Post: #51

(10-07-2012 10:17 AM)sucio44 Wrote:  

(10-06-2012 05:39 PM)houston Wrote:  I only watch PBS and reruns of good shows. I even get annoyed when a good movie has to have a love story thrown in.

No more PBS if Romney becomes President. Sorry Big Bird.

More like:

"No more government funding for PBS if Romney becomes President. Sorry Big Bird."

PBS can exist without government funding. I know well one PBS station and you wouldn't believe the huge amount of waste, way too many employees, management earning $150k a year doing nothing, etc. PBS can survive, they just need to cut like all the other stations have already done and ramp up donations and sponsorships.

Post: #52

I own a TV strictly for video game usage. Most of my TV watching is for sports anyway, and I can see those on demand online at no cost. Same for the handful of TV shows (all of which are on cable only) I still bother to follow.

Here are the facts:

-Women control the majority of household spending.

-Women account for 85% of all consumer purchases.

-Women buy more than half of the new cars in the U.S., and influence up to 80% of all car purchases.

-Women control more than 60% of all personal wealth in the U.S.

-Boomer women born between the years 1946 and 1964 (the women most likely to sympathize with the whole "cougar" phenomenon you see constantly paraded on TV) control net worth of $19 trillion and own the majority of the nation’s financial wealth. In the coming decades, they will inherit much more (thanks to the passing of their husbands and parents).

-There is evidence that women are more susceptible to advertising.

Now, considering all of the above, why are we surprised to learn that our television industry (which depends to a large extent on the advertising industry, which in turn depends on its ability to attract consumers willing to spend) caters to women?
Women spend more, and America is all about spending. The consumer is king today and thus, by extension, women are the queens. They get what they want, and you see the results on TV. What they want, of course, is often in direct contrast to what men (particularly men like us) are really interested in, but our saving and spending habits render us somewhat irrelevant in all of this. One can afford to pay token attention to male interests and expect to actually make more money today.

Like I keep saying: just follow the money. 90% of the time, you'll get a clear answer to the issue you're seeking clarity on, especially in America. It is simply more profitable at all levels (small business, big business, the economy as a whole, etc) to cater to the interests of women.

(10-06-2012 06:34 PM)basilransom Wrote:  TV occupies just this role in America. It seeds and sustains support for the status quo, just as North Korean propaganda does. This status quo, naturally, is radical egalitarianism, to the point of elevating 'oppressed' groups like women above their 'oppressors.'

Close. TV's job is to elevate the ideal of radical egalitarianism in support of free market capitalism. Egalitarianism for its own sake is not profitable.
This is why white women, specifically, have probably seen the greatest benefit since the civil rights movement of any group (including groups like hispanics, blacks, and native americans of both genders who, historically, probably have a bit more to complain about). They're the least "oppressed" of the "oppressed", but it is far more profitable to pretend otherwise, so just about everyone does.

Post: #53

(10-06-2012 07:29 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  Welcome to the club. I've been talking about this shit for months.

It's getting worse and worse.

/thread-7189.html
/thread-14034.html
/thread-13844.html

I just learned that there is literally a show called "Man Up!" on ABC. I watched about 5 minutes of the pilot on hulu before shutting it off in disgust. Luckily, got low ratings and was canceled.

Post: #54

(10-07-2012 08:42 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

(10-06-2012 07:29 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  Welcome to the club. I've been talking about this shit for months.

It's getting worse and worse.

/thread-7189.html
/thread-14034.html
/thread-13844.html

I just learned that there is literally a show called "Man Up!" on ABC. I watched about 5 minutes of the pilot on hulu before shutting it off in disgust. Luckily, got low ratings and was canceled.

I could tell from the promos before it even premiered that it wouldn't last.

Post: #55

I still believe there are some good T.V. shows around. I usually watch Netflix because I don't like commercials, and I can watch the episodes of a T.V. show in succession. The most recent show that I have been watching is Parks and Recreation, and I personally like the show. It features a "strong woman" type, but it also has a cast of characters that bring in a large spectrum of the thoughts and ideas that float around the U.S.

My favorite being Ron Swanson, who I think would appeal to some of the members on this forum:

Post: #56

yea tv annoys me. im very lucky cause in mexico i can buy dvd series for cheap. but even game of thrones was 8 bucks new series and it had women in dominate roles this realy annoying so watch at your will

Post: #57

(10-07-2012 10:59 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  I still believe there are some good T.V. shows around. I usually watch Netflix because I don't like commercials, and I can watch the episodes of a T.V. show in succession. The most recent show that I have been watching is Parks and Recreation, and I personally like the show. It features a "strong woman" type, but it also has a cast of characters that bring in a large spectrum of the thoughts and ideas that float around the U.S.

My favorite being Ron Swanson, who I think would appeal to some of the members on this forum:

Swanson is a caricature of masculinity. TV and movies are so bereft of genuine, balanced, manly men that you can't see Swanson for what he is, a pathetic cartoon. He may be funny, sure, but nothing more. Definitely not a man you'd pick to represent your cause. Unless you like playing the fool.

Come to think of it, male characters on TV nowadays have no breadth. They occupy these distinct roles in the status hierarchy, and they rarely change. The high status characters rarely assume a low status, or vice versa. You don't really see men transforming for the better, advancing beyond their station. It's boring. It's like an explanation given for why some women hate 'game.' They are mortified by the possibility that status can be 'faked,' that some guy who is supposedly 'deep down' a nerd, can unlock that pussy. Game is like counterfeit money to them, they don't want to be duped and left holding the bag. 'You either have it or you don't.' And when you do see men doing this, especially together as men, women *hate* it - see Entourage.

Post: #58

Thanks to boredom and my dad's iPad + Netflix account, I got into TV shows again after years of not regularly watching TV since the late 90's-early 2000's.

Right now, I'm limiting my shows to "Breaking Bad" and "The Walking Dead" and as of last night I'm caught up with the episodes... I still value the time I want to give to other things.

I appreciated the good writing, stories, and acting on the shows above despite some blue-pill content which might bother some people here. The thing to understand is that the rest of the world is blue-pill and the writers come from this world. They write what they know of their world and reflect this reality on their stories. But not everybody will agree with their reality, so it's good to filter your viewing through what you know, believe, and value.

I view these shows from an artistic point of view and open myself up to be moved, but at the same time I'm also vigilant about the messages being sent to me.

Post: #59

the differences in tv(targeting women) are probably the most pronounced in the day time when they play shit like the view, the talk, dr phil.

this is a good video on the subject of male bashing in media

Post: #60

(10-06-2012 06:06 PM)Jackhammer Wrote:  I just saw this trailer while seeing Taken 2 today.

How was Taken 2? Better than the first one?

Post: #61

(10-09-2012 05:10 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  

(10-06-2012 06:06 PM)Jackhammer Wrote:  I just saw this trailer while seeing Taken 2 today.

How was Taken 2? Better than the first one?

It felt much shorter and faster paced than the first, but I still liked the first one better. It was just more of the same basically. A good formula.

Post: #62

My TV has not been on in years. I go to bars and gentlemen clubs to watch TV strictly for college and NFL football.

Post: #63

Informative show, granted fairly useless but interesting and quite entertaining.



Top Gear, one of the few shows that actually centers on the dynamics of adult men's interactions (of course, and cars too). Really more about the three's dynamics. Jeremy clarkson is awesome.



WW2 history buffs, you can find this too. Good classic history channel. Much respect for the greatest generation--real men.



First two seasons were good. The goddamn baby ruined it imo. I hate children.

So there's a little bit of decent television. Just most of it is total trash. my $0.02

Post: #64

Archer-"I am drunk. Otherwise I wouldn't be talking to you."

Have used that one before.. heh