Ah. See Ann Rynd got involved in that. Always a useful barometer for frothing batshit insanity.
Can misandry be dealt with in here, because it doesnt end ‘ism’.
Because this is at epidemic proportions too.
The Princess and the frog will be remade in a few years time. Tiana will cohabit with Naveen, there will be no need for him to transform from a frog, they’ll have tadpole human spawn babies who are born sexless and Tiana will transition into a starfish identifying as a male octopus with six tentacles who lives on land.
5 people will be offended that it’s alien-exclusionary and the film will be banned and the writers, and everyone else associated with it in any way, cancelled.
Yes, let’s get this right. I never mentioned identity politics.
I said that the elimination of the male lead came character about due to Hollywood’s fear of the #Metoo movement.
If you read the BBC article I referenced, you will see that is exactly the point.
Still, makes you miss the good old days when Hollywood was a safe haven for free expression and free-thinking and (self-)censoring was unheard of.
Poor little male snowflakes.
Male suicide is the highest demographic of any group, whilst homelessness might as well simply be a male condition. Not only that 3rd and 4th wave feminism, drunk on earlier, and quite justifiable successes in equality, are now seeking to criminalise natural traits of masculinity, where reliability and dependability are now transposed as ‘controlling behaviour’. Now there’s a snowball.
To boot the core traits of female on male abuse are still to be properly recognised at law; quite different from its converse, it operates long and thin, in the shadows, acting through sustained psychological emotional and mental abuse intended to wear down the victim. Whilst mental cruelty is recognised at law it is a higher test, and even recently a serious case of female on male lifelong nagging was thrown out of the English family courts.
Man the fuck up.
I’m aware of that. But Hollywood (Disney in this case) reassessing it’s approach to sexual politics is something that should be welcomed, not scorned.
The Star Wars films prompted two conversations with my boys about appropriate behaviour towards women, basically explaining that if they behave like Han Solo does in Empire Strikes Back or Anakin does in Attack of the Clones, then they won’t end up with a girlfriend, they’ll get a visit from the police.
Disney are probably more sensitive than most to this, because a huge chunk of their output has been based on the fairytale princess myth.
I do welcome it.
The issue I have is when they take to such an extreme that the story suffers.
At the end of the day we all just want good stories not political statements bigging up one sex, race or whatever and degrading another just to appear politically correct.
Then latest Star Wars trilogy could have been awesome. It could have launched Daisy Riddly to another level but in reality she will now be known as “oh yeah, you played Rey in THOSE films”
Those films were shite and the character was uninteresting and kind of annyoing tbh. Imo.
Ever looked at a list of films the Pentagon has had an influence over (in many cases they literally have to hand in the scripts and get line-edited)? I don’t see that much outrage over that.
Yes, this is all true. But you have spectacularly missed the point about all those things.
All the problems affect men you mention, and there are many others, are a direct consequence of living in an obvious patriachy. With clear roles and expectations that women are expected to conform to and clear roles and expections that men are expected to conform to.
Males are disproptionately affected by suicide? Ask yourself why this is. Men are unfavourably treated in child custody cases. Again ask yourself why. Homelessness disproportionately affects men. Why?
We don’t live in an equal society. The majority of the impacts of that fall on women, but some of them fall on men - as you’ve noticed.
The correct response to this would be to fight together for a more equal world, which would inevitably involve men surrendering some of the many ways they benefit from the current situation.
But that tends not to be my experience. My experience is that men are very keen to focus all the efforts on addressing the very specific ways that society impacts on them, while seeking to preserve the ways they benefit, while belittling and undermining efforts to contrary. That’s why male empowerment movements are for the most part pathetic.
If we want see male suicide rates to fall, then we have to stop imposing on men the idea that it isn’t masculine to seek help. If we’re concerned about women getting favourable treatment in child custody cases, then we have to build societies in which childcare is seen as a truly shared responsibility. If we want to stop homelessness being a male issue then we have to address the previous point - women are always going to have priority when it comes to housing because they are frequently responsible for children, and we also have to do something about the very particular vulnerabilities a women would be exposed to on the streets which men mostly aren’t.
As for misandry, the solution is really simple. If us men want to stop women hating us, then we need to stop behaving like dickheads. It’s that simple.
I read your post and looked up why male suicide is higher than female and without being flippant as I have people close to me (male and female) both attempt and/or achieve suicide and according to what I’ve read it isn’t what you have raised above which increases male suicide rates but the methods used which result in more men achieving it.
Im not debating this if you are going to continue with ad hominem points; and you went in first line. So here’s yours. The only point I have missed was you seem to be an apologist for your own gender. Your reasoning seems to amount to saying it is okay to exert prejudice on men because they deserve it because society is patriarchal. This is exactly the problem. Doubled up with the truism whispered in female cubicles up and down the country, that its ‘okay to hurt men, they’re hard’.
Feminism needs to focus up on the factual issues, not enlarging and creating new notionally theoretical ones, and needs to cease this transposition of punishing this generation for the wiles of an earlier one. Its gone too far and something needs to abate it.
Could you care to answer your own questions rather than posit them in rhetoric? As it seems men are more likely to be homeless, unfairly treated in family courts and suicidal because, well, they are men in a patriarchal society and this is somehow justifiable in balancing up a wider field. Its a disgrace, and yet another conduit for the human race to mete out cruelty. Its entirely the wrong response, we should be espousing fairness and compassion in all our responses, not getting one in on men here, because we can and they deserve it
The problem is the danger in where political values become conflated with the avant garde. So, at least, in ten years or so we will see neutrality liberalism in clearance bins in pound-stretcher.
Looking for a male refuge as we write but they are pathetic. You do realise you sound like a left wing extremist? Which to me is no worse than the right wing version. The universe spins in balance, its in the centre.
Yes, there is data to suggest male suicide rates are high because when men attempt it they achieve it, and are more prone to chronic drug and alcohol abuse. I dont know whether this accounts for the entire accentuation.
I just watched ‘Dambusters’ the other night. Classic film, but that dog name has not aged well. If they ever remaster it, a sly ‘N->T’ substitution would be welcome.
Most horror movies have female ghosts. Why. Serial killers almost always males. Why.
But that was the name of Gibson’s dog. I think back then it was used more as a colour adjective (n…r brown) than a pejorative.
Oh I know it was true. Not sure that there was much of a separation between the pejorative use and the colour descriptor, but it was clearly not meant in malice in that case. Nonetheless, it is shocking to hear now, and the narrative arc doesn’t really depend on the name in any way. Sticking to the historically accurate would be merely pedantic while creating a controversy that is itself ahistorical.
He was a black lab, btw. So not brown…
Maybe rather than replace the name just remove the reference to it (particular scene)? Can the audio be muted without it being apparent? I can’t remember the specific scene(s).