Reply #3: reminds me of the situation a decade ago on talk shows... [View All]

when they would have the "male" perspective, and it was always this guy who insisted on wearing a skirt as part of his male emancipation, a clueless male chauvanist who was a hyperbolic parody, and a completely milquetoast henpecked guy....and these were the constant counterpoints to the female point of view, represented by articulate and competent females.

It was cathartic theatre. It allowed the audience and the viewers to vent their frustration at emasculated figments. Because they were in POWER through the talk show host, they could create these huge imbalances as ways to justify their stereotypes comfortably.

Which is not to say a balanced discussion of equal representatives was not desirable, it just didn't occur for a LONG TIME. Normal, capable representatives of the male gender were not shown because they were not NEEDED. It was all about shifting the pendulum a certain way in order to address the need for some women to villify, belittle and marginalize men, in order to empower themselves.

Things did change later, and Oprah was good about restoring that balance, for example..

But I think the reason we are seeing emasculated dems is because THAT'S THE POINT. Republicans would not fare so well in discussion on equal terms, and they need to feel empowered. That doesn't work so well if you have to be on fair terms with your opponents.

Its all about power, and its all about overcompensation. Since most RW talking points don't hold up to logical scrutiny, you need to have dems who don't attempt to force RW pundits to JUSTIFY their illogic.