Resident Evil Apocalypse is better than women

*sigh*did i say anything about anything besides the home life? no. did i say that old feminism had no place? no. modern feminism is all about destroying 'mankind'. that's all i'm talking about.

Okay, in the places where there is definite gender inequality then it's a serious matter. I haven't really looked around, but I don't see much of this. I'll just assume it's there right now since you're gonna grill me for not having the all-seeing eye anyway. Look at my previous post and you can probably figure out who said it was. And that statement sounds like an accusation to me. Sorry about smarting off a post or two back, by the way. Okay, somehow I get the feeling like I'm getting talked down to from the rest of the post and now this. What exactly is your 'critera' that you seem to arrogantly think is just better than mine, anyway?(Edited to fix spelling and add a quote box)This message has been edited by Born2Preach, 09-18-2004 11:51 AM

Maybe you hadn't heard, but women still get paid less on average in basically every single field. Something like 79 cents to the male dollar, or so. I can hardly blame you for limited experience, just as long as you realize that your experience (and mine, for that matter) is no basis to make sweeping generalizations. That, of course, is a question for the ages, but I'm fairly sure that legitimate criteria don't include motorcycle chases-per-minute or fake gore spray-by-volume.How was the writing? How was the pacing? How was the cinematography? How were the characterizations? Did the actors act well? Did they bring a sense of realism to their roles, or did they just go through the motions? Was the plot coherent, or were there enormous holes?

quote:

---

How was the writing? How was the pacing? How was the cinematography? How were the characterizations? Did the actors act well? Did they bring a sense of realism to their roles, or did they just go through the motions? Was the plot coherent, or were there enormous holes?

---

That's why I watch classics. Back before you could rely on "special effects". Where you have to rely on the acting, the writing and the directing.Before I see a movie I usually check with Roger Ebert. He is the most fair on the most part then any other critic. Just check yahoo movies critic reviews. I think he gave the least biased review of "the Passion" I have ever seen and gave it four stars for what it deserved four stars for.

---

-porcelain

Can you please answer my question about who these "mainstream" feminists are who are advocating the things you say they are?Perhaps some citations, links, names?I hear this kind of thing all the time about "those feminists who hate men and blame them for everything" but nobody can ever seem to name them.I'm not saying they don't exist, but come on, name them, and please show how they are considered part of "mainstram" feminism and not part of some academic, largely irrelevant and ignored fringe.

quote:

---

Maybe you hadn't heard, but women still get paid less on average in basically every single field. Something like 79 cents to the male dollar, or so.

---

There are two fields where women have nearly always been much better paid than men in the same occupation:1) modeling2) having sex for money, in theater settings or film

okay, but I would like a clarification here: When you say the same field, do you mean same rank as well? If a man happens to be a promotion ahead of a women on the ladder, then it would make sense that he would be paid slightly more. If I made one I'm sorry. Proofreading my own writing has never been my forte. Well, depends on the movie in my opinion. If you're going to see a movie about serious, frantic action then a motorcycle stunt and lots of blood would be a definite plus. Now if that were in a romantic movie I myself might like it, but I'd question the movie's place in the category. In this case, excellent. No wasting time. No dragged out camera zooming on a dead character. Somebody dies, on to the next scene. Unless I'm going to see a drama, which is basically never, I don't like dwelling on scenes or long, akward silences. Great, except for Jill. Really, if they would've taken her out I think critics would've liked it a lot more. Other than Jill, totally believeable. Salutes to Jovavitch or however you spell it for playing a convincing strong female lead. Lots of times a 98 pound chick beating up bodybuilders just makes me laugh because the actress sucks at the role, but this time it was believable. The only thing that bugged me is the coincidence that all the major characters happened to cross paths at one point. Other than that, it made sense.That's my personal opinion, though. Some may disagree, but I still say it's better than a bad blind date. Hey, at least you won't feel guilty if you abruptly walk out on the movie. Even a bad blind date deserves some respect.

No. All things being equal, rank shouldn't matter; the genders should be equally distributed among all ranks. What doesn't make sense is that so many, many more men than women achieve promotion, which is what throws off the pay equity. No, because again, we're not talking about the movies that you like, we're talking about the movies that are good.Good movies have good writing, good acting, good cinematography. Across the board, these are the indicators of a good movie. Hrm, that's usually an indication of frantic pacing - it's possible to pace a movie too quickly. You have to slow down, at some point.That's just good writing. I guess I have to agree with that one. At least a bad movie isn't punctuated by uncomfortable conversations, etc.

well, see that's the tricky part. no feminist will ever come out as a man-hater, advocating a woman-run society. that would make them "as bad as the men" so to speak. instead, you have to gleen it from the collective philosophy, and their attitudes.it's not man-hating, per se. it's more of wanting their "feminist" ideals to run things, ideal to which most women would not agree. in the last womens' studies class i took, we discussed everything from how science is invalid because it founded by a chauvenist, to how absolutle truth cannot exist, to why female genital mutilation was ok.yes girls, you heard that right. see, the current incarnation of feminism has nothing to do with equality and women's rights at all. it is a perverted offshoot of post-modern pseudophilosophy. so i'll use this example to illuminate the thinking process.post-modernism is strictly culturally relative. cultural relativism states that we should not judge a society's actions by our own (outside) morals. feminism is ironically against gender stereotypes, of course, but in a weird way. they're against their own, biased, set of gender stereotypes. certain oppressive actions are seen as strictly male. in this case, imposing western standards on eastern and african practices would be like a man opressing a woman, something they can't do. and so, to post-modern feminism, female genital mutilation is ok.we also discuss sci-fi. the teacher picked the worse possible movie to show us, for two reasons. one, it really is the worst movie of all time, and two, it's something i was familiar with. she showed us the sequel to "species." now, i've been an hr giger fan for many many years. some would call him a chauvenist because of his depictions of women, but he depicts men just the same. if any one has ever followed his work, most of it is about a dark eroticism and very, very feminine. but i digress. the first species is a woman monster running around killing men trying to breed. the second is male. equality of the genders, anyone?well, the feminists still had complaints. in the second movie, the male alien was monstrosity of the male gender, using women for sexual pleasure and as baby-making factories. in the first, when a woman did the same exact thing, she was the wil force of nature that had to be oppressed by the male scientist (one of who was female).this help you to understand the thinking a little? they claim to be so against bias, but they have worl-view really, really tilted by their own. they're contradictory, and make no sense. i would gladly provide names, but i sold off, threw away, or burned all 9 of my feminism textbooks in disgust.see, apparently, i thought it was about equal rights for women. i STRONGLY suggest you take a college class in womens' studies before you make some kind of judgement here.

So that makes gender equality as a goal suspect, somehow?I can appreciate that you perceive the academic world as the entire universe; those of us who live in the real world are going to go on practicing real feminism, and be proud to do so.There's a difference, which you may not have picked up on, between feminism as a framework for literary criticism, and feminism as a movement for gender equality.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-18-2004 06:44 PM

no. i'm all or equality of the genders. the point that brenna and i are trying to make is that there is that difference.as far as "real world" feminism, it's all but died off. its battlegrounds are few and far between. if anything, society is now mostly feminized. bill maher gives good proof: when you say "women are smarter than men" you get applause, but when you say "men are smarter than women" you get booed and called names. watch your favourite sitcom, and next time pay attention to the gender roles. how many times do you see a bumbling father/husband, outwitted by the sly mother/wife? popular culture is telling us that men are stupid, and women are smart. i think "real world" feminism should be fighting for the men. but then what we call it? masculinism?but, uh, like i said. have you taken any women's studies classes? it's only fair to hear the other side, right?

I suppose I coulf jump in with a rousing speech about how feminism will never die, but suffice to say, this is simply false.It's certainly the case that the public face of feminism seems to be more about trivialities and sloagans than in feminist issues, which I have pointed out in this thread, but again, there's a distiction between feminism and the public perception. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard, and it's no evidence that society has been "feminized." (In a feminine society, your career in academia wouldn't end the second you decided to have a child.) People like it when the percieved "underdog" is praised. You'd get the same reaction with "black people are smarter than white people", but that's no evidence that our society has been "black-ized." ("Negrotized"? You could come up with all kinds of words.) This isn't new, chief. You can see this on Nick at Night (you know, with the ancient TV shows.) Again, you seem to fail to distinguish between real feminist issues and gender trivia. Hire a few more women CEO's, elect a few women Presidents, and get birth control on the same health plans that provide Viagra, and maybe we'll get to your manhood problems.Until then, though, you'll pardon us if they're not a priority. Not specifically, but I'm familiar with feminist criticism through general literary theory classes. That's all women's studies is, anyway. At least it was at my school.

quote:

---

as far as "real world" feminism, it's all but died off. its battlegrounds are few and far between.

---

What planet do you live on?Do you live in a bubble or something?The battlegrounds may not be on the front page anymore, but they are certainly happening.Page not found | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission"In Fiscal Year 2002, EEOC received 25,536 charges of sex-based discrimination. EEOC resolved 29,088 sex discrimination charges in FY 2002 and recovered $94.7 million in monetary benefits for charging parties and other aggrieved individuals (not including monetary benefits obtained through litigation)."Remember also that in college and the workforce now are a good-sized group of women and men who were raised with the ideals of gender equity and were taught that girls could do anything they wanted, to go after what they wanted, etc.

quote:

---

when you say "women are smarter than men" you get applause, but when you say "men are smarter than women" you get booed and called names.

---

Funny, I have seen comedians get huge laughs from mixed gender audiences by talking about how the only thing women love is money, and how they say they want the nice guy but date the dangerous guy, how they dress like a prostitute but don't want to be treated like one, etc.

quote:

---

watch your favourite sitcom, and next time pay attention to the gender roles. how many times do you see a bumbling father/husband, outwitted by the sly mother/wife? popular culture is telling us that men are stupid, and women are smart.

---

Yeah, and the trend these days is also for the "bubmling husband" to be at least 70 pounds overweight and not that great looking while the "sly" wife is very slender, large-breasted, stylish and sexy.Doesn't that tell men that even if you are not very attractive, overweight, and kind of an idiot, you too can score a thin, hot wife?

quote:

---

well, see that's the tricky part. no feminist will ever come out as a man-hater, advocating a woman-run society. that would make them "as bad as the men" so to speak. instead, you have to gleen it from the collective philosophy, and their attitudes.

---

Well, who would you consider to collectively have these attitudes?What are their names?And are they part of the "mainstream", or are they part of the mostly irrelevant, ignored academic literary feminist world?