Vivian on 8/1/2017 at 12:24
Vae, you're hilariously absolutist sometimes. The idea that it's how things are portrayed as much as what they are is what we've been talking about for the last three pages or so, yes.
Chade on 8/1/2017 at 12:43
FWIW, when I first read this:
Quote Posted by Vivian
As a very smart, funny, eloquent and accomplished woman who will be mostly remembered for that time she looked hot in a novelty bikini, Fisher will always be sort of emblematic of everything that was wrong in the 70's and continues to be wrong today.
... I thought the point was about the way the scene entered into the public's conscious apparently above and beyond any other of her moments in the film, not so much the scene itself.
But I was born in '83 and was kept away from pop culture as long as reasonably possible, so this is all before my time.
EDIT: firm -> film
Vae on 8/1/2017 at 12:52
Quote Posted by Vivian
Vae, you're hilariously absolutist sometimes. The idea that it's how things are portrayed as much as what they are is what we've been talking about for the last three pages or so, yes.
When it comes to film-making, artistic techniques having to do with nudity/sexuality are often misunderstood as simply "gratuitous exploitation".
...and relativistic interpretations of portrayals of sexuality are based on social conditioning (distortion) and personal insecurities (distortion).
Anyway, I have to hit the sack...Talk to you later...:bored:
Tocky on 8/1/2017 at 20:58
Quote Posted by Thirith
You can have the most empowered character and still film her in an exploitative way. The two are not mutually exclusive.
And sexism isn't objective, because it's a sociocultural thing. It's defined by people, and it depends on interpretation. At best you could say that some aspect of sexism is agreed on by a large enough majority that it takes on a certain almost objective quality. Which doesn't devalue it, but it's something that is defined against norms and values, and there is *nothing* natural to these, pretty much by definition. Which makes the discussion especially tricky, because by saying that something is sexist you're basically making two arguments at the same time: sexism is X (to me as an individual, to us as a group, to society at large) and Y corresponds to this definition of sexism. Which doesn't help in and of itself, but to my mind saying that sexism is objective suggests a fundamental misconception of what it is we're talking about.
But here is the thing (and I'll try to articulate without my usual flippancy (hard for me) so you don't concentrate on that), when that interpretation is at the far end of the sociocultural bell curve and is articulated in the media as the desired definition it inspires a backlash from the other end of the curve which does move the needle too far in the other direction. That is what Kolya said with his Trump comment. We need to be alert for the individual interpretation going beyond the norm for that reason.
Interpreting too far beyond the norm on sexuality will never fly because we are sexual beings. That is not a thing, male or female, that we can deny. Currently our norm is fair (I think) with minor exceptions. Those exceptions stand out. Those we can call sexist. BUT when we start calling the norm or middle bell curve sexist it not only will not be accepted but may make things worse.
I understand those on the end of the curve think it advances their cause to push for the middle to move, and previously it needed to move, but when we begin to quibble over minor issues accepted and even used on a beach knowingly by the majority of females such as a bikini then those trying to push the middle should take note. IS the use SOLELY for titillation? If not then one needs to examine carefully whether one wishes a backlash. Moreover one should examine whether there is any benefit should the middle move. Does a woman in a bikini or a man in a speedo diminish any other aspect of that individual? Must every aspect of one sex side be reciprocated by the other sex side to be non sexist? What is lost in creativity or function of a story when the grains of these things are weighed rather than the over all message being conveyed?
That all may sound really simple but it's what the thread started over. Whether the view is subjective or objective it is the middle of the bell curve and the fairness of that place on the graph which is important. That makes the subjective only important to the individual and as long as the individual is free to exercise that on a personal level then subjective is unimportant.
Oops I realized I didn't qualify the middle of the bell curve as being that most approaching objective. I think you understand that though as you mentioned the "almost objective" quality.
SubJeff on 8/1/2017 at 23:39
Quote Posted by faetal
The way I look at it is that if I was homosexual and had spent my life either hiding it due to fear of social exclusion or had been actively mocked for not hiding it, then someone with Hammond's level of public reach using sexuality as some kind of negative personality quirk... ...There has been plenty of research showing that e.g. sexist humour has the effect of making certain groups of people more comfortable with being sexist, as it is normalises it a little. (
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071106083038.htm) Reference
There's two things here.
I definitely agree that allowing "-ist" humour of any type emboldens the real a-holes who want to take it to the next level. However, you've still got to define what is that -ism or not. What if Hammond had just said he wasn't gay, in a really normal context? Let's say they stopped by a gay bar and someone recognised them and asked him if he'd like a drink with them and Hammond said "No thanks, I'm not gay." Is that reasonable to say? And then what if some homosexuals who were hiding it found that statement negative. Perhaps a such a public figure denying being gay meant they had more fear of social exclusion. Does that make the statement homophobic?
My point is - it's not entirely up to a group to decide if something is prejudiced against them or not, as nice as that may be. SJWs seem to forget this. There are loads of things that are labelled sexist, racist, antisemitic, homophobic, etc, that just aren't, but someone takes offence or makes a fuss and the cycle restarts.
It's vitally important to stop prejudice when it happens. It's almost as important to shut up SJWs who have got it wrong though.
Quote:
Wouldn't be surprised if the spike in racially motivated attacks in the UK post-Brexit were due to xenophobes feeling like a shift of sentiment in their direction meant it was OK to let the mask slip a bit.
This is almost definitely the case.
faetal on 9/1/2017 at 00:06
Quote Posted by SubJeff
What if Hammond had just said he wasn't gay, in a really normal context?
I mean, just watch the clip: (
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/richard-hammond-ice-cream-gay-the-grand-tour-jeremy-clarkson-james-may-a7496961.html)
Ignoring how cringe-inducingly scripted it obviously is (along with all of the "spontaneous" Top Gear conversational bits), it's basically only there as a laugh so cheap, it's embarrassingly bad.
Mostly, it's just awful and not funny and stupid, but it is using "straight" as basically "not a person with compromised masculinity".
Doesn't offend me
viscerally, because as I mentioned before, I have never had to sit through teasing about my sexuality, never had a large % of Top Gear's target audience drunkenly being aggressive towards me for holding hands with another guy etc... But I can imagine to someone who spent their life taking shit for their sexuality, it might have smarted some.
All told, was it worth it for such an unfunny and pointless skit?
SubJeff on 9/1/2017 at 06:59
I've seen it. It was stupid and a poor joke. But the part of my post you quote has to do with perceived offense and whether it's realistic or not, and not what was actually said. I used a passive similar, but less obviously ridiculous, statement to make a point.
Vivian on 9/1/2017 at 07:48
Ok, but ignoring the use of social justice as a perjorative for a second (which is ridiculous), Hammond didn't just say 'im not gay'. He said eating ice cream was gay. That not being good reason to grab the pitchforks doesn't make it cool, it's still a fucking stupid thing to say. 'Offense' is too much of an emotive umbrella term for 'taking issue with'. I don't think what he did was offensive particularly (certainly less so than his continued existence in general), but I do take issue with it.
I am, however, offended by the term sjw, because it implies that trying to make the world better for everyone is somehow a bad thing we should all take the piss out of. It's also got that annoying, polarising bullshit vibe that 'bremoaner' does.
SubJeff on 9/1/2017 at 08:11
It was stupid thing of him to say, no doubt. Is he a homophobe? I think he probably is. But I think that's the weakest homophobic thing anyone has ever said, if it can indeed be classed as homophobic.
SJW is most certainly a pejorative term and I mean it to be. Trying to make the world a better place is great. We should all do it. But that's not what SJWs do - they are the uber bleeding heart liberals that take issue with and find offense in almost anything. You know what I mean. They're everywhere. They're the people that find it offensive when I say I'd like to go back to Africa for a holiday because, err, helloooo, Africa is many different countries you know and it's demeaning to refer to ah f off. This is a real thing.
Vivian on 9/1/2017 at 08:46
I think that applying that sort of label just makes it easier to dismiss your opponent without engaging with what they actually said (aka strawmanning, as we've covered here already). It's not really part of a proper debate.
Anyways, that's a side issue. Like Faetal said, 'homophobic' is also a pretty bad word for what it's trying to represent. Gayism sounds wrong though. Hammond maybe is a homophobe, although that's an assumption in itself, but the ice cream thing was homophobic. Not in that it promotes hatred and anger towards gay people (which is the more typical meaning of homophobic, isn't it?), but in that it's a very inaccurate statement about gay dudes that just seems to be based on some vague idea of effeminacy. It's a bit of a 'women can't drive' statement.
Well ok it's way weaker sauce than that, but you get my point. It's the sort of casual background gayism that would get me down if I was a gay dude who liked ice cream.
Yeah the Africa thing, if bono sings some shit like 'ooh down in Africa the kids the kids' you'd think he was a cunt though, right?
