Yeah I completely disagree with performance. I'm all about well recorded albums. I couldn't give a shit if it can be performed live, they don't call it "recording arts" for no reason, recording/ mixing/ engineering is an art! Look at My Bloody Valentine's "Loveless" - an album that is highly regarded and cost so much to engineer that it put a well known record label out of business. It took them 20 years or so to be able to perform that album live.

I got a song for Uwe to live by:

Truly, fuck the world,
for all it's worth,
every inch of planet Earth,
fuck myself,
don't leave me out,
but don't get involved,
don't corner me

Inside, ulcer,
unjust bastards,
file out face first
Meet the lies and see what you are

It's forcing you down, and it's grinding against you
Let the war nerve break

For every fucking second the pathetic media pisses on me and
judges what I am in one paragraph

- Look here -

FUCK YOU AAAAAAAAALLLLLLLLLLL

Expect the worst,
you bleeding heart,
but kill me first
before it starts,
yes my cock is getting hard,
we are born different after all

Invite mayhem,
produce weapons,
shoot out,
burn down
No CNN or media now

All the money in the fucking world couldn't buy me one second of trust
or one ounce of faith in anything you're about
Fuck you all

Nothing is worth the sleep that I've lost
Apologies unacceptable now
A blistered revenge awaits in me
This is fucking loveless

Hate
Hate mail is not read, in jail instead
Hate

The Lord knows,
there's worse
Ignore, this curse
HATE

Jedi aren't allowed to fall in love...so married is kind of out of the question. EDIT: Unless we're talking loveless marriage, like one of convenience or to gain citizenship for someone, that might be acceptable. ;-)
Loving/putting a single individual over everything else is a path to the dark side.

The older I get, the more I have come to understand that porn is toxic to the human spirit. To be clear, I'm not talking about public sexuality, erotica, erotic themes in fiction or the appreciation of a nude human body. I'm talking about hardcore porn, which reduces one of the most beautiful forms of human interaction to a cheap, crude, exploitive and loveless financial transaction. I used to watch plenty of porn. Now I find it incredibly depressing.

Man, it's crazy that Fantastic Damage came out in 2002 and it's still mind blowing. The new one is pure awesome, a little more poppy and heavy hanging with the bass/synth but Fantastic Damage is like the Loveless of hip hop (outside of maybe Dalek).

Definitely, sucks that EL-P doesn't do Def Jux any more it definitely seemed like they shoulda had a shitload of money pouring in.

It seems so artificial and loveless.

Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not.

This represents a minority group. India represents the vast majority of arranged marriages world wide and it is arranged for both male and female alike.

Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?

Yes, really. It's simply factual that the two male losers (of the competition) don't marry. They lost = they are the losers. She doesn't compete so there are no losers on her side. Furthermore, the males are trying hard to win (it's easy to lose just shoot an arrow wide). So they are happy to participate even though they are under duress. So no contradiction I'm afraid. (whether or not you "win" by marrying is up to the individual - obviously not true for her).

two main underlying assumptions here.....

I'm not going to make any assumptions about whether arranged marriage is happy or good or whatever. I also don't know whether they last because of dependancy or not - if someone shows me some data supporting that hypothesis..... A lot of ethical and social progress has been made by going against tradition - but not all. And tradition is not fear of change, basically speaking it is a social link to the previous generation.

assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.

They are not even nearly almost all socially constructed. Firstly there are differences at a genetic level (we are sexual beings) Secondly, testosterone level differences create massive difference mentally and physically that account for the majority of character differences.

The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.

No, it's not ridiculous. Men are stronger, have better muscle control, and significantly faster reaction speeds. There are lots of studies showing this - go look them up. It's why we dominate all sports, even ones that don't require strength, e.g. archery, low calibre pistol shooting, golf, badminton, etc. the list goes on. It may be an animated feature but it is still a reflection of real people and real life - otherwise what would be the point of talking about any movie.

Anyway, you've made some very valid points - I can't spend any more time discussing this (too busy) and I'm sure it will be a great movie (btw - I have multiple female children and I'm raising them to be what I call "pioneers" and not "princesses" - so they can do everything the boys do if they want - and when they choose to they do - I also have a bunch of boys).

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^harlequinn:
.......
>> ^hpqp:
......


Your answer contains a large amount of assumptions that seem to support my first point, and further underline the importance of media challenging the perception of gender-roles.
1. Arranged marriage is equally unfair in most cultures: half true. Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not. Moreover, most cultures throughout history using arranged marriage allow(ed) the male to have mistresses (or even several more wives/concubines), but not vice-versa.
2. If she is the prize, there are 2 male losers but no female ones: Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?
3. Is fighting tradition a good thing? Arranged marriages last longer: two main underlying assumptions here: "long-lasting marriage" is assumed to be a positive thing, and because arranged marriage relates to "tradition" in the first phrase, it is suggested that tradition is not all that bad. Of course arranged marriages last longer: most of the time they are relationships of dependency (particularly financial, but also psychosocial), and leaving such a relationship would often leave the woman in a very precarious situation (sometimes life-threatening). It is far healthier to be able to leave a loveless relationship when one wishes. More generally, ethical and social progress has always been made by going against the grain of tradition, the latter being the instinct to stick to what's known and familiar out of fear of change.
4. Feminine/masculine characteristics: assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.
The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.
To paraphrase a close friend: the fact that we're discussing the feminism of a cartoon about an adventurous princess just goes to show we have a ways to go before achieving gender equality.
_{oh boy, I went on a rant, didn't I? Sorry for the wall of text!}

>> ^harlequinn:

Thank you, apology accepted. Perhaps I should have worded my question as one sentence, the second question was only meant to refine the first question - text communication is an imperfect medium.
You raise a very interesting point. I believe arranged marriage in most cultures is equally unfair on both males and females since they are both under duress to marry. In this clip we can only assume the males are under duress to compete for marriage. If she is their prize, they are equally her prize. And there will be two loser's on the male side but none on the female side.
Is fighting tradition a good thing? Apparently arranged marriages stick together more than traditional ones ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arranged_marriage - just looked it up, who knew!!)
In regards to the female in this clip: Is the abandonment of feminine characteristics a good thing? And the adoption of masculine characteristics a good thing?
In this particular instance they diminish the natural advantage males have in physical activities (an undeniable scientific fact) and make a statistically improbable situation. In a warrior culture, males are unlikely to be this incompetent.
>> ^hpqp:
@harlequinn, my apologies for assuming that your question was simply rhetorical, but concede that, since you give an answer to your own question (albeit slapped with a question mark), it comes off as very rhetorical indeed.
So is this the best way to remedy this? Make a movie measuring a girl's worth against her ability to do or better exactly what boys do?
And it's that "answer" that prompted my (dismissive, I admit) comment. This clip shows the main character shooting arrows better than the male contestantsy yes, but that is not the point; the point is, why is she doing that? Because she does not want to be married off; she is confronting the role of "princess to be married" because she wants to be able to make her own decisions about her life. I could go on about how women have historically gained rights by proving their worth in so-called "male" occupations (WWII anyone?) but I think the point is clear enough.



Your answer contains a large amount of assumptions that seem to support my first point, and further underline the importance of media challenging the perception of gender-roles.

1. Arranged marriage is equally unfair in most cultures: half true. Firstly, in cultures where older men choose younger wives (e.g. Middle East), the men have a say while the women do not. Moreover, most cultures throughout history using arranged marriage allow(ed) the male to have mistresses (or even several more wives/concubines), but not vice-versa.

2. If she is the prize, there are 2 male losers but no female ones: Really? So getting married off to someone you don't care for does not count as a "loss"? This is sexist to both the men and the woman in this scenario, while contradicting your previous point about the men being under duress. Now it's the ones who lose that are deprived (of the "prize" that is a wife), while the princess "wins" because she gets a husband. See the problem here?

3. Is fighting tradition a good thing? Arranged marriages last longer: two main underlying assumptions here: "long-lasting marriage" is assumed to be a positive thing, and because arranged marriage relates to "tradition" in the first phrase, it is suggested that tradition is not all that bad. Of course arranged marriages last longer: most of the time they are relationships of dependency (particularly financial, but also psychosocial), and leaving such a relationship would often leave the woman in a very precarious situation (sometimes life-threatening). It is far healthier to be able to leave a loveless relationship when one wishes. More generally, ethical and social progress has always been made by going against the grain of tradition, the latter being the instinct to stick to what's known and familiar out of fear of change.

4. Feminine/masculine characteristics: assumption that such a thing exists, when they are almost all socially constructed. Question: what are the "feminine characteristics" you see being abandoned in this clip? Humble obedience/subservience? What are the "masculine characteristics" you see as being taken on by the character? By answering these two questions you should be able to see what's wrong with those assumptions.

The last paragraph is just ridiculous. Yes, men naturally have more muscle-mass than women, but that has no bearing here (and, generally, anywhere): archery is not about strength (the first contender is so strong he only pulls the string half-way) but skill. That you would see it - and combat in general - as typically male just shows how gender stereotypes are deeply ingrained over time. As for "statistically improbable situations", puh-leez, this is still a cartoon we're talking about, and heroes/heroines will always be "better" than the comedic accessories.

To paraphrase a close friend: the fact that we're discussing the feminism of a cartoon about an adventurous princess just goes to show we have a ways to go before achieving gender equality.

_{oh boy, I went on a rant, didn't I? Sorry for the wall of text!}

I dug Rise of the Planet of the Apes too. Part of the reason Ceasar seemed so human was that Andy 'Gollum' Serkis did the motion capture.

I do love me some dystopian apocalyptic fiction, and had no problem cheering on the apes, but I certainly don't have a societal death wish. Quite the contrary. I think these films are more of a warning of what may happen if we don't get our collective shit together as a planet. I think these films are an exaggeration of the problems of the present - greed, selfishness, conformity, commercialization, corporatism, the devaluation of humanity, disconnectedness, environmental destruction, weapons of mass destruction, cosmetic surgery, prescription drugs, a return to base human violence, loveless sexuality, prejudice, etc. The post apocalypse is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there.

With a cold loveless marriage. Fucking classic.

Well Jigga we need role models like this for our children because daddy can't keep his dick out of company ink and mommy is a loveless shell of her former self.

So when the person we lean on to raise our kids can't come through, we get pissed and the media hypes it up. Now we have to go back to letting our kids worship Disney teen idols.

^So you are aware that contraception is not 100%? And you are aware that despite there being a multitude of forms of contraception out there, people still make mistakes? You are aware that sometimes having a baby when you make a mistake ISN'T the best option right?

That's what I don't get about you fucking neo-con dumbshits. You don't want our government to provide planned parenting clinics where one can be educated and get free contraception, yet you scream about having to pay for welfare...and on top of it all, you don't believe in abortion?! I know neocons are generally uptight, loveless, sexless, prostitute purchasing old guys, but some people actually get laid and in the heat of the moment have unprotected sex and still don't want to have a 1st, 2nd or 3rd child

Either you're all very delusional about the human condition or just generally retarded.

FYI, this solution also works for a loveless marriage.

>> ^Oblyvious:
yeah but its a cultural difference. its tragic that the parents are disowning her. but in the middle east, dont rape victims get stoned to death? i rather get disowned then get stoned.
all four boys should be punished. i think that the parents should be able to chose how they raise their child. i mean if i had a daughter and she was raped i would be upset that she got raped.
i would like to know why the girl went into the shed to begin with. couldnt they just give her the gum outside of the shed? why were the boys planning this attack? what did she do to the boys or what was her part in provoking the situation?
we all need more details before we can fully judge


O.o Are you serious?! All the facts?! You are actually considering that there is any merit in considering whether the girl (8, EIGHT years old) provoked the act?!! There is no excuse whatsoever for the actions of these 4 boys, the oldest being 14 (yeah, fourteen). The girl was lured in because as a child, she probably didn't imagine that these other children would mean to hurt her, especially in this horrific way. The younger boys were probably pressured into it by the older boys, but that's no excuse either. The teenagers knew what they was doing, knew it was wrong, and did it anyway. I thought all this went without saying, but apparently not!

The parents of the girl disowned her because in their culture, as in some middle eastern Muslim cultures, men cannot be held responsible for giving into to lustful desires for women who "MUST have been asking for it" (hence the mere existence of the burka). Toleration of this is just unacceptable, but of course, you can't force the parents to care. Hopefully the girl will be placed with a family that is not so heartless and loveless.

Rightly, the older boy is being charged as an adult in a sexual assault. The younger boys will likely be placed in a juvenile sex-offender institution for counseling, containment, and evaluation (probably for a year or two). Some boys recover in these places. Some repeat the offense later in life despite it.

Your video, Family guy - Trapped in a loveless sham of a marriage, has made it into the Top 30 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.