http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/04/14/mr.nice.guy.backlash/index.html
In this article, the author cites multiple "experts" on dating and relationships, who all seem to have advice for 'nice guys': Don't be so nice. One of these experts (Dan Macon) is quoted as saying the following:
"Sure, women want you to show them respect and love, but they also want you to be a man and take charge. If you can't do that, women won't want to be with you."
This is gendering as it happens. Here, we have a media outlet literally telling readers what a man is, or should be. It is also the media dictating what kinds of issues are important via Agenda Setting: here, we see that the emphasis is on relationships (with the subtext that they should be STRAIGHT relationships nonetheless) and how to succeed at them. This may or not be of paramount importance to some people, but the very appearance of an article like this begins to plant seeds of what a relationship ought to look like, and how to attain one.
Some things the article fails to mention are the ways that these "relationships" work out. Eg: You act like a jerk (or a MAN in this articles words) and acquire a new girlfriend. Which kind of relationship do you think you're more likely to have: a meaningful, lasting relationship or one that serves to do little other than relieve sexual tension? Building relationships based on "man qualities" or being assertive might not be the best lifestyle choice when you think about it critically, but none of this is addressed in the article.
What do you guys think? Is there a niche market for this kind of journalism, or does it only serve to gender/set the agenda for the public at large?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment