Double-Double Standards

[Cognisant]

Spoiler

This reminds me of a point made by of the, uh "presenters", of a cracked.com sponsored/produced youtube series (critical noun failure ) that there isn't equality in the fictional presentation of women because as of yet there isn't a single mainstream movie (that they knew of) that had a woman being shot in the head, sure women can be shot but only men get shot in the face.

Yeah okay that's a double standard but isn't it just a matter of taste, y'know where's the equality for ugly people in swimsuits isn't it a double standard that movies only show attractive people in swimsuits unless it's a joke?

It is, but does it matter?
If unattractive people in swimsuits are unattractive why would a movie producer/director/etc pretend otherwise?
Why show a woman being shot in the head if nobody wants to see it?

Which brings me back to the SMBC comic in the spoiler, the tropes are true and clearly double standards but if the woman was the one to suggest a stupid/dangerous yet awesome way to sneak into a country wouldn't that seem unnatural, that doing so defines her character as somehow extra crazy because she's a woman. And I think that's because men simply are more likely to do stupid/dangerous stuff, it's not a matter of inequality but rather the simple fact that men and women have different tendencies and whether they be due to genetics or cultural pressures doesn't change that it's true.

As for the woman falling for one of the men at the end I have to ask what's wrong with that?

If you have an attractive female character the male characters are going to act differently around her than if she were just another guy, that's not sexist that's just sex, of course they're going to act differently around her they're males and she's an attractive female it's biology, it's natural and to pretend otherwise is not. Likewise to imply that her falling for a perfectly desirable suitor somehow makes her less of a character is just complete bullshit, why are women expected to act in spite of their biology while men are congratulated for it?

 

[Jennywocky]

Well, if you stand back and look at it, it's just another example of females being absorbed into what ultimately becomes a male story, revolving around the male, his ideas, and his needs. Women so easily just become sidekicks in stories, even when they start out as strong characters. It might even to a degree just be the directing and focus/angle of the camera; people view things from their own particular perspective, and so much of that perspective seems to be focused more on the masculine. (If you are standing in masculine shoes, the woman ISN'T the central perspective/character; she's simply helping the male in some way.)

Yes, the needs and dynamics can be different and are different. It just depends how the story is maintained and what directions it goes in. I can think of a few genres where the male is normally the focus (like superheroes) but some movies deviate from that -- like "The Incredibles," where the woman (Helen Parr / Elastigirl) is actually given equal credence and value as the male, as well as both kids of either gender.

I guess we can debate whether it's the biological imperative of the female to be subsumed into the male as you seem to suggest. (Why IS the woman's role in this story to fall for the male and lose her own life in the process? Typically males are allowed to remain independent while acquiring the woman of his dreams - it's all a win-win for him -- but the woman ends up sacrificing her old life to become part of his. Although i guess that's what romcoms are for, where the male gets absorbed into the woman's world... but haven't you ever wondered why that genre is popular with some females? She's finally the center and he is joining her world in some way.)

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yeah nailed it. People really suck at detecting this shit too. Like Ellen Page in inception, such a boring pointless fucking character.

 

[Jennywocky]

Yeah nailed it. People really suck at detecting this shit too. Like Ellen Page in inception, such a boring pointless fucking character.

I just rewatched that movie last night.

I don't know if she is the best example, for this reason: If the "dream within a dream" theory holds up and Cobb was being Incepted himself, then along with Cobb's FIL she's one of the two voices of reason (and the strongest) -- she is the one driving Cobb towards self-realization, like a psychoanalyst challenging him every step of the way until he gets his life together. Without her, he would have failed.

So although on the team she only "creates the mazes" as the Architect, her influence actually has a huge bearing on the outcome of the movie, where Cobb finally experiences catharsis and works through his guilt issues and finally "goes home." Of course, her influence is less if Cobb is actually not being Incepted, and of course we know nothing about her as a person outside the plot (but then again we don't know anything about Eames or Arthur either) -- they're all pretty much just representations of certain traits. [Arthur is methodical process; Eames is creativity/imagination; Ariadne is Insight/Wisdom to resolve the maze; etc.] Many of the characters don't really exist as people, they are just representations of a virtue/concept.

 

[Cognisant]

Well, if you stand back and look at it, it's just another example of females being absorbed into what ultimately becomes a male story, revolving around the male, his ideas, and his needs.

Precisely, what I'm suggesting is that there's male and female stories.

A James Bond style spy escapade is a male story, if you try to tell the same kind of story with a female character it comes across incredibly forced, like how the movie Spy Kids could never be played straight like Casino Royale unless there was some reason why the kids were brutal killers and that reason would overwhelm the movie. If a female character takes on a male story the reason why she's acting so "out of character" is too interesting to ignore and the same applies for male characters in female stories, but it's harder for me to come up with examples because I don't watch many of those.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Yes, but she's still introduced in the typical way, and her being the boring voice of reason fits the bill as well. Like Gwyneth in Iron Man is there to try and control the unpredictable and reckless genius of the male protagonist, these women are just muses serving men.

 

[Cognisant]

like "The Incredibles," where the woman (Helen Parr / Elastigirl) is actually given equal credence and value as the male, as well as both kids of either gender.

She shows him up at every opportunity, when they first meet she catches the bad guy, when it comes to adapting to life without superpowers she's successful and he's not, there's other times too but I haven't seen the movie for a while. Point is Hollywood equality is to portray women (or gays, or ethnic minorities or disabled people) as better than everyone else at practically everything that matters when they're on screen because if she's not seen to be better then she's automatically inferior and that is the double-double standard.

It's very much like and related to this:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MadonnaWhoreComplex

 

[Cognisant]

What I'm trying to get at overall is that until we accept that men and women are not exactly alike can we progress past the binary thinking of the Madonna/Whore Complex, that we need to take a step back before we can successfully proceed forward.

It's okay for women to be submissive, it's okay if she's not as adventurous or confrontational as a male peer, it's okay to be girly, it's okay not to be the protagonist, a woman doesn't have to play second fiddle to a man but she doesn't have not to either, maybe women aren't just men without penises but rather people different to men on their own terms.

Please don't kill me

 

[Cherry Cola]

What I'm trying to get at overall is that until we accept that men and women are not exactly alike can we progress past the binary thinking of the Madonna/Whore Complex, that we need to take a step back before we can successfully proceed forward.

It's okay for women to be submissive, it's okay if she's not as adventurous or confrontational as a male peer, it's okay to be girly, it's okay not to be the protagonist, a woman doesn't have to play second fiddle to a man but she doesn't have not to either, maybe women aren't just men without penises but rather people different to men on their own terms.

Please don't kill me

No I think you are right. It's not muses in themselves that's the problem. It's womens relative lack of other roles in most films.

 

[Jennywocky]

She shows him up at every opportunity, when they first meet she catches the bad guy, when it comes to adapting to life without superpowers she's successful and he's not, there's other times too but I haven't seen the movie for a while. Point is Hollywood equality is to portray women (or gays, or ethnic minorities or disabled people) as better than everyone else at practically everything that matters when they're on screen because if she's not seen to be better then she's automatically inferior and that is the double-double standard.

That's rather interesting, as I saw both characters as having strengths and both being flawed in some ways, and one reason Bob is attracted to her is because of her competence. To fault her for it seems silly if it was a main point of attraction and not a threat to his ego.

Did you forget about that whole scene where Edna sets Helen straight because she's dropping into the "powerless" act ("OMG MY HUSBAND'S HAVING AN AFFAIR WHAT AM I GOING TO DOOOOO I'M NOT GOOD ENOUGH") -- typical female powerlessness -- and Edna says, "You need to remember who you are and what you can do, and then go do it... and maybe part of your marriage issues are because you have forgotten how to be the woman your husband was attracted to."

Meanwhile, Bob's needs in the relationship were just as important -- he gave up a LOT when he became domesticated, versus Helen who took it all in stride -- and his whole problem was that he needed to find some ways to reclaim who he had been.

In that sense, both parents were dealing with similar issues: They used to be one thing, then they became something else, but in the doing lost part of who they had been, and the movie tracks both of their progress in recapturing aspects of what had been lost, which in turns allows their children to feel more secure and have more self-confidence as well. This movie in particular was very fair in how it treated both the woman and the man; they both certain flaws, and they both had legitimate needs that were not being met, and over the course of the movie they finally learn how to communicate those needs and also integrate their various aspects into a stronger ego identity.

IOW, respectfully... I disagree with you. I don't think your description of the movie is fair.

 

[Decaf]

Nicely said.

This is, essentially, why there are college courses taught on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. A show that focuses on a female story while staying true to genres that are typically more popular with men. More importantly, it doesn't stay so focused on the female perspective that men don't feel like the problems addressed aren't ones they can relate to. Killing vampires is fun to imagine and, fortunately, doesn't require a 'dangling participle'. If it did, vampire movies would filed in a different section.

Imagine, from a male viewer perspective, that nearly EVERY action movie starred a female hero. Every asskicking and badass one-liner was delivered by someone who was, not just different from you, but dealt with issues from a perspective that was at least somewhat foreign to you. Add to that, that the few exceptions that star a male hero are typically bad. For example, they don't confront ugly problems (no more John McClaine walking over broken glass, because that's an unattractive injury), and the actors are cast for other things than acting ability, physicality, or badassitude (trademark, Samuel L. Jackson). Every time a director tries to "sell" the idea of a male hero, they have to force it into a mold to make it palatable to the largely female viewing audience. Something they're more used to, like a sidekick thrust into the spotlight or a hero who has to win in an unconventional way because they can't compete traditionally.

And you're a huge action movie fan.

Yes, you can still enjoy the good action movies. After all, they're good. But part of the fun of movies like this is imagining that YOU could do those things. Who doesn't get a little surge of adrenaline watching a Hollywood car chase? But YOU can't do those things. How do you know? Because whenever you see them, they're done by someone not like you, and when someone more like you is there, they're the sidekick. Or worse.

Like Cog said, this applies to more than just sex. Skin color, age, height, religion, sexual preference, cultural background, etc. Not every story needs to focus on some underrepresented group, but there should be ENOUGH out there so that the audience isn't surprised that a member of one of those groups could be the hero. I'm not trying to sell the idea that we need an action movie that stars a gay hispanic male atheist, but since none of those traits prevents him from being a hero, it would be nice if that wasn't the only thing the audience was thinking while things were exploding.

edit: ugh, this is what happens when you spend too long deliberating on what to reply and a whole conversation happens in the meantime

 

[Cognisant]

I stand corrected, but do you agree that the trope of women being automatically inferior if they're not superior to their male peers needs to called out for the harm it causes?

No I think you are right. It's not muses in themselves that's the problem. It's womens relative lack of other roles in most films.

Where the role could be appropriately played by a woman but usually isn't it would be nice to see more female characters however the "lack" of female characters in male appropriate roles is precisely what I'm arguing against, the perception of a lack is only in a comparison between men and women as if they're entirely interchangeable, I'm saying they're not.

And that's okay.

Edit: The reason I'm saying men and women are not interchangeable is because in our culture where male is the default perspective saying they are means you're judging women by male standards and so if they don't arguably meet or exceed those standards they're seen as "just women" as if being female is somehow inherently inferior.

 

[Cherry Cola]

They don't need to take typical male roles. Fact is most women don't identify themselves as action heroes and the kind of crazy risk it all approach is undeniably male having it's basis in the different reproductive strategies of men and women. I agree with the rest of what you wrote as well. Still these stereotypes are boring and degrading, surely there must be more roles to fill.

 

[Jennywocky]

I think to be fair we have to remember that a story is sometimes just a story; I mean, someone can bitch about "Saving Private Ryan" not being a female movie, but it's really a movie about a bunch of guys and how they interrelate in that scenario and I think it's well done from that perspective.
　
I don't think everything has to be a femininst/female movie, it's just that (like Cherry says) while the role of muse is not inherently a bad one, it's more just that it's become a dominant one due to a lack of diversity of roles. This is something that is often called out by various minorities.
　
[The reason Laverne Cox is getting such exposure over being a transwoman playing a transwoman on OISNB (for example) is because in the past transwomen were typically played by cisgen women and were also typically cast in the story as drug addicts or sex workers.... the latter of which of course happen, but other roles were not readily available. And the same can go for other minorities.]
　
Thinking of roles where women could be female without being superior... Let's consider "Good Will Hunting." Yes, Will is the protagonist, and it's mainly about him getting past the chip on his shoulder and growing up a bit with the help of Robin Williams as his shrink; but his relationship with Skylar (Minnie Driver) I think is one of those where she is allowed to be a woman (and quirky, and female, and emotionally vulnerable while stable) and mentally he's superior to her although she's no dummy, and yet she basically gets to the point in his abuse/ignorance where after he blows her off, she deals and goes on with her life and continues her move across the country. So... she's a woman, and she's allowed to be a non-superior woman, but she's also strong enough to stand up for herself and move on when he's an asshole and screws her over.
　
Anyway, overall, I tend to see the situation as (1) limited diversity in the roles to be filled by woman and (2) poor writing / understanding of human dynamics on the part of the writers. It's not necessarily some directed assault against women, but in some cases writers would do better to understand various perspectives (not just male/female but race and religious minorities, for example) and be willing to step outside their comfort zones. I don't even think some of them realize there is an inherent perspective in every story, and that they keep maintaining the same perspective even when they change the superficial elements of their characters rather than really coming at something from another angle.
　
---

Oh, here's a great contrast: Neil Marshall (who has recently directed some big episodes of GoT) started out his directing career or close to it with two gendered action/horror movies. One, called "Dog Soldiers," is a masculine-angled movie about soldiers who end up being infected by lyncathropy and having to destroy the werewolves. His next movie is a female-angled movie called "The Descent" about a group of caver girls who stumbled across a subterranean race of mutants. The body count is pretty crazy for each movie, and the men and women in each movie are actually pretty badass peeps; but you can see a very distinct difference in the group dynamics for the all-male group versus the all-female group. Marshall really tried to consider how a female group would operate versus a male group and I think does a great job.

 

[Cognisant]

Still these stereotypes are boring and degrading, surely there must be more roles to fill.

Indeed a male/female character whose personality conflicts with the norms of their gender is interesting because their personality conflicts with our expectations and I think movie makers should exploit that every chance they get.

I don't think everything has to be a femininst/female movie, it's just that (like Cherry says) while the role of muse is not inherently a bad one, it's more just that it's become a dominant one due to a lack of diversity of roles. This is something that is often called out by various minorities.

Yes, diversity is good but the axe I wish to grind is the perception that playing the muse detracts from a female character's independence/worth/whatever because of some machismo like sentiment, that women should be ashamed to be effeminate because it makes them lesser in comparison to men by the standards of masculinity and I think that's atrocious.

Equality and uniformity are not the same thing!

 

[Jennywocky]

Indeed a male/female character whose personality conflicts with the norms of their gender is interesting because their personality conflicts with our expectations and I think movie makers should exploit that every chance they get.


Yes, diversity is good but the axe I wish to grind is the perception that playing the muse detracts from a female character's independence/worth/whatever because of some machismo like sentiment, that women should be ashamed to be effeminate because it makes them lesser in comparison to men by the standards of masculinity and I think that's atrocious.

Equality and uniformity are not the same thing!

I would like to argue with you, but you'll have to say something disagreeable first.

... i have some meetings, more later.

 

[Decaf]

I agree that evolution and natural selection play a role in making men and women different from each other, but those pressures aren't the same as they once were. The question is, do women have the necessary ingredients to develop similar tastes and aspirations as typically associated with men? Evolutionary pressure is more effective in trimming out vestigial characteristics of a single species if those traits are vestigial for both sexes. If brain development partially transcends sexual dimorphism, then the answer would seem to be yes, those aspirations may be independent of sex. If such development is dependent on sexual characteristics, then any personality type theory that does not specify sex is incorrect and we should stop using Jungian psychology.

There's another trope that is useful to note here. The Magical Negro. There's nothing wrong with being a muse unless that's all you are. Yes, its an example of poor writing, but there is a social good worth pursuing in reminding people that they, individually regardless of classification, can be heroes. One that doesn't exclude people who typically have more readily available role models. And it should be pointed out not all heroes are main characters, or even that important to the story (e.g., Neville Longbottom). 30 years ago (I'm guessing at this number), that above comic could just as easily been a black man talking to a pair of white men with slightly different stereotypes.

Also, it is not a crime to be effeminate, nor is it a crime to not be. My point is that 'man' and 'woman' is not as descriptive of a person's personality as we pretend.

 

[Grayman]

People are more worried about womans rights or the rights of minorities than they are about equal rights. There is so much discussion about woman and playing the soldier role and dominance in that role. It is good to see woman play the lead soldier role saving the man as they struggle together it is good to see the reverse. What really matters is that the role is appropriate to the story. A diversification of so called girly and manly roles is good but you still have to consider the situation. What place does a girly role have in the army except to wait for the man to return from war? They could have the wife be at war and the man at home but would that be appropriate for the time?

What is upsetting about romance comedies and dramas is that men are protrayed as incompetent fathers and husbands. At best they are just inexperienced and cannot even change a diaper without cringing. The audience laughs and thinks it is funny, typical stupid male who knows nothing about being a father or how to be attentive to relationships. Of course the ending of the movie is the male realizing he is a fool and begs for forgiveness, gravelling like a peasant before his queen.

Now I see movies like The Amazing Spider Man where obsessions of woman and stalking are protrayed as signs of love. Instead of protraying healthy confidence in the relationship they dramatize the needs of the male for the woman until he is enslaved to this unhealthy obsession. They then uplift it as some kind of perfect love. But then is this the attempt of overcompensating for past mistakes like Snow White where the woman cannot survive without the man?

 

[Cherry Cola]

The fact that the talk is about women's rights is pretty natural. Feminism is still new and hence reactionary in nature. Furthermore, women have historically been subject to oppression in a way that men have not.

I agree that men need to be liberated from their stereotyped roles as well. But isn't that currently something that is happening in the western world? As far as I can tell it most definitely is. Nerds aren't shunned the way they used, men are allowed to be ephemeral to a larger degree than before; we've got all them hipsters as well.

Not to say feminists in general have an unfortunate penchant for being relatively uninterested in -as well ignorant about- this other side of the same coin of the issue they are trying to fix. But if you look at the history of feminism you'll see that it does progress.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

The yin yang notion seems to be what you're describing Cog. Between two characters where one is male and the other female and within one person where there is characteristics of both. From Wikipedia: Yin and yang can be thought of as complementary (rather than opposing) forces that interact to form a dynamic system in which the whole is greater than the assembled parts. Female/male are in essence different but complementary. La Femme Nikita is a good example of a typical masculine role juxtaposed within a feminine character. The film could be an example of yin/yang within Nikita. Films with male/female dynamics such as Romancing the Stone (granted that's an old movie!) depict two main characters, one female and the other male in very traditional male/female roles where both are placed in situations that bring out their opposite tendencies all of which are complementary.

Females are not just males without penises, they are in their own right, feminine. Males are not just females without vagina's, they are in their own right, masculine. Film and society works hard to try and balance what has been unbalanced (male perspective) by denying the difference but there are films that celebrate the difference without apology (probably rare however).

 

[Decaf]

People are more worried about womans rights or the rights of minorities than they are about equal rights.

In some cases I agree with that statement, but I think this issue transcends that argument. What is the point of affirmative action? The short-term ramifications have been argued both ways for years, but the real reason is most assuredly long-term. If you have a subculture that most identifies with victims and villains, its like putting a sun-loving plant in a dark room and expecting it to grow. You can't expect children to thrive in the absence of role models that they can relate to. Some things you do because you want the world to be better tomorrow, even if they're not fair today.

Spoiler

Role models aren't people you admire and copy. They're people that help you realize that you're capable of something more. Hopefully before the world beats that hope out of you. Women need strong role models so that they know they can be strong. Men need caring role models so that they know they can be caring.

 

[Jennywocky]

Short meeting.

And it should be pointed out not all heroes are main characters, or even that important to the story (e.g., Neville Longbottom).

I think the beauty of Neville was that he could have been the hero, and it was only because someone decided Harry was the chosen one that he ended up being such. So in a sense, he and Harry were equivalent and thus exchangable; Harry was no more important than Neville, except arbitrarily.

30 years ago (I'm guessing at this number), that above comic could just as easily been a black man talking to a pair of white men with slightly different stereotypes.

Agreed.

Also, it is not a crime to be effeminate, nor is it a crime to not be. My point is that 'man' and 'woman' is not as descriptive of a person's personality as we pretend.

Agreed. There's overlap and flex in those terms.

 

[Cognisant]

I would like to argue with you, but you'll have to say something disagreeable first.

The feminist movement has inadvertently forced the modern male into a paradoxical position of being masculine and submissive, I recently asked someone out, she refused and her stated reason was that I don't find her interesting, which is kind of presumptuous but not totally inaccurate. I don't share many of her interests and she hasn't impressed me with her intelligence but why does that matter, does being intelligent mean I'm only allowed to date women equally or more intelligent that myself? Do I have to dumb myself down so a woman can have some aspect of superiority over me least she be emasculated by comparison?

I can't help but wonder if it's because I'm not assertive enough, maybe if I hadn't asked "would you like to go out sometime" but rather gave her a time, a place and and an on the spot yes or no ultimatum maybe the shock would have overrode the influence of such abstract concerns.

Edit: Damn you guys wrote a lot while I was thinking

 

[Jennywocky]

What is upsetting about romance comedies and dramas is that men are protrayed as incompetent fathers and husbands. At best they are just inexperienced and cannot even change a diaper without cringing. The audience laughs and thinks it is funny, typical stupid male who knows nothing about being a father or how to be attentive to relationships. Of course the ending of the movie is the male realizing he is a fool and begs for forgiveness, gravelling like a peasant before his queen.

My impression is that it's backlash from women being shut out of other areas, so they're retaliating in the few areas left to women by putting men down when they get a chance. (And men sometimes play into these stereotypes to GET OUT doing such work. It goes both ways.)

I notice this IRL too -- when women are stuck being the caretaker and home manager, they find ways to alleviate frustration by touting what little authority they actually have. Had to sit through too many women's circles busting on men, argggg.... or acting entirely shocked when men actually prove competent or at least adequate at those areas socially left to women.

Some of it also is that women are forced into those roles early in life and simply get more practice (and thus confidence) with them before men do. I think there's a lot of stuff like this -- Junior is taken hunting or taught how to fix a car engine at an early age, where Sally is left to wash dishes, do laundry, and clean the kitchen, so they each develop different competencies early on even if they were arguably equivalent to begin with.

Now I see movies like The Amazing Spider Man where obsessions of woman and stalking are protrayed as signs of love. Instead of protraying healthy confidence in the relationship they dramatize the needs of the male for the woman until he is enslaved to this unhealthy obsession. They then uplift it as some kind of perfect love. But then is this the attempt of overcompensating for past mistakes like Snow White where the woman cannot survive without the man?

He was a stalker in some ways (ASM2), but I saw it more of a teenager/can't make up one's mind thing than a guy thing.

The feminist movement has inadvertently forced the modern male into a paradoxical position of being masculine and submissive,

it sounds too like you've been saying that the modern woman has been forced into the paradoxical position of being feminine and assertive.

I recently asked someone out, she refused and her stated reason was that I don't find her interesting, which is kind of presumptuous but not totally inaccurate. I don't share many of her interests and she hasn't impressed me with her intelligence but why does that matter, does being intelligent mean I'm only allowed to date women equally or more intelligent that myself? Do I have to dumb myself down so a woman can have some aspect of superiority over me least she be emasculated by comparison?

Hmmmm. Have you tried viewing her response through different lenses versus just the lens where you feel like you're being asked to be "less smart than you are" just to be with her?

I can't help but wonder if it's because I'm not assertive enough, maybe if I hadn't asked "would you like to go out sometime" but rather gave her a time, a place and and an on the spot yes or no ultimatum maybe the shock would have overrode the influence of such abstract concerns.

Depends on who she is.
Some women, maybe. Others, no.

(for example, I only need specifics to the degree I want to know the guy can make decisions rather than being the guy who comes up with vague plans all the time while expecting ME to fill in all the details for him. Part of maturity is making decisions that are partly arbitrary; and I don't want to be stuck playing schedule assistant to an executive officer all the time.)

Edit: Damn you guys wrote a lot while I was thinking

I was impressed too, coming back to find all this.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

The fact that the talk is about women's rights is pretty natural. Feminism is still new and hence reactionary in nature. Furthermore, women have historically been subject to oppression in a way that men have not.

I agree that men need to be liberated from their stereotyped roles as well. But isn't that currently something that is happening in the western world? As far as I can tell it most definitely is. Nerds aren't shunned the way they used, men are allowed to be ephemeral to a larger degree than before; we've got all them hipsters as well.

Not to say feminists in general have an unfortunate penchant for being relatively uninterested in -as well ignorant about- this other side of the same coin of the issue they are trying to fix. But if you look at the history of feminism you'll see that it does progress.

My thoughts exactly. Society is moving. The pendulum never stops swinging but hopefully over time, the swings (over-reaction) become less volatile.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Agree. That's one area in which there is a damn lotta progress left to be made.

 

[Cognisant]

Anyway apart from the therapeutic gripe the point of that was that by restricting femininity there are follow on effects that affect masculinity as well, honestly the reason I ask women out instead of trying to chat them up on the spot is because I feel doing so would be a social faux pas, that they might take offense; it's the catch 22 of the whole "nice guy" thing, you don't want to be one of those guys who think being overly nice endears women to them but at the same time how does a man woo a woman without trying to woo her?

It's the wallflower issue women used to have.

 

[Grayman]

Role models aren't people you admire and copy. They're people that help you realize that you're capable of something more. Hopefully before the world beats that hope out of you. Women need strong role models so that they know they can be strong. Men need caring role models so that they know they can be caring.

My admiration and role models for being a good father and husband comes from real life and real people while the movie industry continues to kill off such roles and putting in front of me the perception that I am doomed to failure. I give the world the middle finger and trudge on but I still cry for our sons.

@cherry

I wonder how the oppression of our sons makes up for the oppression of our mothers and grandmothers. It is so not important what has passed, except to inform and learn from. What matters is now, and where we are going. @decaf It is not about my bowl. It is the fate of us all.

We dont need to femenize men, we just need to express their inherent qualities.

 

[Decaf]

The feminist movement has inadvertently forced the modern male into a paradoxical position of being masculine and submissive

I hadn't really thought of it in those terms before, but I tend to agree. At least on the average for the culture I grew up in. As if it's a man's responsibility to lead, but not too much. Instead of balance, it becomes a balancing act.

That being said, I'm kind of impressed by her response. If you feel like you would have to dumb yourself down for her, then you don't respect her. Which is fine in general. There are plenty of people I don't respect. But you probably shouldn't date someone you don't respect. My advice is to name the top five things you like to do. If you can't imagine doing at least one or two of those things with a given person, they're not a good fit. They don't have to be 'as smart', but they should enjoy some of the same processes.

 

[Cognisant]

Hmmmm. Have you tried viewing her response through different lenses versus just the lens where you feel like you're being asked to be "less smart than you are" just to be with her?

Yes, either she brilliantly found a way to reject me gently which seems quite unlikely but of course you can never know, or I'm the asshole that asked her out despite having no interest in her as a person, well I was trying, how am I supposed to be interested in someone for who they are when I don't even know who they really are (I've been burned that way before) and for that matter how am I supposed to learn that without spending time with them?

If you feel like you would have to dumb yourself down for her, then you don't respect her.

If I was forced to dumb myself down I'd be resentful, I can't respect someone and be resentful at the same time, by I don't need someone to be interesting intellectually before I can respect them indeed respect and merit aren't even related in my mind.

I don't respect intelligence itself, I respect what people do with it, if someone's not particularly intelligent but chooses to use that intelligence constructively then that is a reason to respect them imo.

 

[Jennywocky]

Yes, either she brilliantly found a way to reject me gently which seems quite unlikely but of course you can never know, or I'm the asshole that asked her out despite having no interest in her as a person, well I was trying, how am I supposed to be interested in someone for who they are when I don't even know who they really are (I've been burned that way before) and for that matter how am I supposed to learn that without spending time with them?

Did she call you an asshole, or are you just labeling yourself as that for... what reason, exactly?

You're not an asshole. But it does raise a question of why you'd want to go out with someone who you didn't mentally gel with. That stupid "he just wants me for sex" specter always hangs over everything. If a guy was chasing after me who I could see was a poor match for me, I'd pretty much be left with, "He has terrible perception" or "He wants my sex" as my prime two hypotheses to test. (Kinda like Belle and Gaston.)

... My advice is to name the top five things you like to do. If you can't imagine doing at least one or two of those things with a given person, they're not a good fit. They don't have to be 'as smart', but they should enjoy some of the same processes.

There ya go... I think that is good advice too. Intellect is one aspect. But processes/things in common that you can relate on are key factors in a meaningful relationship.

 

[Decaf]

My admiration and role models for being a good father and husband comes from real life and real people while the movie industry continues to kill off such roles and putting in front of me the perception that I am doomed to failure. I give the world the middle finger and trudge on but I still cry for our sons.

And what happens if you don't have a real life role model for those things? I'm not saying the entertainment industry is a great solution, but it isn't nothing. How do you teach a man to be a good husband or father if he never knew his own? A movie character isn't going to show them how, but it can help them realize that they can.

The problem is more stark for women looking for powerful role models. Women have been marginalized for a long time. Just because we're gradually fixing that doesn't mean that all women understand what that means for them personally. Give them a movie about a girl who stands up against bullies, a woman who feels she has a duty to protect her country. There's value there that making things "even" doesn't address.

 

[Cognisant]

Did she call you an asshole, or are you just labeling yourself as that for... what reason, exactly?

Because having no interest in women other than sex would make me an asshole, which I'm not.

You're not an asshole. But it does raise a question of why you'd want to go out with someone who you didn't mentally gel with.

Because I'm lonely, I need the social practice, I can't afford to be picky to begin with, my intellectual needs are already quite well met and though it's not my exclusive motivation I'm a healthy young adult male and she's a reasonably attractive female what the fuck do you expect form me?

My advice is to name the top five things you like to do. If you can't imagine doing at least one or two of those things with a given person, they're not a good fit. They don't have to be 'as smart', but they should enjoy some of the same processes.

I have trouble sharing five of my personal interests with anyone, or anything for that matter, but I'll play your game: eating out and watching movies.

I'm not overly fussed about those two things, I'm not overly fussed about anything that doesn't involve robotics, philosophy or computers somehow but that's just because I'm a person with specialized interests, I don't expect anyone to share them and I'm quite capable of taking an interest in almost anything that isn't truly droll/inane.

 

[Decaf]

I'm not overly fussed about those two things, I'm not overly fussed about anything that doesn't involve robotics, philosophy or computers somehow but that's just because I'm a person with specialized interests, I don't expect anyone to share them and I'm quite capable of taking an interest in almost anything that isn't truly droll/inane.

Imagine spending your time with someone who, while they might not share your interest, enjoy listening to you talk about what excites you. You don't have to want to learn about the subject to find learning about the person interesting. While it's not a bad thing to lower standards like "must be shorter than me", never give up on "must find me interesting". The nice thing about relationships is that you don't have to pay attention to trends or averages. You only need to find one person in seven billion. Find an interesting girl who thinks you're interesting. Almost anyone else and it will end poorly.

If you just want the social practice though, then you're not on the wrong track. Just giving it a try with someone you like will at least teach you about what you don't want. I had a very similar mind set when I got my first long-term girlfriend (at 25). It was a "fantastic" two-year learning experience that ended with both of us being happy to get away from each other. We liked each other well enough, but we just didn't share many interests, so I was constantly trying to make her happy (a bad habit to get into).

Now I'm married to a wonderful woman (at 33) who I talk to about my interests all the time, except when she's tired and can't put up with me. I'm just saying don't give up. My wife came to the US from Uzbekistan to get a MSW a couple years ago, so if I'd found someone sooner, it quite literally could not have been her. I don't believe in fate, but I do believe that patience is often rewarded.

 

[Grayman]

@decaf

I am not talking about making things even. I think they should be different. I am talking about giving both groups and all issues equal concern. Men have taken the back seat left to fend for themselves. Thier issues are downplayed while the females issues are uplayed.

Even in things where sex should not be an issue like cancer.

http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/05/b...victims/?utm_referrer=https://www.google.com/

Men are more oppressed in many ways than woman and yet the largest concern is and will continue to be woman.

 

[paradoxparadigm7]

Because having no interest in women other than sex would make me an asshole, which I'm not.


Because I'm lonely, I need the social practice, I can't afford to be picky to begin with, my intellectual needs are already quite well met and though it's not my exclusive motivation I'm a healthy young adult male and she's a reasonably attractive female what the fuck do you expect form me?


I have trouble sharing five of my personal interests with anyone, or anything for that matter, but I'll play your game: eating out and watching movies.

I'm not overly fussed about those two things, I'm not overly fussed about anything that doesn't involve robotics, philosophy or computers somehow but that's just because I'm a person with specialized interests, I don't expect anyone to share them and I'm quite capable of taking an interest in almost anything that isn't truly droll/inane.

If you want to go out with a woman, then it helps to have and be able to articulate your reasons for wanting to go out with that specific woman (not women in general).

Suggestion, go back to the woman who said no to you and tell her you were/are impressed with her answer (only if this is true for you), you find her attractive and you'd like to know her better without expectation.

 

[Jennywocky]

Because having no interest in women other than sex would make me an asshole, which I'm not.

I don't think you're an asshole, but I don't think she was calling you one either.
(Well, unless she did!)
i.e., you're projecting a bit here?
Which is kind of dismissive of her refusal to go out?
　

Because I'm lonely, I need the social practice, I can't afford to be picky to begin with, my intellectual needs are already quite well met and though it's not my exclusive motivation I'm a healthy young adult male and she's a reasonably attractive female what the fuck do you expect form me?

Let's face it. You are fine with a relationship on that basis, but it's not what she wants -- you're not offering what she wants, even if you'd be happy with it. I don't know her, so I can't evaluate her basis, but I can't offhand say she's a jerk for wanting something other than what you want. And thus you are incompatible.

I have trouble sharing five of my personal interests with anyone, or anything for that matter, but I'll play your game: eating out and watching movies.
I'm not overly fussed about those two things, I'm not overly fussed about anything that doesn't involve robotics, philosophy or computers somehow but that's just because I'm a person with specialized interests, I don't expect anyone to share them and I'm quite capable of taking an interest in almost anything that isn't truly droll/inane.

If there is romantic attraction, and you guys shared interests with eating out and watching movies (and connecting with those activities), then you could make something work.

But again, that's so nice that you are capable of taking an interest in almost anything.
Yet, she's not you. Don't expect her to be.
And if she can't be you, and you're not capable of meeting HER needs, then the relationship is incompatible. So move on.

Relationships in part involve finding another person with whom you share common goals and where you can meet the needs of the other to a reasonable degree -- i.e., compatability.

 

[Grayman]

@decaf + cog

You don't have to share many interests. My wife and I are very different people. We have been married 7 years.

Our differences can make thinks difficult and cause arguments. In all we compliment eachother in abilities and interests. She gets me out to do things I normally would not and visa versa. She can do things I have issues with and visa versa.

If I want someone who shares my interests I looke for a friend but when I looked for someone to get through lifes difficulties with, I looked for someone different.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Is there an IQ 120+ dating site?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Spoiler

Battlefield 4

This reminds me of a point made by of the, uh "presenters", of a cracked.com sponsored/produced youtube series (critical noun failure ) that there isn't equality in the fictional presentation of women because as of yet there isn't a single mainstream movie (that they knew of) that had a woman being shot in the head, sure women can be shot but only men get shot in the face.

Dawn of the Dead

Which brings me back to the SMBC comic in the spoiler, the tropes are true and clearly double standards but if the woman was the one to suggest a stupid/dangerous yet awesome way to sneak into a country wouldn't that seem unnatural, that doing so defines her character as somehow extra crazy because she's a woman. And I think that's because men simply are more likely to do stupid/dangerous stuff, it's not a matter of inequality but rather the simple fact that men and women have different tendencies and whether they be due to genetics or cultural pressures doesn't change that it's true.

Kick Ass flips the trope, but the girl still isn't presented as crazy. Brainwashed maybe, but in terms of discipline not insanity.

Umm I think this is becoming a human relationships thread.

 

[Jennywocky]

Yes, let's segue:

Man/Wife relationship goes down the tubes in the craziest movie opening ever:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eFjD5S6BhU

This whole thing is a wtf sequence.

...and later she is victimized again, but I won't spoil it here. Except to say Coggie's "never shoot the woman in the face" rule gets tossed out the window here.

Her only role in the movie, really, is to be victimized by hubby so we can be like, "WTF???" and feel how badly screwed up the world is.

PS. Bonus cookie if you know what other famous role she played where her main purpose was to trigger the response of the male protagonist.

 

[Cognisant]

...and later she is victimized again, but I won't spoil it here. Except to say Coggie's "never shoot the woman in the face" rule gets tossed out the window here.

It's not my rule >.>

 

[Jennywocky]

It's not my rule >.>

I was implying that you mentioned it, not that you created it.

... that scene is still cray.

 

[Decaf]

@decaf + cog

You don't have to share many interests. My wife and I are very different people. We have been married 7 years.

Our differences can make thinks difficult and cause arguments. In all we compliment eachother in abilities and interests. She gets me out to do things I normally would not and visa versa. She can do things I have issues with and visa versa.

If I want someone who shares my interests I looke for a friend but when I looked for someone to get through lifes difficulties with, I looked for someone different.

I hope it didn't sound like I was saying you needed to share the interests of your partner. I meant to say that you need to be interested in your partner, hopefully such that what those interests mean to them is, in itself, interesting to you. My wife isn't that interested in writing, but she let's me bounce plot ideas off of her. I'm not that interested in art, but I try to give her well thought out feedback, even if I need to do a little research on my own to do it.

I suppose in a sense we're each other's muses. <- Ha! look at that! Pulled it back in to the topic! WooHoo!

Is there an IQ 120+ dating site?

Yes, but I wouldn't recommend it. I joined Mensa a few years back and met some smart people. And it was fun talking to them, but really, we didn't have much more in common than that. If you have a complicated problem you need to solve, you don't want a smart person. You want a knowledgeable person. The same applies to relationships. Being mentally capable of enjoying the same things you enjoy is not enough if they don't actually enjoy them.

I found my wife on OKcupid. It's low pressure and has some nice tools for figuring out whether there will be deal breakers involved.

 

[Cavallier]

The movie Haywire had a main female character who was powerful and indeed took several shots to the face in fist fights. The plot revolved around her. She took on a lot of traditionally male action hero stereotypes. I'm not sure how successful that was in the eyes of the viewer though. She did not "rub me the wrong way" but then I have not had any negative connotations associated with powerful women.

She even had a young male ingénue taking the place of the usual helpless female role. I felt at several moments as if they intentionally chose to swap the gender of the stereotype. Again it did not bother me because it did not feel forced.

Obviously, the idea that women must either be superior or be inferior is a problem as is the idea that women must either be the sweet girl or the bitch. What we lack (perhaps as a species) is the pervasive ability to accept all various options. To be submissive, gentle, soft, and polite is perfectly fine in both men and woman. Yet men are brutalized and murdered while women are subjugated when they have those characteristics.

How do we teach a whole species to be accepting?

 

[Cherry Cola]

The entire Ghost In The Shell series features a truly badass female protagonist too and it definitely works there. I don't have anything against those sort of characters (and I suspect that Cog doesn't either?), it's more that there's this unrealistic expectation that there should be as many women as men doing them, cause that ain't notta gonna happa.

 

[Grayman]

'After the Dark' is a prime example of a shit movie because of a writers obsession with idealizing certain groups at the cost of realism.

This writer took a giant poo on philosophy.

The students are all idiots and the teacher was unnecessarily a dick just to prove a point for the writer. Or more so to make his or her point seem valid.

 

[Cavallier]

I guess I'd just like a greater quantity of something else. Kind of like what Decaf is saying.

Sure, the majority of stories may involve powerful men and more submissive women and that's fine. I'd just like it if marketing executives allowed other stories to be told a little more often. I feel like there is a dearth of creativity in much of the easily accessable media.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Indeed and until the audience changes preferences it's probably not going to happen because movies are expensive and you have to really mainstream them if you don't want to risk ending up on a minus.

Like with games, although they seem to be headed in the right direction what with the surge of indie games demonstrating that there are options available.

 

[Cognisant]

I have nothing against powerful women, I like that

I'd like to see stories where a couple forms midway through and the fact that they are a couple has next to nothing to do with the story, for example guy & gal meet on a plane, the plane crash lands on an island (actually lands though none of this stupid "they all died in the first episode" business) both thankful to be alive they kiss/bonk at the soonest opportunity, dinosaurs show up and the rest of the movie is everybody running from dinosaurs and how they eventually get rescued.

The pair act as a dual protagonist throughout the movie but there's no petty drama, no will-they/won't-they beforehand, the movie is about dinosaurs, survival, a group of strangers coming together and forming a hierarchy in the face of adversity, the fact that the couple are a couple helps them overcome various challenges that the more solitary operators fall prey to but the plot doesn't revolve around their relationship.

I think the "Action Couple" could be quite the effective trope, the story isn't about their relationship with each other the story is about how being in a relationship itself helps both of them, they share food, the look out for each other, they have different skills & abilities and rather than it being a competition the diversity helps them both and they both support each other emotionally.

I'd particularly like to see them both getting over their machismo, she twists her ankle and he has to half-carry her for a while then later she tries to cook but he takes over because she doesn't know what she's doing, being effectively useless up to this point humiliates her but he says "we're alive, why does it matter?". Later that night they're attacked by a small raptor or something, his spears it but that just makes it attack him first and then she jumps on it's back and stabs it to death, afterwards as she's sowing his wound shut (having earlier complained that her fashion design skills were useless here) he's humiliated that he needed saving but she quotes him "we're alive, why does it matter?".