As i said, i think there is a profound misunderstanding between parties here.
Not the analogy made nor applicable. In any way.
That’s possibly applicable to your contributions to the thread. Although honestly even that was to me … off. You seemed very invested in proving an interpretation of something you hadn’t seen and have no interest in seeing (and indeed does not sound like a match for your tastes as you describe them).
And I was the OP of that hypothetical Nietzsche thread the links to informed analysis might be on point, but yeah I personally find posters popping in just to say they don’t want to read or see the book or movie being discussed to be narcissistic and annoying.
If I started a thread to discuss a book and others who have read it are discussing it your saying you don’t want to read it and why … is not of any interest or value.
Though let’s go with your inapt analogy. You respond to that “contributor” stating why in your opinion you think Nietzsche is misunderstood by popular media so frequently and the reaction is for that poster to say that you are a dismissive, defensive asshole who is saying that the all-too-common position that you think there’s some systemic antisemitism and fascism in art, then you’re probably wrong, and you probably think no one should be allowed to say anything, and who gave you the right to tell me anything about anything anyway. And ur dumb. Also, some of my best friens are Jews, and they disagree with you.
Yeah I am funny and odd that think the person saying that has some … problem … and that I really think that if you should not argue for a position that is markedly different than the opinion of most critics and most of the people who are actually familiar with the work based on reading a post and a single negative review.
The bit just before the quote you responded to:
male gaze
noun
noun: male gaze; plural noun: male gazes
- the perspective of a notionally typical heterosexual man considered as embodied in the audience or intended audience for films and other visual media, characterized by a tendency to objectify or sexualize women.
That seems a strong statement about a movie they have not seen. We are being told this movie was made by men to objectify women for the pleasure of men.
I agree here. The absolute anger directed at eonwe seems pretty excessive compared to what was actually said. I did not get that anyone was being called a misogynist.
And that’s a problem, because it’s both. For example, Eonwe’s summary of DSeid and EoD’s position includes this line: “Also, some of my best friens are women, and they disagree with you.” That is a variation on “Some of my best friends are black”, and is thus an accusation of misogyny. That colors everything else in the OP.
Now, you guys know me. You know that I think that getting angry when accused of bigotry is bad idea, because it just makes the person think they’re right. So I don’t think DSeid’s reaction was the best.
But I can’t deny that he was in fact accused of misogyny, and I can’t deny the frustration of people then lecturing you, and telling you to ignore the facts in front of your face. He has no reason to listen to you if you keep on telling him that it’s not there.
You seem to have missed the same line puzzlegal did. The OP does accuse DSeid (and Elbow) of being misogynists. That’s what “some of my best frens are women” means.
But I’d also point out that the OP is very hateful and hostile. That’s not how someone would try to help someone unpack their privilege. This is a Pit thread, and the OP pits them. It is an attack.
Also, everyone involved has been very clear about what their objection is. DSeid said in his first post that it was okay to dislike the film, and to read it in a negative way. His objection was the fact that Eonwe hadn’t actually seen it, and was jumping to very strong conclusions based on limited data. (Data that, in fact, the second post of this thread shows was wrong.)
So the assumption that he was trying to shut down the problematic aspects is unfair, and yet another reason why I get why DSeid was upset. I hate it when people attack me for things I didn’t say, too, as you can see if you scroll up a bit.
And I think there is some disingenuous gaslighting going on here, pretending that words don’t mean what they very obviously mean when they don’t fit your preferred narrative.
To expand on this, I’d venture to suggest that if you want to try to help someone unpack their privilege with specific reference to the misogynistic male gaze, choosing to do so with a movie that is not widely recognized among feminist reviewers as an example of the problem, and which you haven’t seen yourself, and then getting hostile when you get pushback from people who have seen the movie, explicitly accusing them of misogyny for daring to defend a movie that you haven’t fucking seen yourself…? Yeah, I think Baldrick might have recommended a consultation with the Cunning Plan Committee.
Go back and read my initial post. What is it I’m saying? What is my point?
I said that I understand why Eonwe’s post came off badly, because it violated this societal expectation that I have observed. It is considered rude to jump into a discussion about a movie you haven’t seen and attack that movie. You are expected to realize that you have an incomplete understanding, and listen to those who have seen it.
I then gave an example of how Eonwe could have brought up the same basic points, but not come off like they were attacking the movie. I gave one example that I thought was unnecessary and came off poorly.
You then came in, ignored all that, just to grab part of a sentence. You then accuse me of not understanding why women would have a problem with the fact that a lot off films are “written by a man, based on a book written by a man, directed by a man”. You completely ignore the context of this.
Sure, you can leave out parts of posts. But you can’t pretend that the rest of the post isn’t there. You can’t go into a post and find the one little part that you can jump on while ignoring the rest. That’s a dishonest tactic.
The same is true of your other replies in this post. They’re all just snark, with no backing. You were clearly just trying to piss me off. And, yes, of course sarcasm is an attack. That’s what makes it different from verbal irony.
Basically, I find that I wind up getting way too upset at your posts that don’t actually refute anything I’ve actually said. I prefer those who argue with the points I’ve actually made, and don’t treat me like a bad person. And, well, I have mental health issues where I have an issue with getting too angry, and one thing I often have to do is let things go.
You clearly are not willing to listen to what I actually have to say, so I’ll put you on ignore for a while.
I have to chime back in to register how amusing this comment is.
I registered annoyance that the conversation in progress about the movie and how one poster who saw it felt it was misogynistic (which I had initiated in the thread to discuss, as that interpretation surprised me and was so different from the many reviews that were calling it a very feminist movie, which I also disagreed with) was pissed on with a fairly hostile sarcastic comment about the movie by someone who had not seen it and whose knowledge about it was factually objectively false.
If you think that comparison to review bombing was “absolute anger” I shudder to think what you’d call how I act when I actually am absolutely angry!
Being called an asshole for registering that annoyance was only worth reporting because I wanted to keep the conversation about the movie, preferably a conversation between those who actually saw the confusing weird thing, on track. It didn’t make me angry either.
In this thread I am in Rome so to speak. Someone Pits me, not something I have much experience with, and lambasts me for “defensiveness” that simply does not exist? (Happy to have more discussion about any opinions or thoughts anyone has about that movie, on the assumption they are informed by seeing the thing.) Declares me an apologist for misogyny if not a misogynist myself because I didn’t see misogyny in the movie which they didn’t see? Well in the Pit I am going to have some playtime slapping the pissant down.
My only issue was the first post that quoted Eonwe. I didn’t think it was that big a deal, but eh your mileage varies of course. I probably won’t see the movie mostly because I don’t watch movies much. I wouldn’t avoid it unless I found it gross or icky while watching. I understand Eonwe’s point, though. I’m really not all that invested in the whole thing.It’s not a hill I need to die on, so I’ll bow out. Y’all BBQ away.
And I pointed out that is not actually a universally accepted rule. In fact several people here have defended the post as perfectly valid in this context, the writer was honest and up front about the fact that they did not see it but that their views were based on trailers, synopses and reviews.
And I will point out again that the OP has clarified several times that their comments were not intended as objective facts about the movie but about how they believed they personally would feel about the movie based on their experience. The OP is in fact the most knowledgeable person regarding that specific point, more so than other people who have watched it.
Right. That is the tone policing that you denied the existence of.
You called it a
so no, that suggests to me you don’t think it’s valid.
I literally can’t pretend it’s not there because the link to the full quote is right there in the part I am quoting. I don’t do it to be deceptive, I do it to avoid a wall of text.
Intentionally presenting a quote out of context is dishonest and against board rules. Those are two reasons I don’t do it. If you ever genuinely feel that I do please report it to a mod and I will respond if they are concerned.
It’s the pit.
That is bullshit. I have presented a lot of reasoned arguments here.
I’ll respond anyway for anyone else following along.
I decided to give the movie a go.
I really like art movies, I mean does anyone else enjoy Jane Campions’s “Sweetie”? It’s kind of hard to like. But I like it.
I found “Poor Things” a bit dull.
This should probably be a post in Cafe Society, but I did not get too much misogny out of it. Maybe I am inurred by other modern cinema. It just seemed… meh.
I am male, by the way, which may affect what is or not misogyny in my opinions.
I haven’t seen Sweetie but it’s on Max so I added it to my watch list.
It is a wild ride. One of my favourites, though it is pretty much batshit insane all the way through.
If you like Campion, the Netflix series “Top of the Lake” is excellent. Styling like her “Piano” but about hippy/small town agression, but in her signature slow story style.
(Which also deals with misogyny, in case the mods feel I am too far off track! I will return to the topic)
Except when it suits you.
In response to a post where I was talking narrowly about the fact that I would not feel I should boycott something unless there was some kind of consensus among reviews of a specific movie that it’s misogynistic, you selectively snipped what I said to make it into a misleading parody that I think feminists should always agree:
So fuck off with your pompous bullshit.
(For the avoidance of doubt, I’ve moved on from sarcasm to hostility.)
Let’s be clear. This is the key point of Eonwe’ “fuck you” to me. I made it very clear in the original thread that my objection was not to what the opinion was, but that was a very strongly expressed one based on ignorance of what the movie was.
Here is the OP take on that.
@Nicest_of_the_Damned , do you concur? Is someone who read a review and a post, with objectively factual information about the movie incorrect, as “informed” about a very strange movie as those who have seen it?
Or is that a great example of the all too common overlap of complete ignorance matched by arrogance of similar size?
No rule is universally accepted. Me I think those who don’t know anything about a subject should not act like they are the knowledgeable ones. And I do enjoy slapping down those people.
Fine, flag it. I genuinely don’t want to deceive anyone so if you think I am breaking the rules go ahead.
Because as I mentioned earlier even if a view is only held by a minority of women that does not invalidate it. Women on both sides of the argument have a valid perspective. There is no point in even mentioning a “consensus among feminists” because we aren’t voting on the “correct” answer. We shouldn’t even mention the word consensus in this context at the risk of unconsciously legitimizing it.
Here is your entire paragraph with the part I am referring to bolded by me:
So it is not just that one should not express an opinion on something one hasn’t seen (which I have addressed elsewhere) but in particular one on which there is not a consensus for your view. The clear implication of that is that the appropriateness of expressing an opinion is based at least in part on how popular that opinion is. That is dangerous territory.
I mean if that isn’t what you meant why even bring up the idea of a consensus in this context? If you meant it in a different way I would genuinely like to understand.
And nor did I. I said a minority opinion was not sufficient to feel I should boycott the movie.
So if all you can do is double down on misrepresenting what I said, I really have nothing more than to say to you than once again - fuck off.
Utter nonsense. Once again, a complete misrepresentation of what I said.
What I said was, if you want to take a strong and credible view of something, it has to be based on either
(a) an external consensus
OR
(b) first hand knowledge of the thing
You cannot possibly take a credible position on a specific work without one of these two things. Obviously if you do have first hand knowledge, then your opinion can derive from the content of the work, and the “popularity” of the view is irrelevant, you argue you position on its merits.
I addressed that more than once, most recently here.
Regarding part of the information being factually incorrect I don’t remember the specifics but at the time it struck me as something relatively minor which wouldn’t necessarily make a huge difference in their opinion.