Tropes vs Women

These statements both appear to support the idea of segregated platforms to the exclusion of holistic platforms. I had to press you pretty hard to get you to admit the value of holistic platforms.

You agree that holistic platforms have their place. It is evident that few of them exist. It's only a small step from there to being unhappy to see someone solicit over $150,000 to create yet another partisan platform.

 

David, is it your assertion that women cannot legitimately discuss women's issue without the presence of men or including the subject of men in those discussions?

 

Seems a bit divisive for someone promoting a holistic approach...

 

Both of what statements, David?

Only one of those statements is mine.

Do you see that one belongs to Driftwood?

Is this the third time you've mistaken one poster for another?

 

Yup. That's pretty much the face of it.

It's theoretically possible to have separate camps that act in solidarity. But I'm more interested in describing what exists. What exists is segregation. Both sides are hostile to the other, to the great detriment of both.

So no, I guess it's not quite my assertion that women cannot legitimately have that discussion. What I am saying is that many women, and men, and in particular this women, do not have a legitimate discussion.

To only consider half of the population is a failure of perspective.

 

Yup, you got me! I mistook one poster for another. It is the third time, too. You've been keeping track.

 

Actually I'm decrying divisiveness and advocating inclusivity. Although I can understand how I may appear divisive to those who disagree with me.

 

I'm not sure it's really about appearing divisive. It's more like you reek of privilege.

 

I suggest that you speak for yourself. Driftwood called me divisive and you call me privileged. They are both ad hominem attacks made at my character, and have no bearing on my argument.

http://uwc.utexas.edu/handouts/rhetorical-fallacies

 

David, I didn't see you address any legitimate issues pertaining to women in any various men's issues threads you've created recently. you've also successfully derailed this thread. If that was your intention, good job.

 

to a certain extent, that would be impossible. to the extent that it is possible, she does. that's the whole point.

i'm not even gonna start explaining why the idea that, when studying representation, one invalidates ones arguments by focusing on the representation of a specific group in comparison to another, is ridiculous.

 

I don't understand. Why would it be at all impossible to examine how men are portrayed in the media? I don't see her do it one little bit.

Your factual statements appear to be false. If that's the whole point, I just don't get it. Maybe you can explain a little more fully.

 

So you're now asserting that there are no issues that women should discuss among themselves at all in the absence of men?

Perhaps you should go back and re-read Manservant Hecubus' post. He just beat me to it. I've seen a number of your posts that lead me to the exact same conclusion he made (and I suspect you don't even know what he means when he says that).

There are a great many issues both sexes can and should discuss amongst themselves in the absence of the other sex, including for women both how they're treated by men, AND how they're portrayed in the media. Explain to us please why you believe that latter item is not a valid topic for discussion in the absence of men.

So what? That doesn't invalidate the fact that women should have conversations about topics relevant to them in the absence of men.

I don't think you know what you're asserting, really. You just seem to feel that the earth revolves around men and that they should not be excluded from discussions women are having (again, based on having read many of your other posts in the forum here).

 

I'll show how examining both perspectives can provide a more thorough understanding of the dynamic. The damsel in distress is related to male disposability. How? Allow me to explain.

If you watch the Feminist Frequency video, you'll see that towards the end she finally gets to her point. The damsel in distress presents women as week, helpless beings incapable of taking care of themselves. This presents only half of the story. The other part relates to male disposability. We don't make stories with damsels in distress because we want to put real women in distress. We put fictional damsels in distress because it makes for a good story. Why is it a better story? It creates more emotional involvement because we see women as inherently more worthy to be saved.

But why are stories about saving women more compelling than stories about saving men? Because women are seen as week, and protecting the week is a huge part of our moral code. I make this point in post #49 of the disposable male thread.

This dichotomous view of the helpless female and the disposable male is unfair, outdated, and not useful this modern age. I could go on for hours explaining the negative impacts that it has on everyone involved.

I've explained the dynamic more thoroughly in four paragraphs than Feminist Frequency did in her entire 23.5 minute video.

 

when you study representation you begin to notice key underlying structures and broad narrative trends. The most noticeable in film are related to gender and race, but these are also found in relation to sexuality, class etc. you notice patterns in how women and non-white people are represented. archetypes, tropes, stereotypes, roles within narrative, lack of narrative agency which are peculiar to characters of a certain ethnicity/gender/sexuality etc.

when i say that it is impossible to examine how men are portrayed in the media in general terms this is because white, heterosexual male characters are less constricted by these underlying trends, they can inhabit a huge variety of roles within the narrative structure and a vast range of different characterizations, they are constructed in different ways, and do not come with pre-packaged personalities. the general trend is for characters outside of this group to be marginalised within the narrative and conform to ready-made stereotypes which embody certain underlying structures of thought. in the context of the narrative, they are defined by what they are not what they do.

you can talk about the portrayal of women in general terms because the portrayal of women is so often uniform and regimented. it is more difficult to talk about the portrayal of men in general terms because the portrayal of men tends not to be dictated by underlying structures, therefore it is difficult to make general statements about the portrayal of men since
male characters (particularly if white, straight etc) can be presented in more or less any way (obviously you can argue that men also inhabit stereotypical roles, but if so, then their range of stereotypes, compared to other groups, is fucking enormous.)female characters are much more often confined to specific roles and portrayed in specific ways.

obviously you consider them in relation to male characters (this is often the only way they CAN be considered.) but talking about male portrayal is difficult because of the breadth and variety of portrayals of white, straight, wealthy men in comparison to the narrow roles and characterisations of non-white, non heterosexuals and women.

the point is that there's such a huge disparity between how these groups are represented.

 

A) You come off as a sourpuss sad that men are seen as "disposable," rather than really being concerned about any attempt to actually address that. All you've really done across at least two threads is whine and bitch about the way others see it, and not really offered any concrete recommendations or solutions for addressing your issue (and a reminder that this is not the thread for it - use your own thread, not someone else's).

B) For fuck's take, go back and take an English 101 class and learn to use the correct words in your arguments ("weak," not "week," for example. A "week" is a measure of time equivalent to seven days and nights, and not a measure of strength).

C). You didn't bother to answer any of the questions I asked.

And D)

No, you didn't.

 

You kind of get over video games anyway

Games where you get pointw for shooting hookers, the main demographic is going to be under 25 males, getting them to listen to anything....well


But i was watching Wizard of oz the other day, for the first timesince i was a kid, one line reached out and whacked me in the face, when the good witch says to Dorothy "Only bad witches are ugly"

You have to tackle all that stuff as well, Disney, Bratz dolls, Hanna Montana telling them you are not relevant, or even that you are evil of you are not pretty

More games like Mario Brothers where Princess peach can kick your ass are needed

 

Well, there are probably a few. But I can't think of one off the top of my head, no. Care to give it a shot?

Saying it doesn't make it so. You've got to explain why.

Well first of all, the discussion isn't taking place in the absence of men. It's taking place on you tube, which is open to everybody. What's missing is not men, it's concern with the issues that men face. Since male disposability and the damsel in distress are so intertwined in their root causes and manifestations, any discussion that addresses one without addressing the other does a piss poor job.

I think that I've got a pretty good idea of what I'm asserting. I'm not saying that the world revolves around men. What I'm saying is that it doesn't revolve around women either. I see no reason to exclude anyone or anyone's concerns from the discussion. Maybe it would help if you'd explain why, exactly, it is a good idea?

 

Well, that's an interesting point. I'd have to see some numbers crunched by someone reasonably neutral before I agree with it. But given the veracity of your data, your argument holds together.

I do think that if you spent some time and attention on it, you would find that most male characters are portrayed as archetypes as well. For every damsel in distress, there must be a knight in shining armor. Otherwise there's no story.

Believable characters with "real" motivations and emotions are the exception, not the rule, for both genders. They're really hard to write and really easy to screw up.

If there is such a huge disparity, please demonstrate it. My contention is that the vast majority of male characters are tropes, as well.

 

So that she could call him a chauvinist pig?

The time to be a feminist without being in favor of a less just society is long past.