Men Just Want to Have Fun
Men, it seems, are watching more video on the Internet than women:
Hey, what if men are more visual and want to destress on the internet and have a good time watching videos, so what? I think it's great. The reason? If men don't go to therapy (and why should they?) or talk much to their girlfriends or wives (again, why should they if they are not getting any satisfaction from it?) and need a way to connect, laugh, be silly etc., then maybe the internet offers the perfect way to do that. TV pitches their advertising and shows mainly to women because they know that women control most of the purse strings in this country. The internet is still a bit like the Wild West, where even men can still find sites and blogs that are accepting of masculinity and don't portray men as either buffoons, chauvanists or both. Sure, some of these sites like Blogging Heads TV are still salivating over trying to get female viewers to show how "proggressive" they are, but I say, what's wrong with having guys as viewers and readers? They're an important demographic too.
"Men are more visual than women, who tend to communicate in writing and or in words," said Debra Aho Williamson, senior analyst with eMarketer and the author of the report.
She said at first she was shocked at the disparity between the sexes because women tend to watch more television. But she argues men are generally ahead of the technology trend.
"Women are more likely to use the Internet to get things done, to accomplish tasks, to check something off of a checklist that they need to do," Williamson said.
"Men are more likely to use the Internet to have fun. And a lot of what you see on youtube.com is silly, time-saving kinds of things that maybe women don't feel they have the time for, or don't want to have the time for."
Williamson said that despite the growth of youtube.com, women have not been part of the site's traffic spike.
"You really do see youtube.com continuing to be more of a male-dominated video site," Williamson said.
Hey, what if men are more visual and want to destress on the internet and have a good time watching videos, so what? I think it's great. The reason? If men don't go to therapy (and why should they?) or talk much to their girlfriends or wives (again, why should they if they are not getting any satisfaction from it?) and need a way to connect, laugh, be silly etc., then maybe the internet offers the perfect way to do that. TV pitches their advertising and shows mainly to women because they know that women control most of the purse strings in this country. The internet is still a bit like the Wild West, where even men can still find sites and blogs that are accepting of masculinity and don't portray men as either buffoons, chauvanists or both. Sure, some of these sites like Blogging Heads TV are still salivating over trying to get female viewers to show how "proggressive" they are, but I say, what's wrong with having guys as viewers and readers? They're an important demographic too.
posted by Helen at 9:23 AM
55 Comments:
I can personally say that I know of 4 women that read my blog; usually it's for the travel tips and humor sections.
A blog about John Wayne is practically guaranteed to attract a primarily male audience, save the few women gunnies and western fans out there.
When men watch videos on the Internet, they can be very selective about what they watch, and thereby avoid the insulting, anti-male themes and mindless drivel that Hollywood calls "entertainment," and this includes, most especially, commercials. Imagine, if you found GEICO's caveman commercials annoyingly insulting, and you could go someplace and watch videos and avoid them, wouldn't you go there?
WARNING: If Hollywod and Madison Avenue find a way to insert their crap into the mix and force-feed it to their Internet viewers, then the men will abandon that medium, too.
Rusty
Rusty,
This is why I hate to see censorship or even "codes of ethics" etc. for blogs. It could turn what is now a fairly free market of ideas into just another regulated industry of marketing etc. Then where would those of us who are libertarian, or have different ideas from the mainstream go?
Shocked at the disparity? She's in marketing and has just figured out what the porn industry has known since the first caveman drew dirty pictures on a rock?
-SayUncle
helen -
No one can "turn what is now" into something else with a stupid code. Just don't participate.
How the hell can T. O'Reilly and the tender crew enforce this?
And, by the way, that is their actual agenda. Since every single thing he's suggesting can be done right now, this second, consider why he's so agressive.
This is why I hate to see censorship or even "codes of ethics" etc. for blogs. It could turn what is now a fairly free market of ideas into just another regulated industry of marketing etc. Then where would those of us who are libertarian, or have different ideas from the mainstream go?
I imagine that we'd find somewhere else on the internet to go. I'm fine with websites self-regulating themselves, if I don't want to allow cursing on my blog that's my right.
My concern stems more from the fact that if some blogs get together and establish a code of conduct of sorts, it won't be long before someone in Congress decides to try and make it a law.
For the children, of course.
(Assuming Debra is a woman) Perhaps this just shows that women tend more to obsess about trivial things. :)
I don't get Youtube. How many terabytes of crappy cellphone video of adolescents in their pajamas lip-synching to the Black Eyed Peas does the world really need?
On the other hand, I have found some cool Ren 'n' Stimpy clips there...
So the owner of the truck in our town with a "Cowboy Butts Drive Me Nuts" bumper sticker on it is probably a gay man?
Figures.
Personally, I use the Internet for News and Information, and Military Blogging.....I RARELY go to YouTube unless it has a video that serves a purpose for a blog piece I am authoring....
Are teenage girls different from women in this regard? I ask because my teenage daughters practically live on the internet - MySpace but also YouTube. YouTube has numerous Japanese anime series that one daughter is obsessed with, and they both watch Asian music videos. My son, who is older, watches YouTube some for the rock videos and Metalocalypse, and I will follow the occasional link for the funny stuff, but we're not on it nearly like the girls.
I am a man and love the Geico caveman ads. Never thought of them be anti male.
Anonymous 1:03,
I've got to say, I agree. I'm not so sure how the GEICO ads can be anti-male when the cavemen are the most neurotic metrosexuals I've ever seen on TV.
As waffle king said, how much of this is acculturation. My boys use computers more because of games.
The curious thing is to compare my oldest and youngest, 19 and 11, both girls. The 19 year old didn't start using the computer until she was about fourteen and never really did use it much. On the flip side, my 11 year old has been using the computer since she was about 4 (it started with simple games and using paint programs.)
My point is that between raising the oldest and youngest, a computer with an internet connection became ubiquitous around the house.
(On the flip side, my 19 year old sends hundreds of messages a month on her cell phone. The boys don't have cell phones and don't care--there's something there I tell you.)
While I can't speak for other men, I like to go where things are unconventional and unregulated. Once regulations set in, the spontaneity is lost, boredom sets in, and I'm turned off and looking for something new. I don't know whether women like regulation more than men, or whether they just like security, but I think there may be somewhat of a natural division between the sexes that way, and I hate to see it exploited by demagogues. (Or government, which often overlaps with the latter.)
So this looks like just another "when men do anything different from the way women do it, the men are doing it wrong" thing. It's just silly.
I think this disparity also feeds into the much blogged about male-female difference about humor. I think men go to the Internet to watch silly, funny things. Links I think are a laugh riot hoot my girlfriend thinks are idiotic. Go figure!
Anon 2:00
As if the existance of the 3 Stooges didn't prove that point 70 years ago...
Its interesting to see the video clips available on a site like break.com that caters to men. You have the hot women and the violent stunts, but then there's the cute laughing babies. Men like cute babies too.
" Cousin Dave said...
So this looks like just another "when men do anything different from the way women do it, the men are doing it wrong" thing. It's just silly."
Say, it Brother!! I've gotten soooooooo tired of that meme since, say the late 1970s. I fully realize that male behavior was regarded as the standard for centuries or millenia or whatever, but that's not a good reason to make female behavior the touchstone now.
Anyone who has ever raised both a boy and a girl readily sees that there are important differences between them. In my case, both my brothers had a boy and a girl at about the same time as I did. The kids varied as to which was outgoing and which was introverted, which was active and which was more passive, which was loud and which was not, but not by sex.
What really varied between the sexes was what interested them. Boys and girls (on average) have their attention engaged by very different things.
At least part of this must be driven by biology.
"'And a lot of what you see on youtube.com is silly, time-saving kinds of things that maybe women don't feel they have the time for, or don't want to have the time for.'"
uh...did she mean time-WASTING?
but I say, what's wrong with having guys as viewers and readers? They're an important demographic too.
Well if you believe the rest of media, all men are shlubby blobs who have no real individual purchasing power.
All big purchasing decisions must be OK'd with the wife first, so all ads must target women (unless a woman chooses to remain single, in which case she makes large purchases in an empowering and liberating way).
All single men are hardly differentiated from adolescent males, so you can just lump in the same juvenille advertising for any unimproved male (cause women only improve men) from the age of 14-54.
Plus all people over the age of 54 are only interested in medications to mask or improve their various out of control or less well controlled bodily functions.
(the above isn't my opinion, just a consensus of viewpoints culled form current media and advertising)
Any medium that provides me with the opportunity to watch a bunch of bored highschoolers try to shoot a bottlerocket from one of thier butts is ok by me.
TV has been around for decades and never even came close to that comedy genius.
Poll, how many women have even seen that clip, much less seen it at least 5 times.
How many men have seen it and seen it 5 times or more?
I think the results would be telling.
"Men are more likely to use the Internet to have fun."
And from Dr. Helen's "At Least Google Listens" post a couple of days ago.
Men talk to their search engines more than their girlfriends, work colleagues or even their families, research has claimed.
Okay, now I'm confused. Someone please tell me what I'm supposed to use the internet for? I'd hate to fall outside of someone's sweeping generalization....
Men want to have not just fun, but dangerou, stupid fun. They further want to record it for posterity and shall it with the world. And other men such as myself want to enjoy that fun. I only wish this technology had been around when, as a lad, we talked a friend into stripping down, dousing himself with alcohol, and lighting himself afire, and jumping into a canal before he could be seriously burned. I wish I still had that video.
Cheers,
RK Jones
Jesus Christ. Calm down. There's absolutely nothing in the article suggesting this is a bad thing about men.
Jesus. You just look to pick a fight or an excuse to show how man-friendly you are. It's ridiculous.
Helen also said above: "This is why I hate to see censorship or even "codes of ethics" etc. for blogs. It could turn what is now a fairly free market of ideas into just another regulated industry of marketing etc. Then where would those of us who are libertarian, or have different ideas from the mainstream go?"
Really? Haven't you yourself censored your blog and threatened to do so on many more occasions?
Who cares what women do for fun? They're from another planet, anyway.
Come to that, why would women care what men do for fun?
Silly anonytroll. Censorship of ones self is called many things, like "tact," "reason," and "maturity." Censorship and control of one's own place (house, blog, etc.) is what you oddly have trouble with in spite of its many obvious benefits and its very natural correctness. The Bad Censorship which actually is censorship is the sort imposed from elsewhere, notably government.
I notice that you are able to post here, by the way, and without so much courtesy as a pseudonym.
Nothing in the article says it's a bad thing that men do as they do; but the peculiar nature of how its put strongly suggests that it is something to be frowned on, or at least belittled. The truly odd thing that the article does is reverse a group of stereotypes, wording them in such a way as to imply that the reversed assumptions have always been thus.
Wow, men watch more online videos because they're more visual than women.
Who knew?
It's a good thing we have market analysts around to clue us in on such subtle, nuanced insights.
What's her next report called -- "Earth orbits Sun"?
I seem to be bucking the male trend. I don't watch that many videos. I get bored waiting for the video to get to the point. When I read articles I skip through until I find something meaty and then I read it.
In written articles as well as videos there's a bunch of stuff at the beginning setting you up for the interesting part, there's the interesting part, and then there's the boring part where you read or hear about what you just read or saw - some videos just stop after the good parts but not the videos that are thought out.
Give me a bullet list anytime.
["... silly, time-saving kinds of things that maybe women don't feel they have the time for..."]
I take that odd sentence to mean men look for videos about how to save time, or building time-saving devices, or amusing Rube Goldberg contraptions, or training the dog to get a beer, or fling the empties into the trash (through a basketball ring), or empty the pool and clean the driveway and water the lawn simultaneously, building automatic whatever ... etc., etc.,
Male or female, the Internet can eat up your life if you let it.
Gee, John. So is it still a "free market of ideas" as long as Helen is the one who gets to decide on the censoring and not the government?
And yes. I am able to post now. But it has been made clear to me that she can and will delete posts when she feels like it. So, I can't help but be confused by that whole grandiose "free market of ideas" notion.
The remainder of your post is well-nigh unintelligible.
"but the peculiar nature of how its put strongly suggests that it is something to be frowned on, or at least belittled."
There is nothing put strongly in that article. And not even a SCINTILLA of a HINT that the difference is a matter of criticism against men. If anything, it says women will be catching up with men in terms of tech savoir faire, clearly implying that men's more frequent use is, in fact, a GOOD thing and that lower usage by women is a BAD thing.
"The truly odd thing that the article does is reverse a group of stereotypes, wording them in such a way as to imply that the reversed assumptions have always been thus."
Huh?
Gee, John. So is it still a "free market of ideas" as long as Helen is the one who gets to decide on the censoring and not the government?
Helen gets to decide what goes or doesn't go on her own site. As you do on your site, and I do on my site, and so on. That way the internet has millions of different sites with different standards, and if you don't like what's on one site, you can probably find what you like somewhere else.
Censorship is what happens when the government (or some other entity with the power to enforce rules so broadly that in practice its authority cannot be escaped), determines a set of standards that everyone has to abide by. If you don't like those standards, you're stuck -- you can't go elsewhere to find what you want, because the standards apply universally.
See the difference?
What's up with this little game? Baiting blog owners with your rudeness, then complaining about how they're violating your rights?
Do you feel like a hero?
If you want a "free marketplace of ideas," it would probably help if you didn't go out of your way to abuse the freedom.
infidel1753:
This is not her private household. This is a public forum. See the difference?
bugs:
Oh, I see. So, I've only got rights to speak in this "free market of ideas" as long as I don't say anything offensive or that you or Heleb disagree with? Brilliant. Besides, you idiot, I wasn't complaining. I was only pointing out her contradictions. See the difference?
No, this is most certainly not a public forum, and therefore your characterization of it as such reveals you to be just another circing moron.
Eat it; eat it raw.
The idea that men use the 'net for entertainment, not information seems, at best, wildly inaccurate.
I'd say, that most of today's commentators on gender wouldn't know the facts if they tripped over them.
Funny. I surf the web to watch videos, talk to other people, and use it as a way to connect, laugh, be silly etc. I don't consider my husband or children unsatisfying, it's just more interactive than TV.
I feel like these advertisers keep telling us who we are as a sex, and what to think. They do a study that says "women are this way" or "men are this way", out comes a whole campaign of advertising that influences that point of view, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Interesting how some people get themselves so worked up over nothing.
I had to chuckle reading through the comments. I've deleted a few comments off of my blog as well. It's my blog! I can do that!
anon 9:48
This blog is most assuredly NOT a public forum. It is no more public than a restaurant.
Allow me to explain.
A restaurant is a publicly accessible venue, certainly. But you are allowed to enter at the pleasure of the owner. And once you have entered, you remain there subject to the whims of said owner.
In other words, you cannot shit on the floor and expect to be allowed to stay.
The problem that people who think as you have is that you have no respect for the private property of others. You would rather conflate the private with the public, so you can impose your tactlessness on all who come near.
Of course, signing a public complaint anonymously is an indicator that you are either a coward or a cretin.
I'll admit laughing at a clip of some moron placing the butt of a 12ga shotgun against his nads then pulling the trigger...and then doing it again even while moaning in obvious pain.
This kind of stuff reminds me to thank my parents for both being intelligent and not raising a moron.
acksiom:
You don't make any argument. You just think it's private because you say so? You eat it raw, 'tard.
But brian at least makes a decent argument. I still don't really agree. If Helen wants to go private, she is certainly welcome. She chooses not to. Is it because she welcomes that "free market of ideas" which would indicate a willingness to engage in meaningful debate? No. But I'll let you postulate why.
But please, spare me the anonymous coward routine. Unless, that is, you are willing to tell me your full name and address.
anonymous 9:48
I didn't say anything about comments I disagree with. I only mentioned rudeness. Thanks for proving my point by calling me an idiot.
Helen owns her blog because she invests time and probably money in its upkeep. Therefore, she has a right to tell trolls to go away.
If you want to be rude to people in a truly anarchic environment, try Usenet. Nobody owns that.
Having said that, I'm outta this thread. Life's too short...
Public, private... This is not a restaurant. In a restaurant, people will know what you look like, and they can probably see what car you drive...all kinds of identifying information available. Here, we really are anonymous, even if we choose a name. Anonymous has the right to come in here and stir things up if she wants to. Helen has the right to delete comments she doesn't like. The rest of us can watch, listen, take part as we like. Plus--the really cool part--we get to think what we want about Helen and about the other posters!
Anonymous has drawn some conclusions about why Helen deletes some comments. Some of Helen's regular commenters have come to conclusions about Anonymous. I have come to some conclusions of my own about Helen's regulars, about Helen and about Anonymous. That's the fun part of reading blog comments, isn't it? Helen's posts aren't always fascinating, but the comments usually have some life in them.
I think I would enjoy a conversation with Anonymous, to be honest. She comes to Helen's blog, unafraid of saying what she thinks, even though she knows the regulars will be out in force to protect poor fragile Helen--that same Helen who portrays herself as one tough cookie who can take care of herself. That whole dynamic makes me laugh. Way better than TV.
"Gee, John. So is it still a "free market of ideas" as long as Helen is the one who gets to decide on the censoring and not the government?"
No, Anonymous; that is not all what he is saying, is it? What he is saying is that it is censorship only if you are prevented form posting ANYWHERE, something usually only within the power of a government. You seem to think it is censorship if someone refuses to provide you a forum. You seem to think you are entitled to let someone spend the money for the site and do all the work to maintain, for your sake. You are such a bottom.
"Oh, I see. So, I've only got rights to speak in this "free market of ideas" as long as I don't say anything offensive or that you or Heleb disagree with? "
No, you really don't see at all. This "free market of ideas" the rest of us are talking about is the whole blogosphere. That seems to have gotten past you. You seem to think that a blogger is obliged to provide you his or her blog as you free and safe place to play.
Take courage and roam the blogosphere. You do not have o wear your abaya or your burqa when you go out into the blogosphere, and you won't need a male relative to chaperone you.
even though she knows the regulars will be out in force to protect poor fragile Helen--that same Helen who portrays herself as one tough cookie who can take care of herself.
Oh, please. It has nothing to do with whose blog they're on. It's the post themselves that are annoying.
Amy K.
I didn't make an argument because it wasn't necessary. Objective reality is its own argument.
You got objective reality? Say, cut me off a slice of that...I'm fresh out.
I'm going to hurt myself laughing, here. Alright, Helen, I finally understand why you allow for anonymous posting, irritating as the trolls (cretinous, cowardly, or otherwise - if any) can be. It's just really hard not to feed them sometimes, and you have to admit, the topic wanders badly once anonytrolls have parked under the bridge.
Moving along, then...
Well, Bugs, to paraphrase Mariel Hemingway in 'Creator', "Why don't you start by assuming you don't exist, and see where that gets you."
Because, y'know, since there exists heaps and boodles of objective reality available to you for you yourself to 'cut off a slice of', it's hardly my fault --
-- or responsibility --
-- or even just *problem* --
-- if you yourself refuse to do so.
Me myself, I'm now going to go watch another couple of fansubbed episodes of "Aria the Natural".
Or, maybe, I won't. Maybe I'll just be *deluded* into *believing* that I watched them.
But. . .
. . .however. . .
. . .since I have no real idea whatsoever what they might contain. . .
. . .then, as far as I'm concerned. . .
. . .my *observation* of them will be more than enough *demonstration* of 'objective reality'. . .
. . .i.e., the existence of both physical reality and self-determining individuals capable of altering it. . .
. . .to satisfy my standards of proof for the existence of such.
So!
That being said. . .would you like to play some more?
Or are you now willing to sit down and admit your ignorance, and share a nice cup of STFUYMIN?
I do! I mean, I will! I mean...oh, I don't know what I mean.
Objectively, anyway.
US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.
aaaaa片俱樂部影片aaaaa片俱樂部影片qq美美色網影片546視訊聊天室妹妹影音視訊小莉影像館546視訊聊天室hh546視訊聊天室hhhhhhhhhhhhjp成人jp成人視訊交友90739jp成人jp成人jp成人jp成人jp成人jp成人
Post a Comment
<< Home