Tuesday, August 09, 2005

I had a little nightmare last night and I woke up wondering if it was true. I'm certainly glad it wasn't but kinda wished I could get back to it as soon as I fell back asleep. It was about aliens.

I started playing this game with this girl and her family. It was a Chinese Battle Ship type game but every time you took a wrong space, it would cost you money. At the end of the game, I was down $12,000 which didn't seem possible but whatever. So they were getting all upset with me because I was like "great I have to take out a loan to pay you guys and I'm pretty maxed out right now." The girl was like "I told you that it would cost you money if you did it, it's your fault dude." Then I was all depressed. All of a sudden I'm in a basement and people are screaming. I get the feeling that there was an earthquake but I see these four human figures standing around the room with these shiny yellow eyes. One of the figures touches the floor and the floor begins to freeze. Then another turns into a water and rushes across the room like a tidal wave. People continue to scream. I swing at a small window and my hand breaks through. I yank on the window frame and peel it back like it was made of putty. People see the gaping hole in the blocks so they squeeze out like rats running from water. The aliens just watch. I finally get out and it's like Armageddon. Like the scene in T2 where you see the robots with red eyes. Then I woke up.

Speaking of T2, I had to critique the hell out of all of the Terminator movies in my women's studies class but they're still on my list of movies to buy. Yea, Sarah is never a heroine cause she's a mom and she's emotional so she's always overshadowed by Arnold(T2 & T3) or Kyle(T1)..... yea, Arnold (Alpha Male sans emotion) is always the saving grace........yea, the T-1000 can be believed to represent a woman's cycle - a thousand year old tradition that describes the menstrual cycle of women to be unclean, evil, and the source of fear and loathing (another example: the blood rushing down the hallway in The Shining)....... yea I know the only pictures of Sarah Connor being tough are the ones where she's draped in ammo and guns or saying things like "suck my dick" like Gina Davis in Last Kiss Goodnight so that she metaphorically 'becomes male' before developing into a 'hero' or having 'hero' qualities.....yea and I know that the camera slowly pans up and down Sarah's body reassuring the audience that, yes Sarah works out, gets sweaty, but she still is in fact a woman......etc. etc. etc. Buttttttt I still enjoy watching the movies.

Speaking of movies, the one movie that my women's studies class wouldn't have had a problem with would've been the movie Monster. Much like my husband, I think most people thought it was horrible but I think it won a lot of awards. The popularity (or rather lack thereof) of the film speaks volumes of the way society thinks of both lesbianism and prostitution. The idea that one could sympathize with Aileen when she kills the first man purely out of self defense and then develop a distaste for a woman who begins to kill and rob all men who solicit prostitutes because she realizes she'll never see justice for what she's been through or ever get a legitimate job, is just damn good writing. The only time any movie has had a premise on A) prostitution, is Pretty Woman (prostitute? Julia Roberts? Right....), B) rebelious women killers, Thelma and Louise (Gina Davis and Susan Sarandon....both kinda sexy lookin women but likable....killed men out of defense not on a whim), and C) when has there been a movie based on a real lesbian woman that wasn't a porn?? It was one of the greatest anti-hegemonic movies I've seen so far. One that was actually like reality and not some sugar coated bullshit attempting to create a half-assed premise about something taboo in society.

I gotta stop otherwise I'm not gonna get any work done.

34 comments:

Joseph said...

So in womens studies classes, a movie where a woman takes the bad ass hero role and saves her son with the help of a robot is bad because the robot is a man, but a movie based on a real life serial killer woman who killed many men is good because she killed men...

I think I understand.

Joseph said...

And how does the T-1000 represent a womans cycle?

If we were to make any unbelieveable stretch of unintended symbolism, I would think that the T-1000 represented men with all it's phallic blades and stabbing weapons with which it thoughtlessly and unemotionally killed and destroyed. You should've said that. That would've got you an A. :)

Jack said...

"And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her." Ecclesiastes 7:26

Turn the sound down on the TV screen while watching the movie. What do we see? We see a physical 'good vs. evil' dynamic between the Terminator and the T-1000. The Terminator is a man tank in terms of his size and muscles. The T-1000 appears to be a little bit smaller but the machine is not human; has no identity. T-1000's identity is fluid, liquid metal machine designed to kill.

Arnold. His body is a prop of masculinity. Arnold and the Terminator are two different entities. Arnold is an image in the film; a poster boy for a man's man. His body is at the most physical boundary of male superiority - and Terminator's lack of emotion and 'serve to protect' ideal is nearing the extreme edge of the boundaries of male identity. He embodies the highest ideal of masculinity.

What is the opposite of male identity and masculinity? ...the true evil, the source of all that undermines the macho machismo? Fluidity. The lack of identity. The premise of the character being that it doesn't embody the same male characteristics as the Terminator. It looks like a man but it's not.

Now what does fluidity mean to masculinity? Uh oh, homophobia! "A male is not a male if he is not heterosexual" - is that not the fear of true masculinity? The fear of being identified as homosexual? Maybe not for you but it's in the film!

Well, we can't stop there. I don't know how many films you've seen with a homosexual bad guy but I haven't heard of any. Homosexuality and super male driven action films don't generally mix to say the least. However, male vs. female is. This distinction must be made because homosexuality may not. Make the character with not only the fluid identity but with an actual liquid body.

What is the most significant difference between man and woman? Pregnacy - periods - menstrual cycle. If you see an alien pregnant, it must be a female. If you see an animal pregnant, it must be a female. Identity by association. We've got several thousand books on the female identity in film and the frequency of females representing evil. It fits in this film. Beefy maleness vs. feminized evil (homophobia).

oh yea, and Sarah is strong but only because she's a mother. How many films do you know with a woman violently fighting without doing it soley to protect a family member?

Jack said...

The ultimate connection.

Making the T-1000 beyond violent distinguishes any homosexual gaze this character might have being the bad guy in a film. However by making it molten metal and evil draws on decades of studies of females as characters of evil. The notion that the T-1000 could represent the cycle of a woman is not new. In fact, it's almost standard.

Let me know if I've done alright in explaining.

Joseph said...

Interesting, however, I completely disagree.

I think that if you're going to draw any symbolism between the T-800 and the T-1000, I do not believe them to be Male Vs. Female, I believe them to be Father Vs. Son. The alpha male leader of the lions pride, being challenged by the younger, faster lion.

Think of the changing fluidity of the T-1000 as any teenager in its pubescent years. The size difference between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Robert Patrick suggests this as well. The fact that Arnold relies on guns and muscle (the old fashioned way) and T-1000 has more gadgets and new technology (the modern way) is a difference in generations of family the same as it is in real life today. Our parents listened to LPs, we listen to iPods. Our parents had road maps, we have OnStar. The T-1000 challenges Arnie for superiority, and Arnie is outmatched. It is only because of Sarah Connor that the T-1000 is destroyed. Yeah, Arnie fires the last shot, but he couldn't have done it without her and John.

Joseph said...

AND I find SIGNIFICANT flaw with your distrubution of the hero role in Terminator 1. The hero in T1 is most definately Sarah Connor. It's the classic 12 steps in the evolution of a heroes quest. Reese is sent back as the mentor, the guide, but he is not the hero.

For example: Who was the hero in Star Wars? Luke Skywalker. Obviously. He blew up the Death Star. We follow him from the beginning. There were other we'll say sub heros, namely Han Solo and Chewbacca, but not Obi-Wan Kenobi. He wasn't a hero, he was a mentor. He was the one who guided the hero, who told him of the ways of the force. Who brought him to this fight, and showed him how to win it. And he dies, leaving the hero to finish the job. It's absolute classic storytelling back to the days of Beowulf.

Terminator is exactly the same. Reese shows Sarah the way of the future, he explains to her what the Terminator is, about Cyberdyne and Skynet, about Judgement Day. And just like Obi-Wan, he handles most of the action throughout the movie while the hero looks on and learns. But at the end, when the mentor is dead, the hero is the one who destroys the machine. (the terminator or the death star) Of course, there's always the lingering sequel starter (the survival of the arm, the escape of Darth Vader), and in the sequel, the characters still miss the mentor, still seek his guidence, but are still much more prepared for their quest.

I think the womens studies arguments on the Terminator series are like the black guy at the check and go who found racism in the fact that I had my head shaved (for Twelve Page Paper). It's a huge stretch that they use to try to support a conclusion that they want to come to. James Cameron made the T-1000 liquid metal because they had the technology to make the special effects look good and it was cutting edge, not because he's a closet homophobic misogynist. For Christsakes it's a movie about killer robots from the future, it's like trying to find the deeper meaning in Revenge of the Nerds. It's just not there. Terminator is a blockbuster, not an art piece. The only thing they were concerned with is making it flashy, with awesome special effects and explosions and suspense. I can look at any film out there and interpret it a way that I want to. Hell, people interpret the bible to say kill minorities and gay people. Not because it says it, but because that's what they want to do anyway. If you have a class full of people who hate men, you can find examples of men thinking they're better than women ANYWHERE. (ie. why The Lion King, the ultimate alpha male? Why not the Lion Queen? et cetera.)

Joseph said...

*Sorry I'm leaving so many comments, but there's a limit as to how much I can put in just 1.*

You said: "oh yea, and Sarah is strong but only because she's a mother. How many films do you know with a woman violently fighting without doing it soley to protect a family member?"

There was of course Lt. Ellen Ripley of the Alien series, who while she fought for her surrogate "daughter" Newt in the second film, had no such motivation in the other episodes. In Alien 3, Newt was dead. She shaves her head and fights to kill an alien who is threatening a prison filled with nothing but men, ending with her own courageous self sacrifice. In Resurection, she's a total bad ass, helping a crew of smugglers. She even rips out the aliens tounge with her bare hands. Aeon Flux was a (extremely) violent character not fighting to save a family member. As was the Bride in Kill Bill. She was fighting to avenge a family member. That's entirely different. A maternal instict is protection, not revenge. The same way Inigo Montoya was in The Princess Bride, studying for 20 years to avenge his father, and defeat his killer.

However, being a warrior to defend your family member makes you no less of a warrior. Bruce Willis in Die Hard is there to save his wife. Does that make him less of a hero? How many 80's action movies had the hero (beit Jean Claude Van Damme, Stallone, Schwarzenneger, or any other big action star) trying to save his daughter from terrorists? Hell even the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles had to save Splinter (their father figure) from Shredder. Saving a family member is a huge device used in movies, because it's easy to set up a hero with it. First of all, it shows that the hero desires something, i.e. the rescue of someone he or she cares about. Two, it immediately establishes the character as a moral hero, willing to go to the ends of the earth to save that person. Three, it establishes the heros vulnarability, his or her weakness. You know that if the villian has a gun to the daughters head, the hero will surrender. They use this device with men AND women, because it simplifies the story, otherwise you end up with a film like the Whole Ten Yards, where two guys are fighting over two halves of a torn dollar bill. That requires backstory, an explanation. You don't need an explanation if your son has been kidnapped by aliens. You just fight the aliens.

Joseph said...

And I still don't understand how fluidity = feminism. That argument to me begs the question and is circular. Fluidity equal change. I can understand that the opposite of a rock is water symbolically. I can understand that to its deepest nature that is a classic battle, between the rock and the water. The rock can disrupt the water but the water can erode the rock. I understand that Arnold represents the rock, and T-1000 represents the water. You punch Arnold and you break your hand, you punch T-1000 and your hand goes right through him as he flows around you. What I DON'T understand is how the water represents the woman, or vice versa. I think you're linking things that are unsupported. Since Arnold represents the rock and the T-1000 is water, and Arnold is really manly, then the T-1000 must be a female, or gay. That's an unsupported conclusion. The direct rival of McDonalds is Burger King, but they both serve hamburgers. The direct rival of the Red Wings are the Avalanche, but they both play hockey. The direct rival of the rock is water, but they both are natural. The direct rival of Arnold is the T-1000, but they're both killer robots from the future. Just because they're opposite in one way doesn't mean they're not exactly alike every other way. Just because one is masculine does not make it's rival feminine.

What if Robert Patrick was not the actor they cast in the T-1000 role? What if instead it was Stallone? This wouldn't even be an argument. It would be two big beefy men fighting each other without emotion. (Remember, the T-1000 was also emotionless and dedicated). But Robert Patrick is smaller than Arnie, leading you to believe he is representative of a woman. The truth is, he doesn't NEED to be as big as Arnie. He can turn himself into the floor and stab people in the brain with his finger. He can break into a million pieces and reform. Arnie cannot. T-1000 is the new model, Arnie is obsolete. It's evolution. To be a warrior in the middle ages, you needed to be strong, you needed to be muscley and beefy and a Conan the Barbarian type with your horse and battle sword. Like Arnie. That's not true anymore. A warrior now a days can be smaller, can be without a ripped body, because with the evolution of our weaponry (which is all the Terminators are) you don't need to swing a battle sword or throw rocks, you need to pull a trigger, you need to fly an F-18, or drive a tank. I really think that if there is any intentional symboism in T2, (of which I doubt there is) it's a fight between the old and the new. Like I said, Father vs. Son.

Ok, now I'm done. I shall await your retort before writing anymore.

l8r
-j

Joseph said...

PS. To answer your question "when has there been a movie based on a real lesbian woman that wasn't a porn" with another question...

Hillary Swank has won two Oscars. One for her role in Million Dollar Baby, and the other for her role in....

And although it wasn't a movie, but a television show a famous comedienne came out in the real world and her character (also named Ellen) came out on the show...

There was also Gia starring Angelina Jolie.

Claire of the Moon...
Diobolique...
Mulholland Drive...

To name a few non porno movies...

-j

Jack said...

Sarah Connor - why is there a pan over her entire body while she's working out? Why does the one scene show the nurse licking Sarah's face? Why does the villian in T3 have to be female? Why can't the terminator be female and Sarah Connor be male? why can't john connor be female? Ah, yes because it wouldn't fit. It would be like if you saw an all woman construction crew building a high rise.

I'm not saying the director is a "homophobic misogynist", I'm just saying there's a deeper meaning to the way women and men are portrayed in film. There are certain guidelines followed conciously or not in creating action films like this.

Symbolism is simply symbolism; you see it as special effects, I see it as an item on a mile long list of hegemonic cinema.

Take Gina Davis in Long Kiss Goodnight for example. Towards the end of the movie, she's in a tanker truck and while she's preparing to bash through a brick wall she yells "suck my dick!" Why does she have to say that? She's a strong woman, a heroine by your standards, why doesn't she say "suck my clit" or something of that nature? Maybe because the latter sounds crude and the former sounds strong and vengeful.

Demi Moore in GI Jane - another example. Why does she have to shave her head? Why does she have to say "suck my dick master chief"? Why does she actually have to become male in order to be accepted as equal?

Step into a corporate office or on a construction site. Imagine if all the men you saw working were woman. Imagine for just one second. At the gas station, at the carwash, at the car shop, at the tire shop - all women. Or better yet, imagine Terminator was a woman, Sarah was a gay father, and John was a little girl. Do you think that same movie would've been popular if these characters were written in? Doubt it.

All I'm saying is that we have certain norms in our society that we follow and all of them are structured around masculinity. Movies reflect it.

Jack said...

Dude your trying to argue with me about Sarah Connor being a heroine by comparing Sarah with Luke Skywalker?? That's apples to oranges man.

Jack said...

I'm not saying that fighting for your family is not noble. You're missing my point. I'm saying Stallone can be Rocky and box for a thousand movies. A woman would have to fight over a family member or a husband or something in order to justify her break from being a "woman" - for being violent.

Ripley still began fighting because of a loved one. Then she became a mother. No need to mention the slow pan over her body in the film as she's undressing just before another alien attack.

Die Hard - male center of the film. Can't compare. He's a man, he's supposed to be the hero.

TV Show- Alias. Strong woman but started fighting because her boyfriend was killed for knowing she was a CIA agent.

Stop looking at the special effects. Seperate the person from the actor. Seperate the trees from the forest. Think of CSI - good guys drive the Chevy's, bad guys drive the Fords/Chryslers/imports etc (or was that 24? I don't remember)

Joseph said...

Chevys and Fords? I've never heard that. That's kind of cool.

*cracks knuckles*

Luke Skywalker and Sarah Connor is not comparing apples to oranges. They are essentially the same character in different circumstances.

Joseph Campbell came up with what is known as the "Hero Archtype" or the "Twelve Steps on the Heroes Journey" back in the 1940's and its something all screenwriters study. He wrote a book called "The Hero With A Thousand Faces" basically showing the patterns in nearly every heroes tale. We'll look at Star Wars: A New Hope and Luke Skywalker, and The Terminator and Sarah Connor.

1.) The Ordinary World We start out seeing the hero's ordinary life, so we can compare it to the rest of the journey. A sort of gathering in the shire before Frodo leaves on his quest. Everything is normal and somewhat happy. Skywalker lives on the farm with his aunt and uncle, Connor goes out with her friends. The world is normal.

2.) The Call To Adventure The end of Act I. The obvious problem that surfaces that disrupts the life of the hero. Skywalker gets the message from Leia to Obi-Wan, Connor is atacked by the Terminator.

3.) The Refusal of the Call The hero backs down, out of fear or being overwhelmed. Skywalker offers to take Obi-Wan as far as Anchorhead, but doesn't want to get involved. Connor runs and hides.

4.) Meeting with the Mentor Obi Wan reveals himself as an old Jedi Master and offers to teach Luke the ways of the force. Reese comes back to save Sarah and tell her the ways of the war against the machines.

5.) Crossing the Threshold The acceptance of the hero's journey. Luke decides after his uncle and aunt are murdered that there's nothing left for him on Tatooine and goes with Kenobi. Sarah decides to trust Reese and accept the fact that she must survive against the machine to ensure the birth of her son who will defeat the machines in the future....

Joseph said...

6.) Tests Allies and Enemies Along the way, the hero learns, is trained and tested. He/She meets companions and develops enemies. Luke trains with the force, meets Han and Chewie, and learns about Darth Vader. Sarah is trained on how to defend herself, learns to be ready for an unexpected attack, and learns about the machines. This stage is a test of the hero's commitment to the journey.

7.) Approach to the Inmost Cave (this is literally a cave in Empire Strikes Back) This is the prep time. The "We now know what we have to do, lets do it" stage. This is the flight of the Millenium Falcon to Alderaan. This is Reese and Connor realizing they must kill the machine as it will never stop chasing them.

8.) Ordeal The Battle. The first major conflict, where disaster looms. Luke decides to rescue Leia while they are captured on the death star. Reese and Sarah engage in battle with the machine rather than running.

9.) Reward (Seizing the Sword)... or lightsaber. They are successful. The machine is down, they escape the death star. However... as Princess Leia says after being freed, "it's not over yet."

10.) The Road Back A momentary reprieve. Reese and Sarah are happy, smiling, the conflict may well be over and they may well live happily ever after... but something is stirring. Meanwhile in a galaxy far far away, Luke gets a reprieve by delivering the battle plans to Yavin, and everyone gets a breather.

11.) Ressurection To quote the book itself: "The Hero faces the Resurrection, his most dangerous meeting with death. This final life-or-death Ordeal shows that the Hero has maintained and can apply all that he has brought back to the Ordinary World." Sarah is forced to take on the Machine by herself, as Reese is dead. Luke is forced to take on the Empire by himself as Obi-Wan is dead. In the end, they can be helped (as Luke was by Solo) but they are the ones who deliver the final blow to destroy the villian (Luke fires the shot that destroys the death star, Sarah finally destroys the machine by crushing it in the hydrolic press.

12.) Return with the Elixr The return to the ordinary world a changed person, either with a treasure, the family member, or a greater understanding. Sarah understands the future, and is forever changed knowing she must do all she can to stop it. Luke has a great understanding of the force and the empire and knows he must do all he can to stop it.

So... apples to oranges... I'm not sure I agree...

Joseph said...

As far as showing Sarah Connors body in T2, it's the evolution of her character. She's gone from this really sweet girl in a nice dress who calles her mother, to this ripped bad ass woman in a mental institution, a victim of the Cassandra Syndrome (predictions of doom about the future that are not believed until it is too late). Her character is DRASTICALLY different, and you can see the toll the "elixr" has had on her. She's trying to save John, yes, but at first it's only to ensure the future. It's only her progression through the story that makes her realize that she loves him. John is actually the emotional character in the film. Sarah is cold blooded. John's the one who cries. Sarah upon being rescued tells John that it was stupid for him to save her. John's the one with compassion for the innocent, telling the Terminator not to go around killing people because "he just can't" Sarah decides to go smoke Miles Dyson at his house before she finally realizes what she's become.

Back to the body showing. She's not naked. They're showing how ripped she is. Is it meant to be sexual? Perhaps. How about how progressively more nude Bruce Willis becomes in Die Hard. He loses his shoes, and at the end, he's walking around all bare chested and topless and muscleclad and dirty. Is that meant to be sexual? Perhaps. The Commando is shirtless in a gunbattle. As is Rambo. Do you think that's convienent? No, it's meant to intice the ladies. It you were shirtless in a gunbattle, you'd burn yourself with those giant guns. How about the fact that every terrorist in Die Hard (save the little chinese guy who stole the candy bar) was a male model? Everyone with their long Fabio haircut and designer shirts. Does that seem overly sexualizing men? It sure does. Do we complain about it in our "Mens Studies" classes? We dont even HAVE Mens Studies Classes. Double Standards work both ways.

Joseph said...

You said "Why does the villian in T3 have to be female? Why can't the terminator be female and Sarah Connor be male? why can't john connor be female? Ah, yes because it wouldn't fit."

If you're talking about specifically why those choices were made for this particular movie, I can't tell you. It could've come down to a coin flip.

If you're talking about the archtypes of these characters, you've got the indestuctible villian, the Terminator. You've got the seasoned vetran hero, Sarah Connor. And you've got the rookie caught up in the mess forced to come to action John Connor.

So a guy and a girl fighting a girl? Or are those all separate questions?

If so: Why does the villian in T3 have to be female? It doesn't. The villian in T2 was a male, so that works.

Why can't the terminator be female and Sarah Connor be male? In T3 The termintor was female, Linda Hamilton didn't want to be in T3, so they killed her character, and the knowing screwed up seasoned vetran Sarah Connor character became the male John Connor. So that works. (oh you meant why isn't Arnie a female. My bad. The indestuctible emotionless creature that is there to help being female doesn't work? Didn't we just talk about Ripley in Alien Ressurection?)

why can't john connor be female? Like I said, in T2 he's the emotional one. In T3, the unbeliever rookie becomes Claire Daines, and in T1 that same character was Sarah Connor. So that works.

Gender really has nothing to do with it. T1 could have easily been Steve Connor being guided by Reese and fighting Arnie. But then it would be offensive because there were no prominent womens roles. So a woman is the hero of the story, and suddenly it's STILL offensive because there's a man there to help her. This could very quickly become "Charlie's Angels." Maybe Steve Connor has a daughter named Johanna Connor who will become the leader of the resistance. And they have to fight a female Terminator. How much different is that than T3?

Seriously, compare T2 with Alien Ressurection. It's the same thing, but with switched genders. Ripley = Arnie, The Crew (mostly gruff men) = Sarah, The caring young one Call (wynona rider) = John Connor.

Simple as that.

Joseph said...

"Symbolism is simply symbolism; you see it as special effects, I see it as an item on a mile long list of hegemonic cinema."

This womens studies class could be construed as hegemonic. I digress.

Do you remember Chasing Amy? (BTW Another lesbian not in a porno role) Do you remember how Hooper X goes on the rant about how Star Wars was inherantly racist because Luke was a blue eyed blonde white farm boy and Vader was this big black evil guy? And after they took off Vaders mask and showed he was white inside, it was saying that all black people want is to be white? THAT is the extent to which you are stretching hunting for misogynistic symbolism in Terminator.

I still don't understand how fluidity equals feminism, other than to make your point, it must.

This argument is illogical, and to be upset about it again is a double standard. How are men portrayed in film? Greasy slobby jerks who would rather watch the football game and sleep with as many women as possible than settle down as raise a family. We can never remember your birthday, our anniversary, to pick the kids up from soccer practice, we always get drunk and screw up, and it takes a woman to turn us around and show us that we are capable of love and responsibility. How often is a man the one in love and the woman is the one who needs to grow up? I can think of one. Forrest Gump. And he was a retarded man.

The difference is, we don't complain about this. We realize that that is how Jerry MacGuire is portrayed, it doesn't mean it's how every man is.

But people who want to be offended can get offended really easily. It would be simple for me to point out that men are always jerkoffs in movies, and the heroic self sacrificing ones are often doing it because they are a man, not because they want to. I've said this before, when there's a strange sound in the middle of the night that awakens a couple in bed, who goes to investigate it? The man. If he doesn't, he is seen as weak and useless. Is that fair? Not really. Do we get all bent out of shape about it? Not at all. We accept it. Each gender has pros, each has cons. Each has a sociologically niche they fill. Both can wander outside those niches, and both will be looked upon as strange. That's becoming less and less strange though. You should embrace the fact that Sarah Connor is the hero in T2. Fifty years ago, that would've never happened. It's progress, and it's still moving, so that we're seeing more and more prominent womens roles. Hell, Hillary Clinton has a legitimate shot at being the next president. That was unheard of, even 15 years ago. Geena Davis is in a new West Wing style TV show where she plays the president of the united states. And it's not some wacky screwball comedy about how the secret service needs to get her tampons. It's a legitimate TV drama.

If you are complaining just to complain, I can't stop you. I just think that making T2 about the fight between a man and a woman because both look like men but one is made of liquid metal is a HUGE stretch.

-j

Jack said...

"If you are complaining just to complain, I can't stop you"

Complaining? This is why you can't make an accurate comparison in your argument. you can't seem to seperate the fact that luke is a man and sarah is a woman. You're concentrating on the fact that they can both be considered a hero/heroine. That's not my issue.

You didn't answer my questions in my last post.

I need to embrace what? Sarah, heroine or not, is still second best in the movie. You could use the same argument to say that arnold was the hero. don't tell me to embrace the fact that sarah is a heroine, as if her character has made strides in developing woman's rights. if anything I should be satisfied in knowing that there really is a masculine ideology and some of the people I know endorse that opinion.

Maybe I'm not explaining myself very well. Maybe your arguing for the sake of arguing - I don't know. But as far as I can see with our arguments, they kinda go something like this:

A girl walks into a gas station to pay for gas. An older gentlemen is at the counter putting a few things away. He sees this girl, possibly in her late 20s or so, walk up to the counter. She says "I'm on number 3. Oh can I get this pack of gum too thanks." He rings her up, takes the cash, gives her a recipt, and says "have a good day out there sweetheart."

You: that's endearing. He's showing that you seem sweet and cute and whatnot.

Me: I don't view it as endearing. You say something like that to a child not to a grown woman. That makes me feel like I'm not really respected - not really an equal as a person - I'm just a woman.

A black guy would feel the same way if the man called him 'boy' instead of 'sweetheart'.

You see things through the man's eyes and you always will. You won't notice when someone tells you "you should take this gentle woman through these trails" or "a woman can't do this job cause it's a man's business" or when someone helps you out picking something up and not a man. You see these things as 'help' as if "oh if I got that I would take it."

No. You can't type here and tell me that I'm just complaining or that I'm too picky and offended or that it's not the way it is. The fact that women are underappreciated and typecast into particular roles is going to be there whether you like it or not. Look at Ellen. She came out on her show (which was a kick ass funny show btw) and her show was canned. She's got a hit show now but does she talk about the fact that's she's a lesbian? No. On her first show she would've had to deal with it everyday - people would have to watch her - now, she doesn't talk about it.

I love the line in the movie X2. When Mystique is asked why she doesn't morph into different people everyday to avoid being labeled a mutant. She says "we shouldn't have to."

I love that. I should have to methaporically "become male" (e.g Gina davis and the whole suck my dick thing) to be strong. There shouldn't be a pan over my body when I'm working out. I should be able to fight whenever the hell I want to fight for no reason whatsoever. If I go to Home Depot and I lift three bags of concrete into my cart, I shouldn't have to be followed out to my car so that someone else can lift the bags into my truck. No, I bought it, I'll ask if I need help. Don't assume.

Do you have to deal with this? No. do you have to see the same role you just played at the gas station in film? No. Don't tell me how I should feel or what I should embrace as if I should be thankful Sarah is who she is.

Have you seen Monster?

Joseph said...

Okay, we may be getting to that point again where it's not just a fun conversation anymore. Please don't get angry, I'm not trying to offend you.

No, I've not seen Monster. But do you understand that Aileen Wuornos is a real woman, and this movie is based on her? It's not good writing, it's actual fact. She is a serial killer. It's like making a movie about Charles Manson and saying "Wow, it's so rare you get to see that well developed of a sociopathic character." It's not a character, it's a real person. It's a little creepy to glorify that.

So, when a waitress hands me my check and says, "I'll take it whenever you're ready honey." I'm supposed to get all pissed off because it's demeaning? It's a term of endearment. I understand that. She means no malice by it, and so I don't get offended. If it's offensive to you, I guess I apologize, because I know I've said that to you before.

And please, spare me the "you're a man and you'll never understand my pain" argument. It's a cop out. If this is to be an actual debate, you can't say "You just wouldn't understand" or "because that's the way it is."

If that guy at the gas station called you sweetheart, and I, being the next in line, pay for my gas, and my Snickers bar, and he says, "Have a good one dude." Should I get all upset and let it ruin my day too?

That's what I'm talking about. Being offended just to be offended. If it really hurts your feelings, try to understand that he meant no ill will by it, and probably just doesn't know what to say as perhaps the last woman got pissed off because he called her ma'am, and she's only 29.

you can't seem to seperate the fact that luke is a man and sarah is a woman. You're concentrating on the fact that they can both be considered a hero/heroine. That's not my issue.

What IS your issue? The difference between Luke Skywalker and Sarah Connor... I guess I'm not sure what you're agruing here, what point you're trying to make. Obviously one has a penis, the other a vagina... but apart from the story around them, they are the same character. So why do you have a problem with one because she's a woman, and not the other? Are you sure you're not arguing AGAINST your womens studies class?

The only questions I didn't answer in your last posts were about the nurse licking Sarah's face, and the suck my dick thing. I'll do that now.

The nurse licks Sarah's face so Sarah can still be audience friendly when she shatters that guys face two minutes later. It vilified him. He's a sick pervert, licking a comatose woman tied down against her will. So when she smashes his face with the broom handle, he got his, and the audience is happy.

Now, the whole "Suck My Dick" thing. Is this something that really needs explaining? She doesn't morph into a man and grow a weiner and ask for fellatio. She doesn't temporarily become masculine and fight. It's very simple. If she said "Suck my clit," it would be a strange shine on line. It's the difference between telling someone to "eat shit" and "eat grapes." Most straight men enjoy sucking clit, and do not enjoy sucking dick. Ergo, to tell a man to suck my dick is a term of disrespect. To tell a man to suck my clit sends a very mixed message.

Yes, they both could have easily said, "Eat shit and die." or something not suggesting they possessed male genitalia, but the writers probably thought it was a clever line to be delivered by a woman. I'm positive they didn't say, "how do we make Geena Davis sound more like a man, and less like a woman?"

And seriously, The Long Kiss Goodnight sucked. You really shouldn't get this hung up on it.

I believe that's all your questions. Can you please answer for me the "fluidity = femininity" one that I've asked a few times?

See, I guess I've just lost track of what your argument is. In your original post you say that Sarah Connor is not a heroine because she's a mom and emotional, and that's a bad stereotypical thing. I showed you she is a heroine exactly in the same way Luke Skywalker is a hero and she's unemotional... but you say that she's still a woman, and Luke is a man. That argument I cannot follow. Would you rather she have been a man? That seems kind of backwards to your entire argument.

So basically what I'm saying is I have no idea what you're trying to say. If you could just lay it out in your next post very simply, I'd be delighted to continue this conversation with you.

Joseph said...

As far as Sarah being the heroine, she definately is in T1. You'll remember, Luke Skywalker is kind of a wimpy whiny putz in Star Wars who needs Obi-Wan to save him in the bar and on the Death Star and everything. He's second best too at the beginning, but it's still his story, he's still the protagonist, he's still the main character, and he still ends up the hero. Same with Sarah. Reese is more powerful and knowledgable, but Sarah soon grows past him (the student becomes the master) and whereas Reese falls to the Terminator, Sarah survives and kills it.

In T2, there's all three. All three go through changes and "gain the elixr." Arnie learns why humans cry, Sarah shakes hands with the machine, John accepts his fate as the leader of the resistance. Much in the same way there are many heroes in "X-Men."

So again, please explain what you're trying to make me understand, because now you seem to be arguing against yourself.

Signing off on post #20.

-j

Jack said...

The concept of fluidity was intended to describe the lack of definite identity in one's character. Specifically, it was meant to refer to the sexuality of human beings. In this world, sexuality is regarded as a distinct characteristic of what group, in terms of social scale, to which you conform to.

As you mentioned earlier, it is more offensive to say "suck my dick" than "suck my clit". This is prime example of one of the issues with masculinity. Challenging the true masculine ego with threats of having a sexuality that is fluid (i.e homosexuality or bisexuality)is not only damaging to the ego but invites dispute and competition.

The T-1000, although looking like a man, is in fact not man but a machine. The Terminator, although being a machine, learns traits of a man and develops relationship with the family it's protecting.

That said, in a action flick built on the premise of victory over evil, there must be one true hero and one true villain. The driving force behind the hero side is a beefy masculine bull of a man who, of both machines, displays the most human characteristics. Now for the villain: the T-1000 in order to be a true villain must be the most vile character so as to create a balance between the 'good' and the 'evil'.

One of the most threatening notions used in challenging true masculinity is the idea of homosexuality. Since homosexuality or bisexuality may be threatening to a world based on masculinity, it creates conflict. Thus, creating a basis for the villain.

Through stereotypes of homosexuality, we conclude that with homosexuality in males, there is more of a sense of femininity brought out by personality than through the traditional male. This is threatening and challenging the traditional masculinity standard. Thus, you now have a feminized villain - opposite of it's male counterpart - challenging the standards of male identity - creating a balance being 'good' and 'evil' - while presenting a platform of which the audience can clearly define who 'feels evil' and who 'feels good'.

From there, along with hundreds of pages of scholarly literature describing a link between the 'villain' and a women's cycle, we can make the connection between the Terminator being a strong traditional male and the T-1000 being symbolic of a woman during her monthly cycle.

Lucky number 21.

Jack said...

P.S - I get offended by "honey" or "sweetheart" because I like to be treated as if I'm an equal, not a child or someone who needs to be comforted.

Jack said...

I do know that Monster was based on a true story. But it was a movie. With every "based on a true story" there's at least some writing to fill in the blanks. Some description of a background or some conversation that was pieced together by someone other than the real Aileen. The way it was shot, cut, written, whatever - it was good.

Joseph said...

That's what I hear.

Ok, I think I follow you again. I still don't think I agree though.

So fluidity or the lack of identity or in this case a stable identity is symbolic of homosexuality, which is somehow threatening to masculinity. Supposing that is true, which I still don't entirely buy, let's see what that means to other films.

For example, Aladdin. You've got a genie with ever changing shapes. Is this genie supposed to represent homosexuality and therefore be threatening to the masculine Aladdin?

Mr. Fantastic of the Fantastic Four, is elastic, bendy, is he threatening to the rock hard Thing?

Mystique in X-Men is a shape shifter as well, never stable. Is she gay, or symbolic thereof?

Remember Darkwing Duck and the water villian? Was he a gay dog?

Look back to Neptune of the roman gods, the god of water. He was most certainly not representative of homosexuality, he was in fact one of the most masculine gods there was.

See, I don't think your fluidity = gay or feminine argument holds water (pun definately intended). And that's what you seem to be basing your entire argument on.

If fluidity, an ever changing state, means lack of identity, how does that equal femininity? Femininity is a definate identity. Gay is a definate identity. If someone is gay one week and straight the next, then yes, I can see their sexual identity as being somewhat in flux. But jumping from a robot being made of liquid to having that represent him as gay or female is a conclusion you WANT to draw so that your evidence of masculine hegemony is supported. The proof is simply not at all there.

So here's what it basically boils down to. Movies are art. They are a creative aspiration put forth by a writer, a director, a tech team, all designed to tell a story, and to make you feel emotion. Beit joy, sadness, excitement, rage... whatever. One could presumably look at the Mona Lisa and smile, or look at it and presume it is anti-christian. But art is in the eye of the beholder, the artist had an intention, and its intention may be lost upon its audience or found by a single soul who gets it. Your interpretation of any work can be anything you want it to be. It doesn't mean that you're right. It doesn't mean that you're wrong. The art is just there. Available. Waiting to be viewed. Naked to the world. You look at Edward Hoppers "Nighthawks" and see a diner, I look at it and see desparation. I look at T2 and see a kick ass action flick, you look at it and see masculinity spitting on the world.

However, the trick is that art is something you relate to.

Hopper may have just wanted to paint "peace and quiet" and I saw desparation, because I wanted to see desparation. Because I felt desparate. James Cameron may have just wanted to make a summer blockbuster, but you see overbearing masculinity because you want to see overbearing masculinity, because you work at a predominatly male run job, and are treated like the little girl.

When you draw the conclusion that liquid metal killer robot = gay = women = evil = menstruation... I gotta think that you're really reaching for a reason to portray your own anger and frustration onto something that never intended to be seen in that way.

I don't know if you've seen it, but my film, Twelve Page Paper. Look at that. There are really only two women in the film, and both of them are somewhat bad guys. Now, I wrote it, I directed it, I never intended to portray that women are evil. But if you watched it, you could probably draw that conclusion. Not because it's intended, but because that's the conclusion you wanted to reach before you even saw it. There are three other bad guys in the film, all three male. But that wouldn't enter into the equation because it doesn't support your conclusion, just as the fact that Sarah Connor is the hero in T1 and is the mirror image of Luke Skywalker doesn't enter into this equation.

-j

Jack said...

You're making it sound like I'm talking about active homosexuality. Like I'm saying "well the T-1000, darwing duck, genie - oh they like other males"...and somehow people will know that they're gay. No it's not like that. I'm talking about a sense, a fear, a hatred all balled up into one.

We don't KNOW that the T-1000 is 'gay' in a literal sense. We just see a quality that makes us uncomfortable, that's not the norm.

The characters start out as names in a script with funny little lines after them. The moment they come to life is when a person puts a live personality to the funny little lines. So as we, the audience, are feeling out the characters, we're going to find a foundation to ground ourselves on. We're gonna think, or just know rather, that "alright, cool, good vs. evil - back in time to save a future leader - got it."

Now you have your characters and your premise. At this point comes a storyline - a point from which the film progresses or builds upon - all the attitudes/feelings/fights/whatever - all the stuff that's not permanently affixed in the background.

Ok so with the T-1000, we, the audience, doesn't know if the machine is really a machine or man or machiney man man or whatever...but there's something about him/it that we don't like. That's where the theory comes in.

Example: Alpha male, aptly named Alpha Bob, sits down and watches this show called "Dude". He's like "whoa yea, awesome, a show named dude, sweet" and he sits down and watches it. On the show, one of the male characters likes to go shopping with his buddies and maybe stop for a Starbucks or something. Now the character on the show is heterosexual but Alpha Bob is like "real men don't go shopping, that's like...uh...chick stuff. That guy is so gay. This show sucks."

Does that mean that the character is gay because he exhibited a quality that a stereotypical gay man would have? Nope. But it's the uncomfortable feeling that Alpha Bob gets when he sees a guy doing something all the other shows with gay people do.

When GM business is down and they still can't seem to get people to buy cars - they'll put them on a TV show. Whether or not this is really true, they'll have the good guys drive the GM cars and the bad guys drive all the other makes. Why? Because there's a feeling associated with both the good guys and the bad guys. Fourty million episodes later, people who watch the show are choosing GM over anyone else. Maybe not but it's a theory.

So over the years, I show you movies with flowing, rushing blood down a hallway like the scene in The Shining. I show you flicks with something horrible and scary that bleeds for five days and doesn't die. I show you a black widow that multiples and kills humans. I show you a film documenting the history of the Witch Trials. I make fun of PMS and how it drives women 'insane'. I show you images of good looking nice sexy lesbian women and then ugly fat dykes who hate men. I put on shows like Will and Grace that show you that characters like Jack are weak little gay men or Queer Eye for the Straight Guy where gay men know about fashion and food and don't really know what sports are - oh that's not masculine at all!

I show you those over and over and over again so that you have a feeling of what's good and what's bad. It was never about whether the T-1000 was literally gay. It's a small pinch of something that seems feminine. It's a dose of an feeling that strikes some people as feminine coming out of a guy's body. You don't like him because he kills the good guys but you hate him because there's something about him that drives you crazy mad.

here, let me show you the movie The Shining and another episode of Will and Grace again. See - flowing blood bad - weak gay man bad - bad bad bad....

Jack said...

Do you see any civil unions between gay couples being performed in Michigan? How bout in the majority of the United States? I voted to have the Michigan constitutional language remain the same so as to allow an opportunity for gay men and women to have rights similar to a heterosexual marriage in a civil union. Did it pass? Nope. Are we having a little bit of a problem accepting gay people into society? Ask a gay person but the likelyhood of the answer being yes is extremely high.

Movies reflect life. Life, in this world, is based on the ideals of Mr. Alpha Bob. If Alpha Bob doesn't like gay people, gay people don't really have a great chance of being heard/understood/accepted, do they? The world is built for masculinity. The world is based on masculinity. Look at Women's suffrage - the struggle for gay rights - I mean for christ sake this whole fucking world is a patriarch.

In a masculine world, there is no such thing as "gay identity". You say that it's a definite thing but in this world it's not. There are a shitload of people, surely more than the us, that believe that homosexuality is learned not innate. People think that couseling can make people unlearn gayness. We know it's not true, but the world doesn't - at least right now.

Anything outside the realm of heterosexual isn't considered right. Gayness isn't recognized as being anything but a stray from the true, right, correct, whatever heterosexual behavior. Again, homosexuality in this way is not stable - not definite - not solid -----it's got fluidity.

Joseph said...

Hmm... interesting...

Ok, first of all, let me dispell the notion that I ever took it to mean the T-1000 was ACTUALLY gay. I understand you meant he was symbolically linked to homosexuality, not like after a hard day of killing he went home to his boyfriend.

I think you're confusing Alpha Bob with Conservativism. Most men do not have a problem with homosexuality, most men do not have a problem with femininity, unless they are conservative. The Christian Coalition are the first people out there to protest gay marriage, Will and Grace, Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, etc.

For the record, I don't like Queer Eye. See, the problem is people hae got a jump to conclusions mat about Gay TV. They figure if a show about gay people does bad, then it's because the nation is homophobic and unwilling to accept it. (i.e. Ellen after she came out) People think that if a show with only black people fails, it's because the country is racist. If a show with all women fails, it's because the country is misogynist.

What they fail to realize is that the major reason most shows fail is because they suck.

Will and Grace has Will a stronger gay character, who is a really cool and funny guy. Jack on the show is the more "flaming" on the gay spectrum, but he's actually even funnier and more clever with his jokes. How you decided to label him "bad" is beyond me. I like that show. Gay TV shows can be really good. After Ellen came out, the show was terrible. The writers decided to stop making the show about funny stuff that made the show a success, and instead make every episode be about Ellen and her homosexuality. They strayed from the formula that made the show good, not by making her gay, but by making every episode be about "Ellen's Gay! Holy cow, she's gay! Who are those other characters, the fat guy and the other guy with the goatee, and isn't there a bookstore? Not anymore! Ellen's gay!" It would be like taking Friends, and getting rid of all the other characters except Joey. They did that. It's called Joey. It sucks.

As for all the other stuff, I agree with you (except the Terminator stuff, which I'll get back to momentarily.) I do think that there should be gay marriage. Not "civil unions" but marriage. The separation of church and state means that since marriage can be obtained in a government courthouse, and that jewish people, and muslim people and athiest people can get married, meaning christianity does not necessarily have anything to do with marriage, homosexuality should not count against marriage.

You want to look at a real problem in hegemonic society, look at christianity. As most christians are conservative, and most conservatives are against anything homosexual, that seems to be your culprit. Not masculinity. Most people who hate gay people will tell you it's because "the Bible says it's a sin."

You even told me once that you didn't like the movie "Dogma" because you "weren't supposed to like it."

Back to The Terminator.

Like I said, I know you aren't speaking of them being actively gay, but if there's some fear/hatred/intolerance associated with fluidity, then like I said, why do those feelings not come out with Genie from Aladdin? Because Genie's a good guy? Is this one of those cases that when it works in your favor you don't notice it, but when it works against you, you raise hell? You say in T2 the evil character is represented as feminine because he's fluid and masculine is the good guy. That's so typical you say. Look at the movie before. The original Terminator. The hero (Sarah) is feminine, and the same big bad masculine prop of manhood Arnold is the emotionless killing machine. So even if you're right (which I'm not saying you are) why is it such a big deal? The first movie was good feminine vs evil masculine, why not switch it up for the sequel? It's just another case of you don't see when it works for you, just when it works against. If you want stuff to be fair, you have to be the bad guy every now and then.

(I still don't agree that the T-1000 is feminine, but I can't really explain myself any better)

See, it's easy to get upset at anti-feminist symbology that you make up to prove your point. I did it the other day on my way to Jason's house. I passed a sign for Western Michigan University. A typical MALE thing again. Why? Because WMU is actually in SOUTH western michigan. Why not put the south? Because south represents down on a map and down is lower than up, and things that are lower are shorter as women typically are of men, and so SOUTH represents femininity and so they didn't want to be called South Western Michigan University.

Then I passed Wendy's. I can't believe that this type of blatent anti-feminism still exists. There's Wendy on the sign, right next to "Old Fashioned Hamburgers." Old fashioned... meaning they way things used to be, like back when we thought the world was flat. What Dave Thomas was trying to say was that women are stupid and still think the world is flat. Don't even get me started on the fact that they have square burgers and round buns. They mean to say that women are crazy, because who else would try to fit a square thing in a round thing?

The Oasis. A hot tub GARDEN?! GARDEN!? Is that where WOMEN are suppsed to work? In the GARDEN! Why not a hot tub steelmill, or a hot tub gridiron, or a hot tub battleship? Because those things are MALE and it wouldn't work.

7-11. What does that mean? Perhaps it's the days of the month that a woman is on her period?? From the 7th to the 11th? Think about it.

The T-1000! Liquid metal! Meaning it's uncomfortable for men, and that it must be gay or femmy. (To me, that's a stretch more than the other ones.) If the T-1000 would've been made of giant phallic spikes, we still wouldn't like him. It wasn't the fact that he was liquid metal that made the audience not like him. It was the fact that Arnold walks into the bar, beats the shit out of the truckers and takes their clothes without killing anyone, thus establishing that he's a good guy. The T-1000 says nothing, just walks up and kills a cop thus establishing that he's the BAD GUY! That's why people don't like him.

As for The Shining with the blood elevator thing. I hate Stanley Kubrick. I'm actually sure the intention there was to represent a menstration period. Kubrick was a jerkoff though. He's one guy. We as men didn't all get together and go "blood in the elevator... good!" Like I said, art is done by an artist, not a gender.

-j

Jack said...

("See, it's easy to get upset at anti-feminist symbology that you make up to prove your point")

You are so right, I so made the whole argument up! I'm so seeing things when I watch movies. I mean, god, if I just like WATCH the movie instead of like picking it apart, I might like actually like like it.

I don't really like Dogma because I don't really like Dogma. Not because "I'm not supposed to." Maybe a clergyman noted that it was offensive to Christians but that's not a reason to hate a movie. I don't hate the Terminator movies. As I mentioned in my original post, I like them...a lot. However, my arguments aren't made up - there's actual literature on the shortfalls of women in film. A whole shitload with women in action film. Try reading one, you might understand. I'm obviously not doing a good enough job of explaining.

I'm not sure why we're debating this in the first place. If you're right, there's nothing wrong with gender equality in film. There's no symbolism against females or gays or blacks, nothing. Movies are just movies. The Accused is just a movie about a woman being gang raped and the system doing nearly nothing to help her. By your argument, that's just a movie with no subtext whatsoever.

By your argument the following must be true:
1. "suck my dick" is more humiliating because most men don't like it.
2. Most men don't mind homosexuality or femininity.

What?

You're telling me that our society isn't based on masculinity? Really? News flash to me. This would be the time I spewed out major accomplishments made for women's equality taken place in the 1900s. And yet not failing to mention that this country was established well before then, where males pretty much dominated anything but the kitchen and kids. But, I'm tired. So I won't.

You disagree with me but all you can come up with to nullify my theory is that "it's just special effects" or a totally off base stab at being a women's rights radical. Or that my theory doesn't work because I'm only critiquing the movies that I have a problem with not the good ones. Why would I critique a movie that promotes gender equality?

You tell me that it's my own frustration with gender issues in movies and I'm making up arguments or theories to back myself up but you have no real evidence that my argument is wrong. You haven't provided a single shread of proof that I'm wrong. You don't accept the fact that there MIGHT be more to something that you're not seeing.

Ah, typical Joey. Must be right, must convince others, must have last word.

BTW - I totally made Wheat Thins by squishing the bread. I love squished Wheat Thins.

Joseph said...

"Ah, typical Joey. Must be right, must convince others, must have last word.

BTW - I totally made Wheat Thins by squishing the bread. I love squished Wheat Thins."

Hmm... :)

No shred of proof that you're wrong. Well I think I showed that Sarah Connor is in fact the hero of the Terminator movie.

"By your argument the following must be true:
1. "suck my dick" is more humiliating because most men don't like it.
2. Most men don't mind homosexuality or femininity."

This is a straw man fallacy. (remember that from those debate days?) You're bending my words.

Most men have no problem with homosexuality, however do not wish to participate in homosexual acts, like a vegetarian doesn't mind if people eat meat, they just don't want to do it themselves. Was that really that hard to follow?

There's books about the shortfalls of women in film. That's great. Shortfalls as in what? Sometimes they're the stupid character? Sometimes they're eye candy? Sometimes they're the bad guys? Sometimes they're steroetyped? Sometimes they make bad choices? Sometimes they're the hero only because they fight for their kid? Amazing. Ever see any men in those roles? I guess not, eh? Never a stupid man in a film, or perhaps one playing the bad guy, or acting stereotypical.... no only women are treated this way, right? Yes women are exploited, but so are men. People are exploited or made to act "typically" in film. Man or woman.

What do you want? Seriously? Because even if you're right, and the T-1000 is somehow by some vast strech of the imagination supposed to make people uncomfortable because it triggers they're gay-dar or it by a great miracle triggers anti-feministic ideas, who cares? For gods sake it's art, not law. It's a creation.

You want me to agree with you that the movie industry is male dominated, I will. It is. Most working directors are male. Most female directors have a hard time getting film work, and instead get a lot of TV work. It's true. I do not deny that. If you see a movie, there's a good chance it was directed by a man. You can point at that and get upset and say it sucks and is unfair, and you're probably right. But if it really bugs you that much, then go be a director. Do something about it, instead of just griping.

The truth is though, if you want to just be upset about something, you're doing a great job. Like I said, I can totally make up evidence of masculine dominence better than the T-1000 being representative of femininity, which is where this whole conversation is supposed to stem from.

In all actuality, it's a movie, it's interpretation is subjective. If you want to look at it and think that it's anti-woman, and that Sarah is just a bimbo along for the ride, and get really upset with it, then go ahead. I know you said you like the movie, that's cool. If you want to hunt for something to be upset about, go right ahead. You don't have to agree with me, I don't have to convince you. I never will anyway, cuz you're really not even reading what I'm typing if I've offered NO proof of what it is I'm trying to say. So just believe whatever you want, I guess. Focus on the negative. Ignore the positive.

You win.

Jack said...

Joe,

http://www.rednova.com/news/health/154535/redefining_womens_power_through_feminist_science_fiction/

read it. I don't care whether or not you agree with it. It explains it better than I could.

How can you say that most men don't mind homosexuality? Look at this country! Look at our laws! That's not enough to tell you that obviously people DO mind homosexuality? In the white house, there's a long line of pictures of presidents on the wall -- tell me how many stood up for or promoted gay rights. Tell me which one of the white male leaders has even cared to comment on the FUTURE of homosexuality in this country.

This nation is one big patriarchy lead by a southern white Christian male president. You tell me that most men don't have a problem with homosexuality unless they're conservative but half of the people in this country voted to put G.dubs in the white house! Half the people in this country supported a conservative president.

All you've done with your argument is tell me that I've made things up, I should be thankful Sarah Connor even exists, and that I'm just a woman looking for something to get upset about. Just read the webpage.

I don't have to prove to you that I'm not alone in this. I don't care if you think I'm crazy for believing in it. I don't give two shits about whether or not someone stops and reads these posts and thinks we're both retarded. The fact is, I'll keep writing about what I believe in and what I don't on my own website/comment page. And if I ever respond to you on yours, I hope I don't ever tell you that you're making something up just to be upset.

Joseph said...

Ok, look. I'm sorry. I didn't realize that you were so serious. I just thought, you know, this is something we could discuss or debate without it getting personal again. We did this once for capital punishment too, and it got out of hand. I'll drop it. I'm sorry. Don't drop your comments just because of this. I'll stop. I was just having fun. It's hard on this thing because I can't hear the tone of your voice. It's obvious you're upset. So I quit. Sorry.

Jack said...

No - I decided to keep it on this morning. I'm not really upset, I really didn't mean for it to seem like I was mad. It was a little personal with the "you made that up" type comments but other than that the debate was much more interesting than the Capital Punishment one.

Sorry - didn't mean to seem too personal. You just do that thing where I know you know what I'm talking about but you don't say it and then I think maybe you really don't know what I'm talking about so I'm thinkin "awe crap"...... If that made sense AT ALL.

About the post: it's just frustration like any other heat of the moment post. Every theory needs to be challenged, I was just running out ammo to back it up. I hate that!

Jack said...

I can't tell if you're just debating or you're honestly like "jackie, you're a nut"

it's tricky. good move.

Joseph said...

Tricksy. I don't think you're a nut, and I think this is a great debate. I'm sorry if I did offend you, t'was not intended.

Sometimes though I don't know what you're talking about. Sometimes I do, but then I just try to get you to argue against yourself. I'm one tricky fellow. :)

I wrote another bit about that article on my site. If you want to keep going, feel free to comment.

Hope you're well.

-j