Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Lorric on June 04, 2013, 07:35:30 pm
-
Greetings, members of HLP. I ask you to please take but 5:36 of your time to watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqJUxqkcnKA
And then cast your vote in the poll above. These options are unavailable on the video in question. So it is time to find out what members of HLP think of the video. I will leave my own opinions out of this OP, and out of the topic itself for a bit, as I want a fair test. I ask you to ignore any comments which may be put in place in the topic, though I have no problem with a discussion opening up, and watch the video. You don't have to then vote immediately, you can if you want to, or you can feel free to read the comments, but I would like you to go in with a mind clear of expectations of what you will see. I would like your own mind to make the initial impression before you let in the impressions of other minds.
Thank you for your time.
-
I think it's an undeniable trope that exists and that has made me cringe whenever I reconized it. What tips one off about this is how fantasious it really is, but only from the male point of view. Try to picture it as a male, and it's obvious it's a complete sexual fantasy that a depressed guy has. Try to picture it as a female, and it no longer works, unless you picture female fantasies as playing the minimal role of a total spiritual guide to a not that gorgeous male without any pay off (other than watching the object of her guideness reaching his own satisfaction).
It's absolutely "soft-core" too. No real issues about real depressions in the most brutal, real sense.
Another hint is trying to picture a movie exactly the opposite, a man spiritually guiding a female from utter depression to an upside correct happy person, with merely that as a payoff to him. I have no memories of such a film. Mostly, a depressed angst woman will be portrayed much more radically and brutally, generally with her commiting suicide, just falling short of that or with an open ending without clarity on what will happen to her.
There are no versions of an "uplifting" "softcore" movie (in the pixie sense) where a woman meets an amazing piece of a male who will inspire her into life or whatever. And I think that it's because it would be too much bull**** for us to cope with. It's very interesting to me that this bull**** would be much more obvious if the protagonist was female rather than male.
So my problem here is *not* that there are no movies with inspiring males uplifting female protagonists. No, this trope (and their movies) should be buried into a void of total amnesia so we could not even remember it existed in the first place. Burn them all, nothing of value is lost.
-
Those movies look terrible, I'm glad I haven't watched any of them.
No comment on the trope. I'm not convinced it is one (haven't seen a single example of it, I probably don't want to).
-
I suppose I understand where she's coming from, though the condescension wasn't necessary. I admit I never really interpreted these characters as "being there for your inspiration, etc, etc"; it always just seemed to me that that's what they ended up doing, not that they were there for that specific purpose. But that's probably just me being naive or what have you.
I could be completely off-track here, so don't kill me if I've got it wrong, but does this mean that the woman in the video objects to characters being created for a specific purpose? I mean, every production in media has main and side characters, the side characters usually being there for a specific purpose in the narrative. Or is it that the women in these movies were main characters but didn't have the depth that main characters should? I haven't seen any of the movies she brought up in the video, so I don't know if the characters in question were main or side characters.
-
I could be completely off-track here, so don't kill me if I've got it wrong, but does this mean that the woman in the video objects to characters being created for a specific purpose?
Not really. It is the always-female nature, and the necessity of a large screen presence that is totally devoted to a male character (because otherwise why are you bothering with this loner/grumpy/whatever chucklehead), wherein trouble lies. These aren't Chevron Guy characters; they're people around whom narrative revolves and main characters evolve.
-
I suppose I understand where she's coming from, though the condescension wasn't necessary. I admit I never really interpreted these characters as "being there for your inspiration, etc, etc"; it always just seemed to me that that's what they ended up doing, not that they were there for that specific purpose. But that's probably just me being naive or what have you.
Yes, it is, because it's fairly clear that these characters in these kinds of movies are built precisely with this symbolic place in mind. The fact that they seem to appear randomly and so on is a necessity (and probably belonging to the trope itself).
I could be completely off-track here, so don't kill me if I've got it wrong, but does this mean that the woman in the video objects to characters being created for a specific purpose? I mean, every production in media has main and side characters, the side characters usually being there for a specific purpose in the narrative. Or is it that the women in these movies were main characters but didn't have the depth that main characters should? I haven't seen any of the movies she brought up in the video, so I don't know if the characters in question were main or side characters.
No, she is objecting to the precise nature of the trope of these characters. Characters whose only existence it is to inspire males living in a depression to come out of it and so on, with their own problems absolutely absent, unaddressed or unimportant. Female characters that are unreal perfect fairies whose only purpose is to rehabilitate the male's libido and so on.
Take for instance the counter-example of "The Bridges of Madison County", where every character has their own sets of issues, their own dynamics, and while there exists a muse-effect between characters, there is never a feeling of assymetries in their relationships.
-
I see. That makes it clearer. Thanks, NGTM-1R and Luis Dias. :)
-
Another hint is trying to picture a movie exactly the opposite, a man spiritually guiding a female from utter depression to an upside correct happy person, with merely that as a payoff to him. I have no memories of such a film.
The only thing that comes to mind is "She's All That" but it's been a looooong time since I saw that so I could be way off (yes I saw it, don't judge me!). The guy, who I believe is still the protagonist, is the popular guy and "helps" some poor unpopular - not unattractive - girl to some sort of character arc. Not sure if it counts though.
Anyway! Good video. The manic-pixie-dream-girl thing always did seem odd to me, and surprisingly unpleasant. There are aspects that appeal to me, but then a lot that doesn't. I do wish we could get some more interesting, realistic characters in movies.
Also: http://www.cracked.com/video_18574_the-awkward-moment-when-you-notice-quirky-girl-insane.html
-
"She's all that" (almost) doesn't count, for the protagonist is not only male, he's also someone who goes through a crisis in order to reach some epiphany and so on. Yes, he guides the woman, I'm not saying it's the same trope, even. But you know what I meant there, bring me a movie where a female protagonist is the one in a psychological trouble, when a male muse comes in and teaches her about the marvels of the world, or how she can liberate her sexual libido or whatever, and then she finishes the movie in a completely upside beat.
I can't recall such a stupid movie. However, reverse the genders and the movies are legion. It's quite the phenomenon.
-
I've heard it said that John (from John Dies at the End (the book, not the terrible movie)) is a male example of a Manic Pixie Dream Girl, and I can definitely see that interpretation.
-
I'd have to say that John doesn't strike me as a male MPDG. He doesn't take Amy and guide her out of depression. He ends up being close to the traditional male in a manic pixie girl story - though JDate is not that trope, but a more pleasant one adjacent to it. Amy is the rationalist, and John is never changed 'for the better,' he remains staunchly anti-social, and the two unusual hurt people have an unusual relationship that suits them.
-
I'd have to say that John doesn't strike me as a male MPDG. He doesn't take Amy and guide her out of depression. He ends up being close to the traditional male in a manic pixie girl story - though JDate is not that trope, but a more pleasant one adjacent to it. Amy is the rationalist, and John is never changed 'for the better,' he remains staunchly anti-social, and the two unusual hurt people have an unusual relationship that suits them.
I think perhaps you have mixed up John and Dave; Dave and Amy have the relationship. John is (in this interpretation) a MPDG for Dave.
-
Oh hot damn you're right.
-
So, it’s time now for me to talk about the “Manic Pixie Dream Girl” trope. What a mouthful that is!
So the first argument presented is that the character has no life of her own. Well, it’s a movie. It’s about the impact she has on the life of the male protagonist. Of course she’s got a life, we just don’t see it, movies are under a strict time limit. She had a life before she met him, and she’ll have a life when her work is done, whether that involves the male or not. She says it’s not to pursue her own happiness. Well those women look pretty to me. Helping people genuinely makes some people happy. Others might see it as a challenge or a pet project. Or maybe they just think the man is hot. They’re doing it because they choose to, and getting fulfilment from it. Nobody makes them do it, and they can walk away at any time.
I haven’t seen any of the movies that she uses, they look like romance movies to me, and that is a genre that doesn’t interest me. So I can’t really study them in depth. But the first one I like the look of Kirsten Dunst’s character. That looks like a good feel good movie to me. If I was going to watch one, that would be the one I’d pick. But you’d think this would be a good thing for a feminist, the male character is weak and the female is strong and lends the male her strength.
Now the part which really gets to me is where she shows her contempt for people, men I should say, who cite their female partner as a big contributor to their success. Why is this a bad thing? The saying “behind every good man there is a good woman” carries a lot of weight. And I’m sure it can work both ways, I’m absolutely sure we’ll see same sex couples and women citing their male partner as a big help to them in the same way in the future, and I’m sure such examples can already be dug up. Nobody made these women live their lives with these men. And rather than be being shoved into the background, I’m sure they have just as much passion as the man with whatever big project it is he’s working on, and genuinely do make a large contribution to it’s fruition, which deserves acknowledgement. Think of it this way, if you were the one who helped someone do something great, wouldn’t you really feel you had done something worthwhile with your life? If I was the man behind a great woman and I knew I had helped her on to that greatness, I’d feel tremendously fulfilled. Or even if I was just a friend who had done that, with a man or a woman, it doesn’t have to be a partner. Anita just doesn’t get it. These women chose that life and were happy. They joined their man to live their life with him, and contributed to his efforts because they chose to and wanted to see his work come to fruition. Whether that contribution was active participation or simply moral support, it is a strong and worthy contribution. Any great man with a statue of him somewhere should have another statue of that female muse right next to him, because without her it wouldn’t have been possible.
While she says these stories make her want to puke, I love these stories. People who came together in life and made a great team and were truly happy. What more could you want in life than to be fulfilled and happy? Women who want to be musicians and writers and artists can be musicians, writers and artists. No one forces them do anything. Or they can choose to share their life with a man who is one of these things and help him on to greatness and share in his accomplishments. She is not being stunted, she is flourishing. How many of you have helped someone who is struggling or enhanced someone’s efforts with something of your own free will? It felt good, didn’t it? Nobody made you do it. You did it because you wanted to do it.
Anita is doing a gross disservice to both men and women with this line of reasoning. She is practically saying the men stunted the women and the women’s lives were wasted. When the opposite is true, they both enhanced each other and the World around them. And so I am greatly offended by Anita’s reasoning here. She needs to open up her mind and realise not everyone, men and women, want to step into the spotlight. They can be perfectly happy backstage and quite capable of being full and complete human beings there.
-
And yet somehow it's always the women who are written into the backstage. Almost like there's some kind of bias on gender lines.
-
And yet somehow it's always the women who are written into the backstage. Almost like there's some kind of bias on gender lines.
Or maybe just because the story works better with a female than a male? A male would be an interesting take, but it's more relatable this way. It's going to connect with a wider audience.
-
The Sixties audience connected well to black people as servants and laborers.
-
The Sixties audience connected well to black people as servants and laborers.
That is not relevant.
-
It is 100% relevant. How well the audience connects to a piece of writing is often diagnostic of the audience's own prejudices. If the audience connects to a lazy sexist piece of writing, all that tells you is that you're going to need to work harder to connect to them without being lazy and sexist.
Ironically I think you've made a really compelling case as to why this character archetype is terrible in your last couple posts.
-
And yet somehow it's always the women who are written into the backstage. Almost like there's some kind of bias on gender lines.
Or maybe just because the story works better with a female than a male? A male would be an interesting take, but it's more relatable this way. It's going to connect with a wider audience.
Why?
-
It is 100% relevant. How well the audience connects to a piece of writing is often diagnostic of the audience's own prejudices. If the audience connects to a lazy sexist piece of writing, all that tells you is that you're going to need to work harder to connect to them without being lazy and sexist.
Ironically I think you've made a really compelling case as to why this character archetype is terrible in your last couple posts.
No. I don't even know if what you say is true, but assuming it is, many years before that, before the World could watch such things, white men fought to put an end to slavery. Fast forward to today, and voters in a country where the largest group is white people at over 70% of the populous, voted a black man into the White House for his second straight term. The sixties really did a good job of keeping the black man down, eh?And yet somehow it's always the women who are written into the backstage. Almost like there's some kind of bias on gender lines.
Or maybe just because the story works better with a female than a male? A male would be an interesting take, but it's more relatable this way. It's going to connect with a wider audience.
Why?
Women are naturally more sensitive, more empathic. They can relate to the female character better.
-
Of course she’s got a life, we just don’t see it, movies are under a strict time limit.
You don't know that. It wasn't shown. There's no evidence of its existence. If you assume that she has a life every time this happens, then there is something wrong with the way you are evaluating the possibility there's a life external to what is portrayed in the movie. A 50/50 proposition does not always break one way. Even if I gave you more favorable odds, it still doesn't always break the same way because that's how odds work.
In other words, you are approaching this video with an obvious bias.
-
Of course she’s got a life, we just don’t see it, movies are under a strict time limit.
You don't know that. It wasn't shown. There's no evidence of its existence. If you assume that she has a life every time this happens, then there is something wrong with the way you are evaluating the possibility there's a life external to what is portrayed in the movie. A 50/50 proposition does not always break one way. Even if I gave you more favorable odds, it still doesn't always break the same way because that's how odds work.
In other words, you are approaching this video with an obvious bias.
The bias is called common sense.
-
Of course she’s got a life, we just don’t see it, movies are under a strict time limit.
You don't know that. It wasn't shown. There's no evidence of its existence. If you assume that she has a life every time this happens, then there is something wrong with the way you are evaluating the possibility there's a life external to what is portrayed in the movie. A 50/50 proposition does not always break one way. Even if I gave you more favorable odds, it still doesn't always break the same way because that's how odds work.
In other words, you are approaching this video with an obvious bias.
The bias is called common sense.
You may be dealing with an uncommon situation. Common sense may not apply.
-
The bias is called common sense.
This is the movies. Romeo and Juliet is a tale elaborated upon regularly. People in the military disobey their orders and nothing happens to them on a regular basis. A decent-sized city could be populated by the number of people who've chose to try and attack a character who has a gun pointed at them. We can fill skyscrapers full of apartments with the number of people who've deliberately picked a fight with Dwayne Johnson, Bruce Willis, and Chuck Norris. (And we'll have a whole street several miles long for everyone who decided that today, they were going to pick a fight with The Goddamn Batman.)
Common sense is not a referent to movie plotting or character and cannot be treated as such. Movies, by their nature, wish to deal in things that are not common.
-
The bias is called common sense.
Yes, common sense says that these people must have a life outside of their function as a motivator for the protagonist.
However, we never get to see it. We never get to see how they deal with a crisis. We never get a glimpse at what they do outside of their interactions with the protagonist. They are not presented as complete characters. They are a cipher, and every hint of a deeper life these characters have is mostly in the mind of the viewer.
That is the core of the argument here. These characters, although they are presumably very important for the protagonist, never get fleshed out as well as he is. They're never treated as equals by the narrative.
There are a bunch of issues that arise from this. For example, while the MPDGs are generally totally interested in the protagonist, he never has to spend anywhere near the same amount dealing with her feelings, or helping her with her problems. It's not a balanced relationship, and that's a dangerous thing to portrait as something positive.
For a subversion of this trope, I recommend the film High Fidelity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Fidelity_(film)). In it, the protagonist is dumped by his long-term girlfriend, and tries to get out of the ensuing depression by dating a bunch of what he hopes will be MPDGs. However, as it turns out, all of them are much too complex, much too adult to actually fit the role (Not that they want to, them being actual characters and all that), and so he is forced to actually deal with the real issues he and his girlfriend were having. Now, while Laura isn't given anywhere near the same amount of screentime as Rob, it is still clear that she is a full person with needs and wants and a life of her own; something none of the characters commonly referred to as MPDGs are.
-
(http://memestorage.com/_nw/18/37868967.jpg)
-
The bias is called common sense.
This is the movies. Romeo and Juliet is a tale elaborated upon regularly. People in the military disobey their orders and nothing happens to them on a regular basis. A decent-sized city could be populated by the number of people who've chose to try and attack a character who has a gun pointed at them. We can fill skyscrapers full of apartments with the number of people who've deliberately picked a fight with Dwayne Johnson, Bruce Willis, and Chuck Norris. (And we'll have a whole street several miles long for everyone who decided that today, they were going to pick a fight with The Goddamn Batman.)
Common sense is not a referent to movie plotting or character and cannot be treated as such. Movies, by their nature, wish to deal in things that are not common.
I think we can be sure the female characters have their own lives. Why should we not?The bias is called common sense.
Yes, common sense says that these people must have a life outside of their function as a motivator for the protagonist.
However, we never get to see it. We never get to see how they deal with a crisis. We never get a glimpse at what they do outside of their interactions with the protagonist. They are not presented as complete characters. They are a cipher, and every hint of a deeper life these characters have is mostly in the mind of the viewer.
That is the core of the argument here. These characters, although they are presumably very important for the protagonist, never get fleshed out as well as he is. They're never treated as equals by the narrative.
There are a bunch of issues that arise from this. For example, while the MPDGs are generally totally interested in the protagonist, he never has to spend anywhere near the same amount dealing with her feelings, or helping her with her problems. It's not a balanced relationship, and that's a dangerous thing to portrait as something positive.
For a subversion of this trope, I recommend the film High Fidelity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Fidelity_(film)). In it, the protagonist is dumped by his long-term girlfriend, and tries to get out of the ensuing depression by dating a bunch of what he hopes will be MPDGs. However, as it turns out, all of them are much too complex, much too adult to actually fit the role (Not that they want to, them being actual characters and all that), and so he is forced to actually deal with the real issues he and his girlfriend were having. Now, while Laura isn't given anywhere near the same amount of screentime as Rob, it is still clear that she is a full person with needs and wants and a life of her own; something none of the characters commonly referred to as MPDGs are.
It is a movie. There isn't enough time. If there was and they showed it 24/7, the female lead would be seen watching TV or on the phone to a friend, or updating her Facebook profile. All the little mundane things that we would have no interest in seeing. It would be referred to as filler.
The male will surely be more fleshed out so you can see the change in him as the female works her magic upon him. A series would be interesting using this trope. Then they could both have their ups and downs and be fleshed out. However, I think the assumption, looking at these girls, is she has no problems. Look how happy they all are. They probably have great lives to be so happy. The relationship will become balanced after the male's problems have been eliminated. Then he'll be free to take his interests from the problem/s that plagued him, and put them on the MPDG. Then the relationship will be free to develop into a healthy and mutual one.
-
And yet somehow it's always the women who are written into the backstage. Almost like there's some kind of bias on gender lines.
Or maybe just because the story works better with a female than a male? A male would be an interesting take, but it's more relatable this way. It's going to connect with a wider audience.
Why?
Women are naturally more sensitive, more empathic. They can relate to the female character better.
If the audience connects to a lazy sexist piece of writing, all that tells you is that you're going to need to work harder to connect to them without being lazy and sexist.
It's like you're not even reading what you're quoting.
Does it really not occur to you that there is a problem with the fact that the only female character in a movie is completely devoid of any life beyond that of the male character? Is that really what female viewers are supposed to relate to? Arguing that it's not sexist because the female character has a life that's not present in the movie is probably one of the worst claims I've seen you make. That's not how film works (or any kind of narrative, for that matter) and you know it.
-
So what if I actually know a woman that would actually do several things of the things that this video makes out as "impossible/unrealistic examples" ... to the point where I better do not show her that video unless I want to see that kind of behavior right afterwards (just to embarass me :P ).
Of course that woman has her own job and life and ambitions and is a real person.... but she also likes being silly for sillyness sake and poke fun at people and be a smartass because that s what she does.
At the same time I myself, while not being female, do often get accused by my fellow beings of being "way too happy for my own good way too much" as well.
/shrugs
Ergo: I kinda emphasize with the motivation behind the video.... but at the same time I do have to wonder if it's not trying a bit too hard to the point of where it's - at times - sort of blacklisting real human behavior found in both females and males in order to further its agenda.
-
And yet somehow it's always the women who are written into the backstage. Almost like there's some kind of bias on gender lines.
Or maybe just because the story works better with a female than a male? A male would be an interesting take, but it's more relatable this way. It's going to connect with a wider audience.
Why?
Women are naturally more sensitive, more empathic. They can relate to the female character better.
If the audience connects to a lazy sexist piece of writing, all that tells you is that you're going to need to work harder to connect to them without being lazy and sexist.
It's like you're not even reading what you're quoting.
Does it really not occur to you that there is a problem with the fact that the only female character in a movie is completely devoid of any life beyond that of the male character? Is that really what female viewers are supposed to relate to? Arguing that it's not sexist because the female character has a life that's not present in the movie is probably one of the worst claims I've seen you make. That's not how film works (or any kind of narrative, for that matter) and you know it.
It's supposed to be a nice, light, feel-good story. You're not supposed to make these sinister conclusions from it.
People have minds of their own. People dream of what they want to be from a young age. A movie isn't going to stop them.
I don't agree with what you say. A film is about telling a story. What purpose would it serve showing the female's life? The male gets his life shown, but it is a troubled one. She fixes the troubles and it's a feel good story. Her life is not troubled, so why should we be interested in it? She would have a normal life. Normal lives are mundane. So what if I actually know a woman that would actually do several things of the things that she uses as "impossible/unrealistic examples" in that video to the point where I better do not show her that video unless I want to see that kind of behavior right afterwards (just to embarass me :P ).
Of course that woman has her own job and life and ambitions and is a real person.... but she also likes being silly for sillyness sake and poke fun at people and be a smartass because that s what she does.
/shrugs
I bet there are some real life MPDGs out there.
-
I don't agree with what you say. A film is about telling a story. What purpose would it serve showing the female's life? The male gets his life shown, but it is a troubled one. She fixes the troubles and it's a feel good story. Her life is not troubled, so why should we be interested in it? She would have a normal life. Normal lives are mundane.
Now here's the part which you seemingly do not understand. Popular culture does not happen in a vacuum. Films, games, TV shows, novels, music, all of that isn't just entertainment. It informs how we think about the world, what we expect from other people. By showing female characters who are so goddamn perfect that they have no worry in the world except to help That One Guy, the idea that it is perfectly OK for a relationship to be asymmetrical to a major degree gets planted in the minds of the watchers (Not to mention the idea that depression is something one can just snap out of if the right companion is found, which I believe to be one of the more unhealthy things these movies can teach).
There's this idea, very common in nerd circles, that all it takes for you to "get the girl" is to be real nice and understanding, and if you are really good at this, then a relationship will inevitably happen. Why does this idea exist? Because years and years of romantic comedies and TV shows have shown that that's how it works. There are people who do not, on a fundamental level, understand that women do not work that way, that women are not vending machines that you fill with kindness until sex pops out.
You're basically saying "What's the big deal, it's just a movie". We're saying that movies, even silly little inconsequential romcoms, are more important than that, that their impact is felt far and wide even though it is largely unnoticeable, and that as a result, we need to be aware of what these things are telling us, and how it affects us.
-
I think we can be sure the female characters have their own lives. Why should we not?
Because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest this is the case? Most people don't commit to a statement they don't have some kind of evidence for. You treat it as an article of some kind of religious faith that this exists, as if you need to believe it's true.
It would do you good to examine why you need to believe that.
It would do you more good to realize that something not shown, even if it exists, is not shown because it is not considered important, and the fact that women having their own lives and desires is considered consistently not important should probably concern you.
-
I don't agree with what you say. A film is about telling a story. What purpose would it serve showing the female's life? The male gets his life shown, but it is a troubled one. She fixes the troubles and it's a feel good story. Her life is not troubled, so why should we be interested in it? She would have a normal life. Normal lives are mundane.
Now here's the part which you seemingly do not understand. Popular culture does not happen in a vacuum. Films, games, TV shows, novels, music, all of that isn't just entertainment. It informs how we think about the world, what we expect from other people. By showing female characters who are so goddamn perfect that they have no worry in the world except to help That One Guy, the idea that it is perfectly OK for a relationship to be asymmetrical to a major degree gets planted in the minds of the watchers (Not to mention the idea that depression is something one can just snap out of if the right companion is found, which I believe to be one of the more unhealthy things these movies can teach).
There's this idea, very common in nerd circles, that all it takes for you to "get the girl" is to be real nice and understanding, and if you are really good at this, then a relationship will inevitably happen. Why does this idea exist? Because years and years of romantic comedies and TV shows have shown that that's how it works. There are people who do not, on a fundamental level, understand that women do not work that way, that women are not vending machines that you fill with kindness until sex pops out.
You're basically saying "What's the big deal, it's just a movie". We're saying that movies, even silly little inconsequential romcoms, are more important than that, that their impact is felt far and wide even though it is largely unnoticeable, and that as a result, we need to be aware of what these things are telling us, and how it affects us.
Now why can't a companion snap you out of depression? It depends why you are in depression in the first place. Maybe all you need is a friend. It comes down to I guess you think these things have an influence, but at this level, I just think you're either being paranoid, or the effect will be negligible. Real relationships are everywhere. You just have to open your eyes and look. Or you can even read people's true stories.
If you're going to dissect even a silly little romcom like this, it would be very, very hard if not impossible to meet your standards for movie-making.I think we can be sure the female characters have their own lives. Why should we not?
Because there is absolutely no evidence to suggest this is the case? Most people don't commit to a statement they don't have some kind of evidence for. You treat it as an article of some kind of religious faith that this exists, as if you need to believe it's true.
It would do you good to examine why you need to believe that.
It would do you more good to realize that something not shown, even if it exists, is not shown because it is not considered important, and the fact that women having their own lives and desires is considered consistently not important should probably concern you.
It's just common sense. You don't see her 24/7, or anything even remotely close. What is she doing with the rest of her time?
-
It's just common sense. You don't see her 24/7, or anything even remotely close. What is she doing with the rest of her time?
I strongly suggest taking a course on literature and/or film. Something where you critique some piece of narrative fiction. Even one you'd take in your first year at secondary school would do.
-
Now why can't a companion snap you out of depression? It depends why you are in depression in the first place. Maybe all you need is a friend. It comes down to I guess you think these things have an influence, but at this level, I just think you're either being paranoid, or the effect will be negligible. Real relationships are everywhere. You just have to open your eyes and look. Or you can even read people's true stories.
I do not doubt that it is possible for some people to meet some other people who can help them get over a difficult time in their life.
But.
By presenting the idea that female companionship is a cure-all for depression, a film implicitly degrades both the actual severity of depression as a sickness (I do not know how many depressives are untreated because they lack awareness of their condition and instead ascribe it to "just not feeling well") as well as relationships as a whole. Friends can help you through a depression, yes. But that is not their raison d'etre (Unlike the MPDGs in the trope), and treating them as such is a surefire way of ending those relationships.
If you're going to dissect even a silly little romcom like this, it would be very, very hard if not impossible to meet your standards for movie-making.
I generally do not like RomComs as a genre, because of the various tropes surrounding them (and me being rather sensitive to bad plotting and script contrivances). But that does not mean that I do not appreciate well done entries in the genre (Like, say, High Fidelity, or Out of Sight), as long as the films treats its principal characters with verisimilitude, a quality not often found in the RomCom genre.
-
It's just common sense. You don't see her 24/7, or anything even remotely close. What is she doing with the rest of her time?
I strongly suggest taking a course on literature and/or film. Something where you critique some piece of narrative fiction. Even one you'd take in your first year at secondary school would do.
Are you going to pay for it? :)
How would this benefit me?
-
It's just common sense. You don't see her 24/7, or anything even remotely close. What is she doing with the rest of her time?
It would do you more good to realize that something not shown, even if it exists, is not shown because it is not considered important, and the fact that women having their own lives and desires is considered consistently not important should probably concern you.
Common sense is not a referent to movie plotting or character and cannot be treated as such. Movies, by their nature, wish to deal in things that are not common.
-
Now why can't a companion snap you out of depression? It depends why you are in depression in the first place. Maybe all you need is a friend. It comes down to I guess you think these things have an influence, but at this level, I just think you're either being paranoid, or the effect will be negligible. Real relationships are everywhere. You just have to open your eyes and look. Or you can even read people's true stories.
I do not doubt that it is possible for some people to meet some other people who can help them get over a difficult time in their life.
But.
By presenting the idea that female companionship is a cure-all for depression, a film implicitly degrades both the actual severity of depression as a sickness (I do not know how many depressives are untreated because they lack awareness of their condition and instead ascribe it to "just not feeling well") as well as relationships as a whole. Friends can help you through a depression, yes. But that is not their raison d'etre (Unlike the MPDGs in the trope), and treating them as such is a surefire way of ending those relationships.
If you're going to dissect even a silly little romcom like this, it would be very, very hard if not impossible to meet your standards for movie-making.
I generally do not like RomComs as a genre, because of the various tropes surrounding them (and me being rather sensitive to bad plotting and script contrivances). But that does not mean that I do not appreciate well done entries in the genre (Like, say, High Fidelity, or Out of Sight), as long as the films treats its principal characters with verisimilitude, a quality not often found in the RomCom genre.
Now why do you make this broad assumption that that is what it teaches? To me it would teach me that two people, two individual people with no bearing on the rest of the human race, met and made a connection.
Same for the friends, if you're a good friend, you'll know about your friend. Why would you suddenly think you could push their boundaries?
I have this vision of movies edited by you having lots of filler material in them that the critics would tear apart, saying things like it serves no purpose and breaks the flow of the movie needlessly.
-
It's just common sense. You don't see her 24/7, or anything even remotely close. What is she doing with the rest of her time?
It would do you more good to realize that something not shown, even if it exists, is not shown because it is not considered important, and the fact that women having their own lives and desires is considered consistently not important should probably concern you.
Common sense is not a referent to movie plotting or character and cannot be treated as such. Movies, by their nature, wish to deal in things that are not common.
Thus not showing something common like leading an everyday life in the film.
-
Now why do you make this broad assumption that that is what it teaches? To me it would teach me that two people, two individual people with no bearing on the rest of the human race, met and made a connection.
Umm, I'm not sure how to say this, but are you aware that there are multiple readings possible for any given piece of art? That there usually isn't a single definitive interpretation for a given work?
The problem with your interpretation is that it is perfectly valid, but only if you view each film in isolation of each other, not as part of a greater metacultural dialogue. Films create and reinforce stereotypes, and those stereotypes shape how we approach situations (Yes, even if we've never actually seen any of the source material).
I have this vision of movies edited by you having lots of filler material in them that the critics would tear apart, saying things like it serves no purpose and breaks the flow of the movie needlessly.
Why? Seriously, watch High Fidelity. The character of Rob has a lot of screentime while he works through his issues with the way he approaches relationships, but every female character he meets (Lauren especially, but even the women he just tries to reconnect with over a single date) is a fully formed person, with issues and wounds and a life. That life isn't actually shown on screen; but we get enough actual hints (as opposed to something the viewer has to imagine) as to their normal lifes. Hell, the fact that Lauren is a complete character and that Rob has to learn how to deal with that is the entire point of the movie! And yet, it's a very lean and fast-paced movie with little filler material.
If you take a typical romcom script and just bolt on pieces to make the female role more interesting, then yes, you'd get a boring movie. Which is why a good filmmaker will not do that, but write his script with full characters from the outset.
-
Thus not showing something common like leading an everyday life in the film.
Depression or other causes of "requiring" ('cuse me, throwing up, better now) a Manic Pixie Dream Girl are very common and are always shown in loving detail.
The woman having an exterior life or any kind of exterior desires is not.
This argument is insufficient on its surface.
Indeed, if I were to posit a scenario where she were to bring the guy back to life through introducing him to something she loves, the movie would not get made. I refer you to the fact no such movies exist. (This is despite the fact it is a very plausible scenario.)
This argument is insufficient upon closer examination. The existence of no-life-or-desires-of-their-own is integral to the story. And that is, at minimum, very creepy.
-
It is 100% relevant. How well the audience connects to a piece of writing is often diagnostic of the audience's own prejudices. If the audience connects to a lazy sexist piece of writing, all that tells you is that you're going to need to work harder to connect to them without being lazy and sexist.
Ironically I think you've made a really compelling case as to why this character archetype is terrible in your last couple posts.
No. I don't even know if what you say is true, but assuming it is, many years before that, before the World could watch such things, white men fought to put an end to slavery. Fast forward to today, and voters in a country where the largest group is white people at over 70% of the populous, voted a black man into the White House for his second straight term. The sixties really did a good job of keeping the black man down, eh?
And right now people are fighting against sexism. Let's hope their opponents, who believe things like
Women are naturally more sensitive, more empathic. They can relate to the female character better.
don't win out.
This is part of why feminism is so important: it chains men as well as women. The belief that something as essential to human happiness as empathy is inherently gendered flies in the face of historical and biological fact - there are cultures today where sensitivity and empathy are as much traits of men as women. Yet somehow people grow up believing things like this.
-
Now why do you make this broad assumption that that is what it teaches? To me it would teach me that two people, two individual people with no bearing on the rest of the human race, met and made a connection.
Umm, I'm not sure how to say this, but are you aware that there are multiple readings possible for any given piece of art? That there usually isn't a single definitive interpretation for a given work?
The problem with your interpretation is that it is perfectly valid, but only if you view each film in isolation of each other, not as part of a greater metacultural dialogue. Films create and reinforce stereotypes, and those stereotypes shape how we approach situations (Yes, even if we've never actually seen any of the source material).
I have this vision of movies edited by you having lots of filler material in them that the critics would tear apart, saying things like it serves no purpose and breaks the flow of the movie needlessly.
Why? Seriously, watch High Fidelity. The character of Rob has a lot of screentime while he works through his issues with the way he approaches relationships, but every female character he meets (Lauren especially, but even the women he just tries to reconnect with over a single date) is a fully formed person, with issues and wounds and a life. That life isn't actually shown on screen; but we get enough actual hints (as opposed to something the viewer has to imagine) as to their normal lifes. Hell, the fact that Lauren is a complete character and that Rob has to learn how to deal with that is the entire point of the movie! And yet, it's a very lean and fast-paced movie with little filler material.
If you take a typical romcom script and just bolt on pieces to make the female role more interesting, then yes, you'd get a boring movie. Which is why a good filmmaker will not do that, but write his script with full characters from the outset.
Hold on. If you're acknowledging different people can come away with different things, why are you worried? You could never predict how many would come up with the scenario you don't like. If anyone would at all. There could be scenarios you could never predict. So just stop worrying and take it for what it is. Let people come up with their own conclusions. Give people some more credit.
Even if this High Fidelity is good, there is still a place for these light films. Across all genres. Me, I do like well developed characters and stories and mind-stimulating situations. It's especially good if your brain is whirring away long after the film is over. But I can also appreciate something which is just all guns and cars and explosions and you can just relax and watch and enjoy. They shouldn't be taken away on the possibility that someone will have their grasp on reality distorted a notch.
Thus not showing something common like leading an everyday life in the film.
Depression or other causes of "requiring" ('cuse me, throwing up, better now) a Manic Pixie Dream Girl are very common and are always shown in loving detail.
The woman having an exterior life or any kind of exterior desires is not.
This argument is insufficient on its surface.
Indeed, if I were to posit a scenario where she were to bring the guy back to life through introducing him to something she loves, the movie would not get made. I refer you to the fact no such movies exist. (This is despite the fact it is a very plausible scenario.)
This argument is insufficient upon closer examination.
Well, it's a nice idea. But I think you're wrong that it wouldn't get made. It just needs the right idea and the right people. I guess the question would be "Why is this better than the current formula. Why will it make us more money?"
It is 100% relevant. How well the audience connects to a piece of writing is often diagnostic of the audience's own prejudices. If the audience connects to a lazy sexist piece of writing, all that tells you is that you're going to need to work harder to connect to them without being lazy and sexist.
Ironically I think you've made a really compelling case as to why this character archetype is terrible in your last couple posts.
No. I don't even know if what you say is true, but assuming it is, many years before that, before the World could watch such things, white men fought to put an end to slavery. Fast forward to today, and voters in a country where the largest group is white people at over 70% of the populous, voted a black man into the White House for his second straight term. The sixties really did a good job of keeping the black man down, eh?
And right now people are fighting against sexism. Let's hope their opponents, who believe things like
Women are naturally more sensitive, more empathic. They can relate to the female character better.
don't win out.
People who fight against real sexism, good luck to them. Are you honestly saying my second quote is not true? It is true. It's as true as saying men are physically stronger than women. I'm not saying it applies to every single woman and every single man if that's what you're thinking, people should be taken as they come, but when you lump them all in together, it's true.
-
It (http://pages.uoregon.edu/hodgeslab/files/Download/Klein%20Hodges_2001.pdf) is (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00006.x/abstract) factually (http://dsclab.uchicago.edu/Publications_files/Michalska,%20Kinzler,%20Decety%20(2013).pdf) untrue (http://pages.uoregon.edu/hodgeslab/files/Download/Laurent%20Hodges_in%20press.pdf). There is no scientifically established cross-cultural historically robust empathy gender gap rooted in biology.
What differences we do detect in our culture are often (perhaps always) the result of nurture and cultural factors. Women are taught that they should be more empathic, so they think more empathically.
I'm going to repost a chunk of my last post you missed:
This is part of why feminism is so important: it chains men as well as women. The belief that something as essential to human happiness as empathy is inherently gendered flies in the face of historical and biological fact - there are cultures today where sensitivity and empathy are as much traits of men as women. Yet somehow people grow up believing things like this.
-
Hold on. If you're acknowledging different people can come away with different things, why are you worried? You could never predict how many would come up with the scenario you don't like. If anyone would at all. There could be scenarios you could never predict. So just stop worrying and take it for what it is. Let people come up with their own conclusions. Give people some more credit.
And thus it is better if you have films, games, scripts in general that are unequivocal in their approach to these things. By leaving ambiguity, by inviting possible readings that degrade everyone and everything involved, these negative stereotypes are reinforced and kept alive. That is something that should not happen.
Even if this High Fidelity is good, there is still a place for these light films. Across all genres. Me, I do like well developed characters and stories and mind-stimulating situations. It's especially good if your brain is whirring away long after the film is over. But I can also appreciate something which is just all guns and cars and explosions and you can just relax and watch and enjoy. They shouldn't be taken away on the possibility that someone will have their grasp on reality distorted a notch.
The general tenor of Sarkeesians videos and the discussion we're having now is not "Stop having fun!", or "stop making mindless movies", it's actually "Make better movies." Movies that do not treat their characters, or their circumstances, with contempt. Movies that, even if they do not change the world with the brilliance of their insight, do not insult the viewer's intelligence while being entertaining.
-
It's weird that they included Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind, when that character explicitly said that she wasn't that. The confirmation bias is strong in this one, not that she's wrong.
I think the problem is that most guys don't want to identify with a woman when the inverse tends to be fine.
-
It (http://pages.uoregon.edu/hodgeslab/files/Download/Klein%20Hodges_2001.pdf) is (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00006.x/abstract) factually (http://dsclab.uchicago.edu/Publications_files/Michalska,%20Kinzler,%20Decety%20(2013).pdf) untrue (http://pages.uoregon.edu/hodgeslab/files/Download/Laurent%20Hodges_in%20press.pdf). There is no scientifically established cross-cultural historically robust empathy gender gap rooted in biology.
What differences we do detect in our culture are often (perhaps always) the result of nurture and cultural factors. Women are taught that they should be more empathic, so they think more empathically.
I'm going to repost a chunk of my last post you missed:
This is part of why feminism is so important: it chains men as well as women. The belief that something as essential to human happiness as empathy is inherently gendered flies in the face of historical and biological fact - there are cultures today where sensitivity and empathy are as much traits of men as women. Yet somehow people grow up believing things like this.
You don't need scientific proof. It is obvious.
I am perfectly behind equality. Holding either gender back is just squandering potential.
Hold on. If you're acknowledging different people can come away with different things, why are you worried? You could never predict how many would come up with the scenario you don't like. If anyone would at all. There could be scenarios you could never predict. So just stop worrying and take it for what it is. Let people come up with their own conclusions. Give people some more credit.
And thus it is better if you have films, games, scripts in general that are unequivocal in their approach to these things. By leaving ambiguity, by inviting possible readings that degrade everyone and everything involved, these negative stereotypes are reinforced and kept alive. That is something that should not happen.
Even if this High Fidelity is good, there is still a place for these light films. Across all genres. Me, I do like well developed characters and stories and mind-stimulating situations. It's especially good if your brain is whirring away long after the film is over. But I can also appreciate something which is just all guns and cars and explosions and you can just relax and watch and enjoy. They shouldn't be taken away on the possibility that someone will have their grasp on reality distorted a notch.
The general tenor of Sarkeesians videos and the discussion we're having now is not "Stop having fun!", or "stop making mindless movies", it's actually "Make better movies." Movies that do not treat their characters, or their circumstances, with contempt. Movies that, even if they do not change the world with the brilliance of their insight, do not insult the viewer's intelligence while being entertaining.
Unequivocal as in things like squeezing token minorities into films? No thanks.
She does nothing but say "this is bad, this is bad, this is bad, this is bad..." How about doing something constructive, Anita?
-
It (http://pages.uoregon.edu/hodgeslab/files/Download/Klein%20Hodges_2001.pdf) is (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00006.x/abstract) factually (http://dsclab.uchicago.edu/Publications_files/Michalska,%20Kinzler,%20Decety%20(2013).pdf) untrue (http://pages.uoregon.edu/hodgeslab/files/Download/Laurent%20Hodges_in%20press.pdf). There is no scientifically established cross-cultural historically robust empathy gender gap rooted in biology.
What differences we do detect in our culture are often (perhaps always) the result of nurture and cultural factors. Women are taught that they should be more empathic, so they think more empathically.
I'm going to repost a chunk of my last post you missed:
This is part of why feminism is so important: it chains men as well as women. The belief that something as essential to human happiness as empathy is inherently gendered flies in the face of historical and biological fact - there are cultures today where sensitivity and empathy are as much traits of men as women. Yet somehow people grow up believing things like this.
You don't need scientific proof. It is obvious.
Obviously wrong? You're conceding the point? That women are not inherently more empathic than men? Because that's what I'm showing you scientific proof of.
Or is it obvious that women are inherently more empathic than men, the same way it's obvious the sun moves around the earth?
-
You don't need scientific proof. It is obvious.
What. There's proof right there that your opinion is unfounded and not based in fact. What exactly gives you the authority to declare your version of reality to be the only one?
Unequivocal as in things like squeezing token minorities into films? No thanks.
No.
She does nothing but say "this is bad, this is bad, this is bad, this is bad..." How about doing something constructive, Anita?
As was pointed out in the other thread, pointing out deficiencies and making them public is constructive. Getting people to think and talk about these issues is constructive.
-
It (http://pages.uoregon.edu/hodgeslab/files/Download/Klein%20Hodges_2001.pdf) is (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00006.x/abstract) factually (http://dsclab.uchicago.edu/Publications_files/Michalska,%20Kinzler,%20Decety%20(2013).pdf) untrue (http://pages.uoregon.edu/hodgeslab/files/Download/Laurent%20Hodges_in%20press.pdf). There is no scientifically established cross-cultural historically robust empathy gender gap rooted in biology.
What differences we do detect in our culture are often (perhaps always) the result of nurture and cultural factors. Women are taught that they should be more empathic, so they think more empathically.
I'm going to repost a chunk of my last post you missed:
This is part of why feminism is so important: it chains men as well as women. The belief that something as essential to human happiness as empathy is inherently gendered flies in the face of historical and biological fact - there are cultures today where sensitivity and empathy are as much traits of men as women. Yet somehow people grow up believing things like this.
You don't need scientific proof. It is obvious.
Obviously wrong? You're conceding the point? That women are not inherently more empathic than men? Because that's what I'm showing you scientific proof of.
Or is it obvious that women are inherently more empathic than men, the same way it's obvious the sun moves around the earth?
Oh wait, I didn't realise those were links with the way they were split up. I shall read them.
-
You don't need scientific proof. It is obvious.
What. There's proof right there that your opinion is unfounded and not based in fact. What exactly gives you the authority to declare your version of reality to be the only one?
Unequivocal as in things like squeezing token minorities into films? No thanks.
No.
She does nothing but say "this is bad, this is bad, this is bad, this is bad..." How about doing something constructive, Anita?
As was pointed out in the other thread, pointing out deficiencies and making them public is constructive. Getting people to think and talk about these issues is constructive.
See above for what happened there.
Hmmm. Well, what do you mean? Can you give an example? I am worried it would be the kind of thing that is blatanlty obviously there to tell the World "we're not ***ist" when such things should not be necessary. It also feels like holding people's hand too much when I don't think they need it and it would just be insulting their intelligence. Can you get round that too? On a consistent basis, since this would be required for every movie, not just one?
Well she goes about it in a terrible way.
-
She goes about it in a pretty useful and constructive way if she's getting people thinking about it. She has every right to be angry. Video games in general are badly written and sexist and they need to be called out and, hopefully, improved.
-
Can you give an example?
I mentioned a film that does it right in my opinion several times. I recommend you watch it.
Well she goes about it in a terrible way.
In your opinion. And given how forceful you are reacting, it is obviously hitting a note.
-
Well, it's a nice idea. But I think you're wrong that it wouldn't get made. It just needs the right idea and the right people. I guess the question would be "Why is this better than the current formula. Why will it make us more money?"
How well the audience connects to a piece of writing is often diagnostic of the audience's own prejudices.
-
Is there room in feminism to believe that there might be such a thing as masculinity and femininity as real, inherent things, but that our culture's definition of them has no resemblance whatsoever to the real thing and in reality they are incredibly complex and mysterious animals? That some of your favorite fictional characters are individuals that, if you listed their personality traits, would look completely at odds with what someone of their gender was "supposed" to be, and yet instinctively seem the most masculine or feminine of all (I can come up with much better examples of this but the first characters that come to my head are Vash the Stampede for masculinity and pre-Other M Samus Aran for femininity)? I consider myself to be a rabid feminist but this may disqualify me in some of your eyes.
-
Pardon my side note, if you may;
Is it unusual that I don't find these kinds of girls the slightest bit attractive?
Am I supposed to according to hollywood? Is that what's supposed to make this "trope" so affective?
-
She goes about it in a pretty useful and constructive way if she's getting people thinking about it. She has every right to be angry. Video games in general are badly written and sexist and they need to be called out and, hopefully, improved.
Hmmm, big links. It would take too long to read them properly now. I may read them later sometime when I am relaxed and ready to take in the information at leisure rather than hunting through for bits of information, as it is something which genuinely interests me. *You'll be happy to know I cut off the stream of consciousness at this point*
The gist it seems is that men and women can perform equally, but only if motivation is in place. If not, women do it better, right?
So it's a case that men have it in them, but women use it more and better. So it seems to a movie maker, it still applies, and in general life it still applies that women use it more. Curious quirk. But for your movie director you can't blame the director for targetting females in this way. Perhaps it's kind of like how women like shopping but to men it's just a job.
I'm all for improving video games, but I believe there's nothing wrong with gameplay first, story second, if at all, games. Generic story, one dimensional characters, cliches, stereotypes, but awesome gameplay? Take my money!!!
Can you give an example?
I mentioned a film that does it right in my opinion several times. I recommend you watch it.
Well she goes about it in a terrible way.
In your opinion. And given how forceful you are reacting, it is obviously hitting a note.
I was thinking more about the MPDG trope for an example. I'm not promising anything, it's not a genre I pay any attention to, but I'll keep it mind.
A most discordant note.
-
Well, it's a nice idea. But I think you're wrong that it wouldn't get made. It just needs the right idea and the right people. I guess the question would be "Why is this better than the current formula. Why will it make us more money?"
How well the audience connects to a piece of writing is often diagnostic of the audience's own prejudices.
I have a question for you, Battuta and E. Do you find it difficult to enjoy games and movies? Or perhaps more accurately, find games and movies you enjoy?
-
Now why can't a companion snap you out of depression? It depends why you are in depression in the first place. Maybe all you need is a friend. It comes down to I guess you think these things have an influence, but at this level, I just think you're either being paranoid, or the effect will be negligible. Real relationships are everywhere. You just have to open your eyes and look. Or you can even read people's true stories.
Hi.
I want to chime in here with one single pointer: No matter what happens, you will NEVER *snap* out of a depression. A depression can take years to build up, and it can take even more years for the person to actually notice that he is in a depression as those negative thinking spirals make you hate everything that you think caused the spirals to trigger, whilst the actual problem (the negative thinking spirals of doom themselves) flies under the radar. Just meeting the right person, or indeed, being transported to a much better enviroment feeding the positive thinking spirals, does not change the fact that you will still have bad days, as the causes of your depression are still embedded in your mind, and it takes a lot of time to actually mend those. In fact, you will always still be more prone to otherwise unexplainable anger and sadness then others.
I won't say that getting into the right enviroment doesn't help (it certainly does). It simply does not go as easy as you say it could be. Ocasionally, it can even make it worse (fear of losing that enviroment, or the change being too rapid triggering "I don't deserve this" thinking).
Is there room in feminism to believe that there might be such a thing as masculinity and femininity as real, inherent things, but that our culture's definition of them has no resemblance whatsoever to the real thing and in reality they are incredibly complex and mysterious animals? That some of your favorite fictional characters are individuals that, if you listed their personality traits, would look completely at odds with what someone of their gender was "supposed" to be, and yet instinctively seem the most masculine or feminine of all (I can come up with much better examples of this but the first characters that come to my head are Vash the Stampede for masculinity and pre-Other M Samus Aran for femininity)? I consider myself to be a rabid feminist but this may disqualify me in some of your eyes.
Cdr. Shepard springs to mind.
-
Now why can't a companion snap you out of depression? It depends why you are in depression in the first place. Maybe all you need is a friend. It comes down to I guess you think these things have an influence, but at this level, I just think you're either being paranoid, or the effect will be negligible. Real relationships are everywhere. You just have to open your eyes and look. Or you can even read people's true stories.
Hi.
I want to chime in here with one single pointer: No matter what happens, you will NEVER *snap* out of a depression. A depression can take years to build up, and it can take even more years for the person to actually notice that he is in a depression as those negative thinking spirals make you hate everything that you think caused the spirals to trigger, whilst the actual problem (the negative thinking spirals of doom themselves) flies under the radar. Just meeting the right person, or indeed, being transported to a much better enviroment feeding the positive thinking spirals, does not change the fact that you will still have bad days, as the causes of your depression are still embedded in your mind, and it takes a lot of time to actually mend those. In fact, you will always still be more prone to otherwise unexplainable anger and sadness then others.
I won't say that getting into the right enviroment doesn't help (it certainly does). It simply does not go as easy as you say it could be. Ocasionally, it can even make it worse (fear of losing that enviroment, or the change being too rapid triggering "I don't deserve this" thinking).
Hello.
Yes. I never meant snap in the sense one minute depressed, the next, not depressed. You know I actually hate the phrase "snap out of it". As if people wouldn't have done that already if it was that easy. Even the MPDG character must persist over time to succeed. And I think the movie characters have clear reasons for being depressed.
What you say about not having clear reasons, or being wrong about the reasons is interesting though. I wonder how you find what the real cause is.
-
That varies a lot, actually. Campaigns making people aware helped for me personally, nusually it's outside help. The big problem lies in recognizing the problem itself. One can usually turn to professional help after that.
Note that I am only what is so-called an "Experience expert" (I only know of me and a few people I know who had similar issues, both of which did not detect it in me), so I geuss I am rather unreliable.
-
That varies a lot, actually. Campaigns making people aware helped for me personally, nusually it's outside help. The big problem lies in recognizing the problem itself. One can usually turn to professional help after that.
Note that I am only what is so-called an "Experience expert" (I only know of me and a few people I know who had similar issues, both of which did not detect it in me), so I geuss I am rather unreliable.
Do you have any links or could it be searched for? As in something specific to search for please?
-
The E demonstrating he can find stuff he likes (and familiarity with the genre, something that I'm not getting from you; your persistence in failing to cite examples or make reference to the reality of filmmaking is odd, considering the nature of the topic).
For a subversion of this trope, I recommend the film High Fidelity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Fidelity_(film)). In it, the protagonist is dumped by his long-term girlfriend, and tries to get out of the ensuing depression by dating a bunch of what he hopes will be MPDGs. However, as it turns out, all of them are much too complex, much too adult to actually fit the role (Not that they want to, them being actual characters and all that), and so he is forced to actually deal with the real issues he and his girlfriend were having. Now, while Laura isn't given anywhere near the same amount of screentime as Rob, it is still clear that she is a full person with needs and wants and a life of her own; something none of the characters commonly referred to as MPDGs are.
I generally do not like RomComs as a genre, because of the various tropes surrounding them (and me being rather sensitive to bad plotting and script contrivances). But that does not mean that I do not appreciate well done entries in the genre (Like, say, High Fidelity, or Out of Sight), as long as the films treats its principal characters with verisimilitude, a quality not often found in the RomCom genre.
Seriously, watch High Fidelity. The character of Rob has a lot of screentime while he works through his issues with the way he approaches relationships, but every female character he meets (Lauren especially, but even the women he just tries to reconnect with over a single date) is a fully formed person, with issues and wounds and a life. That life isn't actually shown on screen; but we get enough actual hints (as opposed to something the viewer has to imagine) as to their normal lifes. Hell, the fact that Lauren is a complete character and that Rob has to learn how to deal with that is the entire point of the movie! And yet, it's a very lean and fast-paced movie with little filler material.
If you take a typical romcom script and just bolt on pieces to make the female role more interesting, then yes, you'd get a boring movie. Which is why a good filmmaker will not do that, but write his script with full characters from the outset.
As for Battuta, I could spend a few hours mining the forums for commentary on this sort of thing from other topics, but I need to go attach a sprinkler head to a water line so I'll just note that the your comment re: finding things they like is unrelated to the subject at best and an appeal to an irrelevant authority at worst.
But hey, I could find answers in this topic in posts you actually quoted, implying you read them. (Again.) So I figure it's worth the five minutes it took me just to demonstrate that you should already know the answer.
-
The question was is it difficult, not is it possible.
-
Cdr. Shepard springs to mind.
Hah! I'm replaying Mass Effect 2 right now. Certainly my Shepard pulls this off but everyone has their own conception of the Shepard they made, so I didn't use her.
-
The question was is it difficult, not is it possible.
so I'll just note that the your comment re: finding things they like is unrelated to the subject at best and an appeal to an irrelevant authority at worst.
Also.
But hey, I could find answers in this topic in posts you actually quoted, implying you read them. (Again.) So I figure it's worth the five minutes it took me just to demonstrate that you should already know the answer.
-
Now you're just being silly.
-
It's like you're not even reading what you're quoting.
-
I could say the same about you.
-
I could say the same about you.
No you couldn't, otherwise he wouldn't be able to select it to post.
-
I could say the same about you.
Do explain.
Because frankly this is no longer amusing to most of the forum I imagine; it's certainly no longer amusing to anyone not quite as hardened to such matters as a veteran of the EVE strategic mobility debates. You are going in circles; you have been for a couple pages. That's the only reason I can do this.
Your question to them can be interpretative as a logical fallacy of several kinds, an appeal to the people for assistance (this thread can be interpreted the same way, and from the breakdown of replies and votes, one you have lost), or the beginnings of a personal attack on them for their taste in movies. What it can't be interpreted as is a question that is in any way relevant to the discussion at hand.
If you can explain how it is relevant, if that explanation is judged sufficient and my rebuttal for it not sufficient by a neutral third party we can both agree on, then I will exit this thread forevermore and will never again complain about the fact you've already been answered on a point in any thread again.
Do you agree to these terms?
-
I could say the same about you.
Do explain.
Because frankly this is no longer amusing to most of the forum I imagine; it's certainly no longer amusing to anyone not quite as hardened to such matters as a veteran of the EVE strategic mobility debates. You are going in circles; you have been for a couple pages. That's the only reason I can do this.
Your question to them can be interpretative as a logical fallacy of several kinds, an appeal to the people for assistance (this thread can be interpreted the same way, and from the breakdown of replies and votes, one you have lost), or the beginnings of a personal attack on them for their taste in movies. What it can't be interpreted as is a question that is in any way relevant to the discussion at hand.
If you can explain how it is relevant, if that explanation is judged sufficient and my rebuttal for it not sufficient by a neutral third party we can both agree on, then I will exit this thread forevermore and will never again complain about the fact you've already been answered on a point in any thread again.
Do you agree to these terms?
Alright, let's see if I understand what you want right.
You want me to tell you why I want to know about the taste in movies and games, and how it is relevant to the discussion, and you want a neutral third party to judge whether my explanation makes it relevant to the discussion?
And there are no consequences to me aside from being told by the neutral third party that I am wrong?
If what I wrote above is correct, I agree, if of course we can find a neutral third party, and I'm not sure how this is to be done.
-
Voted thumbs down, didn't read anything but OP. When she started I was thinking books, what came to mind was 'Angels and Demons,' although the last fiction book I read was Crichton's 'Sphere' which didn't support the trope at all. Then she started listing a bunch of flicks, most of which seemed to be 'chick flicks' that I have not seen... I did like 'Almost Famous' and I think that what's her face barely fits that trope at all - she definitely has issues. The only other movie I've seen was Eternal Sunshine and I really didn't pay attention to that movie and just was never engaged but from what I recall it was about removing Jim Carry's mind so he could fix his relationship with the same girl.
Video seemed more like a rant about chick flicks with a fancy title.
-
You want me to tell you why I want to know about the taste in movies and games, and how it is relevant to the discussion, and you want a neutral third party to judge whether my explanation makes it relevant to the discussion?
And there are no consequences to me aside from being told by the neutral third party that I am wrong?
Aside from the fact I'm allowed to rebut your explanation of relevance, correct.
(Anyone interested, unless the admins or mods show up, feel free to PM Lorric or I.)
-
What the?!
Forum Deathmatch? You never said anything about one of us dying in this! :shaking:
:lol:
Please be neutral.
What if the rebuttal ends up going back and forth and back and forth?
-
Wait, I think the neutral party needs to be known here.
-
So read all the posts and kinda bored with the topic, surprised '50 First Dates' or 'True Romance' were not brought up.
But seeing how this is now a pissing contest I reckon I shall piss off.
-
So read all the posts and kinda bored with the topic, surprised '50 First Dates' or 'True Romance' were not brought up.
But seeing how this is now a pissing contest I reckon I shall piss off.
He's right, is there any point to this? I mean really, I have been thinking this before he put that post, and no one is coming anyway, we're just sat here like fools. Shall we shake hands and call it a day and agree to disagree? I don't think either of us can change the other's mind at this point about the subject matter, we're just wasting our time here.
In general, the topic has gone on without any animosity. Shall we keep it that way, and just let the poll continue in peace?
-
What if the rebuttal ends up going back and forth and back and forth?
Not like that. Whoever it is gets in touch with us. You post. I post. They look at posts. They decide and post their decision. Everyone makes only one.
He's right, is there any point to this?
I remind you you have literally nothing to lose, save perhaps your self-respect or the respect of others, while it could have real consequences on my actions.
But you're still posting, and I'm still posting, so maybe if you just want to stop there isn't. As for the rest of us, we clearly perceive a point in opposition to the ones you have attempted to make.
-
Why do you want to do this? Just think about it, we've been doing this for hours, and short of giving our brains a bit of a workout, what has it done for us? Let's stop and shake hands. I just don't see the point anymore, FIZ was right, it's just a pissing contest now. I'd rather be your friend than your enemy. If I send you out of the thread, you won't like it. If you win, what is even the point of it?
-
Is that it then? We're not doing this? I'm going to leave soon, there's no point in just sitting here.
-
Yet another thread that wastes half its lifetime arguing about logical fallacies than the OP topic.
Is it too late to get back to something relevant before this gets locked? I'm actually interested in it this time.
Related to what I said earlier; I'm wondering what hollywood is trying to accomplish with these female tropes/stereotypes, or if they even realize they're doing it.
-
Yet another thread that wastes half its lifetime arguing about logical fallacies than the OP topic.
Is it too late to get back to something relevant before this gets locked? I'm actually interested in it this time.
Related to what I said earlier; I'm wondering what hollywood is trying to accomplish with these female tropes/stereotypes, or if they even realize they're doing it.
Well sure, why not? It shouldn't get locked if I'm trying to bring this thing to a close. Go ahead and speak your mind and see what happens. I won't be responding. At least not today anyway, I'm getting tired.
-
Why do you want to do this?
I could say it's because you're wrong, maybe toss in an xkcd picture. I could say I don't like to lose. (But I don't think that was ever a realistic danger.)
But in the end?
I honestly think what you're espousing is disempowering women, men, you, and the use of the internet for coherent and cognizant speech. The last makes you noise in the signal-to-noise equation. The first three are something considerably more serious.
-
Related to what I said earlier; I'm wondering what hollywood is trying to accomplish with these female tropes/stereotypes, or if they even realize they're doing it.
I think they're appealing to the lowest common denominator among people who like rom-coms. Think about the two main characters of a MPDG film: You have your sad sack of a dude who's basically just an average dude, and the pixie who's quirky and inexplicably single and attracted to the dude.
The guy is actually a pretty shallow character. Sure, he's got trouble, but how does he deal with it? By getting sad and/or running away, and has to be rescued by the girl. As was discussed, the pixie is a shallow character, with no life beyond the movie.
The guys who can identify with the protagonist, I imagine tend to be those who have had bad luck with relationships and/or not had any, who think to themselves, "Hey, that's like me! Wow, if only I could find one of those girls, I know she'd like me and then I'd be happy!" This is obviously a poor attitude to take.
[This part is wild speculation, probably could use a bit more exposition] Then any girls who can identify with the pixie, probably have fairly low self-esteem. They may think that, "The guy in the movie is kind of cute, and ends up being a decent human being! That's my ticket, I just gotta find some sap like that and rescue him, and then I'll be happy!" This also is a wildly poor attitude. [/spec]
EDIT: In summary, the lowest common denominator would be people who have trouble with relationships and/or low self-esteem. There are plenty of us them.
-
Yet another thread that wastes half its lifetime arguing about logical fallacies than the OP topic.
Is it too late to get back to something relevant before this gets locked? I'm actually interested in it this time.
Related to what I said earlier; I'm wondering what hollywood is trying to accomplish with these female tropes/stereotypes, or if they even realize they're doing it.
Does this (http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-film-schools-teach-screenwriters-not-to-pass-the-bechdel-test/) and this (http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-discriminate-if-it-doesnt-profit/) answer your question?
-
Yet another thread that wastes half its lifetime arguing about logical fallacies than the OP topic.
Is it too late to get back to something relevant before this gets locked? I'm actually interested in it this time.
Related to what I said earlier; I'm wondering what hollywood is trying to accomplish with these female tropes/stereotypes, or if they even realize they're doing it.
Does this (http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-film-schools-teach-screenwriters-not-to-pass-the-bechdel-test/) and this (http://thehathorlegacy.com/why-discriminate-if-it-doesnt-profit/) answer your question?
"People who do things I don't like are stupid and malicious" is rarely a good answer for any question.
-
Except she had first hand experience. And malice does exist. That it doesn't make for as good a story doesn't change that.
-
Except she had first hand experience. And malice does exist. That it doesn't make for as good a story doesn't change that.
And it isn't about maliciousnessness at all. It's about something different:
He just looked embarrassed and said, “I mean, that’s not how I see it, that’s how they see it.”
This line is extremely important, because as we should know, this is how the most ridiculous things work. No one actually needs to believe in the sexist nonsense exposed by that article, the people in the industry only need to believe that "others" do. There's this absolutely powerful "They" that are sexist pigs, so everyone else must adhere to this idea too, despite the fact that this "They" do not even need to exist at all objectively.
This is exactly how the "Patriarchy" and other kinds of stupid ideologies function. It's not us, it's "they", and we better go along with it...
e: I mean, remember Zizek's old joke about the Chicken. There's this lunatic that thinks he's a grain, so he's treated in the madhouse. Then he is cured and leaves the house. But then, a week later he comes back, frightened that a Chicken might eat him. "But you are cured! You know you aren't a grain!" "Yes, I know that I am not a grain, but does the chicken know it?"
-
Malice does exist, but when you're asking "why does this large group of people do something that is, from my perspective, obviously wrong?" it becomes a shortcut to an easy answer that grants little insight; and it also fosters the attitude of "well I'm not a bad person, I don't believe women/other races/gays are inferior to me; so I can't be a sexist/racist/homophobe; so anyone who tries to point out things I do or like that help reinforce these things is (at best) mistaken and I have to defend myself in kind", which is a major factor in these 'sexism in gaming' debates becoming so toxic.
-
Related to what I said earlier; I'm wondering what hollywood is trying to accomplish with these female tropes/stereotypes, or if they even realize they're doing it.
I think they're appealing to the lowest common denominator among people who like rom-coms. Think about the two main characters of a MPDG film: You have your sad sack of a dude who's basically just an average dude, and the pixie who's quirky and inexplicably single and attracted to the dude.
The guy is actually a pretty shallow character. Sure, he's got trouble, but how does he deal with it? By getting sad and/or running away, and has to be rescued by the girl. As was discussed, the pixie is a shallow character, with no life beyond the movie.
The guys who can identify with the protagonist, I imagine tend to be those who have had bad luck with relationships and/or not had any, who think to themselves, "Hey, that's like me! Wow, if only I could find one of those girls, I know she'd like me and then I'd be happy!" This is obviously a poor attitude to take.
[This part is wild speculation, probably could use a bit more exposition] Then any girls who can identify with the pixie, probably have fairly low self-esteem. They may think that, "The guy in the movie is kind of cute, and ends up being a decent human being! That's my ticket, I just gotta find some sap like that and rescue him, and then I'll be happy!" This also is a wildly poor attitude. [/spec]
EDIT: In summary, the lowest common denominator would be people who have trouble with relationships and/or low self-esteem. There are plenty of us them.
I suppose I can identify to the male characters in these movies (to the limiting extent I relate to any "normal" person in these movies, which isn't much) but am I supposed to be attracted to this female image? I share much, if not all of the criteria that matches these male roles, and the only thing I feel from these female roles is utter alienation.
Perhaps I'm biased, but I'm pretty sure any girl who acts like this in real life is suffering from some very disturbing psychological issues.
-
Well the way I was thinking of it, maybe not the whole personality, because yeah, it's pretty grating. But the aspects of, "Hey, this girl likes me just the way I am now, she's doing all the work to make a relationship, all I have to do is sit back and enjoy the ride." That does sound pretty good, but it's not realistic behavior for normal, well-adjusted people.
-
Well the way I was thinking of it, maybe not the whole personality, because yeah, it's pretty grating. But the aspects of, "Hey, this girl likes me just the way I am now, she's doing all the work to make a relationship, all I have to do is sit back and enjoy the ride." That does sound pretty good, but it's not realistic behavior for normal, well-adjusted people.
That sounds like what some men do, chase the girl and put her on a pedestal.
-
That sounds like what some men do, chase the girl and put her on a pedestal.
You'll notice it typically doesn't work out well.
-
I would like to present as evidence, "Miracle on 34th Street" the story of a cynical no-fun-allowed woman being taught the value of fantasy and having fun by a guy. This description can work for both of the main subplots of the movie, but I focus more on the relationship between Fred and Doris as it has the whole romantic angle to it.
-
I would like to present as evidence, "Miracle on 34th Street" the story of a cynical no-fun-allowed woman being taught the value of fantasy and having fun by a guy. This description can work for both of the main subplots of the movie, but I focus more on the relationship between Fred and Doris as it has the whole romantic angle to it.
I think Anita could use a manic pixie dream guy... :D
-
I would like to present as evidence, "Miracle on 34th Street" the story of a cynical no-fun-allowed woman being taught the value of fantasy and having fun by a guy. This description can work for both of the main subplots of the movie, but I focus more on the relationship between Fred and Doris as it has the whole romantic angle to it.
I think Anita could use a manic pixie dream guy... :D
What.
I have no words.
What you just said there is so massively misogynistic, so incredibly offensive, so unbelievably, completely STUPID, that you should really take some time off, not only from this thread, but from the topic of feminism in general in order to figure out why what you just said was completely inappropriate. In this and the other thread, you have been a consistent example of the kind of casual misogynism that Ms Sarkeesian (And why the **** are you calling her by her first name?) and other rational people are fighting against.
Oh, and Bobboau: Same goes for you.
EDIT:
Because I just know that you have no idea why what you just said is offensive, I'll just tell you. You just, in essence, said "She needs to get laid, so she isn't so uptight." I wonder what made you think that Ms Sarkeesian's relationship status has any bearing on her stance in this issue, and why you think that that joke was a particularly good one to make. There's no relation between a person's stance on female equality, and how often said person has had sex, no matter what you may think.
-
There is likely no good can come from me engaging with you, but I will clarify something. It is not about misogynism. It is about and I will quote Bobboau again
being taught the value of fantasy and having fun
As for her name... it's her name.
As for other rational people, well that thumbs down vote is creeping up. Be careful what you say...
-
You just, in essence, said "She needs to get laid, so she isn't so uptight."
I. Did. Not.
I neither said, nor thought such a thing. Don't put words in my mouth that I haven't spoken.
I wonder what other filthy motives you're applying to me that are not so.
-
There is likely no good can come from me engaging with you, but I will clarify something. It is not about misogynism. It is about and I will quote Bobboau again
being taught the value of fantasy and having fun
No. The fact that you chose to emphasize this piece of Bob's comment:
cynical no-fun-allowed woman
shows what you were talking about. Also, I don't think Ms Sarkeesian "needs to be taught the value of fun".
As for her name... it's her name.
It's her first name. Are you calling the President of the US "Barack" in debates? Are you generally referring to people you talk about only by their first name?
As for other rational people, well that thumbs down vote is creeping up. Be careful what you say...
What, you think a popular vote on a gaming forum is somehow right? That your "position", laughable as it is, is somehow strengthened by the mere fact that there are people who agree with you (Very little of whom, I must add, have shown any inclination to actually debate the issue?)?
You just, in essence, said "She needs to get laid, so she isn't so uptight."
I. Did. Not.
I neither said, nor thought such a thing. Don't put words in my mouth that I haven't spoken.
I wonder what other filthy motives you're applying to me that are not so.
I think Anita could use a manic pixie dream guy... :D
Pray tell, what were you saying then? I mean, sounded to me like you were saying "I think she could use a fun-loving, shallow, high-energy man in her life as her love interest". Which is functionally equivalent to "She needs a man in her life", which is functionally equivalent to "If she had a man in her life, she wouldn'T be so *****y all the time".
It's almost like you do not think about what you write, and how your statements can be read.
-
We're done here. You don't understand me. You think the worst of me. And I'm not having my day consumed over a joke.
However, if anyone besides "the trio" does not like my joke, I am willing to speak of it.
One thing though:
"(Very little of whom, I must add, have shown any inclination to actually debate the issue?)?"
I had intended to wait two weeks since the inception of this poll, but I believe the reason I basically am the only one debating on my side is simply the others do not want to. And it is because of you, NGTM-1R and Battuta. You do not make debates fun and constructive. The sharing of learning and ideas that helps people grow. You try to dominate people and assert the superiority you believe you have over people. At best, you're not worth their time and energy. At worst, they fear you.
-
Gonna chime in here once more and say that I'm on the side of everyone else, but am simply not saying anything because they're more educated on the topic than I am. I'm usually a pretty tolerant bloke with this kind of stuff, but Jesus Christ man, you're just not getting it. You are ****ing exactly what Sarkeesian is talking about bro.
It's not a matter of NGTM-1R or Battuta being dicks, they've spent like 6 pages trying to help you. It's a matter of it just not clicking in your brain. It's not just a joke, that's the point! That's the point of their posts and what Sarkeesian's series is about! As was posted in another thread on here, something to the effect of 'it's not what you intend, it's what you're communicating'. You're communicating a pretty sexist (and consequently, dumb) viewpoint, even if you didn't mean to. That's the point. If you want more in depth, refer to this entire THREAD.
-
Oh, and Bobboau: Same goes for you.
??? bobboau didn't say anything particularly offensive, don't take your lorric rage out on him
oh and also jesus christ lorric what the ****
-
:rolleyes:
I don't expect anyone to listen to my opinion, but;
It's just a joke. and whether or not he is genuinely sexist in stating it shouldn't be relevant. It's not against any law to hold such views. Perhaps it's a genuinely passive-aggressive stab at women, or maybe it's just for the sake of a joke. How can you know for sure? On the internet, you simply cannot. So causing a fuss over it is pretty immature in itself.
I am a rather strongly felt male feminist, but I'm not going to get offended when someone makes jokes like that. There are lot of people (especially in my right-wing community that I live in) that are genuinely misogynistic, and I don't care how much they trash on women. I'll voice my opinion that I strongly disagree and give my reasons I deem valid as to why I hold it, but I'm not going to pass moral judgement on their views because all they're doing (as far as me or any other reaasonable person knows) is what Lorric did: passive commentary and idle jokes. Maybe he's a wife-beater when he's not posting, but the truth value of that proposition is utterly irrelevant here. Don't treat it like he just slapped the girl.
and seriously; trying to ascertain intent based on the naming convention he used to refer to her? That's just bigoted. Whether I call him "Barrack" or "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. II" should have absolutely no relevance to my political views or personal disposition on the man.
-
As for other rational people, well that thumbs down vote is creeping up. Be careful what you say...
What, you think a popular vote on a gaming forum is somehow right? That your "position", laughable as it is, is somehow strengthened by the mere fact that there are people who agree with you (Very little of whom, I must add, have shown any inclination to actually debate the issue?)?
I'd like to point out that the poll itself has very little to do with what's being discussed.
It is a poll asking if you liked or disliked a particular video, on the Internet, for any reason.
I agree with quite a bit of what The E et al are saying, but voted 'disliked' in the poll about the video.
--
Oh, and Bobboau: Same goes for you.
??? bobboau didn't say anything particularly offensive, don't take your lorric rage out on him
I'll second this.
--
I would like to present as evidence, "Miracle on 34th Street" the story of a cynical no-fun-allowed woman being taught the value of fantasy and having fun by a guy. This description can work for both of the main subplots of the movie, but I focus more on the relationship between Fred and Doris as it has the whole romantic angle to it.
I think Anita could use a manic pixie dream guy... :D
I took that to mean 'she needs to get laid'. Just FYI, most people will.
And even if they don't. It's still offensive as it is.
--
:rolleyes:
I don't expect anyone to listen to my opinion, but;
It's just a joke. and whether or not he is genuinely sexist in stating it shouldn't be relevant. It's not against any law to hold such views. Perhaps it's a genuinely passive-aggressive stab at women, or maybe it's just for the sake of a joke. How can you know for sure? On the internet, you simply cannot. So causing a fuss over it is pretty immature in itself.
Knowingly entering a debate like this and telling a 'she needs to get laid / she needs to get a man' joke is about the same as entering a Catholic church and telling jokes about pedophiles, during Mass, with a megaphone.
and seriously; trying to ascertain intent based on the naming convention he used to refer to her? That's just bigoted. Whether I call him "Barrack" or "Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. II" should have absolutely no relevance to my political views or personal disposition on the man.
I'll let someone a little more well-versed in history and social norms cover this one.
-
:rolleyes:
I don't expect anyone to listen to my opinion, but;
It's just a joke. and whether or not he is genuinely sexist in stating it shouldn't be relevant. It's not against any law to hold such views. Perhaps it's a genuinely passive-aggressive stab at women, or maybe it's just for the sake of a joke. How can you know for sure? On the internet, you simply cannot. So causing a fuss over it is pretty immature in itself.
Knowingly entering a debate like this and telling a 'she needs to get laid / she needs to get a man' joke is about the same as entering a Catholic church and telling jokes about pedophiles, during Mass, with a megaphone.
Catholic churches restrict free speech that is contrary to their beliefs. I'd like to think that the HLP forums are not like this. If such a statement should be censored here, it is because it is deliberately offensive, not just rude or inconsiderate.
But of course there's already discussion (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=84758.msg1693277#msg1693277) about that going on already, so I digress.
It's a joke. There is no proof of intent (and thus genuine sexism), regardless of what anybody says. This is the internet; jokes are only harmful if you want them to be. and I don't need to remind people that wanting to be harmed is a fundamental aspect of immaturity.
If the administration/moderators believe it to be so offensive, then I won't attempt to argue of it, but that's only because I have no power to excersize in doing so.
Once again we're veering off topic, so that's the last I'll input about this issue.
-
The issues under discussion here all deal with casual misogynism. All the little ways in which our culture accepts and condones violence (verbal and otherwise) against women without so much as a blink. Saying that something "is just a joke" is a part of this problem.
-
I shall address the joke in more detail, it may be useful. It’s just a joke. It has no sinister hidden meaning behind it. When I saw the part I bolded in the original joke post, I just thought what a perfect description of Anita that is. She is very cynical. And there is no lightness to her videos at all. It’s all cynical and dead serious and preachy. Seriously, if you want, just keep those words in mind (cynical, no fun allowed) and watch one of her videos. It fits so well.
I thought nothing of her needing to be laid or to have a man in her life. I don’t even believe in such things, I mentally roll my eyes when I hear people suggest such things about people. I just read about the way the manic pixie dream guy transformed the woman in the film, and thought wouldn’t it be nice if the same could be done for Anita. The manic pixies do not transform their partners by dragging them into bed. So why would anyone think otherwise? It’s got nothing to do with gender.
I reiterate that I am not at all sexist, and oppose those who are.
@ haloboy100
Thank you.
-
I reiterate that I am not at all sexist, and oppose those who are.
This entire thread says otherwise, and that is the only thing that we're trying to communicate to you. You may THINK you aren't, but your actions indicate that you are, and that's the problem.
-
I reiterate that I am not at all sexist, and oppose those who are.
This entire thread says otherwise, and that is the only thing that we're trying to communicate to you. You may THINK you aren't, but your actions indicate that you are, and that's the problem.
If I'm telling people I'm not and they don't believe me, that's their problem. No one has ever accused me of being sexist in my life.
I don't think I'm not sexist, I know I'm not sexist. I don't want to be sexist. I control what I am and am not. So I am not sexist.
-
I control what I am and am not.
No you don't. Nobody does. Notions of 'sexism' etc. are mostly extrinsic, which is why I don't think the way they're thrown around in these discussions is particularly helpful. You may not think you're sexist, you may honestly not want to be sexist, but your actions can still play into and reinforce a sexist gender system. What you can do is keep track of those actions and try to keep them in check, which is precisely the opposite of what you're doing in this thread.
-
If I'm telling people I'm not and they don't believe me, that's their problem. No one has ever accused me of being sexist in my life.
I don't think I'm not sexist, I know I'm not sexist. I don't want to be sexist. I control what I am and am not. So I am not sexist.
People lie all the time. To themselves, to others, to authority, to lack of authority, to their face, on the internet. Some lies happen because they don't wish to tell the truth, some lies happen because they don't give a damn, some lies happen because they don't understand, some lies happen because they don't want to understand. There's plenty of reason not to take things said at face value in the face of contrary evidence.
And that's all assuming you're a purely rational actor.
Which you and nobody else here is.
-
If I'm telling people I'm not and they don't believe me, that's their problem. No one has ever accused me of being sexist in my life.
I don't think I'm not sexist, I know I'm not sexist. I don't want to be sexist. I control what I am and am not. So I am not sexist.
People lie all the time. To themselves, to others, to authority, to lack of authority, to their face, on the internet. Some lies happen because they don't wish to tell the truth, some lies happen because they don't give a damn, some lies happen because they don't understand, some lies happen because they don't want to understand. There's plenty of reason not to take things said at face value in the face of contrary evidence.
And that's all assuming you're a purely rational actor.
Which you and nobody else here is.
Try believing what I say. Because it's the truth. See where it takes you. I think you'll like it.
-
Women are naturally more sensitive, more empathic. They can relate to the female character better.
And right now people are fighting against sexism. Let's hope their opponents, who believe things like
Women are naturally more sensitive, more empathic. They can relate to the female character better.
don't win out.
People who fight against real sexism, good luck to them. Are you honestly saying my second quote is not true? It is true. It's as true as saying men are physically stronger than women. I'm not saying it applies to every single woman and every single man if that's what you're thinking, people should be taken as they come, but when you lump them all in together, it's true.
It (http://pages.uoregon.edu/hodgeslab/files/Download/Klein%20Hodges_2001.pdf) is (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00006.x/abstract) factually (http://dsclab.uchicago.edu/Publications_files/Michalska,%20Kinzler,%20Decety%20(2013).pdf) untrue (http://pages.uoregon.edu/hodgeslab/files/Download/Laurent%20Hodges_in%20press.pdf). There is no scientifically established cross-cultural historically robust empathy gender gap rooted in biology.
What differences we do detect in our culture are often (perhaps always) the result of nurture and cultural factors. Women are taught that they should be more empathic, so they think more empathically.
You don't need scientific proof. It is obvious.
-
So basically it's not the truth and also I don't particularly feel like following you down the garden path because I don't think yours goes anywhere terribly fun even if you were harmless, which considering some of your past behavior I kind of doubt.
You're still the dude who decided to draw Isa in bondage gear with obscene stuff scribbled on her, crying, and what the hell, wave your freak flag high man, but don't act like nobody's gonna call you on it.
-
The last two quotes are not the full story of that dialogue. I did not realise Battuta's links were links, and you can click the quotes to go and see this.
The first three, If you think this makes me sexist, then we have a different definition of the word sexist.
-
To be fair to him, he retracted that statement (Not that he actually commented on whether or not his beliefs have changed as a result of reading the linked research).
Now, I remember that you said something along the lines of "I am not influenced by advertisement" earlier, Lorric. The thing is, I completely believe that you believe it when you say that. That does not actually mean it is true, because even though it is easy to say "I make this commercial decision on the basis of rational fact", actually doing that is near impossible. The second you make an impulsive buy, even one you rationalize later, the second you just do something on a whim, that's where advertisement has shaped your decision making in some way. Even the complete rejection of anything that is actually advertised is still a reaction to advertisement.
Economic theory is full of examples how we aren't rational actors in that space. Assuming us to be capable of being rational actors in any other field of human endeavour is a folly. We can, occasionally and with great effort, act rational. Most of the time, we're just following our impulses and try to rationalize them after the fact.
You may ask what this little excursion has to do with feminism and the issues we're talking about here. Just as it is easy to spot the big shouty advertisements, it is easy to spot big, overt ways in which women are made to be less than men, and thus very easy to avoid those, to make statements to combat these great ills, and then be happy and secure in the knowledge that you did your part for the greater cause of equality.
But this concentration on the big issues lets all the smaller ways in which inequality harms us slip away. By allowing the existence of these little jokes, we subconsciously accept the picture of women they convey. By dismissing an opinion we do not like by saying "Well, s/he just needs to get laid", or by saying things like "This isn't a woman's/a man's job", we restrict the way we're accepting people.
That, more or less, is why I am such a fervent supporter of Ms Sarkeesians' efforts. That is why I criticize you for only referring to her as "Anita". By denying her even the most basic of courtesies, you belittle this person in a way she does not deserve.
-
To be fair to him, he retracted that statement (Not that he actually commented on whether or not his beliefs have changed as a result of reading the linked research).
A retraction usually implies some kind of acknowledgement of error of the original statement; all he did is say he'd read them, he never acknowledged error directly or implicitly so I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of a retraction.
-
To be fair to him, he retracted that statement (Not that he actually commented on whether or not his beliefs have changed as a result of reading the linked research).
Now, I remember that you said something along the lines of "I am not influenced by advertisement" earlier, Lorric. The thing is, I completely believe that you believe it when you say that. That does not actually mean it is true, because even though it is easy to say "I make this commercial decision on the basis of rational fact", actually doing that is near impossible. The second you make an impulsive buy, even one you rationalize later, the second you just do something on a whim, that's where advertisement has shaped your decision making in some way. Even the complete rejection of anything that is actually advertised is still a reaction to advertisement.
Economic theory is full of examples how we aren't rational actors in that space. Assuming us to be capable of being rational actors in any other field of human endeavour is a folly. We can, occasionally and with great effort, act rational. Most of the time, we're just following our impulses and try to rationalize them after the fact.
You may ask what this little excursion has to do with feminism and the issues we're talking about here. Just as it is easy to spot the big shouty advertisements, it is easy to spot big, overt ways in which women are made to be less than men, and thus very easy to avoid those, to make statements to combat these great ills, and then be happy and secure in the knowledge that you did your part for the greater cause of equality.
But this concentration on the big issues lets all the smaller ways in which inequality harms us slip away. By allowing the existence of these little jokes, we subconsciously accept the picture of women they convey. By dismissing an opinion we do not like by saying "Well, s/he just needs to get laid", or by saying things like "This isn't a woman's/a man's job", we restrict the way we're accepting people.
That, more or less, is why I am such a fervent supporter of Ms Sarkeesians' efforts. That is why I criticize you for only referring to her as "Anita". By denying her even the most basic of courtesies, you belittle this person in a way she does not deserve.
Thank you.
I truly am practically immune to advertisements, in terms of advertisements swaying me. But when I say it, I mean in a negative way, as in making a purchase and then being unhappy with it and thinking “Why on Earth did I buy this?!” It just doesn’t happen. However, if you mean advertising something that I do want, then that can happen. I remember a lot of years ago, I set out into town to buy Kessen 2. But I found Dynasty Warriors 3 as well. And I only had the money to buy one game. Well, as you may have seen on here, Dynasty Warriors is my favourite game series, so I took Dynasty Warriors 3. I had enough money back home to buy both, so went home and then came back and bought Kessen II as well. I had no internet then, so I had no way to know what was coming out besides the once in a blue moon purchase of a games magazine or TV programme. Other than that I just had to look at the boxes in the shops. And the box told me this was something I would want very much.
Advertisement could perhaps work to tell me of a cheaper/better product that I already had. But it’s all about facts for me. The flash I just ignore it. I am not immune to impulse buys, but honestly when I go shopping, I usually go in with a list of things in mind that I need/want, and walk out with only things on that list and nothing else. Once in a while though I just might pick something up that looks nice, but it is rare. Oh, and I can buy things that I like and normally buy that are on the cheap that weren‘t on my list. Advertisements can make me aware of something's existence, but nothing more. I don’t know if this stuff is any use or interest to you, but please don’t bite my head off if it’s not. This latest post of yours is nicer than usual and I’d like it to stay that way.
I never say such things as “ "Well, s/he just needs to get laid" or "This isn't a woman's/a man's job" ”
Why don’t you go after the more overt things? I would start with the most overt (and to me biggest issues) and work down.
This naming thing is strange to me. Honestly, I see nothing wrong with it. I call everyone bar my immediate family by their first name. And some people even refer to parents and grandparents by their first name. Everyone else in my life or who has been in my life I have called by their first name. Exceptions I can think of are teachers, doctors and police officers. I don’t see what the problem is. She has made her name available to the public and I am using it. I am just using it to identify who I am talking about. I generally refer to Obama as Obama. I’d probably use his first name if it was easier to type than his second name. Same in vice-versa for Anita. I don’t mean any disrespect by it. If she was in the thread in person and didn’t like it, I wouldn’t do it. Oh, and everyone calls me by my first name. No one has ever called me anything else, and it doesn’t bother me. Except when I go to the bank and I get called “sir”. No one has ever not liked me calling them by their first name.
-
I generally refer to Obama as Obama. I’d probably use his first name if it was easier to type than his second name [...]
Bull****.
Barack is just as easy to type as (if not easier than) Obama on a QWERTY interface.
Unless you're missing a finger, or something.
Are you missing a finger, or something?
-
I generally refer to Obama as Obama. I’d probably use his first name if it was easier to type than his second name [...]
Bull****.
Barack is just as easy to type as (if not easier than) Obama on a QWERTY interface.
Unless you're missing a finger, or something.
Are you missing a finger, or something?
You may actually be right. I found myself switching from Barack to Obama on purpose in the original post. In my mind I think of him as Obama. When I have spoken of him I have said Obama.
Please don't join the other haters. Not after you helped me with Grandia II.
-
If I'm telling people I'm not and they don't believe me, that's their problem. No one has ever accused me of being sexist in my life.
I don't think I'm not sexist, I know I'm not sexist. I don't want to be sexist. I control what I am and am not. So I am not sexist.
I never say such things as “ "Well, s/he just needs to get laid" or "This isn't a woman's/a man's job" ”
Why don’t you go after the more overt things? I would start with the most overt (and to me biggest issues) and work down.
You have a very serious misunderstanding about how sexism works. Overt sexism is a symptom of the biases you get from how you are raised and what you absorb from your surroundings. Treating sexist acts without paying any attention to the thoughts behind the act really won't accomplish anything other than convincing the person that sexism is nothing other than telling women to get back to the kitchen, and you wind up with people like you that are convinced that they're not at all sexist.
-
If I'm telling people I'm not and they don't believe me, that's their problem. No one has ever accused me of being sexist in my life.
I don't think I'm not sexist, I know I'm not sexist. I don't want to be sexist. I control what I am and am not. So I am not sexist.
I never say such things as “ "Well, s/he just needs to get laid" or "This isn't a woman's/a man's job" ”
Why don’t you go after the more overt things? I would start with the most overt (and to me biggest issues) and work down.
You have a very serious misunderstanding about how sexism works. Overt sexism is a symptom of the biases you get from how you are raised and what you absorb from your surroundings. Treating sexist acts without paying any attention to the thoughts behind the act really won't accomplish anything other than convincing the person that sexism is nothing other than telling women to get back to the kitchen, and you wind up with people like you that are convinced that they're not at all sexist.
I understand why it's bad not to say those things, which is why I don't say them. It's not simply to not be branded a sexist.
To me, sexism is simply favouring one gender over another for no other reason than their gender.
-
ok, to try and make this discussion interesting. one of the major problems with feminism today is it represents a moral position that makes you feel morally superior to the regulars who just go about their lives being horrible people, unlike the just and righteous you. This is a problem because that makes it observer bias candy. So, let us do a little reversal of positions. let us see if any pro sarkeesian (or feminist or whatever appropriate label I should use for said faction) people can provide an example of any activity, especially an adult and fun activity (bonus points for is it has any sort of sexual overtones to it) that cannot be construed as sexist and repressive of women. I would then like supporters of the patriarchy to see if they can construed them as such.
-
one of the major problems with feminism today is it represents a moral position that makes you feel morally superior to the regulars who just go about their lives being horrible people, unlike the just and righteous you.
This isn't a problem with feminism, it's a problem with holding moral positions. Why would you continue to hold a belief if you felt it made you morally inferior?
-
If you have the most basic grasp of feminism you're aware that you yourself are likely to hold a lot of sexist attitudes. It's about awareness, not righteousness.
There are a ****load of adult and fun activities that don't have to be sexist or repressive of women. Here are some examples!
Sex!
Video games!
Erotic dancing!
Driving!
Fiction!
But they all can be sexist. People often miscontrue sexism as a binary present/absent quality. It's more about whether a work of fiction, or an act of public speech, or a behavior, does a good or bad job at handling gender.
-
I didn't ask for activities, I asked for examples of activities. That is, describe/provide an example of the form you think has none of the negative qualities. Assume I have maid the claim that no such activity exists (I'm not actually but for the sake of argument...) disprove via counterexample.
This isn't a problem with feminism, it's a problem with holding moral positions. Why would you continue to hold a belief if you felt it made you morally inferior?
...right. I said A (feminism) is a subset of B (moral position), and B has problem X (severe risk of observation bias), therefore A has problem X.
-
I didn't ask for activities, I asked for examples of activities. That is, describe/provide an example of the form you think has none of the negative qualities. Assume I have maid the claim that no such activity exists (I'm not actually but for the sake of argument...) disprove via counterexample.
Pointless tangent is pointless. You just want to play some semantic game, but here, I'll indulge you with a single example: Playing a multiplayer round of Mario Kart.
-
I didn't ask for activities, I asked for examples of activities. That is, describe/provide an example of the form you think has none of the negative qualities. Assume I have maid the claim that no such activity exists (I'm not actually but for the sake of argument...) disprove via counterexample.
You've made the claim that no activity exists that cannot be construed as sexist or oppressive? I - sure, this is obviously true; anyone can claim that any activity is sexist or oppressive. But not all of these claims are equally defensible.
This isn't a problem with feminism, it's a problem with holding moral positions. Why would you continue to hold a belief if you felt it made you morally inferior?
...right. I said A (feminism) is a subset of B (moral position), and B has problem X (severe risk of observation bias), therefore A has problem X.
[/quote]
Could you be more specific about 'observation bias'? I ask this not because of skepticism but because a lot of my scientific training has been in the study of biases and heuristics so I'd like to be as precise as possible.
-
At the risk of actually talking about the original topic, I wonder how carefully she's really vetted the examples she uses in her video. I'll admit, that while many of these films I haven't seen, the two that I have seen seem to stand out more as subversions of the MPDG trope than supporting them.
The two I'm talking about are 500 Days of Summer, which I've only seen once, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which I've seen a few times and really, really like. There are spoilers below, obviously - if you've not seen Eternal sunshine at the very least I strongly recommend it before reading below, the story works better if you don't know what's coming.
Anyway, I'll start with Summer because I can't go as in depth into that one (due to less familiarity with the film). Zooey Deschanel's character seems to fit all the standard personality traits of the MPDG - hell, she's made playing them something of a speciality (Yes Man springs to mind, as does her character on The New Girl). But the film doesn't follow the supposedly well worn path that these sorts of films are meant to follow. It starts out typical enough - Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character is in something of a funk, working in a profession he doesn't care about and not particularly happy, when he meets Summer, and suddenly everything changes. She's whimsical and fun, and after spending time with her, his whole outlook on life changes (which the film plays up pretty obviously through the animations and his greeting card stuff). If the film were following the proposed path, it would stop here, the credits would roll and they'd live happily ever after.
But, of course, that's not what happens. What we actually see is that JGL's character runs smack into the reality wall when Summer turns out to be not the simple 2 dimensional cutout he thought she was. She had her her opinions about love and relationships before she met her, and they don't change as a result of their time together. The two are fundamentally incompatible, and they stay that way until they break up. The rest of the movie is him pining over her, wishing that she was what he wanted her to be - that doesn't stop until he finally forces himself to accept that she's gone - when events other than his relationship with her have changed her perspective. The last thing we see of his character in the movie is when he meets another woman - one whom he actually has things in common with, and whom he can (it's implied) start a serious relationship with as an equal, and not as a caricature. To me, that seems like the opposite message than the typical MPDG storyl.
Eternal Sunshine is, IMO, an even better example of subverting the trope, because it comes at it from both sides. Although told non-chronologically, the story essentially again starts out in fairly typical MPDG territory - Joel (Jim Carrey's character) is depressed and lonely, his previous relationship having not worked out, when he meets Clementine (Kate Winslet) who forces him to enjoy living his life - they break into someone's beach-house, go make snow angels, all that jazz. However, as their relationship went on, Joel is forced to confront the fact that Clementine isn't what he initially thought she was - not because there's fundamentally anything different about her, but because he was seeing her as the simplistic MPDG, not as the full person with the full personality that would eventually lead to him pulling away during the "real" phase of their relationship.
The other side I was talking about is the relationship between Clementine and Elijah Wood's character (who's name I can't remember). Essentially, Elijah Wood is using Joel and Clementine's memories of one another to seduce Clementine because, it's implied, he wants her to be his own MPDG, or at least he wants to be with him. His attempts to coerce her though, to essentially take her by stealth, are pretty spectacularly rejected, and she ends up back with Joel, starting again in a relationship that, while flawed, was at least real, and between two people, not one person and another person's idea of what they are.
So yeah - like I said, I haven't seen many of the movies on the list, but the two I have seen seem to me to be rather a long way off the story she's trying to tell. The video's author obviously has an agenda (just like literally everyone else on the planet), and she's doing her best to present it/support it, but the fact that these two films are thrown in there, with no qualification or explanation, as part of her series of negative examples makes me wonder about the veracity of the rest of her examples and her overall argument.
-
What you just said there is the biggest problem Ms Sarkeesians' efforts have. It is too easy to poke holes in one or two examples she uses, and use that to cast doubt on the issue as a whole. That being said, I'm of the opinion that these videos are primer material, not exhaustive explorations of issues, and as such should be taken as starting points for inquiries, not comprehensive references.
-
Could you be more specific about 'observation bias'? I ask this not because of skepticism but because a lot of my scientific training has been in the study of biases and heuristics so I'd like to be as precise as possible.
I was specifically meaning confirmation bias.
Playing a multiplayer round of Mario Kart.
you mean the game that the one-to-two girl playable characters drive around in a cute pink frilly racer while wearing dresses which are not suitable for racing, but rather more aptly engineered for looking attractive for men?
-
The game in which said racer does not have any special disadvantages or advantages that would make the character an objectively inferior or superior choice, yes.
BTW, this is the end of that tangent, Bobboau. You're just trolling.
-
Disagreeing with admin == trolling, nice.
No, my point is there exists no activity that you cannot find sexism in if you look for it. Confirmation bias.
You have a game where the woman character is a captive that needs to be save, she is perpetuating an image of women as been helpless, a game where the woman character is a badass mofo who brute force dominates all her opponents well then you are sending the message that women can only win if they take on male characteristics.
-
*Sigh*
Okay, challenge for you, find the sexism in the common activity known as "reading a book". Given your ability to find sexism anywhere, this should be possible even without naming any specific book.
-
which book?
-
You're the person who claimed that all activities that can be done can be construed as sexist. As such, no specific book should be necessary.
But again I shall indulge you. How about "The OpenGL Shading Language, Third Edition".
-
[edit]crap didn't see the second line[/edit]
reading a book is no more specific than playing a video game. but fine.
what book are you going to read? Something made by western civilization most likely, but perhaps something from eastern sources, or middle eastern. all of these sources are patriarchal in nature and will undoubtedly communicate gender roles that are conformant to said patriarchy.
"The OpenGL Shading Language, Third Edition"
The book with 7 authors, none of which are women. Clearly women have no roles in this industry.
I'll admit, technical manuals are about the closest thing you can get to being resistant to this sort of thing.
Keep in mind my point is that if you come at it from a position of "there is oppression of women here" you will be able to find a way to satisfy your prejudice.
and in a flagrant appeal to authority I would just like to point out that as soon as I was able to put my proposition into understandable terms even The General conceded it.
this is obviously true
-
Keep in mind my point is that if you come at it from a position of "there is oppression of women here" you will be able to find a way to satisfy your prejudice.
and in a flagrant appeal to authority I would just like to point out that as soon as I was able to put my proposition into understandable terms even The General conceded it.
this is obviously true
As battuta pointed out in the post you quoted, anyone can say anything is sexist if they want to, but he goes on to say that, again obviously, people aren't always reasonable in what they say. Several pages back (or maybe in the other thread) Karajorma posted a "feminist critique" of Firefly which I think is a good example of someone claiming something to be sexist but that claim is not really reasonable. This is a perfectly valid argument you're making but I'm not sure how it's interesting. That said, do you actually want to contest the legitimacy of the claims Sarkeesian made, or was this all you had to say?
-
I was going to move this in the direction of "how do we account for confirmation bias in this field" next, assuming there were no further objections to my last point.
-
There's a difference between "There are issues with the way women are portrayed in media" and "All media is sexist". The former position is the one Ms Sarkeesian takes, the latter is a strawman.
Bob, the reason why I said you were trolling is because you're just bringing a strawman into this debate. Your little exercise doesn't add anything to the discussion.
-
Is it possible to use the Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope in a way that is not sexist or is the trope inherently sexist?
-
It's not an 'inherently sexist' trope in the first place. It's inherently ****ty character writing, but the sexist part only arises in aggregate, when almost all the instances of that character are female.
-
According to BW, there seem to be a few movies that manage it. It's definitely possible to write a character who behaves like that and still treat him or her as a realistic individual. It's only when characters are reduced to the stereotype that bad things happen.
When the only raison d'etre of the character is to be a quirky person who shakes up the dreary dull life of the protagonist, and nothing else, that's when we're in bad characterization mode, and that's what is criticized.
If the majority of examples of this trope were well-written and treated with verisimilitude, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Unfortunately, they aren't.
EDIT: Topical XKCD:
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/quirky_girls.png)
-
Your little exercise doesn't add anything to the discussion.
at the very least it broke the cycle of "when you said X your meant Y" "not I didn't when I said X I meant Z" "well it sounded like Y" "thats only because you assumed I was focused on A" etc.
and I established that bias can effect the methodology, so now the question is how is it addressed?
-
Your little exercise doesn't add anything to the discussion.
at the very least it broke the cycle of "when you said X your meant Y" "not I didn't when I said X I meant Z" "well it sounded like Y" "thats only because you assumed I was focused on A" etc.
Posting your argument a sentence at a time is really much worse, to be honest.
-
at the very least it broke the cycle of "when you said X your meant Y" "not I didn't when I said X I meant Z" "well it sounded like Y" "thats only because you assumed I was focused on A" etc.
The problem is that Lorric is being Lorric, while you have previously shown yourself capable of sufficient rationality to realize what you are doing is not only badwrong argumentation, but intensely annoying.
-
Your little exercise doesn't add anything to the discussion.
at the very least it broke the cycle of "when you said X your meant Y" "not I didn't when I said X I meant Z" "well it sounded like Y" "thats only because you assumed I was focused on A" etc.
and I established that bias can effect the methodology, so now the question is how is it addressed?
Don't let them get you down. They're doing it again, just dismissing you or calling you a troll when they don't like something and trying to appear above you and superior, like they do with me.
I really appreciate you trying to turn their way of twisting everything I say back on them.
-
Don't let them get you down. They're doing it again, just dismissing you or calling you a troll when they don't like something and trying to appear above you and superior, like they do with me.
Is that what you think is going on? No, Lorric, these people are being extremely patient with you despite your infuriating oblivious behaviour, in this thread and others.
You have established a pattern as of late that goes something like this:
1. Join an existing discussion about which you appear to know very little.
2. Argue from your limited scope of knowledge. Steadfastly refuse to do additional research or reading.
3. When it is unequivocally shown that you are incorrect, don't acknowledge this but admit that you don't know much/anything about X and promise to do further reading later because you are tired.
4. Continue posting from your original viewpoint anyway.
5. Accuse the people calling you out for all of this of being trolls/superior/dismissive/sociopaths.
6. Wait for next discussion, wash, rinse, repeat.
WE ARE GETTING EXCEPTIONALLY TIRED OF IT. There are a bunch of quite intelligent, rational people trying to drag you kicking and screaming into the acceptable etiquette for debate and give you some knowledge, and your level of resistance to it is absolutely astounding. It has become patently clear to all of us - from your repeated admissions across a variety of discussions - that you are not drawing from a large, deep pool of knowledge, but instead feel it acceptable to debate purely from your opinions with zero education/research/reading (other than at a very superficial level) to back it up.
I **** you not when I say that more than half of the discussion on the new ruleset in the Site Support forum is being made with thought given to past troublemakers on HLP, and includes you. You may be a fine person - I don't know you and therefore have no frame of reference to make that judgement. Your posting behaviour on HLP, on the other hand, is atrocious, obnoxious, and frustrating to everyone. Time for a little reflection, Lorric. Despite the fact that your postings generally infuriate me, I do not want to actually see you banned and based on what we went through with some other GD forumites in the past, I see that road looming in your future if you don't smarten up.
This is not a personal attack. It might be backseat moderation, but FFS, at this point someone has to spell it out for the kid. If it earns me some time off for brutal honesty, I'll live with it.
-
Don't let them get you down. They're doing it again, just dismissing you or calling you a troll when they don't like something and trying to appear above you and superior, like they do with me.
Is that what you think is going on? No, Lorric, these people are being extremely patient with you despite your infuriating oblivious behaviour, in this thread and others.
You have established a pattern as of late that goes something like this:
1. Join an existing discussion about which you appear to know very little.
2. Argue from your limited scope of knowledge. Steadfastly refuse to do additional research or reading.
3. When it is unequivocally shown that you are incorrect, don't acknowledge this but admit that you don't know much/anything about X and promise to do further reading later because you are tired.
4. Continue posting from your original viewpoint anyway.
5. Accuse the people calling you out for all of this of being trolls/superior/dismissive/sociopaths.
6. Wait for next discussion, wash, rinse, repeat.
WE ARE GETTING EXCEPTIONALLY TIRED OF IT. There are a bunch of quite intelligent, rational people trying to drag you kicking and screaming into the acceptable etiquette for debate and give you some knowledge, and your level of resistance to it is absolutely astounding. It has become patently clear to all of us - from your repeated admissions across a variety of discussions - that you are not drawing from a large, deep pool of knowledge, but instead feel it acceptable to debate purely from your opinions with zero education/research/reading (other than at a very superficial level) to back it up.
I **** you not when I say that more than half of the discussion on the new ruleset in the Site Support forum is being made with thought given to past troublemakers on HLP, and includes you. You may be a fine person - I don't know you and therefore have no frame of reference to make that judgement. Your posting behaviour on HLP, on the other hand, is atrocious, obnoxious, and frustrating to everyone. Time for a little reflection, Lorric. Despite the fact that your postings generally infuriate me, I do not want to actually see you banned and based on what we went through with some other GD forumites in the past, I see that road looming in your future if you don't smarten up.
This is not a personal attack. It might be backseat moderation, but FFS, at this point someone has to spell it out for the kid. If it earns me some time off for brutal honesty, I'll live with it.
Ryan, unlike these others, you are someone who I believe honestly wants to help me. And I bear you no ill will for this post, and would not want you harmed by the mods. The trio are doing their best to smear my name and make me look bad.
I will address these points:
1. I debate to learn. And you can't possibly tell me everyone outside of me in a debate has an extensive knowledge of the subject matter, especially with so wide a range of subjects on discussion.
2. If I was to go and buy a book on a given subject, the debate would long be over when I was done reading it. Plus, I'm not after such a level of knowledge. It often seems a dismissive way to try and get rid of me as well.
3. This was only in this thread. Are you saying I was wrong to acknowledge that I was wrong?
4. The subject of empathy never came up again.
5. They are horrible to me. I've never called anyone a troll.
6. Maybe we should have a chat sometime. You have had success a few times with me in the past.
Usually it's only the trio, talking (down) to me, who wish me harm. I have few problems with others.
I freely admit that I'm not an expert on subjects because I want to learn.
I understand what is going on in there. Again, I believe you about not wanting me banned. All of NGTM-1R and Battuta's posts about me in there are geared towards getting me banned. You posted once about me, and while I don't like the sound of being "socially hammered" I think it was, at least you were talking with a view to integrating me into the HLP community, rather than just trash that needs taking out.
I don't mind brutal honesty if it is constructive. Would you like to pm with me?
-
Well, I tried.
Would you like to pm with me?
No, thank you. No offense, but my time is limited as it is.
-
Keep in mind my point is that if you come at it from a position of "there is oppression of women here" you will be able to find a way to satisfy your prejudice.
and in a flagrant appeal to authority I would just like to point out that as soon as I was able to put my proposition into understandable terms even The General conceded it.
this is obviously true
No, I didn't. Reread my post. What I said was that this assertion can be made about anything, but it cannot be substantiated about anything. (Trumpeting about a point being conceded is deeply irritating because it reframes discussions as a contest of winning and losing.)
More broadly, your point about the presence of confirmation bias is largely irrelevant as a specific critique of feminism. This is because feminism is a subset of human cognition, and human cognition is subject to confirmation bias.
What you're aiming for here is an argument I've heard called the 'criterion question': given that people operate with very different priors, how can we establish a reasonable consensus ruleset to determine whether a piece of art or behavior is misogynistic? One answer is simply that you can talk about it. Human discourse is obviously made really hard by the fact that most of our cognitions are shaped by unconscious factors we're not aware of and don't always share, but I believe at least a bit of discussion is still possible, if not much. Another answer is that you can look at statistical aggregates. As I'm often fond of pointing out, attitudes are in large part frequency-driven, which is why a lot of misogynistic patterns in media don't particularly care whether one example fits or not - the point is that they exist in the aggregate, and they undergo uptake by mere exposure.
Sizz mentioned Firefly earlier and ironically the only thing that saved that show from burning all its gender cred in a spectacular display of up****ery was cancellation. At least one of the unaired scripts was a complete nightmare.
-
Well, I tried.
Would you like to pm with me?
No, thank you. No offense, but my time is limited as it is.
That is a shame. I think you and I could get somewhere in a one on one conversation.
-
At the risk of actually talking about the original topic, I wonder how carefully she's really vetted the examples she uses in her video. I'll admit, that while many of these films I haven't seen, the two that I have seen seem to stand out more as subversions of the MPDG trope than supporting them.
The two I'm talking about are 500 Days of Summer, which I've only seen once, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, which I've seen a few times and really, really like. There are spoilers below, obviously - if you've not seen Eternal sunshine at the very least I strongly recommend it before reading below, the story works better if you don't know what's coming.
Anyway, I'll start with Summer because I can't go as in depth into that one (due to less familiarity with the film). Zooey Deschanel's character seems to fit all the standard personality traits of the MPDG - hell, she's made playing them something of a speciality (Yes Man springs to mind, as does her character on The New Girl). But the film doesn't follow the supposedly well worn path that these sorts of films are meant to follow. It starts out typical enough - Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character is in something of a funk, working in a profession he doesn't care about and not particularly happy, when he meets Summer, and suddenly everything changes. She's whimsical and fun, and after spending time with her, his whole outlook on life changes (which the film plays up pretty obviously through the animations and his greeting card stuff). If the film were following the proposed path, it would stop here, the credits would roll and they'd live happily ever after.
But, of course, that's not what happens. What we actually see is that JGL's character runs smack into the reality wall when Summer turns out to be not the simple 2 dimensional cutout he thought she was. She had her her opinions about love and relationships before she met her, and they don't change as a result of their time together. The two are fundamentally incompatible, and they stay that way until they break up. The rest of the movie is him pining over her, wishing that she was what he wanted her to be - that doesn't stop until he finally forces himself to accept that she's gone - when events other than his relationship with her have changed her perspective. The last thing we see of his character in the movie is when he meets another woman - one whom he actually has things in common with, and whom he can (it's implied) start a serious relationship with as an equal, and not as a caricature. To me, that seems like the opposite message than the typical MPDG storyl.
Eternal Sunshine is, IMO, an even better example of subverting the trope, because it comes at it from both sides. Although told non-chronologically, the story essentially again starts out in fairly typical MPDG territory - Joel (Jim Carrey's character) is depressed and lonely, his previous relationship having not worked out, when he meets Clementine (Kate Winslet) who forces him to enjoy living his life - they break into someone's beach-house, go make snow angels, all that jazz. However, as their relationship went on, Joel is forced to confront the fact that Clementine isn't what he initially thought she was - not because there's fundamentally anything different about her, but because he was seeing her as the simplistic MPDG, not as the full person with the full personality that would eventually lead to him pulling away during the "real" phase of their relationship.
The other side I was talking about is the relationship between Clementine and Elijah Wood's character (who's name I can't remember). Essentially, Elijah Wood is using Joel and Clementine's memories of one another to seduce Clementine because, it's implied, he wants her to be his own MPDG, or at least he wants to be with him. His attempts to coerce her though, to essentially take her by stealth, are pretty spectacularly rejected, and she ends up back with Joel, starting again in a relationship that, while flawed, was at least real, and between two people, not one person and another person's idea of what they are.
So yeah - like I said, I haven't seen many of the movies on the list, but the two I have seen seem to me to be rather a long way off the story she's trying to tell. The video's author obviously has an agenda (just like literally everyone else on the planet), and she's doing her best to present it/support it, but the fact that these two films are thrown in there, with no qualification or explanation, as part of her series of negative examples makes me wonder about the veracity of the rest of her examples and her overall argument.
This is a pretty great post and I like it, but ultimately I think these two films are still going to take some flak for using their women characters didactically rather than subjectively, so I think Ms. Sarkeesian gets away with at least a jab at them. (It'd be cool to see the additional complexity acknowledged, though.) There's no spectacular taboo against this, and I wouldn't raise my banners and get on a horse about either movie, but they're still ultimately very guy-centric movies in which the woman serves as kind of a construct to evoke emotion and change in the more subjective man. They do a more interesting job of it than the bog standard rom-com setup, though!
-
*words*
Lorric, those were not individual points. It's a description of your behaviour in these threads as we see them, replying to them individually is missing the point.
-
Hey Lorric, check your PMs, big man.
-
That varies a lot, actually. Campaigns making people aware helped for me personally, nusually it's outside help. The big problem lies in recognizing the problem itself. One can usually turn to professional help after that.
Note that I am only what is so-called an "Experience expert" (I only know of me and a few people I know who had similar issues, both of which did not detect it in me), so I geuss I am rather unreliable.
Do you have any links or could it be searched for? As in something specific to search for please?
Well, ironically enough, I found out my depression to a website known as www.depressionquest.com (the name is rather deceptive, but the method it is brought in is extremely effective). From there, you should probably be able to further your searches.
-
Again, I'm slightly worried about those with a scientific bent who are completely dismissive of these feminist challenges. I've almost bought a war on youtube against this mob over this issue, but what I see is their strongest argument is that because she cannot prove that this sexist representation in games has the ability to form, influence people to be more sexist, then all her talk is "feminist bull****". Their reasoning is that there's probably more evidence that violence in games make people more violent, however it has been extremely difficult if not impossible to extract any evidence of this (while keeping in mind the fact that violence has been declining ever since DOOM and MORTAL KOMBAT came into the market), so the hypothesis that sexism in games (which is much more subtle) influences us to be sexist is even more difficult to actually prove (while she just states it outright as obviously true).
This is, I think, a worrisome argument, because it paints sexism in games (and in general) as a "battle" exactly like the battle about violence in games. Curiously, if the war on violence is a conservative movement, the war on sexism is a progressive movement, but all of these are just party poopers who have no sense of fun and just want to take our joy away and so on.
The trick that I think works for even these people to understand how abhorrent this line of reasoning is is to make the connection not with violence but with racism. Unlike violence, both racism and sexism are discriminatory. Violence does not discriminate per se, it's absolutely democratic, egalitarian. Not sexism, nor racism. How would people react if these guys really pushed back against the argument that games were Racist and shown very strong pieces of evidence that this is so? I'm pretty sure the conversation would be terribly different.
I mean, just imagine. A black woman / guy making a series of videos showing how racist games are (they aren't as much racist as they are sexist, but I'm sure there is probably a case to be made there). THEN youtube and all of 4chan and the rest of the internet mob starts a campaign of doxxing, murder rape threats, hacking attempts, sabotage kickstarter, etc.,etc.,etc. What would we say of such people? Any link to the likes of the KKK's attitude a hundred years ago would not be over the top.
However, because the theme is Feminism, the girl is white, all this obnoxious behavior is "just the internet" reacting to "bull****". All this phenomenon really was an eye opener for me.
-
Again, I'm slightly worried about those with a scientific bent who are completely dismissive of these feminist challenges. I've almost bought a war on youtube against this mob over this issue, but what I see is their strongest argument is that because she cannot prove that this sexist representation in games has the ability to form, influence people to be more sexist, then all her talk is "feminist bull****". Their reasoning is that there's probably more evidence that violence in games make people more violent, however it has been extremely difficult if not impossible to extract any evidence of this (while keeping in mind the fact that violence has been declining ever since DOOM and MORTAL KOMBAT came into the market), so the hypothesis that sexism in games (which is much more subtle) influences us to be sexist is even more difficult to actually prove (while she just states it outright as obviously true).
There isn't that big of a violence culture - people may fight, gangs may clash, but there aren't really large sections of the population who think it's okay to shoot lots of random people.
There are totally lots of people who think that women should 'get back to the kitchen' and that girls who have slept with too many people are 'sluts,' with the unspoken idea that it's therefore okay to use them. I don't know where you are and who you're talking to, but this is something that more than half of the males I've talked directly about this believe, and a significant percentage of the females as well.
EDIT: To say some form of rape culture doesn't exist is overlooking a massive amount of evidence to the contrary. And that's the most extreme arm of the same thought process.
-
Yes, but the question raised is if whether games reinforce this behavior or not. Many argue there is no evidence that they do, so prima facie they don't. It's an argument that is born out of being from an extreme skeptical community that bows down to that hardcore line of "you declare it, you provide evidence for it", and they'll probably not flinch an eye if it doesn't come from a "Pieeerreviewd'papaer" from Nature and so on (as if there ain't innumerous bull**** that gets published and peer reviewed anyway).
I'd say they prima facie do, and it's any skeptic's job to prove they don't, but as you may be aware this is not a proper base for any conversation.
-
The problem is it comes down to belief and nothing else. It's like two people of different religions trying to convert each other. It's not going to happen. If you don't relate to it straight away, more of the same isn't going to make any difference, and certainly telling me how I think when I don't think that way is not going to make any difference. And if you believe in it, no amount of me telling you you're paranoid/overthinking/digging around for dirt so can't stop finding it, is going to sway you. And both sides are going to want hard evidence to even think about changing their mind. Who is going to let someone they don't even know and don't agree with change the way their mind works?
This has all been a big waste of time and energy. I would suggest everyone just leave those on the other side of the fence to what they're on alone. Let this subject matter burn, and let it never be spoken of again, it's as bad and as useless as theist vs different theist or theist vs atheist. Someone of the opposite persuasion is about as welcome as someone from a religion you don't subscribe to knocking on your door and trying to convert you. To clarify, I am speaking of those who think Anita is correct vs. those who do not. Not those who are sexist vs those who are not.
but as you may be aware this is not a proper base for any conversation.
Never a truer word was spoken in this thread. I certainly am aware. If only you had come earlier.
-
It doesn't come down to belief. One big reason I got involved in feminism and the fight against modern forms of misogyny is the scientific evidence for frequency-driven attitude heuristics.
This subject matter is going to remain important, and it's going to remain talked about. Take some time to do some reading.
-
It doesn't come down to belief. The big reason I got involved in feminism and the fight against modern forms of misogyny is the scientific evidence for frequency-driven attitude heuristics.
This subject matter is going to remain important, and it's going to remain talked about. Take some time to do some reading.
I suppose it can be talked about, just as long as no one goes chasing people of an opposite persuasion. That's where the trouble starts.
-
People have every right to be intolerant of intolerance, and if they can make substantive arguments that (for example) gamer culture is deeply, profoundly misogynistic, and you disagree, you are - rightly - going to be called to task to back your position up. (Just this week, during a major on-stage press event by a huge gaming corporation, a male performer dropped an improv rape joke at a female performer.)
-
People have every right to be intolerant of intolerance, and if they can make substantive arguments that (for example) gamer culture is deeply, profoundly misogynistic, and you disagree, you are - rightly - going to be called to task to back your position up. (Just this week, during a major on-stage press event by a huge gaming corporation, a male performer dropped an improv rape joke at a female performer.)
So that's what you were talking about in the E3 thread. I haven't seen it.
I don't even disagree about gamer culture as a whole. You can see me in the other Tropes thread saying I think all the generic scantily clad pretty girls are wrong, with The E saying Anita will release a video on that subject. I may well agree with that one if I see it. I've had my fill of all this though. But the video in this subject, and the pair of videos in the other one I don't. That doesn't mean I don't think there are parts of the gaming industry that need to get their act together.
But all you've really hit me with is your beliefs, which I refute. And you refute mine. The one time some actual facts came into the discussion about the empathy thing I conceded.
-
Yeah, all we've hit you with is our beliefs, as well as the logical inconsistency of your stances and their incompatibility with the available empirical evidence, glazed with a couple peer reviewed papers. If you've had a fill of a topic you brought up in a thread you started, maybe the problem is that your position is untenable.
-
Yeah, all we've hit you with is our beliefs, as well as the logical inconsistency of your stances and their incompatibility with the available empirical evidence, glazed with a couple peer reviewed papers. If you've had a fill of a topic you brought up in a thread you started, maybe the problem is that your position is untenable.
No, no, we're not doing this. And I'm sure you know exactly what I mean by I've had my fill of all this.
-
The only belief me, Batman, NGTM1R and others have on this issue is this: We believe that women must be treated with the same amount of respect as men. We believe that the reinforcement of negative stereotypes needs to stop and be replaced with a more rounded approach towards creating new pieces of pop culture.
Everything else follows from that. Every position we've taken in this and the other thread is an expression of that core belief, and we've got studies documenting inequality and disrespect to remind us that we've still got a long way to go.
Can you make a similar statement about your beliefs, Lorric?
-
The only belief me, Batman, NGTM1R and others have on this issue is this: We believe that women must be treated with the same amount of respect as men. We believe that the reinforcement of negative stereotypes needs to stop and be replaced with a more rounded approach towards creating new pieces of pop culture.
Everything else follows from that. Every position we've taken in this and the other thread is an expression of that core belief, and we've got studies documenting inequality and disrespect to remind us that we've still got a long way to go.
Can you make a similar statement about your beliefs, Lorric?
And the only opposition I have is what defines a negative stereotype.
-
And the only opposition I have is what defines a negative stereotype.
If you're arguing that the stereotype about which this thread began is not a negative stereotype, I'm sorry to tell you that you're on the wrong side of history.