When SUVs are not enough

Comments

20 comments posted
One would hope that soon,

One would hope that soon, law enforcement might take matters into hand and start ushering SUVs in a couple of lines "offroad." That's what the blasted things were made for, right?! Let 'em bump and grind through the ditches and the plains beside the highways. I've seen those ads where those 10-mpg-monstrocities navigate mountains with truckity-bumpity ease. Surely we can run a couple of rows of traffic on the dirt!?

anonymous lurker's picture
Posted by anonymous lurker (not verified) on 23 September 2005 - 11:01am
The SUV transportation bill

What a great way to save on government spending! We expand our highways by clearing brush and taking out the really big rocks, and then let the SUVs trundle along in the brand new SUV lanes, and thus helping reduce the traffic burden without the costly and time-consuming grading, paving and painting involved in highways today.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 23 September 2005 - 1:16pm
I love it.

I love it.

Ryan's picture
Posted by Ryan (not verified) on 23 September 2005 - 2:41pm
But if we take away the

But if we take away the really big rocks, they won't actually need their Ford Excrusher to get over that manly, test-yer-mettle, see-what-yer-made-of terrain!

Pander to testosterone, leave the big rocks, and save even more money.

:-D

(Yeah, same lurker)

anonymous lurker's picture
Posted by anonymous lurker (not verified) on 23 September 2005 - 5:18pm
Ah, but the vehicles are getting wimpy

After all, image is more important than actual capability. Hence the H3 suburban cruiser. If they had to drive over actual boulders, they'd get high centered.

And the vehicular male enhancement vehicles -- the jacked up pickup trucks and Blazers driven by men with small genitalia -- would just topple over if they hit a rock bigger than 7 inches.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 23 September 2005 - 6:20pm
Blazers driven by men with small genitalia

Hmmm. I'd rather say men with low self-esteem and/or overblown egos. I understand the idea of penis symbols and penis envy (even amoung men) but, it would f**ing ugly to hear that a woman spent a ridiculous amount of money on a dress b/c she has small breasts.

Maybe she did, but ya know. It's a slur.

www.manicexpressions.net

www.bitchingandmoaning.org

gballsout's picture
Posted by gballsout on 23 September 2005 - 7:47pm
Big SUV -> small penis

I really resent you libbers who cast unfounded aspersions on decent people who drive large SUVs! I drive a large SUV due to the fact that I have an extremely small penis, and I find that it more than makes up for my miniscule genitalia! So there!

A real man's picture
Posted by A real man (not verified) on 23 September 2005 - 9:48pm
that's the thing

We can't move forward by insulting men. We can insult their life choices, but when we hit them in the jewels, we will only succeed in hurting them and causing them to hit back.

My recent experience was in an on-line conversation with men that I do know in person who are intelligent and have Ivy league educations, open minds and a sense of humor. but when I argued against circumcision, they lashed back with as much force as they could muster, even in later conversations. I was crazy (they knew I was bipolar), I was a slut (b/c I'd been with men-plural with their foreskins) and I was a woman and it wasn't my business. heh, I'm straight so it kinda is my business. They couldn't find a way to intelligently argue back b/c I had too many strong arguments to burst their ideas. But the suggestion (that they took) was that *their* penises weren't enough. I didn't mean that, there was nothing to be done about it. I just wanted to open up the possibility that they did not need to do it to their children.

My point is: we must refrain from poking men ---who are already oversensitive, believe it or not, in the most painful place possible. We will only churn up hate and stymie our own cause.

www.manicexpressions.net

www.bitchingandmoaning.org

gballsout's picture
Posted by gballsout on 24 September 2005 - 10:10am
Funny, that

Men are so severe about their right to have foreskin removed (as if they had a choice), but see no problem with the government reaching into a woman's body and claiming sovereignty. Lovely.

Okay, point taken. I won't talk about their penises. But I will suggest that the places where you see this monster trucks are very revealing. Drive by a Hooters and the parking lot will be filled with them. You probably won't see many at a strip club, perhaps because they're too expensive. Strip clubs are for Lexus drivers.

There certainly does seem to be some peacock factor in these ridiculous trucks that are anything but safe on the road. Except I have yet to meet a woman who's attracted to a man's truck. That mythology thrives in truck ads on tv, but not in the reality I've experienced.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 24 September 2005 - 10:56am
Trucks and penis size

Trucks are extrmely popular here in Texas for a variety of reasons, none having to do with penis size.

1. They are fun. All guys like to run stuff over. Its a guy thing.

2. It's nice to have a vehicle to carry stuff around, esp. when the cities are so spread out. The friend with a truck is always popular.

3. Women really do like them. A good truck gets as much action as a Porsche, esp. at country bars. Which are the most common kind in Texas.

4. A significant number of trucks are owned by younger guys in their high testosterone years. (see #1).

5. Most women who don't like trucks tend to be liberal (a generalization) and this helps the mostly conservative male populace easily self select potential mates.

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male (not verified) on 26 September 2005 - 1:58am
self-worth is material

SUVs, trucks, big-screen tvs...these are all symbols of low self esteem. This is how people choose to have themselves viewed. Credit is hidden, so going into debt to acquire material goods isn't important. And in the most basic level of selection of the fittest, large trucks, for example, are the pretty plumes or the massive muscle of the male seeking a mate. Women who need economic stability (even if they don't get it for real) look for men who seem to have it. And we can't argue that women need economic stability, esp when they have children to care for and are blocked from high paying jobs (due to sexism or b/c they must have extra time to care for the children).

Hence, the attraction of the large, gas guzzling vehicles. Metaphorically, they are "big eaters" which is considered a sign of health and the ability to have the substance to injest is a sign of wealth.

www.manicexpressions.net

www.bitchingandmoaning.org

gballsout's picture
Posted by gballsout on 26 September 2005 - 7:31am
That last part is curious

I know guys who have big trucks, but they use them in work as contractors, etc. My sister drives an F250. I once had one, back when I needed to carry a lot of gear around. But when I'm in the city, I see plenty of guys driving around in little teeny cabs on top of tires big enough to run over a toddler without a bump to be felt.

But the last part you say is curious. Why is a truck-owner automatically considered a conservative? And why would a blue collar guy who works for a living support the banker party? Do you really think that those trust-fund babies are really looking out for your best interests? To me, that's more of a mystery than why you like monster trucks.

--And to me, it's the man, not what he drives, that counts. And why he drives it. So if he's got a dualie crew cab, and is a contractor or has a ranch, it makes sense. But if he's an architect or accountant or restaurant manager and so invested in a show-off vehicle -- F350 on lifts and 40" tires or Porsche or Hummer -- that's a red flag: insecure male. Stay away. Stay farrrrrrr away.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 26 September 2005 - 7:31am
It has been 10 years since I

It has been 10 years since I last taught political science, but I doubt the statistics have changed much. Since the vast majority of trucks are sold in solidly conservative southern states, it should not be a surprise that about 75% of truck owners self identified themselves as conservative. Incidentally, I do find urban cowboys to be somewhat amusing, but then I grew up on a farm and had to feed cows. One reason I love steak.

I think that it is a gross overgeneralization to assume that most guys driving show off vehicles are insecure. I will not argue that some guys are and we have all met at least one. I will argue that most guys buy the show off cars because they are fun. Men like toys. It has nothing to do with being insecure. They will also do anything that gets women and the show off car does work. This isn't insecurity, it's rational behavior.

As to the Republicans being the banker party, I find this statement as ludicrous and useful as the right wing blogs claiming the Democarts are the party of the Urban aristocracy (e.g., Kennedys). It indicates a failure to understand your opponent.

I, personally am a conservative, because I do not believe that government is effective at solving most social issues and should have limited involvement. Specifically, I believe that government should be limited to public goods affected by the free rider dilemma.

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male (not verified) on 26 September 2005 - 11:54pm
Generalizations

Perhaps the 75% figure you offer also is a generalization? I don't know of any political percentages that wide.

I admit calling the GOP the bankers' party is a bit simplistic, but I do see it as the party for the multinationals that also caters to the wealthy. Welfare is alive and well, but it's for the corporations who've invested in Avenue K lobbying firms. Many of these corporations are foreign nationals, too. Did you know that some 46% of the national debt is financed by China?

I, personally am a conservative, because I do not believe that government is effective at solving most social issues and should have limited involvement. Specifically, I believe that government should be limited to public goods affected by the free rider dilemma.

Funny. I despise and mistrust conservatives for their pusing for government meddling into private lives. Government enforced religion. Government controlled marriage. Government siezure of women's bodies. Government restrictions on what a doctor can or cannot say to a patient. Maybe once upon a time conservatives stood for something else, but today Barry Goldwater couldn't get elected dogcatcher.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 27 September 2005 - 12:12am
Not a generalization

The stat came from marketing and political science studies from some old courses I taught. There are other groups that are equally liberal.

I also find the belief that the Republicans favor corporations more than Democrats to be a misconception. The Democratic party raises much more of its money from corporations and PACs than the Republicans do. As a matter of fact, I consider them to be equally beholden to corporate special interests. As evidence I offer state and local politics. Both parties pander heavily to whoever has the money. I dont know why this surprises people, it has always been this way and is in fact much less of a problem now than it used to be. The only areas that compare to the old Tammany hall machine are corrupt centers like New Orleans.

Yes, way too much of our debt is owned by foreigners and this is a really bad thing. However, I do not see either party addressing it.

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male (not verified) on 27 September 2005 - 12:27am
Your data is out of date

You say "corporations and PACs" -- but that's not corporations, period. The GOP dominates Avenue K, going so far as to pressure lobbying firms to hire only Republicans -- lobbying the lobbyists. The pro-corporate agenda is plain to see, if you just look at the legislations being passed, such as the bankruptcy bill that "protects" credit card companies (which are making record profits, thank you) from poor people (but the wealthy get to keep their bankruptcy protections). You can see it in the Medicare bill passed recently, where the government was prevented from bargaining with pharmaceutical companies (who are profiting already at rates 4-5 times other Fortune100 companies). And so on.

Corporate giving is skewed towards the Republicans.

That's not to say that the Republicans are "pro-business" -- only pro-big business. As a small business owner, I see more gain out of a society that has a balanced budget (remember those?), an effective healthcare system, quality education (which now ranks something like 18th in the developed world), and an economy where people feel secure and optimistic, rather than afraid.

The big myth is that government stays out of business, when in fact it works for the largest corporations, who want protection from competition. If you remember Econ 101, you'll know this.

And no, the Dems are not much better, for they are chasing the Republicans.

Oh, and I love the suggestion that only Democrats are corrupt. I wonder who's getting those $250,000 no-bid contracts.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 27 September 2005 - 8:52am
I also note

...that since LBJ, the federal deficit went down twice -- under Carter and under Clinton. All the Republicans increased it during their tenure. Reagan quadrupled it -- which explains the "boom" of the '80s: break out the credit cards and pretend you got a raise.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 27 September 2005 - 9:07am
Government Intrusion

I doubt Goldwater would make a good dogcatcher. He never looked particularly quick or spry to me.

With regards to your post on government intrusion, I think you are mistaking the conservative response to court rulings that overturned established legislative principles with new intrusive activity. All of the examples that you listed (religion, reproductive rights, marriage definition) became issues when the courts overturned the existing social structure. This doesn't mean the courts were wrong. It does mean, that conservatives view the courts as the ones who have usurped the democratic authority of the voters and intruded government presence into areas where it doesn't belong.

This is an entirely different point than the one I was making on government intrusion. Most liberals believe that government has a duty and a right to improve social justice through social welfare programs and redistribution of wealth. I personally see no Constitutional basis for this belief. Morally, there is a case for some government intervention. The counterargument is that govt. has proved to be pretty inept at improving social justice and may have solidified and increased areas of inequality.

Southern Male's picture
Posted by Southern Male (not verified) on 27 September 2005 - 12:43am
The right to oppress?

Maybe you think that only the federal government should be prevented from oppressing certain people. But that does not stand constitutionally.

Conservatives like to point to the constitution, as if it all were obvious. If it were so obvious, then the Framers would not have set up a Supreme Court to interpret it.

Conservative activist judges do as much from the bench as liberal judges.

conservatives view the courts as the ones who have usurped the democratic authority of the voters and intruded government presence into areas where it doesn't belong.

I'm surprised that you, a political science teacher, would give this "majority rule" argument, when the very essence of the US democracy is protection of the minority from "the tyrrany of the majority." That is why people came here in the first place.

Now maybe it's "intrusion" to tell people they can't treat blacks like dogs and women like property, but I see that as upholding the fundamental tenets of the constitution.

Morally, there is a case for some government intervention. The counterargument is that govt. has proved to be pretty inept at improving social justice and may have solidified and increased areas of inequality.

Conservatives might ask themselves, then, why they think that pushing a national agenda of systematic disenfranchising of people from their equal rights as citizens is desireable. Especially when the hidden agenda starts to come out.

For example, few feminists are fooled by the anti-choice agenda that it's actually about abortion. Conservatives also oppose birth control and sex education for minors, thus guaranteeing very high numbers of unwanted pregnancies -- especially for minors in "red states" -- and thus undercutting their claimed objective to eliminate abortion. You reduce abortion by reducing unwanted pregnancies.

But if you consider that all these laws are really to disempower women, and consider the right-wing rhetoric that birth control allows women to "avoid the punishment of pregnancy," it's plain as day that the real agenda is to take away women's rights, especially over our own bodies.

And when you and other conservatives say you just want small government, I say bullshit -- that's not small government, that's the most draconian government intrusion worthy of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. No thank you.

media girl's picture
Posted by media girl on 27 September 2005 - 9:05am
generalizations of sex

In the interest of being exactly specific, I offer up the term "genderalizations" as coined by my friend, Rosie.

As for dogcatchers: you don't need to be spry or young. The guy who used to pick up my dog offered treats, which is what politicians usually offer, except I don't think all us dogs get the treats offered.

Guys do like toys. Definitely. I have so many guy friends, whom I love, who cannot let a new video game/computer hook-up or latest Simpson or somesuch toy go by without purchase. and who got it first is the most important aspect. So as for the truck thing, I still think it has to do with impressing other guys over women with the imagined plan to impress women. Urban cowboy or not (except for farmers, plumbers and others who need to carry equipment for their livelihood), I vote low self esteem pushes these purchases. If you were comfortable with who you are, you wouldn't get caught up in the "keeping up with the Jones'" mentality. What's more sensible really? Head over heels in debt or saving for your own or your kids education, insurance, retirement?

Men suffer from low self worth too and I believe they have thinner skin and greater fear than women b/c the standards are set higher as their chances of being great breadwinners are higher. For women in these days, we have more *options* of a sort (children, job) and have more room for...the best word I can come up with is "error". We want to rise to the top, but as it is harder for us to get there and we aren't represented as much, we can float around the bottom without derision.

www.manicexpressions.net

www.bitchingandmoaning.org

gballsout's picture
Posted by gballsout on 27 September 2005 - 7:27am