rape culture/victim culture

i don't really think masculine and feminine are valid it all. it reproduces asexually. the eggs it produces (from used hosts) are essentially genetic duplicate of itself, and do not seem to require fertilization. there is some talk the embryos it implants "samples" some of the host's dna to better adapt to the environment it will live in, and thus fixing the problem of no variation. but that doesn't really equate to sexuality in any way. but i don't think there's any hermaphroditic stuff going on (like in slugs). the moss analogy isn't perfect either, because they do have genders and reproduce sexually in the second stage.i don't neccessarily think being implanted "emasculated" the men, either. it didn't turn them into women. it made them dead. granted, they were made to carry the baby of another creature, but that doesn't make them female. the first two stages of the alien's life cycle are simply parasitic. now ash on the otherhand certainly looked male to me. there's a cut scene where ripley and lambert are talking about who they've had sex with, and the question of ash came up. but apparently neither of them had, so you might be right. the book i have has repeated statement from giger what he didn't want the alien to look like. "a man in rubber suit" was first and foremost on his list, followed by apes and dinosaurs. i think they did a pretty good job of making it not look like a guy in a suit, while still having a guy in a suit. i like some of the later design changes in the comics, like the way killian plunkett (labyrinth, berserker) drew them, with cat-like long feet. voyage, yes. it's on my reading list. i'll get around to it shortly. oddly enough, alien is rumored to be ripped off of van vogt's "discord in scarlet" which later became part of space beagle. i think it was the subject of a lawsuit, if i recall. that's a hard one to find. i don't remember if i've seen it or not.

While I think you are ultimately more right than crash, you are at fault for talking past him... and now me. You are taking an extremely objective view (almost clinical) of what kind of creature it is, rather than stepping back and looking at how it and its behaviors are experienced and viewed.I think that is what crash is getting at with his separation between sex and gender, and I think he has a valid stance (to some degree). I'm sure the exact sexual definition could eventually be pinned down, but it is obviously (in general) a mix of sexual roles as we interpret them. I suppose asexual is the most correct term, but as far as how people experience its actions... that's something else.The producer and layer of eggs is generally viewed as a "feminine" characteristic, not to mention providing for and protecting its young. In this capacity it is more feminine than anything else.However, penetrative acts are considered masculine (even a girl with a strap-on is considered taking a masculine role in sex though she is obviously a girl). While technically no sex was going on, the experience its human victims were getting were of being penetrated for sexual ends. Thus it was performing in a masculine way.Furthermore, males were arguably emasculated and put into a feminine role. Yes their objective role was food, but that is incidental for the relative gender role experienced. The males were penetrated and then forced to gestate a being inside them. Whether the birth ended in their death was beside the point.I don't think you need to dismiss crash's point in order to hold your own, just as I don't think he has to completely abandon his position, to accept yours. For some reason I never heard of that... and it wasn't in O'Bannon's book either. I'd like to have seen that. In any case, Ash was objectively asexual, and played an asexual role to the others in the crew. I probably had the same book you did then. That's why I said it. I was always taken by that intent in the first film (because I thought it succeeded) and then disappointed in all the sequals as that was exactly what they reduced it to. They tried to make up for this lack of style by increasing their numbers or forms. Yeah, that's what really made it scary all the forms it could come in... oh wait no, that was the Thing.What's funny is that they couldn't never leave the plot of someone wanting it for a weapon. You think they could've varied the motive of the humans at least a little bit. Uh, oh. I thought it was Space Beagle that the lawsuit was about. That's why I read it. You could definitely see some of the similarities, but to me it could very well have been coincidence. I've seen it several times... I think I saw it twice on the big screen as well as at least once on video. You should be able to order it from somewhere. For some reason it often got shown with the satire-comedy flick Hardware Wars at Fermilab.Its about a bunch of guys on a spaceship blowing up unstable planets with literal smartbombs. Its a really long mission and all the members are crazy in one way or the other. At one point a guy... I think it's O'Bannon... has to go take care of a "pet" alien he picked up from a planet. One of the ship's locations (as he hunts the creature) was recreated in the movie Alien as an homage to its origin. In fact it is the scene of one of the few overt comedic events within Alien, based on that crew's pet (not sure if that was intentional).This message has been edited by holmes, 03-29-2005 10:48 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Look, fanboy, I'm sorry I made fun of your holy movie. But your inability to distinguish between the concepts of sex and gender make this discussion fruitless, just as your discussion with the feminism prof was fruitless.I'm sure you two talked right past each other, just like I'm talking right past you, now. My bad. I guess I had no idea that the only cultural influences we could talk about around here were the ones that were incessantly, immaturely, and unrealistically positive.

i think this is really the key of this whole debate. people are interpetting this, and quite often the wrong way. both stages lay eggs for the next stage, though. the adult produces an egg from a (used) host. that egg hatches a facehugger, which lays another egg in a host. that egg hatches into small alien, which then grows to the adult, and turns it's old host in an egg.neither stage sticks around though, because they basically just bugger off and die. the original intention was for the alien to have a VERY short lifespan. the blackness of its carapace in the adult form was supposed to be because it was dying. so basically, each stage lays its egg and dies. both stages use another species in a symbiotic way, while eradicating it. neither stage is really female in any way, nor is it really male either.there's some speculation they were actually a weapon on first alien you see in the movie (the one with the ship) designed to clean off an colonize planets. i think that would be consistent with the company's reaction, and the reason they wanted it.but then again, i'm a huge geek. are all ant-eaters male, since they penetrate the ant colony? like i said, the alien was patterned after a real wasp, that is indeed quite female. you can read that as masculine if you want, but that's just societal gender bias speaking. well, yes i guess it is. but i don't see the carrying bit any more emasculating than having, say, a tapeworm. and, like i mentioned before, the thing that does the assulting and laying does have decidedly female characteristics. flying vaginas and whatnot. it's on the new dvd. i don't know if they put it back in the extended cut or not, but it's certainly in the deleted scenes. but yes, i think they may have been trying to establish ash's asexuality, as a way to make him a little mroe inhuman -- and give him something in common with the alien. i don't like what cameron did to the aliens. the one in the first movie was sleek and elegant. slow, but graceful in way that made it seem like it could move fast but didn't think it needed to. creepy as hell. the aliens in the second one were floppy, poorly made costumes, en masse and often came off as dumb animals. it was creepy in regard to the way they worked together, but it wasn't quite the same.but i will say this. the queen is a beautiful piece of design work. well, like i mentioned above, this all probably comes from the derelict ship. there's talk that were a designed species, made to clear off planets and die. which would make them a damned effective weapon.

no, it's not an inability. i reject the idea of gender as a social construct. i think it's bs. i've studied the subject, and found it be especially prone to subjectivity and observer bias.i'll use the example of that discussion again, because it clearly illuminates the double standard.a male using females as sex objects, killing them for reproduction is a representation of man's agression towards and use of women as breeding devices.a female using males as sex objects, killing them for reproduction is a representation of man's agression towards women, and the need to control women as a foreign species.do you not see how this is a double standard? it's reading the model of "men oppress women" into both situations, even when the two are direct opposites of each other. that is invalid, and biased, and people who claim it are hypocrites. plain and simple. no. you're missing the point. it's sexist. that so-called feminist interpretation, gender-biased model is sexist. it claims that role of the man is to impregnate and leave the woman to care for the result. it portrays men as evil, animalistic, just sexual devices. it is, at it's heart, everything that feminism claims to be fighting against.if you're going to be anti-man, that's ok. just call a spade a spade. but continually portraying one gender as preying on the other is simply inaccurate and morally wrong, and displays a certain prejudice about the way society actually works.

Which is exactly why we know it's a social construct. Those aren't the direct opposites; the reason that those recieve the same interpretation is because they're the same situation. That's not obvious to you?Sex isn't gender. And it's your view that this never happens, then?

no. the SUBJECT. the subject is extremely prone to subjectivity and observer bias. you're attacking this with an assumption epistemic relativism. if i do a science experiment, and get the same results in every test, but twelve different judges interpret the results differently, it doesn't make it a "social construct." it bakes the judges biased.i'm accusing the observers of the same crime they're accusing society of. or did you not get that? i'm saying that their accusation are really based on their own bias, not what's actually going on. yes. they're the same situation. with different genders. reading both as "men oppressing women" is invalid, because in one it is a woman oppressing and using men. is one interpretation is valid for one, then it's not for the other. you can't have both, because it's inconsistent, and shows that observer bias. alright, fine. i deem you a woman because you're irrational, and according to our social gender construct, irrationality is a feminine attribute. no. it's my view that this is not what always happens. or even happens a majority of the time. most children are not the result of rape, but successful union of a pair. i resent being called a rapist just because i'm male.gender stereotypes are sexist, even if they're not against women.

i'm speaking of a specific and prevalent social disease that is present (if no where else) here in palm beach county. it's real, it's resounding, and it's huge. the women spend all day out shopping or pursuing some random odd fascination (like lipo or something) while they delegate their tasks to some immigrant who will do it for a cheap wage.i am well aware that there are many women who do raise their kids (and a few who even do it well) but ask the media (and thus popular opinion) what a woman''s life should be like.

quote:

---

i'm speaking of a specific and prevalent social disease that is present (if no where else) here in palm beach county. it's real, it's resounding, and it's huge. the women spend all day out shopping or pursuing some random odd fascination (like lipo or something) while they delegate their tasks to some immigrant who will do it for a cheap wage.

---

Right.A segment of the rich minority are like this.That is hardly anything even close to what you originally said, which was:Message 62-"but my main point is not that men work and force their women to stay home, rather that women stay home and force their men to work."You made no qualifier that this was for rich people.

quote:

---

i am well aware that there are many women who do raise their kids (and a few who even do it well)

---

I think changing "many" to "the vast majority" would make this statement more accurate.

quote:

---

but ask the media (and thus popular opinion) what a woman''s life should be like.

---

Yuo mean like sit-coms, where the thin, attractive spunky and smart stay at home mom is married to the overweight and/or bumbling but funny husband?

i swear, let a girl post on my computer....[duplicate post, see brennakimi's post below]This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 03-29-2005 02:41 PM

quote:

---

Originally posted by schrafinator:

A segment of the rich minority are like this.

​

That is hardly anything even close to what you originally said, which was:

​

Message 62-

​

"but my main point is not that men work and force their women to stay home, rather that women stay home and force their men to work."

​

You made no qualifier that this was for rich people.

---

it isn't just rich people though. there are plenty of not so rich women who could very easily be better breadwinners than their husbands and yet aren't because of whatever reason. that to me is inefficient and poor family planning. and you wander around and tell me how many women raise their children well. yeah. that's why american kids are lazy and badly behaved and spoiled.

quote:

---

Yuo mean like sit-coms, where the thin, attractive spunky and smart stay at home mom is married to the overweight and/or bumbling but funny husband?

---

no i mean "reality" tv and standard fare prime time stuff and the news and those 60 minutes stories and movies and music. it's all about leisure time (for everyone, fairly) and rarely depicts a mother working (unless that's the point of the movie, etc) either in or out of the home.

sigh... which is why we know it's a social construct.Sex is not a social construct. The sex of an organism can be determined via objective methodology. Gender, on the other hand, is the space of subjective biases that each individual in a culture inflects on the concept of sex. It's obviously culturally constructed.Why do you think it is that languages like French or Spanish have gendered words? Now, an inanimate object like a book or a table obviously can have no sex, but speakers of that language will certainly correct you if you fail to inflect those words with the proper gender. Why do you suppose that is? Nobody's "accusing" society of anything, so your turnabout accusation is meaningless. No, the same gender. Different sexes. Woman is a sex, and my personal sex is male. You're free to descibe me as feminine, however, if that's the impression you recieve. What does that have to do with it? Who said this happens all the time? Stop tearing down these strawmen for a second and listen to what I'm saying to you.Let me try one more time to put it as plainly as I can.1) When I say that the creature has a masculine gender, I'm not saying that the creature is of the male sex.
2) When I say that certain characteristics are masculine in our culture, I'm saying neither that all men do them, or that no women do.
3) When I say that the creature exhibits masculine qualities, I'm not saying that it exhibits no feminine ones.Now, with all that in mind, would you like one more try to actually address my argument? Who called you one? Jesus, get over yourself.

tautological. we know it's a social contruct because we construct it socially. that's bunk, and you know it. no. what you're calling gender is not gender. it's societal roles. gender has nothing to do with it, although in some societies it is divided by gender. but not in all societies. because their societies have language divided in genders. it's not saying the table is submissive to the chair or vice versa, or making any comment. it's simply the way they speak.now, compare this to something like thai. in thai, men and women speark slightly different languages. instead of individual objects having genders, the language itself does. and what's even more interesting, is that mothers of boys speak the male language, in order to teach their children. tell me, does that make the woman culturally male? yes, academic feminism is all about the accusation of gender bias. i am accusing them of being just as biased, and purposefully perpetuating such biases when they meet their needs. is this another argument were you've failed to watch the darned movie in question? the female is not absent in second one. and in comparison to the male, she's definitally culturally female.this assumption that the feminine cannot be a sexual agressor is simply stupid. it's a gender bias, and demonstratably wrong. perhaps i should introduce you to several of my ex's. they're certainly culturally female, and yet were the sexually dominant ones in my relationship with them.or maybe i'm just a chick. and you didn't see my generalization as sexist and demeaning? or at least genderist? you said that rape and abondonment is a male quality. that is a sexist generalization. there is no essential difference. assigning something a gender different than its sex relies on stereotypes and bias. it is wrong, and degrades both genders, or sexes, or whatever. actually, you are. you're painting a picture of gender stereotype. you're making a construction that puts the two genders in extreme opposites, a black and white comparison. it's male, and the victims are female. it is not an interpretation that has any gray area. and it relies on sexist assumptions about what are masculine and feminine traits. i did. it's idiotic and sexist, and wrong. it's contrary the intentions of the authors/producers/directors, does not fit the actual gender relationships in the movie, and relies on stereotypes that are invalid. you did. you essentially said that what men do is rape and leave women. that is the basis for your argument of why the creature is male. so that must be your assumption of men's role in society.it may seem like a strawman, but that is the stereotype your argument is based on. if you don't agree with that, don't perpetuate the argument.

quote:

---

and you wander around and tell me how many women raise their children well.

---

I did? When did I do that?

quote:

---

no i mean "reality" tv

---

Like Survivor and Fear Factor, where the women and men do the same thing?

quote:

---

and standard fare prime time stuff

---

You mean like Everybody Loves Raymond, Tool Time, Roseanne, and Grace under Fire?

quote:

---

and the news and those 60 minutes stories and movies and music. it's all about leisure time (for everyone, fairly) and rarely depicts a mother working (unless that's the point of the movie, etc) either in or out of the home.

---

I really maybe shouldn't comment upon mainstream TV, because I watch very little of it, but I am pretty sure that the above mentioned sit coms ARE "standard fare prime time stuff", and were in fact quite popular, and all of them depict moms working inside and outside the home.I don't know how you can support your statement that this sort of thing is "rare".

Oh my god. What else would it be? Ok, look. I don't want to have a battle over what words mean with you, ok? We'll call it "fblx", if you prefer, and one fblx is called "amix", and the other is called "bibnar." You maintain that the alien has no fblx whatsoever; this is obviously false, as it has significant bibnaral characteristics. Which is not to say that it doesn't possess amixal characteristics, either. It's demonstratably right. Being a sexual aggressor is definately considered "male", it's certainly not considered "ladylike." Ask your mom. Or ask two bisexual or lesbian women; ask them if they consider the sexually aggressive role "masculine" or "feminine." No. Unlike you, apparently, I don't have a big chip on my shoulder about gender roles and my sexual identity. No. A sexist generalization would be "all men are pigs." Saying "some men love em and leave em" is a simple fact.Look, Arach, we're done here. You've refused to do anything but argue against a straw man version of my argument. It's insulting and demeaning, and disappointing as I've often come to expect better of you. You're apparently incapable of addressing my argument on its own merits and instead, you have to contradict me about my own position before you knock down the straw man of your own invention. It's a waste of my time. But I guess we're all creationists about something.