You have a bizzare understanding of the word “exploitation.” I think most people would only consider someone “exploited” if they were coerced or tricked into doing something, or if they lacked the intelligence or street-smarts to understand what they were getting into. These women were not coerced or tricked, therefore…
Well, I see no compelling reason to accept the concept of coercion or trickery into the definition of “exploitation”. Convince me otherwise in your next post, and perhaps we can continue this.
I think you missed the part of my second sentence following the comma.
Actually, let me spell it out so you don’t miss my point a second time.
-
You asked where you stated that “innocence, or a lack of intelligence” was required for exploitation.
-
I said that I think most people understand “exploitation” as meaning either (i) coercion or trickery or (ii) where the exploitee lacks the intelligence or street-smarts to understand what they were getting into.
-
I further replied that since item (i) was missing…
3a. What I meant by the ellipses was that since item (i) was missing, I took it that you must be relying on basis (ii) for claiming “exploitation.”
- In short, I was explaining the basis for my earlier remarks about you stereotyping these women as doe-eyed innocents.
Understand now?
Props to Snopes on this one: they said they thought it was B.S. from day one.
There’s your first mistake. Appeal to Invisible Authority. What you think most people understand by a term is usually a projection of what you yourself understand by the term. I have firm support for my argument that exploitation does not presume innocence or lack of intelligence, whereas you just have a vague reference to “most people”.
Your second mistake. Don’t put words into other people’s mouths.
Oh, quite clearly. I did the first time around, too. This just confirms it.
And thanks for the link to the Yahoo story. You’ve helped settle an offline argument in my favor - Snopes wasn’t enough in this case.
Hoax or no, it was a disgusting concept.
To what “firm support” are you referring? The dictionary definition? Don’t be absurd. As noted, going strictly by the dictionary definition everyone who works for a wage is “exploited.” The connotation of the term is something quite different.
I do not see why you are willing to give these women a pass. They participated in and enabled a video that you deem exploitative to women. They did it for no better reason than fattening their wallets. Why is their greed OK, but the owner’s greed is not?
>> Hoax or no, it was a disgusting concept
OK, don’t relax and enjoy basking in your righteous indignation. Personally I found the hoax quite funny and half the fun is seeing how some people get all worked up about nothing.
sailor - You would.
Getting paid for one’s efforts is not the same thing as greed. I think it highly unlikely all of those women were independently wealthy and did this for a lark. Recognizing that one needs money to survive in today’s society and making choices on what work to perform to earn that money does not automatically make one greedy.
Burdick had a whole organized plan to sell these videos, including media exposure. The only way that would work is by having the women run naked through the desert. He used those women to make more money for himself than he laid out in organizing the scheme in the first place. The women, on the other hand, probably had no previous investment in the scheme and thus only made money off their own immediate ability to run naked through the desert. Burdick used the work of others, while the women only relied on their own. Once the women’s pay from this escapade was spent, they get no more money from it. Burdick keeps earning income as long as the videos sell. In and of itself, that’s pretty disgusting from my point of view. Add to it the sexist element - it’s acceptable to treat women as nothing more than naked targets to shoot paintballs at, even if “staged” - and it becomes outrageously so.
These women were exploited, both as working people and as women. You can go on about “connotations” of the term as long as you like, but it’s going to take more than accusations of absurdity and intellectual narrowness to convince me my stance is wrong. Give me something solid.
A quote from sailor’s cited site:
“I’ll do everything I can to see this man is punished for trying to embarrass [emphasis added] Las Vegas,” Goodman [Las Vegas mayor] said."
The mayor’s statement reminds me of the joke about two cowhand friends who got into a fight over one of the town dance hall girls.
When asked why the fight one said, “He insulted Millie.”
His questioner replied, “For God’s sake, how?”
[Groucho]Remember men, we’re fighting for Las Vegas’s honor, which is more than Vegas ever did![/Groucho]
You must hate Hollywood.
(Not to godwinize my own position, but I couldn’t think of a better example) Would you say that the actors portraying the Jews in The Pianist or Schindler’s List were exploited, because portraying them beaten, tortured, and/or killed was used to show degrading treatment of Jews? And further, the actors only got paid once for this “humiliating” treatment, while the production firm continues to earn income as long as it is selling. Or is the indignation only saved for non-professional films?
I’d say, were this not a hoax, that shooting for $1,000/hr can properly be considered greedy. Even the most senior partners at my former place of employ didn’t charge that much.
But of course, this was a hoax; the actresses weren’t paid that much. But neither are the actresses in “Return of the Son of the Undead Blob,” either, and they’re also basically paid to scream, be humiliated, and show their boobs. What’s the difference?
Finally, I note that there are certainly any number of lower-paying jobs any of these women could take. If they could make more doing this than they could waiting tables, then they were motivated by money. Ergo, greed. **
You mean he crafted this whole plan in hopes of making (gasp!) A PROFIT?!?!?!? My God, what an evil, evil man. :rolleyes:
I’ve got news for you, Sparky: most business plans are premised on making more money than you lay out setting things up. If you think otherwise, please remind me never to go into business with you. **
How is this any different from, say, a swimwear model on desert shoot? **
So Burdick did no work at all? Concieving the idea, raising capital, getting together the filming equipment and props, finding actresses and a film crew, getting the tapes made, and finding a distributor isn’t work? **
Why? Burdick is taking all the risk. He’s the one that ponied up the money. The actressess get paid at the end of the shoot – they have money in their pocket whether the scheme succeeds or fails. Burdick, on the other hand, may not see one red cent, and may in fact lose money. **
Again, I agree it’s unseemly. But that doesn’t make the actressess victims. **
Balderdash. Unless you’re prepared to tell me a freshly-minted law school graduate making six figures a year is “exploited,” you’re going to have to narrow your definition.
I’ve already provided you my definition of “exploited”, Dewey. And yes, you’re correct - that definition pretty much disregards the amount of wages paid as a consideration. And I’m well aware of what the point of organizing businesses is under capitalism. But that’s the Marxist definition of exploitation, and the Marxist attitude towards capitalism, and I intend to stick by both of them. You should be well acquainted with my perspective by now.
Phoenix Dragon, in the economic sense of course they’re being exploited, but that’s the nature of a system with the drive for profits at its heart. The movie companies try to make a profit off of the actors’ work, whether they’re the stars or the extras. But there’s a vast gulf between the purpose of a film like Schindler’s List and “Hunting for Bambi”. Spielberg’s film wasn’t intended to be marketed to the neo-Nazi fringe as material for titillation, but as a story to illustrate the horrors of the Nazi regime, and one man’s attempts to subvert its goal, to a general audience. “Hunting for Bambi” is intended purely for those men who regard women as inferior and find this sort of treatment of women to be entertainment. So no, I don’t hate Hollywood.
Gee, I wish my former employers could have afforded to continue exploiting me.
>> that’s the Marxist definition of exploitation, and the Marxist attitude towards capitalism, and I intend to stick by both of them.
Anything which pisses off the marxists has to be good. I propose a new game: Pay $10,000 to chase and shoot with paintballs some hungry and dirt poor prelatarians dressed in rags and begging for a meal. I am sure quite a few of the decadent exploiters would go for that too.
Okay, good. Since it’s completely fine when Hollywood exploits someone economically (Or at least, not enough to make you “hate them”), I think we’ll just disregard this film-maker’s “economic exploitation” of his actors, as well. Unless you’re going to say that Hollywood and independant film makers should be held to different standards?
You’re making the error of assuming everyone has as little of a sense of seperation between fantasy and reality as you’re portraying them as having (This really reminds me of all the people who scream that popular music/video games/movies/TV/cause-of-the-day cause school shootings). For illustration: I love horror movies. The more blood and gore, the better (Well, usually). Many, many other people like these movies, for the same reason. Horror movies are promoted with this in mind, trying to target those who like seeing movies with blood, gore, and violence. And they sell quite well. But, oddly enough, the vast majority of horror-movie watches would not think that torturing and murdering another person (for real) in particularly gruesome ways would be “entertaining.”
And, in the broader sense, there really isn’t a lot of difference between Schindler’s List and this video. Both are forms of entertainment made to try and entertain people so that they can be sold and the production company can make money. Most of the time, when making a movie, the only concern the producers have about the audience is “will this have enough people interested to make it profitable?”
The best that this reason you listed could do, is to show that the video is distasteful, which at most, makes it simply a bad movie (In the quality/likeability sense). But I still don’t see how you’re saying that these women were exploited. They probably got better pay at that job than I’ve had at any I’ve held, and for less work.
Just a wild guess, but I’d wager you’re not exactly a fan of regular pornography either?