Post: #1

NPR is in awe of how the movie "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" is challenging "gender roles."

Really, a movie based out of sexism is empowering women (notice that means not men) is either representing changing gender roles or is providing new templates for youth?



TLP absolutely nails the issue in the above link on sexism. Go ahead, read it. This article will be here when you are done.

The main problem that "Catching Fire" represents is how little women -- especially women in the media -- think of other women. I have seen many Facebook status updates about how awesome Katniss is and a few clear betas in awe of Katniss and how Peeta is a "real man."

First off, I am sick of these pieces that are in "awe" of new forms of sexual relationships displayed in media. I have not seen the new "Hunger Games" but I don't need to for the necessary analysis the NPR piece begs for. Simply flipping scripts -- a form of androgyny -- is not anything approximating equality, much less seeing pure equality as the salve to sexual relations between men and women.

Equality between men and women -- which is often sold as a form of androgyny -- is seen as the cure to sexual differences between men and women. It isn't. Flipping scripts - "OMG! A stay-at-home dad and a bread-winning mother. UGH #Progressivism" - doesn't change anything but flip the perceived power balance. Fools who embrace the former will probably believe in male privilege, but see the situation as "equalizing" the relationship..so there can be...equality?

Some advocates may advance the argument that love was precluded by "patriarchy" but many men and women have been falling in love for centuries in patriarchies across the globe. In fact, women have even been writing about their experiences for centuries! The multiplicity of female authors at the turn of the 20th century in America belies most feminist's points, but still...

The problem is that sexual tensions between men and women will ALWAYS exist. The best approach is to live with those tensions with more grace than we have had in the past. Power is irrelevant when considering whether two people love each other. Feminists don't want to admit it outright, but women love men who are powerful. That is true the world over. Women don't want to cower in a corner, as some ugly feminists would have us conceptualize historical women, as women want a level of autonomy and primacy in certain areas (domestic settings & child-rearing - most specifically early child-rearing).

Equality is a smoke-screen to abolish sexism by rendering sexuality moot itself. It isn't a surprise many of the idiots on the "Online-Girl Hamster Thread" are "queer," "queerbifriendly," "gender-polymonoamorous." They are all variations on the same theme: if we abolish seuxality, then we can abolish sexism. There is a clear -- to them -- link between sexuality (psychology) and queer politics (ideology). It isn't about "queer" sexuality, but about hijacking homosexuality to destroy differences between men and women so they can pretend that men and women are nothing but social constructs. Accusations of homophobia (uhh, only a closeted gay man would think that!) are weapons in a sense, as they are seeking to destroy your sense of self and meld it into an androgynous utopia where we are all....taxpayers?



Second, a minor point. Notice how, despite all the "gender" trouble, Katniss is always in perfect makeup, in form-fitting clothing and just looks pre-packaged. Especially in that "gender-neutral" photo on NPR. Yeah, nice gendered make-up and earrings, Miss. Future Female. Lipstick is a bit too pale for a sexist male like me. Whore-crimson to match the frills on your shoulders would be awesome.

Third, lets review a comment on the NPR article.

The juiciest comment by Nels Highberg:



The faggot's Twitter: Nels Highberg

Quote:This is exactly why I taught the first book last year in my Men and Masculinities course and had students write a paper about the extent to which the book challenges traditional notions of masculinity and femininity.

Of course, anyone who has read the third book knows that things are about to change drastically, and the love triangle will be the least important aspect of the series.

Of course, a quick perusal of Twitter shows how glad he is the Steubenville Rape case matters - I am glad yet another beta comes out of the closet as being against rape. I await his Twitter proclamation that he is against murder. Apparently - and unexpectedly - he is gay and links to a contest in Japan where a gay dude is tasked with getting a straight man off.

And this fuck teaches "Men & Masculinities" at some college, maybe in Connecticut. I don't care because college is completely fucked in the ass throughout the West. The "Closing Of The American Mind" and all that.

The main problem, as always, is how dumbasses like Nels understand masculinity. Ass pirates like him always assume that gay men > straight men so they feel good about themselves (narcissism, because they hate themselves, but can't admit it is because of their own choices, so they blame society), so they always assume their approaches to themselves (masculinity) are better than others.

Masculinity never has and never will be about repression of emotions. That fictional tale is woven by feminists, left-wingers, fags, insecure Christian conservatives and *any* ideological group that *needs* to believe that men don't feel emotions *without* their help. Remember that sentence.

They aren't challenging any real notions of masculinity, but seeking (as per Carrie M)...

Quote:I was so glad to see it opening day, and the swarms of women and girls (and men and boys too) who were excited about the second installment of this series. Excited about books and excited for new roles for men and women. Maybe there is hope.

They are seeking for men to...identify with women.

The same woman -- Katniss -- who has no agency.

A victim of society.

Where do MRA's come from?

Post: #2

I'm in the dark here. Is this a big thing that appeals to girls at the moment? That first picture shows a girl with a bow and arrow, and I've recently seen a huge spike in girls selling archery equipment online and was trying to figure out why, since they didn't look like the type to be hunting feral pigs any time soon. If it's because of this then it fits my suspicion it was something they thought would be cool to do, but then they realised too much work was required to get any good at it, so abandoned it, much like the guitars they always sell.

Post: #3

Nels Highberg teaches a "men and masculinty" course...well I guess there are plenty of lesbians teaching women's studies also, when in reality they should be taught by Vladamir Putin and Dolly Parton (married 46 years)

Post: #4

(11-26-2013 05:54 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  I'm in the dark here. Is this a big thing that appeals to girls at the moment? That first picture shows a girl with a bow and arrow, and I've recently seen a huge spike in girls selling archery equipment online and was trying to figure out why, since they didn't look like the type to be hunting feral pigs any time soon. If it's because of this then it fits my suspicion it was something they thought would be cool to do, but then they realised too much work was required to get any good at it, so abandoned it, much like the guitars they always sell.

Did you ever watch the Running Man? Well imagine the same plot, minus everything that made that film good (and believable), with the genders switched. Oh and a healthy dose of "grrrl power!", of course. For whatever reason, it seems to have been a smash hit with women.

Post: #5

Who is katniss?

Post: #6

I actually like the series despite its mild you-go-girlism. When stuff is well written and directed, it isn't hard to just relax and enjoy the story instead of nitpicking at "Oh, Peeta is such a Beta!"

That said, of course I'm disgusted by feminists holding this up as some kind of anti-patriarchy vehicle. It doesn't seem to have such aspirations, but of course feminists will latch onto anything. Katniss is a sympathetic character, but I don't see any mention of the patriarchy or the like in the film, to be honest. It's easy to empathize with her precisely because the film is empty of such propaganda and is pretty generic. I don't see it as being more anti-patriarchy than Star Wars, it's just a good old simple "hero rises up against tyranny" story.

Post: #7

I saw Catching Fire and I would have had a much better time catching AIDS. It took over an hour for the actual games to start while the beginning was entirely tween romance bullshit of Katnis having two different male characters try to charm her. No wonder girls were eating this shit up. These 2 guys both played the disposable male character where they would happily sacrifice their own life in a heartbeat.

There were 3 dumb bitches behind me talking through the whole film and they were just commenting on what each character was wearing and saying stupid shit like "his eyebrows look weird". At one point a main character cracked a corny joke and the girls were howling at it. One girl turned to another and said "oh my god that was sooooo funny". If it's funny you don't have to say anything.

Never again.

Post: #8

and just because it needs mentioning whenever the hunger games comes up, check out Battle Royale the japanese movie it was definitely ripped off from.

Post: #9

A protagonist with the name katniss? seed sowing.

A beta male tag along named peeta? It's code for PETA.
This stuff started to get popular in the nineties with the arrival of the spice girls.

Post: #10

I'm glad someone brought up "Battle Royale". The Japanese author should sue the Hollywood producers who ripped him off. Of course, these scenarios go way back. "Most Dangerous Game" being the most famous. There is even a leftie version from the early 70's, "Punishment Park", where the CHP's get to hunt-down barefoot hippies in Death Valley.

Post: #11

(11-26-2013 07:38 AM)Pyre Wrote:  Who is katniss?

I think that is the stuff cats go crazy for.

Post: #12

(11-26-2013 07:35 AM)Ocelot Wrote:  For whatever reason, it seems to have been a smash hit with women.

Was that ironic? The reason is the movie completely plays into the feminist narrative. The movie starts with Katniss taking the role of protector when her younger sister is chosen for the games. There's no father around, just her, her sister and her mom. So she goes off and learns to be a trained killer to entertain the degenerate wealthy classes in the capital city. She's got a nice guy as a friend back at home, but really, he seems pretty helpless and he's just supporting her adventures. Haven't even seen the 2nd movie. Does he get dumped in the 2nd movie?

Go on tumblr and you'll see all these girls gushing over how awesome Jennifer Lawrence is. Why? Because she openly talks about her bad eating habits, she's kinda casually vulgar. Really, it's not much of a stretch for her to take the role.

In a weird way, though, the movie is prescient. What kind of world do we end up with if women run the show and men are marginalized?

Post: #13

(11-26-2013 07:35 AM)Ocelot Wrote:  Did you ever watch the Running Man? Well imagine the same plot, minus everything that made that film good (and believable), with the genders switched. Oh and a healthy dose of "grrrl power!", of course. For whatever reason, it seems to have been a smash hit with women.

If it's that popular with young women, the story is a macguffin, and it's simply a about a girl having two attractive men interested in her and her having to choose between them. Later comments seem to confirm this.

Post: #14

I typed "Which guy does katniss..." into google, and it autocompleted it as '...end up with'. Links to Yahoo answers and blog posts debating if she made 'the right choice' or not.

Women are damn predictable. It's all that's really going on in female-centric book series like True Blood and Twilight too.

Post: #15

Post: #16

Just watched it. Was horrified. High production value, but basically a stupid movie designed to give women exactly what makes them feel good. This is the action film version of the rom-com.