"The best car safety device is a rear-view mirror with a cop in it." - Dudley Moore
***
On Bechdel Movie Measure (a claim that women not getting equal screentime with men is a pressing example of sexism):
Me: I guess, if anything else, this shows that feminism has succeeded, since they're down to complaining about this sort of things and applying literature skills to see repression everywhere.
Help! Help! I'm being repressed!
It's no wonder Sylvia Lim buys into the "myth" of feminists burning bras.
"There's a lot of money in hating men, particularly in the United states--millions of dollars... The activists aren't there to help women come to terms with what's happening in their lives. They're there to fund their budgets, their conferences, their traveling abroad, and their statements against men" - Erin Pizzey, founder of the movement against domestic violence
A: Heh. I don't know whether to be amused or annoyed at your ad hominem attacks on... feminism in general. I would agree that not getting enough screen time as men, while not overtly fitting our views of what "repression" or "oppression" (perhaps a better word when talking about sexism or racism) should be, is a form of oppression, and not a trivial one at that. So much of our views are unconsciously shaped by the media that I think it's important to be aware of that phenomenon. So this Bechdel Movie Measure is an interesting thought exercise, nothing more - but I guess it does illustrate an important point that women are no more than accessories in many movies. Conversely, when the positions are flipped and men are nothing more than accessories in a film - cue Sex and the City - the mostly male critics come out in force to denounce the women as fluff and puff and relate them to the (pathetic) State of the American Woman. I've never read such vitriol directed at a movie. And you know what? The reviews wouldn't have been the same if the movie wasn't about women. No male critic has denounced the uber-macho-ness of Rambo or compared him to a "Taliban recruitment video", as one male critic did for SATC.
Me: I assume you're referring to the quote from Erin Pizzey. As the founder of the movement against domestic violence, I'd assume that her credentials are, even if not impeccable, at least there. For one, she was commenting on activists about domestic violence, not feminists (though apparently she does call the women's movement "that whole coven of witches"). And the reason why she said that was because she did research into violence against men is that her book was greeted with a lot of hostility, the publisher and she got death threats (and she got bomb scares at her house) and her London hotel got picketed by 300 screaming protestors - all because she dared to prick feminist orthodoxy.
Given that feminism is fundamentally contradictory, often blinkered, is an excuse for much man-bashing and many self-described feminists indulge in statistical skulduggery and sometimes outright lies, it is not clear that the attacks are unwarranted.
Pretentions to being against 'patriarchy' and not men are like Christian claims to "love the sinner, hate the sin" - the line is fuzzy, people get bashed anyway and the enemy might not even exist.
What is 'oppression'?
"arbitrary and cruel exercise of power"
"The state of being oppressed" where "oppressed" means "to keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority"
"A feeling of being heavily weighed down in mind or body."
Perhaps the last would qualify, but then we could just as well say that Scientologists are being oppressed by Xenu.
If you want to say that our views are shaped by the media, fine. But calling it 'oppression' is an insult to the truly oppressed, just as calling abortion a "Holocaust" mocks the Jews, Gypsies and others who died in that tragedy.
I grant that our views are shaped by the media. But this has been exaggerated for political reasons. There was a documentary on violence in Power Rangers where the kids were shown imitating the moves from the show, but the reporter interviewed the kids and they clearly understood that what they saw on the show was fictional.
Your claim puts you in the same boat as the Great Leader, who refused to allow the Grand Prix into Singapore because he thought it would encourage speeding.
Furthermore, to cite media representation as some example of injustice would mean that advertising and even the world around us (notice how phallic a cactus looks?) are conspiring to screw with our minds and thereby 'oppressive'.
Feminists like to claim that they are gender-blind: it doesn't matter if you are male or female - you're just a person.
Yet, when it comes to the issue of representation, they suddenly turn around and say that it *does* matter. If men outnumber women, this is clear evidence of oppression/discrimination.
Leaving aside areas where women outnumber men (eg rate of survival in war, longer life expectancy, comfortable office jobs vs sweating in the hot sun) and underlying distributional issues which lead to different distributions (eg women are not as interested in science and maths, and so don't do engineering), this is a bizarre volte face.
It seems men and women are both people - unless men are, or seem to be, privileged.
SATC. This is a very interesting example.
Why are the women denounced as fluff and puff? Because they are fluff and puff.
Some enlightening comments on it: (quotes from previous post)
If we had SATC with the genders reversed, I would venture that the critics would still be livid. It's not about men being nothing more than accessories in the film, it's about the main characters of the film being shallow. And panning of shallow characters and unrealism is something you see in reviews of normal films, not just feminst (?) ones like SATC.
Does it help that even "Sarah Jessica Parker decribed her "Sex and the City" character Carrie Bradshaw as a narcissist"?
Some words from male critics about Rambo IV:
*many extracts denouncing the uber-macho-ness of Rambo*
A: http://www.thestar.com/entertainment/article/438271
"Why isn’t anybody calling out movie producers for their assumption that all it takes to get male movie-goers to the box office is car chases, explosions and breasts? If thousands of men flock to see the latest action flick, why isn’t that film’s very success suddenly a mark against it and proof that all men are shallow and vapid?
The Star article sums it up nicely:
“I can actually think of a rough male equivalent for SATC. It’s a film franchise about a man with a huge ego and unfettered sense of entitlement, who cavorts with people who have spectacular budgets for clothes, cars and travel. Our hero consumes vast quantities of liquor and caviar and thinks nothing of trashing his high-priced toys.
His name is James Bond. His 22nd movie, Quantum of Solace, is currently being filmed. And when it is released this fall, you won’t find anybody seriously suggesting that the enjoyment of it is a chance to get men out of the house, a degrading of the national IQ or a recruitment opportunity for the Taliban.”
Sure, lots of critics deride the senseless violence in Rambo - but nobody has even compared it to the American male or caricatured the male movie goers to Rambo. Whereas any female who goes to watch SATC is stupid and vapid and only cares about shoes? For the record I thought SATC was decent - not a great movie by any means, and a lot longer than it should have been - but an entertaining piece of fluff.
Me: James Bond has been endlessly critiqued. In fact, the films from the 90s onwards contain some measure of self-reflexive criticism. [A female] M unbraids James as a "sexist, misogynist dinosaur - a relic of the Cold War", and tells him that "Remember shadows stay in front or behind. Never on top". I don't think SATC contains any "oh we're brainless women who buy shoes" moments?
In any case, Bond is useful, unlike the women in SATC. He saves the world. The women in SATC buy shoes and emo.
There is plenty of critique of [male] film in feminist texts (I'll be interested to read what feminist film critics say about SATC actually), but I'm guessing you're looking for something more mainstream than that. I know I've read critiques of action films before, of them having unrealistic plots, characters you don't care about etc, but the marginal disutility of plowing through even MORE film reviews is distinctly unappealing. One thing I *did* gleam from all those Rambo film reviews was that when you go to watch Rambo (and presumably similar films, though some have more artistic merit) you know what you're going for and revel in the simple world of action and gore. Besides, we already know that men suck ;)
Incidentally, that terrorist person got slammed by everyone left right and centre, while those feminists who write nonsense (eg the toilet thing) aren't (at least not by everyone).
On media influence, I like this:
"He admits that some hip-hop lyrics display an ungentlemanly attitude towards women, but he doubts that listening to violent lyrics causes people to behave more violently. If it did, there would be more opera fans stabbing their ex-lovers outside bullfights."
B:
Is it any help at all to speak of feminists in general?
There are many 'types' of feminists. Are those who call themselves feminists mostly Feminists? Or are the latter in the minority?
Every time I watch or view an advertisement on Skin-whitening lotions it affirms my belief that there is still much for feminists to do in Singapore. Every time a female colleague reveals the usual anxieties about being single, about 'being left on the shelf', as if there is nothing to life other than getting married and having children, increases my sympathy for the apparently 'extreme' positions and stances of feminists, maybe sometimes even Feminists.
And every time a traditional female stereotype is reinforced, paraded, upheld, affirmed, the corresponding male stereotypes are also affirmed. The dominant ideology of gender types defines men and women, female and male, as 'opposites'. By not undermining, or rather, revealing these stifling stereotypes for what they are (socially constructed and not given, as unchangeable), men/males are also 'forced' (perhaps indoctrinated is better) into narrow gender roles and types.
Me: "All generalizations are wrong". Is it any help at all to speak of neoconservatives in general? Christians in general? Americans in general? Singaporeans in general?
What is your distinction between feminists and Feminists?
I am all for promoting personal autonomy, but then this brings into question another set of issues.
Feminism claims to trumpet personal autonomy, yet with the claim about social 'oppression', another paradox is revealed. If we are so influenced by social forces, what decisions are truly ours? If a woman growing up in a conservative African tribe wants to circumcise herself, can we say that she is truly free? If a woman who has grown up in Ireland, where abortion is illegal, gets raped and wants to keep the child, is she truly making the decision on her own choice?
Conversely, is a woman growing up in a feminist environment truly free? Is she a feminist because she believes in feminism, or is she a feminist because she has been socialised into becoming one?
When questioning personal autonomy, the buck has to stop somewhere, for logistical reasons, if nothing else.
B: To me feminists with the capital 'F' are those who identify themselves firstly as feminists, followed by human, woman/man, etc. They are militant and aggressive with respect to feminist agendas. Feminists with the lower case 'f' identify themselves as feminists only when necessary, and usually only when the opportunity arises for them to advocate feminist agendas constructively, etc. They don't think of themselves as feminists first, but rather as human beings, citizens, parents, sisters, etc. They recognize the value of feminist causes, but they acknowledge that there are/could also be more 'universal', important, values to uphold.
Personal autonomy and social 'oppression' are not mutually exclusive. One can be autonomous in one's intentions, actions, and inner thoughts and yet be socially 'oppressed' by the gender preconceptions of other people.
We can be socially 'oppressed' and influenced directly, as for say, younger people. I don't refer to the simplistic and reductionistic just-watch-TV-and-become-corrupted simplistic model of influence (in the moralistic vein of violence on TV), but rather in the subtle psycho-social effects of constantly seeing only particular representations of gender roles and types in the media.
We can also be indirectly 'oppressed', socially. For instance you are perfectly free to grow your hair to any length, or in any style, but the relationships which you can have, the social opportunities made available to you caused by the rigid gender presuppositions of other people may be fewer, perhaps especially in Singapore/Malaysia/Southeast Asia. People cast judgements on you, avoid associating (or avoid taking the initiative to associate) with you, or give you fewer/different treatment because you don't conform to their stereotypes, and make them feel uncomfortable, subversive.
Me: As I said, how do you disentangle the effects of 'oppression' from what the person would have done if not 'oppressed'? The disencumbered self is incoherent, since our very being is shaped by our experiences and socialization. Also, one could view feminism as an 'oppression' of its own, since it influences people's thoughts and societal expectations.
I do not believe in Libertarian Free Will, but on an operational level we must concede that Free Will exists, or the Universal Acid burns all the way through, and does not stop where we want it to.