>> ^dag:

promote. Rivals Billy Squire in raw masculinity.


They probably got so much tail acting like this that it started to rub off on em.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

*promote. Rivals Billy Squire in raw masculinity.

I feel like this film is more complicated than just an anti commercialist screed. Ed Norton's nameless character chooses an extremely handsome, charming and fashionable movie star to be the vessel for his anti-commercial, anti-corporate persona. Is this done on purpose to suggest some kind of internal contradiction? Also, his group eventually becomes a fascist and violent paramilitary operation. In the end, the narrator kills off his imaginary friend. So what are we to make of Tyler Durden? To me, the film feels like it's also about ego, masculinity, extremism, growing up, the need to belong and the intoxicating effects of power, as seen through the eyes of a cheerfully misanthropic Chuck Palaniuk. Whatever Palaniuk and Fincher's intentions were, I do love this movie. I bet the book would clear some of this up for me. Anyone who has read the book want to address these issues?

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!}

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.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

This kind of thoughtful reply is all too rare on the Internet - and I'm proud that it's here on VideoSift.>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

@TheFreak @Yogi
Er, yeah, wow, I've been a bit of an idiot. It's surprising to find oneself called a reactionary, but that is indeed what my comment was, and you two are right to call me on it. But my initial reaction was just that - another homophobe, another joke about gay kids being murdered for their sexual identity, fuck that guy. But my initial reaction isn't the end of my thinking on the subject, so forgive me my knee-jerk reaction and allow me if you will to claw back a little bit of my reasonableness.
I agree with Louis that the gay community has missed the opportunity to ask Tracy Morgan why he feels the way he feels about gay men - such dialogue would be helpful in highlighting some of the attitudes people have to effeminately-voiced gay men. Since my speaking voice is not effeminate, many people don't guess that I'm gay on first meeting me, and in the period before they do realise (which is usually when I get drunk on pink cocktails and start talking about Sondheim), I've put up with a lot of blokey jokes about gays, and have witnessed the shift in men's attitudes when they realise that a gay man is in their midst. The gay jokes dry up immediately, which is kind of a shame because I enjoy offensive jokes of all kinds, and can usually counter jokes about "queers" with equal numbers of jokes about "breeders". I've noticed first-hand the difference in the way that people regard non-obvious gay men like me, and the way they treat the more effeminate and flamboyant members of (er) "my tribe". I've been explicitly told that I'm not included when they criticise gays, because I'm "straight enough". Sigh!
What I've realised is that, in a way, I'm more supportive of Tracy Morgan's joke than I am of Louis's rationalisation of it. Tracy Morgan can make such a joke if he chooses, and I can think him a sad man with backwards views on masculinity if I choose. Where I disagree with Louis is that he sees Tracy Morgan's joke as a kind of "progress" towards acceptance, but I don't see how making jokes about killing his gay son doesn't sound like he's "trying to figure out" gay male masculinity or that he's somehow less homophobic for qualifying precisely what it is that makes him want to stab some gays as opposed to stabbing all of them.

@TheFreak @Yogi

Er, yeah, wow, I've been a bit of an idiot. It's surprising to find oneself called a reactionary, but that is indeed what my comment was, and you two are right to call me on it. But my initial reaction was just that - another homophobe, another joke about gay kids being murdered for their sexual identity, fuck that guy. But my initial reaction isn't the end of my thinking on the subject, so forgive me my knee-jerk reaction and allow me if you will to claw back a little bit of my reasonableness.

I agree with Louis that the gay community has missed the opportunity to ask Tracy Morgan why he feels the way he feels about gay men - such dialogue would be helpful in highlighting some of the attitudes people have to effeminately-voiced gay men. Since my speaking voice is not effeminate, many people don't guess that I'm gay on first meeting me, and in the period before they do realise (which is usually when I get drunk on pink cocktails and start talking about Sondheim), I've put up with a lot of blokey jokes about gays, and have witnessed the shift in men's attitudes when they realise that a gay man is in their midst. The gay jokes dry up immediately, which is kind of a shame because I enjoy offensive jokes of all kinds, and can usually counter jokes about "queers" with equal numbers of jokes about "breeders". I've noticed first-hand the difference in the way that people regard non-obvious gay men like me, and the way they treat the more effeminate and flamboyant members of (er) "my tribe". I've been explicitly told that I'm not included when they criticise gays, because I'm "straight enough". Sigh!

What I've realised is that, in a way, I'm more supportive of Tracy Morgan's joke than I am of Louis's rationalisation of it. Tracy Morgan can make such a joke if he chooses, and I can think him a sad man with backwards views on masculinity if I choose. Where I disagree with Louis is that he sees Tracy Morgan's joke as a kind of "progress" towards acceptance, but I don't see how making jokes about killing his gay son doesn't sound like he's "trying to figure out" gay male masculinity or that he's somehow less homophobic for qualifying precisely what it is that makes him want to stab some gays as opposed to stabbing all of them.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^krelokk:
Most feminists aren't 'hairy armpit' stereotypes. [...] I'm a man, I'm a feminist
Wait, wait... are you saying you shave your pits?


ha, nope, I'm saying what I wrote. Ignorant people assume all feminists are psycho female 'angry hairy armpit bra burning' sterotypes OR girly men who are 'whipped' by girlfriends (yes because equality is so horrible only a man who is whipped would want that for his gf/mother/daughter/aunt/grandma. Generally loser, insecure, ignorant men who cling to their masculinity like a security blanket go for that one.) Most male feminists I've met have the 'balls' to give a shit about the humans of the opposite gender and want positive change in the world. Dag is right also, though every feminist I've been with has shaved everything.

*Promote the masculinity!

>> ^conan:

besides the homophobic backgroud: what happened in schools that suddenly beatings are so brutal? there has always been fighting in schools and there always will be i suppose but back in my days it was just a simple hit and not even to the face or anything. a simple bruise at most. but nowadays? kids act like loonatics, going full assault on each other. beatings to the head, kicking, continuing even if their victim lies on the ground... i just can't get my head around it how violent youth has become.


Super violent outbursts are exceptional. Remember these kids are pounced on for showing any masculinity at all in school - sometimes they snap but usually not. Schools are run by soccer moms now and they're trying to androgynize all the boys completely. I was shocked to hear from my nephews than in their school the girls get in more fights than the boys. Most the boys I see now are 'edgy' Bieber haircut guitar playing moody half women.

Okay, how about the fact that they tried to assault him? That makes them bitches. >> ^Fletch:

>> ^MarineGunrock:
While "bitch" is merely an adjective applied to someone, it is most typicall applied to females. Were it a guy doing the same thing, he'd be a dick. Calling someone a bitch is NO WHERE CLOSE to hatred of women.>> ^Fletch:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
How is this misogyny? He didn't say it's because they're women that they're dumb.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Furthermore, why the FUCK would these dumb bitches think that instigating a fight with a guy convicted of MANSLAUGHTER would end well.
Serious eia moment there.

I must have missed the part where he offered his rap sheet to the 'dumb bitches' (what's with the moronic misogyny anyway).

Oh, I see. The "bitch" part is just a given because they are women (I'm assuming, since you ignored that whole point in your defense of GenjiKilpatrick). They are "dumb" because they are acting dumbly, not necessarily because they're women. Got it. I'm relieved you don't think "bitches" are automatically dumb.
Thank you for helping clarify things for those Sifters who may still be unsure about... things.

Sorry, but the masculine form of "bitch" is not "dick". That's like saying the caucasion form of "nigger" is "whitey". It shows a complete lack of understanding of what the word means to (many, most) women. if that's even possible. If you could come up with a single word that translates "worthless pussy with legs" with an extremely contemptible tone, it could be "bitch". It's less than a dog. It's a baby mama who you wish would just shut the fuck up, get her funbags in the kitchen, and make you some goddamned pancakes. That's my take on it anyway. It doesn't matter what you think it means. It doesn't matter how you intend it. The kiddies nowadays may throw it around like you throw around the f-word (and connotations thereof) in your video titles, but, age-wise, you are no kiddie and should know better. It speaks volumes you are even defending it and the ignorant bitch who started this thread.

>> ^MarineGunrock:

While "bitch" is merely an adjective applied to someone, it is most typicall applied to females. Were it a guy doing the same thing, he'd be a dick. Calling someone a bitch is NO WHERE CLOSE to hatred of women.>> ^Fletch:
>> ^MarineGunrock:
How is this misogyny? He didn't say it's because they're women that they're dumb.
>> ^petpeeved:
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:
Furthermore, why the FUCK would these dumb bitches think that instigating a fight with a guy convicted of MANSLAUGHTER would end well.
Serious eia moment there.

I must have missed the part where he offered his rap sheet to the 'dumb bitches' (what's with the moronic misogyny anyway).

Oh, I see. The "bitch" part is just a given because they are women (I'm assuming, since you ignored that whole point in your defense of GenjiKilpatrick). They are "dumb" because they are acting dumbly, not necessarily because they're women. Got it. I'm relieved you don't think "bitches" are automatically dumb.
Thank you for helping clarify things for those Sifters who may still be unsure about... things.

Sorry, but the masculine form of "bitch" is not "dick". That's like saying the caucasion form of "nigger" is "whitey". It shows a complete lack of understanding of what the word means to (many, most) women. if that's even possible. If you could come up with a single word that translates "worthless pussy with legs" with an extremely contemptible tone, it could be "bitch". It's less than a dog. It's a baby mama who you wish would just shut the fuck up, get her funbags in the kitchen, and make you some goddamned pancakes. That's my take on it anyway. It doesn't matter what you think it means. It doesn't matter how you intend it. The kiddies nowadays may throw it around like you throw around the f-word (and connotations thereof) in your video titles, but, age-wise, you are no kiddie and should know better. It speaks volumes you are even defending it and the ignorant bitch who started this thread.

you disgust me. you clearly dont see the point at all. if you are so intentionally blinded by your own lack of identity that you have to attribute your gender confusion to a CHILD, seek therapy elsewhere.

>> ^hpqp:

I fail to grasp your point. It's not about how the person feels about themselves; indeed, while a non-operated transsexual is still "male/female" biologically, they are the opposite sex in their minds, their self-identity and behaviour. The problem is the image of themselves that is reflected back on them by society (the perceived identity).
Imagine a gay man who, despite telling everyone he is gay, and acting as stereotypically "gay" as possible, is constantly treated as straight: gay men ignore his advances because they believe he is heterosexual, and women shun him because he's not a real "wo-/man". The analogy isn't perfect, but the fact remains that "no man is an island, entire of itself" (Donne). Our lives and identities are affected by the perceptions and reactions/judgments of others.
edit: no amount of openmindedness can change that fact that sexual attraction is affected by a person's physical attributes. A heterosexual male, for example, will generally react more positively (in terms of sexual responsiveness) to a convincing trap than to a masculine-looking transsexual. That's where ftm transsexuals have an advantage: it is easier to acquire masculine traits with testosterone (and thus attract heterosexual women/gay men) than vice-versa. Remember, we all begin as "girls" in the womb.
>> ^chilaxe:
@Trancecoach @hpqp "the pain of being in the wrong body"
From the perspective of human potential, it doesn't really seem proportionate for someone to care that much which gender they are.
Is one gender really better than the other, or are they both within the range of reasonable human experiences? Are people's personalities really that inflexible and unadaptive?
It's really not that difficult to study gender roles and charisma and learn how to play a male or female well.

I fail to grasp your point. It's not about how the person feels about themselves; indeed, while a non-operated transsexual is still "male/female" biologically, they are the opposite sex in their minds, their self-identity and behaviour. The problem is the image of themselves that is reflected back on them by society (the perceived identity).

Imagine a gay man who, despite telling everyone he is gay, and acting as stereotypically "gay" as possible, is constantly treated as straight: gay men ignore his advances because they believe he is heterosexual, and women shun him because he's not a real "wo-/man". The analogy isn't perfect, but the fact remains that "no man is an island, entire of itself" (Donne). Our lives and identities are affected by the perceptions and reactions/judgments of others.

edit: no amount of openmindedness can change that fact that sexual attraction is affected by a person's physical attributes. A heterosexual male, for example, will generally react more positively (in terms of sexual responsiveness) to a convincing trap than to a masculine-looking transsexual. That's where ftm transsexuals have an advantage: it is easier to acquire masculine traits with testosterone (and thus attract heterosexual women/gay men) than vice-versa. Remember, we all begin as "girls" in the womb.

>> ^chilaxe:

@Trancecoach @hpqp "the pain of being in the wrong body"
From the perspective of human potential, it doesn't really seem proportionate for someone to care that much which gender they are.
Is one gender really better than the other, or are they both within the range of reasonable human experiences? Are people's personalities really that inflexible and unadaptive?
It's really not that difficult to study gender roles and charisma and learn how to play a male or female well.