"Now go make me a sandwich, there's a good girl. The grownups are talking."
I don't know what history is behind any of this, but based on the small snippet of exchanges in this thread, she seems far more capable of carrying on a mature discussion on this.
I'm guessing, GS, that you recognize sexism exists and is a problem, but that you don't think it's present here? Is that a fair summary of your stance? If you're struggling to convince others of the former, sandwich jokes make that task more difficult.
Are you claiming that world leadership is overwhelmingly male due to inherent and beneficial biological traits? It's one thing to say that testosterone causes aggression and therefore make males more inclined toward the ambitions of power and whatnot. It's another thing to judge that as 'better,' and yet a 3rd thing to apply that 'better' to broader contexts w/ little discrimination.
On Monday 12/16/13 - 5:51:22 PM phantomphan1 wrote: Here. There's a lot of female leaders. You just never bothered to research them.
That's why IRL. She was being a snotty, presumptuous little sh*t, so she got a little sh*t back for it.
"Are you claiming that world leadership is overwhelmingly male due to inherent and beneficial biological traits?"
Nope. I'm saying in the western world women have the right to vote in most countries for almost a century. During that time what have we found?
Women taking charge, changing the political conversation and using their votes they are properly represented? After all, they're 50% of the population, if they were being repressed, they could bring that to an end overnight.
On Tuesday 12/17/13 - 4:24:25 PM Malletman wrote: That doesn't make any sense, GS, especially in countries that countries use first past the post voting systems.
No no, if women are being so ill treated, why haven't they formed their own party to stop the evil male oppressors? Even in a first past the post system, every seat will have a population about 50% female. Most parties in the UK could only DREAM of getting 50% of the vote.
Or maybe it's just easier to complain about the script than it is to rewrite it.
Put it this way, if 50% of the population was gay, do think there would be any debate about whether or not gay people should be able to get married?
No kidding. Guilty Spark is quite sexist. It works because he likes to be the masculine dude in charge while his helpless maiden in distress (with chronic pain, I think), LijasMom, relies on his deeds.
but page 2's ideas of "women acting like men" in muscular, masculine roles is ridiculous as well. Are you all missing the effing point?
That women in film can have other things to talk about besides romance with men and/or hypermasculinized cra chases and fights?
On Wednesday 12/18/13 - 12:04:38 AM shakira2 wrote: He's told me before that I have a definite "female brain" because emotion clouds my judgment and makes me incapable of using ~logic~. He's probably one of the most sexist members on the site.
No, you're incapable of using logic because you're a f**king idiot. You have a female brain because you're (despite any amount of wishful thinking) female.
Your sarcasm doesn't seem to differ at all from just making a sexist comment. And it seems like others have the opinion that you're sexist too, so maybe you're not coming across the way you think you are?
On Tuesday 12/17/13 - 4:13:49 PM Guilty_Spark wrote: That's why IRL. She was being a snotty, presumptuous little sh*t, so she got a little sh*t back for it.
I'm not sure how that's working out for you. You seem to be catching a lot of flack for the sandwich comment w/o appreciation for the context you see. It's kind of like the old axiom that the person who hits *back* is always the one who gets caught.
On Tuesday 12/17/13 - 4:13:49 PM Guilty_Spark wrote: ...in the western world women have the right to vote in most countries for almost a century. During that time what have we found? ... if they were being repressed, they could bring that to an end overnight. Right?
Uh, no, not right. It's not as simple as giving someone the vote and they automatically take charge and turn voting upside down. A lot of women didn't even want the right to vote. They thought their husbands could handle it for them. I don't think giving them the vote means they instantly had more confidence in their abilities to run for office or vote for other women. You know that women can often be the harshest critics of other women, and for rather trivial things. There's still a power dynamic and social construct that heavily favors men.
On Wednesday 12/18/13 - 5:47:10 AM Guilty_Spark wrote: Mispelled please feel free to go f*'k yourself and mind your own f**king business. You have no idea how our family life works and your stupid, ill-informed, c*ntish opinion is neither needed nor sought.
I'm not minding my own business on a discussion site. the whole point is to mind other peoples' business, isn't it?
and my opnion was sought and needed...
on an opinion site in the question discussioncomments.
On Wednesday 12/18/13 - 4:05:59 AM Mispelled wrote: but page 2's ideas of "women acting like men" in muscular, masculine roles is ridiculous as well. Are you all missing the effing point? That women in film can have other things to talk about besides romance with men and/or hypermasculinized cra chases and fights? ugh
Absolutely. I think when people say there aren't any strong women, they sometimes have too narrow a view of what strong is.
A fair bit of this might be a result of how much film is still adolescent power fantasy. While I like a film of that type on occasion, it tends to be restrictive and a bit immature, neither of which are things that lend themselves well to being at all progressive.
On Wednesday 12/18/13 - 6:33:37 AM Mispelled wrote: haha. no. I'm not minding my own business on a discussion site. the whole point is to mind other peoples' business, isn't it? and my opnion was sought and needed... on an opinion site in the question discussioncomments.
Nope. Your opinion on the question? Go nuts.
Your opinion on your misinformed view of my private family life? Try minding your own f**king business.
On Wednesday 12/18/13 - 6:14:24 AM IRLIteach wrote: I'm not sure how that's working out for you. You seem to be catching a lot of flack for the sandwich comment w/o appreciation for the context you see. It's kind of like the old axiom that the person who hits *back* is always the one who gets caught.
No sh*t. I would be worried, but looking at the people getting their knickers in a twist, it's hardly YT's best and brightest, so...
Responding to mispelled:
The stuff I was talking about on page 2 about women in hyper masculine roles was only responding to ongooshk. As he said, he just worded something a bit wrong and it seemed he implied hyper masculine films are justified in having all male casts and I was simply pointing out that it doesn't have to be the case since women can be hyper masculine as well.
But I don't believe that's the only good kind of representation or that it's the only way women can be presented as "strong" and, as I said on page 1, I don't even believe women need to be 100% portrayed as "strong". We don't need a Vasquez in every film but, of course, women who are strong in that way should be in some percentage of films. There should be a variety.
On Tuesday 12/17/13 - 4:39:49 PM Guilty_Spark wrote: No no, if women are being so ill treated, why haven't they formed their own party to stop the evil male oppressors?
Maybe because women aren't politically homogeneous.
You betray your own sexist views by even suggesting this (and you also sh*t all over feminism, which isn't a political party, per se, but IS a group of women (and male allies) who have aligned together to try and address the fact that we have an inherently patriarchal society).
On Wednesday 12/18/13 - 8:48:20 PM Kepi wrote: Yeah, but you can't expect for films featuring hypermasculine women or hyperfeminine men to do well in terms of mainstream relevance because they don't click with large audience blocks.
Or are you asking 'why should'? I already mentioned that - because we need all sorts of people to be represented in the media. But I also think, even in an ideal world, those films might be made more often but I don't think they'd need to dominate the market or anything like that...because obviously the majority (feminine women and masculine men) would then have trouble finding representation of themselves in film and that would be problematic.
But I also think it's problematic when the majority is completely turned off by a reasonable level of minority representation. Seems like they've got some issssssues.
And there's a money problem, yeah, because of those isssssssues.