I wasn’t planning to see this movie anyway because the trailer looked skeevy, but now that I know the whole plot I just want to kill it with fire oh my god
Holy shit that is SUPER-GROSS AND VIOLATING and every single woman should read this article, and then vehemently refuse to see this movie with anyone for any reason. In fact, this would be the first time in my life that I feel like I want to walk past lines of people getting ready to buy tickets and scream the plot of the movie at the top of my lungs. I want to spoil random strangers on the street. I want every woman who has a boyfriend or husband who wants to see this movie to explain, in detail, why she not only won’t see it, but if the guy goes to see it without her anyway, she will be GONE OUT OF HIS LIFE when he gets back. with the kids, if they have any.
(That may be a slight exaggeration. But only slight.)
That was actually worse than I expected. What the FUCK.
Seriously the plot is grooooosssssssss and who the fuck thought this was a good idea
I am firmly convinced the people who do the marketing should be the ones with final approval on scripts because they’ve contorted themselves with such skill that Gumby would be jealous to make this movie look like it’s ANYTHING BUT what it really is.
Like I just want one of these people to slap a script down in front of a director and go “this is a steaming pile of shit and you absolutely cannot afford the budget that I’ll need to make this look good.”
@thebibliosphere @copperbadge Please warn people. Ugh, what is this, Captain Kirk would sit this dude down for a talk and then throw him in the freaking brig, 1967 was better than this, eww.
Oh sweet merciful gods no. Ew, no, no one go see this movie.
I was not going to watch it in the theatres anyway, but now I’ll avoid it completely.
@deadcatwithaflamethrower and @the-last-hair-bender can you spread the word? You both have lots of followers who should be aware of what a piece of shit they need to avoid.
I have to wonder if the actors thought they were signing on for a psychological thriller and then had it turned around and said “No, we’re making a non-BDSMy version of 50 Shades!” At which point they were fucked, because if you break a contract in Hollywood, your career is done–especially if you’re a woman.
(If you think it can’t happen, Indy 4 was originally going to be an entirely different movie, and that’s what Harrison Ford signed on for…until Lucas came in, saw the script, threw it in the garbage, and wrote a new script that Ford was then stuck with because contract.)
Either way: Here’s a movie to avoid, peeps!
Tag: fairness
Women have more power and agency in Shakespeare’s comedies than in his tragedies, and usually there are more of them with more speaking time, so I’m pretty sure what Shakespeare’s saying is “men ruin everything” because everyone fucking dies when men are in charge but when women are in charge you get married and live happily ever after
I think you’re reading too far into things, kiddo.
Take a break from your women’s studies major and get some fresh air.Right. Well, I’m a historian, so allow me to elaborate.
One of the most important aspects of the Puritan/Protestant revolution (in the 1590’s in particular) was the foregrounding of marriage as the most appropriate way of life. It often comes as a surprise when people learn this, but Puritans took an absolutely positive view of sexuality within the context of marriage. Clergy were encouraged to lead by example and marry and have children, as opposed to Catholic clergy who prized virginity above all else. Through his comedies, Shakespeare was promoting this new way of life which had never been promoted before. The dogma, thanks to the church, had always been “durr hburr women are evil sex is bad celibacy is your ticket to salvation.” All that changed in Shakespeare’s time, and thanks to him we get a view of the world where marriage, women, and sexuality are in fact the key to salvation.
The difference between the structure of a comedy and a tragedy is that the former is cyclical, and the latter a downward curve. Comedies weren’t stupid fun about the lighter side of life. The definition of a comedy was not a funny play. They were plays that began in turmoil and ended in reconciliation and renewal. They showed the audience the path to salvation, with the comic ending of a happy marriage leaving the promise of societal regeneration intact. Meanwhile, in the tragedies, there is no such promise of regeneration or salvation. The characters destroy themselves. The world in which they live is not sustainable. It leads to a dead end, with no promise of new life.
And so, in comedies, the women are the movers and shakers. They get things done. They move the machinery of the plot along. In tragedies, though women have an important part to play, they are often morally bankrupt as compared to the women of comedies, or if they are morally sound, they are disenfranchised and ignored, and refused the chance to contribute to the society in which they live. Let’s look at some examples.
In Romeo and Juliet, the play ends in tragedy because no-one listens to Juliet. Her father and Paris both insist they know what’s right for her, and they refuse to listen to her pleas for clemency. Juliet begs them – screams, cries, manipulates, tells them outright I cannot marry, just wait a week before you make me marry Paris, just a week, please and they ignore her, and force her into increasingly desperate straits, until at last the two young lovers kill themselves. The message? This violent, hate-filled patriarchal world is unsustainable. The promise of regeneration is cut down with the deaths of these children. Compare to Othello. This is the most horrifying and intimate tragedy of all, with the climax taking place in a bedroom as a husband smothers his young wife. The tragedy here could easily have been averted if Othello had listened to Desdemona and Emilia instead of Iago. The message? This society, built on racism and misogyny and martial, masculine honour, is unsustainable, and cannot regenerate itself. The very horror of it lies in the murder of two wives.
How about Hamlet? Ophelia is a disempowered character, but if Hamlet had listened to her, and not mistreated her, and if her father hadn’t controlled every aspect of her life, then perhaps she wouldn’t have committed suicide. The final scene of carnage is prompted by Laertes and Hamlet furiously grappling over her corpse. When Ophelia dies, any chance of reconciliation dies with her. The world collapses in on itself. This society is unsustainable. King Lear – we all know that this is prompted by Cordelia’s silence, her unwillingness to bend the knee and flatter in the face of tyranny. It is Lear’s disproportionate response to this that sets off the tragedy, and we get a play that is about entropy, aging and the destruction of the social order.
There are exceptions to the rule. I’m sure a lot of you are crying out “but Lady Macbeth!” and it’s a good point. However, in terms of raw power, neither Lady Macbeth nor the witches are as powerful as they appear. The only power they possess is the ability to influence Macbeth; but ultimately it is Macbeth’s own ambition that prompts him to murder Duncan, and it is he who escalates the situation while Lady Macbeth suffers a breakdown. In this case you have women who are allowed to influence the play, but do so for the worse; they fail to be the good moral compasses needed. Goneril, Regan and Gertrude are similarly comparable; they possess a measure of power, but do not use it for good, and again society cannot renew itself.
Now we come to the comedies, where women do have the most control over the plot. The most powerful example is Rosalind in As You Like It. She pulls the strings in every avenue of the plot, and it is thanks to her control that reconciliation is achieved at the end, and all end up happily married. Much Ado About Nothing pivots around a woman’s anger over the abuse of her innocent cousin. If the men were left in charge in this play, no-one would be married at the end, and it would certainly end in tragedy. But Beatrice stands up and rails against men for their cruel conduct towards women and says that famous, spine-tingling line – oh God, that I were a man! I would eat his heart in the marketplace. And Benedick, her suitor, listens to her. He realises that his misogynistic view of the world is wrong and he takes steps to change it. He challenges his male friends for their conduct, parts company with the prince, and by doing this he wins his lady’s hand. The entire happy ending is dependent on the men realising that they must trust, love and respect women. Now it is a society that it worthy of being perpetuated. Regeneration and salvation lies in equality between the sexes and the love husbands and wives cherish for each other. The Merry Wives of Windsor – here we have men learning to trust and respect their wives, Flastaff learning his lesson for trying to seduce married women, and a daughter tricking everyone so she can marry the man she truly loves. A Midsummer Night’s Dream? The turmoil begins because three men are trying to force Hermia to marry someone she does not love, and Helena has been cruelly mistreated. At the end, happiness and harmony comes when the women are allowed to marry the men of their choosing, and it is these marriages that are blessed by the fairies.
What of the romances? In The Tempest, Prospero holds the power, but it is Miranda who is the key to salvation and a happy ending. Without his daughter, it is likely Prospero would have turned into a murderous revenger. The Winter’s Tale sees Leontes destroy himself through his own jealousy. The king becomes a vicious tyrant because he is cruel to his own wife and children, and this breach of faith in suspecting his wife of adultery almost brings ruin to his entire kingdom. Only by obeying the sensible Emilia does Leontes have a chance of achieving redemption, and the pure trust and love that exists between Perdita and Florizel redeems the mistakes of the old generation and leads to a happy ending. Cymbeline? Imogen is wronged, and it is through her love and forgiveness that redemption is achieved at the end. In all of these plays, without the influence of the women there is no happy ending.
The message is clear. Without a woman’s consent and co-operation in living together and bringing up a family, there is turmoil. Equality between the sexes and trust between husbands and wives alone will bring happiness and harmony, not only to the family unit, but to society as a whole. The Taming of the Shrew rears its ugly head as a counter-example, for here a happy ending is dependent on a woman’s absolute subservience and obedience even in the face of abuse. But this is one of Shakespeare’s early plays (and a rip-off of an older comedy called The Taming of a Shrew) and it is interesting to look at how the reception of this play changed as values evolved in this society.
As early as 1611 The Shrew was adapted by the writer John Fletcher in a play called The Woman’s Prize, or The Tamer Tamed. It is both a sequel and an imitation, and it chronicles Petruchio’s search for a second wife after his disastrous marriage with Katherine (whose taming had been temporary) ended with her death. In Fletcher’s version, the men are outfoxed by the women and Petruchio is ‘tamed’ by his new wife. It ends with a rather uplifting epilogue that claims the play aimed:
To teach both sexes due equality
And as they stand bound, to love mutually.
The Taming of the Shrew and The Tamer Tamed were staged back to back in 1633, and it was recorded that although Shakespeare’s Shrew was “liked”, Fletcher’s Tamer Tamed was “very well liked.” You heard it here folks; as early as 1633 audiences found Shakespeare’s message of total female submission uncomfortable, and they preferred John Fletcher’s interpretation and his message of equality between the sexes.
So yes. The message we can take away from Shakespeare is that a world in which women are powerless and cannot or do not contribute positively to society and family is unsustainable. Men, given the power and left to their own devices, will destroy themselves. But if men and women can work together and live in harmony, then the whole community has a chance at salvation, renewal and happiness.
Reaaallly interesting. I think The Merchant Of Venice has an interesting place in thia point. It always feels like a comedy barely saved from turning into a tragedy. And who saves it? Why Portia, of course, with her magnificent speech that starts,
“The quality of mercy is not strain’d,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath: it is twice blest;
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes”
Basically the men are all getting themselves in a bloody muddle before she comes along to tell them to stop being silly billies.
A reminder on the rules of the Bechdel Test (and Other Variants)
A movie passes the original Bechdel Test if two or more women have a conversation with each other that is not about a man. They do not have to be alone to have this conversation; they can be in a crowded room. It can even be a group conversation involving other genders. They can be related to each other. The only two points that matter are that the women have to speak directly to each other, and it has to not be about the male protagonist.
A movie passes the Vitto Russo Test if there are one or more characters who are identifiably LGBT(QAI), not solely or predominantly defined by their sexual orientation or gender identity, and are tied into the plot in such a way that their removal has significant effect on the story. You can even infer on this one; just because a movie does not outright have two people not-hetero sucking face does not mean they’re cis-het. Sometimes in film you’ve gotta really watch for the subtext, alas. Better when you don’t! But still a thing because Hollywood is stupid. I’m not talking about “I wish these two pretty people would knock boots!” desires. I’m talking about subtext you can highlight in a film and back up with evidence based upon the film itself or pre-existing rules of thought.
A movie passes the Ellen Degeneres POC Test if two people who are not white have a conversation that is not about the white (usually male) protagonist. They pass the Nikesh Shukla Variant if they’re having this conversation without mentioning their own races, which is often a Hollywood bit of bullshit of producers trying to scream about how inclusive they are.
A movie passes a Basic POC/Gender Equality Test when there is actual mixed representation of all groups among the characters, named and unnamed, with dialogue fairly and/or plot-wise fairly distributed among everyone.
A movie passes the Sphinx Test if women feature prominantly in the action, if they are proactive rather than purely reactive, and if they’re not portrayed stereotypically.
A movie passes the Mako Mori test if a significant or primary female character has a narrative arc that isn’t about supporting the male protagonist’s story. Their narratives can interact, but her narrative should never become his.
NOTHING MAKES ME ANGRIER THAN SOCIALIZED MALE DOMINANCE IN CONVERSATIONS SO LADIES PLEASE LEARN THESE THREE PHRASES AND NEVER BE AFRAID TO USE THEM
- “Stop interrupting me.”
- “I just said that.”
- “DID THE MIDDLE OF MY SENTENCE INTERRUPT THE BEGINNING OF YOURS?”
ALSO WHEN YOU SEE FEMALES IN YOUR LIFE BEING DISMISSED IN CONVERSATION:
- [Name] was speaking, how about we let her finish?
- [Name] just said that.
- [Name] was in the middle of saying something, can you please let her finish?
And never say “excuse me” when someone interrupts you. Say “excuse YOU.”
The Associated Press defined ‘alt-right’ and the white supremacists are not going to like it
The AP’s standards blog just posted a piece about how to use the term ‘alt-right’ when writing articles. Considering the Associated Press provides the style guidelines for newspapers and magazines nationwide, this clarification is a big deal. Here’s the sweet and succinct “usage” section.
“Alt-right” (quotation marks, hyphen and lower case) may be used in quotes or modified as in the “self-described” or “so-called alt-right” in stories discussing what the movement says about itself.
Avoid using the term generically and without definition, however, because it is not well known and the term may exist primarily as a public-relations device to make its supporters’ actual beliefs less clear and more acceptable to a broader audience. In the past we have called such beliefs racist, neo-Nazi or white supremacist.
The Associated Press is ready to call a duck a duck and so should you.
The Associated Press defined ‘alt-right’ and the white supremacists are not going to like it
Today marks the 26th anniversary of the École Polytechnique massacre, in Montreal, Canada. A cowardly, misogynic act which left 14 promising women dead, simply because they were women:
Twenty-five-year-old Marc Lépine, armed with a Mini-14 rifle and a hunting knife, shot 28 people, killing 14 women, before committing suicide. He began his attack by entering a classroom at the university, where he separated the male and female students.
After claiming that he was “fighting feminism” and calling the women “a bunch of feminists,” he shot all nine women in the room, killing six. He then moved through corridors, the cafeteria, and another classroom, specifically targeting women to shoot. Overall, he killed fourteen women and injured ten other women and four men in just under 20 minutes before turning the gun on himself.[1][2]
His suicide note claimed political motives and blamed feminists for ruining his life. The note included a list of 19 Quebec women whom Lépine considered to be feminists and apparently wished to kill.[3]
After this despicable act, Canada adopted gun control measures. Since gun control measures were adopted there has not been another mass shooting killing more than 10 people in Canada. Since École Polytechnique there has only been 9 massacres in Canada; 9 in 26 years.
Please remember these women.
27 years ago today
Harsh blizzard ravages Standing Rock as vital support and the media pack it up
- In the days since an apparent victory, the Standing Rock camp has been battered by an oncoming snowstorm — and conditions are now dire.
- Heavy snow and wind batters the sides of tipis and tents, forcing the Standing Rock resistance indoors.
- The roads have shut down going in and out of Oceti Sakowin Camp.
- The media are clearing out, packing up satellite trucks and heading home.
- Meanwhile, the police haven’t pulled back from the front lines, and the Dakota Access Pipeline company has no intention of leaving either.
- “It’s a distraction,” Oceti Sakowin Camp volunteer Ethan Braughton said in an interview. “If they were leaving, they’d take the razor wire and all their vehicles, but they’re still continuing to get the drill pad ready. They’re not going anywhere, they just want us to leave.”
- Many of the Lakota Sioux have permanently settled at Standing Rock and they’re not leaving, vowing to see this fight through.
- Read more about the blizzard and about the ongoing struggle
follow @the-movemnt
well Fuck.
Good people are still raising funds to bring wood stoves, food and supplies to Standing Rock. If you wnat to help, donate as little or as much as you can at:
https://www.gofundme.com/standingrockstoves?r=71143
Fat girls/women, please don’t wait until you’re skinny to live your life
If you want to take a trip abroad, do it.
If you want to take a swim class, do it.
Go to the beach in a bathing suit or a two piece, do it.
Don’t wait to live your life until you’re skinny.
If you want to lose weight, that’s fine. Do it, but don’t wait to fall in love with your life and yourself until you’re skinny.
You want to get healthy, start with your emotional and spiritual health and well-being
A boy sprawled next to me on the bus, elbows out, knee pointing sharp into my thigh.
He frowned at me when I uncrossed my legs, unfolded my hands
and splayed out like boys are taught to: all big, loose limbs.
I made sure to jab him in the side with my pretty little sharp purse.
At first he opened his mouth like I expected him to, but instead of speaking up he sat there, quiet, and took it for the whole bus ride.
Like a girl.Once, a boy said my anger was cute, and he laughed,
and I remember thinking that I should sit there and take it,
because it isn’t ladylike to cause a scene and girls aren’t supposed to raise their voices.
But then he laughed again and all I saw
was my pretty little sharp nails digging into his cheek
before drawing back and making a horribly unladylike fist.
(my teacher informed me later that there is no ladylike way of making a fist.)When we were both in the principal’s office twenty minutes later
him with a bloody mouth and cheek, me with skinned knuckles,
I tried to explain in words that I didn’t have yet
that I was tired of having my emotions not taken seriously
just because I’m a girl.Girls are taught: be small, so boys can be big.
Don’t take up any more space than absolutely necessary.
Be small and smooth with soft edges
and hold in the howling when they touch you and it hurts:
the sandpaper scrape of their body hair that we would be shamed for having,
the greedy hands that press too hard and too often take without asking permission.Girls are taught: be quiet and unimposing and oh so small
when they heckle you with their big voices from the window of a car,
because it’s rude to scream curse words back at them, and they’d just laugh anyway.
We’re taught to pin on smiles for the boys who jeer at us on the street
who see us as convenient bodies instead of people.Girls are taught: hush, be hairless and small and soft,
so we sit there and take it and hold in the howling,
pretend to be obedient lapdogs instead of the wolves we are.
We pin pretty little sharp smiles on our faces instead of opening our mouths,
because if we do we get accused of silly women emotions
blowing everything out of proportion with our PMS, we get
condescending pet names and not-so-discreet eyerolls.Once, I got told I punched like a girl.
I told him, Good. I hope my pretty little sharp rings leave scars.
Straight men who infantilize women’s friendships have no fucking survival instinct. Like my uncle is always making fun of and rolling his eyes at my aunt’s friend lunches and telephone dates with her lady friends, teasing her like she’s a gossipy teenage girl in high school drama. And my aunt just laughs about it but I know for a fact that if it wasn’t for her best friend K, she would have probably set him on fire by now.
Like straight men are capable of maybe a quarter of the indepth emotional labor and support women do for each other. Like men can literally have one friend named Bob that they go fishing with once a year and still be content for life. Then they think it’s cute and girlish that their wives have these long term, integrated, emotionally intense relationships with women but like…LOL, it’s not because men don’t need those kinds of relationships, it’s just that they get it all from their wives while offering peanuts in return. PEANUTS.
Like if your woman is on the phone for 2 hours with her friend and you think that’s childish of her, just know that she spent half of that time getting the support that you should be giving her (but are incapable of) and the rest lamenting what a giant fucking baby manchild you are.
@sprinklecunttt lol
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Men need to understand that women are capable of different friendships and they shouldn’t pass judgement whether a women are too ‘girlish’ or ‘antisocial’ or anything.
I always worry about these men. Like… Are they honestly incapable of understanding friendship? Are they honestly so messed up that they don’t understand what it’s like to be able to trust people to support you emotionally unless they’re sleeping with you?
This is the unspoken implications of the “friendzone” concept; it implies that friendship has no value. In fact, friendship has negative value, because it’s an obstacle in a man’s path to getting his dick wet, which is apparently the only valid reason for interacting with a woman.
OP is so right though.
Men don’t have differing needs for social support. They just are encouraged by the toxic expectations placed on men to neglect themselves emotionally, and those same expectations also tell them women should take up the slack.
A lot of the time, the only reason men can get away with having one friend they see once a year is because there is a woman or several women in his life doing all the rest of that work for him. Sometimes one woman doing the work of what really should be three other people.
Men aren’t taught to do emotional self-maintenance – hardly anyone is, but it seems especially neglected in men. This is not only deeply harmful to these men, which is awful on its own, it is a completely unreasonable burden to put on women, it stunts their emotional development. Those are emotional resources she could spend growing herself, actually reaching her potential, and they are being spent bringing someone else up to speed when that is a thing that they should mostly be doing for themselves.
This should not be an expectation we have of women, and yet it is. We expect them to help make a man better. And not just in the sense that a romantic relationship should encourage you both to be better, but in the sense that we expect women to do this at their expense, and any expectation that this should be a two-way deal is considered evidence of selfishness on her part, for some reason. Women are expected to drop everything to tend to their boyfriends’ or husbands’ needs.
Men need to establish and nurture healthy friendships with other men. Men need to take care of themselves emotionally, and contribute to the upkeep of other men in the way that women contribute to the upkeep of other women.
I’m not saying relationships between women are void of unhealthy dynamics, far, far from it. I’m just saying that this plays out in hetero relationships in predictable and really disturbing ways on such a pervasive scale that it actually upsets me to contemplate it. Most of the women I have known who are in relationships with women have been very happy. Most of the ones in relationships with men have not been. And ALL of the ones who have been with men have complained about the exact same set of behaviors.
Men aren’t natively awful. Not at all. We all start out as little babies, equally helpless and in need of support and attention. But they get force-fed some truly horrible shit and as a result will utterly neglect themselves to the point of being barely capable of functioning without a woman as a caretaker, all while denigrating relationships between women as frivolous. And they don’t see the problem with that, and then women are seen as selfish and awful for wanting to opt out of the whole deal.
Gross.