There is exactly one circumstance in which I will watch Tim Allen’s new TV show, Last Man Standing. That circumstance is if I managed to recruit my cool gender egalitarian friends to have a drinking game where we would take a shot every time there was a joke that was sexist, racist, classist, transphobic, homophobic, ableist or otherwise kyriarchal.
My plan has the additional advantage that by minute five you’d be wasted out of your mind, which is probably the only situation in which Last Man Standing is even remotely funny.
However, since people keep sending me articles about this show, I feel like there’s some kind of great hivemind consensus that really wants to know Ozy’s position on this damn show, other than “it is the best argument I have ever heard for the extinction of the human race.”
— Snarls in response to his wife’s request that he drive their daughter to soccer that soccer is “Europe’s covert war for the hearts and minds of America’s kids.”
Americanocentrism. Take a shot.
— Tells a kid named Kyle that he has a good “man’s name,” only to be crushed when he learns it’s the kid’s mother’s maiden name.
Femmephobia. Shot.
— Says he likes where he works because it “smells like balls in here.”
…I’m going to call this “sexism.” Shot.
— Laments boys who play soccer and use hair gel.
Femmephobia. Shot.
— Doubles over in agony about his daughter’s boyfriend going to a tanning salon.
Femmephobia. Shot.
— Laughs hysterically at the idea that his wife could drive his truck for a day and he could drive the minivan.
Gender-role enforcement. Shot.
— Encounters a weak, “unmanly” day care provider who doesn’t let him call his grandson “champ” because it “implies victory over another person.” Said unmanly man invites Mike to meet another kid’s “two dads” who are inside making flax and pumpkin muffins. (“Please tell me that’s not [the dads'] names,” says Mike derisively of “Flax” and “Pumpkin.”)
Homophobia, femmephobia, gender-role enforcement and… whatever you call “thinks ‘can’t call your grandson champ because it implies victory over another person’ is a reasonable parody of actual liberal opinions”. Four shots.
— Directly after hearing about the “two dads,” is asked to take his shoes off because they’re “building a mosque out of pillows.” When he hears this, he grabs his grandson and removes him from the daycare and takes him to the ball-smelling workplace for the day.
Islamophobia. Shot.
— Tells his daughter that her son can’t go to that daycare anymore, because he’ll wind up “dancing on a float,” which Allen follows with an imitation of, I guess, a gay man dancing.
Homophobia, femmephobia, gender role enforcement. Three shots.
So that makes, by my count, fourteen shots over the course of a thirty-minute show, which adds up to “in a coma and probably dead.” Damn, we might have to make teams. Team Femmephobia, Team Non-Femmephobic Sexism, and Team Miscellaneous Kyriarchal Shit. Then you’ll just end up destroying your liver forever.
I also have serious objections to the articles that get written about this show. For instance, the New York Times appears to be under the mistaken impression that ”mancession” is a word that should be used ever. They also declared that the gender wage gap narrowing is a sign of male inferiority. No, that is a sign of equality. One gender not having their traditional privileges =/= that gender being discriminated against. Look it up. Also, it cites some really awful book called Man Down that’s about how women are better at everything. Honestly? “Men are better at everything” is sexist. “Women are better at everything” is still sexist. It is not magically un-sexist because you directed it at a different group.
However, their worst point is the apparent belief that Last Man Standing is a fight against male extinction.
It’s about shaming men who take an interest in their appearance, play non-football sports, drive unmanly cars, have unmanly names, make muffins or in any way violate Tim Allen’s limited view of what a man can be, because if they do violate this notion, then they are clearly fags. The other shows mentioned in the article have their own proposals for what counts as unmanly: ”Man Up” classifies hazelnut nondairy creamer, pomegranate body wash, not fighting in wars, and video games (?!) as such, while “How To Be A Gentleman” suggests that wanting more than a one-night-stand should be placed on the list.
And God help you if you’re actually gay, because that would clearly be the worst. This position, however, is not homophobic, because Tim Allen says so.
No one is saying that Tim Allen can’t run about playing football, being apathetic about his appearance, driving manly cars, not making muffins, etc. to his heart’s content. However, it is moronic in the extreme to argue that other kinds of men shouldn’t exist.
Video games are fun! Hazelnut nondairy creamer tastes good! Smelling nice is wonderful! Having fuckbuddy relationships is far more efficient than having one-night-stands, casual-sex-wise, since instead of having to seduce a whole new person you can just text them “hey, wanna fuck?” and that is way simpler! This new crop of “masculine” comedies appear to want to leave men a tiny percentage of human behavior as the stuff they’re supposed to do, and eliminate everything else.
If anything, Tim Allen seems to be arguing for the extinction of men, as he apparently believes that all the men who are not like him (i.e. most of them) should not exist.
About ozyfrantz
Tim Allen’s whole schtick is an anachronism. He was brash in a stupid kind of way abot 15 years ago. He is dipped out of the same bucket as Adam Corolla. The sense of threat he is working off of has turned into the MRM in all its forms and lobes and left him in the dust. Some of those lobes are as useless and as toxic as he is, but that’s how evolution works.
“…. I will watch Tim Allen’s new TV show, ….”
You do it so we don’t have to. Just don’t let yourself become some kind of martyr.
This show has already started? I was meaning to watch the premier and post on it (maybe I’ll find it online somewhere).
I actually used to be a big fan of his old show “Home Improvement” back when it was actively running. But I watched a few reruns a few months ago and wasn’t feeling it anymore. Not only was it a milder form of the exclusionary behavior you say he does now towards men who don’t fit the norm (look at how he treated Al back then) the show was pretty much an attempt to try to shame the old “macho” type man out of existence. Those old types don’t need to be shamed out of existence, they need to be helped to see they can modify their masculinity as they see fit (if they wish).
Look it up. Also, it cites some really awful book called Man Down that’s about how women are better at everything. Honestly? “Men are better at everything” is sexist. “Women are better at everything” is still sexist. It is not magically un-sexist because you directed it at a different group.
Oh you didn’t get the memo that there is no such thing as female against male sexism? Apparently directing it at a different group actually does make magically un-sexist I’ll have to send you a copy of the memo.
Ah. The modern male. Complicit in his own domestication.
I think the “Laments boys who play soccer and use hair gel.” would count as americanocentrism as well as femmephobia. At least if that’s the term you’re using for nationalism.
Also, this show sounds horrible. I’m beginning to wonder if I should start to avoid all sitcoms with male names in the title, since most of them seem to be horrible. Though that would mean I had to stay away from shows like Frasier, so it’s probably not worth it.
“This new crop of “masculine” comedies appear to want to leave men a tiny percentage of human behavior as the stuff they’re supposed to do, and eliminate everything else.
If anything, Tim Allen seems to be arguing for the extinction of men, as he apparently believes that all the men who are not like him (i.e. most of them) should not exist.”
I’m not certain if I’m supposed to think this is a huge parody and no one with half a brain believes that…or to think that the world is populated by Tim Allen clones (and the equivalent female one, saying everything a woman can’t do/have/say/wear etc to be a real woman), and we all deserve to die (through extinction of humanity) then.
Can’t old-school masculinity be sometimes right for the wrong reasons?
We all eventually enforce a set of cultural norms. If these norms emphasize stoicism, and anti-consumerism couldn’t that be good?
The main problem I see is that by unnecessarily gendering these traits 1/2 the population loses out on positive traits. And that perception of those symbols become more important than the reasons behind them – but that is a danger in all cultural adaptations.
“Can’t old-school masculinity be sometimes right for the wrong reasons?”
Only a slightly minor part of it.
“We all eventually enforce a set of cultural norms. If these norms emphasize stoicism, and anti-consumerism couldn’t that be good?”
They only emphasize anti-consumerism for SOME things, you’re supposed to want the big house, the big fast car (and once you have a family, a minivan which you won’t drive “cause its girly”) and the big tool box in the garage.
And it’s not only healthy stoicism in the face of imminent danger (which, yes, is good), but stoicism at ALL times. Not healthy.
And one big Western influence on the male gender role about how anything ‘girly’ is bad…is directly from the big 3 Abrahamic religions. Outside of those, some people might think it’s bad (to be feminine for a man, or do feminine things as a man, or be a gay man), but they don’t think you’re damned, a sinner, or worth beating up for it. Only the big 3 seem to WANT that discrimination.
Why would you want to watch broadcast TV that isn’t the NFL? o.O
Could someone explain to me how much of the ridicule is also directed at the homophobic/femmephobic/gender enforcing/islamophobic protagonist? Comedy shows often have unsympathetic protagonists who’re the main source of humour, but I don’t know enough about the show or the cultural context to know if this is the case here.
@Schala
Is there evidence for general stoicism being unhealthy? (this is a genuine question)
@Ben-Has: I’ve made the case before that what you call stoicism is appallingly damaging, yes.
AB:
Could someone explain to me how much of the ridicule is also directed at the homophobic/femmephobic/gender enforcing/islamophobic protagonist? Comedy shows often have unsympathetic protagonists who’re the main source of humour, but I don’t know enough about the show or the cultural context to know if this is the case here.
Good point. Tim Allen’s last show (called “Home Improvement”) was a shining example of this. Yes he may have disrespected Al, made sexist presumptions about his wife and two younger sons (compare the way he treated his older son who was “a real man”), and ignored safety warning. But at the end of the day he was the that would be shown up, humiliated, and/or was the butt of the joke. In fact I wonder if he is carrying on the “stupid husband/father” role like Al Bundy, Homer Simpson, and even his own past character who came before him.
Yeah I’m gonna have to start watching this show and see just how terrible it is for men.
“I think the “Laments boys who play soccer and use hair gel.” would count as americanocentrism as well as femmephobia. At least if that’s the term you’re using for nationalism.”
It sure is. And it’s not just americocentrism, it’s a regionalism. Here in the Seattle area soccer is the big hype professional sport while basketball has died and blown away to Oklahoma City.
“Could someone explain to me how much of the ridicule is also directed ….”
Well spotted. I second Danny’s motion.
@noahbrand
I read your post, and about a third of the comments – I was looking for more scientific evidence against emotional temperance. For example, I think expressing anger is not actually beneficial and can possibly reinforce the anger. (Anger is not always coded as man-like either). Also, one looks at a zen monk, and they seem to do quite well (from a happiness standpoint) and they are not very emotionally expressive.
I really liked “Last Man Standing” the first time I saw it, when it was called “All in the Family.”
Seriously folks, a show like LMS is a sign that we are WINNING the war of Gender Egalitarianism/Masculism/Feminism. Tim Allen’s character is a misguided-yet-loveable protagonist who is frustrated by the changing world around him. I couldn’t care less if the show is funny or not – as long as people identify with Tim Allen then that shows that things are changing for men, and that’s a good thing.
When I was much younger, I used to go fishing in a canoe on a shallow lake near my house. I had no anchor, but thought I was sitting still. I pulled my canoe near a big stick going down deep into the water and into the mud and began to fish. After a few casts, I figured I should tie my boat to the stick. I turned around to see the stick about 50 yards away from me. “That’s funny,” I remember thinking, “It didn’t feel like I was moving.”
So I guess what I’m trying to say is that we need sticks in the mud like Tim Allen to show us how far we’ve come and to reassure us that we’re still moving.
I’m not a Buddhist or an expert. But I think its a little more subtle than zen monks are “stoic”, at least in the typical Western sense. In fact in a way its kind of the opposite.
By my understanding, Buddhism is not about controlling your emotions by enduring them, or ignoring them, or beating them into submission, or keeping them tightly controlled on the inside. Rather, you are in fact completely aware of and engaged with them – far more so than most people are on a day to day level, You acknowledge and allow yourself to fully experience your anger, lust, grief, etc, without passing judgement on the emotions or on yourself for having them. But you also keep a certain interior mental distance from them – a sense of self and identity that is separate from what you feel, and that, crucially, means you are not governed by your feelings. And that means you rarely if ever get to the point of having to outwardly express them, if you’re doing it right.
The original Stoics of Greece may, I think, have thought along similar lines to this. But when most people think of being stoic now, as for instance in the stereotype of men’s emotional lives, it seems more about suppressing concious awareness that you even have feelings.
“Is there evidence for general stoicism being unhealthy? (this is a genuine question)”
Preventative treatment engagement rates for men suggest that it is, in fact, tremendously unhealthy.
One acknowledges without indulging, hence the mental distance.
Emotional expressiveness, to me at least, is a kind of an indulging without contemplation. A careful processing of your emotions requires that mental distance – a distance maintained by a level of detachment. The stereotype may encode this initial detachment – at least it did for me, though I would hesitate to generalize my experience to others..
And I disagree with your characterization that the stereotype is about suppressing conscious awareness of the existence of feelings. Its more about suppression of expressing the feelings than anything else.