I would be remiss without adding that I am opposed to the idea that women ought to be given (or seek) special treatment because they are women. Women are exactly one half (no more, no less) of the human equation and are due equal status and treatment, as are men. I anticipate that most are in agreement, though interested to hear otherwise.
mattacme said:
I would be remiss without adding that I am opposed to the idea that women ought to be given (or seek) special treatment because they are women. Women are exactly one half (no more, no less) of the human equation and are due equal status and treatment, as are men. I anticipate that most are in agreement, though interested to hear otherwise.
mattacme said:
You are probably familiar with Catherine A. MacKinnon
Sorry to soil your shoes. Reflex
No need to apologize, though I thank you nonetheless.
I suppose you have a dislike for any sort of rule by which one is responsible for what he or she expresses because that would be a limit on the freedom of speech, would that be correct? That seems a gross mis-interpretation of the bill of rights. The press is free to publish as they see fit, but are still bound by the laws of the land and subject to prosecution should they violate them (slander, prevarication, etc.). Personally I do not find Ms. MacKinnon to be so awful and there is much merit in her writing. I'm sorry you have found none.
i'm very very sad now. i can do without tv and movies for the most part, and it shouldn't be too hard to avoid the WB... but what about Harry Potter? i'm an absolute Potter freak, and WB produces the movies, dammit. i guess i'll just have to stick to pirated versions so they don't get any of the money, lol
Actually, I thought the rape scene was laughable. It was badly filmed, appallingly edited, used stupid sound effects and was just plain embarassing. It didn't present rape as a horrible crime (Irreversible did that) but more as a 'film event' to justify mass murder.
Have you seen the full unedited version? Last time I hard, the UK version is still missing about 15 minutes of footage, which could explain the bad editing. But yeah, you're right about Irreversible. That was another horrific scene.
I believe the version I saw was unedited, so it said on the box. Sorry, I mean Uncut. Sorry, that was a bit catty wasn't it? Still, all things considered, it's still a pretty awful film. I suppose I don't like the idea that it's a revenge fantasy spawned out of rape. Plus, it's got no logic.
'Yeah, we raped you some years ago, but let bygones be bygones, eh? Sure, I'll fall for your seduction!'
It makes no sense they'd actually BELIEVE she wasn't there to kick the shit out of them. I suppose its lack of actual psychological consequences made it all a bit shlocky and unpleasantly titillating.
Markus001 said:
I believe the version I saw was unedited, so it said on the box. Sorry, I mean Uncut. Sorry, that was a bit catty wasn't it?
More petty than catty, but ymmv.
Markus001 said:
Still, all things considered, it's still a pretty awful film. I suppose I don't like the idea that it's a revenge fantasy spawned out of rape. Plus, it's got no logic.
...
It makes no sense they'd actually BELIEVE she wasn't there to kick the shit out of them.
Awful yes. But so were 99.9% of the grindhouse films. Many of the films featured women raped and murdered, often with the rapist going free. It was interesting to see a film with another ending. The only real problem I had was the rape lasted 40 minutes, but her revenge (on 5 guys) latest about 15 minutes total. But again, part of the grindhouse draw was to shock and sicken the audience and Day of the Woman more than does that.
Erynn said:
i'm very very sad now. i can do without tv and movies for the most part, and it shouldn't be too hard to avoid the WB... but what about Harry Potter? i'm an absolute Potter freak, and WB produces the movies, dammit. i guess i'll just have to stick to pirated versions so they don't get any of the money, lol
Or boycott the stupid boycott and watch whatever you want.
synielle said:
I think that the actresses are the ones that should be doing the boycotting from having ANY roles in their films.
Yes, if there is one group of people who can easily pick and choose what jobs to accept, it's actors. Now pardon me while I go polish my golden poodle collection as forty virgins feed me grapes.
Vestril said:
Is there a feminist version of Godwin's law that states that any large discussion of feminism will ultimately involve rape?
I think so... I think there's also a clause somewhere in there that says any time sex isn't perfect and magical it's automatically a heinous case of rape.
DeadBilly
Burnt Cabins, PA
February 2004
OCT 09, 2007 07:41 PM