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: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: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?