What if female privilege provides equal or greater advantages when compared to male privilege?Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Printable View
What if female privilege provides equal or greater advantages when compared to male privilege?Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
It wouldn't matter. That's the beauty of these buzzwords and slogans, they mean everything and nothing all at once! You can't possibly debate against them because they shift meanings and ultimately mean nothing.
Again, Ecurb is dead on with most everything he's saying. I have a feeling we could disagree over the particulars without him being resistant to understanding the general concept, unlike our resident genius.
If they were socially more privileged then, yes, female privilege would be a bigger issue; but note the comparative ER. Too many view privilege as a mutually exclusive thing of inverse proportion, meaning that if one group is "privileged" then another can't be, and the degree they can't be is inversely proportionate to how much the other group is. This isn't how it works (well, not always; privilege can be a zero-sum game in some instances). While we might say that privileges accumulate to one group being generally more privileged overall, that's often (not always) difficult to quantify, and it doesn't mean that the privileges that disadvantage both groups don't need fixing. It reminds me how of in relationships one partner will say "you do X and X is wrong and you should stop," and the other says "but you do Y and Y is wrong and you should stop," and maybe X is worse than Y or vice versa, so one is "more wrong" than the other; but whomever is overall more wrong is irrelevant to the point that both should stop doing X and Y, not use X and Y as an excuse to keep doing what they're doing. Like I said, if people find out ways in which white men are disadvantaged by privilege, then by all means go wage an effort to fix those problems; but don't use those disadvantages as an excuse to ignore or devalue the disadvantages of other groups.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutted
Read my reply to Gutted (and, btw, I'm not ceding that what you're saying is true; I just don't have endless time to write these long posts consistently every day).Quote:
Originally Posted by Clopin
We can't fix the biological unless you want to become a scientist or want to filter a lot of money into science to fix them. This isn't true of sociological problems where a combination of politics and actually changing people's minds can have the desired effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clopin
I'm not saying it's impossible that men are biologically hard wired to excel in certain areas; what I'm saying is that they don't seem to be the areas that are currently most valued by society. There's no indication, eg, that men naturally make better scientists, or stockbrokers, or entrepreneurs, or engineers, or software developers. Rather, what's happened is those areas have been (historically) boys' clubs and women have repeatedly stated how the men in them have been quite hostile to their presence. Now, sure, some women overcome this hostility and find success, and maybe some women fall into groups that aren't as hostile (or hostile at all); but, again, it's hard to deny that society, in general, doesn't encourage women to pursue such things.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clopin
And, yes, you can also (perhaps fairly) say that society encouraging men towards success and judging/valuing them by that success in such areas leads to stress, which can be its own disadvantage, and maybe that needs to change as well. But what would be fair would be for either both men and women to be encouraged to succeed in the same ways, or neither to be pressured at all and let them pursue what areas interest them without hostility and without pressure.
This is the only part of your post I object to; at least, I'm not sure exactly what you're suggesting with the NFL example. For one thing, I don't see how blacks are privileged there (white men both play football and, if they play defense or offensive line, are also paid to hit people; if they play quarterback then they're also typically paid more to not hit anyone). Likewise, the "hitting" is something everyone agrees to before they play the game; women don't go into a relationship and agree to be hit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
I think it's both. So many of our values come from past societies that were undeniable patriarchies where women were clearly seen as lesser beings, sometimes viewed merely as property whose entire value was bound up in how much they appealed to men. Such values change slowly, and, as you suggest, the laws change faster than the values. Look at, eg, the recent "outrage" of so many in the south over the removal of the Confederate flag. What does it say about someone who values a "symbol of our heritage" when that heritage included slavery and we've had so many recent examples of where those racial tensions have erupted in violence that was clearly racially motivated? That's an example of how laws can change (no more slavery, blacks can vote, etc.) but how the values underlying how things were have not been eradicated. So, yes, I still think we live in a society where far more value is placed on what men have (traditionally, and still a lot today) find valuable and where men, typically, pursue those values and, in many cases, discourage women. I'm not even saying that all, most, or many of those values are wrong, all I'm saying is that the only way we can really know is removing whatever stigmas and hostilities are attached to women themselves pursuing those values, and women having more input on what is valuable (which they do have far more now than in the past).Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Well you've said nothing particularly objectionable in the last few posts Morph so that's an achievement. I do think that men are better suited to be engineers and scientists however. And you're wrong to say that society doesn't encourage women towards working in traditionally male dominated fields. At least among people of my age women get absolutely nothing but encouragement when they want to enter STEM subjects, and like I said with Chess a lot of money and time has been spent on specific programs and schemes designed only to increase female participation. They have not worked.
Another thing I would like to point out is that if societal disapproval can really drive massive numbers of women who would otherwise play Chess away from the game then it's a wonder we have any Chess players in the first place. Have you ever noticed how Chess is usually portrayed in popular culture? It's maybe a step up from Dugeons and Dragons in being shown as a game for pasty, nerdy losers who can't get laid. Well that's not a pleasant image is it? So how come people continue to play Chess despite the stigma? My own twelve year old cousin told me it was 'gay' that I went to a Chess club the other day!
Bolded: Nah, that's just his phrasing. He's saying women and black men have certain privileges and then he gives an example of a female privilege, but doesn't necessarily apply that same example to both women and black men.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Also I don't follow football so I can't be sure, but I believe he's referring to off-field acts of violence and how hitting a woman is taken much more seriously than hitting a man, even if the man is physically weaker than his assailant.
You got it, Clopin. I was trying to make a joke about how hitting (punching) a woman is considered a heinous sin, while hitting (tackling) other men is standard behavior. I was also hinting at how certain standards and mores grant privileges to people based on their membership in a group, but may also belittle the group. Chivalry is a perfect example. The codes of chivalry protected women (a privilege). If a knight met a woman on the road, for example, he would not challenge her to fight to the death (as he might if he met a random man, if we can believe the legends). He was sworn to protect women. Nonetheless, the privilege came at a price: women were protected because they were deemed helpless and infantile; the male virtues of courage and strength were highly valued by the codes of chivalry; political power and social dominance were based on knightly valor and skill at arms, etc. So who was "privileged" in a chivalrous society? Women or men? (Both, in different ways.)
What was it on the Titanic? Children and what first? Now I may not understand this whole privilege thing (because it's a meaningless buzzword) but I wonder if you can get less socially privileged than being expected to die based entirely on your gender...
58'000 American men (boys really, the average age was what, eighteen) died in Vietnam after a male only draft! Imagine that, being drafted into the army to die at eighteen! Sounds horrible, I mean you've barely even lived at that point. But oh well who cares if tens of thousands of men die, and tens of thousands more are maimed or suffer severe psychological trauma after being forced to fight in an absurd war when we have really important things to consider like women being spoken to in elevators or *audible gasp* discouraged from playing videogames!
I would be curious to hear about why you think men are more socially privileged. Btw, I don't really disagree with the rest of your post.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
"Women and children first" is a perfect example of what I was getting at: women are clearly gaining the privilege of being allowed into the lifeboats -- but they are also being equated with helpless children who can't look after themselves. The privilege is direct and real; the insult is less direct, but also real.
Soldiers provide another example. Clopin's example reminds me of G.B. Shaw's play "Arms and the Man", the theme of which seems to be: "War, if we must. But please! No songs and poems GLORIFYING war!" Maybe the only way we can induce young men to fight is by lauding the virtues of courage, aggression, etc. It is true, of course, that men are expected to die for their country (while women are not). It is also true that we honor and glorify the men for doing so.
I have no problem with that, personally.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
So, basically, violate the separation of Church and State?Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Well, now we're getting down to semantics, but I think you know what I meant. For "sound" I meant "films that had recorded sound and authorial/directorial intended scores" and for "color" I meant "films not in B&W."Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
You're free to prefer it, but you are not free to pretend this preference is either objective or has anything to do with the fundamental art of filmmaking.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
The Man with the Movie Camera. Sans Soleil. Dog Star Man. Meshes of the Afternoon. Wavelength. Koyaanisqatsi. Berlin: Symphony of a Great City. Zorns Lemma. Un Chien Andalou. Close-Up.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I'd even hesitate to say that films like Tarkovsky's Mirror, Last Year at Marienbad, Godard's 2 or 3 Things I Know About Her, Playtime, really have "stories." They have scenarios from which they execute their cinematic experimentation.
Hitchcock proved you can, even telling Truffaut he selected Psycho because of its terrible source material, to prove that film is a director's art-form, not a writer's. Really, all of noir falls under the category of what would be considered "poor stories" as pure literature. The Third Man even knowingly mocks this notion with its protagonist being a writer of shlock westerns who's thrust into a detective story.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Going back through the last pages using CTRL+F, I can't find where I said this. What I may have said was that Griffith and Eisenstein perfected the art-form, meaning the art of mise-en-scene and editing. This is different than saying their films are perfect.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I actually do not. To say color is not innately better simply means that it comes down to preference. This is no more controversial than saying chocolate isn't innately better than vanilla. Besides, painting is not photography/cinematography. Choosing to limit colors is always a conscious choice in painting, while for many years it was mandatory for photography and movies.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Well, yes, they go through better and worse eras (to echo the Third Man reference, see Welles's Cuckoo Clock speech), but this is different than saying that they progress towards some ideal that will only be achievable in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Absolutely, but this is because they were still figuring out how to use photography expressively, period. It took a painter like Murnau to really perfect it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Absolutely as well, but most cinematographers aren't Storaro and Nykvist (or Mark Lee Ping-Bin, to throw out a contemporary master).Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Not entirely. Bergman had an excellent eye even before Nykvist. Go back and look at the compositions and his use of contrast in The Seventh Seal and Wild Strawberries, or even earlier (the best thing about his sub-par early films are the visuals). Plus, Bergman understood using color symbolically coming from the theater; the use of red in Cries & Whispers was his idea, and Nykvist executed it.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Of course it's film! Firstly, technically, anything shot on "film" is technically "film," but the more accurate term, movie, is itself is short for "moving picture," so the fundamental aspect of the art is literally the moving picture. It makes not a whit of difference whether that moving picture is in color or b&w, whether in sound or silent, or whether it's telling a story or being used experimentally as in the films of Brakhage or Vertov. This has nothing to do with a "reductio ad absurdum" and everything to do with understanding the fundamental art of cinema is, literally, "moving pictures," and that moving pictures typically involves two fundamental elements: mise-en-scene (what's in front of the camera) and montage (whenever any editing is involved).Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I wouldn't say they thought of everything and you're absolutely right that the crude technology limited what they could do; but most of this involved what happened in front of the camera, not how to use the camera and editing. Eisenstein literally thought of everything when it came to editing, to the point nobody has added anything new since.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
First, film is not a hybrid of painting unless you're doing Brakhage's painting on film. Secondly, I already said that music makes film a hybrid. Thirdly, everything else is inherent in narrative, not inherent in the medium of film. They're things the medium of film can be utilized for.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
"Without color" just simply means "not shot in color," and color tinting is hardly the same as film stock. There are such a thing as silent films. Again, Dreyer expressed his preference for POJOA being shown silent, and in most silent films the filmmakers weren't actually involved in the scoring.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Well, yes, but this isn't really what I was discussing. The evolution of film acting involves recognizing the difference between how acting registers on a camera VS how it registers in a theater. Brando and Kazan were two of the first to recognize that the kind of "projection" necessary in theater became too melodramatic in front of a camera; but even many earlier actors/directors knew this. One of the young actors in Stalag 17 noted how William Holden told him "there's a 135mm lens on the camera, that means they'll be in real close, so don't overplay anything." Obviously in silent film the exaggeration was used because filmmakers were concerned that without audible dialogue the audience would miss the emotional substance. This turned out to be wrong. Yet such styles didn't really die out: Kurosawa was heavily influenced by Noh and preferred that exaggerated mode of acting (which made Mifune such a perfect fit for him), eg.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Go watch some Brakhage and tell me what you feel. To me, his is film in its purest, most poetic form. I'd recommend 23rd Psalm Branch as a great introduction that's powerful without being too long.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I'm not "really liberal," I'm a "really rationalist" who endeavors to align my beliefs with reality. If proof was produced that showed anything I said was wrong, I'd immediately change my mind. I have zero reason to prefer them to be true; they just seem to be based on the research I've done and based on the research others have done and have related to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
It would've been a lot easier for Schindler just to comply with the Nazis and not hid any Jews, or if Rosa Parks had just gone to the back of the bus, or if Gandhi hadn't stood up to the British government. Nobody ever said that doing what's right is easy. Sometimes, yes, people DO need to change because of some fundamental flaw; but equally yes, sometimes the social pressures that are trying to force that change are themselves unfair and need changing. My entire point is that the context and content of Shrew presents an entirely unfair society in which men are undeniably privileged and women are seen as property whose only purpose is to serve their husbands. It's even entirely possible that Kate would be a "shrew" were it not for that society, but we have no way of knowing, and what we CAN say is that Petrucchio's torture is done entirely to bring her in line with that society's perfect female ideal.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
What are you talking about? What I see is a society that's trying to get to a place where men and women are actually equal, so there won't be any "men acting like women" or vice versa because there won't be any prescribed way for men and women to act that's different from the other. Your "trying to make men act like women" spiel reminds me of the idiotic rhetoric that if we legalize same-sex marriage then men will be encouraged to marry men. The entire point is equality, of not pretending like social norms are innately right or fair. Remember it was once a social norm for blacks to be treated as lesser beings too, and so many never even thought to question this assumption, to question whether it was a social norm based on nothing, or whether it was some fact of biology. Again, the only studies I'm aware of suggest that men and women are far more similar than dissimilar, with men having better spatial skills and women better spatial memory; this certainly doesn't suggest that men would, eg, make better CEOs or be more biologically inclined towards being them; so why the disparity if it's not social? http://www.livescience.com/20011-bra...fferences.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Well, it IS more socially acceptable (I'm not saying it should be), but I didn't say it's "less of an injustice" to beat and humiliate men.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Logic doesn't break down. The facts we input and our actual reasoning might breakdown, but this is our failing; not logic's.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I think I meant there isn't censorship in film. I know there are still regulations for radio and TV.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
This is just a statement of fact, though, it's not an endorsement of beating and humiliating men. It's absolutely true that making fun of those in power doesn't have even remotely the same affect as making fun of the underprivileged. John Stewart and Steven Colbert have, after all, been making fun at the hypocrisies of the rich and the politicians that support them for years and what's happened? The rich have gotten richer, the politicians haven't stopped supporting them. On the other hand, when you trivialize, say, women's rights then it becomes very easy for people to simply not care and think that nothing needs changing, to not vote for bills that could create greater equality. Like I said, my example about slaves/slaveowners makes it clear; I'm sure the slaveowners had their share of difficulties, and the slaves weren't perfect human beings, but this completely ignores the giant honking injustice taking place and how making fun of those clearly in a superior position doesn't have the same affect as making fun of those in the inferior position would. In an ideal world, there would be no slaves and slaveonwers, blacks and whites would be equal, and both would be equal targets for humor; but that's certainly not the world then, and it's still not the world now.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
So you think a line of dialog that's clearly exaggerated (considering you could not literally "ring someone's skull like a gong"), and kicking someone under the table to get their attention is the equivalent of starving and sleep-depriving someone to get them to change their personality? Heck, His Girl Friday is very much like the first part of Shrew where Hildy and Walter are like Petruchio and Katherine on a level playing field going back and forth with verbal sparring. To me, that's equality, not a situation where either side is physically forcing the other to change to fit some kind of social norm.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
No, this is far too vague. Married people debating over who uses the bathroom first is a specific, non-violent squabble. The "squabble" in Taming of the Shrew seems to entirely be "this ***** needs to learn her place."Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Your other examples just show that you're missing the irony of those scenes. Family Guy is clearly making fun of the casual misogyny and domestic violence that was suggested the Honeymooners; it's in no way "justifying" it. Same thing with The Simpsons clip.
Well, if that's true then I would say that Iago's malicious deception becomes more sympathetic, but I just don't know if that's the case. Again, there's no indication either that Othello has been knowingly malicious or would refuse to help Iago. Iago may have gotten that impression because he's attributing an oversight to maliciousness, but I see no evidence that he's actually right.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Antonio didn't "deserve" it, it was merely part of a deal he knowingly, consciously made of his own free will. Othello didn't even get a chance to rectify his "wrong-doing" if, in fact, what he'd done by overlooking Iago was wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Not those that are informed, sympathetic, and aren't completely selfish.Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
Hitting other men is only standard behavior in a specific context where the men have agreed to hit each other (like sports). You can't walk up and hit some random guy on the street or you'd face assault charges.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Well, that's what we're all discussing in this thread! Here's a good checklist that runs through the major examples. http://amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/ If you click on "more" you'll be taken to articles that have references to peer-reviewed journals that you can check out, just to make sure they aren't pulling the claims out of their backside.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutted
True, of course. And shooting other men is only standard behavior during a war. (Although hitting people, both men and women, in and out of the ring, seems fairly standard for Floyd Mayweather. The evidence suggests he may hit harder out of the ring than in it. He did go to prison for punching a woman, but has yet to be imprisoned for taking money under the false pretense of fighting IN the ring.)Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Pop quiz Morph. If I were to violently assault a woman and violently assault a man which crime would both society and the legal system view as more heinous and why?
:smilielol5: Even as a Mayweather fan, I found that funny!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
They're equal in the eyes of the legal system assuming the contexts and results are the same. Of course most in society would view the assault on the woman as "more heinous," and while that's understandable to an extent it's another social norm that needs to be quelled as violence either way shouldn't be acceptable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clopin
Pop quiz Clopin: Do you think men or women are more likely to be seriously hurt by domestic violence?
Also Morph I realize it would be silly for me to argue that men do not enjoy any advantages over women, because of course they do. My stance is simply that men are not socially advantaged over women in any meaningful way, and in fact a great number of men are much less socially advantaged, or suffer greatly due to their sex.
Anyway that entire list is basically a bunch of weak anecdotal crap but I'll point out some of the more egregious bull****.
This one so strongly contradicts my own experiences that I absolutely refuse to believe it. Yes some piddley study is linked to, but if you can google you can find a study suggesting anything. Eventually you need a common sense filter. Now real data that shows girls heavily outperform boys in school would seem to contradict this, no? Or are girls just so amazing that despite all of the crippling handicaps they face by society and their (mostly female) teachers they still manage to achieve much better results in school than their oh so privileged and acknowledged male counterparts? Now I work with children and, while they aren't quite school aged when I have them, by the time they are three or four there is some pretty marked gender segregation; not so much in their choosing to befriend only members of their own sex, but in their attitude to play and their interactions with other people. And, frankly, young boys are much harder to deal with, generally quite disliked and often treated poorly as a result. And don't think i'm just blaming female caregivers for not properly meeting the needs of young boys, because I have the same reactions to them as many of the female instructors. Often after eight hours a day listening to shrieking children the last thing you want to do is deal with some high spirited game devised by a couple four year old boys. I recently had a conversation with a woman who wanted to switch her son from his current care centre to the home daycare I work for; her concern being that her four year old son is always in trouble at his daycare and that his paricular needs are not being met. She came to this conclusion after he had spent a few weeks at our home daycare and she noticed a huge improvement in his general mood and energy levels. I'm personally acquainted with the woman who runs the other centre and I think she's a very nice woman and a very good childcare worker, but the boy's mom was completely right, she can't handle a (in his case, very) high energy boy and she doesn't actually even want to. Now I don't think this is some societal flaw, or a horribly offensive example of widespread misandry. It's just common sense that most people can't tolerate as much high energy, violent, loud, and aggressive play which is simply what boys need and unfortunately they suffer a little as a result. However, to argue that schools actually favour young boys strikes me as being very odd considering that girls and women do so much better at every grade and level, right through their degree programs in university.Quote:
16. As a child chances are I got more teacher attention than girls who raised their hand just as often.
Prove it. This seems to be complete nonsense.Quote:
if I do the same task as a woman chances are people will think I did a better job.
Again, my own experience strongly contradicts this. Many of the children I take care of come from single parent households, or have divorced parents, as I do myself. If the men in this scenario are not perceived to be pulling their weight then trust me, they are absolutely lambasted, and by practically everyone. I am of the opinion that men are generally worse at raising children than women though and that this is natural, however if you take the view that men and women are the same and that it's all societal bias causing various discrepancies then you should be aware that men are indeed called into question if their parenting or support is not considered up to par.Quote:
if I have children but do not provide primary care for them my masculinity will not be called into question.
Wrong. Dead wrong. The male equivalent is simply the opposite. Virgin bashing, or belittling or insulting men based on their, real or perceived, sexual inexperience. Also interestingly slut bashing is mainly perpetrated by other women while virgin bashing is mainly perpetrated by other men.Quote:
Even if I sleep with a lot of women I will not be labelled a slut, nor is there a male equivalent for "slut bashing"
This one is really insane. So women can't ask for legal protection from violent crimes? Victims of domestic violence are seen as selfish special interests? What? Is there any... evidence for that at all?Quote:
I can ask for legal protection from violence which happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since this violence is called "crime" and is a general social concern (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called "domestic violence" and is seen as a special interest)
Women are much, much more likely to be seriously injured or killed as a result of domestic violence. But isn't that biological and not societal? I mean if a man and woman come to blows the man tends to win due to his biological advantage in strength right? Also I think men are more likely to be stupid, violent thugs who abuse women and children in the first place, but that's debated by people who persist in the belief that gender differences have nothing to do with biology.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Also @ Bolded: Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Also morph the argument that men and women are more similar than dissimilar and thus won't display much meaningful gender distinction is pretty idiotic. Humans share 96% of our DNA with chimps making us far more similar than dissimilar biologically, but that 4% seems pretty important right?
I don't know the "domestic violence" stats (I assume women are more likely to be hurt because men are stronger, most domestic couples are heterosexual, and men are more violent than women). However, men are far more likely to be the victims of violent crimes than women are (this is true for murder, assault, and armed robbery -- in other words for all the major violent crimes except rape). Also, if we include child beating in "domestic violence", I'd guess (I don't know) that boys are more likely to be victims than girls. (As Clopin confirms from his child care experience, this is probably true for no other reason than that boys are more rowdy, badly behaved and annoying than girls, and because some parents are sexist and think their sons can "take it" better than their daughters can.)
Yes, one of the male privilege checklist items was something like "I'm not taught to fear walking alone in a dark alley as much as women are". Well maybe we should be since men are the overwhelming majority victims of violent crime. And of course I have felt fear in certain situations and areas, a dark alley probably being one of them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H24sLF3CkMo
Haha hey Morph, is this rape culture in action? I mean she does say the cop is raping her! Imagine if she were a man pulling this kind of ****... He would be tazed - or worse - in about six seconds.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...jason-richwine
Some talk about the false rape accusation stat.
And here's a video I just found while googling around for some stuff on male privilege/what-have-you, and okay I admit I have no idea now valid this video actually is, but I've seen this story in action and there are absolutely fathers and men who suffer unjustly and far beyond proportion during and after a divorce.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zxNRtObt8no
Male privilege right?
http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2015/0...lent-epidemic/
Divorce a major factor in male suicide rates. Gee remember when you couldn't imagine what societal factor may have been causing male suicide rates Morph? Well we could possibly improve them by making divorce a little more fair. In North America more than two thirds of divorces are initiated by women! Gosh it's so hard to imagine why! I mean it's almost as if one side (determined entirely by gender) has all of the incentive to proceed with a divorce while the other side (again, determined entirely by gender) has the privilege of losing everything! So is this male privilege yet or what?
Now I know you'll say that all of the examples I can possibly bring up are irrelevant because they don't disprove the areas where women struggle (man it's convenient to have an argument which can automatically never be disproven, I mean if all my stats and figures are meaningless what am I supposed to say?) but where's the tipping point where I bring enough evidence of men seriously struggling in society due to their gender before we can accept that being a man is not really a benefit in itself? Never? I mean can you lay out for me a situation where you would actually believe that men are not socially elevated over women?
No, you haven't touched on social privilege at all. Also, I'm not sure what a passed around checklist from 1990 is supposed to prove to anyone.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
So you have no problem violating some amendments but not others?Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Also, I'm not sure that does violate separation of Church and State if they don't play favorites and are pluralistic. Besides, we already have tax exempt status for them as non-profits because of their charities, and Bush had that big push to downsize government and let private organizations do things. This would be an extension of that. The churches already get government funding for their schools and hospitals. Remember the voucher program?
And your own opinion is of course objective as usual.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Those films suck. Nobody likes them but film school rejects. Although, I do like Man with the Movie Camera, but it wouldn't make my top 200. Un Chien Andalou was alright as a short film, but it would have pissed people off as a feature. There's a reason why half of those are just shorts. That kind of thing doen't entertain people. It annoys them. You can't possibly compare those films with the greatness of Pulp Fiction, Goodfellas, or Apocalypse Now.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Yeah, I really don't like those ones either. Godard is probably my least favorite "great director" and Playtime by Tati bored me to tears.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I think he proved pretty well that a writer is important with that one. Psycho is a lousy movie. The writer is an important collaborator, just not the chief collaborator on a film. The same goes for the actors. Hitchcock claiming that the writing is unimportant was pure hubris on his part. The best films are the ones where every part works well. That's why so many great films are adaptations of great books and plays. It's like having a solid foundation for your house.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
"You can drive a car with your feet if you want to. That don't make it a good idea." - Chris Rock
There are plenty of great stories in noir: The Big Sleep, The Maltese Falcon, Double Indemnity, Scarlet Street, The Big Heat, Asphault Jungle, Sunset Boulevard, Chinatown, LA Confidential, Bladerunner, Blood Simple. Not all detective films or genre films have poor stories. The Third Man I've never liked except for the cuckoo speech on the ferris wheel, but even that I'd hesitate to call it poorly written given that the writer was short listed for a Nobel prize in literature. I'm not sure if the protagonist being a writer of westerns is meant to undermine the importance of writing, or the genre, but I know that a lot of writers love writing about other writers. It's typically a narcissism thing rather than an actual important statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I'll give them points for being good at editing or mise-en-scene. I'm not sure I'd say they were the best at it, although my distaste for their works, precludes my seeing all of it to make a better judgment; so I leave open the possibility they've done better work which I'm unaware of. However, I'll add the caveat that when I see the techniques they've pioneered in other people's films, I like the latter more. For instance, that scene in Untouchables is way more watchable than the Odessa steps sequence.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I was just watching a clip from the OSS and it seemed to run on too long. Once again, I was struck by the ugliness of the woman, which at first I wasn't sure was a woman, or the mother of the child being trampled. Then when the kid is being trampled in the panic Eisenstein cuts back between them four or five times, and I'm like "Alright, I got it the first time. Now, you're just in love with yourself." It kind of reminds me of this scene from Dolemite the Human Tornado, starring, co-written, and produced by Rudy Ray Moore who is so proud of his stunt work he rewinds the shot to show us it again with the voiceover "So y'all don't believe I jumped huh? Well, watch this good ****!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raplinC5tEI
Of course, nobody is going to say that Dolemite perfected the craft of film.
I'll give way on this point, since there are some good black and white films that use their palette effectively.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
But don't you think that the more senses that are stimulated the more engrossing, absorbing, and realistic the work becomes? We see in color. We hear sound. Watching a silent film sometimes feels like removing a sense and being deaf. You get a lack of input and stimulation to the part of your brain that processes hearing. Ultimately, it's about as satisfying as sitting in the dark listening to an audiobook. You can do it, and even be entertained by it, but it won't have the full powerful effect of being completely engaged at every level like you can with colored sound films. That's why tv and movies are way more popular than books in our age. They appeal to people on more levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
He had a good eye, and got some interesting shots, but I'd still take Ridley Scott over him.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I wish they could make every movie.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I remember watching one of his first films from the 40s and thinking it looked stagey. Then stuff like The Magic Flute, you can tell Bergman is drawing on his experience as a director of opera. And on the criterion DVD extras he goes on about how much he loved the work of the playwright August Strindberg. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bc8DpjM4c-c His films have sort of the same tone as the plays I read by Strindberg in college. I can definitely see him being an influence on the way Bergman wrote, like I can see the influence of Max Ophuls tracking shots on Kubrick.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Probably just a bad name that doesn't fully characterize what the medium is, or perhaps a name that stuck from a time when film was soundless, an anachronism, a vestigial holdback if you will that no longer applies. It works as a shorthand though, and you'd confuse people if you tried to come up with a new name at this point, so I guess it's here to stay. Although, a friend of mine has brought up the inappropriateness of the moniker with me before. I suppose they aren't called movies in every language though. I bet there's a way like in German or Hindi to chain enough compound words together to come up with an appropriate title.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Of course, definitions do change over time, and words change their meanings. I think that if 99.99% of films in the last 8 decades have had sound, then most people assume that sound is a part of the medium, and the definition has changed since the days of Eisenstein. You are arguing for the exception to define the majority and that doesn't make any sense at all.
I'm not sure about that. I'm thinking that the machine gun editing of MTV music videos might be an innovation, or the unrelated action and multi-tiered splicing at the beginning of Peckinpah's Wild Bunch, might count. I remember my cinema teacher in college screening a scene from the 1998 film The Celebration, at the beginning when a car is going down the road and they pass the driver's brother. The editing and cinematography was all over the place but the professor said that was intentional and had such and such an effect. Of course, he had nice things to say about the way Michael Bay edited Armageddon, so take that with a grain of salt. I also can't help but think that the French New Wave directors added something, jump cuts maybe or linking scenes with audio. I'm sure Godard and Truffaut added something, and Andy Warhol or John Cassavetes probably did something nobody had done before, but which was nonetheless a complete artistic failure.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
First, the painting I was referring to would be part of set design usually, sort of the way that fashion is implied in costumes and wardrobe. The art of makeup isn't essential, but many films employ it. Secondly, I think you are making a mistake by defining film only by what is unique to it, since this leaves so much of what it is outside of your definition. It is an incomplete definition, not a lie but a half-truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
Without color means clear. I don't know that it matters what the director preferred. The film belongs as much to the producer or to the audience, in the end. I also don't think it matters if the director wasn't a part of the scoring. A lot of directors delegate various tasks like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
As I recall, the silent film Pandora's Box was praised for the naturalism of it's acting; so people had caught on before Brando or Stalag 17. I also think there was more to the change than just theater to film, since theater acting was undergoing the same revolution thanks to Stanislavski.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
I watched some Brakhage the last time you recommended him and hated it. I'll give it a little look though. You know who I do love from around the time of Griffith and Eisenstein? Lang. Give me him over those two any day. Metropolis and M are two of my favorite films. The first couple minutes of The Testament of Dr Mabuse is spellbinding. I even like the stuff he did in America: Scarlet Street, the Big Heat, Fury.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
You are pretty liberal and you use liberal logic to rationalize your prejudices just like conservatives use conservative logic to rationalize theirs. Logic is just a tool. It can't tell you if what you believe is right. It can only tell you if the statements you've made are self-coherent. Liberal premises, with liberal syllogisms come up with liberal conclusions. Conservatives and liberals don't use the same facts or start with the same assumptions. How could they come to the same conclusions though both should use logic and reason?Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
But that doesn't really matter, because people don't change their minds based on facts and reason. They adopt values and ideas that have persuasive aesthetic value to them. That's basic psychology and an hour or two on the internet ought to convince anyone of that. Ideas may be true but unpersuasive or false and highly persuasive. Most people just accept the facts or viewpoint that most gels with their previously accepted ideology. Opinions are gratuitous and self-serving, because they are based on things like self-identity instead of an objective evaluation of the external world. Men claim to be objective, rational, but there's no such thing. There's only choosing what feels right and then rationalizing after the fact.
He hasn't made the case because it's totally inonceivable to him that people could seriously take any stance other than "men are heavily privileged by society"', a fact which he has suggested is "blindingly obvious" to anyone who does any research. Well this thread would indicate that he's wrong there at least as it seems to be only him who finds men to be favored overmuch by society in this day and age. Also he'll stop arguing mid thread but continue to pop in and tell you you've provided no evidence against his totally insane positions on things like "society being a literal rape culture"... I dunno, it's more funny than anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gutted
Anyway if you provide arguments against this notion he'll just say something like "oh but no examples of widespread suffering of men due entirely to their gender (combat deaths due to draft, chronic injuries due to trade work, suicide after divorce, suicide in general) disprove male privilege". Indeed, so what would 'disprove' it? I have no idea.
Really liberal social justice warriors love these types of hysterical positions where they try to make it impossible to argue against them. If you disagree with women on some of these debated points you're "mansplaining", "deactualizing them" or not accepting their "lived experience". If you feel that as a man you do not have this elusive "male privilege" because you have never felt it while working your ****ty minimum wage job, well, don't worry you have the "privilege" of being unaware of your privilege! Your very disbelief of there being societal conditions which overly favour you based on nothing but your gender is, in fact, a part of that sociological structure itself! Whipee, how convenient! Never mind that when you bring up your own "lived experiences" as a male, you are totally devalued and told that they "don't matter" and don't in any way disprove privilege (though somehow female experiences are very relevant to the discussion, unless they go against the narrative) because you're such a damned privileged monster that you're just not aware of all the innumerable (never actually numbered though) benefits you enjoy simply by being born a male.
"Dolemite, The Human Tornado" is the "Citizen Kane" of blaxploitation flicks. If given a choice of watching "Dolemite" or "Birth of a Nation", I'd have to flip a coin. I'll grant that Dolemite's shenanigans get a little old by the end of the film, but the first 15 minutes of Dolemite is classic -- as stunning in its own way as the long, single-take panning shot at the start of "A Touch of Evil".Quote:
Originally Posted by mortalterror
I hadn't thought about Dolemite for some years before reading your post, Mortal. Thanks for reminding me. Dolemite rules! Who wouldn't like to see Dolemite and his "ladies" roll up to Patrick Swayze's "Road House" for a quick drink?
Men Sentenced to Longer Prison Terms Than Women For Same Crimes, Study SaysQuote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1874742.html
"The study found that men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts.
Starr also found that females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted."
I was talking to my son about Dolemite (he's the one who turned me on to the films). It turns out that I was conflating "Dolemite" and "Dolemite: Human Tornado". Mortalterror linked the opening scene of "Human Tornado", which is actually the sequel. There's a third film, "Disco Godfather", which I have never seen. The first few minutes of both "Dolemite" and "Dolemite: The Human Tornado" are great (although neither film quite sustains that manic quality).
By the way, all of the stats suggesting that women are really the "privileged" ones are telling, but concentrate on social privileges rather than cultural ones. I'm sure children get lighter sentences for crimes than men, just like they get to be first into the life boats on the Titanic. Those are both "privileges", but at the same time children aren't entitled to the same liberties as adults, and the privileges are the result of children being perceived as helpless and incompetent. Women might be socially privileged, while men are culturally privileged -- the social privileges (shorter sentences, access to life boats, etc) being the result of the lack of respect they are afforded. It's difficult to cite statistics here -- but perhaps men are honored for going down with the ship while the women are hopping in the life boats with the kiddies.
Oh, of course you're a Mayweather fan too.Quote:
Originally Posted by MorpheusSandman