Hollywood Gender Genre Bender Thing

[Project Willow]

I don't hate men, I love men, in spite of all the evil they do. I love dick baby, sorry you can't comprehend that, but we were having a discussion about the current social milieu, as it were. Please, adjust, you misogynist pig.

[Occult Means Hidden]

I've often wondered and never received an answer as to why blatant hatred of men is tolerated at RI.

I never ignored your point of contention.

But here we have a woman bragging about female achievement in start-supported (?) education, although no doubt she thinks that when men were outperforming women it was due to discrimination. Bragging about women doing better in employment, although again she has claimed when it was reverse it was due to discrimination. Boasting even about feminist eugenic leanings against the production of male babies, which is one of the main evils held up by feminists as evidence of the oppression of women when the sexes are reversed in China and India. I generally consider the term "feminazi" to be hyperbole, despite the links between the feminist goddess movement and the Ahnenerbe, but in this case the promotion of eugenics justifies its use.

But your bizarre woman-hatred makes in difficult to understand your position. Please enlighten us about the Ahnenerbe (an org run by men) and their nefarious feminist goddess links. Please do better than a few graduate student papers published by the Ahnenerbe.

Or enlighten me how the article is hatred and not a trend-analysis with an eye-catching title designed for generating debate and page-views. Did you add the eugenics part?

Bragging about women doing better in employment, although again she has claimed when it was reverse it was due to discrimination.

Because I'm reading this as women-trending as a positive factor and it's reverse as a statement of fact about the past. The end of the article even seems to lament the decline in manliness in men and it's disturbing rise in women. Do you lament the downfall of men as an institution?

Men aren't men today, not because of women's rise. They aren't men because they don't know what it means to be a man. They have no honor or deep seated passion of absolute justice. It takes balls to stand up for what is right. Because to do so, requires doing something independent and dangerous or even unpopular. Few men in the West have sufficient balls enough to be a man.

[Stephen Morgan]

I don't hate men, I love men, in spite of all the evil they do.

Substitute "I love blacks, despite all the crimes they commit" and you might see what you sound like to me.

I love dick baby, sorry you can't comprehend that,

Please don't objectify us. We're not pieces of meat.

That was flippant, but nonetheless I am not unfond of pussy, but you don't see me presenting this as evidence of my enlightened, equality loving nature. It is irrelevant to the situation.

but we were having a discussion about the current social milieu, as it were. Please, adjust, you misogynist pig.

You infected the discussion with hate speech, hence I responded accordingly. If you continue to applaud the eugenic elimination of men and unjust economic dominance by women then I will continue to point out your hatred of men, as demonstrated by the policies which you favour, as, if I were to call for a reduction in the number of women and a heavy majority of men in higher education and so forth, you would rightly denounce my position on women. As it is you wrongly denounce my position on women.

[Occult Means Hidden]

from the article's closing:

Instead, four men stare into the camera, unsmiling, not moving except for tiny blinks and sways. They look like they’ve been tranquilized, like they can barely hold themselves up against the breeze. Their lips do not move, but a voice-over explains their predicament—how they’ve been beaten silent by the demands of tedious employers and enviro-fascists and women. Especially women. “I will put the seat down, I will separate the recycling, I will carry your lip balm.” This last one—lip balm—is expressed with the mildest spit of emotion, the only hint of the suppressed rage against the dominatrix. Then the commercial abruptly cuts to the fantasy, a Dodge Charger vrooming toward the camera punctuated by bold all caps: MAN’S LAST STAND. But the motto is unconvincing. After that display of muteness and passivity, you can only imagine a woman—one with shiny lips—steering the beast.

Just like the Super Bowl to which this advertisement ran. Passivity. Watching a game like an audience not a player wielding tremendous creativity and might. It's a mirror. Man's a little bitch. And we're destined to continue to part from freedom and social justice until men realize their courageous might and women realize their beautiful inheritance.

[Stephen Morgan]

But your bizarre woman-hatred makes in difficult to understand your position.

I may be bizarre, but I don't hate women.

Please enlighten us about the Ahnenerbe (an org run by men) and their nefarious feminist goddess links.

Yes, the only branch of the SS run by women was the SS Women's Corp.

Please do better than a few graduate student papers published by the Ahnenerbe.

I was specifically refering to Marija Gimbutas, who pioneered the modern goddess movement and picked up her theories from the Ahnenerbe men digging in her homeland before she fled the returning Communists with the emigrees who later provided the bulk of the CIA's covert operatives, pre-Castro. For her I refer you to Cathy Youngs book about the Goddess movement. Might have been Cynthia Eller, actually. Some feminist type, anyway.

Obviously Gimbutas replaced the Aryans and Jews in her mythos with the newly invented ancient-Goddess-worshippers and evil-patriarchal-Kurgans.

Or enlighten me how the article is hatred and not a trend-analysis with an eye-catching title designed for generating debate and page-views.

You must be very naive if you can look at that article and see neutral observation. Not that there is, in fact, such a thing as neutral observation, but if there was that wouldn't be it. It is triumphalism and advocacy.

Did you add the eugenics part?

From which I gather the idea you didn't so much as glance at the article. You didn't notice the bit about selectively breeding for girl-children rather than boy-children?

Because I'm reading this as women-trending as a positive factor and it's reverse as a statement of fact about the past.

Positive in the moral sense?

The end of the article even seems to lament the decline in manliness in men and it's disturbing rise in women.

I'd quite like the see some more manliness in women. The traditional roles, mores, modes of behaviour and so forth were established by what function one performed in society. If the role of women is to be conflated with that previously held by men it would seem prudent to adopt the established and useful modes of behaviour.

Do you lament the downfall of men as an institution?

I'm all about the economics. I certainly mourn the decline of men as an organised force. My position is that stated by Thompson in his "The Making of the English Working Class": that women have always been hired over men whenever possible because they are more pliant and likely to bend to the needs of their would-be masters. No doubt this belief will be denounced as misogynist, although the corresponding belief that women are inherently gentle and non-violent won't be. Women just aren't as... a suitable word escapes me. Ornery, perhaps, although that's an American word so I'm not entirely sure. Troublesome maybe. The larger the proportion of men in a workforce the more trouble it's likely to give those who would exploit it. One of the reasons women get paid less, supposedly, although a minor one, is that in situations where individuals bargain for their wages women are less aggressive. I see no reason for that to be limited to individuals. Collective economic force, this is what I mourn in its decline, and the rise of the economic status of women is one of the many factors behind it.

Men aren't men today, not because of women's rise. They aren't men because they don't know what it means to be a man. They have no honor or deep seated passion of absolute justice. It takes balls to stand up for what is right. Because to do so, requires doing something independent and dangerous or even unpopular. Few men in the West have sufficient balls enough to be a man.

I'm not entirely sure I approve of your judgemental approve to the definition of manhood. To me a Y chromosome and a set of male genitalia is enough. Both, just one of those and it can be a more complicated matter. I would certainly never exclude anyone else from manhood. Obviously, not all men are good men, but a man's a man regardless of any other qualities he may or may not possess. You may be describing manliness, but not manhood.

[Stephen Morgan]

from the article's closing:

Sounds like triumphalism ot me. Could be getting paranoid I suppose. On the other hand it's definitely not opposing this turn of events.

And we're destined to continue to part from freedom and social justice until men realize their courageous might and women realize their beautiful inheritance.

I'm afraid I rather think we've already lost. It's all over. We are owned. The true ownership, that which requires no compulsion.

[gnosticheresy_2]

Half the people post YouTube videos are going to start spoofing the green-tint thing sooner or later.

It's the "old polaroid" look.







In the future, the red plate is always washed out. I think perhaps it's a visual analogy for how we remember our dreams, or distant memories - desaturated.

I would imagine some of it can also be attributed to the popularity of this http://hipstamaticapp.com/ amongst yer visual artist/ graphic designer types. All the ones I know keep going on and on about it in mind numbingly tedious detail

[Cedars of Overburden]

Stephen, this American woman thinks ornery and troublesome describe what I THINK you're trying to describe. Of course, when women are ornery they're bitches and we can't have that, so ....

[Occult Means Hidden]

Please don't objectify us. We're not pieces of meat.

Were you really offended or was this just too good of an opportunity to pass up as innocent victim?

Yes, the only branch of the SS run by women was the SS Women's Corp.

The Hitler Youth had lots of children as members. (so?)

I was specifically refering to

I was afraid you were going to go with the Steven Akins route. Good thing you didn't.

refering to Marija Gimbutas, who pioneered the modern goddess movement and picked up her theories from the Ahnenerbe men digging in her homeland

I know of Gimbutas but not Young. You seem to be accusing her here of using data obtained from the Ahnenerbe - likely publicaly available and not by secret collusion. Which isn't a horrific thing at all and isn't much of a link.

before she fled the returning Communists with the emigrees who later provided the bulk of the CIA's covert operatives, pre-Castro.

Can you restate this? I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here.

You didn't notice the bit about selectively breeding for girl-children rather than boy-children?

But you are being naive if you think this is a genuine eugenic threat in the short to medium term future. The overwhelming majority remains as male preference, no matter how quickly you'd like to dismiss as unimportant.

Positive in the moral sense?

In an economic sense. This was a theme of the article.

You may be describing manliness, but not manhood.

I feel that i'm describing manhood. Manliness to me is macho tough-guy law-of-the-jungle asshole. Manhood is honor, courage and justice.

[Stephen Morgan]

Stephen, this American woman thinks ornery and troublesome describe what I THINK you're trying to describe. Of course, when women are ornery they're bitches and we can't have that, so ....

Be a bitch if you like. If you felt like organising yourself and some other bitches and being bitches towards distasteful but powerful people, that would be all the better. It's still the case that groups of men have a better track record.

[Canadian_watcher]

Stephen, this American woman thinks ornery and troublesome describe what I THINK you're trying to describe. Of course, when women are ornery they're bitches and we can't have that, so ....

Be a bitch if you like. If you felt like organising yourself and some other bitches and being bitches towards distasteful but powerful people, that would be all the better. It's still the case that groups of men have a better track record.

I don't think that's true, but even if it were you might be surprised to know that you can't count yourself among male heros just because you swing a pair.

You ever watched that horrid show "What Would You Do?" It's usually a woman or women who step up to the plate in times of conflict.

[Stephen Morgan]

Please don't objectify us. We're not pieces of meat.

Were you really offended or was this just too good of an opportunity to pass up as innocent victim?

No, I wasn't serious, man.

Yes, the only branch of the SS run by women was the SS Women's Corp.

The Hitler Youth had lots of children as members. (so?)

So, the Ahnenerbe wasn't run by women. I was just making an observation.

I was specifically refering to

I was afraid you were going to go with the Steven Akins route. Good thing you didn't.

I'm not familiar with him.

refering to Marija Gimbutas, who pioneered the modern goddess movement and picked up her theories from the Ahnenerbe men digging in her homeland

I know of Gimbutas but not Young. You seem to be accusing her here of using data obtained from the Ahnenerbe - likely publicaly available and not by secret collusion. Which isn't a horrific thing at all and isn't much of a link.

Never heard of Cathy Young? I understood her to be quite well known, as feminists go. I think it was Cynthia Eller who wrote that book, actually.

Anyway, the possibility of secret collusion had hardly occured to me, only the identity of her ideas. Which is to say that her ideas were in the same form as those laid out in "theozoology".

Also I meant to mention Simmel, on the subject of the rise of the ancient matriarchal theorists.

before she fled the returning Communists with the emigrees who later provided the bulk of the CIA's covert operatives, pre-Castro.

Can you restate this? I'm not exactly sure what you are saying here.

I am painting a picture of the historical context, that she was a white Russian caught in the Baltic states when they were occupied by the Soviets, then over-run by the Nazis who started digging in her homeland for evidence of the fabled ancient Aryan super-civilisation which pre-dated the collapse brought about by the Jewish subversion and mongrelisation fo the Aryan race. During that time she claims her family sheltered Jewish children from the Nazis, but when the Nazis were pushed out she fled the Soviets with them and their collaborators. Others who fled the Soviets, not all of whom had been Nazi collaborators, generally went on to join up with the Western intelligence services to continue the anti-Soviet war under new, non-Nazi masters, for example de Moehrenschildt who baby-sat Oswald. She went into academia and peddled a bit bucket of lies to people. She was given a doctorate in Germany, where she'd arrived with the fleeing forces of Nazism, then went straight into a top job at Harvard. Eventually she started peddling the old Nazi notions but with the villains and heroes replaced.

I mean I'm not saying she was taught by mystical Nazis in Lithuania, the fled with them because she was one and feared Soviet reprisals. I'm not saying all her long and deceitful history of bullshit came directly from her Nazi tutors. I'm not saying she relied on the destruction of the records from her homeland to cover-up crimes for which she may have had reason to fear the Soviet wrath. I'm not saying she built an entire academic career on being an anti-Soviet emigree in MacCarthyite America, from the land of heroic Lithuanian resistance which was then being aided incompetently by the CIA. I'm definitely not saying she was a CIA sleeper who was eventually recruited to spread the nazis old ideas with a new feminist tint so as to help their promotion of feminism as part of a covert action against non-feminist progressive movements in the anti-war and socialist crowd.

I'm just suggesting the possibility.

What I'm actually saying is that her ideas were structurally the same as those of the Nazis' Ahnenerbe, that in ancient times was a utopia, hers feminist and theirs Aryan, which was brought down by inferior races, theirs Jewish and hers patriarchal.

You didn't notice the bit about selectively breeding for girl-children rather than boy-children?

But you are being naive if you think this is a genuine eugenic threat in the short to medium term future. The overwhelming majority remains as male preference, no matter how quickly you'd like to dismiss as unimportant.

The overwhelming majority of what remains as male preference? I mean, we're talking about an article, the facts of which no-one is disputing, that points out that women are more likely to be university educated, less likely to be unemployed, &c., and that women are going so far as to actively choose not to give birth to boys. The position of the mass of men is in no way preferable to that of the mass of women.

The reason it isn't a eugenic threat is that men cannot become extinct without women also becoming extinct. Nonetheless, combined with the position taken by some extreme feminists that the proportion of men in the population should be reduced, this is an indication of unjust thinking. I mean, if it was suggested to selectively breed to reduce the numbers of any other group it would be unacceptable. Would it not?

Positive in the moral sense?

In an economic sense. This was a theme of the article.

Positive in an economic sense in what way?

You may be describing manliness, but not manhood.

I feel that i'm describing manhood. Manliness to me is macho tough-guy law-of-the-jungle asshole. Manhood is honor, courage and justice.

Manliness is a term I don't experience in general use. Manhood is the aforementioned literal use.

[Stephen Morgan]

Be a bitch if you like. If you felt like organising yourself and some other bitches and being bitches towards distasteful but powerful people, that would be all the better. It's still the case that groups of men have a better track record.

I don't think that's true,

The only partly successful female mass revolutionary movement that comes to mind is the pots and pans group who helped with the overthrow of Allende, and they were whores of capitalism. All the revolutions, the political movements, the industrial disputes have been mostly male groups. You might say that was in a day, or in modern countries like Egypt, where women were less likely to take part in such things. And I would say that's rather the point. It is not a coincidence that the political and economic position of women compared to men has trended inversely to that or the working classes, skilled labour and organised labour compared to the rich and powerful.

but even if it were you might be surprised to know that you can't count yourself among male heros just because you swing a pair.

If you thought I was a hero I'd be worried about you.

You ever watched that horrid show "What Would You Do?" It's usually a woman or women who step up to the plate in times of conflict.

Never even heard of it. Skimming the wiki page it seems to be a Nickelodeon show, therefore all about children and, by extension, women, who have a cultural association with motherhood. That, combined with the fact that individual women are capable of acting in ways not reflected in the actions of women as a group and that people are more likely to act in troublesome ways to protect children could well lead to the outcome you describe.

If, that is, we were to take seriously a television programme, let alone one made by Nickelodeon, as socio-political observation.

[Luther Blissett]

Let's see: similar color palettes (green + grey. orange + blue. red + deep blue + grey). Similar colors for similar moods/themes (oooh, green, something's not right! greyish blue, evil is about! Red = Exciting! etc.). Similar visual themes and poses (half-lit faces. turning catercorner. girls with guns pointed at you.). I'm sure there's others, like that Psychedelic Prog-Rock poster for Thor. What's up with the earth down on the bottom, is it the sequel to that Al Gore movie?

That Thor poster is really low-rent. Why is everything about this movie screaming "conservative" to me?

The guy who did that poster for Limitless? He's already billed out ten hours today and still hasn't met his deadline, you think he had enough time to bother switching out his color choices on Illustrator or Preflight or whatever you all in design use? Of course not.

Haha, that's not how movie poster design works. I tried to find the studio that did the Limitless movie poster but it doesn't seem to be forthcoming. I'm assuming it was an in-house film studio job. Some shop called "Starfighters" did a different, even more drab and unimaginative poster for Limitless, but they did not make the one posted above. Regardless, film posters are a design-by-committee operation. While I'm sure the bulk of it was done by a singular desk monkey with deadlines and the whole nine, this theoretical designer would not be hindered by any sort of pre-set color palette or anything like that. The direction comes from the top down, and they are very specific. And THEN it goes through half a dozen rounds of revisions (if they're lucky).

To see how transparent this crap is, check out the Katy Perry Rolling Stone cover. A substantial part of her thigh just disappears, and as soon as you see it, it's one of those things where you think "how did I not notice that"?

I was actually surprised at how little they photoshopped Katy Perry, but that's more about her surprising natural beauty than the false restraint of the retoucher. But regardless, the re-shaping and re-touching that was done is still very disappointing. It would be great to ban its use on celebrity photos for anything other than color correction and similar non-invasive purposes. [url=Animated gif showing the original and doctored Katy Perry pictures]http://weirdcorner.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Katy-Perry-photoshop-fake.gif[/url]

In the future, the red plate is always washed out. I think perhaps it's a visual analogy for how we remember our dreams, or distant memories - desaturated.

There's a definite psychological tie to early photo processing, memories, and dreams. I find it to be coincidental though. I'd have to imagine that dreamers in the byzantine still dreamt in hazy, greyish, vignetted scenes. The nature of dreams can not have been affected by the nostalgia evoked in lesser photographic technology.

It was not always the red plate that washed out - it was any:

[Canadian_watcher]

The only partly successful female mass revolutionary movement that comes to mind is the pots and pans group who helped with the overthrow of Allende, and they were whores of capitalism. All the revolutions, the political movements, the industrial disputes have been mostly male groups. You might say that was in a day, or in modern countries like Egypt, where women were less likely to take part in such things. And I would say that's rather the point. It is not a coincidence that the political and economic position of women compared to men has trended inversely to that or the working classes, skilled labour and organised labour compared to the rich and powerful.

Oh I see, so it's only about mass movements that involve violence. I don't think that those are the only types of revolutions that should count. And we can't discount the fact that most historical texts are written for men about men. There is much history to be learned if you look outside of the accounts by and for the 'mythical norm.' Then again you can't really have it both ways.. were the alleged masses of female witches a threat or not?

I also note that you used the word 'whores.' Your word choices here and elsewhere do give people clues as to your overall belief system.

If, that is, we were to take seriously a television programme, let alone one made by Nickelodeon, as socio-political observation.

different show. The one I'm referring to is some Dateline thing by John Quinones but you're right, it's hardly scientific.