@dystopianfuturetoday I guess the word Marxist still scares the bejeezus out of people.

Yes, it's more complex than an anti-commercialist screed, but then so is Marx's critique of capitalism.

Yes, by the end it's clear that this philosophy has led a band of proletariat men to wage a violent revolution against the hierarchy that enslaves them...again, just like Marx said they should.

To a younger me, the way I would have described the theme of the movie is freedom. We're not talking about bogus libertarian freedom, but that left-wing style freedom, the kind borne from the insight that "things you own end up owning you."

To a decade older me, it's not just a vague philosophy without a name anymore, it's the Marxist critique of capitalism. And the stuff at the end about violent revolution led by a charismatic (and fake!) dictator seems like a screenwriter's critique of the rest of Marxism.

It's been a while since I've seen Fight Club, but I kinda remember that Eddie Norton looked horrified at the very end, not triumphant. I think he'd finally had his dreams shattered, by the very act of realizing them.

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?

My after comment explained what type of respect I was talking about.

“Respect in America” meant that women have lost respect in American society. American culture, not self respect or such... And that meant both men and women, in America, have less respect for the penis-less sex (;)

Respect was given to women, and in other cultures is still alive and well. However, it should be noted that respect and equality are two different beasts. Joan of Arc is a hero highly regarded by men for her valor--but she was far from equal in most men's eyes when she lived. The Virgin Mary, another figure--but see if she could vote or own property. Queen Cleo--a better example of equality and respect, but still comes up short, etc. The good housewife, respected... if not controlled.

The problem, in my opinion, is that we equate freedom and equality with good. Neither are good, just perspectives. Freedom and equality bring much---but they are cold, hard tools.

It used to be that nations fought nations for the sole purpose of women and their virtue. Slight a noble’s wife and die... Nowadays, men just replace women, and run their nations anyways.

But to answer an unspoken question--I think both sexes lost respect in this commercialistic world. Consume, buy, consume, repeat until death. Big tits, no brains... = wealth... Funny part is, this has always been a male concept for the most part, but now women have a vivacious appetite for this greed too.. Sad...

>> ^peggedbea:
respect in what sense? respect of society in general? respect of men? self respect? respect from other women?
i disagree that "respect" has always been the general attitude directed at women. >> ^Lawdeedaw:
I think women have come a long way in the cutthroat world of men, and more power to them. My only question is--why? I think all people have focused far too much on possessions though, so this is not entirely gender based. However, I do wonder why people seek and find, only to seek for more when they know it brings them little.
I personally think the woman used to have one thing men could never match up to--respect. Now, we are both equal since the bar was lowered...
>> ^peggedbea:
i spent 8 years in an institution with mostly female executives. my department and the departments i worked most closely with were managed entirely by women, and let me say... they were all fucking awful. this may or may not have anything to do with their gender. however, the most specific things they did that i found to be abhorrent in a leadership role were very stereotypically "female" like gossipping and babysitting every single tiny personal problem and coddling bad behavior.
of course, a fair and just society requires that you educate women and allow them to rise to whatever occasions they chose. but i also felt like the hospital would have been less of a horrible place to work if there were more men balancing us out.
men and women generally do bring a different set of traits and talents to the table. and there are still professions that attract more of one sex than the other, but i think, like with almost everything else, the answer is balance.
i was listening to a talk on orchestras and how just a few decades ago a female orchestra member was a rare thing, until they started doing blind auditions. proving that no matter what anyone said, there was definitely some gender bias going on. but i think it goes both ways. i'd be kind of leary to send my kids to an after school program run by men. even though i realize that the vast majority of you aren't pedos and that women can be abusive too, i'm still pretty sure i'd think twice about it. even though i realize that's pretty moronic of me.
>> ^kronosposeidon:
I listened to this while I made dinner for my son. The woman is keeping me down.
Seriously, more power to the ladies. I'm ready for them to have their shot at the top. Still, men and women are the same species. They may bring different skills to the table at the upper sociopolitical echelons, but they still may be just as bad as men are at running the show. Here's to hoping I'm wrong.

Here is my take. And if you get tired of discussing the topic, let me know. I love to debate but I cut my debate down because I was too long winded.

Parents need to be active in children’s lives. True. More important than the influence of parents, studies and observations show, are peers and new stimulations. I.e., “Monkey see monkey do,” or “new pussy wins out.” This works for the conformity and anticonformity mindset. Even the hermit who goes to live alone in the forest was a product, most of all, of his peers (They molded him to be a loner.) Education and parenthood can remove some of this commercialist mindset we inherit from our human genes, but that takes a long time. That statement is broad and is not meant to be 100% inclusive of everyone nor everyone's reactions to different scenarios. Some are better at being individuals than others. But those exceptions are rare.

Adults are the same way. The way you interact with one 'teaches' that adult what is normal or abnormal. You may not have children Blank, but you most likely interact with children or parents. So you mold them one way or another. Because of this, you should definitely have input on education. In fact, think of society as a job. You should have a say in how everyone does their jobs, fills their niches. That survey at the end of a training session? It applies to everyone in the class of life.

Good parenting is required for good children, yes, but it only shapes an outline. Genetics and new stimulus children encounter account for far more.

Further Blank, you are still a part of society. Casting responsibility away for the woes of our society, meanwhile griping about away for whatever reason, is unacceptable (By that I mean, don't be mad when your house get's burglarized or your car get's stolen by some punk kid. You left them to their own devices, now they are making their own choices. By logic, you should have no say in what they do---just as you should have no say in matters of their education. I am not saying you do cast away responsibility and gripe, I am just making a point.) As long as you admit you were potentially part of their delinquency, I am cool with that. That is the world you crafted through inactivity or distance, and the world I actively crafted.

I volunteer at the Big Brothers mentor program, not because I love children or wish to be better than others... I am not altruism at its finest. I do it to shape one child's life so that hopefully he does not become a danger to myself, my family, my friends, my neighbors, or anyone, even you. Do I owe this to Blank? Do you owe it to me to do likewise? Only if you don’t want punk kids running the streets with their gangs. If responsible people won’t accept them, then someone else will.

You could say you owe nothing to anyone and you would be correct. We all could---parents, children, sons, daughters, why stop at you? Why should mom or dad be any different than you? Their responsibility, technically (Just like your responsibility is technically nothing,) is to drop the kid off at a fire station. "They chose to have children," and? They then chose to abandon or deject their child. Just like you chose to abandon taking care of the place you live in.

Your last paragraph is on point and would be nice.