The Lounge Guidelines Help Search Members Calendar Blogs

Welcome Guest [ Log In | Register ] ]

82 Pages V  « < 14 15 16 17 18 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> What the F@%&?! And more feminist outrage...
annabananahannah...
post Jul 3 2009, 07:52 PM
Post #301


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 185
From: state of chaos


if social censures are the only thing keeping men straight, why would they want to be straight in the first place?
why should it be a woman's responsibility to take that on, trying to make her husband straight? why would a woman want to stay in that kind of a relationship, where her husband may love her but has no real desire for her sexually? that's where his whole theory really leads. i would very much like to be a religious person and i consider myself a fair weather christian but when people with this fucked up misogynistic attitude say shit like this under the pretense of faith, well i don't know how the God i believe in, whom i consider to be a logical being, would create them, i really don't.

rant done.


--------------------
what y'all lookin' at, biznotch?!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
girltrouble
post Jul 3 2009, 06:26 PM
Post #302


new highs in personal lows daily!
***
Posts: 4,307
From: wherever ink is put in skin...


i haven't had the chance to read polly's post yet, but already, i love your take on it angie. one thing i always find frustrating is the idea that sexuality is reduced to sex-- that is, body parts fitting into someone else's body parts. sexuality is about who you desire, even if you are celibate, you still have sexuality. it does not begin or end the second someone pushes something in or pulls out of a body part.

it reminds me of how sexuality is viewed in some latin and spanish cultures where a guy can fuck as many boys as he like, and is still considered het until he takes it in his own ass.

that was a good article, polly. the writer brought up many of the same points i would have, namely that het men tend to think there is no pleasure where a penis is not present, and cannot fathom lesbian sex; and pegging. what i find funny is the staggering ignorance klinghoffer and berman have about modern sexuality-- particullarly the homosexuality they are so obsessed with/afraid of. i think they need to come out of the closet.


--------------------

"what a swell farewell party! we said goodbye to everything, including the lining in my stomach." - garvey, from the film, born bad

"That's one career all females have in common, whether we like it or not: being a woman. Sooner or later, we've got to work at it, no matter how many other careers we've had or wanted." --margo channing, all about eve
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
angie_21
post Jul 3 2009, 04:26 PM
Post #303


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 662
From: Alberta


GT, I think your posts are completely relevant here! And very interesting.

Polly - aargh! My personal pet peeve in their insane little argument is the tired old idea that women are inherently chaste, while men are inherently sexual fiends at the mercy of their own penises. It's offensive to everyone. I find it especially odd, because for a lot of history, the opposite idea was considered true (women as wanton temptresses, men as noble and pure. again, just insulting to everyone) "Natural affinity for monogamy." Kiss my ass. I've always had to work really freakin hard at monogamy, not always successfully, and I actually think it's kind of a stupid idea anyways.

I also find it offiensive to just assume there are no monogamous gay couple out there. Please.

"I leave it the reader's basic grasp of anatomy to figure out why in ancient Rome a man who found pleasure in a woman, could also find pleasure in a man, while the record shows that a heterosexual woman rarely found sexual satisfaction in the company of another woman."
I really feel sorry for this guy's wife/girlfriend. Apparently his basic grasp of anatomy doesn't actually include, well, women's anatomy. What record is he talking about? You mean the one where men oppressed women so they couldn't get out much to have sex with anyone, male or female?

As far as I learned in my classics courses, Roman and Greek "homosexuality," at least the traditional socially sanctioned kind, was basically institutionalized rape. There was some kind of idea about manhood being passed on from the older man on top to the younger man below. Like Jezebel points out, it wasn't like men were having relationships, getting married, or many of the other things we are trying to make legally and socially accepted today.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pollystyrene
post Jul 2 2009, 11:44 PM
Post #304


Too many mutha uckas, Uckin' with my shi-
***
Posts: 4,631
From: Chicago


Not to distract from the current line of conversation, and I'm not even sure if this is the right place to post this article, but the theory is just so infuriating.

Other than the fact that it's just another conservative trying to justify their own ignorant/hateful views, I guess it made me think about whether people are attracted to whatever sex they're attracted to because of the sex itself? It's a hard thing for me to answer because I consider my sexuality to be sort of fluid, with a lot of gray areas....but for someone who considers themselves only attracted to one sex, is it because they prefer the type of sex that comes with it? It's sort of a rhetorical question because I'm pretty sure I know the answer....but do I?

The Jezebel comments are pretty spot-on, though.


--------------------
You went to school where you were taught to fear and to obey, be cheerful, fit in, or someone might think you're weird.
Life can be perfect. People can be trusted. Someday, I will fall in love; a nice quiet home of my very own.
Free from all the pain. Happy and having fun all the time.
It never happened, did it?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
candycane_girl
post Jul 2 2009, 11:20 PM
Post #305


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 2,336
From: Canada


GT, I was browsing Oh No They Didn't today and somebody posted the trailer for Deadgirl. I found it interesting because if I hadn't read your review then I may have been interested in seeing it. What I find really horrifying are all the glowing reviews shown in the trailer. I know this may be better suited to the film thread but have we gotten to a point where just showing something horrendous and unimaginable without any real message or story is considered good film?

And as for the filmmakers trying to pass this off as a "coming of age" film, well, that's just bullshit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
girltrouble
post Jul 2 2009, 03:06 PM
Post #306


new highs in personal lows daily!
***
Posts: 4,307
From: wherever ink is put in skin...


yeah. i think that made it seem even more malicious. it's like he went out of his way to hurt alex (the woman in the film). but there is an progression. the movie moves cinematically from a male/violent place to a female/peaceful space-- with "the scene" being the mid point/fulcrum. in "the scene" there is a transsexual who he is assaulting/harassing before alex arrives. gender/sex is crucial in understanding what goes on in irreversible. i think there is a whole undercurrent of male eroticism of violence and it's homo erotic component in that film that people miss. the key to the film is in it's construction. i posted my observations in my blog, but the way that that film looks at masculinity--- it's very sophisticated. it's not a pleasant film, by any means, but it does not normalize the violence or sit on the fence about it. but i've taken up too much space, this isn't the film thread. my apologies.


--------------------

"what a swell farewell party! we said goodbye to everything, including the lining in my stomach." - garvey, from the film, born bad

"That's one career all females have in common, whether we like it or not: being a woman. Sooner or later, we've got to work at it, no matter how many other careers we've had or wanted." --margo channing, all about eve
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
auralpoison
post Jul 2 2009, 12:40 PM
Post #307


Big Fat Bitch
***
Posts: 4,932
From: Citizen of the world


QUOTE(girltrouble @ Jul 2 2009, 12:16 PM) *
i understand why people might thing, it's a horror movie, what's the difference? i could rattle of a list of disturbing films too. shortly before the film festival i saw irreversable-- a film that's notorious for it's one take 7 minute rape scene in the center of the film. the scene was really difficult to watch, but in figuring out the film's complex construction, it seemed very clear to me, that the director was making a very sharp comment about male violence. and personally, if you are going to show rape on screen i think it should be as difficult and unenjoyable as possible. it is a horrific act and should never be glazed over, and it's reparcussions should be dealt with in full. irreversable does this, in a very unusual manner.


This is really apropos of nothing, but one of the things that has stuck with me about that particular scene is that at one point he tells her that his victims are usually men, that he's not very interested in women. Somehow that made me even more uncomfortable with it.


--------------------
"You're cute, like a velvet glove cast in iron. And like a gas chamber, a real fun gal."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
epinephrine
post Jul 2 2009, 12:19 PM
Post #308


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 636
From: Chongqing, China


Yeah, I saw Wolf Creek at the video store and read the synopsis on the back and thought, what the fuck does a movie like this have to offer? Horror is supposed to comment on something or at least be creative. "True story" movies should present an interesting story that needed to be told. But a movie that only shows two women getting kidnapped, raped and murdered is nothing but rape porn. I can't believe we live in a society that thinks of that as entertainment.


--------------------
To be free one must give up a little part of oneself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ketto
post Jul 2 2009, 12:05 PM
Post #309


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 695
From: Winter Land


I've been following this discussion. Interesting stuff. It's making me think of Wolf Creek. While Deadgirl sounds a lot more fantastical (but none the less, disgusting), I found Wolf Creek so terrifying and disturbing because of its realism and the fact that all the onscreen violence only happened to the women. The only time the guy was shown after the beginning scenes was when he was (successfully) escaping. Both of the women were killed in horribly brutal ways.

I just didn't see the point of making something like that. The guy I was with thought I would love it because I like scary movies (like ridiculous formulaic scary movies). I told him I thought it was a piece of misogynistic shit and I couldn't believe he took me to it.

These are the kind of movies that don't need to be made, but since they are, they definitely deserve their own distinct trigger warnings. I couldn't even sleep after I saw Wolf Creek. Monsters don't scare me at all but I find a movie that was portrayed so realistically with so much hatred toward the female characters terrifying.


--------------------
Meow.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
girltrouble
post Jul 2 2009, 11:16 AM
Post #310


new highs in personal lows daily!
***
Posts: 4,307
From: wherever ink is put in skin...


i understand why people might thing, it's a horror movie, what's the difference? i could rattle of a list of disturbing films too. shortly before the film festival i saw irreversable-- a film that's notorious for it's one take 7 minute rape scene in the center of the film. the scene was really difficult to watch, but in figuring out the film's complex construction, it seemed very clear to me, that the director was making a very sharp comment about male violence. and personally, if you are going to show rape on screen i think it should be as difficult and unenjoyable as possible. it is a horrific act and should never be glazed over, and it's reparcussions should be dealt with in full. irreversable does this, in a very unusual manner. deadgirl by contrast uses lots of gloss. while i wouldn't say that the scenes are shot like porn, (although shots of the girl's eyes rolling back in her head are used repeatedly as a visual euphemism for rape), it's rape and boy on girl violence done with the same sort of matter-of-factness that one would show playing a video game, or reading a book. what makes those scenes so shocking is that the film is so insouciant about it.

from the interviews, i almost believe that these filmmakers really are so dense as not to understand their own film. i thought the COA thing was kind of hokey too, angie, but in the Q&A i went to and the ones i've read about on line they seemed oblivious to any sort of horror life preservers that they audience would throw them in the hopes of salvaging the audience's opinion of the film-- or them. they would rattle off some other COA pictures, which only make the view of what deadgirl has to say more severe.


--------------------

"what a swell farewell party! we said goodbye to everything, including the lining in my stomach." - garvey, from the film, born bad

"That's one career all females have in common, whether we like it or not: being a woman. Sooner or later, we've got to work at it, no matter how many other careers we've had or wanted." --margo channing, all about eve
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
angie_21
post Jul 2 2009, 08:27 AM
Post #311


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 662
From: Alberta


QUOTE(girltrouble @ Jul 1 2009, 09:37 PM) *
angie, snuff is a term used for film of real deaths, not ones created for film.


Oops, right. Don't know why I got that mixed up. Maybe I just kind of wish it would be classified as the same thing.

I was going to pipe up with a list of movies that do pretty consistently and unabashedly objectify women as well.. but really in comparison to that, none of them seem as bad anymore. They often do try to throw in a phony massage about "equality" here or there, or at least have a single semi-intelligent female character to "balance out" the 20 or 30 girls in bikinis or strip clubs or making out of the dance floor that they've added to bring in the teenage boy audience.

I'm a fan of horror too, especially zombie movies. Not as informed or dedicated a fan, but I as sqeamish as I am, I don't mind the violence. Usually the horror aspect is used to show us a mirror of our society, exaggerating some aspect of it in an unreal situation, and asking us, is this really what people would do? The violence sometimes just makes the message hit home in a more visceral way. When the movie is done right, anyways. And yes, it is usually an equalizer, anyone can become a zombie, anyone can kill a zombie, that's why it's so terrifying and suspenseful.

My first thought was, really, coming of age story? They must have made that up when people started really coming down on the movie. But then I took a look at the poster. I definitely agree with gt's interpretation, it's really very sexual. For another movie it would be kind of neat. I've never been a fan of most "coming of age" movies, mostly because the ones I've seen (pretty mainstream, I'll admit) just follow stereotypes and funnel people into the traditional sexual roles our society expects. But anyways, where's the "learning" here? Based on your description, the message does seem to be, "a virgin teenage boy's first reaction to a helpless female will be to f*ck the shit out of her and then beat/stab/shoot the shit out of her." Nice. Done a different way, that could still really say something about society (when the movie is asking you, "would that happen, would you do that?" instead of saying, "yeah, we'd do that.") I can vaguely see how it could be the result of amateur film makers not really getting the difference, but really, do they deserve the benefit of the doubt when the most likely explanation is that they're sick and mysogynist, and made a film with such a sick and mysogynist message without any attempt to actually ask questions or put in any kind of message?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
girltrouble
post Jul 1 2009, 10:37 PM
Post #312


new highs in personal lows daily!
***
Posts: 4,307
From: wherever ink is put in skin...


angie, snuff is a term used for film of real deaths, not ones created for film.

lol. i like that comment, rose. i haven't seen the preview, so it's tone might be far different from the movie itself, which i have seen.

personally, i love horror as a genre, it can comment more forthrightly about things than most genres, and not come off as over the top. horror covers a lot of ground.


to my mind there are a few things that set deadgirl apart:

1)the amount of rape, the kind of violence and it's tone in the film
i really don't want to go into the details, but if memory serves, i would bet there are somewhere upwards of 8 rape scenes on screen, one of which is a gang rape. all the violence (shots, stabining/punching, rape, wound violation) done to the dead girl is matter of fact.

2) is it's rather neutral--if that-- view of (sexual) violence towards women.

i have never seen a movie that so consistently objectifies women, and makes no bones about it. there is a way to make film-- even about voyeurism-- that objectifies but implicates the viewer in the violence. psycho is a great example of this. it is about the viewer's idea of janet leigh, but even in her objectification, she is still 3 dimensional. that's what makes her death tragic. it is the way that film views the protagonist that tells us not what the players think, but what the filmmakers think. with deadgirl, it is utterly dehumanizing. if a film has violence but has some comment on it, that is one thing, but when it is "agnostic" or condones it, that's where i have a problem with it. most horror movies view violence as an equalizer. men and women are victims. deadgirl, however treats violence to the protagonist as tragic, and unfair, against the bully or female on male as comedy, and aimed at women as perfectly normal. nothing to worry about. boys will be boys. i went into it a bit further in the real life thread, but what bothers me is that there is literally no place for a three dimensional woman (or girl) in the their universe, what's more it's perfectly fine to treat them as sexual objects-- according to them, that's all we are. this point is made perfectly clear in it's poster: lips sideways to resemble a vagina-- quite possibly the most reductive view of women possible: sexual holes, nothing else. make no mistake, the starting point in reading any film is that this is the world view of the writer and director. this is their universe if they were god. the people who populate the screen during that two hours are little other than their proxies.

3) the directors' claims that dead girl is a coming of age film:

genre is what shapes our perception and expectation of what goes on inside that universe in interviews with the directors, they say this film isn't so much horror, but a coming of age tale. the reason i bring this up is that the expectations of coming of age films are much different than a horror movies, and with those expectations, come different implications. the basic outline of any COA film is that a child is at the cusp of puberty, or in the middle of it. they are exposed to adult sexuality, and do not quite understand it. thru several misadventures, they come to understand it, and are, at the end of the film budding adults, initiated into the norms of sexuality/adulthood. the classic after-school-special is an archetypal coming of age story. the implication of deadgirl's conclusion superimposed on a COA frame implies that normal in male adulthood IS rape and objectificaton. it says, that's the way it should be.


--------------------

"what a swell farewell party! we said goodbye to everything, including the lining in my stomach." - garvey, from the film, born bad

"That's one career all females have in common, whether we like it or not: being a woman. Sooner or later, we've got to work at it, no matter how many other careers we've had or wanted." --margo channing, all about eve
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
roseviolet
post Jul 1 2009, 05:52 PM
Post #313


Pacifism kicks ass!
***
Posts: 3,064


One of the commenters at io9 had this to say about "Deadgirl":
"Ah, the perils of trying to find a coherent message when what is essentially an exploitation movie tries to justify itself with its own incoherent message."

I saw the trailer for "Deadgirl" over on io9 and, yes, it is disturbing. I honestly find most horror films disturbing anyway. The genre doesn't appeal to me. Frankly, I find it hard to see what's different about this film. Why is it more disturbing for them to abuse a zombie-woman rather than the "normal" non-zombie women who are viciously killed in every other horror film out there? I guess the difference is that the makers of this film think they're making an important statement? Is that the difference? I'm genuinely curious.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
angie_21
post Jul 1 2009, 03:55 PM
Post #314


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 662
From: Alberta


QUOTE(girl_logic @ Jul 1 2009, 11:34 AM) *
I know this is going to sound like it's from left field, but as an extreme fantasy, I do know women who could actually use it as fantasy fodder - based on the idea that someone could do anything to them without it injuring. It's viscerally hard and almost impossible for me to accept a movie like that as entertainment. I can't separate it from the things that women really do experience in this world and my own fears about violence.


The line between fantasy, reality, and storytelling will always be confusing, making it easier for people to get away with things like this. My boyfriend and I like to play the game in bed where I struggle ot get away while he gets on top of me. I find it fun and sexy, but does this mean I would want a stranger (or as is more often the case with real rape, male co-worker, friend, or relative) to do this to me in reality? NO. no, no, no. It's a game, and we both consent.

BUT - So maybe the people making this movie could say, well, this is the same kind of thing thing, it's fantasy. we're not saying anyone should do these things in reality, plus it would never happen anyways because there are no zombies. Good point. Or what about horribly graphic violence to make a social commentary, look at the violence against women portrayed in "Last King of Scotland" (wow, I will never erase that from my memory!). What about all the other crappy movies out there that portray and glorify all kinds of crimes, from drug trafficking to street racing to gang violence, murder, bank robbing, prostitution, the list goes on and on, how can you single out one crime and say you can't make a movie about it?

Honestly, I don't know. I think in our quest for freedom of expression we sometimes let people go too far. I think a lot of movies out there are already pretty borderline. I agree, g_l, that something about this particular subject gives me a really strong gut reaction that I can't put into words. Maybe because so many people get away with rape, and trafficking women and underage girls, I mean, look at the killing of prostitutes in Alberta, it's always a scandal but rarely is it pursued by the police. I often feel that society has condemned sexual violence and exploitation very strongly in theory, but not at all in reality. So when things like these games and movies come out, and they threaten to make it seem acceptable in theory and fantasy as well, that really scares me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
girl_logic
post Jul 1 2009, 12:34 PM
Post #315


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 276


QUOTE(angie_21 @ Jun 27 2009, 12:17 PM) *
....
The girls being "zombies" does not change anything, especially because they turned the second girl into a zombie (or something like that???) just so that they would be able to do those things to her. How on earth did they convince the actress to participate in the movie, you'd think it would be pretty traumatizing.
..


Well most of the violence wasn't filmed so that might have made a difference in how it felt to participate in it. Less real than the illusion the audience is supposed to enjoy.

I know this is going to sound like it's from left field, but as an extreme fantasy, I do know women who could actually use it as fantasy fodder - based on the idea that someone could do anything to them without it injuring. It's viscerally hard and almost impossible for me to accept a movie like that as entertainment. I can't separate it from the things that women really do experience in this world and my own fears about violence.


--------------------
There are years that ask questions and years that answer. - zora neale hurston
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
janeinane
post Jun 28 2009, 10:52 AM
Post #316


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 114


I notice that it's deadGIRL. Would it occur to the film makers to have a man/boy treated like that? Wouldn't that be more ~~shocking~~? Cause it's really all about the controversy, right? dry.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
angie_21
post Jun 27 2009, 11:17 AM
Post #317


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 662
From: Alberta


Shouldn't that movie be classified as snuff, and kind of illegal? That's not controversial. Controversial raises questions and makes you think about things that are sensitive to our culture and usually not discussed or address. Controversial movies make you realise that your own cultural biases may be wrong, and that you should see the world more openly. Movies that are just physically disgusting, and that glamorize violence and objectification of women (and some movies that are big blockbusters should be included here) are just sad, pathetic attempts to make money and gain recognition by shock value, while attacking human rights and equality at the same time.

The girls being "zombies" does not change anything, especially because they turned the second girl into a zombie (or something like that???) just so that they would be able to do those things to her. How on earth did they convince the actress to participate in the movie, you'd think it would be pretty traumatizing.

thirteern, honey, most of the men I know would be more disgusted than I am at rapelay and deadgirl. I think because I'm more cynical than they are, but either way, they see women as beautiful & intelligent and would never, ever want to hurt a woman in any way, and they would think any man that would is a sick asshole. There are a few really disgusting men out there that actually like that shit, and a few more who think it's morally OK, but unfortunately these men make the most noise, and cause the most trouble. They're also a lot more prevalant on the internet where their perversions can be indulged anonymously. But the whole world isn't like that, not at all.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
shoveit
post Jun 27 2009, 09:34 AM
Post #318


BUSTie
**
Posts: 11


I totally agree with what you said about people thinking they are incredibly organic and creative by making 'shocking' movies. I get so pissed off when people defend shit like that by saying I'm just offended by contraversy. complete BULL. And yes, thinking about that movie does actually make me feel physically sick.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
girl_logic
post Jun 26 2009, 07:44 PM
Post #319


Hardcore BUSTie
***
Posts: 276


oh my god that makes me want to throw up.


--------------------
There are years that ask questions and years that answer. - zora neale hurston
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kittenb
post Jun 26 2009, 06:51 PM
Post #320


There is nothing ironic about Show Choir!
***
Posts: 3,261
From: Chicago


blink.gif ohmy.gif Wow. I don't know what else to say.


--------------------
In times of destruction, create something.
MHK
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

82 Pages V  « < 14 15 16 17 18 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: July 24, 2014 - 02:13 PM