I think in almost all these debates, it's surely better to err on the side of the assumed minority/less privileged group?
For instance, the danger of incorrectly labelling the wealthy white man Richard Hammond a homophobe should be weighed against the potential damage caused by such an individual who uses the elevated platform he enjoys to at best casually ridicule or scorn a specific minority which has a history of being persecuted against, and, we must remember, is still actively outlawed in many territories where The Grand Tour is presumably available to stream.
I agree it's not the most pressing case, perhaps. Meryl Streep just highlighted Trump's mockery of the disabled reporter. It is incidents like these, left unchallenged, that gradually contribute to the normalisation of abuse of certain groups within society. We have a duty to actively, not passively, protect the rights of minority groups as they rarely have the power, wealth, or cultural capital to achieve redress through means which the dominant classes have built up and protected over many many years.
It behooves us to remember that, as long as the majority of us are talking about Western Europe and North American nations, the vast majority is white and straight. By considerable margins, the control of power, money and status still lies in the hands of men. Things may be changing, and evidently some people don't like it.
I would caution against anybody who says "well, it's all equal now isn't it so just shut up about it!"
Particularly if they belong to the dominant group. I'm willing to bet we almost all do here!
I'm not saying you can't see it. But you've never experienced it directly. You may not feel like you'd be offended as a woman watching A, or a gay person hearing B. But you don't really know, because you haven't lived those lives.
So I guess what I'm saying is listen to others?
And by the way, sexism = discrimination based on sex/gender - ok, but the definition of discrimination is in no way objective. And either way, we shouldn't take the definition from the group with the privilege. Potentially what SubJeff is annoyed at with the "SJWs" is people from different groups "stepping in" and being offended on behalf of others. What's the worst that could happen? We have a discussion about whether something really was offensive or not? Who does this threaten?
Worth also noting that the slug-like Hutts are hermaphrodites, like real world slugs, and therefore both male and female. Jabba's exaggerated and abusive male behaviour amounts to an implicit rejection of his feminine side that ultimately proves self-destructive. It is as smart a criticism of hypermasculinity as you are ever likely to see in a PG-rated movie.
That people are usually deprived of this information does not weaken their argument when, for once, they happen to be alerted to the truth.
It is disgraceful that people are denied the opportunity to abstain from using the carcasses of murdered animals in the normal course of their lives.
That someone thought it was a good idea to use dead animals in the currency we use on a daily basis demonstrates a total lack of consideration for the ethical minority in this country.
It's maybe also the only criticism of hyper-masculinity that seems to have formed the basis of a pretty robustly culturally-ingrained male sexual fantasy?
Actually hang on, does Russ Meyer count?
Last edited by Vivian; 9th Jan 2017 at 12:19.
I'm not googling it to find out. I already googled 'sexy bacta tank' and immediately regretted it.
I had wanted the discussion to address the pendulum swing reaction when the accusation of sexism goes too far but instead the same ground keeps being covered. Not that some points haven't surfaced in the meantime. I like your take about rejection of the feminine side proving self destructive. I hadn't considered that. My main concentration was on the obvious metaphor of chain escape.
Much like how I keep reading jokes and memes talking about how vegans always mention that they're vegan without being asked or that they are trying to impose their lifestyle on everyone, whereas I only actually hear about anyone's veganism once for every 40-50 mentions of how awful vegans are.
Arguments are generally better when made on merit, with dialectic examination of the thing being discussed. The moment tags are brought in to render the entire side of an argument as somehow emanating from a fungible mass, typified by something descriptively awful, then the overall discussion suffers for it*. This is why I didn't say that Hammond is a homophobe, just pointed out that someone decided that unfunny scripted and mildly homophobic skit merited inclusion in the program. Probably done to generate controversy and get people talking about the show without being too awful. Oh look, it worked.
(* I don't think you're doing this BTW, I just segued into a general polemic on these types of things)
I depends who you are. If you're in another minority group it's probably pretty easy to see it.I'm not saying you can't see it. But you've never experienced it directly.
Animals die you know? They live and die. Not wanting animal products in other products because you think it cruel to kill animals kind of doesn't make sense. What if I could guarantee the leather shoes I'm selling are made from cows that died of natural causes?
Let's take it to the next level.
Are the same people who aren't going to use the fiver also not going to use ANY medication that was tested on animals. In other words, almost all of it. This is easily obtainable information so by your standards the same hoo haa should be made about the latest cancer and Alzheimer's medications. Can you make a giant "Hypocrite" sign out of tallow?
SubJeff, the money thing is slightly different to the medicine thing. You absolutely can't do much of medical research without animal models, but I imagine you can make a plastic fiver without using animal stuff. Reduce, replace, refine and all that.
I'd prefer it if no animal products were used where it's unnecessary, as long as that reduction of use reduces animal suffering. I don't mind the use of by products because they don't contribute to animal suffering. And I'd prefer it if everyone could always get what they want but this is reality and they can't.
The currency thing is funny - if you dig deep enough, you can always find something that offends somebody. Only 0.04 % of the population are diehard vegans (going beyond just diet), so I'd say it's just a case of not being able to please all of the people all of the time.
But no, sure, we should probably treat minority classes just the same as anyone else. They're everywhere aren't they? Making us doubt ourselves and our firmly held beliefs. No matter that many of them live lives coloured by doubt, uncertainty and prejudice simply by virtue of being members of whatever group.
And I'm not so sure about simply being in another minority group as if all prejudice were comparable.
For example, I know very well the insecurity that you get when you're not sure how another person is going to react to knowledge of your sexuality. In some situations it's simply not worth taking the risk. Does any straight male feel that when simply mentioning their wife or girlfriend offhand? I don't know the feeling one might get if a stranger physically moves away eg. on public transport because of the colour of one's skin.
Of course, there's always a reason why Leia has to be in the bikini, or Ridley has to undress. There's a reason why our celebrated entertainments and arts concern themselves with sex, with explorations of male power, with violation, with a certain appreciation of the female form. You can twist around and refer to (probably retconned) lore about hermaphrodite Hutts, but I'd argue Jabba would have been and is perceived as male. I'm not saying Leia's portrayal isn't in some ways progressive, but ultimately she still serves to be the lever in a love triangle. There's a reason too, I guess, about why the trilogy is mainly about Luke and Vader's relationship, not Leia and Vader.
Let's just perceive what actually is: western culture created the environment where a film like Star Wars could be made, largely by men, largely from and for a male perspective. And achieve enormous success. I'm not saying women can't enjoy it, or didn't enjoy it. They were raised to accept that the male perspective was the right or only way to view the world, and art, too.
Even today, with the huge advances that have been made, most big-budget movies are also made by men, and a few people try to point out issues with any of this, or create something alternative, and suddenly things have gone too far??
Just the term "tyranny of the majority" is loaded. What? Because I'm straight I'm somehow part of a tyranny? This is what gets my goat; I'm as liberal as you get but even I feel under attack by this type of thing. Whilst it's true that no straight male feels odd mentioning their gf (mostly) gay men SHOULD just mention their boyfriend in the same way. That's how we'll get through this, with everyone just being chill about it. Yes, there will be some idiots who can't cope that omg homos at first but once everyone is out it'll be just part of the norm.
I don't think you'll ever get totally get rid of prejudice though - you cannot get rid of stupidity and that's the sad reality of it. The continued existence of sexism is proof of that, and we can't blame religion all the time.
You're absolutely right about stupidity in that regard. But the good thing shouldn't be lost because of the silly bad thing?
On a personal level nobody is part of a tyranny, that's not exactly what I mean. But it is true that often people don't confront their privilege or even realise that others face prejudice unless it's pointed out - why would they? It's all well and good saying, for instance, that gay men SHOULD do this or that, but could it be one of those things that's easier said than done? After all, a straight person would never normally have to summon up any courage to do so. It's already massively more normalised than it was even 10 years ago. I'm just pointing out small differences which can easily be swept aside, yet still hold some significance.
It's like cases where people with Muslim sounding names don't get job interviews. I can advise my friend to just neaten up and send off the CV everywhere, get some interviews, get a job - perfect, worked for me - why doesn't it just work for them?
I'm afraid we're just not at the stage where we can just assume that if everybody acted the same, they'd get the same opportunities or results from it.
The change for me is not that we are close to, or will ever as you say, totally get rid of prejudice, but that maybe now as a larger conversation people are starting to see it, talk about it, a bit more, which I hope is a good thing.
I don't remember starting this 5 page thread...? Oh damn you TTLG and your inability to let go.
Fine then. While Carrie Fisher was indeed a smart and funny person most people will be hard pressed to name other films she was involved in besides that space opera. Maybe this is part of the reason that bikini had such an impact on her life. There didn't come much after it, so everyone saw her through the lens of these films and that's something you cannot escape, just learn to deal with, as time goes by. I'm sure she didn't see the bikini as sexist when she filmed the scene, but as she became a mature woman who was still exclusively identified with Star Wars, this bikini didn't fit her anymore, figuratively speaking. And when she told Daisy Ridley not to wear it, Don't become a slave like me! I couldn't help but think of Sinéad O'Connor's open letter to Miley Cyrus. The old woman telling the young woman not to rely on her sexiness -to which the young woman will turn, laugh and scoff, eternally. Of course she will use all she can to get everything she wants. And eventually curse that image when it has become static, unchangeable and a reminder of her former self, which she will then deem stupid.
Boy, am I glad to be a man and of no great interest to the world. Of course at some point I would have liked if everyone thought I was an irresistible pop star, but I can see this and me getting old and less fun. That doesn't change the fact that I'd rather bang young Leia than old Fisher! We men are visually sexcitable monkeys and that's tough for the ladies, I get it. I don't think putting Sting in a metal mankini will solve this, as it won't thrill women as much as Leia does for us. What we can do is try and understand that we are not equal but still need each other's respect and sometimes a helping hand.
I've yet to see anyone justify what any of this shit has to do with trump, however. People can't handle thinking about other people?
(NB fisher is mainly famous post-star-wars for mental health advocacy, isn't she? She did shitloads afterwards, becoming a pretty major script-doctor, writing a best-seller, the mental health stuff, etc. Hang on, lemme dig up some articles.)
Ok, it's not an article, but it is her wiki page. There are lots of things she did that didn't involve just not-being-able-to-wear-a-bikini, including writing Lethal Weapon 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Fisher
I.E, she wasn't 'a mature woman who still exclusively identified with star wars'. As I think pretty much every single obituary written about her stated.
Last edited by Vivian; 10th Jan 2017 at 11:02.
Take your time. But the question was what most people could name of the top of their heads.
I think that was my original point? She has done quite a range of things and been very successful in most of them, but to most people she will just be Leia, and the image that comes up for Leia is usually the bikini. And I thought that was a shame. And it turned out that was a trigger for Tocky to go all grandpa simpson.