The King James version of Ecclesiastes 7-9 is “anger resteth in the bosom of fools”, I guess King was just trying to make the metaphor more punchy.
I think it’s often very hard for people in general to take it in that they might be missing some non-trivial aspect of some work, not through any failure of their individual intelligence or artistic judgement, but simply because of who they are and how that limits their personal awareness and experience.
Personally, for example, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a “shot to the balls” scene in a movie that didn’t seem somewhat ludicrously overemphasized and almost paused in suspense, to the point where it pulls me out of the viewer experience and I glance at my watch. Whether it’s played only for laughs or is making some kind of dramatic point, it’s just too “dwelt on” and it hiccups the narrative.
But I suspect that’s primarily or entirely because I don’t personally have the background experience that the moviemakers are drawing on to engage the viewer’s empathy. I don’t know what that’s like, so I just don’t “get” the cinematic rendition of it, and it comes across to me sort of as exaggerated clowning. The gut reaction of uncomprehending exasperation persists, despite my conscious awareness that I am probably the one who’s missing the point here.
Similarly, I would not be surprised if a lot of male viewers just naturally don’t “get” the extent to which many male imaginings of female experience strike many female viewers as more about spectacle than individual personhood. As mentioned upthread, that’s what makes the concept of the “Bechdel test” so thought-provoking. All of us, whatever our gender, are just so, so acclimated to the idea that it’s normal and unremarkable for female characters to have basically no salient existence outside of (a) their sexuality and/or (b) their interactions with men.
Try googling “Via Dolorosa”. You’ll get a lot of images of pilgrims in Jerusalem carrying crosses; many of them will be women.
Works of art have pretty readily identifiable themes, so I think you can develop an opinion about a work’s themes without having actually seen the thing in question. You can’t really understand the nuance of the themes without seeing the thing, but you can get close. I have learned this from experience. In the cases where I read about a thing, and then decide to see it based on what I have read, I usually find it exactly as described. (I was compelled to watch The Babadook based on a description of the movie’s themes and ending… yup, just what it said on the tin. Very good movie, BTW.)
For me personally, I get a lot out of reading critiques and deconstructions about things I haven’t seen, especially scary things I’ll never see, because it’s the next best thing to seeing it. In the case of Twilight and Fifty Shades, I just find reading about them more interesting than watching them. My opinion of them has changed over time, though, thanks to some feminists’ views on the subject, so upon further reflection, I would not offer a blanket condemnation of them myself, I just think a lot of folks do/would. I think they have been positioned as an easy target to condemn “stuff girls/women like” and while I don’t love the abusive vibes of Christian Grey or his predecessor in Twilight, I’m no longer hand-wringing about the implications. But no I don’t have to have read them to have an opinion.
Sure. Anybody can have an opinion about anything for any reason. Just, for myself, I can’t form an informed opinion without experiencing the work. Secondary sources just don’t do it for me. Same with stuff like people describing acquaintances and friends. Until I meet them, I don’t have a useful opinion of them, just an opinion seen through somebody else’s eyes. And, quite often, it’s wrong or, shall I say, quite different than when I meet them and experience them in person.
After 11 months you pop into this thread just to point out a post from 2002 that may prove your suspicions about the OP’s gender?
What’s the point in doing that, what makes it important to you in this context whether they’re M or F? Remember we’re not supposed to care what’s in someone’s underwear.
Yeah I lurk a lot, sorry. But I’ve done it for a long time!
Just lots of people referred to Eonwe with she/her and I thought I recalled them posting as a dude.
I’ll go back to lurking now.
What you are describing is why I have shifted over time in who gets to have a say in the art I create. When I was a new writer, I wanted all opinions from all people, including my male writer friends, but I am done contorting my work to fit the standards set by middle aged men (unless they happen to be middle aged men with a passion for romance novels, in which case, let’s dish.) There were always some exceptions, but by and large, they fundamentally didn’t understand what I was trying to do with my work, and so they were always trying to get me to make it something they would like more, which is a dangerous path to tread as a writer. And especially because they were older men and filled more of a mentorship role in my life, I let their worldview dominate mine, to the detriment of my own vision. It’s not like they set out to intentionally misunderstand my work, they just don’t have the context or the experience to connect with it.
Seriously? You need to get over yourself. I’m not a fan of porn either. I think it’s degrading to all who take part. It makes big bucks for the people who make it. How each woman/feminist feels about porn is a generational and individual thing. Making sweeping generalizations about what one person says in a short post and attacking them for it very personally is crass, and I don’t blame her for feeling like she’s being mansplained.
You might be thirty, you still have that sanctimonious old person energy, where you say shit like
it’s incredibly condescending and gross and stupid, and the sort of shit you should knock the fuck off with.
Or you could swing back into petulance and self-pity, that’s an option too. Or you could decide that my annoyance with your old-person smugness is actually just mansplaining and completely ignore any introspection thereby. You got options!
I don’t care if it’s condescending to some unknown group of young radicals. They need to know better. And they don’t.
When they grow up and put on big girl panties and learn what men can and will do to them. Maybe they’ll shut up about how “pornography is fine, if the women are respected”
Women are never respected doing pornography. And us regular women have to deal with “real” men expecting us to be that.
You can think what you want about me. Its your opinion. Eh, who cares? Not me.
Or mayyyyybe this is a really complex issue with a lot of nuance.
Well I don’t generally spend lots of time here but boy I guess maybe we are now all snowflakes. Comparing a confident sarcastic assessment of a movie made without seeing it to review bombing on Rotten Tomatoes is a horrific personal attack.
Using the word “shit” is rude for gosh darn Pit.
Wow. Who know I was such a sociopath!
Hey, stop cuminsplaining.
I was so confused at first because I’ve been cooking and I smell like cumin right now. I was like, “HOW DID YOU KNOW???”
Nah stick around. Cook with us
Whoa, what? I don’t recall that one.
Could be apocryphal, but it went around a lot in the r/menwritingwomen subreddit.
I meant accusing her of shit posting because she said she didn’t think she wanted to see the movie for the reasons she stated. She didn’t call you stooopid, or anything. She said from what she had heard it sounded male gaze like. I just thought the reaction to her opinion that she didn’t think she wanted to see the movie was over the top.
OK, I didn’t get it. Can someone explain this to me?