|
Post by wordweaver3 on Oct 4, 2016 2:34:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 4, 2016 5:05:50 GMT
Hmm. Touchy that one, touchy.
On the one hand, I get that there are some sincere beliefs involved here. But frankly, it still stinks.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Oct 7, 2016 20:21:09 GMT
Yeah not cool with that. I mean if my sincere belief is that I don't want to have to see black people or jews when I travel, do I get accomodated? I only want to be served by proud nordic uber mench, is that okay? I think liberal values can run into a problem of making everything relative. The idea of equality is a foudning principle we all have to stick to. If someones beliefs can over ride that then we don't really have equality at all. If the monks don't want to talk to females, thats great, that's their call on how they want to live their lives. But he can't expect society to rearrange itself to accomodate that. If you have beliefs that are that incapatible with western society, then you are simply not goign to be able to function. the options are to change your unreasonable beliefs or learn to put up with it. If we are going to try to accomodate people whose values are literally the opposite of everything we are meant ot stand for, we end up not standing for anything. In other feminist news.... Is Mad Max Fury Road not actually feminist?
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 7, 2016 20:53:14 GMT
Some people like to attach their personal beliefs to larger movements and use them to define it. There is this idea that women are not violent, that violence is bad, and so on and so forth and that is a female perspective. First off, yeah, violence is bad, but that doesn't mean it can't be fun in certain media no matter what your gender. The idea that violent movies are inherently non-feminist... that's silly. I mean, it doesn't have to be feminist or not to be fine. Its starting to get like the organics or gluten free craze. "If it isn't labelled Organic it is bad!" "If it can't be labelled feminist it is bad!" That isn't the case. Fury Road, though, IS feminist after a fashion. Partially because of the context it is in. Namely, people were all like "ah no, women kicking butt?! NEVER! NOT IN OUR HYPERMASCULINE CAR FETISH MOVIE!" So one thing that makes it feminist is that it defies those kinds of expectations. And kinda the characters sometimes, I suppose. The danger with saying "this or that character is feminist" though is that you start to box in potential characters. What I mean by that is if characters have to be "feminist" or anything else like that, its kinda... silly. Characters are characters, not actual people, and characters need to be able to be a wide range of things. Constraining that isn't a good idea. But if you take a look at some movies, I can see the point of saying they're "not feminist" in certain ways. Like say, Princess Mononoke. I love that movie, but there are certainly bits of it that aren't very feminist despite it featuring a rather large cast of interesting female characters. So in that way I kind of agree with good old Deve. But that doesn't make it a bad movie or a movie that I wouldn't watch or let my children watch. Being "feminist" doesn't make the movie good or bad. And this is before you get into definitions of what is or is not feminist! I mean, Kill Bill? Feminist! Because maternal instincts are distinctly a female trait and so forth! Also, women get the kids in the end because that is important! But wait, its not feminist! Violence is an inherently masculine trait! Women shouldn't be assumed to be maternal! Etc etc. So much different stuff and ways to see feminism. I'll leave you with picture of a Hypermasculine Car Fetishist licking a car!
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Oct 7, 2016 23:33:22 GMT
I was a bit shocked to see Anita talking about violence as being a male thing. She seems to think that violence is something only men do, and that women being violent are just copying men.
That seems super sexist against both men and women.
This is spot on. Anita acts as if violence is anti feminist and action movies are inherrently bad. Thats her only personal pacifist views, its not feminism. Shes entitled to her opinions, but shes tacting things onto feminism that are nothing to do with it.
Also, shes an idiot, Fury Road is AWWWWWESOME!
Let's check with an expert on this film, and see what he thinks of Anita's criticism-
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 8, 2016 4:27:10 GMT
The whole thing with the "violence is male, and women who are violent are just copying men and are doing it wrong" is common enough in some feminist circles. Other feminists think that is total bunk. Feminists are rather diverse, as it turns out.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Oct 13, 2016 3:21:21 GMT
This is another reason why I don't like the label anymore. It can mean basically anything. That sentiment about women not being violent is super sexist to me, so by telling someone I am a feminist, I might be making them think I am the exact opposite of what I want to express. And Anita is not some obscure extremist. She is front and centre the face of feminism for a lot of people these days.But hse is advocating a form of feminism I completely disagree with. The same with a lot of feminist sites. Everyday Feminism barely ever posts any article I don't think is completely batshit nonsense. The sliver of feminists who actually beleive anything similar to what I believe seems really slim. If feminism means everything, than it doesn't really mean anything.
|
|
|
Post by StyxD on Oct 13, 2016 17:30:25 GMT
It will probably come as no surprise I'm again taking issue with what Hark has written here.
Now, I haven't seen Fury Road (why haven't I seen this movie yet, really?), so I'm not gonna say who I think is more right. Both the tweets and the article present sorta-believable arguments.
It is of course a point of contention, whether or not you agree with Anita's views and want more movies to "redefine our values", or that action movies are bad. But she doesn't say that "men are violent and women only imitate them". She says it's not enough for a movie to let some women into the "violent action hero", normally reserved for men, to be called feminist.
I don't really mean to defend her position, but I do think you're misconstruing it.
But you could say that female and male characters having equal access to the same character archetypes is the whole point of feminism - equal opportunities right? And I don't think it would be wrong.
So in a roundabout way, I kind of agree with Hark. Nowadays, "feminism" means so many different things to many people, like it's an anime ("My Way of the Feminist is <X>!"). And everyone seems to think people with differing definitions are fake or evil…
Well, I never really called myself a feminist, mostly because of dissent on some issues, abortion for the longest time (which is really ironic, considering latest developments). Nor an ally, since it seems to provoke people to whip out "what every good ally must be" lists.
I guess I just say that I have feminist views…
But hey, at least it's not as fucked up as the asexual label.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Oct 13, 2016 18:39:23 GMT
I'm honestly not sure what point you were making there. But apparantly at least part of it was agreeing with me, so it cant have been all bad. You say I am misrepresenting her, and then tell me I am right about her. If I am misrepresenting her, I don't see how. I'm trying to be honest about the points she was making...I just think her points on this issue are silly.
If Mad Max Fury Road isn't feminist enough, I don't really know what kind of movie would be acceptable to feminists.
The plot is literally about an evil patriachal religious ruler, with his allies the arms producers and the oil controlling businessman, who wants to enslave women to make babies for him, exploit young men as canon fodder in his army and oppress everyone. As well as max, the main character is Furiousa, who is one of the bad guys minions who turns against him and attempts to take the women he has imprisoned (refered to as "prize breeders" and "his porperty") to freedom. The rescued brides aren't helpless princesses either, its clearly them that has motivated this whole under taking and their philosophy that is driving it. They represent the future, as opposed to the bad guys who are the same forces that got everything into this mess. When the brides capture one of the warboys and he tells them that hes going to be taken to the Vallaha they tell him hes just battle fodder and ask him "who killed the world?" The film is literally about fighting the patriachy and over throwing toxic masculinity....as well as lots of cars flipping over and blowing up.
Honestly, if that's not a feminist enough movie, then there's no point trying to make a film with feminist themes because I honestly don't think its possible.
Also...you haven't seen Fury Road? Sort your life out!
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 13, 2016 20:16:58 GMT
Frankly, I consider myself a feminist because I don't give a shit about other people's label definitions most of the time. This means that if I've found a definition I like, I'll use that and the label I associate with it. This has managed to piss off both "other feminists" and anti-feminists. One thinks I'm not a proper feminist or that I can't be one (according to their definition) the other thinks I'm perpetuating eeeeeeeeevilllll by supporting feminism. I don't give a crap about either of them.
And no, this position isn't born out of complete ignorance. I'm well aware of the academic terms or the other stuff going on with this bizarre little turf war.
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Oct 13, 2016 20:50:16 GMT
Canuovea I think you are eeeevil because you read my eeeevil comic. Your politics beyond that seem disappointingly none-evil. You need to up your evil game!
|
|
|
Post by StyxD on Oct 13, 2016 21:48:40 GMT
You say I am misrepresenting her, and then tell me I am right about her. If I am misrepresenting her, I don't see how. I'm trying to be honest about the points she was making...I just think her points on this issue are silly. All I'm just saying is that she never said "all men are violent, and women are pure beings made to wallow in the horror." It miffed me, because I actually saw once what such a feminist looks like. You may disagree with Anita on a lot of subjects; her taste does seem to be overly attached to her political views, so I don't really like her as a reviewer. But she never said that. As for Fury Road... I guess I'll have to wait till one of my friends get it on DVD. I watched Zootopia that way. So, who killed the world? Mens? Or is it a spoiler?
|
|
|
Post by Harkovast on Oct 14, 2016 1:34:50 GMT
She talked about women in the movie taking part in violence not being empowered, but taking part in "male violence". She suggests the women are copying bad male behaviour, which is not liberating to them. The implication is that men are inherrently violent and women are peaceful. Anita sees a woman being violent not as the women using (or miss using) her agency, but as her pretending to be a man. I really dont think that is misrepresenting her, unless I read what she said wrong.
I never thought the women in Fury Road (or tough women in other films) were acting like men, and I think that kind of thinking is inherrently very sexist.
That's the implication of refering to violence as an intrinsically male thing.
I dont' think thats misrepresenting her.
I think she treats pacificism as a component of feminish, assuming its the natural place feminism leads to, when there is no evidence to support this.
Its strange, her video game reviews (which got people so angry) always seemed okay to me, its her movie review thats got on my nerves!
|
|
|
Post by Canuovea on Oct 14, 2016 4:15:43 GMT
I know someone who went to this one "feminist" meeting where they all promptly declared that all men are "born with the seed of evil" (and I assume violence). This person I know left and decided this was bullshit, despite being herself rather feminist. Its all a clusterfuck sometimes.
|
|
|
Feminism
Oct 14, 2016 18:01:18 GMT
via mobile
Post by StyxD on Oct 14, 2016 18:01:18 GMT
That's the implication of refering to violence as an intrinsically male thing. I understood this as referring to violence as culturally male thing. And that it would be better to show alternative solutions than to glorify violence and empower women simply by allowing them to share male archetypes. Becauase I think she's talking more about archetypes than characteristics of actual people. Its strange, her video game reviews (which got people so angry) always seemed okay to me, its her movie review thats got on my nerves! Well, the hate on her started not with reviews, but with analysis videos. I like them, they're pretty insightful. Her reviews, I dunno. I remember her review of AC: Syndicate, where she spent most of the time praising the creators for their decisions regarding women and minorities. So I learned the game is more PC than last ones. But not if it's actually any fun to play. "Seed of Evil"? Was it a feminist Christian apocalypse cult?
|
|