Resident Evil Apocalypse is better than women

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.

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

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.

Hey, wait a minute.You might be interested to know that the state of the art of video game storytelling has advanced way beyond Pac-Man, Schraf.While many video games continue to be excercises in reflex and response time, there's a staggering number of games now that feature writing and storytelling every bit as good as a movie.Other than that, though, you're right on. I hate seeing movies with teenagers.

I think you're confusing it with something else. RE is perhaps the quintessential third-person survival horror game; as a result, it's very plot-driven. It's not as well a crafted example of storytelling as other games in the genre, like the Silent Hill series, but it definately set an example that was copied very closely for an assload of knock-off games. Well, gameplay is always the most important consideration of a video game. They are, after all, supposed to be fun. If story was more important, they'd be movies. I mean, if you took the character leveling and squad combat out of Baldur's Gate, you'd have a fairly boring movie, don't you think?Unlike a movie that can be both good and unenjoyable - I doubt anyone would claim that they "enjoyed" the Passion of the Christ - a video game must be fun before it can be good. That, unfortunately, puts some limits on artistic endeavor in video games.

My wife? That is, after all, why I married her - her remarkably good sense. (Her good sense in marrying me, however, may have been questionable.)

Your milage may vary, but in my college experience, women's studies has always been presented as a form of cultural literary criticism; studying gender politics in popular culture, television, writing, journalism, etc.And there is certainly a feminist model of literary criticism. Get a gun. I don't know if that will make them stop hooting - you're apparently such a looker that men feel open license to hoot at you - but you'll sure feel safer about it packin' heat. If you don't have tenure when you decide to have children, in the vast majority of fields, the odds are, you won't ever get it. You'll be shut out of positions in the department because you're a year behind on the tenure clock.I'm surprised to see you deny that this disadvantage exists. It's such an endemic problem that many universities are instituting new policy to specifically address this issue:

quote:

---

The goal of this policy is to take away the career disadvantage that women currently face from pregnancy, childbearing, and nursing an infant. For example, travel is restricted by all of these aspects of a woman's biological role just at the time that attendance at conferences may be particularly important. Or, another example, women who work in areas near hazardous material may be hampered in carrying out their research.

---

That's from MIT. Or from U Mich:

quote:

---

In recognition of the effects that pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions can have upon the time and energy a woman can devote to her professional responsibilities, and thus on her ability to work at the pace or level expected to achieve tenure, a woman who bears one or more children during her tenure probationary period shall, upon written request to the relevant dean (in the case of the Dearborn and Flint campuses, the relevant provost) be granted an exclusion of one year from the countable years of service that constitute the tenure probationary period.

---

This is a well-known problem in academia; childbearing interrupts you ability to keep pace with others on the tenure clock. Luckily, we're having success in getting universities to institute policy to offset these disadvantages. I'm looking at a future where I'm the primary childraiser, supposing my wife and I take that route. She'll almost certainly have a better job than I will.I'm excited for it, if we decide to do it. Hanging with my kids all day sounds like a blast. So, I don't know exactly who you think I've "demonized." Being a father? That's the manliest thing I can think of.

Ok, well, you did say "you" in a message specifically addressed to me. What was I supposed to think? Why? Why should they have to make a choice at all? That's the point. Women shouldn't have to choose between reproducing and career success; men certainly don't. Equal treatment isn't special treatment. Women have a unique condition that fairness demands we take into account. It's the same reason we build wheelchair ramps, etc; people without legs shouldn't have to make a "choice" about trying to get into an airplane bathroom. As I said, your milage may vary, but in my academic experience, that is all it is.

As I showed before, this is simply a ludicrous statement in the face of hundreds of schools adopting paused tenure clocks for pregnancy. Pregnant women simply can't continue the academic pace through their pregnancy, especially in the sciences; this puts them at a disadvantage for making tenure. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data", Arach. Given that some 60-70 percent of undergrads are women, these days, wouldn't it be hiring discrimination by definition? So what? Again, despite the overwhelmingly black contribution to popular urban culture these days, we don't consider society "black-ized." Oh, well! Hire the band and we'll dance in the streets! There's one or two women CEO's! Feminism has won! Boo-fuckin-hoo. Maybe the substantially larger pay for the same work we recieve as men will ease the sting a little bit. You know that it's not. You know that what I'm saying is that problems like sexual assault, pay equity, and other examples of sexism are far, far more important than making sure your feelings aren't hurt, Arach. Get over yourself, and don't try to offer such ridiculous strawmen in place of my arguments. You just look foolish. Oh, I see. You attended one college, so you're an authority on women's studies at all colleges?

Right, obviously. Nobody loses tenure for having a child. But having a child can prevent you from getting it. These women you refer to had to make a choice between tenure and childbearing; that's not a choice men have to face.Maybe I wasn't clear what I was talking about. I may have overstated my claim, by accident. Who, presumably, started out as undergrads.We've got a pipeline here, where 70 percent women are going in, but a lot, lot less than that are emerging with academic positions. And you don't think that sexual discrimination is a potential factor? I didn't say that they didn't exist, and the fact that we have such a long way to go proves my point. That's a good $.75 over what I make. Where? Show me where. Misrepresenting my argument isn't going to get you very far here. Having birth control on the same plans as viagra, which, until recently, was not done? And still may not be universal? Where's the discrimination? Oh, I mean, I see the discrimination against women, obviously, but I don't see the discrimination against you and I. No, you did say that:

quote:

---

That's all women's studies is, anyway. At least it was at my school.

quote:

---

you're obviously missing something.

---

---

The only way for you to know I had "missed" something at my school is if you had knowledge about women's studies programs at my school. Unless you're a Gustavus grad (go Gusties!), you don't have that knowledge. Right. And postmodernism is a school of criticism. Your own experience proves my point; you haven't mentioned doing anything in the class that wasn't criticism of literature or other reflections of society.AbE: Do you understand what I mean when I refer to "criticism"? You equivcated on the term in post 142 so I'm not sure. Maybe you were being witty.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-21-2004 09:06 PM

So, we're all in the same boat, but we're arguing about what to call it?Why don't we go by what it was called first: feminism.

Data, please?

So, women, by virtue of biology, should have no recourse?Yes, men don't grow babies inside them. That's why we give women a break on the tenure clock, to reflect biological reality. It's the same reason we build wheelchair ramps.Thanks, by the way, for addressing me like I'm an idiot. I don't recall making that argument. For someone who's complaining about people not reading, your posts continue to bear little relation to mine. Your assertion that percieved injusticies against men in popular entertainment was somehow more important than real inequity for women was an insult to me or any thinking person. I merely returned the favor. I claimed to be an authority in regards to my own experience with women's studies at my own college, which I am. I never claimed that my experiences were universal - in fact, I've been careful to specifically avoid making that claim - unlike you.You're the one who told me that I was "missing something" at my own college. Your experience of the class might be substantially different - as a matter of fact, speaking of calculus, I once had a calculus professor who taught the class with a decidedly feminist bent.It is experiences of classes we're discussing, here, and you've repeatedly told me that somehow I "missed something"; that I didn't have the experience that I've said I had. That's a considerable arrogant presumption on your part. But what you've described is not feminism, it's women's studies. You're conflating feminist literary theory with the movement of feminism, which has been my point all along.

Who are you to speak for feminism?I'm a feminist; I say that that refers to activism for gender equality. And you're going to have the arrogant presumption to tell me I'm not what I am? Please. Not as long as there is gender inequity.

I'm a feminist, and I stand for gender equality.It's literally just that simple, Arach. No amount of college class gives you the authority to define feminism.