Author Topic: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"  (Read 477 times)

Guardian85

  • Dirty deeds done dirt cheap
  • Blessing Her Holy Hooves
  • *****
  • Posts: 4569
  • Gender: Male
  • Big friendly Viking.
    • Random Ramblings
Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
« Reply #15 on: July 18, 2017, 08:03:47 PM »


Quote from: Guardian85
Another obvious one is the aforementioned Ghostbusters reboot, where the makers labled all critisism, including the valid critiques of the project, as misogynistic and anti-feminist. They went out of their way to promote the movie as a feminist movie at every opportunity.
A few things. In the movie itself, what was so "feminist" about it?

I'm so sure about the statement, "where the makers labled all critisism, including the valid critiques of the project, as misogynistic and anti-feminist." I remember all sorts of anti-women rants and I remember the makers talking about that. I remember thousands of comments saying something like, "I'm not watching it because it's an all female cast." that happened before the movie was even filmed, let alone edited, or even released. Is that valid criticism? Can you blame them for not wanting to take a dive through a pile of 99% anti-women shit to find the "valid" criticism to which to specifically address?

Again, most of the stuff is anti-women, misogynistic, and pro-male shit, that there being some for women doesn't seem like an issue. And the feminism stuff isn't even anti-men, it's for gender equality.
I remember thousands of commenters seeing the trailer and saying "I'm not paying to watch this, it looks awful". (And the ghosts in the movie did look like something out of Eddie Murphy's Haunted House")
I also remember Sony and Paul Feige coming right out and saying they were making a feminist movie.
People were lumped into the "misogynist hater" category all over the web for disliking the movie for things like it's poor special effects, utterly forgettable bad-guy, and flat humor.
These are all valid critisisms of the movie, but Sony and Paul Feige blew it all off.


"If scientist means 'not the dumbest motherfucker in the room,' I guess I'm a scientist, then."
-Unknown Smartass-

Davin

  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 6473
  • Gender: Male
  • (o°-°)=o o(o*-°)
    • DevPirates
Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
« Reply #16 on: July 18, 2017, 08:20:20 PM »


Quote from: Guardian85
Another obvious one is the aforementioned Ghostbusters reboot, where the makers labled all critisism, including the valid critiques of the project, as misogynistic and anti-feminist. They went out of their way to promote the movie as a feminist movie at every opportunity.
A few things. In the movie itself, what was so "feminist" about it?

I'm so sure about the statement, "where the makers labled all critisism, including the valid critiques of the project, as misogynistic and anti-feminist." I remember all sorts of anti-women rants and I remember the makers talking about that. I remember thousands of comments saying something like, "I'm not watching it because it's an all female cast." that happened before the movie was even filmed, let alone edited, or even released. Is that valid criticism? Can you blame them for not wanting to take a dive through a pile of 99% anti-women shit to find the "valid" criticism to which to specifically address?

Again, most of the stuff is anti-women, misogynistic, and pro-male shit, that there being some for women doesn't seem like an issue. And the feminism stuff isn't even anti-men, it's for gender equality.
I remember thousands of commenters seeing the trailer and saying "I'm not paying to watch this, it looks awful". (And the ghosts in the movie did look like something out of Eddie Murphy's Haunted House")
I remember that too. I also remember thousands of more comments that were just against the main characters being women and that it ruining their childhood because of it.

Quote from: Guardian85
I also remember Sony and Paul Feige coming right out and saying they were making a feminist movie.
I remember something about feminism, but do you have any direct quotes? I'm curious about the exact language of the proclamations.

Quote from: Guardian85
People were lumped into the "misogynist hater" category all over the web for disliking the movie for things like it's poor special effects, utterly forgettable bad-guy, and flat humor.
Quote from: Guardian85
These are all valid critisisms of the movie, but Sony and Paul Feige blew it all off.
I'm sure they did, but I don't blame them. There were thousands of bullshit criticisms A ton of them from people who admitted to not even watching the movie. Again, if you were faced with a pile of 99% shit, would you dig through it to find the few useful criticisms?

And here's what I don't get. Let's say that it's all true, that women have the audacity to want an equal amount of roles, that they're so devious that out of the many all male cast movies that hardly anyone has a problem with, that they force their way into an all woman cast movie. That there is a concerted effort to make more leading roles for women. What's the problem with it? Why does it bother you? There have been thousands of shit comedies and a bunch of shit reboots that didn't have all female casts, so if the GB reboot was feminist flop, why so much outrage against that just because of feminism?

My stance, is that it's not a big deal even if the feminist conspiracy theories are true. Let me know when or if it ever tips over the edge to where women have more opportunity, money, power... etc. than men.

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Asmodean

  • The Grumpy Lumpy
  • Administrator
  • Luxembourg Trembles!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14312
  • The GrayGod
Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
« Reply #17 on: July 19, 2017, 07:36:17 AM »
I might start worrying if/when women have more roles than men. But even then I'll be fine for a while. Women comprise about 29% of the main character and about 30% of the speaking characters.
So? Where is the problem? Even if they comprised 10% of all characters - or 97.3% - where is the problem? If the content is good, it's good, and personally, I struggle to think of entertainment content that was not made worse from forcing political agendas into it. Even when it does happen organically, the cringe factor still rises more often than not. Look at Bill Maher or John Oliver's shows for an example of that. Barely an episode goes by without some major cringe ruining some otherwise good content.

[Afterthought edit] Ever seen Evolution? It was a silly Sci-Fi comedy with David Duchovny. In any case, a massive "oh, for fuck's sake!" moment when said sci-fi tried to sell me fucking dandruff shampoo. It's kind of like that, only worse. In case of Evolution it was just some light-hearted silliness.

Quote
What I don't get, is why a bunch of men are having any problem at all when women start even just approaching an equal status. Like, what is the issue?
If forced, I define as anti-feminist. Even as such, I have no problem with women having an equal status to men.

What you are talking about here though, is hardly equal status, it's equal numbers across the tiers. Fine. Let's hire a lot more male fashion models... Oh, and get plenty of ugly ones too, from both sexes! Ugly people are so underrepresented! Also, we need to pay them better. Actually, fuck that. We'll just reduce the salaries of top female models and rejoice in our utopia where catwalks and covers of magazines are proportionately filled with fat guys with hairy shoulders and acne-scarred chics with mustaches.

Quote
I mean I see the point, "well they made that character a woman just because of feminism." And I don't see how that's worse than just making the character a man. Why does it matter even if they did make the character a woman because of feminism?
See above. Where some things have their place - others do not. If you make a character a woman to fill some bullshit quota, the best you can hope for is an uninspiringly flat character who drags the whole damned story down. If you write a story to fill some bullshit quota, you are likely to end up with a story that is flat and uninspiring and drags the whole industry down. See a pattern emerging? Bullshit quotas bad.

Quote
So like, if there is a push to get more women into roles to even out that 70/30 gap, I don't see a problem with that.
As we have established, I do. If it does not happen organically, I would rather it did not happen at all.

Quote
I think it's stupid to like or not like a movie because one or more of the characters was a woman.
True, and completely beside the point.
« Last Edit: July 19, 2017, 08:23:13 AM by Asmodean »
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Davin

  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 6473
  • Gender: Male
  • (o°-°)=o o(o*-°)
    • DevPirates
Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
« Reply #18 on: July 19, 2017, 03:13:51 PM »
I might start worrying if/when women have more roles than men. But even then I'll be fine for a while. Women comprise about 29% of the main character and about 30% of the speaking characters.
So? Where is the problem? Even if they comprised 10% of all characters - or 97.3% - where is the problem? If the content is good, it's good, and personally, I struggle to think of entertainment content that was not made worse from forcing political agendas into it. Even when it does happen organically, the cringe factor still rises more often than not. Look at Bill Maher or John Oliver's shows for an example of that. Barely an episode goes by without some major cringe ruining some otherwise good content.

[Afterthought edit] Ever seen Evolution? It was a silly Sci-Fi comedy with David Duchovny. In any case, a massive "oh, for fuck's sake!" moment when said sci-fi tried to sell me fucking dandruff shampoo. It's kind of like that, only worse. In case of Evolution it was just some light-hearted silliness.
I don't see most of that as forcing political agendas. And even if they are, I still don't see the problem. Just don't watch it if you don't like it.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
What I don't get, is why a bunch of men are having any problem at all when women start even just approaching an equal status. Like, what is the issue?
If forced, I define as anti-feminist. Even as such, I have no problem with women having an equal status to men.
That is a contradictory statement. Feminism is for gender equality, so if you're anti that, then how can you have no problem with equality?

Quote from: Asmodean
What you are talking about here though, is hardly equal status, it's equal numbers across the tiers. Fine. Let's hire a lot more male fashion models... Oh, and get plenty of ugly ones too, from both sexes! Ugly people are so underrepresented! Also, we need to pay them better. Actually, fuck that. We'll just reduce the salaries of top female models and rejoice in our utopia where catwalks and covers of magazines are proportionately filled with fat guys with hairy shoulders and acne-scarred chics with mustaches.
Why do these discussions have to go off on irrelevant tangents? I'm not going to address it.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
I mean I see the point, "well they made that character a woman just because of feminism." And I don't see how that's worse than just making the character a man. Why does it matter even if they did make the character a woman because of feminism?
See above. Where some things have their place - others do not. If you make a character a woman to fill some bullshit quota, the best you can hope for is an uninspiringly flat character who drags the whole damned story down. If you write a story to fill some bullshit quota, you are likely to end up with a story that is flat and uninspiring and drags the whole industry down. See a pattern emerging? Bullshit quotas bad.
I don't agree with your cause to effect conclusion due to lack of reliable evidence.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
So like, if there is a push to get more women into roles to even out that 70/30 gap, I don't see a problem with that.
As we have established, I do. If it does not happen organically, I would rather it did not happen at all.
None of artistic creation is organic. Paintings don't paint themselves. And shows and movies take thousands of people to create them. With several points of failure.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
I think it's stupid to like or not like a movie because one or more of the characters was a woman.
True, and completely beside the point.
Actually, it seems to be the only point against women taking more roles.

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Arturo

  • Do Something Crazy!
  • Touched by His Noodly Appendage
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Gender: Male
  • Atheist, Humanist, and Champion
    • You two dig up, dig up dinosaurs?
Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
« Reply #19 on: July 19, 2017, 06:13:45 PM »
Well as some people have pointed out about more white people getting more awards than black people - there are more white people, therefore they would be more likely to get more awards. So there are are more women too. So shouldn't more women have more roles?
But, uh...well there it is.
"Nothing's a struggle, but everything is a challenge"-Anon
Hate Is Weakness

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Blessing Her Holy Hooves
  • *****
  • Posts: 4059
  • Gender: Male
Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
« Reply #20 on: July 19, 2017, 06:52:44 PM »
Well as some people have pointed out about more white people getting more awards than black people - there are more white people, therefore they would be more likely to get more awards. So there are are more women too. So shouldn't more women have more roles?

This is always a good point, Arturo. Sometimes "facts" are presented by the media and those with an agenda (sometimes hard to distinguish between) without reference to the overall picture or statistics.

More white kids than bkack will, say, graduate high school because there are more white kids than black in high school. "Out of one million of each, white and black kids,  x% of the former and y% of the latter will graduate high school," is more explicit and more correct but - sigh - betcha some dumbskull will not recognise it and still rant off about prejudice!
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Icarus

  • The wise one.
  • Blessing Her Holy Hooves
  • *****
  • Posts: 4471
Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
« Reply #21 on: July 19, 2017, 11:33:28 PM »
Sad to say that the graduation rate of black kids is considerably smaller than that for white kids when calculated on a percentage of enrollment basis.  Grade point average is also reflected in racial differences as are pregnancy rates for high school girls. Add in Juvenile delinquency rates too.   

Those statistics are not to imply that black kids are less capable of earning top grades, graduating on time and staying out of trouble.  There are some sociological implications. Generally speaking our white kids come from more educated parents who are also likely to be more financially secure.  That is a dilemma for we Americans who care about such things. And yes there are many of us who do care about such things. 

As a long time volunteer tutor I have worked with plenty of damned good kids of both races. Also some kids of both races who were not the least bit motivated.  It pains me that the kids with more pigmentation are so sparsely represented among the high achievers. Meanwhile our valedictorians have disproportionately Indian, or Asian names. 

Dave

  • Formerly known as Gloucester
  • Blessing Her Holy Hooves
  • *****
  • Posts: 4059
  • Gender: Male
Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
« Reply #22 on: July 20, 2017, 05:59:12 AM »
Sad to say that the graduation rate of black kids is considerably smaller than that for white kids when calculated on a percentage of enrollment basis.  Grade point average is also reflected in racial differences as are pregnancy rates for high school girls. Add in Juvenile delinquency rates too.   

Those statistics are not to imply that black kids are less capable of earning top grades, graduating on time and staying out of trouble.  There are some sociological implications. Generally speaking our white kids come from more educated parents who are also likely to be more financially secure.  That is a dilemma for we Americans who care about such things. And yes there are many of us who do care about such things. 

As a long time volunteer tutor I have worked with plenty of damned good kids of both races. Also some kids of both races who were not the least bit motivated.  It pains me that the kids with more pigmentation are so sparsely represented among the high achievers. Meanwhile our valedictorians have disproportionately Indian, or Asian names.
Asians in general and Jews seem to take education very seriously, I have often wondered why.
Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.

Asmodean

  • The Grumpy Lumpy
  • Administrator
  • Luxembourg Trembles!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14312
  • The GrayGod
Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
« Reply #23 on: July 20, 2017, 11:49:23 AM »
I'm starting to have many points in several threads, which I want to address, and address well at that. *Sigh* I need a few more processor cores in my head.

I don't see most of that as forcing political agendas. And even if they are, I still don't see the problem. Just don't watch it if you don't like it.
"Avoid if you don't like" is a game two can play. Mostly for the reason mentioned above though, not today.

Quote
That is a contradictory statement. Feminism is for gender equality, so if you're anti that, then how can you have no problem with equality?
There is a lot of more-or-less-semantic bullshit hidden behind the thin veneer of Merriam Webster in this short sentence and I think I will indulge myself to a tirade after briefly getting straight to the point. Dictionary definition works for the atheists because the lack of belief in gods is the only think which unites us all. The same would be true of the dictionary definition of feminist if, in fact, they were united by a desire for gender equality. Quite a number of them are practically and/or vocally against it, using the same dictionary's definition of equality. That is why it doesn't work. Now, my tirade won't write itself (if you pardon the pun from an intended response much later in this post... If ever I get there)

Yes, I'm sure there are feminists out there who are for gender equality. They are also more than likely a vast, yet relatively silent majority. What you put forth, however... It's kind of like saying that the SWJs are a part of the Progressive Left. Sure, they claim to be, but the respectable bits of what the Progressive Left was before their movement/subculture/whatever-it-is took off want nothing to do with them. Vocally and vehemently so. In this case, slapping a different label on them worked well enough. But sidetracked again. Feminism. There is no accurate label of which I'm aware for those "social media feminists," as I call them and while sensible people do distance themselves from those assholes, it is they who seem to dictate the ebb and flow of the entire movement.

So, if when you say "feminism" you are talking about the movement which secured women the right to vote across the civilized world and/or the movement which secured them equal rights under the law in much the same places (Mission accomplished there, by the way, and bloody well done at that) then you are pretty much speaking fondly of the well that was. Before it was poisoned by the rotting carcass of aggressive victimhood ideologues.

As fortune would have it, the sensible elements do seem to be on their way to hijacking their movement back. I'm sorry to say that I missed the trigger event, if there was such, but I think it started sometime last year. Perhaps the harpies just lost momentum... Or cannibalized each other, as they are prone to do.

An overly-long story short, in practice, this current wave of western feminism is not about equal gender rights. A lot of it is about sentimental bullshit issues, some is about fighting battles already won because... They weren't won well enough, I suppose. Some is about disadvantaging men and the rest... I'm pretty sure even its adherents would be hard-pressed to adequately and honestly define what they try to accomplish. There is not much room for promoting egalitarianism in all the bullshit.

So yes, I am all for people having equal starting conditions. And yes, I am for people having the same core rights. People. Not specifically men, or women, or dragonkin which, if the Internet is to be believed, is an actual thing these days. Fuuuck... And they apparently expect me to honor their bullshit identities. And that there is why if I am to wear a label with regard to feminism, I am against it.

Just don't put gender into shit - statistics will do the rest and... "Problem" solved. (Yes, I am being highly figurative after the dash)

/end tirade

Quote
Why do these discussions have to go off on irrelevant tangents? I'm not going to address it.
By all means. My irrelevant tangent defended its relevance in its very first sentence though. You are not promoting equal status in this discussion. You are promoting mathematical equality.

So, why are you then promoting crap like "we must get more women into films" and not crap like "we must get more men on the catwalks?"

And when you have addressed that question, why must we do that? Or, if you dislike my use of the word "must," what makes this course of action prudent? Are men who so desire not free to become fashion models? Are women who so desire not free to become actors? Most who try will probably end up selling burgers or some such, but that is not a part of the problem. If your choices result in failure, that's on you. There was a saying about either swimming with sharks or eating dogs... One or the other, or maybe even both, But I forgot.

Quote
I don't agree with your cause to effect conclusion due to lack of reliable evidence.
Is it lacking though, or is this a "citation needed" sort of argument?

Quote
None of artistic creation is organic. Paintings don't paint themselves. And shows and movies take thousands of people to create them. With several points of failure.
I shall call this a "no honey's organic argument." Did any one coin that already? Because if not, I hereby declare it mine.

IKEA wallpaper does not draw itself. Great paintings often do. Do with my semantics what you will.

Quote
Actually, it seems to be the only point against women taking more roles.
A point against women taking more roles? I don't actually have one such. Maybe I should get one, yes? As someone being sold shit to?

Hmm... Ok... A probably-bullshit point which would indeed be a point against women taking more roles... I can spin that narrative... Gimme a minute.

*A better part of an hour later*

Ok. I know almost nothing about the natural acting abilities in primates, not to mention humans specifically. However, there are species of fish and birds and what have you where males do most of, if not all the acting. Humans being a sexually dimorphic species, does it not then stand to reason that the unequal representation on the silver screen is wholly or partly the result of human males just having a higher likelihood of being good at that particular craft?

Totally uninspired, I know, but that one is the sort of argument you mentioned. The argument I presented addresses a different issue, or at the very least a different angle of this one.
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Davin

  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 6473
  • Gender: Male
  • (o°-°)=o o(o*-°)
    • DevPirates
Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
« Reply #24 on: July 20, 2017, 04:03:04 PM »
I don't see most of that as forcing political agendas. And even if they are, I still don't see the problem. Just don't watch it if you don't like it.
"Avoid if you don't like" is a game two can play. Mostly for the reason mentioned above though, not today.
I have no idea what you're getting at here.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
That is a contradictory statement. Feminism is for gender equality, so if you're anti that, then how can you have no problem with equality?
There is a lot of more-or-less-semantic bullshit hidden behind the thin veneer of Merriam Webster in this short sentence and I think I will indulge myself to a tirade[...]
I don't care.

Quote from: Asmodean
Before it was poisoned by the rotting carcass of aggressive victimhood ideologues.
I am aware of some people taking it a bit too far, but there are actual victims.

Quote from: Asmodean
Just don't put gender into shit - statistics will do the rest and... "Problem" solved. (Yes, I am being highly figurative after the dash)
When an application has a bug, I address that bug directly and fix the code that resulted in that bug. This seems like a good strategy to me. So when society has a bug (one that weakens half of the population like gender inequality), I address the underlying things that result in that bug. You seem to be promoting the idea that ignoring the underlying causes will somehow fix everything.

And while I concede that the problem might fix itself on its own, I can only think of examples where people worked for change to make that change happen. Like the women's suffrage movement. They had to put gender into it because bias against their gender was the problem. How would you have gotten women the right to vote without putting gender into it?

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
Why do these discussions have to go off on irrelevant tangents? I'm not going to address it.
By all means. My irrelevant tangent defended its relevance in its very first sentence though. You are not promoting equal status in this discussion. You are promoting mathematical equality.
I am not, that you think I am is not coming from my words. Though I use numbers to show that there is a problem, I don't want people to go out and divvy everything up evenly. For instance: if the gap were within a 5% margin, I wouldn't think that there was much of a problem.

Quote from: Asmodean
So, why are you then promoting crap like "we must get more women into films" and not crap like "we must get more men on the catwalks?"
This is an inane point. There are an infinite amount of things we could fight for, we choose what we think is the most important at the moment. We can't fight all the battles because we have a finite amount of time. So there will always be a thing different than the thing a person is directly fighting for.

Why is it that whenever someone is working to fix women's inequality, a man asks "why are you fighting for women to be equal and don't fight for men to have even more things?" I don't know, because like that's the opposite? If men had significantly less things than women, I would be fighting for men's equality, but that's not the state of the world. I mean, I am fighting for men to be treated as equals because right now men are treated on average much better.

But that question still seems to point to the underlying problem. Are you and other anti-equality men actually unwilling to fight for equality until men are equal in the few remaining places where there are more women positions than men?

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
I don't agree with your cause to effect conclusion due to lack of reliable evidence.
Is it lacking though, or is this a "citation needed" sort of argument?
It's mostly a lack of evidence thing, but also, the supposed trail of cause to effect seems arbitrary and shows several red flags of confirmation bias. And I don't see how you could possibly show how all the casting the decisions came about. I mean, you might be able to find a few, but I doubt you'll find a significant enough sample. But I'm willing to consider it.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
None of artistic creation is organic. Paintings don't paint themselves. And shows and movies take thousands of people to create them. With several points of failure.
I shall call this a "no honey's organic argument." Did any one coin that already? Because if not, I hereby declare it mine.

IKEA wallpaper does not draw itself. Great paintings often do. Do with my semantics what you will.
I don't agree with that. Artists struggle. Van Gogh  paintings did not paint themselves, he was a struggling artist who put a lot of work and thought into his work. Saying that great paintings often paint themselves is saying that the artist is hardly necessary at all. Are you saying that an artist doesn't need to practice, learn, and create, that a painting would just happen on its own?

Quote from: Asmodean
[...]Ok. I know almost nothing about the natural acting abilities in primates, not to mention humans specifically. However, there are species of fish and birds and what have you where males do most of, if not all the acting. Humans being a sexually dimorphic species, does it not then stand to reason that the unequal representation on the silver screen is wholly or partly the result of human males just having a higher likelihood of being good at that particular craft?
Sure, "could" in the same sense that a god "could" exist.

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Asmodean

  • The Grumpy Lumpy
  • Administrator
  • Luxembourg Trembles!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14312
  • The GrayGod
Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
« Reply #25 on: July 20, 2017, 05:37:06 PM »
Quote
have no idea what you're getting at here.
In essence, that I could turn the tables on that argument, but decided against it because I'm posting not insignificant amounts of stuff while also having a pretty high work load.

Quote
I don't care.
Of course not. Which is part of the reason why I did choose to scratch that itch in my ranty place.

Still, you did choose to engage me, make a poor argument and to subsequently not care to counter or cede the point... Out of curiosity and with no malicious intent, I must ask; might you perchance actually identify with the SJW-movement?

Quote
I am aware of some people taking it a bit too far, but there are actual victims.
Yes, there most certainly are. What are they victims of, however? What do they think they are victims of? Many are justified. Most "professional victims" I am aware of, are not.

Quote
When an application has a bug, I address that bug directly and fix the code that resulted in that bug. This seems like a good strategy to me.
It is. Writing a whole new class, redefining your global variables and returning nulls from a void are not necessarily the prudent steps to take in that pursuit.

Quote
So when society has a bug (one that weakens half of the population like gender inequality), I address the underlying things that result in that bug. You seem to be promoting the idea that ignoring the underlying causes will somehow fix everything.
No. Keeping true to your example, what I'm suggesting is using a single object class to define that, which you originally used multiple classes to define in order to eliminate the need for bug-causing object interactions.

Quote
And while I concede that the problem might fix itself on its own, I can only think of examples where people worked for change to make that change happen. Like the women's suffrage movement. They had to put gender into it because bias against their gender was the problem. How would you have gotten women the right to vote without putting gender into it?
How did men get the right to vote? Actually, that one suffers from the chicken and egg problem. What came first, the notion that voting was a fine idea to implement, or the meeting which decided eligibility? I suspect it has something to do with like... ancient Greece and/or Rome and citizenship and bottoms out at most modern societies having patriarchal roots... Sidetracked. Also, fascinated. I need some history books.

Thing is, you could have done it without bringing specifically gender into it. Campaign for voting rights for all people except whatever your clearly-defined restrictions may be.

Quote
I am not, that you think I am is not coming from my words. Though I use numbers to show that there is a problem, I don't want people to go out and divvy everything up evenly. For instance: if the gap were within a 5% margin, I wouldn't think that there was much of a problem.
...and yet 70/30 is a problem. Why? It's difficult to interpret what you just said as anything other than what I took it to be, by the way.

Quote
This is an inane point. There are an infinite amount of things we could fight for, we choose what we think is the most important at the moment. We can't fight all the battles because we have a finite amount of time. So there will always be a thing different than the thing a person is directly fighting for.
So more women in movies is of greater importance than more men on the catwalks? It is a subjective point, so subjectively, why is that?

As for my inane point, it does serve to illustrate something, does it not? You can put more effort and cover more ground with less resistance if you extend the group you advocate for to encompass more than who you consider to be marginalized.

Quote
Why is it that whenever someone is working to fix women's inequality, a man asks "why are you fighting for women to be equal and don't fight for men to have even more things?"
Because comparing something with another non-issue is a fairly effective tool in demonstrating that it is, in fact a non-issue? Or maybe because some "problems" are actually a product of factors like fair competition, assumed identity and/or biological traits of the species? They are not all worth fixing.

Quote
I don't know, because like that's the opposite? If men had significantly less things than women, I would be fighting for men's equality, but that's not the state of the world. I mean, I am fighting for men to be treated as equals because right now men are treated on average much better.
This is not without merit, but again, I consider your focus to be misplaced. Shift it to people. Include men - perhaps even them dragonkin. Maybe you'll find that there is something in that, for which you fight for us too. Maybe you will even manage to sell someone like me some of that cool aid.

Quote
But that question still seems to point to the underlying problem. Are you and other anti-equality men actually unwilling to fight for equality until men are equal in the few remaining places where there are more women positions than men?
Not at all. As I said, I used male models as a non-issue for comparison. I will try to make my case clearly and briefly and, as is well-established, neither comes naturally to me... Here we go.

I will fight for equal starting conditions for all people. I will also fight for a core of rights shared by everybody. I will not fight for equal privileges, nor will I accept any forced numerical equalizer meekly.

So, access to roughly the same education, roughly the same health care and roughly the same safety net for every human being within a society - yes. A right to life, property, safety, self-determination and a handful of others? Yes for the same group. The rest? Use your rights to earn that for yourself and/or those you deem worthy.

It's starved of nuance, but as I said, I attempted brevity and clarity.

Quote
It's mostly a lack of evidence thing, but also, the supposed trail of cause to effect seems arbitrary and shows several red flags of confirmation bias. And I don't see how you could possibly show how all the casting the decisions came about. I mean, you might be able to find a few, but I doubt you'll find a significant enough sample. But I'm willing to consider it.
I will need to revisit this with my citation hat on then. Maybe also my much-treasured verbose clarification hat.

Quote
I don't agree with that. Artists struggle. Van Gogh  paintings did not paint themselves, he was a struggling artist who put a lot of work and thought into his work. Saying that great paintings often paint themselves is saying that the artist is hardly necessary at all. Are you saying that an artist doesn't need to practice, learn, and create, that a painting would just happen on its own?
Well, I did urge you to do with my semantics what you would.

A painting... A great painting is... A reflection. Bear with me, for I'm finding words for concepts I struggle with here. It is a reflection of self. Of an emotion. Of something I generally lump together as "sentimental human bullshit."

So when I say that great paintings often do paint themselves, I mean that while, or even before being painted, they exist in some form in the painter's mind. The canvas is an outlet for that, even when the end product is not what its creator expected it to become. That is the organic process I find crucial in considering something a piece of art. The opposing pole would be an artificial, for the lack of a better word, process, where rather than starting with some possibly vague sort of je-ne-sais-quoi, then expressing that, you start with "Right. Painting time."

I am not trying to diminish the work in either case, just viewing the process from a different angle. It's kind of like Lego blocks. You can use them to create that, which you see on the picture on the box they came in or... Just go with it.

Ok, I need a better example. I'm sort of an occasional poet. Most of my content is sort of gloomy, metaphor-ridden stuff for happy pill poppers. For me, an organic process of creating a poem would start with a state of mind or an idea and end with it being in some ways defined in my rhymes. An artificial process would be what I occasionally do when writing on demand here. I need a theme... Asmo special. Check. I need a topic. The relentless flow of time. Check. Now, I need words that rhyme. Check when finished. Sure, the product may still turn out to be art of sorts, but that requires a certain predisposition.

This isn't better at all, is it? Well, fuck. Still, it has become a different discussion, but... I like it. Do let us carry on if you or any one else is interested in picking it up.

Quote
Sure, "could" in the same sense that a god "could" exist.
Eh... As I said, I have no data on this. While disinclined to believe my probably-bullshit example, it's not completely without merit. Humans do tend to get laid more often through feats of good acting performance, and speaking from personal observation while being the only sober fuck at a drinking party, males are more likely to attempt getting laid that way.
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Davin

  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 6473
  • Gender: Male
  • (o°-°)=o o(o*-°)
    • DevPirates
Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
« Reply #26 on: July 20, 2017, 07:03:37 PM »
Quote
have no idea what you're getting at here.
In essence, that I could turn the tables on that argument, but decided against it because I'm posting not insignificant amounts of stuff while also having a pretty high work load.
I doubt you could turn the tables, at least not with anything substantial.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
I don't care.
Of course not. Which is part of the reason why I did choose to scratch that itch in my ranty place.

Still, you did choose to engage me, make a poor argument and to subsequently not care to counter or cede the point...
I didn't see any point in all of that, so I don't care about it. I mean you call my argument poor, but I don't care about that either.

Quote from: Asmodean
Out of curiosity and with no malicious intent, I must ask; might you perchance actually identify with the SJW-movement?
I don't know what you mean by that, I thought that SJW was pejorative and not an actual movement that people identify with. I never cared enough to look beyond that. I'm not overly concerned with justice, I'm more concerned with a better functioning society.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
I am aware of some people taking it a bit too far, but there are actual victims.
Yes, there most certainly are.[...]
Cool.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
When an application has a bug, I address that bug directly and fix the code that resulted in that bug. This seems like a good strategy to me.
It is. Writing a whole new class, redefining your global variables and returning nulls from a void are not necessarily the prudent steps to take in that pursuit.
Yes, it's a good thing I'm not trying to do that then.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
So when society has a bug (one that weakens half of the population like gender inequality), I address the underlying things that result in that bug. You seem to be promoting the idea that ignoring the underlying causes will somehow fix everything.
No. Keeping true to your example, what I'm suggesting is using a single object class to define that, which you originally used multiple classes to define in order to eliminate the need for bug-causing object interactions.
Are you saying that in this instance, if you defined both men and women actors as just actors, that the gap between men and women roles would decrease? I mean, I'm for just calling them all actors and saying they are equal... but I don't think that will fix the actual bug. It would be like hiding a bug by simply not displaying it. Shitty programming, that.

User: "Hey, so we noticed that this algorithm is producing 70% blue and 30% red dots when it's supposed to be producing about an equal amount of blue and red dots. Did you fix that?"

Programmer: "Yeah, I fixed it by simply calling them all 'colors' now it produces 100% color dots."

User: "What the actual fuck?"

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
And while I concede that the problem might fix itself on its own, I can only think of examples where people worked for change to make that change happen. Like the women's suffrage movement. They had to put gender into it because bias against their gender was the problem. How would you have gotten women the right to vote without putting gender into it?
[...]Thing is, you could have done it without bringing specifically gender into it. Campaign for voting rights for all people except whatever your clearly-defined restrictions may be.
I wish things like that worked, but I've not seen examples of such.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
I am not, that you think I am is not coming from my words. Though I use numbers to show that there is a problem, I don't want people to go out and divvy everything up evenly. For instance: if the gap were within a 5% margin, I wouldn't think that there was much of a problem.
...and yet 70/30 is a problem. Why? It's difficult to interpret what you just said as anything other than what I took it to be, by the way.
Where did I say that I'm arguing for equality by the numbers? I find that people often inject things I didn't say into what I said. Every time I ask what lead them to believe I said what they think I said, they either quote something where I didn't say it, or they ignore the request. I can't stop people from interpreting things incorrectly, but I'm not going to defend myself against things I didn't say.

BTW, just using numbers in a argument, doesn't mean that a person is arguing for things to be by the numbers.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
This is an inane point. There are an infinite amount of things we could fight for, we choose what we think is the most important at the moment. We can't fight all the battles because we have a finite amount of time. So there will always be a thing different than the thing a person is directly fighting for.
So more women in movies is of greater importance than more men on the catwalks? It is a subjective point, so subjectively, why is that?
You should read what I wrote and you'll see the answer to your inane questions. I was expecting this predictable turn and put the response into it:

This is an inane point. There are an infinite amount of things we could fight for, we choose what we think is the most important at the moment. We can't fight all the battles because we have a finite amount of time. So there will always be a thing different than the thing a person is directly fighting for.

Quote from: Asmodean
As for my inane point, it does serve to illustrate something, does it not? You can put more effort and cover more ground with less resistance if you extend the group you advocate for to encompass more than who you consider to be marginalized.
So in order to fight for women to have something closer to the equal amount of things as men have, we should also fight to get men more things?

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
Why is it that whenever someone is working to fix women's inequality, a man asks "why are you fighting for women to be equal and don't fight for men to have even more things?"
Because comparing something with another non-issue is a fairly effective tool in demonstrating that it is, in fact a non-issue? Or maybe because some "problems" are actually a product of factors like fair competition, assumed identity and/or biological traits of the species? They are not all worth fixing.
That doesn't answer my question. When people argue for women to have equal things, why do men retort by asking why we don't fight for men to have even more things?

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
I don't know, because like that's the opposite? If men had significantly less things than women, I would be fighting for men's equality, but that's not the state of the world. I mean, I am fighting for men to be treated as equals because right now men are treated on average much better.
This is not without merit, but again, I consider your focus to be misplaced. Shift it to people. Include men - perhaps even them dragonkin. Maybe you'll find that there is something in that, for which you fight for us too. Maybe you will even manage to sell someone like me some of that cool aid.
Cool aid? Has it become hostile now? I mean you could say that the point is meaningless, or even that you disagree, or even that the point is stupid... but to imply that my position is the result of some kind of brainwashing, that is more of an attack on me than my arguments, no? I reject the ad hominem and since there doesn't seem to be any more to your point than what has already been addressed, I'll simply leave it at that.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
But that question still seems to point to the underlying problem. Are you and other anti-equality men actually unwilling to fight for equality until men are equal in the few remaining places where there are more women positions than men?
Not at all. As I said, I used male models as a non-issue for comparison. I will try to make my case clearly and briefly and, as is well-established, neither comes naturally to me... Here we go.

I will fight for equal starting conditions for all people. I will also fight for a core of rights shared by everybody. I will not fight for equal privileges, nor will I accept any forced numerical equalizer meekly.

So, access to roughly the same education, roughly the same health care and roughly the same safety net for every human being within a society - yes. A right to life, property, safety, self-determination and a handful of others? Yes for the same group. The rest? Use your rights to earn that for yourself and/or those you deem worthy.

It's starved of nuance, but as I said, I attempted brevity and clarity.
But you're literally arguing against woman working to get more roles in movies. This contradicts what you've just said.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
I don't agree with that. Artists struggle. Van Gogh  paintings did not paint themselves, he was a struggling artist who put a lot of work and thought into his work. Saying that great paintings often paint themselves is saying that the artist is hardly necessary at all. Are you saying that an artist doesn't need to practice, learn, and create, that a painting would just happen on its own?
Well, I did urge you to do with my semantics what you would.[...]
Here is the thing I'm arguing against: that great works of art just happen organically. Organically colloquially meaning that little effort is put in place in the creation of such a work. Taking paintings into example, they took hours of work and a lot of painting over mistakes and erasing, and that's after many years of study and practice. And while a greatly skilled artist can make something seem effortless, there is a lot that goes into that.

So my original point is, things get forced all the time, I see that everything is forced. And while I agree that often, things get forced into breaking (I think that the last Independence Day could have been a pretty good movie if they edited it better), every work of art required intentional force to be created.

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Asmodean

  • The Grumpy Lumpy
  • Administrator
  • Luxembourg Trembles!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14312
  • The GrayGod
Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
« Reply #27 on: July 21, 2017, 12:05:41 PM »
Quote
I doubt you could turn the tables, at least not with anything substantial.
A challenge?

Well, obviously now I'm completely powerless to resist, so here I go:

If you don't like it, don't watch it.

"It" here being the ratio of men to women in film and television industry, the end. It's just as substantial as what you said. We are not talking about life necessities here.  ;)

Quote
I mean you call my argument poor, but I don't care about that either.
Yes, I also chose to explain why it was poor, but I believe this line of inquiry is out of gas, so unless you want to pick it up again, we might as well drop a quote from The Great Wall of Text.

Quote
I don't know what you mean by that, I thought that SJW was pejorative and not an actual movement that people identify with. I never cared enough to look beyond that. I'm not overly concerned with justice, I'm more concerned with a better functioning society.
I thought you didn't. For one, you do not have a problem talking to people holding opinions opposite to your own. For two, you don't seem to want any opinion silenced. You do tick a couple of other checkboxes though, but... At the end of the day, I probably tick off a fascist checkbox or two, and yet I certainly am not one.

Again, no insult was intended. While "SJW" may have started as a pejorative on par with "cuck" and what other alt-right-winger bullshit have you, it did sort-of stick to the movement. Personally, I do not use the acronym itself as a negative thing, but rather to distinguish the social justice control freak crowd from the progressive left, which they un-rightfully tend to claim to be a part of.

Quote
Yes, it's a good thing I'm not trying to do that then.
Well... As you know by now, in my opinion, you are trying to fix the wrong problem - or a problem that isn't, if you will. Still, nothing new here either, so we can cut this one as well.

Quote
Are you saying that in this instance, if you defined both men and women actors as just actors, that the gap between men and women roles would decrease?
Nono, not at all. If you define male actors and female actors, and for that matter child actors of both sexes as actors, then if there is a gap, maybe discrimination has nothing to do with it? And if discrimination has nothing to do with it, problem. I. See. Not.

Quote
I mean, I'm for just calling them all actors and saying they are equal... but I don't think that will fix the actual bug. It would be like hiding a bug by simply not displaying it. Shitty programming, that.
Well... You have yet to make a case for it being an actual bug.

Quote
User: "Hey, so we noticed that this algorithm is producing 70% blue and 30% red dots when it's supposed to be producing about an equal amount of blue and red dots. Did you fix that?"

Programmer: "Because given its model and input data, that is how this system behaves. I didn't make that. Ask your statistician."

Remember what we are talking about behind the programming example. Unexpected results do not equate buggy code - it may do its thing just fine, and yet its output may vary from the predictions of the hypothesis being tested. The prudent course of action then is to find out why that is, not nag the programmer about fixing your results for you. If it's a bug, well and good. If it's not? Adjust your hypothesis, make a better model, hire a different statistician... Et caetera.

Quote
I wish things like that worked, but I've not seen examples of such.
Prisons..?

Quote
Where did I say that I'm arguing for equality by the numbers? I find that people often inject things I didn't say into what I said. Every time I ask what lead them to believe I said what they think I said, they either quote something where I didn't say it, or they ignore the request. I can't stop people from interpreting things incorrectly, but I'm not going to defend myself against things I didn't say.
Ah, yes! There it is! 8) Fine, I will rephrase.  ::)

Why is the bloody ratio of men to women in the film and TV industry a problem? Or, if you will, why ought it be made different from what it is?

Quote
BTW, just using numbers in a argument, doesn't mean that a person is arguing for things to be by the numbers.
Nope. It does not. But it's not the size of your non-sexual metaphor that's the issue, it's how you stick it into things. Do you, or do you not want the percentage of male-filled roles to go down and the percentage of female-filled roles to go up?

If you do, make. Your. Case. And in stead of addressing the semantics of your argument, I will be enabled to address the underlying issue.

Quote
So in order to fight for women to have something closer to the equal amount of things as men have, we should also fight to get men more things?
Mmh... Yeah. Ok. It would not be an awful place to start, just somewhat lacking in nuance. I take issue with fighting for "having equal amount of things" but... I believe that's a case I have made. I may need to make a better one for not being an ideologue, but... We may get back to that.

Quote
That doesn't answer my question. When people argue for women to have equal things, why do men retort by asking why we don't fight for men to have even more things?
Because you are trying to solve a problem that is not. And because their counter is to point out that you are doing just that.

Or maybe because they actually want those things? I could be a high salary fashion model...  :tellmemore:

Quote
Cool aid? Has it become hostile now? I mean you could say that the point is meaningless, or even that you disagree, or even that the point is stupid... but to imply that my position is the result of some kind of brainwashing, that is more of an attack on me than my arguments, no? I reject the ad hominem and since there doesn't seem to be any more to your point than what has already been addressed, I'll simply leave it at that.
Ad hominem? I have not made a personal attack. Tumblr-feminist cool aid is poisoned. You are trying to push an agenda which walks and talks just like their. What I said was, filter your cool aid and I may buy some. If you perceive this as a personal attack, then I am in breach of rules and we can ask a moderator to weigh in.

Quote
But you're literally arguing against woman working to get more roles in movies. This contradicts what you've just said.
Is that what I'm arguing about? Actors acting? If a role is written for a woman, then by a woman it should be filled. If a role is written for a man, it should be filled by a man.

If a poison-pushing producer, director or like... Fucking gaffer is a man, he be a cunt. If she's a woman, she be a cunt.

I don't give a shit what gender the person trying to forced-balance some perceived imbalance is, identifies as or aspires to be. What I do care about, is not fixing that, which is not broken. And if it is broken, make your case, and if it is compelling, then we'll talk. If not - not.

*Sigh* If you try to fix your world and influence that, which is not broken in mine in the process, you would be right to expect opposition, no? If you managed to sell me the notion that my world would be better off with your fix though... A different story, that. Yes?

Quote
Here is the thing I'm arguing against: that great works of art just happen organically. Organically colloquially meaning that little effort is put in place in the creation of such a work. Taking paintings into example, they took hours of work and a lot of painting over mistakes and erasing, and that's after many years of study and practice. And while a greatly skilled artist can make something seem effortless, there is a lot that goes into that.

So my original point is, things get forced all the time, I see that everything is forced. And while I agree that often, things get forced into breaking (I think that the last Independence Day could have been a pretty good movie if they edited it better), every work of art required intentional force to be created.
Good... Good.
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.

Davin

  • Guardian of Reason
  • *****
  • Posts: 6473
  • Gender: Male
  • (o°-°)=o o(o*-°)
    • DevPirates
Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
« Reply #28 on: July 21, 2017, 04:19:11 PM »
Quote
I doubt you could turn the tables, at least not with anything substantial.
A challenge?

Well, obviously now I'm completely powerless to resist, so here I go:

If you don't like it, don't watch it.

"It" here being the ratio of men to women in film and television industry, the end. It's just as substantial as what you said. We are not talking about life necessities here.  ;)
That doesn't make any sense in the context of what I said. I'm not complaining about the ratio, I accept it as something that is the result of what it is. I enjoy a lot of movies that have a higher men to women ratio. That doesn't mean that I don't think it should change. But I'm not going around making threads about how I hate how cringy it is that most roles in movies are men even though they only make up half the population.

Like I said, you couldn't "turn the tables" in any substantial way.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
I mean you call my argument poor, but I don't care about that either.
Yes, I also chose to explain why it was poor, but I believe this line of inquiry is out of gas, so unless you want to pick it up again, we might as well drop a quote from The Great Wall of Text.
I must have missed it, all I saw were misrepresentations of what I said or things that had nothing to do with what I said. If you're going to go on a tangent to clarify something that I already understand, then I don't care. You can go ahead and do it, but I won't care.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
Are you saying that in this instance, if you defined both men and women actors as just actors, that the gap between men and women roles would decrease?
Nono, not at all. If you define male actors and female actors, and for that matter child actors of both sexes as actors, then if there is a gap, maybe discrimination has nothing to do with it? And if discrimination has nothing to do with it, problem. I. See. Not.
For one, I don't think you can agree to get everyone into your naming system, and I don't see how just obfuscating the issue means that there is no problem.

So what we're seeing is that 70% of the roles go men and 30% go to women. I understand if you don't think that shows a problem, but that is the problem I'm pointing to. Just hiding the disparity behind defining things differently doesn't remove the disparity.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
I mean, I'm for just calling them all actors and saying they are equal... but I don't think that will fix the actual bug. It would be like hiding a bug by simply not displaying it. Shitty programming, that.
Well... You have yet to make a case for it being an actual bug.

Quote
User: "Hey, so we noticed that this algorithm is producing 70% blue and 30% red dots when it's supposed to be producing about an equal amount of blue and red dots. Did you fix that?"

Programmer: "Because given its model and input data, that is how this system behaves. I didn't make that. Ask your statistician."

Remember what we are talking about behind the programming example. Unexpected results do not equate buggy code - it may do its thing just fine, and yet its output may vary from the predictions of the hypothesis being tested. The prudent course of action then is to find out why that is, not nag the programmer about fixing your results for you. If it's a bug, well and good. If it's not? Adjust your hypothesis, make a better model, hire a different statistician... Et caetera.
A bug is a system that is not working as designed. So what you're saying here is that the disparity is not a bug, it's the system working as designed.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
I wish things like that worked, but I've not seen examples of such.
Prisons..?
Potatoes...?

I have no idea what that random word response is supposed to mean. I seriously want to hear your argument to the voters in American at the start of the 20th century without mentioning gender.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
Where did I say that I'm arguing for equality by the numbers? I find that people often inject things I didn't say into what I said. Every time I ask what lead them to believe I said what they think I said, they either quote something where I didn't say it, or they ignore the request. I can't stop people from interpreting things incorrectly, but I'm not going to defend myself against things I didn't say.
Ah, yes! There it is! 8) Fine, I will rephrase.  ::)

Why is the bloody ratio of men to women in the film and TV industry a problem? Or, if you will, why ought it be made different from what it is?
The amount of people reporting themselves as actors is roughly split around the 50% line. Or 56% men and 44% women according to https://www.bls.gov/ (I had to download the tables), for 2015. But the roles are still 70% men and 30% women. So about as many women want to be actors as men do, but the roles are not there for them. I think that disparity shows that there is a problem. If the amount of actors by gender more closely matched the roles, then I would concede that there might not be a problem.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
BTW, just using numbers in a argument, doesn't mean that a person is arguing for things to be by the numbers.
Nope. It does not. But it's not the size of your non-sexual metaphor that's the issue, it's how you stick it into things. Do you, or do you not want the percentage of male-filled roles to go down and the percentage of female-filled roles to go up?

If you do, make. Your. Case. And in stead of addressing the semantics of your argument, I will be enabled to address the underlying issue.
Well, if someone asks why I think there is something wrong with a persons health I have to point to things. If that person has a high white blood cell count, it indicates an infection. My pointing to the white blood cell count doesn't mean I'm arguing for blood cells by the number.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
That doesn't answer my question. When people argue for women to have equal things, why do men retort by asking why we don't fight for men to have even more things?
Because you are trying to solve a problem that is not. And because their counter is to point out that you are doing just that.
I think it shows that they are not listening to what is being said.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
Cool aid? Has it become hostile now? I mean you could say that the point is meaningless, or even that you disagree, or even that the point is stupid... but to imply that my position is the result of some kind of brainwashing, that is more of an attack on me than my arguments, no? I reject the ad hominem and since there doesn't seem to be any more to your point than what has already been addressed, I'll simply leave it at that.
Ad hominem? I have not made a personal attack. Tumblr-feminist cool aid is poisoned. You are trying to push an agenda which walks and talks just like their. What I said was, filter your cool aid and I may buy some. If you perceive this as a personal attack, then I am in breach of rules and we can ask a moderator to weigh in.
Cool aid is in reference to cult-like behavior and is a common dishonest debate tactic to lessen the points of ones opponent without actually addressing them. You are committing what walks and talks like an ad hominem.

Quote from: Asmodean
Quote
But you're literally arguing against woman working to get more roles in movies. This contradicts what you've just said.
Is that what I'm arguing about? Actors acting? If a role is written for a woman, then by a woman it should be filled. If a role is written for a man, it should be filled by a man.

If a poison-pushing producer, director or like... Fucking gaffer is a man, he be a cunt. If she's a woman, she be a cunt.

I don't give a shit what gender the person trying to forced-balance some perceived imbalance is, identifies as or aspires to be. What I do care about, is not fixing that, which is not broken. And if it is broken, make your case, and if it is compelling, then we'll talk. If not - not.

*Sigh* If you try to fix your world and influence that, which is not broken in mine in the process, you would be right to expect opposition, no? If you managed to sell me the notion that my world would be better off with your fix though... A different story, that. Yes?
It's a perceived imbalance, because it is an imbalance. I get it, you don't like some of the movies where it doesn't work for you. But I think you're focusing on something that is not the problem (that it's the result of those evil feminists trying to force gender equality down your throat), and it just being a movie that doesn't suit your fancy. Which is why I brought up the other point, that there are several points of failure for a movie where a good movie can turn to shit and that even if those evil feminists were trying to make you see more women on screen, that is only a minor part of the success or failure of a film.

Quote from: Asmodean
Good... Good.
Which means, that when creating a film, things get forced. The process requires forcing things all the way through. From the pitch to the screen people are working and using force to push things through. A film doesn't get produced without people forcing it out.

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Asmodean

  • The Grumpy Lumpy
  • Administrator
  • Luxembourg Trembles!
  • *****
  • Posts: 14312
  • The GrayGod
Re: From Facebook - a comment on "silver screen feminism"
« Reply #29 on: July 22, 2017, 12:44:01 PM »
I will get back to this after the moderators have ruled upon my alleged transgression.
In Asmo's grey lump,
wrath and dark clouds gather force.
Luxembourg trembles.