funny, i thought it was sexist in its depiction of men.

Really? I can think of at least 10 guys I know exactly like the male characters in that movie without even trying. Can't everyone? http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=453073

I haven't seen the movie, but I had a guy friend who also said that he felt the male characters were caricatures of this one very specific type of guy...

Yeah I am not buying the sexist against females argument. Every girl I've talked to about the movie inevitably says the same thing: "why did *she* end up with *him*? She worked for the E! Channel, she could have been with James Franco or _____."

Now I realize that perhaps all of these ladies have some issues with the suspension of disbelief and maybe that has nothing to do with this particular argument, but I think the movie overwhelmingly portrayed all guys as uncaring neanderthals at least every bit as much as it came off sexist against women.

So it was an equal opportunity offender.

i agree...the men are portrayed as shallow and worthless, incapable of having an intelligent thought or emotion.

We watched this movie and none of the girls in the room were laughing. I thought the whole plot was pretty pathetic.

I don't know; I think what you (the men who have chimed in so far), might want to keep in mind is that you are (from what I have gathered via Blue Dot) in the top 99th percentile of enlightened men. For every one of you, I feel, there is a sea of pulse-less, womanizing slackers. Is that insulting? If so, I'm sorry. I'm just being honest. Try to think of all the recent movies that have been built around these types of guys: Old School, Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle, Super Bad, Swingers, the list goes on and on. Couldn't it be art reflecting life?

Art certainly does reflect life, because it makes money, sadly. Perhaps if we abolish 95% of the fraternities at Universities, it might be a start for society to address the more important issues facing us...like how are we going to keep george bush from invading Iran before he leaves office, getting our troops out of Iraq while still helping the citizens there, and how we are going to keep this planet alive for future generations.

There's nothing I'd like more. I've never met a frat boy I could respect. I think they reinforce a sexist, bacchanal culture that transfers beyond college into the workplace and even influences those who did not actually belong to a frat, thus creating the most loathsome human specimen -- wannabe frat boys. I could give examples of these ... But, I won't.

But the implication is that guys are either Niles (or Frasier) Crane or Frank The Tank and nothing in between. The way that article claims that women "simply don't know how to allow themselves the playful inner lives men do", is the same way the the male characters in that movie (and others) are denied the ability to separate moments of sophomoric humor and intelligence from the "serious business".

A good example would be the initial bar scene (probably accurate) vs. the "escaping to go watch Spider-Man 3 and draft a fantasy baseball team" scene (grossly inaccurate).

A movie focused on the thoughts of some characters at the expense of the thoughts of other characters? That sounds horribly unfair and yet, somehow, efficient. Do we need to employ a diverse team of writers for every script? And do we really need to drag Harold and Kumar through the mud here?!

Slate seems to be little more than banal contrarianism these days. Killjoy Magazine, one might say. The movie was hilarious; Heigl loved it; almost everyone loved it. The characters were just that, not real people. And they happened to be entertaining characters as well.

And, Meghan O'Rourke, how exactly does writing a 6-months-late complaint about how women "can possess playful inner lives too" further that premise? Less than playful, I must say.

disclaimer: my anger on the topic might be a result of the fact that I can't be playing video games or reading about baseball b/c of much less pleasant responsibilities. Still time to rant though.

Also, the article (and Heigl's comments, upon which the article pretends to be based) is very positive about the male characters. The problem to O'Rourke is that the (mostly non-sexist) male characters get to have fun and get all the good lines and all the good tripping scenes. The only problem seems to be that the women are depicted as being too responsible. Can't please everyone all the time...

I've only heard good things about the movie, but haven't seen it. Just to put in a good word for frat boys... Rob's dad and uncle were fraternity brothers and I don't think you'd meet a better pair of men out there! Not all frats are "frat-boy", is the point. This whole conversation appears to be about stereotypes. And I wouldn't bet on a Hollywood movie to be the one to stand up and break those. Stereotypes sell. Again, I haven't seen the movie. But wasn't there a good moral to it, at least?

Perhaps "frat boys" 30 years ago were a bit classier. I don't know.

Perhaps frats are not evil in and of themselves. They seem to be a particularly important part of campus life for many in minority groups. I also have two future brothers in-law who are exceptionally enlightened and well-rounded and recently graduated as greeks. It is probably true that fraternities are disproportionately Repubs, however, I'm not sure that exterminating them is wise, legal, or a good way to prevent an invasion of Iran. And what does this have to do w/ the slacker non-fratboys who unfairly got all the witty lines in this movie?

Yes, I agree they serve a vital role in campus life for some, which is why I suggested getting rid of only 95%. I think that 95% is focused not on learning, or even improving social skills, but rather binge drinking, date rape, and nepotinistic opportunites in the workplace. They, again the 95%, create a false sense of entitlement. They prevent people from thinking clearly about matters such as the immenent invasion of Iran.

But hey, that's just one man's opinion.