"I've also been told the same thing by others online, [ib]but they are likely just taking part in the same trolling.[/b]"
People tells you its exaggerated beyond all proportion, just some clickbait gak storm manufactured by clickbaiting trolls deliberately trying to provoke and outrage the more militant and extreme fringes of internet Feminism, so you assume they (the messengers) are all part of it too? What is this, a MRA conspiracy to simultaneously boycott a film and pretend they're not boycotting?
Its ironic really, because there actually are some Feminist influences in the film. As I understand it, the film makers consulted some Feminist social/charity worker who does work in Africa providing support and counseling etc for the victims of the rampant sexual abuse and human rights abuses that go on in some places on that continent, so they could better portray the victims of sexual abuse in the film (Furiosa's friends are sex slaves forced to breed Joe's children).
That is something I consider quite admirable, that they would go to such effort, hiring an expert, and a REAL Feminist (not one of those faux Feminist "SJW" types like Sarkeesian who dominate internet discourse), to better portray the sensitive issues depicted in the film and to help them write better characters.
the line isnt "Women are not things" its "We are not things" same jist though
and the answer is NO. there is no IMO. its NO. it is not bad that it is "Feminist Propaganda" because we need movies like that damnit.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: People tells you its exaggerated beyond all proportion, just some clickbait gak storm manufactured by clickbaiting trolls deliberately trying to provoke and outrage the more militant and extreme fringes of internet Feminism, so you assume they (the messengers) are all part of it too? What is this, a MRA conspiracy to simultaneously boycott a film and pretend they're not boycotting?
I think it would have been more understandable if you saw the context.
But yes. It's not a bad movie, nor are its messages bad, no matter whether you think it's actively feministic or not.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: People tells you its exaggerated beyond all proportion, just some clickbait gak storm manufactured by clickbaiting trolls deliberately trying to provoke and outrage the more militant and extreme fringes of internet Feminism, so you assume they (the messengers) are all part of it too? What is this, a MRA conspiracy to simultaneously boycott a film and pretend they're not boycotting?
I think it would have been more understandable if you saw the context.
But yes. It's not a bad movie, nor are its messages bad, no matter whether you think it's actively feministic or not.
Oh I do think its feminist, to some degree at least. But its the kind of Feminism that I actually like and respect, that has interesting important things to say about important issues like sexual abuse and slavery as opposed to say...complaining about Super Mario.
Slavery is bad. Raping people and forcing them to carry your children is bad. I think we can all agree on that.
Slavery is bad. Raping people and forcing them to carry your children is bad. I think we can all agree on that.
I agree!
There is also a middle ground between that and Mario, mind you, one that also is quite relevant (though more or less untouched by the film, so perhaps not something to discuss for this very moment). It should not be forgotten, however!
hotsauceman1 wrote:I heard, and this is my experiance
I shouldn't have to explain why that is bad, nor why it doesn't encompass the whole.
BlaxicanX wrote:The movie is objectively "feminist propaganda".
It may be feminist, in the sense that women aren't shown completely as worthless, but it isn't propaganda at all. Watch Triumph of the Will or the Why We Fight series if you want that. Yes there are more openly offensive films but I am not going to list them.
By the way, what the feth was that thing with spitting gasoline into the front intakes to boost the engine?
Is that gak really a thing?
I don't believe they were spitting gasoline into the intakes for more boost... I believe someone said it was "Nitro" which is essentially what you're doing if you do have a nitrous-oxide system into the engine (the spray of Nitrous goes into firing chamber, rather than through the air intakes, but IIRC, in a fully supercharged setup like they had you wouldn't have the tightly wound air filter that would block that flammable liquid getting into the combustion chambers.... you'd also have to have some MAJOR upkeep to keep all that radioactive Aussie sand out of the whole engine as well
BlaxicanX wrote:The movie is objectively "feminist propaganda".
It may be feminist, in the sense that women aren't shown completely as worthless, but it isn't propaganda at all. Watch Triumph of the Will or the Why We Fight series if you want that. Yes there are more openly offensive films but I am not going to list them.
Having now seen the movie, the 'opinion' that the film is propaganda is complete and utter trash (and yes, I put it in ' ' on purpose because I find the entire idea that anyone can hold that as a legitimate thought highly suspect). There's gotta be a jump the shark moment around here somewhere for this... You know. Where it just gets so insane that not even a loony can buy into it.
Not even sure the film can qualify as feminist per se. Sure there are women in it, and they do stuff, but half of them are basically cannon fodder, and the other half still need Max to save them (numerous times) and show them the true meaning of hope, so honestly, the only thing that makes the film stand out on the feminist front is the large number of action women in the cast.
Already saw the movie twice, would totally watch it three more times. Such an awesome movie. I had never seen the originals but I definitely plan to now.
By the way, what the feth was that thing with spitting gasoline into the front intakes to boost the engine?
Is that gak really a thing?
Spraying ether starting fluid into the air intake is a trick for getting extra horse power into a seized up engine. It's a bit explosive so not a good idea with an already running engine, but if you are crazy enough to be crawling around on the hood of a car at 60+ mph and praying for death in a fiery crash... seems like it could be a thing. Could also be a form of nitrous oxide.
By the way, what the feth was that thing with spitting gasoline into the front intakes to boost the engine?
Is that gak really a thing?
I don't believe they were spitting gasoline into the intakes for more boost... I believe someone said it was "Nitro" which is essentially what you're doing if you do have a nitrous-oxide system into the engine (the spray of Nitrous goes into firing chamber, rather than through the air intakes, but IIRC, in a fully supercharged setup like they had you wouldn't have the tightly wound air filter that would block that flammable liquid getting into the combustion chambers.... you'd also have to have some MAJOR upkeep to keep all that radioactive Aussie sand out of the whole engine as well
Yeah it wasn't gas they were spitting into the intake manifolds. It was (assumedly) some form of nitromethane (nitro for short) fuel. However, i'm not certain exactly what the point (other than cool factor) was of spitting it into the combustion air intake manifold, as the combustion air intake in any burner, and by proxy i would assume engines, though i suppose i could be wrong, would be seperate from the fuel injection line.
The only thing i can think of is if the burner / engine were a matrix pre-mix air-to-fuel vaporized combination unit. You see this is in heating plans quite a lot. I am not a car expert by any means, so maybe someone with more knowledge about cards could weigh in if such a thing exists for vehicle engines.
I do know this: when you use nitromethane, its typically with an engine specifically designed to be boosted with Nitromethane, and not just any old engine. So that said i suppose there could be a vaporizer just inside the combustion air intake manifold, but vaporizers are usually under pressure, and the negative draft + wind draft almost certainly wouldn't be enough and it would be inefficient as hell.
Also it's probably not nitrous oxide. That's a gas at normal atmospheric pressure and room temperature, and wouldn't be liquid. If it was any Nx compound, it was nitromethane. If it was nitrous oxide, it would have to be emulsed into something like gasoline, which would dilute its combustive volatility, and probably wouldn't be an ideal choice over other nitrous compounds.
But then again, it was cool as hell, so i am not bothered by this one single iota other than being an interesting exercise in mental engineering. Sorry if i'm waxing ecstatic. I deal with fossil fuels a lot for work so i'm something of a fuel nerd.
creeping-deth87 wrote: Already saw the movie twice, would totally watch it three more times. Such an awesome movie. I had never seen the originals but I definitely plan to now.
I'm going to see the film for a second time as well, experiences like that in the cinema don't come along too often!
I was talking to someone at work and they told me the kid who played Nux was the little kid in About a Boy.
So now, in my own extended universe, Hugh Grant befriends and mentors an awkward boy, then dies in the apocalypse, and that boy goes on to get in big car fights for an evil empire in the post-apocalypse.
Ash, have you seen the other Mad Max movies they're really good as well, although it might be a let down as the older movies are pretty cheap looking (but that is part of the charm, lots of innovation due to limitation) compared to Fury Road which uses state of the art special effects and has big action movie budget.
Cheesecat wrote: Ash, have you seen the other Mad Max movies they're really good as well, although it might be a let down as the older movies are pretty cheap looking (but that is part of the charm, lots of innovation due to limitation) compared to Fury Road which uses state of the art special effects and has big action movie budget.
No, I haven't, actually. Usually this is not really my genre of film, though I enjoyed Fury Road a lot.
Cheesecat wrote: Ash, have you seen the other Mad Max movies they're really good as well, although it might be a let down as the older movies are pretty cheap looking (but that is part of the charm, lots of innovation due to limitation) compared to Fury Road which uses state of the art special effects and has big action movie budget.
No, I haven't, actually. Usually this is not really my genre of film, though I enjoyed Fury Road a lot.
The first Mad Max is basically a film student movie. Very low budget. I don't think this movie really stands the test of time, however, I know these kinds of movies hold an appeal for some people.
Road Warrior was the best of the 3, but its really just Fury Road Junior, it being basically a similarly intense motorcade of action, just nowhere near the same quality as the new film.
Beyond Thunderdome was strange and interesting for the first half, then in the second half its pretty much WTF. I've read that the director wanted to make something like a version of the "Lord of the Flies" set in his post-apocalyptic wasteland...he did not achieve this goal effectively.
BlaxicanX wrote:The movie is objectively "feminist propaganda".
It may be feminist, in the sense that women aren't shown completely as worthless, but it isn't propaganda at all. Watch Triumph of the Will or the Why We Fight series if you want that. Yes there are more openly offensive films but I am not going to list them.
Having now seen the movie, the 'opinion' that the film is propaganda is complete and utter trash (and yes, I put it in ' ' on purpose because I find the entire idea that anyone can hold that as a legitimate thought highly suspect). There's gotta be a jump the shark moment around here somewhere for this... You know. Where it just gets so insane that not even a loony can buy into it.
Not even sure the film can qualify as feminist per se. Sure there are women in it, and they do stuff, but half of them are basically cannon fodder, and the other half still need Max to save them (numerous times) and show them the true meaning of hope, so honestly, the only thing that makes the film stand out on the feminist front is the large number of action women in the cast.
Yeah... I don't see it either.
In fact, I think it's so not-femanist.
Furiousa didn't save those girls w/o Max's help. I mean, there's this one scene where she uses Max's shoulder to fire that rifle shot! If that isn't an allegory that women needs men...
Okay, see, the reason it's considered feminist is not because the women were super awesome and needed no help, but because they were treated as equal to men. They weren't there just to be a love interest, or just to have a topless scene. They were just capable people trying to survive, just like the men.
Just got out of the theater watching it for the first time.
I felt it was a big fat meh over all. I was riding on the edge of my seat for the first half (About where they go through the canyon and Max and Furiosa realize they have to work together), but after that it just kinda seemed to drag on.
The drum truck was awesome and got my blood boiling in all the right ways, but I feel like they should have saved the Sandstorm scene for the end and extended it out a bit. It just seemed like sensory overload right off the bat.
Slarg232 wrote: Just got out of the theater watching it for the first time.
I felt it was a big fat meh over all. I was riding on the edge of my seat for the first half (About where they go through the canyon and Max and Furiosa realize they have to work together), but after that it just kinda seemed to drag on.
The drum truck was awesome and got my blood boiling in all the right ways, but I feel like they should have saved the Sandstorm scene for the end and extended it out a bit. It just seemed like sensory overload right off the bat.
I will agree i didnt like the rain scene with bullet dude that much. besides the awesome furiosa shot.
That was actually the only scene after the Darude - Sandstorm scene I enjoyed. It was tense, especially with what had just happened prior, and Max ended up being a badass somehow.
jasper76 wrote: The first Mad Max is basically a film student movie. Very low budget. I don't think this movie really stands the test of time, however, I know these kinds of movies hold an appeal for some people.
It was low budget, but that’s nowhere near the same thing as a student movie. There was a lot of similarly low budget films made in Australia at that time (because it was cheap to make movies in Oz), and almost all of them looked to offset their low production and zero marketing budget by standing out in another simple way – being trashy and violent.
But yeah, I agree that it isn’t a great movie. For fans of video nasty type stuff, man is wronged and gets violent revenge it works okay, but beyond that its really nothing special. Its only really part of the Mad Max films because it made loads of money, so using the name allowed Miller to make a full blown post-apocalyptic movie.
Beyond Thunderdome was strange and interesting for the first half, then in the second half its pretty much WTF. I've read that the director wanted to make something like a version of the "Lord of the Flies" set in his post-apocalyptic wasteland...he did not achieve this goal effectively.
Yeah, there was a lot of production difficulties through the movie. A producer died in a helicopter crash and following that Miller handed over much of the workload of directing to some other guy. I’m not sure how much the different director led to the shift in tone, or if Miller’s grieving meant he ended up going soft and losing the Mad Max feel, but as you say it’s a really disappointing movie.
Ashiraya wrote: I am told by the internet that it's 'feminazi propaganda', but I don't see it...
Don't you know? Feminazi are just like the Illuminati. If you never see them, it does not mean they do not exist. It means that they are extremely good at hiding all the evidence, which in turn is proof to how powerful they are!
More seriously, though, it is quite funny to see that this movie has plenty of stuff that some feminists have been pushing for, and all the people that were so angry at feminists for this are now completely fan of it. I think it is pretty telling about how epidermic and superficial their reaction was in the first place. And I am pretty sure none of them is going realize this, and they are still going to cry about censorship and PC and whatever next time someone pushes for more stuff like this.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Agreed... I think that movies like Book of Eli, for good or ill are done in a more serious tone (and say what you will about Eli, I actually like that movie) and do a pretty good job of story, backdrop and everything that goes along with.
I loved the look and the world creation of the Book of Eli. It was honestly so close to being a great movie, but there were some things I just couldn't get past.
And it wasn't the final twist (which was silly but whatever). Honestly my problem there was that the main character was supposed to be a fallen Christian, but he was actually just a completely amoral turd. Nothing wrong with basing films around amoral turds (especially not in post-apocalypse movies), but it really jarred with the theme this film was supposed to be exploring.
That whole movie was stupid. Like, seriously, every-freaking-body could write a sacred book for his own sect and call it the Bible. There is literally no interest in using the real one. It is pretty weak by itself, the only reason people are giving it any credit at all is historicity and tradition. If you show any kind of text and manage to get people to think it is the Bible, they will (mis-)attribute all the respect they have for the Bible to that text, which will certainly be less inept.
whembly wrote: Furiousa didn't save those girls w/o Max's help. I mean, there's this one scene where she uses Max's shoulder to fire that rifle shot! If that isn't an allegory that women needs men...
And Max was saved by Furiosa or other women in numerous occasion through the movie too. Have you noticed that this “allegory” shows that the man, who has two valid arms, with numerous shots, is unable to do what the woman is doing? Uh, sure, that must be an allegory that women needs men, but still, men are way less capable than women, am I right . I think the expression you were looking for was “separatism feminism”. This movie is definitely not separatist, that is right.
Don't you know? Feminazi are just like the Illuminati. If you never see them, it does not mean they do not exist.
The Illuminate don't have an entire website where they openly show their dire need of attention to compensate for inherent mental problems, i.e. Tumblr.
Mad Max sure is no feminist movie, people of both sides are trying to make it into one or rather find traces they could use to sell it off as one. It's just an action movie with a female protagonist. If we're already on a level of analyzing that includes using another character's shoulder to fire a gun as being a sign of feminism / not-feminism, it's safe to say that it's not
Oh, that wasn't directed at you. It clearly isn't one, but some people really try to make it into one
Personally, I don't care for the protagonist's gender at all. Male, female, whatever, as long as the movie is well-written or has non-stop action with great visual effects...that's what matters.
That whole movie was stupid. Like, seriously, every-freaking-body could write a sacred book for his own sect and call it the Bible. There is literally no interest in using the real one. It is pretty weak by itself, the only reason people are giving it any credit at all is historicity and tradition. If you show any kind of text and manage to get people to think it is the Bible, they will (mis-)attribute all the respect they have for the Bible to that text, which will certainly be less inept..
Sorry but what was the point of the this rant?
Are you seriously suggesting that the Bible has no intrinsic spiritual value to Christians, because they only read it based on historicity and tradition?
If that is truly your opinion then you have a gross misunderstanding of Christianity? And quite frankly your analysis is quite offensive, and really has no place in this thread expect to troll people.
generalgrog wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that the Bible has no intrinsic spiritual value to Christians, because they only read it based on historicity and tradition?
I am seriously suggesting that the Bible would not help some post-apocalyptic tyrant to rule over his subjects, and that he would be way, way better off starting his own sect while calling it “Christianity” and writing his own book calling it “the Bible” to cash in on the prestige both had before the Bible.
If you think the Bible has something in it that makes it inherently superior to start a cult than any other writing, then you are deluded. Just look at all the cults and religion that have started without using the Bible. Some are even pretty recent, look at Ron Hubbard. Cashing in on the prestige of Christianity make sense, needing or even wanting the actual texts from the Bible do not.
The whole point of the movie is that the tyrant wants the book not because of “intrinsic spiritual value to [him]”, he wants it to control others. And he is either bad at manipulating people, in which case the actual Bible is not going to help him, or good at manipulation people, and therefore he can do better if he writes his own “Bible”.
generalgrog wrote: Are you seriously suggesting that the Bible has no intrinsic spiritual value to Christians, because they only read it based on historicity and tradition?
I am seriously suggesting that the Bible would not help some post-apocalyptic tyrant to rule over his subjects, and that he would be way, way better off starting his own sect while calling it “Christianity” and writing his own book calling it “the Bible” to cash in on the prestige both had before the Bible.
If you think the Bible has something in it that makes it inherently superior to start a cult than any other writing, then you are deluded. Just look at all the cults and religion that have started without using the Bible. Some are even pretty recent, look at Ron Hubbard. Cashing in on the prestige of Christianity make sense, needing or even wanting the actual texts from the Bible do not.
The whole point of the movie is that the tyrant wants the book not because of “intrinsic spiritual value to [him]”, he wants it to control others. And he is either bad at manipulating people, in which case the actual Bible is not going to help him, or good at manipulation people, and therefore he can do better if he writes his own “Bible”.
Actually, have you seen the movie?
OK so you are talking in the context of the movie.... I still disagree with the premise though. Because while there are certain church goers that probably do pursue Christianity out of historicity and tradition, it's not an accurate representation for all Christians to say so, because for many Christians there are deep spiritual truths that can be learned from a deep study of the Bible. So that's all I'll say on the subject, since it's getting fairly off topic.
Cults are a phenomenon of mass manipulation whether it's based on the Bible or not. However the Bible based cults are quite powerful because of the inherent truths that can be found in the Bible. So a skin of the truth stuffed with a lie, makes the creation of a Bible based cult a powerful proposition. I think this is what the Gary Oldman character was focusing on, the fact that people would flock to someone that had a Bible, because he could misquote it and manipulate it to his nefarious ends. This is what cult leaders do all the time.
As far as the movie, Book of Eli, I actually loved the movie....even though I had to suspend my disbelief pretty hard in spots.
generalgrog wrote: However the Bible based cults are quite powerful because of the inherent truths that can be found in the Bible.
I completely disagree with you assertion that there is in any way more inherent truths in the Bible than in any other book. I also disagree that the Bible based cults are more powerful than other cults. I am not even sure what “more powerful” means in that context though. But in term of getting people to be obedient, they are clearly on par, not stronger.
I know one pretty damn strong cult that was based on the Beatles lyrics. Quite stronger than most Bible based cults, given the atrocities the Guru was able to make the adepts do.
generalgrog wrote: I think this is what the Gary Oldman character was focusing on, the fact that people would flock to someone that had a Bible, because he could misquote it and manipulate it to his nefarious ends.
Take Moby Dick, write Bible on the cover, and you can misquote it. If people were unable to see the misquotations, they will still be unable to do so.
The Interviews George Miller has given regarding the uproar of Men's Rights Activists regarding Mad Max: Fury Road have been freaking awesome, and present something not many people notice about the movies:
• Max always is worse off at the end of the movie than he was at the beginning.
• Max also knows that he will never again be a part of the re-building of a civilized society, because he became the very poison that destroyed civilization to begin with, in order to fight against those who destroyed it (a sort of "fight fire with fire" only in this case it is "fight poison with poison"). And this is why at the end of every movie, we see him leave the fledgling societies he fought to help establish, so that he does not bring further destructive impulses into that society. We are not supposed to idolize Max.
The best I can do is give you google search keys (I am on an iPad, which takes me about five minutes per link to post, and then doing so screws up my clipboard, which I use for other applications that are important).
If you search on Google:
"George Miller Interview Mad Max Fury Road" or "George Miller Mad Max Feminism"
You will get a series of articles that detail most of these points.
If you google:
"George Miller Mad Max Fury Road backstories"
You will get other results that detail the as yet unpublished (but Miller IS going to publish all of them) backstory materials, which detail the various philosophical aspects Miller uses.
It should be pointed out that Miller's politics WILL piss off a lot of people.
Miller states in one of the interviews that Max is the embodiment of the toxic masculinity which is responsible for the world's destruction (both in the movies and real life), and that he is "inherently a feminist."
He even brought in the author of The Vagina Monologues, Eve Ensler, to help write the backstories to Imperator Furiosa, and many of the other characters (including what Max was doing just prior to the movie)
Arthur Chu wrote a piece for The Daily Beast (which should not be hard to find on Google), which pieces together most of the scattered information on the topic (I think the title is How Men's Rights Activists Destroyed the World.). It basically details the philosophy behind Miller's work, although Chu can sometimes take things a bit too far in his interpretations.
But George Miller did comment on Chu's work as being essentially correct and to the point.
Sigvatr wrote: Mad Max sure is no feminist movie, people of both sides are trying to make it into one or rather find traces they could use to sell it off as one. It's just an action movie with a female protagonist. If we're already on a level of analyzing that includes using another character's shoulder to fire a gun as being a sign of feminism / not-feminism, it's safe to say that it's not
Nah, that's just people going looking for little puzzle games of interpretation to explain the feminist themes. But the actual strength of the feminism in this film is that it didn't try to achieve any kind of surface level of feminism with snappy one-liners or loaded speaches. Instead it just stripped out all the action movie cliches that happen to be chauvinist (the woman falling for the man as she sees how strong and virile he is, the man rescuing the woman after she's turned useless somewhere in the third act etc).
Mad Max isn't so much overtly feminist, as it is feminist by default it is one of so few action films that doesn't resort to the old, chauvinist cliches.
If you do the google searches I pointed out, you will find interviews with George Miller saying:
"Mad Max is a feminist movie (franchise)."
For Christ Sake, I don't think you could get any more blatant about it than by hiring Even Ensler as a writer and consultant for the movie (for those who do not recognize the name, Even Ensler is the author of The Vagina Monologues).
And Eve Ensler is not the only Feminist associated with the movie (exempting George Miller, who is a HUGE backer of Feminist Causes, as well as calling himself a Feminist).
BeAfraid wrote: If you do the google searches I pointed out, you will find interviews with George Miller saying:
"Mad Max is a feminist movie (franchise)."
For Christ Sake, I don't think you could get any more blatant about it than by hiring Even Ensler as a writer and consultant for the movie (for those who do not recognize the name, Even Ensler is the author of The Vagina Monologues).
And Eve Ensler is not the only Feminist associated with the movie (exempting George Miller, who is a HUGE backer of Feminist Causes, as well as calling himself a Feminist).
MB
Does it matter? Will the fact that it's feminist or not make or break it? What does anyone hope to gain from defining the movie? Who will care?
This is an r-rated film. Not many young girls will see this in their formative years, nor young boys.
Alien is over thirty years old, and there was not nearly as much hubbub about it being feminist than this movie.
BeAfraid wrote: If you do the google searches I pointed out, you will find interviews with George Miller saying:
"Mad Max is a feminist movie (franchise)."
For Christ Sake, I don't think you could get any more blatant about it than by hiring Even Ensler as a writer and consultant for the movie (for those who do not recognize the name, Even Ensler is the author of The Vagina Monologues).
And Eve Ensler is not the only Feminist associated with the movie (exempting George Miller, who is a HUGE backer of Feminist Causes, as well as calling himself a Feminist).
MB
Does it matter? Will the fact that it's feminist or not make or break it? What does anyone hope to gain from defining the movie? Who will care?
This is an r-rated film. Not many young girls will see this in their formative years, nor young boys.
Alien is over thirty years old, and there was not nearly as much hubbub about it being feminist than this movie.
My point being, this movie is nothing new.
It matters for some things, and not for others.
In the context of the debate of Men's Rights Activists, the politics of George Miller are relevant.
In the context of exploring the back stories of the characters, which will be happening with the publication of several graphic novels and comics (as well as a possible cartoon/anime) the politics are relevant to the world creation, and what happened to cause the society that exists in that world (as well as the forces trying to re-build it (notice that in EVERY Mad Max movie, it is a strong female character working to re-build civilization without the warring strife created by testosterone fueled violence).
Alien, the franchise, does not have a world that is about explicitly feminine themes. It's world is about Corporatism and greed (and a fear of Science - It is basically a manifestation of "The Frankenstein Complex").
In both cases, there are different messages the producers and directors are hoping to convey.
Not every movie is so blatant about it.
But in George Miller's case, when he made this movie, in one of the interviews he states he was tired of people missing the damned point, and glorifying the wrong aspects of the movies. His point was that Max himself is just as much a part of the evil as the "bad guys" like Immortan Joe, or Toecutter in the original, Humongous in the first sequel, or Tina Turner's character (Auntie something, the name suddenly escapes me) and her clash with Master-Blaster (which produced an interesting heel-face turn by the latter character, and Tina Turner's character was the carrier of the Toxic Masculinity that Miller focuses upon).
As pure entertainment, it is not nearly so relevant. But Miller makes several points in his interviews that Culture (with a capital-C) is currently at a low point (this is backed up by academics and professionals in the field, who cite the decline of production of arts that have a deeper foundation and roots, leading to complex themes that last beyond just the consumption of a product), and that we need to be producing art that gives the audience something deeper and more meaningful that a simple spectacle.
Given the history of other points in history where Culture was neglected, or looked down upon, we tend to see the collapse of civilizations in those periods.
Maybe this is a danger to us now, and Miller is trying to make a point that certain parts of our current society are destroying us (and, to use your example of Alien - it is making the same basic point, just with a different issue).
In the context of exploring the back stories of the characters, which will be happening with the publication of several graphic novels and comics (as well as a possible cartoon/anime) the politics are relevant to the world creation, and what happened to cause the society that exists in that world (as well as the forces trying to re-build it (notice that in EVERY Mad Max movie, it is a strong female character working to re-build civilization without the warring strife created by testosterone fueled violence).
*Mad Max-don't see it.
*Road Warrior. Er, there was a dude in charge. There was a lady mechanic and a lady warrior but that was about it so...no.
*Thunderdome. Are you arguing thunderdome avoided strife? The later aboriginal chick was just one character and she wasn't trying to rebuild society...so no.
In the context of exploring the back stories of the characters, which will be happening with the publication of several graphic novels and comics (as well as a possible cartoon/anime) the politics are relevant to the world creation, and what happened to cause the society that exists in that world (as well as the forces trying to re-build it (notice that in EVERY Mad Max movie, it is a strong female character working to re-build civilization without the warring strife created by testosterone fueled violence).
*Mad Max-don't see it.
*Road Warrior. Er, there was a dude in charge. There was a lady mechanic and a lady warrior but that was about it so...no.
*Thunderdome. Are you arguing thunderdome avoided strife? The later aboriginal chick was just one character and she wasn't trying to rebuild society...so no.
Then argue with George Miller, because these are his points.
Frazzled wrote: Only if he buy's me a bottle of bourbon first. i don't argue on an empty stomach.
I think he would be completely into that.
He seems to be a keeper of social customs, and observer of various forms of traditional Culture (again, with the Capital-C) that are deemed worth preserving.
In the context of exploring the back stories of the characters, which will be happening with the publication of several graphic novels and comics (as well as a possible cartoon/anime) the politics are relevant to the world creation, and what happened to cause the society that exists in that world (as well as the forces trying to re-build it (notice that in EVERY Mad Max movie, it is a strong female character working to re-build civilization without the warring strife created by testosterone fueled violence).
*Mad Max-don't see it.
*Road Warrior. Er, there was a dude in charge. There was a lady mechanic and a lady warrior but that was about it so...no.
*Thunderdome. Are you arguing thunderdome avoided strife? The later aboriginal chick was just one character and she wasn't trying to rebuild society...so no.
Then argue with George Miller, because these are his points.
MB
Well, you are the person using his opinions. He must be getting senile. There were 5 female characters in Road Warrior-
1. Gyrocaptain's love interest.
2. Warrior woman who gets shot in the chest and thrown under the rig.
3. Old lady who wanted to accept lord Humongus's terms.
4. And a raider chick who shows off her baps.
5. And a white robed woman who comes to a bad end to establish how evil the raiders are.
Not many feminist overtones in that film I'm afraid.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In other news- this trailer made me have a giggle fit.
Sinful Hero wrote: Does it matter? Will the fact that it's feminist or not make or break it? What does anyone hope to gain from defining the movie? Who will care?
If it can get people to stop crying “CENSORSHIP!!! POLITICALLY CORRECT!!! FEMINISM RUINS EVERYTHING!!!” every time someone pushes for more of this, then yeah, it would matter.
In the context of exploring the back stories of the characters, which will be happening with the publication of several graphic novels and comics (as well as a possible cartoon/anime) the politics are relevant to the world creation, and what happened to cause the society that exists in that world (as well as the forces trying to re-build it (notice that in EVERY Mad Max movie, it is a strong female character working to re-build civilization without the warring strife created by testosterone fueled violence).
*Mad Max-don't see it.
*Road Warrior. Er, there was a dude in charge. There was a lady mechanic and a lady warrior but that was about it so...no.
*Thunderdome. Are you arguing thunderdome avoided strife? The later aboriginal chick was just one character and she wasn't trying to rebuild society...so no.
Then argue with George Miller, because these are his points.
MB
Well, you are the person using his opinions. He must be getting senile. There were 5 female characters in Road Warrior-
1. Gyrocaptain's love interest.
2. Warrior woman who gets shot in the chest and thrown under the rig.
3. Old lady who wanted to accept lord Humongus's terms.
4. And a raider chick who shows off her baps.
5. And a white robed woman who comes to a bad end to establish how evil the raiders are.
Not many feminist overtones in that film I'm afraid.
Automatically Appended Next Post: In other news- this trailer made me have a giggle fit.
The existence of Strong Female Characters does not mean they have to survive.
The Road Warrior presents a step in the progression of female characters rising in prominence in Miller's Mad Max movies from film to film.
Personally... I take George Miller at his word that the overall message of the Mad Max Franchise is essentially feminist, in that it presents male dominance as being essentially violent and toxic.
I just don't see it- especially in the Road Warrior. After watching it again a couple days ago there wasn't much feminism going on to me. The one strong woman with 5 minutes of screen time doesn't make the whole movie feminist.
I can see the argument for Fury Road, but I went in (mostly) blind and it didn't grind my gears at all. If it was totally feminist and progressive and PC it was told in a good way as far as I'm concerned.
Sinful Hero wrote: I just don't see it- especially in the Road Warrior. After watching it again a couple days ago there wasn't much feminism going on to me. The one strong woman with 5 minutes of screen time doesn't make the whole movie feminist.
I can see the argument for Fury Road, but I went in (mostly) blind and it didn't grind my gears at all. If it was totally feminist and progressive and PC it was told in a good way as far as I'm concerned.
Most people are not really aware of what REAL Feminism, or Political Correctness is, and instead are only familiar with the insane, and equally toxic misandrist versions of these put forward by the radical leftists, and Identity Politics Extremists, who are just as pathological as are the Men's Rights Activists who tend to stupidly believe that the extremists of the feminist movement are all that exists.
They tend to think feminism is about Female Domination, instead of Female Equality. There are some aspects of femininity that need to be more dominant in out society, but this is only because our current attitudes about masculinity have lost track of these qualities.
It is important to remember that we are going to continue to be a world that consists of both male and female for some time to come, and that neither represent a "dominant sex/gender."
Sinful Hero wrote: I just don't see it- especially in the Road Warrior. After watching it again a couple days ago there wasn't much feminism going on to me. The one strong woman with 5 minutes of screen time doesn't make the whole movie feminist.
I can see the argument for Fury Road, but I went in (mostly) blind and it didn't grind my gears at all. If it was totally feminist and progressive and PC it was told in a good way as far as I'm concerned.
Most people are not really aware of what REAL Feminism, or Political Correctness is, and instead are only familiar with the insane, and equally toxic misandrist versions of these put forward by the radical leftists, and Identity Politics Extremists, who are just as pathological as are the Men's Rights Activists who tend to stupidly believe that the extremists of the feminist movement are all that exists.
They tend to think feminism is about Female Domination, instead of Female Equality. There are some aspects of femininity that need to be more dominant in out society, but this is only because our current attitudes about masculinity have lost track of these qualities.
It is important to remember that we are going to continue to be a world that consists of both male and female for some time to come, and that neither represent a "dominant sex/gender."
MB
Presenting men as toxic and the sum of everything that is wrong with our society sounds pretty extreme to me.
BeAfraid wrote: There are some aspects of femininity that need to be more dominant in out society, but this is only because our current attitudes about masculinity have lost track of these qualities.
It is important to remember that we are going to continue to be a world that consists of both male and female for some time to come, and that neither represent a "dominant sex/gender."
So you seem to want some kind of equal but different stuff where people are still attributed some specific characteristics and roles depending on their genitalia or what?
BeAfraid wrote: There are some aspects of femininity that need to be more dominant in out society, but this is only because our current attitudes about masculinity have lost track of these qualities.
It is important to remember that we are going to continue to be a world that consists of both male and female for some time to come, and that neither represent a "dominant sex/gender."
So you seem to want some kind of equal but different stuff where people are still attributed some specific characteristics and roles depending on their genitalia or what?
I don't think anyone is callin for that, just merely saying feminism doesn't equal female domination of man. Also that there are qualities we identify as masculine and feminine- some need to be dropped and others ported over for both.
Tons of people are calling from this. We all come from societies where these different roles are deeply ingrained. A few people will tell you that they want these roles to go on explicitly. Those are usually either on the MRA or very conservative side. Many people will not tell you that they want those roles to go on, but will very strongly defend the status quo where those roles still influence us a lot, while pretending that those gender roles are completely over and do not exist anymore.
Sinful Hero wrote: I just don't see it- especially in the Road Warrior. After watching it again a couple days ago there wasn't much feminism going on to me. The one strong woman with 5 minutes of screen time doesn't make the whole movie feminist.
I can see the argument for Fury Road, but I went in (mostly) blind and it didn't grind my gears at all. If it was totally feminist and progressive and PC it was told in a good way as far as I'm concerned.
Most people are not really aware of what REAL Feminism, or Political Correctness is, and instead are only familiar with the insane, and equally toxic misandrist versions of these put forward by the radical leftists, and Identity Politics Extremists, who are just as pathological as are the Men's Rights Activists who tend to stupidly believe that the extremists of the feminist movement are all that exists.
They tend to think feminism is about Female Domination, instead of Female Equality. There are some aspects of femininity that need to be more dominant in out society, but this is only because our current attitudes about masculinity have lost track of these qualities.
It is important to remember that we are going to continue to be a world that consists of both male and female for some time to come, and that neither represent a "dominant sex/gender."
MB
Presenting men as toxic and the sum of everything that is wrong with our society sounds pretty extreme to me.
Only that would not be what was presented as "Toxic."
What was presented as Toxic was a particular type of masculinity that is especially testosterone driven.
This is make clear all through the series.
It is certainly not the toxic elements of femininity (which do exist in a tiny fringe of society) that are causing problems with the glorification of violence, greed, and acquisition in our world. These are all recognized "masculine" traits in sociological, anthropological, and historical contexts.
BeAfraid wrote: There are some aspects of femininity that need to be more dominant in out society, but this is only because our current attitudes about masculinity have lost track of these qualities.
It is important to remember that we are going to continue to be a world that consists of both male and female for some time to come, and that neither represent a "dominant sex/gender."
So you seem to want some kind of equal but different stuff where people are still attributed some specific characteristics and roles depending on their genitalia or what?
Nope. That would be a reductionist oversimplification (a "Strawman") of the issue.
Feminism? If it makes women equals and capable of living their own lives I'm all for it. That's only fair.
Once you get to the level of Swedish crazy Gudrun Schyman, a leftist politician who founded a Feminist Initiative Party I'm not quite interested anymore. She actually brought forth a law initiative to study how much violence men do to women and how much taxes should be increased on men to make up for it. Yes, some men beat women - but she wanted to make every man pay for it. That's certainly not fair.
Isn't the original Mad Max about showing the horrors of car violence? I seem to remember that George Miller was originally a doctor and wanted to make a movie about showing car violence (he had lost 3 friends to car accidents as a teenager) and thought audiences would find the story
more believable if it was set in a future post-apocalyptic world rather than a real one.
First Mad Max world did not feel post-apocalyptic at all. No spoiler, but there is still a functioning state, with rule of law and all. Max is a cop. Like a real one, with wages and rules to follow and all that. There are supermarket around the road, and you can still buy ice-cream at gas stations.
Spetulhu wrote: Once you get to the level of Swedish crazy Gudrun Schyman, a leftist politician who founded a Feminist Initiative Party I'm not quite interested anymore. She actually brought forth a law initiative to study how much violence men do to women and how much taxes should be increased on men to make up for it. Yes, some men beat women - but she wanted to make every man pay for it. That's certainly not fair.
I am preeeetty sure the man-tax was a PR ploy made for awareness, never intended for actual use.
The feminist initiative party is fine. The only crazy thing going on 'round these parts is the absurd and done-to-death 'feminists don't want equality' meme.
Spetulhu wrote: Once you get to the level of Swedish crazy Gudrun Schyman, a leftist politician who founded a Feminist Initiative Party I'm not quite interested anymore. She actually brought forth a law initiative to study how much violence men do to women and how much taxes should be increased on men to make up for it. Yes, some men beat women - but she wanted to make every man pay for it. That's certainly not fair.
I am preeeetty sure the man-tax was a PR ploy made for awareness, never intended for actual use.
The feminist initiative party is fine. The only crazy thing going on 'round these parts is the absurd and done-to-death 'feminists don't want equality' meme.
Spetulhu wrote: Once you get to the level of Swedish crazy Gudrun Schyman, a leftist politician who founded a Feminist Initiative Party I'm not quite interested anymore. She actually brought forth a law initiative to study how much violence men do to women and how much taxes should be increased on men to make up for it. Yes, some men beat women - but she wanted to make every man pay for it. That's certainly not fair.
I am preeeetty sure the man-tax was a PR ploy made for awareness, never intended for actual use.
The feminist initiative party is fine. The only crazy thing going on 'round these parts is the absurd and done-to-death 'feminists don't want equality' meme.
So you deny that Feminism has a very vocal, far left fringe?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: First Mad Max world did not feel post-apocalyptic at all. No spoiler, but there is still a functioning state, with rule of law and all. Max is a cop. Like a real one, with wages and rules to follow and all that. There are supermarket around the road, and you can still buy ice-cream at gas stations.
The first film is set at the 11th hour. Resources are becoming scarce, the world is descending into lawlessness, civil society is collapsing. And then a nuclear apocalypse erupts (between films 1 and 2).
Mad Max 2 - society has collapsed several years prior and the world is truly a post apocalypse.
Director George Miller, Fury Road co-writer Nico Lathouris and Fury Road storyboard artist Mark Sexton all wrote the issue. Mad Max: Fury Road — Furiosa is out this Wednesday, June 17th.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: mThe first film is set at the 11th hour. Resources are becoming scarce, the world is descending into lawlessness, civil society is collapsing. And then a nuclear apocalypse erupts (between films 1 and 2).
Mad Max 2 - society has collapsed several years prior and the world is truly a post apocalypse.
Yeah, but the first movie really feel more like bikersploitation meets vigilante movie than anything else.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
So you deny that Feminism has a very vocal, far left fringe?
Of course! Just like someone who proclaims to be an egalitarian and argues that all men should have bits of their muscles removed because the sexes are not equal otherwise would be dismissed.
Misandrists calling themselves feminists are, as far as I am concerned, not feminists. I am not going to give them credit by calling them feminists.
For example, just the other day I was at the Gothenburg Pride festival, jam-packed with thousands upon thousands of feminists. I can pretty much guarantee you that you'd find no misandrists among them, just a desire to take women's situation up to the level of men.
Calling a bunch of crazed misandrists 'feminist' is actually hampering the effort of those thousands at the Pride festival, and only serves as a shield to take cheap shots at 'those crazy man eating feminists'. I will neither humour that nor the tirades of the ''''''''''''''''''feminists''''''''''''''''''' by calling them that.
Besides, left or right has almost nothing to do with actual feminism. You can improve women's situation up to equality regardless of left or right.
Desubot wrote:
Ploy or not it sure makes them look bat gak nuts.
It was a minor ploy meme-ified, repeated to oblivion, blown out of proportion and generally taken out of context. Don’t use it as the basis for anything at all.
Desubot wrote:
Ploy or not it sure makes them look bat gak nuts.
It was a minor ploy meme-ified, repeated to oblivion, blown out of proportion and generally taken out of context. Don’t use it as the basis for anything at all.
Well if it was said by them then it will still be used against them. people really should know better.
Desubot wrote:
Ploy or not it sure makes them look bat gak nuts.
It was a minor ploy meme-ified, repeated to oblivion, blown out of proportion and generally taken out of context. Don’t use it as the basis for anything at all.
Well if it was said by them then it will still be used against them. people really should know better.
Politicians are still human, and can't always predict how something will end up.
I am reminded of the social domocrats and the Toblerone scandal...
Spetulhu wrote: Once you get to the level of Swedish crazy Gudrun Schyman, a leftist politician who founded a Feminist Initiative Party I'm not quite interested anymore.
I am preeeetty sure the man-tax was a PR ploy made for awareness, never intended for actual use.
It did get headlines far beyond our former western border, so in that way it was a success. ;-)
And I do know there are issues to take care of still. Female-dominated jobs often have crappy pay and going on leave to have children doesn't exactly help you in getting work experiance for increased pay. Hell, I remember how stupid it looked when both medical doctors (mostly men) and nurses (mostly women) had strikes for better terms. The doctors could just refuse to come to work as long as no one was dying right away, the nurses had to keep people on shift because they're the ones that make sure no one dies while the doctor isn't there. Result? Huge payout for the doctors, change enough for a few more McDonalds meals for the nurses.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: First Mad Max world did not feel post-apocalyptic at all. No spoiler, but there is still a functioning state, with rule of law and all. Max is a cop. Like a real one, with wages and rules to follow and all that. There are supermarket around the road, and you can still buy ice-cream at gas stations.
The social collapse in the first Mad Max is only really there to justify the armed bike gangs. Really, the film is more like a Dirty Harry or Death Wish film than anything really post-apocalyptic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: Misandrists calling themselves feminists are, as far as I am concerned, not feminists. I am not going to give them credit by calling them feminists.
For example, just the other day I was at the Gothenburg Pride festival, jam-packed with thousands upon thousands of feminists. I can pretty much guarantee you that you'd find no misandrists among them, just a desire to take women's situation up to the level of men.
Calling a bunch of crazed misandrists 'feminist' is actually hampering the effort of those thousands at the Pride festival, and only serves as a shield to take cheap shots at 'those crazy man eating feminists'. I will neither humour that nor the tirades of the ''''''''''''''''''feminists''''''''''''''''''' by calling them that.
That’s pretty much a ‘no true scotsman’ argument, though. If they self-identify as feminist, and draw a lot of their ideas from more sensible parts of feminism, you don’t get to remove them because you don’t want them.
That said, I do think that way too much is made of the fringe of feminism, pretty much so people can avoid dealing with the real issues made by the moderate majority of the movement. But that’s pretty standard for anything that asks hard questions of the majority of society.
Ashiraya wrote: Misandrists calling themselves feminists are, as far as I am concerned, not feminists. I am not going to give them credit by calling them feminists.
For example, just the other day I was at the Gothenburg Pride festival, jam-packed with thousands upon thousands of feminists. I can pretty much guarantee you that you'd find no misandrists among them, just a desire to take women's situation up to the level of men.
Calling a bunch of crazed misandrists 'feminist' is actually hampering the effort of those thousands at the Pride festival, and only serves as a shield to take cheap shots at 'those crazy man eating feminists'. I will neither humour that nor the tirades of the ''''''''''''''''''feminists''''''''''''''''''' by calling them that.
That’s pretty much a ‘no true scotsman’ argument, though. If they self-identify as feminist, and draw a lot of their ideas from more sensible parts of feminism, you don’t get to remove them because you don’t want them.
That said, I do think that way too much is made of the fringe of feminism, pretty much so people can avoid dealing with the real issues made by the moderate majority of the movement. But that’s pretty standard for anything that asks hard questions of the majority of society.
One of the core ideas of feminism is gender equality and someone who is a misandrist isn't for gender equality as they give worse treatment to one gender (males) over the other, therefore I fail to see how a misandrist can be feminist if they aren't even able to practice one of the most basic
and core ideas of feminism. Just identifying a feminist (or really any identity) isn't usually enough one's actions, personality, style of dress, etc should reflect the actual group's beliefs, you actually have to commit or understand what it is. You don't just get pick up an "ism" claim you're one and
then not actually practice said group's beliefs, that's just making stuff up and ideas have to have meaning otherwise it turns into pointless nonsense.
Spetulhu wrote: Female-dominated jobs often have crappy pay and going on leave to have children doesn't exactly help you in getting work experiance for increased pay.
There is also the simple fact that women are supposed to be the one taking leave to care about the child. Sure, they are going to be the one taking the leave when they are pregnant, but there is no reason for them to always be the one taking the leave after the child is delivered. Yet we cannot really force who is going to take the leave, we need to change people's mentality so they do it by themselves.
Spetulhu wrote: Female-dominated jobs often have crappy pay and going on leave to have children doesn't exactly help you in getting work experiance for increased pay.
There is also the simple fact that women are supposed to be the one taking leave to care about the child. Sure, they are going to be the one taking the leave when they are pregnant, but there is no reason for them to always be the one taking the leave after the child is delivered. Yet we cannot really force who is going to take the leave, we need to change people's mentality so they do it by themselves.
I think most Western European Countries have maternity leave for men as well as women.
Spetulhu wrote: Female-dominated jobs often have crappy pay and going on leave to have children doesn't exactly help you in getting work experiance for increased pay.
There is also the simple fact that women are supposed to be the one taking leave to care about the child. Sure, they are going to be the one taking the leave when they are pregnant, but there is no reason for them to always be the one taking the leave after the child is delivered. Yet we cannot really force who is going to take the leave, we need to change people's mentality so they do it by themselves.
I think most Western European Countries have maternity leave for men as well as women.
Spetulhu wrote: Female-dominated jobs often have crappy pay and going on leave to have children doesn't exactly help you in getting work experiance for increased pay.
There is also the simple fact that women are supposed to be the one taking leave to care about the child. Sure, they are going to be the one taking the leave when they are pregnant, but there is no reason for them to always be the one taking the leave after the child is delivered. Yet we cannot really force who is going to take the leave, we need to change people's mentality so they do it by themselves.
I think most Western European Countries have maternity leave for men as well as women.
MB
The US doesn't.
If men are paid more anyway because of the wage gap, shouldn't they stick to working until that problem is fixed?
BeAfraid wrote: I think most Western European Countries have maternity leave for men as well as women.
I checked Wikipedia for the situation in France.
Time of the maternity leave after birth is 10 weeks for the first and second child, 18 weeks for the following children.
Time of the paternity leave is 11. 11 is more than 10, right? Oh wait, it is 11 days. Are you kidding me?
By the figures given, in 2007, 31% of eligible fathers did not use it.
What the freaking hell?
I mean, I get it, giving birth is very, very tiring and everything and the mother needs to recover, but 10 weeks versus not even 2 weeks? I am pretty sure it is more than just about giving the mother time to recover, and really there is a big part of it that is linked to how tending to the child is supposed to be the mothers role, and not the father's.
If men are paid more anyway because of the wage gap
As long as the sun revolves around the earth, that statement is true.
That a wage gap will always favor men, there will always be a wage gap, or...?
That men get paid more (in Western countries). It's an outright false statement.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I am pretty sure it is more than just about giving the mother time to recover, and really there is a big part of it that is linked to how tending to the child is supposed to be the mothers role, and not the father's.
What did Biology say? More important, how can I contact Biology? I have a few question to ask to Biology. A bunch of stuff about nature versus nurture and all that jazz.
What did Biology say? More important, how can I contact Biology? I have a few question to ask to Biology. A bunch of stuff about nature versus nurture and all that jazz.
If I had started breast-feeding our daughter in public, I'd have gotten a few weird looks at the very least.
Biology is the reason for why we have such rulings. Women are supposed to raise children by nature and due to our technological advance, breast-feeding is no longer necessary to raise a healthy child (despite breast-feeding still being more beneficial for children). It's the reason for why women were expected to stay home and feed their children, they're primed for it. Breast-feeding, higher high-tone awareness, higher adrenaline output in child-danger situations etc. There's a lot to find on a biological and neurological level. Now that we can overcome or counter-work nature by science, men could just as well raise children and you could change rulings in accordance. Since most women, however, still prefer to stay home and take care of their children and men not actively asking for prolonged paternity leave, I don't see why.
Sigvatr wrote: Breast-feeding, higher high-tone awareness, higher adrenaline output in child-danger situations etc.
I can see the point for breast-feeding, but hardly for the rest.
And does breast-feeding take that much time?
I have a colleague for was breastfeeding for years without the need for a maternity leave.
Sigvatr wrote: Now that we can overcome or counter-work nature by science, men could just as well raise children and you could change rulings in accordance. Since most women, however, still prefer to stay home and take care of their children and men not actively asking for prolonged paternity leave, I don't see why.
Allowing people to act more in accordance to their own feelings and personality, and less by following ancient societal norms that have no reasons to exist anymore?
What did Biology say? More important, how can I contact Biology? I have a few question to ask to Biology. A bunch of stuff about nature versus nurture and all that jazz.
If I had started breast-feeding our daughter in public, I'd have gotten a few weird looks at the very least.
Biology is the reason for why we have such rulings. Women are supposed to raise children by nature and due to our technological advance, breast-feeding is no longer necessary to raise a healthy child (despite breast-feeding still being more beneficial for children). It's the reason for why women were expected to stay home and feed their children, they're primed for it. Breast-feeding, higher high-tone awareness, higher adrenaline output in child-danger situations etc. There's a lot to find on a biological and neurological level. Now that we can overcome or counter-work nature by science, men could just as well raise children and you could change rulings in accordance. Since most women, however, still prefer to stay home and take care of their children and men not actively asking for prolonged paternity leave, I don't see why.
Weird looks! Gasp! You could have though, you know it is possible right? Men CAN breast feed.
Then it is… completely on topic! Can those huge ladies that we see being milked take maternity leaves to breastfeed their children? Is it breastfeeding if you drink that milk they extract from them?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
So you deny that Feminism has a very vocal, far left fringe?
Of course! Just like someone who proclaims to be an egalitarian and argues that all men should have bits of their muscles removed because the sexes are not equal otherwise would be dismissed.
Misandrists calling themselves feminists are, as far as I am concerned, not feminists. I am not going to give them credit by calling them feminists.
For example, just the other day I was at the Gothenburg Pride festival, jam-packed with thousands upon thousands of feminists. I can pretty much guarantee you that you'd find no misandrists among them, just a desire to take women's situation up to the level of men.
Calling a bunch of crazed misandrists 'feminist' is actually hampering the effort of those thousands at the Pride festival, and only serves as a shield to take cheap shots at 'those crazy man eating feminists'. I will neither humour that nor the tirades of the ''''''''''''''''''feminists''''''''''''''''''' by calling them that.
Besides, left or right has almost nothing to do with actual feminism. You can improve women's situation up to equality regardless of left or right.
Desubot wrote:
Ploy or not it sure makes them look bat gak nuts.
It was a minor ploy meme-ified, repeated to oblivion, blown out of proportion and generally taken out of context. Don’t use it as the basis for anything at all.
If men are paid more anyway because of the wage gap
As long as the sun revolves around the earth, that statement is true.
The sun does revolve around the Earth if you pick the Earth as stationary for your reference frame. It just makes all the maths harder when you try to put in the other planets
Spetulhu wrote: Female-dominated jobs often have crappy pay and going on leave to have children doesn't exactly help you in getting work experiance for increased pay.
There is also the simple fact that women are supposed to be the one taking leave to care about the child. Sure, they are going to be the one taking the leave when they are pregnant, but there is no reason for them to always be the one taking the leave after the child is delivered. Yet we cannot really force who is going to take the leave, we need to change people's mentality so they do it by themselves.
As far as I'm concerned it should be up to a husband and wife (or husband and husband, or wife and wife or whatever) who takes the leave. Not the government. Paternity/Maternity leave ought to be gender blind.
What did Biology say? More important, how can I contact Biology? I have a few question to ask to Biology. A bunch of stuff about nature versus nurture and all that jazz.
If I had started breast-feeding our daughter in public, I'd have gotten a few weird looks at the very least.
Biology is the reason for why we have such rulings. Women are supposed to raise children by nature and due to our technological advance, breast-feeding is no longer necessary to raise a healthy child (despite breast-feeding still being more beneficial for children). It's the reason for why women were expected to stay home and feed their children, they're primed for it. Breast-feeding, higher high-tone awareness, higher adrenaline output in child-danger situations etc. There's a lot to find on a biological and neurological level. Now that we can overcome or counter-work nature by science, men could just as well raise children and you could change rulings in accordance. Since most women, however, still prefer to stay home and take care of their children and men not actively asking for prolonged paternity leave, I don't see why.
Weird looks! Gasp! You could have though, you know it is possible right? Men CAN breast feed.
Spetulhu wrote: Female-dominated jobs often have crappy pay and going on leave to have children doesn't exactly help you in getting work experiance for increased pay.
There is also the simple fact that women are supposed to be the one taking leave to care about the child. Sure, they are going to be the one taking the leave when they are pregnant, but there is no reason for them to always be the one taking the leave after the child is delivered. Yet we cannot really force who is going to take the leave, we need to change people's mentality so they do it by themselves.
As far as I'm concerned it should be up to a husband and wife (or husband and husband, or wife and wife or whatever) who takes the leave. Not the government. Paternity/Maternity leave ought to be gender blind.
This. Also, very good to bring up gay marriage as the availability (or lack of) paternity leave will impact on gay couples hugely. If they adopt a baby or have one from a surrogate, without paternity leave they basically have no choice but to either have one of them quit their job or leave the baby in childcare whilst they go to work. That isn't fair.
So if I argue that all men should have their muscles carved to make them physically exactly as weak as women, because otherwise we won't be equal, and I call myself an egalist, you'd defend that in the same way?
No true egalist mate.
Seriously, pushing for equality is a core tenet of feminism. If you (general you, not specifically you) want all men to be burned at the stake, I won't call you a feminist, even if you tell me you really really are.
That men get paid more (in Western countries). It's an outright false statement.
Nice timing. My radio literally just talked about how everything points at female doctors and nurses getting paid less for the same work here.
Looks like P1 doesn't agree with you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: As far as I'm concerned it should be up to a husband and wife (or husband and husband, or wife and wife or whatever) who takes the leave. Not the government. Paternity/Maternity leave ought to be gender blind.
I can see the point for breast-feeding, but hardly for the rest. And does breast-feeding take that much time?
It's not about time, it's more about reasoning for why women are allowed a longer leave than men, i.e. being primed to raise children. I'm not making a point myself, I'm merely coming up with reasons for why there's such a difference.
Allowing people to act more in accordance to their own feelings and personality, and less by following ancient societal norms that have no reasons to exist anymore?
There are reasons for why it's still there, as of above. Women are primed for it on a biological and neurological level. Social circumstances also play into it, no doubt.
I have no idea what P1 is (actually...P1 is a popular club in Germany). If you want to discuss Gender Pay Gap, stay away from everything mass media, search for discussions about Adjusted Gender Pay Gap. There /is/ a gap but it's far, far, far lower than what media tries to sell you. It usually is about 1-4%, depending on the sector. Typical reasons for Health Care and the usual reasons - competitiveness. Men are, in general, mind you, simply more competitive in working areas. Women tend to care more for their employees / departments and tend to be more honest whereas men take more risks, overexaggerate and are more prone to backstabbing others. It's the same reason in every sector. Most of the studies, especially in the Health sector, are utter trash. Very popular studies for example take one kind of doctor and compare their wages without taking specialities into account, i.e. different specializations (differently paid as well!) in the same area. The result? The study is worth less than used toilet paper.
So if I argue that all men should have their muscles carved to make them physically exactly as weak as women, because otherwise we won't be equal, and I call myself an egalist, you'd defend that in the same way?
No true egalist mate.
Seriously, pushing for equality is a core tenet of feminism. If you (general you, not specifically you) want all men to be burned at the stake, I won't call you a feminist, even if you tell me you really really are.
Sigvatr wrote: There are reasons for why it's still there, as of above. Women are primed for it on a biological and neurological level. Social circumstances also play into it, no doubt.
I guess we disagree about which proportion is biological/neurological and which part is social circumstances.
No time off for YOU! Why should everyone else have to subsidize you breeders. You need to check your micro aggressions on the singles you married privilegeds!
Also, feminists who are for female dominance are like Jews for Jesus. They can call themselves whatever they want, but it doesn't make it accurate.
Doesn't it get a little tricky if the person making the claim actually believes they are that thing? I.e. a misandrist-minded "feminist" or a devout ISIS aligned "Muslim" or an abortion clinic-bombing "Christian" likely all believe they are fighting the good fight for their cause even if their actions and beliefs fly in the face of the tenets of those causes.
So who gets to decide the true members? That is a rhetorical question, mind.
Also, feminists who are for female dominance are like Jews for Jesus. They can call themselves whatever they want, but it doesn't make it accurate.
Doesn't it get a little tricky if the person making the claim actually believes they are that thing? I.e. a misandrist-minded "feminist" or a devout ISIS aligned "Muslim" or an abortion clinic-bombing "Christian" likely all believe they are fighting the good fight for their cause even if their actions and beliefs fly in the face of the tenets of those causes.
So who gets to decide the true members? That is a rhetorical question, mind.
Well, whenever a group is defined by its enemies, the definition will always be as inclusive as possible. At some point we have to be able to separate out people who want to claim membership with a group despite failure to meet the qualifications. There are no easy answers about where to draw the line.
However, if a majority of Christians want to disown abortion clinic bombers and a majority of Muslims want to disown ISIS and a majority of Jews want to disown Barbra Streisand, I'll follow their lead. Same thing with feminists and female supremacists.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: At some point we have to be able to separate out people who want to claim membership with a group despite failure to meet the qualifications. There are no easy answers about where to draw the line.
I think that vetting qualifications becomes even more difficult with amorphous groups like feminists. Without leadership, or an official message, fringe elements can more easily cloud the public perception of what that group stands for. It is definitely a problem with feminism (and I'd argue vegetarianism and atheism, but that is for another thread). I consider myself a feminist, but I cringe daily reading the crap done in the name of popular feminism (which I mean the drivel posted on Huffington Post and the like) because it does seem to be missing the message and straying from the core ideals of feminism.
While I have no love for MRA (seriously they really do suck) but I think comics like these are fairly problematic.
And not just because they tend to be terribly drawn and awfully written (this one included).
These comics, which are not confined to any one ideology or viewpoint, depict one side of the debate as being irrational pond scum capable of only the most basic negative emotions and the other (the author's side) as being complex saints who are misunderstood by these villains, to the point where all attempts at rational debate are useless for they will never see the "true path."
DarkTraveler777 wrote: It is definitely a problem with feminism (and I'd argue vegetarianism and atheism, but that is for another thread).
I do not know, I feel pretty nice belonging to all those groups .
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Really? You're still persisting with this? The whole "MRA's boycott Mad Max" was a complete non event.
I am not “persisting with this” (it is iirc the first thing I post that is related to this in this thread), I just found the comic funny. And stupid. Stupid funny.
I really fail to see how Mad Max was "Feminist Propaganda."
Having a fleshed out female character in an action film does not make said film the unholy spawn of a demonic ritual performed by a cabal of TERFs (Trans exclusionary Radical Feminists).
EDIT: don't interpret this as anti-Feminist (I'm not.) I am anti-TERF though.
Bronzefists42 wrote: I really fail to see how Mad Max was "Feminist Propaganda."
Having a fleshed out female character in an action film does not make said film the unholy spawn of a demonic ritual performed by a cabal of TERFs (Trans exclusionary Radical Feminists).
Bronzefists42 wrote: I really fail to see how Mad Max was "Feminist Propaganda."
Having a fleshed out female character in an action film does not make said film the unholy spawn of a demonic ritual performed by a cabal of TERFs (Trans exclusionary Radical Feminists).
Its because its not
people are just seeing feminist in there soup.
By people you mean one website trolling for clicks, blown up out of all proportion and made into a "Men's Rights Activism" bogeyman to rival the "Feminazi" bogeyman?
So if I argue that all men should have their muscles carved to make them physically exactly as weak as women, because otherwise we won't be equal, and I call myself an egalist, you'd defend that in the same way?
No true egalist mate.
Seriously, pushing for equality is a core tenet of feminism. If you (general you, not specifically you) want all men to be burned at the stake, I won't call you a feminist, even if you tell me you really really are.
Reductio ad absurdum...
And wtf is an egalist?
An Eaglist is a red, white, and blue blooded american who thinks that even the Tea Party are lily livered Communists!
Spoiler:
Although in all fairness, I'm also not sure what this has to do with Fury Road.
So if I argue that all men should have their muscles carved to make them physically exactly as weak as women, because otherwise we won't be equal, and I call myself an egalist, you'd defend that in the same way?
No true egalist mate.
Seriously, pushing for equality is a core tenet of feminism. If you (general you, not specifically you) want all men to be burned at the stake, I won't call you a feminist, even if you tell me you really really are.
Reductio ad absurdum...
And wtf is an egalist?
An Eaglist is a red, white, and blue blooded american who thinks that even the Tea Party are lily livered Communists!
Spoiler:
That actually was my first thought and reaction. Something to do with eagles.
Although in all fairness, I'm also not sure what this has to do with Fury Road.[]
One clickbaity website trolled for clicks with an article telling people not to watch Mad Max "because its Feminazi propaganda", and Tumblr exploded in outrage. People need a bogeyman to confirm their preconceptions and biases, whether its Feminazi's or Mens' Rights Activists.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: As far as I'm concerned it should be up to a husband and wife (or husband and husband, or wife and wife or whatever) who takes the leave. Not the government. Paternity/Maternity leave ought to be gender blind.
That's exactly what's about to happen in the UK later on this year I believe.
Whereas before you had anything from 6 months to a year for women, normally just a few weeks for a man, it's now going to be mixed so the couple divide it as they wish.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: The public perception of all three is pretty negative, generally speaking. At least in the US.
The public perception of atheists in France is… well, atheism is kind of the norm, I guess, so there is no real specific perception of it.
I do not really care about the perception of vegetarians in general, because I only care about how I am perceived, not other vegetarians . Though I did add to my OkProfile that I was not the judgmental kind of vegetarian.
And feminism… I do not really know.
welshhoppo wrote: If Mad Max is feminist propaganda, them what is Alien?
If Mad Max is feminist propaganda, then what is A gun for Jennifer ?
Cheesecat wrote: One of the core ideas of feminism is gender equality and someone who is a misandrist isn't for gender equality as they give worse treatment to one gender (males) over the other, therefore I fail to see how a misandrist can be feminist if they aren't even able to practice one of the most basic
and core ideas of feminism. Just identifying a feminist (or really any identity) isn't usually enough one's actions, personality, style of dress, etc should reflect the actual group's beliefs, you actually have to commit or understand what it is. You don't just get pick up an "ism" claim you're one and
then not actually practice said group's beliefs, that's just making stuff up and ideas have to have meaning otherwise it turns into pointless nonsense.
Read my answer more closely, self-identification isn’t enough by itself, the people in question also have to draw their ideas from the greater feminist movement. The misandrists aren’t off on their own entirely, making up their own ideas out of fresh cloth – they are drawing on feminist works and literature in forming their own views. You can’t just cut them off entirely.
You certainly can address their bad arguments, and put them in context (they are a tiny minority of feminism blown out of proportion by the media), but you don’t just get to pretend they’re nothing to do with feminism.
Sigvatr wrote: Biology is the reason for why we have such rulings. Women are supposed to raise children by nature and due to our technological advance, breast-feeding is no longer necessary to raise a healthy child (despite breast-feeding still being more beneficial for children). It's the reason for why women were expected to stay home and feed their children, they're primed for it. Breast-feeding, higher high-tone awareness, higher adrenaline output in child-danger situations etc. There's a lot to find on a biological and neurological level.
This has pretty much the same biological truthiness as people in 1900 claiming that women shouldn’t have the vote because their brains are geared for emotional family matters, and can’t logically decide important things like national politics.
Basically, yes there are differences between men and women, but mostly on a broad, general level. Trying to apply those differences as absolute differences is junk science. Especially when men are choosing to stay home while their wives work.
Yes. It can take hours out of the day, and more when its a newborn and rubbish at breastfeeding.
That said, there's plenty of ways around it. You can pump and store milk – lots of women will stockpile a lot at night in front of the tv, to be used during the day in bottles. No reason that it couldn’t be the man giving those bottles to the kid during the day while the wife works.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: Considering how the thread is about MAD MAX FURY ROAD...
The film had breastfeeding. This is totally on topic
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Well, whenever a group is defined by its enemies, the definition will always be as inclusive as possible. At some point we have to be able to separate out people who want to claim membership with a group despite failure to meet the qualifications. There are no easy answers about where to draw the line.
The answer is to not draw a line. You can see it more as a continuum, with groups that are more mainstream and groups that are more fringe, but never worrying about the point where you say ‘and this is the point where they aren’t part of the group anymore’. Because that, as you say, just leads just leads to picking and choosing who counts as part of the movement, based pretty much on politics (enemies insist that bad groups are part of it, the group itself says they’re not).
Ultimately, though, the only way to understand anything as broad and vast as feminism, let alone something like Christianity or Islam, is to accept the diversity in the movement, the good and the bad. This doesn’t mean the majority is any way responsible for the crazies on the fringes, but it does mean the majority can’t just say ‘they’re not part of us’ and pretend that’s the end of the conversation.
Just saw it. Pretty great movie, although I didn't think they did Max's character justice. However, it gave me a huge urge to buy some cars and Orkify them. Minus the humans, everythijg was Orky. WAAAAAAAGH!!!!
At first the thing I was most disappointed with was Tom Hardy's performance, namely that his accent yo-yos throughout the film.
But, after viewing it a couple of times I've actually changed my opinion and think it's something of a masterclass (!)
You have to think that Max is living in a post-apoc world, his family taken from him violently, his world reduced to 'fire and blood' (and eating lizards). Actually, the Jonny Depp-PoTC-style of blinking at the sunlight and 'a few screws loose' is precisely what he would be like.
Hopefully going for a third, final viewing before the film leaves the pictures!
Plus points: nods to previous films (having Hugh Keays-Byrne back as the badguy - Toecutter in MM, Immorten Joe in FR).
Couldn't understand a word that Tom Hardy (Max) said (out of the handful he did say). So about the same for his performance as Bane. I know they looped HK-B's dialogue (ADR) and indeed, it's not unusual to do so when loud ambient noise interferes (like honking big engine noise - or rain).
For all the ludicrous car porn, there was something missing. Story.
MM had it. Road Warrior had it. It got lost 'twixt there and the fury road.
Go see "Kingsmen" instead. Much better action movie.
Plus points: nods to previous films (having Hugh Keays-Byrne back as the badguy - Toecutter in MM, Immorten Joe in FR).
Couldn't understand a word that Tom Hardy (Max) said (out of the handful he did say). So about the same for his performance as Bane. I know they looped HK-B's dialogue (ADR) and indeed, it's not unusual to do so when loud ambient noise interferes (like honking big engine noise - or rain).
For all the ludicrous car porn, there was something missing. Story.
MM had it. Road Warrior had it. It got lost 'twixt there and the fury road.
Go see "Kingsmen" instead. Much better action movie.
What story were you looking for? The women freed themselves, fought off their captors, and took the fortress as their home. It was told in a very straightforward and simple way. Was there not enough dialogue?
The movie is great at show, don't tell, something Hollywood in general could learn a whole lot more about. You don't need to be told about this crazy cult they're a part of, they show it, quite effectively, in a few scenes.
It also moves along at a steady pace with plenty of pauses in between without losing overall momentum.
As for Max himself, he's a broken man, a shell of his former self. When he finally tells Furiosa his name, the way he says it, it almost sounds like he needed to remind himself of this more.
How about the one that made the 20+ years of waiting to be worth it.
Not that I had baited breath or anything ... I gave up on wanting the 3rd mad max movie years ago (Thunderdome is nought but a weird group hallucination. It never happened).
BrookM wrote: This story isn't about Max though, this is the first one he himself narrates.
Took me a while to notice that he wasn't the center of this film. I went back and watched the original trilogy again and realized he wasn't narrating in those (how could I have forgotten?). Then I came back and watched it again.
How about the one that made the 20+ years of waiting to be worth it.
Not that I had baited breath or anything ... I gave up on wanting the 3rd mad max movie years ago (Thunderdome is nought but a weird group hallucination. It never happened).
Fury Road was The Road Warrior 2.0. You can't really get much more Mad Max than that.
Overall, I don't think Fury Road is a lot different than 2 and 3 with regard to Max. In both of those films, he was very much a reluctant hero dragged along by events before finally deciding to lend his help. Max tends to haunt his films (at least since the original) rather than star as the main attraction.
Loved the movie an not it is not a pro feminist movie it exactly the opposite.
Spoilers
Spoiler:
The pregnant girls steals Max's lime light and gets punished for it.
Mad max steps in because the weak women cannot escape on their own.
Then Mad max shows them the way to proceed, because the women cannot think outside the box.
Male must sacrifice himself so females can escape.
Furiosa must be saved by max because she couldn't fence off an mediocre attack by a man.
As females are set on the right path Mad max work is done, and goes on his merry way to save more weak women
Jehan-reznor wrote: Loved the movie an not it is not a pro feminist movie it exactly the opposite.
Spoilers
Spoiler:
The pregnant girls steals Max's lime light and gets punished for it.
Mad max steps in because the weak women cannot escape on their own.
Then Mad max shows them the way to proceed, because the women cannot think outside the box.
Male must sacrifice himself so females can escape.
Furiosa must be saved by max because she couldn't fence off an mediocre attack by a man.
As females are set on the right path Mad max work is done, and goes on his merry way to save more weak women
I get the feeling you may be trying to stir up trouble.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Loved the movie an not it is not a pro feminist movie it exactly the opposite.
Spoilers
Spoiler:
The pregnant girls steals Max's lime light and gets punished for it.
Mad max steps in because the weak women cannot escape on their own.
Then Mad max shows them the way to proceed, because the women cannot think outside the box.
Male must sacrifice himself so females can escape.
Furiosa must be saved by max because she couldn't fence off an mediocre attack by a man.
As females are set on the right path Mad max work is done, and goes on his merry way to save more weak women
I get the feeling you may be trying to stir up trouble.
No it really depends on which colored glasses you look at the movie, or it is like reading a horoscope and only take the positive things that apply to you.
Jehan-reznor wrote: Loved the movie an not it is not a pro feminist movie it exactly the opposite.
Spoilers
Spoiler:
The pregnant girls steals Max's lime light and gets punished for it.
Mad max steps in because the weak women cannot escape on their own.
Then Mad max shows them the way to proceed, because the women cannot think outside the box.
Male must sacrifice himself so females can escape.
Furiosa must be saved by max because she couldn't fence off an mediocre attack by a man.
As females are set on the right path Mad max work is done, and goes on his merry way to save more weak women
Ignoring the sillier ones in your list (like lime light stealing whatever the hell that meant), you actually give a good summary of how Fury Road could have been just another action movie full of chauvinist fantasy. But as I already said, it actually works as a feminist film because it strips out so many of the cliches that would disempower the women - you don't get the woman falling for the man when she realises how virile he is, nor does the woman turn hopeless in the last act so Max can save her.
Someone in the "limelight" is someone who has all the attention focused upon them. The specific scene being referred to is when Splendid was hanging on to the side of the War Rig, and ultimately fell under the wheels.
Sorry if i'm waxing ecstatic. I deal with fossil fuels a lot for work so i'm something of a fuel nerd. 
.
