Uechi-Ryu.com

Discussion Area
It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 12:44 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Dec 05, 2005 9:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Posts: 3519
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
uhhhhh, Akil, what is your fighting style?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 5:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 798
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Quote:
Here is a brief analysis of what could be considered a prototype: The Color Purple (Steven Spielberg, 1985), Though not necessarily the first of its kind, this movie can now be seen as a kind of cinematic watershed. It was a sign of the times but also of things to come: what was still unusual in 1985 would become commonplace by 1990. Since then, movies based on this mentality have become pervasive.

Purple as based on Alice Walkers critically acclaimed and best-selling novel of the same title. When it failed to win an academy award, critics were outraged. Here was a powerful movie about the ignored by the Hollywood establishment. Charges of racism were heard throughout the land. But those were not the only charges. Black men charged that the movie was sexist (for perpetuating negative stereotypes of black men) as well as racist (for pitting black men and women against each other instead of white society). And they did so right in the public square on talk shows such as Donahue. What caused their fury? In a nutshell, it was that every male character, without exception, is either a hopelessly stupid buffoon, a fiendishly evil tyrant, or both. And every female character, without exception, is a purely innocent victim, a quietly enduring hero, or both. In short, the world presented to viewers is one of an eternal struggle between “us” and “them.”

In Purple, this cinematic world – viewers know it only from what they actually see and hear in movie theaters or on television – consists ultimately of a battle between the forces of light represented by women and those of darkness represented by men. Unless viewers supply other information from their own world (and thus contradict what is “said” by the movie itself) or from Walker’s Novel (and thus add at least some depth of humanity to the male characters), they must reach the conclusion that men are inherently worthless. In fact, they might as well be aliens from some other world. Whether viewers are consciously aware of it or not, that is the inherent inner logic of this movie. “Men are gremlins of Celie’s world,” writes April Selley about the filmed version; “they are released to wreak havoc, but since they do not belong, they return to their own sphere, whatever that is. Spielberg’s skill in earlier films to bring alien creatures, whether evil or benign, into the ordinary world and then return them to their own universes backfires in The Color Purple. For men are not E.T or the other visitors in Close Encounters. Their disappearance cannot preserve or restore the status quo.”

What has made the male characters so worthless or evil is never shown; they just are the way that way. Was it because of the appalling conditions black people endured in the rural South of sixty years ago? Possibly. But if the situation was so destructive, why did only the female characters emerge with their dignity and humanity intact? From what viewers are shown, only one conclusion is possible: something innate in women allows them to rise above degradation, while something innate in men prevents them from doing so. Four women are triumphant and four men are defeated. Harpo, the oaf who keeps falling through the ceiling as if in a rerun of Amos ‘n Andy, is taken aback at the very end by his long suffering wife. No discernible change has taken place in him, while she has grown in wisdom and tolerance. Mister, a kind of black Simon Legree, eventually repents of his evil ways. But the last scene finds him so crushed by guilt that he cannot bring himself to even ask for Celie’s forgiveness. She meanwhile, has successfully transcended the past and can thus move on into the future. Even in contrition, then, the men are worthless. At their best, in other words, they are irrelevant anachronisms.

Given the dramatis personae, the only people who can identify themselves with the characters on-screen are women, whether black or white. No healthy man, black or white, could possibly do so, not only because all male characters are so unspeakably vile and so incredibly stupid but also because they are so uncinematically lifeless. Unlike the women, the men are not really people at all. They are wooden caricatures who represent crimes or pathologies, cardboard cutouts that exist in only one dimension, straw men set up to be knocked down – in short, not complex human beings in whom male and female viewers can see some of the god and evil in themselves. Never mind: this movie is not addressed to male viewers, not even to racist, white, male viewers. Apparently, the possible reaction of male viewers was considered irrelevant. The movie indicates that men are irrelevant once they stop persecuting women. In the final shot, the camera looks upward at the women, thus conferring visual monumentality and dignity on those who have escaped from their men and gone off to live together. Their pride and independence is thus emphasized in precisely the same way as the brutality and evil of the men, Celie’s father and husband, were at the beginning.

Like the “docudrama’s” on television, purple purports to be two very different, even opposing, things at the same time. On the one hand, there is an apparent link between the story and history. After the opening credits, viewers are informed that the story takes place in the 1920’s. This information is verified by the historically accurate use of sets, costumes, and other props. But even docudramas are never scientific descriptions of the world, sociological treatises in narrative form. The events and characters are clearly selected for some purpose, not thrown together at random as they allegedly are in cinema verite. They are not merely observed in the process of documentation, because raw data are always mediated by the senses and filtered through the mind as formed by culture. They have obviously been interpreted in the context of a particular worldview, whether that of the director, the author, or both. As feminists are so fond of asking when confronted with what they consider patriarchal cultural productions, What is wrong with this picture? What is left out, and why?

Purple was made in 1985. Whatever it says about life among rural blacks in the 1920’s, it says at least as much about life among urban blacks and whites in the 1980’s. Otherwise, only historians or anthropologists would but tickets. Thus, the evaluation of this movie should have less to do with its historical veracity than with what Walker calls its “womanist” perspective. By that, she means its ability to satisfy the psychological needs and serve the political interests not only of contemporary black women and feminists but also, by extension, those of potential “converts” among other women who identify themselves with female victims. Feminists often argue that there is no such thing as an “innocent” movie, that every movie promotes a subjective or “biased” point of view designed to legitimate class or gender power. It is very ironic, therefore, that they have legitimated this one on the grounds that it does present an objective point of view, accurately describing “the way it was.” A double standard is clearly operating here. Many believe that the whole notion of unbiased truth, whether in terms of historical accuracy or scientific objectivity, is preposterous and must be “deconstructed.” They might ridicule this notion as a naïve illusion resulting from “the male model” of linear thinking. Or they might condemn it is a sinister attempt by men to define truth and scholarship in a way that denies equality to the “alternative logic” or “lateral thinking” of women. But when it comes to “feminist knowledge” about the “oppression” of women by men, they seldom hesitate to claim historical accuracy and scientific objectivity.

On the other hand, there is an apparent link between the story and art. The narrative structure, for example, corresponds perfectly to established conventions for fiction. It has a plot, heroic characters, villainous ones, and so forth. But does it correspond at a deeper level to the avant-garde notion of art? Consider the criteria usually used to evaluate art according to that definition, which now prevails in Western societies. Art explores complex problems without presenting simple explanations or proposing easy solutions. In other words, art revels the paradoxical and ambiguous nature of human existence. To achieve this, artists must try to stand apart from society and challenge conventional wisdom, attack the status quo, undermine normal perceptions of reality, and so on. Is Purple art in that sense? Hardly. It challenges, attacks, and undermines, to be sure, but only in order to replace older forms of smugness, self-righteousness, and complacency with new ones. It proposes a very simple solution to the problem of hostility between the sexes. Women need to escape from suffering. Their suffering is due primarily or even solely to the evil of men. Ergo, women need to escape from men. Sure enough, four innocent and heroic women escape from four evil and stupid men.

But Purple cannot be considered good art even in purely aesthetic terms. According to film critics and theorists, cinematic artistry is indicated by innovation rather than cliché and subtlety rather than blatancy. This movie is anything but innovative or subtle. It is more like a black version of Cinderella. Think of the scenes from the first half hour: Celie having her baby torn out of her arms and sold by her own incestuous father; Celie being sold to Mister; Celie being slugged by Mister; Celie’s stepson throwing a rock at her; Celie on her hands and knees scrubbing the floor while the others continue wallowing in their own slop and filth…Narrative subtlety never rears its head. This is art?

Spreading Misandry P. 13-16


Quote:
uhhhhh, Akil, what is your fighting style?


Does this somehow relate to the thread at hand??????!?!??!?!?!?

Feel free to discuss the issue folks, I know its hard......

_________________
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave


Last edited by Akil Todd Harvey on Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 16, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 1476
Location: Halifax, NS Canada
Quote:
Ceremonies commemorate Dec. 6 attack on women
Last Updated Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:34:07 EST
CBC News


Ceremonies are being held across Canada on Tuesday, the 16th anniversary of the Montreal massacre, a day of remembrance of violence against women.

The day was established to commemorate the Dec. 6, 1989, shooting deaths of 14 young women at the École Polytechnique de Montréal.

All 14 women were killed because of their gender.

Tuesday in Montreal, there will be several ceremonies to mark the day, including one at the city's Place-du-6-décembre.

The day will also be observed in other locations across the country.

In the 1989 attack, gunman Marc Lepine stormed an engineering class at the École Polytechnique. It was the last day of term before the Christmas break.

Lepine, 25, proclaimed he was getting even because feminists had ruined his life.


In my view, sad all the way around.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 798
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Ian,

How many US presidents have been female?

Cuz there have been female rulers in Three Muslim nations that I can think of off the top of my head.....and none of them had the magic to eliminate the dictatorial nature of the regimes they represented.....Pakistan, Indonesia and Bangladesh have all had female rulers before this nation, but feel free to minimize the importance of Islamic women holding the top job....I guess Ian thinks evern when the Woman holds the top job, it is because a man told her to do so, right? Ian is trying to hold onto your ignorance and naivete.....Ian is still trying to prove that Islam is the most sexist religion, despit evidence to the contrary...(not popular myth of Islamic culture, but actual Islamic culture, that found in the real world)..

Ian's argument is about as follows

Islam is bad (making no distinction between what the religion encourages and what the people do)
Muslim men are bad (they have male genes and hormones, therefore they are bad)
Muslim women are ok (unless they dare to support their men )

I met a guy the other day, Ian and now it makes me think of you.....I met this guy named Mike in Home depot and I was discussing some furniture that I make for cats (and dogs, and fish tanks, etc)......the guy was apologizing cuz his mom hadnt had much imagination when she thought of his name (mike)......and i turn to him with a little disgust and say, "NOT everything done in the name of religion is bad. Michael is a very good Chrstian name and nothing to be ashamed of."

many bad things have been done in the name of religion and to forget them would be really really bad, but then there are the types who want to pretend that no good thing was ever done in the name of religion. Ian, you remind me of those folks who pretend that nothing good ever came of religion..........

And no, Ian, you wont make me feel guilty for daring to have white skin, gonads, a desire to mate with the opposite sex, and no desire to blame myself for every evil deed of the last four millenia.....

What is the assumption that folks make when they look at Muslims (or anyone with a religious bent to them) and say, "half the Muslim population is wasted in their homes"....

well, the assumption is that childcare is unimportant.....taking care of children is not valued by those who assume that any woman who stays at home to care for children is wasting her time........

What has hapened here in the west that we have abandoned giving value to childrearing? well, i think the divorce rate is around 60% (i think Ian likes a high divorce rate), the kids are rarely raised with any continuity and child crime is quite high.........yeah, i think we need to undervalue chidrearing even more than we do now.....

I dared to raise the issue of Misandry

.......Ian wants to discuss misogyny......lie, dude, that issue has not been ignored.......but, the issue of msiandry has not only been ignored, it has been denied......Ian, rather than just come out and deny the existence of misandry is trying to change the subject......

I have never doubted the existence of misogyny, I never concealed it and I always supported discussions where misogyny was the topic (check over the posts I have made on this site, especially on the women's forum).....but now Ian wants to change the subject of misandry to misogyny......Ian wants to make sure the issue of misanry never gets raised........Ian wants to make sure that the issue of Misandry never be taken seriously........Ian wants to keep me busy answering his attacks, that I never get a chance to shed some light on this issue.......misandry


Why doesnt he start his own thread on misogyny and I promise to participate........I started a thread on misandry and that would seem to be the subject at hand.....so, if you get ignored, Ian, it might be because you are not discussing the subject at hand.......If, Ian, you want me to discuss the issue that YOU want to talk about, feel free to invite me to another thread and we can discuss the misogyny inherent in Islamic culture (as distinct from the religion, which is more egalitarian than either Christianity or Judaism)

_________________
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave


Last edited by Akil Todd Harvey on Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 798
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Mary,

I guess the backlash has begun..........

and who is willing to talk?????????

I encourage discussion not violence......But then there are those who discourage discussion at all times......but want you to get excited over the violence that is certain if there be no dialogue........

no crap, foolio, war starts when the talking stops and the war stops when the talking starts back up again....

Anyone want to talk?

or do you want us all to agree with you and no other stance is allowed (freedom of speech, just wacth what you say)....???????

Clearly, some men are upset and taking action......I am not happy about their chosen course of action, it is despicable, and predicatable.....and that is exactly what I have been trying to say.........

Hey Mary, have you seen how many judges have been killed?????? and I wonder why men might be so upset at judges????? i wonder if it has anythign to do with the fact that whiel men have been encouraged to be more "sensitive" for the last thirty years (and encoruaged to take more part in the childrearing) at the same time that they are being denied equal chance to raise their kids (85% of all custody is awarded to women-highly skewed) and as we learned from the thread about pbs and father's, often the courts deliberately give children to abusive moms while others make movies that describe these same dads as the violent ones..........but dont worry, we men are upset over nothign and can safely be ignored....have a nice day :twisted:

_________________
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Dec 06, 2005 6:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 16, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 1476
Location: Halifax, NS Canada
On the contrary Akil, I would love to talk, so let's talk.

And I am worried, I'm worried because these things which I think are wrong happen all too frequently.

How do you feel about random acts violence in general? I know for one, I'm against it. I do, however, believe in defending myself.

I would be happy to discuss with you what drives people to commit senseless acts of violence and what can be done to solve these things. I think it is deplorable that society commits atrocities against itself. I would be very interested to read what you think about it. I would have even more interest to see what you think can be done to stop it.

For example, in Canada, gun laws were passed specifically after the event I wrote about so that individuals are not able to get the ammunition of the type that Marc Lepine was able to purchase. Rules have been set up with the Canadian Gun Registry so that this type of horror will not occur again. That's a step. I also know that Marc Lepine hated women, he felt threatened by them and had to resort to murdering 13 of them and then killing himself in what I consider to be a senseless act.

I would be very much interested in hearing your views. What you think...not so much quotes from other people, but what you believe is the problem and perhaps, what can be done to fix it?

I don't personally think that violence boils down to just one sex....male against female. I know better - I also know that it's not just female violence only against males. I've known women who have suffered abuse at the hands of men, I've known men who have suffered abuse at the hands of women. My point, and my only point, is that it is wrong no matter who applies the abuse.

Akil, do you think it's because men have been taking a more active role in child-rearing? Do you think it's because more and more women are in the work force? Do you think it's because of the change in the family dynamic? Economic factors? What do you think?

Mary


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
ATH, you've passed nicely into freefloating psychosis.

"I guess Ian thinks evern when the Woman holds the top job, it is because a man told her to do so, right?"

No, I didn't discuss female msulim leadership. At all.

"Ian is still trying to prove that Islam is the most sexist religion, despit evidence to the contrary..."

No, I made no comparisons and endorse no religions. I proved that islamic nations have serious problems with sexism, devaluation of women, and violence against them. I didn't say anyone else was perfect.

"And no, Ian, you wont make me feel guilty for daring to have white skin, gonads, a desire to mate with the opposite sex."

I'm glad I won't because I've never tried to do such an absurd thing. I'm white and don't believe I've inherited sins from anyone--Adam, Eve, slaveholders, whomever. I've got gonads (like 99.9% of the humans out there) and of course that's never a problem except in ATH's mind. And I'm perfectly fine with heterosexuals. In fact, I know one!

What are you talking about? I know you're furious about the injustice done to men in the west, but jeezey peezey Akil, if you were proportionately excited about all the injustices in the world, such as the injustice wrought by islamic people on women, you'd self combust! All I propose is that you take a valium or do some deep breathing, and then do what I do every day:

Work with whites, blacks, asians, indians, men, women, straights, gays + lesbians, old people, young people, veterans, civilians, christians, jews, muslims, atheists, the spare wiccan, plus lefties, righties, moderates, the rich, the poor, and, by following the golden rule, and believing that everyone is responsible for the lives they lead, and trying to leave the world better each day than when I woke up, opposing injustice against ANYONE, and trying to heal the sick or help the less fortunate: just believe that we can all get along even when we disagree and that the world is a magical and special place.

Good day, and happy nonsectarian holidays, and peace be upon you! As you wish, I will start a thread about Islam and sexism (note the thread rules).

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 4:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 798
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Quote:
Anger is an emotion. Hatred is a worldview. Anger is a response to either individuals or groups. Hatred is a response to groups. Anger is transient, because the experience of every day life, even if only on a purely psychological level, soon provokes other emotional responses. Hatred is enduring (and this is important) because it is sustained and promoted by culture, primarily as beliefs passed from one generation to the next. In modern societies, these beliefs - prejudicial beliefs, or negative stereotypes – are transmitted through both popular and elite culture. It is true that anger can lead to hatred, but then it is no longer anger but has become something else. A way of feeling has become a way of thinking. Besides, the origin of hatred does not excuse it. As a psychological mechanism, anger itself is often a perfectly healthy response to people. No one could survive a lifetime of psychological and physical threats without being able to experience anger. As a cultural mechanism, on the other hand, hatred, we include here both forms of sexism, misandry and misogyny – is a highly inappropriate response to people. When enough people deliberately perpetuate their anger, whether originally due to malice or fear, it is institutionalized as hatred. What had been morally neutral, because emotions involve no choices and can thus be neither good nor bad, is no longer morally neutral. It is evil.

Spreading Misandry P. 230

_________________
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 798
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Quote:
Both men and women often fail to see misandry as a problem, because sexism has been defined exclusively in terms of misogyny. They find what they are looking for. And they do not find what they are not looking for. Everyone would admit to seeing examples of misandry now and then but man or most people fail to see the pattern. After decades of relentless searching for every vestige of misogyny, it can be very difficult to even accept the possibility of misandry as a significant counterpart to misogyny. Even when it appears in its most blatant forms, in fact, misandry is often mistaken for misogyny.

Consider In the company of men (Neil Labute, 1996). Because the main character and his sidekick victimize a woman, many viewers have complained that this movie is misogynistic. Because the main character truly hates everyone, on the other hand, it could be described more appropriately as misanthropic. Just because a movie is about misogyny, after all, does not mean that it is misogynistic. At the moment, in fact, depicting misogyny is far more likely to be an indictment of it than a justification of it. In this movie, one male character is evil and the other inadequate. The main female character is a virtuous victim and heroine. According to the criteria outlined in Chapter 1, therefore, Company is described more appropriately as misandric. The mere fact that so many women react to it with anger – and to the world of men supposedly represented by its male characters – indicates that its primary effect (as distinct, at least in theory, from its aim) was to incite misandry rather than misogyny. Male viewers are expected to identify themselves with characters presented as the villains. Female viewers are expected to identify themselves with a character eulogized as movie’s victim and heroine.

Spreading Misandry P. 237


Quote:
But even though Company itself is neither misandric nor misogynistic, many of its critics and viewers really do succumb to misandry. Critics often fail to see the misanthropy, blinded by the possibility that women might find doing so offensive. Or they see nothing wrong with misandry in view of the assumption that men somehow deserve prejudice. The implication is that Chad and Howie represent men in general and Christine women in general. Richard Corliss noted that “the most interesting part of the film comes after it is over. That’s when the real knives come out. At the Sundance Film Festival, where this pitch-black comedy was an award winner, [director Neil] LaBute was widely rebuked by the sensitivity patrol. After a Manhattan screening, a male publicist was punched. Well, he was a guy. Probably deserved it.” Corliss reports that the star playing Chad, Aaron Eckhart, had mentioned the desire of some women to slap or punch him. Controversy began even before the release of Company. “Quite simply,” writes Colin Brown, “distributors was scared of offending the female audience with such a naked exhibition of male piggery.”

Forgotten or ignored, though, was what should have been obvious to everyone not blinded by feminist politics. By implying that all men are evil and all women their innocent victims – who nevertheless get even in the end! – the critics, unlike those responsible for the movie, really are misandric. Controversy increased, not surprisingly, once the movie was released. Tom Bernard puts it this way: “women love the movie. It shows men behaving badly, and women feel like a fly on the wall watching the things men do.” Corliss points out that “[W]omen can take a peek at – and, if they wish, confirm their suspicions of – that dangerous and perplexing house pest, the modern middle class male.”

Spreading Misandry PP. 239-40

_________________
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 07, 2005 5:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 798
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Quote:
I would be very much interested in hearing your views. What you think...not so much quotes from other people, but what you believe is the problem and perhaps, what can be done to fix it?


Well, Mary, I have taken the time to write lots of stuff from my very own brain, but those are the things that get the most static, the most attacks, and the most vitriole.........I mean, if i cant attack you for your own words, what can I attack you for.........

First off, Mary, the other folks are quite articulate, and they make fewer mistakes than I (that book I quote from most often was wriutten by a team of people, not just one person).....as far as I can tell, Mary, I have written far more on this subject than anyone, you or Ian combined, even outside what I have quoted from others.....so, i think it is you folks who need to catch up, not I.......when I dared to write my own words and when I dared to get a little emotional or angry in an otherwise well written piece, you ignored all the weel-written stuff and got all excited that I dared to be angry

Tell me, Mary, is is illegal in your state for men to be angry?????

cuz everyone i meet and talk to in this state seem to think it is illegal for me to be angry......they all want to tell you, "You arent allowed to be angry", heck, men arent even allowed to talk about what they are angry about without people like Ian getting all excited that you dare to express your feelings......

We tell men all the time to express their feelings and when they do, we then tell them they are having the wrong feelings......

we complain that men dont share their feelings enough and when the men share their feelings, we are told that these are not acceptable feelings........

FORGET THAT NOISE.........I have feelings and i dont have to justify them to any of you......if you want to disucss my feelings and your own without trying to define for me which are the acceptable feeligns and which are the non-acceptable ones, that might be different.........

about five years ago i was talking to my mother on the phone.....i told her i had trouble with the word feminist to describe me since it did not well describe who I was ( a man)........do you think there was a discussion about how my feeligns are important and how we need to come up with a more inclusive name? lol ......as if...........she started to yell a bunch of incomprehnsible stuff into the phone that basicly meant that feminism is defined by women and not men.....men have no say in it, they can either agree with feminism 100% and be accepted (like by Jesus or the church) or you can dare to disagree with feminsism even 1% and be ostracized 100% as a traitor to the religion (feminism).........I dont buckle easily.......adn i dont cave ........just cuz everyone else is jumping off bridges doesnt mean that I think it is a good idea........if there is going to be a system whereby women and men are going to get along, it must be a system in which men have some say....or else we will feel like we had no power in the decision making and we will be pissed.......


Quote:
I don't personally think that violence boils down to just one sex....male against female. I know better - I also know that it's not just female violence only against males. I've known women who have suffered abuse at the hands of men, I've known men who have suffered abuse at the hands of women. My point, and my only point, is that it is wrong no matter who applies the abuse.


Equally wrong requires equal concern.....Equally wrong requires incarceration in equal rates.....equally wrong requires equal excitement......

While you claim that these are equally wrong, do you admit that they are treated differently???!?!??!?!??!
since misogyny is already considered a bad thing by most of society and misandry is busy being denied, which do you think needs more awareness????!??!?!??!?!??!

cuz Ian is busy trying to justify misandry based upon the existence of misogyny......Ian is not willing to even address the issue of misandry until misogyny in all its form have been eliminated from the planet

It sures seems like ian's excuse for misandry is misogyny.......he wont discuss misandry until we discuss misogyny in all its forms in Islamic culture........Ian will deny the existance or import of misandry while I will continue to tell you that not only is misogyny a bad thing, but it needs to be dealt with, in all societies, not just our own or Islamic societies

I just hope our willingness to address hatred of people of the male gender does not have to wait for the total eradication of hatred of the female gender......I have worked tirlessly to address issues of msiogyny my entire life and now i dare to want to discuss misandry and what are the claims Dr. Ian has to make??????

that i've
Quote:
passed nicely into freefloating psychosis.
and Ian has to make rules for his own threaqd that proclude the use of personal attacks as he claims "I passed nicely into freefloating psychosis." .......

Quote:
No, I didn't discuss female msulim leadership. At all.


Well, I guess, Ian, like most who actively try to portray Islam as the most sexist religion, can do so only if they ignore things that do not support their arguments.......the fact that Muslim women have been leaders of their countries sure does make it seem like they have some autonomy in their society, and is contrary to his argument, thus he must ignore it....

Quote:
I proved that islamic nations have serious problems with sexism, devaluation of women, and violence against them.


These Muslim nations seem a lot like the non-muslim nations in that they have issues of gender that need to be addressed......

Interestingly, I was trying to show (I thought I did a decent job of it) that Judeo-Chrstian nations (especially the one I live in, not referring to ones I am unfamiliar with or do not live in) HAVE SERIOUS PROBLEMS WITH SEXISM, DEVALUATION OF MEN, AND VIOLENCE AGAINST THEM.

Ian, it seems, does not feel comfortable talking about sexism against men, devaluation of men, and violence against men............that is ok, Ian does not have to discuss these issues if he does not want to, but dont get in my way........

Quote:
All I propose is that you take a valium or do some deep breathing, and then do what I do every day:


One of the most dangerous persons in this world is someone who makes predictions and prescriptions based upon ignorance.........they argue with you off and on for a week or a day and all of a sudden they think they know you, your problems, your issues, how to resolve your "issues" etc.........and the dr falls again for the same old pharmaceutical trap.....drugs cure all.......isnt that how to solve it doc, throw some synthetic narcotics at the problem......great idea doc and then if i get hooked, you can blame me and not look at yourself or your own culpability......Is dr Ian even trained in psychiatry or is he just a medical doctor??????? dont worry, Dr ian is busy encouraging his God complex in which he thinks he can fix everything.....even when he knows little or nothign about me or my problems........make your judgements based upon ignorance, but dont be surprised when your cure causes more problems than the original...

Quote:
Work with whites, blacks, asians, indians, men, women, straights, gays + lesbians, old people, young people, veterans, civilians, christians, jews, muslims, atheists, the spare wiccan, plus lefties, righties, moderates, the rich, the poor, and, by following the golden rule, and believing that everyone is responsible for the lives they lead, and trying to leave the world better each day than when I woke up, opposing injustice against ANYONE, and trying to heal the sick or help the less fortunate: just believe that we can all get along even when we disagree and that the world is a magical and special place.


who said i wasnt doing that? You, you assumed that I do not already do that, a bad assumption......you want to speak out against injustice, you just want to define for me what injustices merit my concern.........

Quote:
if you were proportionately excited about all the injustices in the world, such as the injustice wrought by islamic people on women, you'd self combust!


Actually, Ian, I dont see the plight of Muslim women as unexplored as you do......I have been told about it most of my life........there was like, never a time in my life when I was not made aware of the serious plight of women the world over, but I reiterate that I never was made aware of how men might be villified and I was never told how men were mistreated in this society, in fact when I dared to say that men were mistreated, I got lots of folks telling me how crazy i was, how angry i was, how much i needed help........but no one wanted to give any credence to the fact that men might be ever mistreated..........

_________________
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 12:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 16, 1999 6:01 am
Posts: 1476
Location: Halifax, NS Canada
Quote:
I mean, if i cant attack you for your own words, what can I attack you for.........


Akil, maybe you don't have to attack me at all :)

I would like address some of the points you've directed to me.

Firstly, where I come from men are certainly entitled to be angry about misandry. It is how they deal with that anger that interests me.

I didn't ignore at all the things you wrote (I will admit I did get a little lost with all the long quotations and I'm working my way through them still. Please bear with me on that.)

I do think you have a legitimate beef. Society (North American) has made leaps and bounds dealing with misogyny. I also think that we are slowly starting to make small steps which will hopefully some day turn into leaps and bounds with misandry and, indeed, from all that you have quoted I would hazard a guess that that day is getting closer.

Quote:
if there is going to be a system whereby women and men are going to get along, it must be a system in which men have some say....or else we will feel like we had no power in the decision making and we will be pissed.......


Agreed. Perhaps working on communication skills between the sexes is a good place to start. I am still interested in whether you think it's because men have been taking a more active role in child-rearing that knowledge of misandry is coming to the forefront in North American culture. I also asked you if you thought there was any bearing on the fact that more and more women joining the work force and changes to the family dynamic and changes to economic factors. What do you think?

On another note, I will not make any comments regarding Islamic beliefs, I am not into discussing religion. And personally, I don't believe that's the major topic given the name of this thread.

I would like to add that not all women are misandroginistic.

Mary


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Dec 08, 2005 4:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Posts: 3519
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
This thread has gotten really negative, lets talk happy talk.

Here for starters: Tekken is dead sexy.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 1:16 am
Posts: 2758
Location: Boston
This post has two components: additional thread material for ATH to ponder, if desired, and responses to misleading statements. Those second, irrelevant things are at the bottom. I'd rather talk about the issues, but believe that if you leave something inaccurate unmentioned, you endorse it.

First:

ATH, you raised the issue of a pervasive characterization in the media of men as villains and buffoons. You mentioned the Color Purple as an example. Well... what about:

Saving Private Ryan, Shawshank Redemption, Schindler's List, and many other such films that celebrate the sacrifices, perseverance, compassion and complexity of leading men?

And what about a growing number of examples of acomplished people working together as happy, functional, diverse teams, often with a man at the center: Star Trek (Kirk, Cisco, Picard v Hathaway (?)), the show 24 (balanced, again, male hero in Kiefer), Star Wars (hero clan again largely male), the Xmen (mixed crowd, unless you count minorities, and male leader), West Wing (the president, of course), Harry Potter (diverse group, white male center stage for both children and teachers), Lord of the Rings (mixed group, lots of nonhumans, but chief protagonist familiar), or even Passion of the Christ. Isn't this a cause for cautious optimism?

I'm sure there are examples of movies that portray men poorly--and of course, there are often male villains, but since we like movies about conflict and men are often in charge this is no surprise--just like there are examples of women portrayed poorly in films (nearly the entire porn industry is designed by and for men, for example).

Is there any evidence that our culture is systematically devaluing men in the media? I just don't see a single movie with male losers in it as a crisis. This was, afterall, the story of a small family, and out there in the world, there are families where the men are saints and where men uniformly fail women, and VICE VERSA; ought we not be allowed to make films acknowledging that truth? Or would you advocate, that in the preproduction of the Color Purple, creators be given instructions to ensure that the portrayal of all situations and groups of people is to be not how they ARE something, but how we would like them to be, or appear?

To me, that would be like telling the producers of COPS they couldn't show black people being arrested unless their arrests were in proportion to their numbers in society and they appeared to include some middle and upper class blacks, to make sure we all got the desired impression.

Is there good data on the overall, not single film, portrayal of men in society?

------------------------------------------------
Second:

"cuz Ian is busy trying to justify misandry based upon the existence of misogyny... It sures seems like ian's excuse for misandry is misogyny."

Not at all. The opposite: I've said in several settings I'm against any injustice. I have just asked you to put your response to misandry in perspective.

"I guess, Ian, like most who actively try to portray Islam as the most sexist religion, can do so only if they ignore things that do not support their arguments.......the fact that Muslim women have been leaders of their countries sure does make it seem like they have some autonomy in their society, and is contrary to his argument, thus he must ignore it."

1) Just because women have been leaders in muslim countries does not mean there are no issues with sexism. When you say "they have some autonomy" it just isn't relevant; I never said they didn't have SOME; the issue is whether there is a problem with autonomy, overall. Ask yourself: if the fact SOME women have held highest office in these countries remotely suggests things are fine for the XX, doesn't the fact that ONLY men hold the highest office in the USA suggest things are super for the XY?

2) My saying that islamic countries have issues with sexism does not in any way indicate I think Islam is worse than other religions. This is just a response to things you THOUGHT I wrote. An all male priesthood from catholicism to hinduism, and comments from the Dalai Lama that women can't medidate right because they don't have the magic ingredient from the testicles, all concern me, and I've never said otherwise.

"Tell me, Mary, is is illegal in your state for men to be angry?????"

Obviously not. Perhaps we should ask: "Are these conversations more productive when posts are written when enraged, or when reflective?" This is my point. YOU can make YOUR point better if you don't make false accusations and write more calmly. Peace!

_________________
--Ian


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 5:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:49 pm
Posts: 3519
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
uh, i would not trust Ibn warraqs secular islam

why?

http://www.city-net.com/~alimhaq/text/warraq.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 01, 2006 1:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2001 6:01 am
Posts: 798
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Ian,

Quote:
First:

ATH, you raised the issue of a pervasive characterization in the media of men as villains and buffoons. You mentioned the Color Purple as an example. Well... what about:

Saving Private Ryan, Shawshank Redemption, Schindler's List, and many other such films that celebrate the sacrifices, perseverance, compassion and complexity of leading men?


I did raise the issue of pervasive negative characterization of men........and you denied it even existed........Then I came with a little proof of its existence and now you change your story from 'Misandry doesnt exist' to 'Misandry aint so bad' .........

Quote:
(nearly the entire porn industry is designed by and for men, for example).


Interesting thing about the porn industry Ian, it looks more and more like Misandry than ever before...........sure the porn is typically for men, but checking it out, recently i noticed:

1) lots of prison rape humor in its pages-that is where we make it seem like it is both good and funny to have men raped in prison........
2) Playboy mag donates to the national organization for women.....remember hugh's daughter now runs the place.....beware of porn made for men by women.......it contains many obvious and well hidden assaults on men

_________________
Seek knowledge from cradle to grave


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group