Project X

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Project X

    Originally posted by kintnerboy View Post
    And nic.h, why don't you take all of your passionate feelings about this subject and do something constructive with them, like write a satire about a world where gender roles are reversed?


    [not apologizing for derailing a thread that has been off topic since page one]
    Who are you to tell someone what to do with their feelings or opinions?

    Comment


    • Re: Project X

      Originally posted by SBScript View Post
      You completely misunderstand the debate. That's okay. Maybe you're just not the target audience.
      Really? I thought I had one of the most well-thought out and articulate handles on it. Silly me.

      The job of movies is not to 'teach' young men how to relate to women.

      That's for parents and teachers and peers.

      No one needs to be protected from movies.

      Comment


      • Re: Project X

        Originally posted by SBScript View Post
        Who are you to tell someone what to do with their feelings or opinions?

        Wow, you're on a roll, aren't you?

        Sorry, nic.h, I retract my prior suggestion.

        Why should I tell anyone to channel an idea into a marketable concept that actually might make money and be cathartic and enlighten and entertain some people, when we can just continue to be angry and bitter and judgemental?

        As you were.

        Comment


        • Re: Project X

          Originally posted by kintnerboy View Post
          Really? I thought I had one of the most well-thought out and articulate handles on it. Silly me.

          The job of movies is not to 'teach' young men how to relate to women.

          That's for parents and teachers and peers.

          No one needs to be protected from movies.
          Well, you were wrong. Women liking sex has nothing to do with the question. Movies "teaching" anything has nothing to do with the question. It's a simple question, "Does the portrayal of women in the media impact the way men, and particularly young men, relate to women."

          That's a pretty simple question. Nic seems to think that it may. You may not. You may not think it's a reasonable question. You may not want to engage in the question. That's perfectly fine.

          Comment


          • Re: Project X

            Originally posted by kintnerboy View Post
            Wow, you're on a roll, aren't you?

            Sorry, nic.h, I retract my prior suggestion.

            Why should I tell anyone to channel an idea into a marketable concept that actually might make money and be cathartic and enlighten and entertain some people, when we can just continue to be angry and bitter and judgemental?

            As you were.
            I must have misinterpreted your tone.

            Comment


            • Re: Project X

              Good laughs and absurdity all around.

              Originally posted by kintnerboy View Post

              ...but let me let you in on a little secret. Most guys don't even like to aggressively objectify women (whistle at them on the street, hit on them with cheesy pick-up lines in bars). They do it so no one thinks they're gay

              ...The reason that cheerleaders jump up and down on the sidelines of football games is so men can oogle them and say "Look at those pom-poms" and remind each other that they're heterosexual. No one seems to have a problem with this.
              I never knew that. I just thought those types were horny and shameless. Thanks for setting the record straight.

              So...the whole thing is really just a system of everyone reminding themselves they aren't gay.

              What privileged insight into the American male allowed you to verify this keen conclusion?
              -chris

              Comment


              • Re: Project X

                Originally posted by kintnerboy View Post
                Really? I thought I had one of the most well-thought out and articulate handles on it. Silly me.

                The job of movies is not to 'teach' young men how to relate to women.

                That's for parents and teachers and peers.

                No one needs to be protected from movies.
                I'll let it go after this, feel free to respond if you like, I don't want to beat this dead horse too much longer. But, when you say "No one needs to be protected from movies." I wonder if you really believe that. Would you show Saw to a five year old? Why not? Perhaps because it would be damaging to them? If you accept the proposition that some people do need to be protected from movies, then it's just a question of where you draw the line.

                Comment


                • Re: Project X

                  Originally posted by SBScript View Post
                  Well, you were wrong. Women liking sex has nothing to do with the question. Movies "teaching" anything has nothing to do with the question. It's a simple question, "Does the portrayal of women in the media impact the way men, and particularly young men, relate to women."

                  That's a pretty simple question. Nic seems to think that it may. You may not. You may not think it's a reasonable question. You may not want to engage in the question. That's perfectly fine.

                  I'll agree with you that's it's a question. But it's too broad and too vague to be categorized as 'simple'.

                  My short answer is, yes, the way media portrays women impacts the way young men relate to women.

                  But, as I've stated before, the risks of trying to control who says what in any media outweigh the ramifications of those portrayals, so we'll just have to live with it.

                  Comment


                  • Re: Project X

                    Originally posted by SkyPolynomial View Post
                    Good laughs and absurdity all around.



                    I never knew that. I just thought those types were horny and shameless. Thanks for setting the record straight.

                    So...the whole thing is really just a system of everyone reminding themselves they aren't gay.

                    What privileged insight into the American male allowed you to verify this keen conclusion?

                    I'm highlighting this post, because it's a great example of why forums like this are pointless (there's probably about 10 more just like it in this thread alone).

                    You're trying to discredit my idea by ridiculing it with sarcasm, without really saying anything or offering any ideas of your own.

                    You don't have to agree with me (in fact, I would prefer if you didn't).

                    But don't try to cover up your lack of insight by just posting snide remarks.

                    Have an opinion. Don't be afraid of sharing it. Stand up for something.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Project X

                      Originally posted by kintnerboy View Post
                      I'll agree with you that's it's a question. But it's too broad and too vague to be categorized as 'simple'.

                      My short answer is, yes, the way media portrays women impacts the way young men relate to women.

                      But, as I've stated before, the risks of trying to control who says what in any media outweigh the ramifications of those portrayals, so we'll just have to live with it.
                      Does "having too live with it" because we don't want to overreact and censor mean we should consume without critical thought?

                      Comment


                      • Re: Project X

                        Originally posted by SBScript View Post
                        Does "having too live with it" because we don't want to overreact and censor mean we should consume without critical thought?

                        No. And I wouldn't show Saw to a five year old (unless they really wanted to see it).

                        I really want to see Project X now. I'll leave this topic to others.

                        Comment


                        • Re: Project X

                          Stravinsky's Rites of Spring -

                          After undergoing revisions almost up until the very day of its first performance, the ballet was premièred by the Ballets Russes on Thursday, 29 May 1913 at the Théâtre des Champs-Élysées in Paris, conducted by Pierre Monteux.
                          The première involved one of the most famous classical music riots in history. The intensely rhythmic score and primitive scenario and choreography shocked the audience that was accustomed to the elegant conventions of classical ballet.
                          The evening's program began with another Stravinsky piece entitled "Les Sylphides.- This was followed by, "The Rite of Spring-. The complex music and violent dance steps depicting fertility rites first drew catcalls and whistles from the crowd. At the start, some members of the audience began to boo loudly. There were loud arguments in the audience between supporters and opponents of the work. These were soon followed by shouts and fistfights in the aisles. The unrest in the audience eventually degenerated into a riot. The Paris police arrived by intermission, but they restored only limited order. Chaos reigned for the remainder of the performance.[6] Stravinsky had called for a bassoon to play higher in its range than anyone else had ever done. Fellow composer Camille Saint-Saëns famously stormed out of the première allegedly infuriated over the misuse of the bassoon in the ballet's opening bars (though Stravinsky later said "I do not know who invented the story that he was present at, but soon walked out of, the première." [7]). Stravinsky ran backstage, where Diaghilev was turning the lights on and off in an attempt to try to calm the audience.
                          After the première, Diaghilev is reported to have commented to Nijinsky and Stravinsky at dinner that the scandal was "exactly what I wanted."[8]
                          Some scholars have questioned the traditional account, particularly concerning the extent to which the riot was caused by the music, rather than by the choreography and/or the social and political circumstances.

                          Comment


                          • Re: Project X

                            Originally posted by kintnerboy View Post
                            Have an opinion. Don't be afraid of sharing it. Stand up for something.
                            My comment was sarcastic because I was slightly offended by your remark. So yeah, I came in with sword swinging. Totally guilty!

                            The reason for my offense is that your statement was wild and general but not backed up by anything. I’ve just got a thing about wild claims without any provided reasoning. You stated it like a fact you were letting us in on. Some knowledge you discovered about men and society at large that we were unaware of. But you did nothing to persuade or even explain what caused such a conclusion. If it was really just your private room opinion, then no problem. No offense taken.

                            If you want to know the note/opinion behind my sarcasm, it's this:
                            To say that the main reason a guy would aggressively objectify a woman isn’t due to his own character, but is more so due to a society that has scared him into thinking that if he doesn’t objectify a woman he may appear homosexual; is a weak stance. It’s weak because it isn’t backed by anything. It’s weak because it takes the blame off the individual and places it on society. It’s weak because the conclusion just doesn’t follow from the premise. You didn’t explain yourself. What you laid out was sort of like this:

                            Society has made men afraid to be/appear to be homosexual. Therefore boys oogle at cheerleader breasts at football games , tactlessly whistle at women, and objectify them, just to let everyone know they aren’t gay.

                            It's not just a case of me not agreeing with your opinion. I'm saying that your opinion is somewhat untenable, and poor. The sarcasm was meant to poke at what I believed to be your lack of insight on the matter, because you did not provide good reasoning.

                            Sorry for my vomit sarcasm. But that’s the kind of thing I do when I read a statement that seems wild and unfounded.
                            Last edited by SkyPolynomial; 03-07-2012, 10:45 AM.
                            -chris

                            Comment


                            • Re: Project X

                              Originally posted by SkyPolynomial View Post
                              If you want to know the note/opinion behind my sarcasm, it's this:

                              To say that the main reason a guy would aggressively objectify a woman isn't due to his own character, but is more so due to a society that has scared him into thinking if he doesn't objectify a woman he may appear homosexual; is a weak stance. It's weak because it isn't backed by anything. It's not just a case of me not agreeing with your opinion. I'm saying that your opinion is somewhat untenable, and poor. The sarcasm was meant to poke at what I believed to be your lack of insight on the matter, because you did not provide good reasoning.
                              I suppose I should have qualified my statement a little more, to avoid generalizing. It's not just sexuality being proven. It's masculinity, and confidence, and social status, and everything else that society values as 'normal' and healthy.

                              It only took me 10 seconds of Googling to find this, so apparently my ideas are not as original as I had thought:

                              http://books.google.com/books?id=S6h...essure&f=false

                              Comment


                              • Re: Project X

                                Originally posted by kintnerboy View Post
                                It's not just sexuality being proven. It's masculinity, and confidence, and social status, and everything else that society values as 'normal' and healthy....
                                Thanks kintner:
                                I do not doubt that some men believe they need to behave in certain ways to be masculine and assert their heterosexuality. My offense was really taken because I believed you were assigning this to the core reason behind why these activities happen at all. Not just case by case.

                                Absolutely, some guys behave this way for similar reasons outlined by you and the link. But I'm more of the opinion that individual character trumps media persuasion and societal constructs. Although these things play roles in influencing behaviors -- a lack of self control, tactlessness, and being a jerk to women should be blamed on the individual. A man whistles and hollers because he's tactless. A man objectifies a woman because he's a jerk. A man that feels that he needs to objectify women to impress friends and assert masculinity is simply weak in character and integrity.

                                And from the individual, then we can go to the media and society. If more individuals viewed the objectification of women to be morally and socially unacceptable, we would see less of it in the media. If more individuals had integrity there would be less tactless hollering and objectification. If more individuals were of strong character, they would not resort to base actions to prove themselves to be --whatever--.

                                It's the weaknesses and flaws of individuals. Not societal constructs and movies.

                                just my OP.
                                -chris

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X