This is off-topic, but it really isn't. Spoiler alert: if for some reason you are going to see this (and I'd suggest you avoid it like poison), this post gives away the plot.
"Jennifer's Body" is Hollywood's latest teen horror/comedy concoction, but it was made by people with an ideological bent. It's about an empowered feminist named Jennifer Check, a high school hottie who becomes even more empowered after she turns into a demon and starts feeding on boys to maintain her powers. Her transformation is effected by greedy capitalist male band members who, oh, by the way, practice the occult and decide to sacrifice Jennifer because they think she's a virgin -- but she isn't, and because she isn't, she turns into a demon. Got it? Neither does anyone else.
The film is rife with feminist sensibilities and a healthy dose of misandry. It's not a good horror film, but what should we expect from film makers who seem more interested in preaching ideology than good film making? The misandry is pulled off so naturally, and it seems so typical, that most guys, who are usually clueless about matters of gender, won't notice it. (They'll be watching to see if Megan Fox shows some skin, but this being a feminist film, she really doesn't.) When Jennifer takes her best friend, Needy (yeah, that's her name), to a club and prepares to hit on some guys, she utters a line that sums up the film's attitude: "They're just boys. Morsels. We have all the power, don't you know that? These things? [Indicates friend's breasts] These are like smart bombs. You point them in the right direction and shit gets real." A line cut from the trailer had Needy confonting Jennifer: "You're killing people?" Jennifer scoffs: "No, I'm killing boys." Alas, that happy exchange ended up on the cutting room floor.
Don't let that edit fool you, this is heavy-duty feminism. Jennifer tells her friend that "PMS isn't real . . . it was invented by the boy-run media to make us seem crazy." She treats every male she encounters, from her classmates to her teacher, not with hostility so much as complete indifference except to the extent they can help her. Indifference to males is, after all, the essence of the gynocentrism that fuels modern gender feminism. In this film, boys are not human beings, they are objects. They exist only to serve as Jennifer's human dildos, or to obtain alcohol for her. And after Jennifer turns into a demon, they exist only to be Jennifer's dinner. When Jennifer is seducing a male classmate she's about to brutally murder, he's frightened by her sexual aggressiveness and asks her if she even knows his last name. It's obvious she doesn't. At another point, she playfully wonders aloud if an Indian classmate is circumcised. "I always wanted to try sea cucumber," she muses. Ridiculing a goth male classmate, she announces: "My dick is bigger than his." She circles one guy's picture in a yearbook and writes "yum" next it, a crude restaurant critique of a recent boy-meal.
The plot of this film -- perhaps unwittingly, perhaps not -- is a metaphor for modern feminism. Gender relations are a zero sum game for both Jennifer and mainstream feminists. Jennifer becomes empowered only by practicing the worst kind of misandry: killing innocent males. If Jennifer doesn't eat boys alive, she becomes unempowered -- ugly (for her), and listless. Modern feminism isn't into the murder bit, but it buys into the zero sum aspect of the game, and the indifference to males, lock, stock and barrel. Women must strive to best males in every aspect of life, and only the hardships that afflict women more than men are to be discussed. Discussion of hardships that afflict males the most is "whining." It's not enough that women dominate men in virtually every higher educational endeavor, feminists insist on affirmative action to boost them in those few areas where men still dominate. It's not enough that irrational biases favor women as parents, feminists insist that women be afforded artificial advantages in the workplace as well so they can leapfrog over more qualified men who aren't even permitted to be equal parents of their own children. It's not enough that rape is afforded more attention than it's prevalence suggests is appropriate, feminists insist that the victimization of males who are falsely accused of rape be marginalized because they think it somehow detracts from the victimization of female rape victims. On and on it goes. Jennifer holds a mirror up to NOW and the other screeching banshees for whom misandry has become their raison d'etre .
This isn't the sort of ham-handed man-hating that we saw in last year's "Teeth," which portrayed almost every male in the film as a rapist. "Teeth" was directed by a man who obviously believes himself a feminist. "Jennifer's Body," on the other hand, was directed and written by women with a much deeper understanding of feminism. The boys who are brutally murdered by Jennifer seem like downright decent guys; full human beings, not sex-starved monsters. They are vulnerable and experience fears and teenage angst. That's what makes Jennifer's glee when she destroys each one for the sole purpose of empowering herself all the more unsettling. Jennifer simply can't see these creatures as human beings, they are just "boys." Note she doesn't bother to knock them out first, as she could do if her goal was simply to feed on them. No, she must eat them alive, and their terror is part of her fun. It must warm the cockles of extreme feminists' hearts to hear their terrified shrieking. When Jennifer steals her best friend's sweet and loyal boyfriend, who has a big part in the film, and quickly makes a bloody mess of him as she finishes him off, the film reaches a level of tasteless misandry surpassing anything in recent memory.
Are the film's feminist sensibilities intentional? You betcha. The writer of the film, self-proclaimed outspoken feminist Diablo Cody, admits she purposefully infused the film with feminist sensibilities. She just doesn't want the film's teen male audience to realize it, and I'll bet you they don't: "[Director Karyn Kusama] and I talk about the film as a kind of Trojan horse. We wanted to package our beliefs in a way that's appealing to a mainstream audience." See here
Did you get that? A Trojan horse -- that doesn't mean the Trojan condom company, fellas.
Cody's idea of mainstream horror films is most interesting: "(Director) Karyn Kusama and I are both outspoken feminists. We wanted to subvert the classic horror model of women being terrorized."
Um, excuse me? Which universe is Ms. Cody referencing? Because in the one where I live, the monsters in horror films typically kill off as many, and often more, boys as girls. Ah -- but Cody's gynocentric lens only allows her to see female victimization. In almost every one of those films, the last man standing standing is a girl, while all the males end up being brutally murdered.
Welcome to the wacky, topsy-turvy world of feminist screeds on horror films. You see, these films are made for teen males, their theory goes: ". . . film theorist Carol J. Clover in 'Men, Women and Chain Saws' (1992) . . . refers to a lone young woman who either escapes or overthrows a killer as the 'final girl.' More comfortable watching a woman in peril than a man, young, male audiences — initially slasher movies’ core viewers — get the best of both worlds, identifying first with the predator and then with the would-be prey. That women also identify with the scrappy heroine is something of a happy accident." See here
Did you get that? First, does it ring true to anyone outside of Womyn's Studies classes that crass Hollywood producers are more interested in practicing misogyny by appealing solely to young males than in making films that will appeal to a bigger audience? Second, young males identify with the killer -- as he murders young women? The misandry at play in that statement is almost too fantastic to be believed -- but believe it, that's what they think. They must imagine the typical teen boy sitting in the theater getting a hard-on as the monster is killing a defenseless girl. Because at heart, every teen male, every adult male for that matter, is a sexual predator, right?
At the end of "Jennifer's Body," the boys are dead, and the savior of humanity is Jennifer's friend, Needy, who is heading off to kill the all male band members who turned Jennifer into a demon. You see, only a woman can conquer the evils of patriarchy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
65 comments:
Second, young males identify with the killer -- as he murders young women? The misandry at play in that statement is almost too fantastic to be believed -- but believe it, that's what they think. They must imagine the typical teen boy sitting in the theater getting a hard-on as the monster is killing a defenseless girl. Because at heart, every teen male, every adult male for that matter, is a sexual predator, right?
I think it may be less misandry than projection. If you notice what feminists are always accusing men of, it is exactly the way that women atually behave - from the "old girls club" and shutting out the opposite sex from job opportunities, to getting their rocks off on murder and mutilation. Think of this as a sort of cinematic ink blot test for women.
One thing that people tend to underestimate is that in general the messages people get from media, stories, and films are not necessarily what the maker intended. I would not be surprised if 10 years after seeing it the most lasting impression left in young men's minds from the film is that women are demons.
Interesting "feminist" message.
Anon at 11:54: excellent points.
I think the plot was unwittingly a metaphor for modern feminism's fetish in insisting on female advantages in every aspect of life. But the glee in offing boys couldn't have been unwitting. The good fems who made this mess likely would tell us that they are merely reversing the norm of male killers offing women. But that's NOT the norm. The norm is not killing off one gender. The norm is a monster terrorizing PEOPLE, especially males. And Hollywood plays into the vulnerable female stuff and makes a woman the sole survivor.
I don't think that MRAs should be in the movie critic business. That just trivializes what we're doing and puts us on the level with feminists who whine about how women are depicted in the movies.
Besides, the feminist who needs to sacrifice boys to maintain her powers sounds about right.
Anon at 12:26: a shame you didn't like it, but it doesn't trivialize anything and discussing television commercials, sitcoms, movies and books are all part of "what we're doing." A big part. They often mirror or add to misandry and need to be discussed. Just because something doesn't appear in a news article doesn't mean it's not a fitting subject for discussion on this or similar blogs.
For you and anyone else who takes offense that we go off-topic once in a while, you might want to just skip the post rather than publicly chastise me and head over to one of the other false rape sites for the day.
Oh, wait . . . excuse me, that's right. There AREN'T any other false rape sites. Gee, so when you referenced "what we're doing," I think you meant what FRS is doing.
Going "off-topic" is fine; I'm just saying that MRAs are making a big mistake when they focus on the entertainment media. Two points:
- Unlike feminists and other groups who try to control our culture, our message should be "hands off." Our problem is the news media, not the entertainment media. (Feminist art that sends a direct message of hate is different, of course -- sentiments such as "I wish I were a man so I could fuck you and take your job!" need to be refuted.)
-We should avoid making generalizations about women when it's unnecessary to do so, such as "women can't direct horror movies." The goal of MRAs shouldn't be to dismiss women's potential, but to correct injustices against men and to reaffirm the importance of social institutions in which men play a key role.
But I'm glad you brought this up, because this illustrates perfectly what the reaction is going to be as the public becomes more aware of false rape accusations. People are going to feel angry at women, and the anger is often going to be unfocused. Our goal should be to focus that anger into something constructive: rebuilding a rights-based society.
I agree with Archivist. Glenn Sacks historically has devoted a lot of space to TV commercials and cartoons. The point of this post wasn't to review a film -- it was to highlight an exercise in cinematic misandry and to discuss feminism film theory.
I never understood why people feel it's their right to criticize the blogmaster, especially on this blog, which is among the leaders in the men's rights movement.
"Our problem is the news media, not the entertainment media."
Speak for yourself. I speak for this blog, and I agree with my friend Glenn Sacks: you can't ignore any of it. You do so at your peril.
P.S. Anon at 12:48: thanks for your kind words, but someone voicing an opinion is fine. He's made his point, and I'm not going to allow this discussion to high jack my post.
Archivist, I seriously doubt that one movie about a boy-devouring demon feminist is having much influence on American criminal justice policy, or any policy. You can't purge our culture of all references to feminism or of any situation involving a male character dying.
And that will have to be my final statement on the matter.
"You can't purge our culture of all references to feminism or of any situation involving a male character dying."
Whatever the fuck that means . . . .
The trojan horse comment says it all. They set out to do a movie where feminist empowerment was taken to the nth degree. This is not the sort of thing we should be encouraging.
typical feminist propaganda and the worst part is apparent the chick doesn't get naked.
IMO, this is just another layer to this problem. I believe it is not off topic and proves that this mentality is becoming the norm and not the exception.
How many women will watch this movie and get ideas of how they can mess with the next man who makes them angry?
I think it's a scarey scenario.
CBGirl
To anon at 12.29
"Archivist, I seriously doubt that one movie about a boy-devouring demon feminist is having much influence on American criminal justice policy, or any policy. You can't purge our culture of all references to feminism or of any situation involving a male character dying."
Your right, you are so right, you are so incredibly right.
This is why CBS is full of sit coms involving servile negroes called uncle tom, aryan peoples making jokes about jews and ovens, etc etc etc.
I'll give you two more examples.
1/
"Banana republic"
It means a joke, crooked country, no?
No, it means a country overthrown by the CIA and United Fruit, for profit from the biological monoculture that are Cavendish species bananas.
2/
Where were the vast majority of the US Army stationed at the end of World War 1?
France, no?
No, on the border with Mexico
anon at 1.39 is me
Anon for obvious reasons
The point being, it is trivially easy to purge any culture of anything you like.
The tool is ALWAYS "Media", though it is also known as propoganda
Anon for obvious reasons
Thanks CB Girl and Anon at 1:39. That guy is, I think, the same person who doesn't like anything that isn't false rape news. Fine. We have 45 stories backlogged. I personally think this sort of post is all part of the false rape culture, if you want to call it that. We will see more and more of it, and I think somebody needs to bring it to people's attention.
The asshole who thinks this is off-topic should ask himself or herself this quesiton: what would be the reaction if a director said he inserted MRA sensibilities in his new film as a trojan horse so that his female audience wouldn't notice it?
You think that guy would win an Oscar?
Anon at 1:51: He's not an asshole, just passionate.
Your point is a killer. If any director dared to do what you said, my guess is he'd never work in that town again.
The asshole who thinks this is off-topic should ask himself or herself this quesiton: what would be the reaction if a director said he inserted MRA sensibilities in his new film as a trojan horse so that his female audience wouldn't notice it?
You think that guy would win an Oscar?
* * * * *
I don't know. Why don't you try it and find out?
Maybe you can call it "Kathleen Rice: the Motion Picture."
This probably still isn't nearly as bad as 'Thelma and Louise', bacause that movie showed an outright extreme hatred of men, and was far more realisic than some fantasy and thus could influence peoples' thinking more as they would look at it in a more serious light.
Besides, Geena Davis is a pig.
"You can't purge our culture of all references to feminism or of any situation involving a male character dying."
Yes, that is quite true, considering the average person on the average day probably experiences dozens of 'references' to feminism, and probably 99% of movie characters who die are men (taking into account war movies and Westerns, which in your small mind probably 'don't count').
But war movies and westerns are movies that a lot of men really enjoy, so what sense would it make to call them misandrist? And plenty of female characters have died in horror movies, at the hands of sadistic male killers. It would be just as easy to call these movies "misogynist."
Which is exactly what feminists have been doing for decades, and not to their credit.
I think we should be wary about reading too much into films. It's easy to be wrong, for one thing, and for another we run the risk of Dan Quayling our issues.
The real problem is the news media (noose media?) that smears male defendents while concealing the names of rape accusers (who can turn out to be liars), that doesn't bother to mention when a case is proceeding with no evidence, and that often treats false rape accusations as a victimless crime.
I genuinely do not understand why / how NONE of you apparently get it...
The "news" media (format is irellevant) does not consider ANYTHING to be news unless it is...
a/ frightening
b/ shocking
c/ unsettling
because the news media worked out 30 years ago (did you think freud and bernaise were only employed by governments to profile people???)that the best way to get and keep your attention was by rattling your fucking cages.
rape scares every fucker, because we all have mums or sisters or girlfriends or daughters.
false rape ain't scary, like being hit by lightning, can't fucking happen here.
The HOFSTA case did not get one second of air time because of the false rape.
It got 100% of air time because here was an opportunity to put a gang bang on the front page and the lunchtime news, not after the watershed.
wake up, FFS
you/we will NEVER win if you keep coming to a knife fight armed with bananas.
Look at this picture, sans headline
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wYv6zDcanLY/SrVD3fuNSeI/AAAAAAAAALM/bCHDTqKqBGk/s400/2009_09_hofrap.jpg
Does this picture look like two guys (aww, geee, shucks) who just got "caught" having gang banged some skank ho, or two innocent men accused of a filty crime?
The headline is bullshit, just an excuse to tell the story about a GANG BANG at a college dorm once again.
As the post above, anon for obvious reasons
"The HOFSTA case did not get one second of air time because of the false rape.
It got 100% of air time because here was an opportunity to put a gang bang on the front page and the lunchtime news, not after the watershed.
wake up, FFS"
You may be right on how some media saw their opportunity with Hofstra, but there are other ways in which the false rape issue can be very appealing to other media.
There was plenty of media coverage of the street rebellion recently in Iran, and there has been in the past whenever public disquiet explodes into civil unrest. Our police and prosecution services have become so contemptuous of men's legal rights that they are close to provoking an all-out popular revolt. An astute media would recognize the enormous media potential in such an eventuality, and wouldn't be trying to suppress it by screening reportage - especially when it would be ethically more wrong to allow rampant judicial malpractice than it would be to allow public unrest.
Norm, I agree about Thelma and Louise. There's a special place in hell for the folks who made that one. This one was just goofy. If it's any indication of the future of Hollywood, we're in trouble.
I’d like to know what’s so feministy about a slut who murders boys. Fox’s character, especially with her comments about “they’re not people—they’re boys”, doesn’t sound like any character I’d be proud to identify with.
And this site is an MRA site that is heavily false rape accusation, like Glenn Sacks is MRA and heavily father’s rights. You may think otherwise, but you’d be wrong. If your message about false rape includes misandry and how society views & treats men, which it always does, then you would be remiss not to at least occasionally include other things besides stories of women recanting. Plus, it is more interesting.
"I’d like to know what’s so feministy about a slut who murders boys. Fox’s character, especially with her comments about “they’re not people—they’re boys”, doesn’t sound like any character I’d be proud to identify with."
Easy. The answer is right in front of your face. If you were on the receiving end of feminism,you'd already know this one.
Feminism is a hate group. Harming men is the ONLY GOAL of modern feminism. All the "sisterhood" bullshit is just a ruse to get enough women to go along with them.
Jeana, don't take my word for it. The writer wrote this as a trojan horse feminist film.
Jeana's second comment is correct.
Jeana, don't take my word for it. The writer wrote this as a trojan horse feminist film.
I read what the writer said. But I don’t agree with her. Unless she thinks that a female using her body and offing guys is some kind of feminist fantasy. My opinion is that it is not. A strong female character that perseveres is one thing; a murderous slut is another. Feminists don’t hate men. Misandrists hate men. There’s a difference between us.
Some of the internal contradictions of feminism are apparent here, because on one hand, feminists long to break free of "roles" such as those served by women in previous horror films, but on the other hand feminism is highly dependent on stereotypes of powerful men and helpless women. And feminism usually boils down to "men suck!"
Here you have a feminist-oriented horror film filled with angry women, unintentional (?) self-parody about how boys aren't people, etc -- and for once I think that Jeana is right in pointing out that this isn't a very flattering way to present feminism, if that was the intention of the film.
What I would say to these feminists who want to see women depicted in a more sophisticated way is that there are plenty of women going to the movies, and it is up to YOU to make the kind of films that you want to see and to promote them; and if they are unsuccessful (as this movie has been so far) don't blame it on an imaginary "patriarchy," but instead focus on something creative.
Jeanna wants to see anything on this site accept for the news story, after news story, after news story, of false rape accusations.
Why in the world would anyone go to see this piece of trash?
Anon at 9:06:
But this feminist thinks she did make a horror movie with feminist overtones. To me, it sounds like what is stereotypically feminist but not ACTUALLY feminist. Feminists should not want to kill or hurt males. Using your body to “control” males isn’t something that is a feminist ideal. Although many using-type females know this and use it to their advantage.
Are the females shown as heroes in this film? Are the males Megan Fox kills evil and “deserve” to be killed (by Hollywood standards)? Or are they just regular, normal guys? I think they’re just regular guys.
Maybe because it’s a killer female instead of a killer male it’s considered to be feminist. I hate these movies anyway and so I won’t be watching it, but it’s a little bothersome that the writer thinks this is feminist in any way. “Strong” female doesn’t mean homicidal maniacal murderer of males. At least, not to me.
Scott,
You are absolutely right. I hate threads about rape and false rape accusations. Which makes it difficult for me in a place like this. And yet I must persevere.
Feminists should not want to kill or hurt males.
Ever hear of Mary Daly or Sally Miller Gearhart? Both of them suggested killing 90% of all males.
You've chosen to put yourself in some pretty foul company.
Interestingly enough jeana, there are feminists who don't consider this movie a feminist movie at all:
Sister Hacked
Diablo Cody set out to make a feminist horror film -- so why is Jennifer's Body the least empowering slasher flick currently on screen?
At the end of "Jennifer's Body," the boys are dead, and the savior of humanity is Jennifer's friend, Needy, who is heading off to kill the all male band members who turned Jennifer into a demon. You see, only a woman can conquer the evils of patriarchy.
"The evils of patriarchy"? Really? I thought she was just off to kill the band members. What, band members=patriarchy....
Her transformation is effected by greedy capitalist male band members who, oh, by the way, practice the occult and decide to sacrifice Jennifer because they think she's a virgin -- but she isn't, and because she isn't, she turns into a demon. Got it? Neither does anyone else.
Here's an explaination for that from the link I posted:
"...she's singled out for sacrifice by male indie rockers who lust for fame because she is presumed to be a virgin, and then is eternally damned to demonhood because she is not."
"“Strong” female doesn’t mean homicidal maniacal murderer of males."
But the point you're missing is that to the feminist leaders,and the influential feminist "scholars", that is EXACTLY what "strong female" means to them.
"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."
Catherine Comin, Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students.
'To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo."
Scum Manifesto. (Valerie Solanas)
That's how feminism views men.
What, band members=patriarchy....
Males="Patriarchy"
I personally think diverging from time to time can't hurt, it lets us take step back a bit and look at the larger picture that FRS is a part of.
Men rights in general are threatened by many things, false rape is one of the majour ones.
However, diverting to a movie isn't a bad move. Movies, plays, music and art sway peoples minds and thoughts, even if in small almost unnoticable ways. To win the publics heart enough to get them to change their approach to men in general (particularly in false rape) we need to "win the war" on all fronts.
While i have nothing against a movie about a female killer targeting boys (Amazingly realistic in the scope of real life female serial killers) the only real complaint to be had is that the director has knowingly (and admittedly) made a film based on feminism and hating/eating men.
As to the comment about making a MRA movie, it reminds of the book "Stupid White Men" and how it was totally lorded, yet if i were to write a book called "Dumb Black Woman" I'd probably be locked up and sued out the A.
We need to remember that Fems are striving for more than equality. Yet WE should be striving to be equal. This includes how we are perceived in film and media and how we are allowed to be treated.
"To me, it sounds like what is stereotypically feminist but not ACTUALLY feminist."
Yet all stereotypes stem from a grain of truth, and there are feminists out there like that.
"Feminists should not want to kill or hurt males. Using your body to “control” males isn’t something that is a feminist ideal."
Should and Do are unfortunately different, and there are a lot of feminists out there who DO want to hurt men.
Equality is purportedly the feminist ideal, yet when asked about male rights, one is told that men have to look after their own rights.... hmmmm.
"Maybe because it’s a killer female instead of a killer male it’s considered to be feminist. I hate these movies anyway and so I won’t be watching it, but it’s a little bothersome that the writer thinks this is feminist in any way. “Strong” female doesn’t mean homicidal maniacal murderer of males. At least, not to me."
No, it's feminist because it was written that way, to express feminist ideals (or so the writer says). I also won't be watching it, and I agree that a strong woman does not mean she's a homicidal maniac.
The very first anonymous poster referred to "projection". I tend to use the word transference but the end is the same.
It should always be remembered that any feminist depiction of of men as a class is a view from a feminine and feminist standpoint.
As an illustration the "patriarchy" serves as a perfect description of how things would operate if women had actually been running the show. An examination of those areas where women or feminists do have significant control or influence provides one with an adequate, real-life example of this at play. They run closed shops. Men need not apply as clients or workers but only as enablers. We've seen time and again how efficient, and ruthless, the old girls networks are.
Their own actions are very illuminating to those who really look.
They are all also too butt-ugly to get a decent man...
AfOR
My own view is that the director simply wanted to make a film about an empowered girl and her soon-to-be-empowered friend, but she unwittingly concocted a metaphor for modern feminsim: the hallmarks are that they (1) view gender relations as a zero sum game (any perceived advantage to males is a loss for females that must be corrected to the point that females are ahead), and (2) are indifferent to males (any perceived advantage to females over males is just fine with them).
Granted, this is not what a lot of women call classical feminism. by which they mean all people should be equal, etc.; this is mainstream feminism, which has become RADICAL feminism (the reason is that the vast majority of people favor equality and know that "feminism" is a loaded word best avoided). NOW has become radical. Virtually every "feminist" website is radical. Some are more radical than others. But generally, anyone who claims she is an outspoken feminist is radical -- zero sum, indifference.
Thanks for your comments, Sonja Newcombe. Assuming that you are female from your screen name, it is a real breath of fresh air to run across a woman who gets it.
There can be a lot of humor in watching feminists argue over what is "actually" feminism and what isn't - particularly in light of the fact that every woman seems to literally get to define "feminism" for herself. A few years ago, I actually had a woman say "let me tell you about MY feminism" - as though one could take a political ideology and redefine it as a personal view and that somehow affected what that ideology was supposed to mean.
This whole rape-lie issue is the perfect example if Pierce's comments about zero-sum game - if ANY woman is caught in her lies, somehow that is a loss for ALL women. Women must be allowed to destroy the lives of as many men as they like because if they lose even a tiny bit of that then some real rapist out their might get away with not being crucified for his crime.
Women in general, and feminists in particular, would be a lot better off if they didn't push men to the wall and try to leave nothing at all for men. It makes them look like a very greedy and dishonest lot, and that weakens their overall case and put them in the position where they have to use bluster and agression to shout men down so that they can win the argument even when they are wrong.
Shutting men's perspective totally out of the picture will result in men disengaging from women completely - which is what we are beginning to see throughout the culture. Celebrating their ability to destroy us makes women unattractive enough that it can overcome even our powerful biological instincts to be drawn to them.
I'm new to the party, what does MRA stand for?
"I'm new to the party, what does MRA stand for?"
Technically, it stands for Men's Rights Activist; although many (myself included) would prefer it to be Men's Rights advocate (we don't go around blowing things up or burning things down to make OUR points).
However, diverting to a movie isn't a bad move. Movies, plays, music and art sway peoples minds and thoughts, even if in small almost unnoticable ways. To win the publics heart enough to get them to change their approach to men in general (particularly in false rape) we need to "win the war" on all fronts.
* * * * * *
I don't agree with that. We don't need to win a "culture war" in the entertain media. The feminists have been waging a culture war for decades without success, whining about every imagined slight against women, making themselves look intolerant and petty in process -- which is, of course, what they are.
The feminists have been waging a culture war for decades without success, whining about every imagined slight against women, making themselves look intolerant and petty in process -- which is, of course, what they are.
Take a look around at the legal and social climate. If this is "lack of success" at influencing the culture, I'll be glad to have some of what they are having.
The legal and social climate has to do with the news media and legal system, not movies, which are just as packed full of violence and sex as ever. Their culture war has failed, thank God.
"I’d like to know what’s so feministy about a slut who murders boys."
Jeana is making an obvious and important point. There are forms of feminism which completley contradict each other. The problem is that they don't go the final step and call each other non-feminsts. But we can make the distionctions they don't.
This film's ideology is radical feminst - men are the problem, men are unnnecesary, the world would be better off without men, and violence menas ot achieve that end get a "you go girl!"
There are hordes of feminsts who either condemn this kind of bigotry or are astionished it even exists. The denouncers don't get much press and the astonsihed ones may be guilty of not paying attention or whatever, but that doesn't mean they don't exist and it doesn't mean their feminism isn't feminist.
So that's why Jeana's point is valid.
There are hordes of feminsts who either condemn this kind of bigotry or are astionished it even exists.
But they are not the ones making the news, or the laws. A silent and ineffective minority is inconsequential when considering the actions of the very vocal, active, and effective majority.
Where are these alleged "hordes" on this issue? Why are they not speaking out? Given the lack of evidence for their existance, on what basis is the claim that they actually do exist being made?
There are hordes of feminsts who either condemn this kind of bigotry or are astionished it even exists.
Can you point to some examples of the hordes of man-friendly feminists condemning hofstra and calling for the liar's head on a pike?
Anon says,
"But war movies and westerns are movies that a lot of men really enjoy, so what sense would it make to call them misandrist?"
They are misandric because they 'enforce' the idea that men are disposable. The fact that some men don't notice this doesn't make it any less wrong.
" And plenty of female characters have died in horror movies, at the hands of sadistic male killers."
The question is, who would you rather be portrayed as - a psychotic killer, or his victim? (although when women are portrayed as killers, it's usually in the spirit of, 'you go girl')
To give examples of a few women who say hateful things about men and then extrapolate this to feminists or women at large isn’t really fair. What about the many, many hateful MRA sites in which all women (esp. feminists) are called “bitches”, “cunts”, etc. over and over and over? I’ve seen way, way more hate coming FROM males directed TO females.
This movie is about a female killer of males. What about all the movies about a male rapist/killer or just killer of females? What does that say about men & MRAs in general? I would say, NOTHING. But somehow it’s different because it’s about the more rare case of a female serial killer.
Sonja says that there ARE some women who want to hurt males. And there’s not some (or more than some) males/woman-haters (some of whom are MRAs) who don’t want to hurt or kill women? I’ve seen their comments & websites. Of course there are.
And no, Sonja, it does NOT express any feminist ideals. Stereotypically crazed man-hating feminist ideals maybe. Not mainstream, much as you’d like to believe.
“Can you point to some examples of the hordes of man-friendly feminists condemning hofstra and calling for the liar's head on a pike?”
Just as soon as you give me examples of the hordes of woman-friendly MRAs condemning rapists and calling for rapists’ head on a pike. Anyway, “head on a pike” is ridiculous. What you must mean is calling for justice. I’m hoping.
Just as soon as you...
Typical, and so predictable. Assertion made about the existance of some hypothetical "horde", then when asked to provide evidence of such horde, make the requirement that the other side first produce evidence of something they never claimed existed.
We know that you are a liar, Jeana. With every post you just confirm that. Feminists would do well to pay you to shut up if you are the best they have to offer as a counter-case.
"But war movies and westerns are movies that a lot of men really enjoy, so what sense would it make to call them misandrist?"
They are misandric because they 'enforce' the idea that men are disposable. The fact that some men don't notice this doesn't make it any less wrong.
" And plenty of female characters have died in horror movies, at the hands of sadistic male killers."
The question is, who would you rather be portrayed as - a psychotic killer, or his victim? (although when women are portrayed as killers, it's usually in the spirit of, 'you go girl')
* * * *
The point, Norm, is that movies don't exist to conform to any single viewpoint; they exist to entertain. Movies are neither misandrist nor misogynist; it is up to the audience to make those value judgments. And please don't tell me that war movies "reinforce the disposability of men." That's bologna.
Movies about John Wayne kicking ass reinforce the idea that John Wayne kicks ass and nothing else. Adults are not chalkboards, and movies aren't chalk.
I CONDEMN RAPISTS!
I don't know how many times I must say that before people will stop assuming I'm OK with rape.
I'll go one better: one of the reasons false rape claims are plausible is because we still have too many rapes (although the numbers are declining, and we don't have nearly the number our radical feminist "friends" insist we have). I am going to post on that sometime.
Anon,
"Movies are neither misandrist nor misogynist; it is up to the audience to make those value judgments."
The audience's values and their corresponding judgements are in large part determined by what they see and hear in the media every day. Though I would be the last to say all behaviour is socialized, there is no 'gene for value judgements'.
----------------------------
Men have to register for the draft because they are considered disposable. (whereas women do not). A boy growing up who becomes desensitized to the deaths of thousands of men getting blown up or shot on-screen, becomes just another male who doesn't mind his own disposability. In fact, it is these media productions which largely serve to 'keep men in their (disposable) places'. (That is why I used the word 'enforce'.)
"Pierce Harlan said...
I CONDEMN RAPISTS!"
And I condemn lying females. I just don't want their heads on a pike. Jail is good enough.
Post a Comment