tentativelurkeraccount posted:the devil wears prada has that one awesome scene where meryl streep schools anne hathaway on how even her wal-mart bargain bin fashion sense doesn't exist outside the tentacles of capital
yeah i like that scene
Crow posted:Get fiscal why dont you keep that pretty mouth shut and just keep on posting with those cute lil girly avs... sexy mamas..
nobody likes a brown noser.
discipline posted:"Don't come into my Bond movies complaining about how it treats women. I don't come into YOUR movies and complain about how they treat men!"
Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants directed by Ken Kwapis
He's Just Not That Into You directed by Ken Kwapis
Sex in the City directed by Michael Patrick King
Sex in the City 2 directed by Michael Patrick King
The Notebook directed by Nick Cassavetes
My Big Fat Greek Wedding directed by Joel Zwick
The Devil Wears Prada directed by David Frankel
About a Boy directed by Chris Weitz and Paul Weitz
Knocked Up directed by Judd Apatow
Juno directed by Jason Reitman
High Fidelity directed by Stephen Frears
What to Expect When You're Expecting directed by Kirk Jones
lol this is the exact point i was getting to in the kubrick thread
you got all riled up that he "ignored" female characters in his movies, which is inherently better than the most common alternative: male directors pandering the hell out of women by including a bunch of clumsily-written female characters just for ticket sales. most men are incapable of writing good female characters, period. and its better that if they cant, they dont. sometimes the best thing you can be is ignored
Is this a consequence of the media being unable to portray the more radical essence of the gay rights movement? Or is the gay rights movement itself non-radical, complicit in the anti-feminist movement? I'm only asking because every woman I know has a fetishized role in their lives for gay men and the gay rights movement, but I have been unable to translate this into any kind of leftism or wider analysis of gender.
babyhueypnewton posted:I'm interested in the function of gay male characters in romantic comedies. Gay men are suddenly everywhere in media, mainly for a female audience but increasingly for men. On the other hand, lesbians are completely invisible, even in wanna-be political stuff like Lady Gaga and "modern family". Gay men are portrayed in very specific ways, and gay issues are always portrayed as issues of identity and homophobia in society and never as racial, economic, or political issues beyond a very narrow scope (marriage and DADT mostly).
Is this a consequence of the media being unable to portray the more radical essence of the gay rights movement? Or is the gay rights movement itself non-radical, complicit in the anti-feminist movement? I'm only asking because every woman I know has a fetishized role in their lives for gay men and the gay rights movement, but I have been unable to translate this into any kind of leftism or wider analysis of gender.
this is an interesting point. queen victoria famously didn't want to outlaw lesbianism like homosexuality because she refused to believe that people would actually practice it. I imagine there is still an element of that in our society in that lesbians are acknowledged in a fetishized narrow function (see goatstein's post) but there is still a real reluctance of fear to acknowledge that there are women who simply operate completely outside the phallo-sexual economy
babyhueypnewton posted:I'm interested in the function of gay male characters in romantic comedies. Gay men are suddenly everywhere in media, mainly for a female audience but increasingly for men. On the other hand, lesbians are completely invisible, even in wanna-be political stuff like Lady Gaga and "modern family". Gay men are portrayed in very specific ways, and gay issues are always portrayed as issues of identity and homophobia in society and never as racial, economic, or political issues beyond a very narrow scope (marriage and DADT mostly).
Is this a consequence of the media being unable to portray the more radical essence of the gay rights movement? Or is the gay rights movement itself non-radical, complicit in the anti-feminist movement? I'm only asking because every woman I know has a fetishized role in their lives for gay men and the gay rights movement, but I have been unable to translate this into any kind of leftism or wider analysis of gender.
there's nothing radical about the gay rights movement. it's a movement primarily of educated first world whites from middle-class-or-better backgrounds, whose material complaints are about inequal access to tax, expatriate, and healthcare benefits, and restrictions on personal behavior while serving imperialism.
babyhueypnewton posted:I'm interested in the function of gay male characters in romantic comedies. Gay men are suddenly everywhere in media, mainly for a female audience but increasingly for men. On the other hand, lesbians are completely invisible, even in wanna-be political stuff like Lady Gaga and "modern family". Gay men are portrayed in very specific ways, and gay issues are always portrayed as issues of identity and homophobia in society and never as racial, economic, or political issues beyond a very narrow scope (marriage and DADT mostly).
Is this a consequence of the media being unable to portray the more radical essence of the gay rights movement? Or is the gay rights movement itself non-radical, complicit in the anti-feminist movement? I'm only asking because every woman I know has a fetishized role in their lives for gay men and the gay rights movement, but I have been unable to translate this into any kind of leftism or wider analysis of gender.
its the fulfillment of the homosexual agenda as documented in the congressional record back in 1987
Goethestein posted:babyhueypnewton posted:I'm interested in the function of gay male characters in romantic comedies. Gay men are suddenly everywhere in media, mainly for a female audience but increasingly for men. On the other hand, lesbians are completely invisible, even in wanna-be political stuff like Lady Gaga and "modern family". Gay men are portrayed in very specific ways, and gay issues are always portrayed as issues of identity and homophobia in society and never as racial, economic, or political issues beyond a very narrow scope (marriage and DADT mostly).
Is this a consequence of the media being unable to portray the more radical essence of the gay rights movement? Or is the gay rights movement itself non-radical, complicit in the anti-feminist movement? I'm only asking because every woman I know has a fetishized role in their lives for gay men and the gay rights movement, but I have been unable to translate this into any kind of leftism or wider analysis of gender.there's nothing radical about the gay rights movement. it's a movement primarily of educated first world whites from middle-class-or-better backgrounds, whose material complaints are about inequal access to tax, expatriate, and healthcare benefits, and restrictions on personal behavior while serving imperialism.
hmmmmm
getfiscal posted:
Goethestein posted:lesbians are everywhere in pornography, and have been for decades. once again proving it the most progressive artform
Lol those aren't real lesbians.
Ironicwarcriminal posted:this is an interesting point. queen victoria famously didn't want to outlaw lesbianism like homosexuality because she refused to believe that people would actually practice it. I imagine there is still an element of that in our society in that lesbians are acknowledged in a fetishized narrow function (see goatstein's post) but there is still a real reluctance of fear to acknowledge that there are women who simply operate completely outside the phallo-sexual economy
the issue stems from the fact that (in the popular view) all women are seen as inherently bisexual to some variable extent, and likewise all self-identifying "lesbians" are seen merely as bisexual women engaging in a temporary stint of female-exclusivity. Lesbians are thus not always necessarily seen as a separate class, distinct from the rest of the mainstream population as homosexual men are. A significant number of people to this day refuse to believe that exclusive lesbianism is a thing that exists
and to be completely honest, out of all the self-identifying lesbians i have ever known, not one of them has ever been anywhere close to female-exclusive during the time that i have known them, so i can definitely see where that kind of view comes from
MadMedico posted:Goethestein posted:lesbians are everywhere in pornography, and have been for decades. once again proving it the most progressive artform
Lol those aren't real lesbians.
nice mansplaining.
EmanuelaOrlandi posted:iwxc goatstein wasted and bhpn please explain why i should not permaban all of you for being boring / dumb. tia.
because u love me..
oh didnt i didnt i didnt i c u cryin
EmanuelaOrlandi posted:iwxc goatstein wasted and bhpn please explain why i should not permaban all of you for being boring / dumb. tia.
the example of Christ's mercy
Superabound posted:^^^ told ya
Ironicwarcriminal posted:this is an interesting point. queen victoria famously didn't want to outlaw lesbianism like homosexuality because she refused to believe that people would actually practice it. I imagine there is still an element of that in our society in that lesbians are acknowledged in a fetishized narrow function (see goatstein's post) but there is still a real reluctance of fear to acknowledge that there are women who simply operate completely outside the phallo-sexual economy
the issue stems from the fact that (in the popular view) all women are seen as inherently bisexual to some variable extent, and likewise all self-identifying "lesbians" are seen merely as bisexual women engaging in a temporary stint of female-exclusivity. Lesbians are thus not always necessarily seen as a separate class, distinct from the rest of the mainstream population as homosexual men are. A significant number of people to this day refuse to believe that exclusive lesbianism is a thing that exists
and to be completely honest, out of all the self-identifying lesbians i have ever known, not one of them has ever been anywhere close to female-exclusive during the time that i have known them, so i can definitely see where that kind of view comes from
lol you're so creepy dude.
by the way you're wrong. if we trace patriarchy as emerging from the agricultural revolution and the conquering of nature (and thus women) we can say that the primary fear of women is their hypersexuality as forces of nature and the patriarchy as the conquering of that fear and making women asexual (as objects incapable of independent desire). lesbians defy both of these roles (if we take the phallus to be the instrument of power over nature). and yes this is a contradiction, which is the point.
however this isn't really relevant, I'm more interested in the current gay rights movement and it's relationship to females in general. homosexuality is easily traceable to the victorian era industrial revolution, I see little in common between it and the struggle against patriarchy which (at least in some schools) goes all the way back to primitive man.
EmanuelaOrlandi posted:iwxc goatstein wasted and bhpn please explain why i should not permaban all of you for being boring / dumb. tia.
i have nothing in common with any of them, kind of disappointed they showed up to be creepy. i dont care though, not even sure why you're a mod.
