ensure a collision.

Was that the beginning of the twenty-first century in BushCheneyCo’s America, or the end of the seventeenth century in Salem? This sentence made me slap my forehead, v8 style.

Thanks for writing this wonderful book, and for joining us today to discuss it.

The Queen Bee Syndrome,” is where women who have attained senior positions do not use their power to assist struggling young women or to change the system, tacitly validating it.

It seems to me that that isn’t really any different from what the men do. It’s the result of an attitude that basically says, the only people who deserve to win are the people who fight, and fight dirty, to win. The rest are losers, and who cares about losers?

It’s basically just hypocrisy: the system that holds you down is terrible, the system that holds you up is perfectly fine.

And they sure as hell didn’t fight for power in order to use it to help someone *else*.

FYI, new post upstairs

Chris @ 215

The Queen Bee Syndrome,” is where women who have attained senior positions do not use their power to assist struggling young women or to change the system, tacitly validating it.

It seems to me that that isn’t really any different from what the men do. It’s the result of an attitude that basically says, the only people who deserve to win are the people who fight, and fight dirty, to win. The rest are losers, and who cares about losers?

It’s basically just hypocrisy: the system that holds you down is terrible, the system that holds you up is perfectly fine.

And they sure as hell didn’t fight for power in order to use it to help someone *else*.

Au contraire. I doubt bush had to fight for a single damn thing in his life. Also, those old boy networks are extremely effective at helping the fellow men that they deem worthy of helping out (by whatever criteria)…

Sharon @ 205

Sharon @ 185

It’s what we in New Orleans call the Crabs in a Basket Syndrome. As soon as one crab crawls up to the rim to escape, the other crabs pull her back down.

Bit of a non sequitur. Sorry.

Let me explain. The Queen Bees remind me of Crabs in a Basket in this way: often those in the typing pool undermine the ambitions of other women as effectively as do the queen bees. I’ve had more experience with the crabs than with the bees because there are so many more of them. Pretty disappointing.

Chris @ 215

The Queen Bee Syndrome,” is where women who have attained senior positions do not use their power to assist struggling young women or to change the system, tacitly validating it.

It seems to me that that isn’t really any different from what the men do. It’s the result of an attitude that basically says, the only people who deserve to win are the people who fight, and fight dirty, to win. The rest are losers, and who cares about losers?

It’s basically just hypocrisy: the system that holds you down is terrible, the system that holds you up is perfectly fine.

And they sure as hell didn’t fight for power in order to use it to help someone *else*.

Another analogy: wolf pack behavior…there are alpha males and alpha females. The alpha females are Queen Bees. Big on dominance.

This is a horrible review.

To begin with, the reader wants to ask: What disappearance of female voices? What “bugle call” to “return to Betty Crocker domesticity?” Since 9/11, Hillary Rodham Clinton has become the leading Democratic contender in the race for the White House, with a good chance of becoming the first female president in history;

Katie Couric? Kakutani forgets what happens to women who go up against the nutwing machine these days. Katie Couric is hardly a model of female bravery. Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, Dixie Chicks have the likes of Michelle Malkin and Bill O’reilly sicked on them. Plus not many pundits talk about presidential candidates in the obsessively salacious way that they do about Hillary, what with O’reilly openly writing about getting her alone in the “Spinzone” wearing her peach pantsuit, for starters. Not many of us are that brave. A lot of us get burned. So Kakutani does nothing contradict the substance of Susan Faludis’ argument that I can see. And in case, Kakutani hasn’t noticed Kate O’Beirne, surely she must have noticed the “baby boom” among popstars which reads like a defense mechanism /rant off.