Click here for Done Deal Pro home page

Done Deal Pro Home Page

Loading

Go Back   Done Deal Pro Forums > Movies & Television > Writers & Scripts
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-23-2015, 01:30 PM   #81
figment
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 868
Default Re: Diablo Cody article

Quote:
Originally Posted by sc111 View Post
If you read through it a second time, you see a pattern of titillating comments (like the naked comment and porno comment) are sprinkled in between comments about their skills and accomplishments. However, that article is 6 years old.
I chose it because it was (I think) the first article -- that actually explained what the Fempire was, and because it was The New York Times and not an indie or trade publication.

But if you google Diablo Cody and Fempire, it is still in use (by her) and has been throughout her career, often being referenced in subsequent articles.

In my OP that's what I was asking -- because it sounds like she might regret it, or at least regrets that level of attention. Thus my OP -- do you get Diablo's opportunities without being "Diablo."

However, now I no longer care.

Though I think it's a good lesson, to be careful about what you put out there because it will follow your a$$ for the rest of your career, should you be lucky enough to have one.
figment is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2015, 02:37 PM   #82
sc111
Member
 
sc111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,305
Default Re: Diablo Cody article

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Boellner View Post
And now others (yourself included) have come in to attack the reading comprehension of anyone who wasn't predisposed to support Geoff.

It's not your character I doubt, it's human nature.
Thanks for mainsplaining it to me.
__________________
Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. “Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.”
sc111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2015, 02:39 PM   #83
sc111
Member
 
sc111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,305
Default Re: Diablo Cody article

Quote:
Originally Posted by figment View Post
I chose it because it was (I think) the first article -- that actually explained what the Fempire was, and because it was The New York Times and not an indie or trade publication.

But if you google Diablo Cody and Fempire, it is still in use (by her) and has been throughout her career, often being referenced in subsequent articles.

In my OP that's what I was asking -- because it sounds like she might regret it, or at least regrets that level of attention. Thus my OP -- do you get Diablo's opportunities without being "Diablo."

However, now I no longer care.

Though I think it's a good lesson, to be careful about what you put out there because it will follow your a$$ for the rest of your career, should you be lucky enough to have one.
I agree.
__________________
Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. “Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.”
sc111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2015, 04:55 PM   #84
Eric Boellner
Regular
 
Eric Boellner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: I still have a pony.
Posts: 418
Default Re: Diablo Cody article

Quote:
Originally Posted by sc111 View Post
Thanks for mainsplaining it to me.
Oh ffs, come off it already. Telling someone they're sexist because they disagree with you is the neopolitical equivalent of Godwin's law. Bye.
__________________
"I lack certain social graces, you f--kwits."
- Joss Whedon
Eric Boellner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2015, 05:14 PM   #85
figment
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 868
Default Re: Diablo Cody article

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Boellner View Post
Oh ffs, come off it already. Telling someone they're sexist because they disagree with you is the neopolitical equivalent of Godwin's law.
This wasn't aimed at me, but I don't think you're sexist in the least. Any sampling of your posts reveals you are, in fact, anti-sexist. Is that a word? Though... I don't think Geoff is either. And I think everyone knows that, too.

I don't even know what people are disagreeing about anymore, but I think after 9 pages we can all just agree to disagree. I'll just proclaim myself to be right and that'll be the end of it. Viola!!

Last edited by figment : 08-23-2015 at 05:35 PM.
figment is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-23-2015, 06:08 PM   #86
JeffLowell
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,051
Default Re: Diablo Cody article

When a SJW is accused of mansplaining, an angel gets its wings.

Geoff's point was very clear to me, FWIW.

And back to OP, I used to read Diablo's blog (Pussy Ranch, if memory serves) for a long time before she broke into screenwriting. She had a great voice and it was a fabulously entertaining read. So I don't think the thing that got her attention was that she was a stripper; it was that she was a stripper who was a phenomenal writer. At the level she writes at, I think there are a lot of jobs she could have written about that would have gotten her attention.

Last edited by JeffLowell : 08-23-2015 at 06:24 PM.
JeffLowell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2015, 06:04 AM   #87
kintnerboy
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,488
Default Re: Diablo Cody article

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Boellner View Post
And then out of nowhere comes this kind of confusing post from Geoff that doesn't really seem to be in response to anything anyone else was saying...and if anyone else had posted that, the entire thread would have heaved a collective, confused "here we go again" sigh. But instead it just got weirder.
My thoughts exactly.... I'm sure a lot of us wanted to post something along these lines, but frankly, this thread wasn't that hot to begin with, so, not worth the effort.

Or it might just be me. I have been posting here for almost 12 years and have never once PM'd anyone or kissed up to anyone, and so I might be overly-sensitive to inferring it from others.

Aside from that, I always thought that Diablo took a lot of heat (mostly from other writers) for the same reason that Kevin Smith and Tarrantino did... ie. the perception that they were overnight successes who left behind the same crappy jobs (the Quick-Stop clerk, the video store nerd, the blogger/stripper) that all struggling artists have at one point or another.

But given the fact that none of Diablo's last 4 movies have set the box office on fire, I'd say there is definitely a positivity bias at work here.
kintnerboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2015, 07:16 AM   #88
sc111
Member
 
sc111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,305
Default Re: Diablo Cody article

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Boellner View Post
Oh ffs, come off it already. Telling someone they're sexist because they disagree with you is the neopolitical equivalent of Godwin's law. Bye.

Godwin's law? Seriously? Here we go again. You're reading into something yet you're so woefully off base.

If I thought you were sexist, I'd tell you I thought you were sexist.

I used the word, "Mainsplaining" because I thought the meaning of the word applied to what you were doing in this thread. See definition and note it doesn't say "sexist."

Quote:
man·splain
manˈsplān/
verb informal
gerund or present participle: mansplaining
(a man) explains (something) to someone, typically a woman, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing.
I found you to be condescending and patronizing when you entered this discussion, analyzed the thread from post one, told everyone, in no uncertain terms, why the thread went awry and what various parties "really" meant, and then decided to, and continued to, label those who said they understood Geoff's post as butt-kissers because you know human nature. That's mainsplaining.

I don't know if you're a sexist. If or when I find evidence you may be sexist in your views, I'll say so. But you did show, in this thread, a tendency to lecture everyone -- all of us adults who, rightly or wrongly, were talking it out in our own way -- as if we were idiots who needed you to step up and clarify why your opinion is the only valid opinion; why your take on Geoff's post, is the only valid take on Geoff's post.

ETA: BTW. this comment, from you to me, was especially annoying:

Quote:
If any random troll had come into this thread and made that post, you would have raised hell over it. If you really try to say you wouldn't, we've got nothing to discuss here because your credibility would be in the gutter at that point.
What makes you the expert on what I would have said? What makes you the arbiter of my credibility? You don't even know me.
__________________
Advice from writer, Kelly Sue DeConnick. “Try this: if you can replace your female character with a sexy lamp and the story still basically works, maybe you need another draft.”

Last edited by sc111 : 08-24-2015 at 08:59 AM.
sc111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2015, 08:33 AM   #89
kintnerboy
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,488
Default Re: Diablo Cody article

Not directed at anyone in particular, I think the word Mansplaining is one of the most passive-aggressive and offensive terms to be born from the new American cop-out rhetoric.

By automatically dismissing any idea out of hand that doesn't align with your own personal worldview and interpreting it as hostile (eg. 'Mansplaining', 'Victim Blaming', 'Trolling', etc), you are sending out a message to everyone, consciously or not, that there is no real point in engaging with you at all on any level, which is unfortunate if you are the one trying to change other people's minds.
kintnerboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-24-2015, 09:45 AM   #90
Geoff Alexander
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,589
Default Re: Diablo Cody article

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Boellner View Post
There's no new angle from which I can read Geoff's original comment and not, based solely on that comment and not on his subsequent attempts to explain it, come to the conclusion that his original comment, as worded, makes claims that women screenwriters are succeeding because they're attractive. In the context of the thread up to the point of his original comment, that would mean Diablo Cody.

What's funny is that we all agree here. My understanding from Unequal's posts is that he knows there's an unfair bias against unattractive women. Geoff said that, you said that, I've said that elsewhere.

But because Geoff's original post was confusing to the point of being nonsensical if "These women screenwriters are succeeding because of their looks" wasn't his point, it became an argument. But instead of you or anyone else saying, Hey Geoff, I get what you're saying - that unattractive women are at an unfair disadvantage - but you've gotta understand that your original post clearly doesn't communicate that, and so you really can't say that UnequalProductions is being 'ridiculous' in his response., instead you're following along in what is essentially a non-argument.

Literally the only difference between the two "sides" in this thread that I can see from the sidelines is that Unequal doesn't think we should focus on the negative effects of a bias, and instead focus on creating work that succeeds in spite of that bias.

But that bias wasn't the original topic, which seems to be why Unequal has had such a hard time understanding why Geoff brought it up. The original topic was having a public persona as a screenwriter.

For the record, yes, you were one of the people I was talking about. For the record, I don't have a dog in the race here either - I don't know Geoff or Unequal.

I'm just disappointed no one else stepped in to point out that Unequal's "misunderstanding" of Geoff's original post was actually a very fair interpretation based on what was written. You'd have to be predisposed to agree with Geoff to not have read his comment that way. For myself, I knew from Geoff's posts elsewhere that he couldn't have meant what he said the way that he said it, so I waited for clarification. It took a few posts, but it eventually came. Unfortunately, so did a lot of harsh and unnecessary rhetoric against Unequal, who took the comment at face value.

And I don't think that's a fair response when the fault was in the original communication, not the interpretation of it.
Here's the thing Eric. You seem to object to my treating UP like an idiot. If you go back and reread UP's first few comments you will see that they were in fact idiotic at best and snarky potshots at worst with no real interest in engaging on the topic. UP first says "I hope this is a joke". Not an attempt to engage. UP then says that I am obviously an embittered male screenwriter concerned about losing jobs to women, wrong and corrected on all counts. In my book this equals a dipshit on the end of the line, so I treated UP like a dipshit.

If you think you may not understand a persons initial statement then, if you want a real exchange, you ask questions. Or, you can just be a dipshit, UP initially chose the latter.

Beyond that, why not argue your own points rather than try and claim that other's opinions are motivated by an agenda--which by the way you did very selectively, aren't your own opinions on the topic strong enough?
Geoff Alexander is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Done Deal Pro

eXTReMe Tracker