MovieChat Forums > avortac4 > Replies
avortac4's Replies
BTW, that's not SMACKING. That's BUMPING.
This is ALSO sexist against women, because if women are always the protected, pedestalized victims, they can never have true independency or agency.
Men should always protect women and there's never an excuse to hit women, but somehow women have no obligations to protect men from other women even just socially (which is why this extremely rare sight is _SO_ funny when it happened once in Curb Your Enthusiasm, when Ms. Black defended Larry when she was his girlfriend and Susan attacked Larry verbally, a VERY satisfying moment showing how things COULD be..)
Women can always hit men, because there are plenty of excuses. But there are no genders and there are million genders and..
It's the HYPOCRISY of all this that sickens me the most. The double standards are endless, and men always get the short stick. Women have so much social power and 10 different 'salaries', while men toil like worker ants without access to colorful clothes or dresslike clothes that men HAVe worn throughout history (old chinese culture, old japanese culture, old Roman culture, etc.. only the Kilt remains as acceptable dress for men these days, besides some africans and Arabs, maybe)
Why can't we all have the same rights and obligations IN PRACTICAL REALITY? Women have opportunities men can't even dream of. A man can't unzip his pants and rub his chest and make 2 million a year from doing that in front of a camera to 20 000 'hungry simpettes', but even an ugly woman can just sit and spread to get something to spread on their bread.
In theory, we have equality, but in practical reality, women live in the Cloud City, and men have to crawl in overly tight tunnels below the dirty and dangerous ground. Then the women complain and complain that men don't do enough and yet these double standard live on.. a female shouldn't be put to a prison for molesting a student, because 'the boy probably liked it, heh heh' is the most sickening thing I have ever heard.
.. the double standards never end, the list would go on for pages and pages and yet more pages.
In any case, it's weird how people REFUSE to see or admit these double standards that benefit women and are detriment to men, but yet people are SO QUICK to claim there are no genders or there are millions of genders.
I mean, if genders are just a social construction, how can women get lower pay? I mean, women don't exist, so how can they get lower pay? Also, it's illegal to pay less for the same job based on ANY physical qualities, so women could sue all the big corporations and become millionaires. But they don't do this, because? Of course because they calculate this 'lower pay' wrong.
When EVERYTHING is taken into account, women earn 100% the same as men, IF we don't calculate women's 'second salary' and 'third salary'... the money men freely give them, money their boyfriends and husbands bring them, women expect men to always pay for everything when dating, they get free drinks and don't have to pay for entry to a club or whatnot, and so on and so forth.
Women have an endless amount of 'salaries', men don't.
But somehow genders don't exist and ... it's a crazy world.
In any case, I can understand how it CAN be a 'lucky thing' for a male teenager to have coitus with his teacher, because teenage males have very powerful hormones when it comes to sexual lust, and many of them dream of this kind of stuff. However, this shouldn't be the ONLY perspective used with these things, people are individuals, after all, and it's entirely possible for a male to suffer and for a female to enjoy such a situation, just as much as it's vice versa.
That's the double standard, people think it's ALWAYS fun for the boy, and ALWAYS misery for the girl, when they should first investigate what it was for the individual people, but people immediately judge based on this misandristic prejudice.
There are so many double standards, but we're not supposed to talk about them, because gender is just a social construction, but at the same time, women need men like fish need bicycles, but then again, there are 8 billion genders at the same time.
In any case, the 'double standard' is not that 'it would be fun for the boy' - how can you guarantee this?
It's that people have different attitudes towards male and female people, from the GET-GO.
They did an experiment, dressing the same baby girl in pink and blue, and when she was wearing pink, people treated the baby with very soft, silent voice and gentle gestures and 'loving' language. When dressed in blue, the language was harsher, the volume was higher, the physical action was rougher and more action-based and the attitude was downright 'tough'.
And this was a few months old baby that probably had no clue what was going on, and people already treated her differently based on clothes alone (which lead to their assumptions). Gender doesn't exist but people treat men and women COMPLETELY differently as a matter-of-fact.
A boy should feel 'lucky' if a teacher molests him, no matter how traumatic the experience might have been (and emasculating, too)..
..but a girl is supposed to be a victim and feel traumatized, no matter how fun the experience might have been for her, and how much she might have been the instigator and manipulator and how much she actually seduced the adult teacher.
The human experience is BIASED, and male-bodied entities are dealt the shorter stick, the worse cards, they just CAN'T WIN.
The law should be the same for all, people should treat everyone as human beings first, and not as gender first, and the double standard that 'hehe, he was lucky' and 'omigosh, she's a victim' just makes the inequality worse.
Women get shorter sentences for the same crimes, female prisons are holiday resorts by comparison to the hell men end up in, men get rrrrped in prisons way more than women anywhere
1) It's NOT controversial. Why would you consider it controversial?
2) The 'mother' isn't YET his mother, they're basically the same age, from any non-hysterical viewpoint, it's just 'two teenagers interacting' and nothing more.
3) It's not LOVE, it's LUST, it's a CRUSH. At best, it's 'emotional lust' (but this movie shows it very sexually as well). It's a typical teen crush that people get, the Florence Nightingale-effect has nothing to do with love, even though Doc explains it that way.
4) What's wrong with you, are you in some kind of medication? This is a movie, not a documentary.
5) How can an EMOTION be 'controversial' or 'immoral'? Lorraine can't help it, and 5b) she doesn't KNOW it's her son. It's all completely innocent... well, for the most part. What would make it controversial in your opinion? From Lorraine's point of view, she just sees a cool guy and feels something for him. THAT IS IT.
Are you going to ban 'feeling'? Do you want to live in the world of the movie 'Equilibrium'?
Hello? HELLO? ANYBODY HOME? *KNOCK* *KNOCK*
6) Logically, morally, even emotionally - what's really WRONG about even incest? The only argument that is valid and stands the test of logic, is that the children from incest would be mutants of some sort. What if you are not planning to have children?
7) Aren't parents SUPPOSED to love their offspring? Why would it be wrong for a mother to love her son? Are you all right?
To add one minor point to the whole spinning-thing, the REASON acceleration takes some time, is inertia, the 'slowness of MASS'. If wheels could be made to spin that fast, it wouldn't take that long, it could reach "64 mph" very quickly, because all the wheels have to do is spin faster and faster. Why would it take that long?
Also, it's just SO wrong to measure 'wheel spinning speed' as 'mph', because it should be measured as 'revolutions per second', as any spinning.
There's just so much wrong with this scene, I can't even write it all out..
No.
That's "What, Lorraine, what?"
It's not two separate questions, it's one question, he just repeats the 'what'.
Also, you absolutely need the OXFORD COMMA in there. You should learn english before writing 2400 posts anywhere..aren't you even embarrassed? How do you write 2400 posts and not even know how to write simple english correctly?
First of all, where do you get the impression someone is seeing him as 'the bad guy'?
Secondly, why do you use passive, as if it's some kind of universal truth? WHO are you talking about, who is seeing him as 'the bad guy'? Please elaborate.
Third, he's NOT seen or shown to be as 'the bad guy', but he is a lot like Frank Grimes, or Grimey, as he liked to be called. He exists solely to underline how GOOFY the rest of the characters are, how quirky and weird Michael is, and how enormous a contrast it would create, if the group got a 'realistic manager'.
He also gets the 'established values' wrong, doesn't understand the people (i.e. 'characters'), gets Dwight and Jim completely wrong, is way less relaxed about work, dress codes and such than Michael was, and doesn't try to be everyone's friend, the way Michael did.
He's like Bizarro-Michael, and as such, doesn't fit the office, that's used to actual Michael. They know how to handle and manipulate Michael, which creates a good work environment, but this manager is realistic, so they lost control and fun, and now it's all serious work and boring stuff.
He also made some bad decisions and was insensitive towards Michael with his macho BS and his lack of humor.
All in all, no one liked him (attraction is not the same as liking someone as a human or a manager), and he messed up the normal flow of the day.
He was not a villain as much as he was just a guy in the wrong place at the wrong time.
No, it's because he wasn't a major character.
Get it?
In any case, kind of ironic that your nick says 'Minority Rules' and yet you miss all the pun opportunities, and spew the kind of SJW nonsense Candace Owens wouldn't even bother to spit on. Try again.
I mean, 'likable' and 'unlikable' is final, conclusive, factual. That usually doesn't exist.
There are things that are 'not liked' or 'are hated', but things that are 'unlikable' are pretty hard to find or even justify. There's BOUND to be someone that likes something everyone else hates. This means very few things are unlikable - this word means that something CAN NOT BE LIKED by anyone or anything.
So even if you could SOMEHOW magically conjure up this mystical element of 'moment', it still couldn't be 'unlikable', it could possibly be 'something most viewers hate', but it can't be 'unlikable' in any case.
To clarify, there's a big difference between 'likable' and 'liked'. 'Most liked scene', 'the highest-rated episode', sure.
But 'most unlikable moment'?
I DON'T THINK SO.
A moment can't be 'unlikable'.
A moment doesn't really even exist, as time itself is barely an illusion. We always invent words for our convenience, like 'darkness' and 'cold', because they serve a purpose to us, so we also constraint something like 'time' and subjugate it under our convenience by the usage and invention of words and terminology, like 'a moment'.
However, it's like a border on a map that has no relevance to the animals walking in the forest. A deer doesn't know it just crossed a border, because that border doesn't REALLY exist in actual reality, certainly not for the deer.
The same way we can define and talk about things until the deer come home (why is the plural of deer 'deer', but a plural of cow is 'cows'?), but we won't change what really is and what isn't. Darkness is not real, it's merely 'lack of light' (but can there ever be actual lack of light, when we consider the Creator IS light, and is also Omnipresent? - same goes for 'cold', which doesn't exist, except as a 'lack of warmth' - there can't be absolute zero, either).
A 'moment' is merely a word that supposedly describes some undetermined amount of what we call 'time', but does it REALLY exist in actual reality? Would a deer know what you are talking about? Can you point to a moment with your finger? Can you explain exactly how many seconds it means?
So you are using a vague term about a thing that barely exists to describe a thing that doesn't exist beyond the world of 'human convenience' and then assign features, attributes and traits to it, like 'unlikable'? How does THAT work?
Could you and others please stop making these really ridiculous statements, questions and topics that make no sense. Please.
A 'moment' (especially since it doesn't really exist in reality) CAN NOT BE UNLIKABLE!
But even if we could say it could, 'unlikABLE' is a very 'factual term' considering how opinion-based 'liking something' is.
Before its time? You mean 'ahead of its time'?
MANhattan? Don't you mean WOMANhattan? Or maybe WOMANscarftan?
Exactly.
Coddled children grow up to be weak, confused and scared - probably traumatized and scared for life. Emotionally imbalanced, possibly psychos.
Parents know better than the kid, they should NEVER let kid's tears control their behaviour. When parents have decided something, kid's tears, tantrums, etc. should be either irrelevant and thus not change anything, or punished, and then still not change anything.
It's not about having paid for the horse (not that animal torture is ever OK, but I'll try to ignore that part for now), it's about having the guts, determination and stability, confidence and calmness to make the daughter CONFRONT her fears, and guide her THROUGH the tears and difficulties.
Nothing is hurting her physically, so the tears come from the psychological side. The only way the child learns that hey, nothing bad happened, and she DOES have the power to confront this fear and go through it, is if the parent is a stable guide that pushes her forward until she stops feeling fear and realizes to stop crying. Then she may or may not enjoy it, but she'll be stronger, she will have an experience of succeeding in something, she will grow as human being and feel that the parents are STRONG, so she can trust them to protect them.
She can also trust that the parents are WISE, because even though she panicked, the parents stayed there and still pushed her through the experience, all the while convincing her that nothing bad will happen, everything will be all right. It's ok to be scared and cry, but we're going through this together in any case.
It's very similar to dog psychology - dogs can throw temper tantrums as well, and be coddled and grow emotionally imbalanced. Dog Whisperer and Cesar 911 are good places to start to learn this kind of basic psychology.
You can't avoid everything in life, you have to sometimes walk on the streets and do 'scary things'. The mom's tactic would've made her fear horses for the rest of her life.
You are all correct - this movie robs itself of the potential by making it into "of course a psycho nut is going to act like a psycho nut" instead of something poignant, like "this could happen to you, because our world is insane".
What a waste of potential.. Koyaanisqatsi was gutsier (no pun intended) than this movie, it actually shows us - without any words - just how INSANE our world is, and how easy that insanity is to see if you look at it from a slightly different perspective than what we are used to.
This movie COULD have been similar, it could have moralized about how terrible corporate greed is, and what it DOES to people, how unhealthy the cubicle wage-slavery and the car-centric commuting system (just because the corporations have paid for the offices for years to come, we can't have telecommuting, working from home, et cetera) is.
When you watch those 'Urbanist' videos from 'NotJustBikes' and some others, you have to wonder if 'car-centrism' is REALLY what is the best for everyone. Thankfully, in Europe, public transport is downright amazing compared to car-centric, almost third-world sh1tholes that think they're on the top of the world because everyone has a car.
In any case, this problem is showed in this movie in a very powerful way, but then the guy ALREADY BEING A PSYCHO dilutes that power until there's nothing left. It destroys this movie's potential and poignancy more aggressively than D-Fence destroys the small Korean store because he would have had to pay 35 cents more for a can of toilet-cleaning liquid than usual.
(Yes, I said it - that stuff is better for cleaning toilets than human consumption)
What truth?
No one ever really dies anyway, only their bodies do. Mary still lives.. SOMEWHERE out there, perhaps reincarnated, perhaps in the astral world. She could be visiting another galaxy right now..
In any case, why didn't you trust him, what about, and WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
It's like that old, funny story about some women loving some useless celebrity so much, she told her boyfriend she would s*ck his c*ck in front of her father, because she loves him so much, and the boyfriend should just shut up and take this kind of insanity. Then the boyfriend simply said some woman on a TV show is 'cute', and she lost her crap and angrily marched away, telling him he can just watch it alone, then.
The hypocrisy knows no bounds, but people are still blaming MEN for everything - even a fictional woman's emotional immaturity.
How's THAT for inequality.. men have to buy you a drink, stop the ax murderer from coming through the window, watch your female sports for ya and even get the blame if a woman's emotions are immature!
Anyway, back to Laura's selfishness..
It IS a sitcom, so even the 'normal female selfishness' that most married men are too familiar with, is exaggerated a bit for comedic effect - how could it be otherwise?
Laura is emotionally immature, but what woman isn't? Have you met emotionally mature women that could handle competition from other women in a mature way? Neither have I.
If a real woman was in a situation where her husband was basically forced to adore a 'better woman', how well do you think she would / could handle it? I mean, look at what's happening with modern women in Tiktoks and others, where they complain about dating, while having 20000 followers on Instagram and dating apps - they say ridiculous things, like 'I can't find a man'. So NONE of those 20 000 men are good enough for ya? And this from a very plain or even ugly woman.
When you look at how immature women generally are in the world, Laura's immaturity doesn't seem bad at all, and can almost be seen as a 'cute quirk' without many harmful consequences.
I keep thinking of the 'hair bleaching-episode', where Laura's insecurity really shows up - it's funny and cute, how she's SO scared of what Rob will say, when Rob has been shown to be a very understanding and even simpy guy for his lovely wife. In real world, a woman that gorgeous would not care what that simpy husband thinks, she would have been riding the carousel for years at that point anyway, behind her husband's back.
By the way, all those poeple that blame 'men for sleeping around' (an achievement for a man - no ordinary man can do this, they will have to become 'extraordinary' in one way or another, and that takes LOTS of HARD WORK, whereas any relatively human-looking woman can just sit on a barstool or write 'hi' on a dating app and get 8 million men instantly wanting to get into her pants) should look how much women cheat.
Do people that blame men for everything ever stop to think how HARD it is for a man to 'sleep around', unless they're a high-status man? Men have way more active sexuality that constantly demands satisfaction - as Bill Bur said, the dick (not the Van Dyke kind) is constantly saying "Do it, do it, fking do it!". This is true. Men have this powerful dictator between their legs that demands sex every single second of their waking life.
Women can abstain from sex easily, especially since nothing is building up enormous pressure. Men generate new sperm constantly, and it needs to be released, or it will become explosive pressure, and if it's not released, there will be 'wet dreams'. Women do not have this constantly mounting pressure that physically increases every second.
However, since women are the gatekeepers of sex, while men are gatekeepers of marriage and long-term relationships, it's usually women that can decide exactly how much sex will happen. Men can't sleep around without women WILLING to let them sleep around, and most men don't get this kind of women (if they get any at all).
So is it any wonder that when a man finally becomes a celebrity or some other high-status male, and thus finally has OPTIONS to release this pressure, they yield to the ENORMOUS temptation? You shouldn't be so harsh, because it's a ridiculous thing to ask someone to resist THAT LEVEL of temptation. Women couldn't do it, either. How many women can resist the temptation to have babies? They MUST have them, at least in some form, but we never even notice or care about this, although it's the same thing, just in different form. Women must cuddle something constantly, even if it's just a stuffed toy or a designer rat - I mean, a small dog. How many women have CATS? I don't think there's a female youtuber that doesn't.
There are many points of view to all this.
First, when you compare her to modern women (just watch some 'Tayler the Fiend''s youtube videos and Replicant Fish's youtube videos for perspective), she's a sweet angel, whose quirks are easily forgivable. Most men would LOVE to have a wife like that - she's not perfect, but she's 'perfect enough' that this kind of emotional childishness would be easy to forgive.
If we lived in a world, where those things were the only faults in women, and yet the wives of this world would be as faithful, as sympathetic, as empathetic, caring, self-sacrificing and husband-adoring and supportive as Laura (she even tried to save a huge amount of money just to buy Rob a great present), these kind of things would be easy to forgive. After all, who among us is emotionally perfect? I am sure you and all of us here, have SOME childish or emotionally imbalanced part about us, that would be JUST as 'insufferable' as anything Laura has ever expressed.
Second, there's a balance about things. Sure, Laura can be selfish and petty, but that's pretty much expected of women. After all, when you have pedestalized 50% of humanity and protected them from the consequences of even their own actions (little girls have always known how to tie their parents around their little fingers - female-gendered entities are masters of manipulation), and even their own emotions a lot of the time, what do you really expect?
Women are often shown as petty and selfish, emotionally childish and immature, because that's what they ARE in real life.
Of course the politically-correct agenda doesn't allow us to face the facts, we MUST ALWAYS BLAME MEN for everything. So now Laura's female pettiness is somehow CAUSED by Ricky's actor 'sleeping around'.