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.
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.)
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.
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]
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.
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
If the CIA and this reporting is to be believed, the GOP-lead Senate deliberately ignored this information from the CIA to gain power. Someone needs to act BEFORE the Electoral College meets on Dec 19th.
So far Lindsay Graham is the only Republican to speak up in outrage. And the only Democrat to make waves has been Harry Reid (who is retiring). The GOP’s reaction is understandable. Trump’s reaction has been as scary as everything else he has done, but 100% understandable. But the Dems? Pure cowardice, as usual. Obama himself needs to do something about this, because any investigation will end on Jan 20th.
And YOU reading this need to make serious waves. Our highest Intelligence agency has claimed this election was stolen. Trump WILL get away with this if we don’t take to the streets, IMMEDIATELY. Call someone. Write something. None of this is politics as normal! People need to be jailed for this.This is the literal definition of influence from a foreign government, and exactly what the Electoral College was made to stop.
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.
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.
Wherever perfectionism is driving, shame is riding shotgun. Perfectionism is not about healthy striving, which you see all the time in successful leaders, it’s not about trying to set goals and being the best we can be, perfectionism is basically a cognitive behavioral process that says if I look perfect, work perfect, and do everything perfectly, I can avoid shame, ridicule, and criticism. It’s a defense mechanism.
“When I interview leaders, artists, coaches, or athletes who are very successful, they never talk about perfectionism as being a vehicle for success. What they talk about is that perfectionism is a huge trigger, one they have to be aware of all the time, because it gets in the way of getting work done.”
Now that Angela Merkel is running against a pro-Kremlin stooge, you’ll never guess which transparency crusaders dumped a whole bunch of hacked documents making her look bad.
Does it matter why the documents were leaked or does it matter that the BND is doing shady Stasi level shit?
Dude, OP is using the same kind of lazy ad hominem or ergo decedo attacks that Clinton supporters used against WikiLeaks.
Let’s be crystal clear here, even if some Russian hacker got those documents under less than ethical means, that doesn’t mean that government officials should get away with wrongdoings just because the “other guy” did something wrong too.
Lol, I love it when people on the internet use the latin names of logical fallacies as magic spells to win the argument. Here’s a funny foreign word for you: realpolitik. Russia will advance its interests by any means necessary, and will steamroll over other countries’ sovereignty to do it. That includes yours.
Do you honestly think the right-wing politicians he’s allied with wouldn’t have extremely shady things in their emails or other correspondences that would turn people off? Don’t you think it’s a little odd that Wikileaks only ever attacks one side, and it’s always the side making Putin’s life more difficult?
And what was Merkel’s crime? She worked with the NSA. Newsflash: allies share intelligence. If there are terrorist cells in Germany, it’s in both our interests to track them. But putting this necessary semi-evil in the spotlight will dissuade the left part of her coalition, just like another powerful woman running for office whose name escapes me at the moment.
Steel Phoenix Studios 