I am not saying, and do not think, it’s OK for prejudice to exist against men. I don’t think it’s OK in and of itself, and I don’t think that it’s OK as an act of cosmic balancing. If that’s the central point of your response, you haven’t understood what I’m saying.
What I am saying, is that the root cause of those problem are the same root causes of issues that adversely affect women. There are not women’s issues and men’s issues. It’s the same underlying societal issues creating problems that affect women more than men, and problems that affect men more than women.
What I find really sad is the way too many men are so quick to turn everything, even down to something as trivial as an unsatisfactory Star Wars film into perceived oppression. That just suggests we (by which I mean men) have a long way to go.
The dog is a big part of the movie, so it isn’t just one scene. In classic repressed ‘stiff upper lip’ English fashion, the dog is the emotional center of the group of men, who do not really display the same affection to one another. Then the dog dies. The mission actually used the dog’s name as the code word for reporting the success of the operation.
Previously, it has been cut (making a mess of the film), or dubbed over (US broadcasts had the dog called ‘Trigger’) but technology has advanced enough now that getting a sample of a different consonant from the same actors and patching over it would be possible.
I havent missed anything, and stop with the rudeness. I would consider the ideological society that you have in mind to be a pipe dream of neutrality liberalism. Male and female natural drives are simultaneously exclusive and interchangeable. Men do things better than women, and women do things better than men, and both of them do some things with equal skill.
Another part of the problem we have now is thinking we can place humanity outside the plane of nature, we simply cannot. Its is an established fact of genetics that males and females are different variants of the same species, but this does not seem to be understood on the current political plane. Difference and inequality are as much conditions of ontology as are similarity and equality.
So would you have any detail, which might be why this hugely obvious point is being missed. What underlying issues please? Other than you think society is fundamentally flawed. If its ‘fundamentally flawed’ its because certain groups are creating a focus by which such conclusions follow. That focus is coming from an erroneous adherence to an impossible philosophical maxim; that absolute equality can be achieved.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference
Has never been more relevant, but I suppose Im battling an atheist. No less, an entry point into placing man outside the plane of nature.
Quite right; can’t have historical facts offending modern sensibilities.
I suggest the remake should feature the stunning a brave all female complement of 617 squadron, commanded by stunning and brave bame lesbian Guidette Gibson, as they battle and eventually destroy the patriarchy.
Gibson’s white labrador “Whitey” sadly dies at the end of the film.
The bouncing bomb will of course have been invented by transgender bisexual genius, Bernadette Wallis.
In the case of that movie, a 2020 audience will hear that word in a way that was never intended in the 1940’s or 1955 when it was made. Making the change is arguably the way to tell the story as intended. It is just a name, and really just a syllable. How important is the fact of that syllable?
By contrast, I get irritated with seeing period dramas (usually from the UK) that have used colour-blind (at best) casting to have black actors playing members of the English upper class. I think something important gets obscured there. With the classical stories like a Hamlet or MacBeth, I don’t see a problem with that, but when there is an aspiration to realism, I believe it is wildly misleading to depict a past of ostensible racial harmony and equal opportunity. If history is like that, there was no injustice, and visible minorities are entirely responsible for their own condition. I understand the casting choice is well-meaning, but the effect is insidious.
You’ve dragged this to the extremes, not me. Like Lawton’s proposed remake of Dambusters, or Kopstar’s Princess and the Frog reboot, this conversation is always skewed at the point where people stop considering reality and start simply making up ridiculous strawman examples of what could happen if this Political Correctness is left to run wild.
No-one is in a futile battle with biology. There are obviously differences between men and women and women that must remain. The problem is that the we’re currently a long way short of the serenity prayer ideal. I’m very happy to accept what can’t be changed. But the things we can change are not changing because there is a constituency of men who perceive any slight correcting of the imbalance as oppression, and will accept no compromise to the privilege they enjoy.
Yes but I accept there are some bad men out there; Rees-Mogg and the tory cronies being an embodiment of your complaint; Im totally with you. But neither yourself nor society accept the bad women, causing trouble for vindictive means. Why take out a hard working husband because you cannot get to Rees-Mogg?
I tried to assert balance and you mocked me morphing it into some new-age cosmic consciousness. Neither have I constructed a straw man argument; political correctness is creating these absurdities right now. @Lowton_Red@Kopstar and @Arminius are having great fun making fun of the underside of it. Its evident there are some snowflakes with media influence that think they are Gods and can shape and influence the consciousness of our species.
We’ve had centuries of elites (often conservative) and religious fundamentalists censoring,
re-writing history and trying to shape our collective (sub)consciousness.
Now we get a few zeitgeisty Hollywood dipshits and people are offended because they’re messing with their childhood fantasy toys.
I think that there is an alternative though - the possibility that rather than change something already in existence, create something new that reflects current ideals. No need for revisionism.
Yeah, fine with me. Probably more to do with the lack of risk taking and creative ineptitude. Not everything has to be a ‘franchise’, that gets milked and re-worked until there’s nothing left.
But whatever. I liked the new Mad Max though. Had a cool non-annyoing kick-ass female character as well.
Changing of the name of the dog, to avoid causing offence is, on the face of it, a trivial change. But it raises the question: once you start to to make changes to the historicity of an event, just to avoid offending / appeasing a modern audience, how far do you go; when do you stop. For example the recent film “1917” was criticised for the lack of female / bame characters. Should women have been depicted fighting alongside men on the front? How about mixed race regiments? We know neither of these happened, but should they have been included just to appease modern critics? Hence my parody of the Dam Busters.
Interestingly, I only recently discovered that there was a contingent from Thailand supporting the allies on the Western Front towards the latter part of the war.
