The first part, sure. It is perfectly thoughtful and valid to say that you don’t plan to see the movie because some reviewers who you respect see it as problematic. But this and commenting on broader issues with misogyny in the industry in general is really all you can say.
It is not thoughtful and valid to continue in such a hostile manner by describing pushback from people who have seen the movie as “defensive” and explicitly accuse them of being apologists for misogyny. You cannot possibly know if that is true, or whether the pushback is based on the actual content of the movie, because you haven’t seen the fucking movie.
I think @DSeid 's comment was ill-considered, but somewhat understandable given that he loved the movie, and someone who hadn’t seen it was trashing it. And following your own distinction, it was at most sarcastic. Responding by accusing him of being an apologist for misogyny is what I would call hostile.
FWIW, I’m fine with folks opining about a work they’re personally unfamiliar with. Personal familiarity is generally the gold standard for information about something, but it’s not the only source for information; and a person can share their thoughts about a work based on secondary sources as well. I’ve never read the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but I won’t hesitate to form a judgment of someone who extolls its virtues, even if they’ve read it and I haven’t.
I think you don’t fully understand the implication of this. First hand knowledge of lived experience includes a lifetime of watching movies about women that were made by men. As Kimstu nicely articulated above, this has often made for some problematic stories. Men who have seem the movie are not informed of the experience of being a woman watching the movie.
Yes some women loved it. All women can’t be expected to have the same opinion. Believe it or not, a lot of women have gotten pretty good at determining in advance if they will like a movie or not, based on a number of factors including potential for misogyny.
The last paragraph that you quoted. How else can this possibly be interpreted other than a direct accusation of being an apologist for misogyny?
But the dismissiveness and defensiveness with which you and others seem to be responding to even the suggestion that there’s even something worth being critical (as in analytical) about wrt men putting sexy women having sex on screen continues to give me the impression that this is not a movie for me.
…
Of course I understand that. My point was that you seem to be selectively applying the principle that first hand experience should be heard and respected.
And other things being equal, do you think the opinion of women who have not seen the movie is worth the same as the opinion of women who have?
If this is the opinion being expressed I think it’s totally legitimate:
What keeps getting overlooked here is that Eonwe has repeatedly stated they are not trying to make any objective claims about the movie, only about how they think they would experience it.
Of course. If a lot of people I respect tell me that a book is racist, I’m not going to give money to the author just to find out for myself, and I’m going to pass that view on to others.
But if someone says they have read the book and they don’t think it’s racist, I’m not going to respond by saying “the only reason you could possibily think that is if you’re a racist”. I’d certainly feel I needed first hand knowledge to make that kind of accusation. (Assuming of course that we’re not actually talking about something so well known by reputation as the Protocols.)
FYI I don’t appreciate your misleading selective quoting and response, falsely implying that I expressed the view that feminists should agree. It was abundantly clear that I was making the narrow point that there is not sufficient consensus among reviewers that this movie is misogynistic for me to feel I should boycott it.
This was the post that started it, in the midst of people who had actually seen the movie discussing it:
To which I responded as has been noted, that it is a bit weird to have such a sarcastic trashing of a movie when you haven’t seen it, based exclusively on how you perceive it fits in with your social or political agenda and based on something you read on the internet. Yes I responded with sarcasm in turn, comparing that to review bombing, which is also trashing something sight unseen based on hearing something about it and how it fits with some agenda you have.
Honestly a pretty mild jibe to my sense, to a mild annoyance.
My saying that it definitely not a movie everyone would like was read as saying they were unsophisticated, the ongoing discussion about it being interpreted as misogynistic by some that I had started in the thread was read as dismissive and defensive and I was then called an “asshole”
WTF?
That was no sarcasm. It was clear hostility. Yes I requested the mods call for some chilling out. And while I questioned my comment being labeled as inappropriate I accepted their call.
If there is any doubt that @Eonwe was saying more than that they didn’t feel it was worth their time then the subsequent posts, including this thread’s OP makes it clear: any comment from the many who have seen it that no that isn’t really what the movie is, at least in our opinions, it is due to their dismissive and defensive misogyny. They haven’t seen it but since there are, among many positive reviews and some (I think incorrectly) declaring it a strong feminist movie, a handful of those who have seen it who declare it a male fantasy well that is all they need to know and anyone else who thinks otherwise is a misogynist pig.
I truly do not understand where you are getting that claim. You can say that a film has problematic aspects without the implication that people who like it are misogynist. That’s why people are pointing to the defensiveness - because nobody said you only like if it you’re a misogynist, and nobody said it should be boycotted. I don’t even see that being implied by the OP of this Pit thread. In fact, the OP seems to be doing just the opposite - saying, hey, can you accept that some aspects of the thing you like might be problematic without defensively jumping all over my shit?
I get it, nobody likes having things they like be criticized. One of my favorite books is Catcher in the Rye and I love the band Rush, but huh, more to the point, I love the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. People who have never studied Nietzsche have all sorts of opinions on him. Misogynist? Absolutely. Batshit insane? Unquestionably. Anti-Semitic? Pro-fascism? Decidedly not. Anti-theist? Yes, but it’s complicated. But I don’t get the fucking vapors when people misread him based on That One Quote They Know, or assume that their criticism is the equivalent of calling me a god-hating misogynist.
I don’t see it. I see you being attacked for your defensiveness, not your personal views of women. Which is a lot of what privilege and unpacking privilege is all about.
FTR I think the idea that you can understand more about a film without seeing it than someone who has seen it is absurd.
I also think, and I suspect the OP agrees with me, it is okay to like a problematic thing.
The problem is when you shut down discussion about the problematic aspects, because you’re uncomfortable with the idea that you like something problematic. Now I don’t know if you were actually doing that, but that is what the OP is mad about.
I totally agree. I didn’t see anyone call to boycott the movie. I didn’t see anyone imply that you could only enjoy it if you are misogynistic. I saw an opinion that the movie had some problematic elements that made one person not want to see it themself, along with cites to reviewers who had seen the movie who reported why they felt it was problematic.
And saying that a work of art is made by men for men doesn’t mean it’s bad. Lots of great art was created by men for men, but also speaks to women.
For that matter, i claim that Huckleberry Finn is a book written by and for white people, that has some elements that a black person might find problematic, but it’s nonetheless a great book and an anti-racist book. Those are not contradictory.
I was really surprised by the strength of the reaction to the comments, and think there must be a lot of misunderstanding in both directions.
You see my complaining about someone joining a respectful conversation about a movie (in which the opinion of a single poster who saw it was that it seemed misogynistic was being discussed, not dismissed) to drop in a well my opinion that this is misogynistic is now “confirmed” and to sarcastically trash the film they have not seen, with a post that, frankly very respectfully acknowledged that the film probably isn’t going to be one everyone would like but that it was a bit odd to have such a strong opinion on something they haven’t seen, and yes to compare that behavior to review bombing, is having the vapors and being defensive???
Even being called an asshole only earned me requesting that the mods help cool it down.
Yeah I am really surprised that a gentle jibe about that behavior being like review bombing is read as a strong reaction by anyone at all. It dumbfounds me.
Or how that jumping in to drop a sarcastic turd into a back and forth conversation in progress about the one poster’s opinion was seen as anything other than a blatant threadshit.
I created the thread to discuss the movie as I had questions about it. It was weird and confusing (in ways I personally like and I know many others do not). A post of “I have not seen it but I feel the need to jump in with trash talk about it” is a turd post.
@Spice_Weasel if you went to a group that was specific discussing Nietzsche and there was an informed debate in progress between people who have read the works and someone spoke up to say “I haven’t read anything by him but boy a fascist antisemitic asshole!” you wouldn’t be annoyed at all?
Okay. That’s not a direct accusations of being an apologist for misogyny. It’s an accusation of being defensive of criticism.
I’m going to say that there’s nothing especially misogynistic about men wanting to watch sexy women having sex, either. Also, that’s something that often appeals to men more than to women.
Again, “this movie sounds like it’s primarily for men” is NOT the same as saying it is misogynistic.
I’ve read Nietzsche, and i liked a lot of his writing.
If someone started a thread saying, “i just read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and i really liked it, but i didn’t understand all of it, and I’d like to discuss it”, and someone popped in to say “his ideas inspired some really bad stuff, and here are some links, so i don’t want to read it”, no i wouldn’t accuse them of review bombing, nor be especially upset with their contribution to the thread.