RationalWiki's Q4 2016 Fundraiser
We are 100% user-supported!
Without you, there is no RationalWiki!
Goal: $5000 Donations so far: $3075

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
Help and donate today!

Debate:Seth Rogan and Date Rape

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Insert non-formatted text here

Debate.JPG This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by SirChuckB.


[edit] 1st Round

If this gets going, which it may, I'll be happy to move it over to the debate space (hell, I created the template, I might as well use it huh?) Anyway. I just wanted to engage our base on a simple question: Have feminist gone a little too far? Here's why I ask. I was browsing through the intertubes, and happened to find this blog. Basic story, feminist blog bitching (no pun intended) about a scene in Seth Rogan's new movie Observe and Report. Here's where the question comes in.... WHY??? With all the real issues confronting a modern woman (or enlightened man) why do you focus so much energy and rage at a stupid little pissant movie that nobody will remember a year from now? I mean seriously, shouldn't that energy be spent at much more important targets? SirChuckBLeave Death Threats Here 00:38, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Isn't your question really more about the direction rather than whether it has gone to far? The are still honour killings, female circumcision and places that don't have women's suffrage. It seems to me that the feminist movement would rather stay at home a pick at the last few thing, than deal with much bigger problems abroad. - User \pi 00:50, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
What Pi said.
As to "feminists going too far," they did that quite a while ago, somewhere during the second wave, when they apparently forgot that sex and rape are not synonyms (and ditto with misogyny and capitalism). With the third wave this is not so much of a problem, but there are still the hangers-on. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 00:53, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
(EC)SirChuck--on the one hand, you're right: why worry about a cinematic depiction of date rape when there's *real* date rape, and lots of other horrible things going on. And without bothering to see the scene in question, I don't know how the act is portrayed in the movie. That being said, even little pissant movies that nobody'll remember a year from now matter because they contribute to a discursive framework that normalises the systematic abuse and mistreatment of half of the world's population, from FGM in Sudan to economic abuse to the fact that one in three American women (last stats I heard) can expect to be the victim of sexual assault in her lifetime. While maybe this movie isn't as bad as those things are. what it does,--or at least what I think the blogger is saying it does--is to excuse those sort of things. Has feminism gone too far? Nonsense. When women are no longer systematically targeted for abuse for no other reason than because they are women, come talk to me--until then, it hasn't gone nearly far enough. TheoryOfPractice 00:55, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
Yeah, sexual assault. Any of you "guys" ever have a larger, stronger woman who was really excited trying to stick their thing in you when you really sorta just wanted to go home (I haven't, but do I want to argue I am absolutely innocent of the other side of that)? And that's here in the enlightened West. I don't see a problem with someone "picking their target" - maybe there are bigger problems (there are), but everyone has their own energy and life and focus, etc. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:05, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
(EC)But here;s the problem TOP, by fighting the good fight against Seth Rogan and his tyranny, how do they help their cause? The message it sends out is "we care about women everywhere, but it's more important to hate Seth Rogan." What good does this do their cause? and I would also argue against the idea that this "contribute(s) to a discursive framework that normalises the systematic abuse." This is Hollywood fiction we're talking about here. I don't watch Gone with the Wind and go try to light Atlanta on fire.... I don't watch Ironman and pretend I'm a superhero (ok, actually I do). People don't take their cues from movies, movies take their cues from the people.... and not having seen the movie, but knowing the premise, I hardly think the characters are the kind you want to emulate. SirChuckBLeave Death Threats Here 01:11, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
Reply to Human. Don't get me wrong. I don't want to argue against fighting this sort of thing, but even in our country, where the best defense for a rape is to attack the victim, where mainstream news personalities (Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Glen Beck) still argue that women who dress in short skirts and halter tops are asking for it, in a country where religious groups still argue that women should be denied access to birth control, this is what you're going to focus on? Really? By the way, I have the same issues with Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and most black leadership. SirChuckBLeave Death Threats Here 01:16, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
The answer is yes, but you have to be sure to differentiate between groups. First-wave/liberal feminism != third-wave radical "patriarchal society is constructed entirely on the phallus" feminism. A few nutjob critics bitching about absurd minutiae do not represent the whole of the feminist landscape; they're just the loudest (often because they have academic careers to prop up). PubliusTalk 01:22, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
The latter sort of feminism is more second-wave than third-wave, I think. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 01:29, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
I forgot to sign my intrusion, guys. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:59, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
Give it another 50 years Sir Chuck. there's a lot of Wimmin[don't you just hate it when they do that?] out there who aren't for women as much as they're agin men. There's also a lot of us who're for people. There's always extremists whatever the subject, but the moderates generally win in the end. The more attention they're given, the more they like it; just ignore them. I don't think they have much following among the rest of us; we tend to laugh at them. ToastToastand marmite 04:40, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
"who aren't for women as much as they're against men" - Definitely, can't agree with that phrase more. That's the big problem with a lot of protests. They have plenty to strive against but nothing to strive for, which makes them very short lived and not very successful unless you count success by the amount of pissing off and victimisation they cause. Examples being Conservatives (yes, the ones with the capital C) basically hating liberals more than liking being conservative or environmental protestors who just like being shouty and anti-corporate rather than being for postitive environmental measures or wanting to learn about and raise awareness of genuine solutions. ArmondikoVtheist 05:19, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
That's because protesting is easier and more fun. Most people would rather (eg) wave teabags in a tax protest than sit down and work out a fair, workable tax system. Totnesmartin 05:48, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
yup! it's like your average interweb vandal or graffiti idiot: it's so easy to bugger up someone elses work but actually creating something yourself takes time & intelligence. ToastToastand marmite 06:11, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
Of course one trouble is that they (the ardent anti-menists) tend to give the rest of us a bad name. People think that if you're a dyke you must hate men. I don't - I find them quite decorative & excellent companions when quaffing the odd glass of Guinness & even have one or two models of certain body parts among my treasured possessions as I suppose most women do. ToastToastand marmite 05:27, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

While there are maybe bigger issues in modern feminism that ought to be priorities, I don't really see how this logic holds up. Consider it in any other sphere. If a new chemical factory opened up that only dumped a small amount of dioxin into the waterways, would it be unreasonable to call attention and outrage to it, even though global warming dwarfs it as a concern? Or if a man was beaten brutally by police officers, is it unreasonable to picket that police station, even though extraordinary rendition is a far more egregious abuse of authority? Most people would not think so.--Tom Moorefiat justitia ruat coelum 06:34, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

DATE RAPE HAPPENS. Women who live in the American Society still have very difficult times explaining to cops why being drunk is *not* an excuse for being raped. Women who are passed out (as was the case in this movie) are routinely "made love" to, and if/when they "come to" during sex, and say do not scream, kick, or slap - men say "they wanted it". Absurd and obscene that we still think of women as objects for putting dicks into. I'm horney, she's passed out. problem solved. Feminism has not "gone too far", it hasn't gone far enough. In a very real way, sex DOES = rape, because many women in America (much less the world) are powerless to say no. They think they need the man's financial support, emotional support, or love. and without saying "yes" all the time, they know the man will walk out. Sex is a way men control women, in these situations. This does not mean all sex is rape, it means the argument itself has validity when you understand it in the context of power dynamics.--Sun mowse.pngEn attendant Godot"«Let the credulous and the vulgar continue to believe that all mental woes can be cured by a daily application of old Greek myths to their private parts. V.Nabokov» 06:36, 21 April 2009 (EDT) (edit conflict)
I'll risk prodding the beast even further by asking exactly who the "we" is that thinks of women as holes to stick dicks into. I can't really see any RWians acting that way, at the worst it's just lambasting some eager Feminists bloggers for blowing a quick joke out of all proportion. ArmondikoVtheist 08:56, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
I thank everyone for their well thought out answers, it reminds me why I stick around here :-) Now to answer some points. First, to Tom, I'm not arguing against fighting these things, but rather arguing how they do it. Attacking a Seth Rogan because you found a joke to be in poor taste is not, repeat NOT going to win anybody over. You come off as humorless and petty. For the record, no, I don't think the joke is particularly funny or clever, but I understand the point. Your two points don't really hold up either. The difference between dumping toxin or police brutality is that each one has a measurable negative effect. You can argue that about movies, but I would disagree and I think you'd be hard to find good evidence. However, if you were protesting the dumping of toxins into a waterway by attacking Family Guy because they did a joke about it, there's your problem. Or if you protesting Police Brutality by picketing comedy central because RENO 911 plays it for laughs all the time, you've got a problem. They're not attacking the problem, they're attacking a stupid movie for something that is barely related. To Godot, I think you're too far into your cause to step back. Nobody is arguing for rape, I swear. Never once in my life hace I protested for more rape. Nor am I excusing rape because the woman was drunk or "asking for it." I am simply pointing out that the way to fight the problem is not by nailing Seth Rogan to the wall. SirChuckBLeave Death Threats Here 11:15, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Nailing Rogan to the wall is not the solution to rape, I agree with you there. But in this case, nailing Rogan to the wall does seem to be something to do if you want to fight against the propagation of the idea that fucking a girl who is too drunk to give consent =/= rape, which is what Rogan seems to be doing in the exchange you pointed us to. TheoryOfPractice 11:19, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

I highly doubt that was what Rogan was doing, even unconscously. The charecter in the movie is a bad guy, going bad things. This is another bad thing. We can read whatever we want into the movie, but I highly doubt Rogan made the scene to endorse date rape. Z3rotalk 11:32, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
"SETH ROGEN: when we’re having sex (note:they're not. He's raping her. this is the key to the problem: Rogan is equating rape with "having sex." They're not the same thing) and she’s unconscious like you can literally feel the audience thinking, like, how the fuck are they going to make this okay: . . . And then she says, like, the one thing that makes it all okay: "Why are you stopping, motherfucker?." So yeah, he's written and defended a scenario in which women can apparently consent to their own rape. Big problem. TheoryOfPractice 11:37, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
Two things; first, the charecter in the movie is a bad guy. When you see the bad guy kill someone in a movie, you shouldn't think "wow, killing people is cool". Second, if you talked with the people who made the movie, I'd have to think they were just trying to make an awkward joke. I can't imagine any of them actually meant to endorse date rape. Which is the point; going after a film that made a lame joke is not the most productive way to get a message out. Z3rotalk 11:43, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
I've said this before: the problem for me, is not with the scene in the movie--it boils down to Rogan saying "we're having sex." not "I'm (more fairly, "my character is")raping her." In Rogan's mind, what's going on long after the fact is sex, not rape? Why? because we've normalised the idea that fucking drunk girls who can't give consent is not rape. And he then makes it worse by conceiving that it's possible for a woman to give consent under the circumstances he's describing. Problem not with movie. Problem in Rogan's understanding of what rape is...TheoryOfPractice 11:52, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
Just to throw one more quick thought in about this topic in general, calling all sex rape is not going to win over anyone to the feminist cause, and in fact may cause people who would have been supporters to be against it. Something else to consider, regarding the message. Z3rotalk 11:22, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
Maybe. But pretending that unequal societal power relationships are completely detached from the realm of sexuality, and ignoring the fact that sexuality is one of the things that works to (ahem) reproduce those uneven power relationships is not going to help anyone either.TheoryOfPractice 11:25, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

(unindent)But the problem is a marketing one; if people don't listen, you're message is not going to get out. Yes, I understand the problem, and I sympothize, but going about it wrong will not help anyone. Z3rotalk 11:30, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

I've said this before, but during this scene, from the clips I have seen of it, Anna Faris (the girl in question) is passed out in her own vomit (a pause for brain scrubbing) and Rogan, a seriously deranged Mall Cop, because having sex with her. I hardly think this is a ringing endorsment. SirChuckBLeave Death Threats Here 11:40, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
No--but Rogan's comments after the fact--see above--if not a "ringing endorsement," are a sleazy attempt to justify the unjustifiable and therefore present a reasonable target. If he had, in the interview, spoken about the scene in terms of "rape," you might have an issue. But he didn't--he equated the act with consensual sex, thereby, in a small way, reproducing the idea that it's cool to fuck drunk girls passed out in their own vomit. TheoryOfPractice 11:45, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
This goes back to basic decency; anyone willing to fuck a drunk girl, passed out in her own vomit, is not going to stop just because Seth Rogan said so, or do it because Seth Rogan said so. Seth Rogan is not the problem. Z3rotalk 11:50, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
No, this goes back to the creation of discursive frameworks and the ways in which certain kinds of speech are possible, and work to reproduce power relationships. Rogan can say what he said because it's still conceivable that a drunk woman can consent to being fucked. By saying it, Rogan reproduces the conditions for that behaviour being possible. TheoryOfPractice 11:54, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
lolwut --e|m|c [TALK] 12:09, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

[edit] 2nd Round

This is not about power relationships, or the speech that enables them. It's about what we are or are not reading into the scene from a (at best) mediocre movie. Stanley Fish would love this discussion. To me, the scene was uncomfortable at best, and I did not take away from the movie that "rape is okay". In fact, to me, I thought the opposite; "I can't believe they tried to make a joke out of it". But by making it a bigger thing than it is, you give power to it, rather than take power away. Whatever your intent (or anyone against it), all you've done is to give the movie more publicity. Z3rotalk 12:01, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

I'm not sure reverse psychology will work. --e|m|c [TALK] 12:13, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
Ferfuxsake, Zero, how many times do i have to say it? Are you not reading my posts? Nothing to do with movie. Movie not matter. What matter is what Rogan say in interview. Rogan say in interview his character having sex with girl. Rogan character not having sex. Rogan character raping girl. Rogan think what is rape is actually sex. What people say matters--in Rogan's little mind, long after the movie was made, what was going on represents consensual sex. That he can say that speaks volumes about the place of women in society. TheoryOfPractice 12:18, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
Last I check, any nutjob can say anything; we still have free speech. That you are mad at free speech is a different issue. A nutjob can hold a "We like rape" rally, and that's totally legal. As for the idea behind whether he thinks its rape or consensual sex, does that matter? Who cares what some actor thinks? Or are you worried because you think Seth Rogan represents mainstream America? Z3rotalk 12:23, 21 April 2009 (EDT) (EC) by the way, no one said he didn't have free speech. but neither do the feminists who call foul!
That he can say that speaks volumes about the place of women in society. No, it doesn't. That he can say that tells us ours is a free society. That he does say it speaks only as much about the place of women in society as it can be generalized. Given that I'd be hard-pressed to find a friend, peer, or colleague who wouldn't consider it rape, I don't think it can be generalized nearly as far as you think (but much, much further than any of us would like). PubliusTalk 12:25, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
Zero, the issue is not the movie. there are rapes in movies all the time. There are murders, and abuse sitations, etc. This argument is that the person playing the character **when discussing the film** tries to 'excuse' the character by saying "well it wasn't *really* that bad, cause she did give her concent in teh end". No, she didn't. again, it's not the film. it's the actor's *personal* understanding of rape, of consent, and of power relationsihps. (wfg)(EC) by the way, no one said he didn't have free speech. but neither do the feminists who call foul! (another ec)
Okay, so you're saying that you don't agree with Seth Rogan's portrayal of the situation; so what? He's clearly trying to avoid this whole problem in the first place, albeit unelegantly. If it's just sex, there's no controversy. It's a PR dodge, nothing more. Reading further into it says more about you than Seth Rogan. Z3rotalk 12:29, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
(EC) Z3RO, Nobody's saying Rogan shouldn't have the legal right to say what he said. It's the fact that the idea exists that fucking a girl who is too drunk to consent is sex and not rape is the problem. Rogan's words--not because of who he is as a B-list celebrity or a representative of middle America, but because speech acts both reflect and create the discursive frameworks in which we live--and the fact that he can say them (not legally "can" but as in "existing in the realm of possibility" "can") say something about violence and sexuality and the role they play in the subjugation of women. @ Publius: Think of it this way: you can't talk about "having sex" with children, because we don't entertain the possibility--it's obviously rape or assault, not "sex." the possibility for that discourse simply does not exist. But one can--and it happens all the time--talk about "having sex" with women that one is not not "having sex" with, but raping. Different set of discursive possibilities. TheoryOfPractice 12:31, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
By the way, Publis. virtually every single one of my college aged friends, my students in college, and my friends from when i was in college ended up having sex while we were drunk that we did not really consent to. But few of us ever saw it as "rape" as that wasn't the term then. and today, most of the girls just live with the gulit. we just consider we were stupid and that we deserved what we got. If it's not violent, it is generally (in our minds) not really a reportable rape if even a rape. So I am dubious when you say most of your friends would not do such things. When they, themselves are 18 or 19? They are drinking as well (though in that case, is it mutual rape?). perception tends to have to do with the side of the story you are on, I would caution.-- 12:38, 21 April 2009 (EDT)(WFg)(edit con)
Ok, I think I see what TOP's point is here... Please correct me if I'm wrong, but your anger isn't so much directed at Seth Rogan, but more at the society we live in that allows him to still consider this act one of mutual consent... Is that what you're saying? SirChuckBLeave Death Threats Here 12:44, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Exactly, Chuck--that one can tag the word "sex" (which implies mutual consent) on something that is obviously rape, that language even allows for that possibility, says something about men, women and power. TheoryOfPractice 12:52, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

What do you mean "you people"? --e|m|c [TALK] 12:58, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
Note the lack of any other use of the phrase "you people" on this page. Harmonic cubic Phantom! 13:01, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
(EC) TOP, Webster's definition of "sex" says nothing about consent at all, mutual or otherwise. Webster's definition of "rape," on the other hand, defines that as a form of sex. I call "straw man." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 13:07, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
Troll. TheoryOfPractice 13:12, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
This is basically what my next point would be. As long as sex and rape both exist (and, regardless of your efforts, you can't eliminate rape), the words will exist and people can confuse them. So good luck with your efforts at Newspeak! Z3rotalk 13:09, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
it's not "newspeak." If you started talking about having a "sexual relationship" with a kid, we'd all know you were using the words wrong. If Rogan can, by using the words right, talk about "having sex" with an unconscious girl, it's because of the fact that language constructs realities to reflect power relationships that are historically contingent. TheoryOfPractice 13:12, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
There is no amount of language alteration that you could do which would prevent someone from being able to use a word for "rape" and "sex"; rape is a form of sex, and until that is not the case, the language will reflect that. Z3rotalk 13:15, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

(unindent) I agree with Zero... You're argument here seems to be "I don't like the words Seth Rogan used. So I'm gonna attack him for it." But this seems to be a point of semantics more than offense. SirChuckBLeave Death Threats Here 13:19, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

It's not about changing language or words--its about changing power relationships. Language creates the world to reflect power. The problem is not in the words and the way they are used, but in the power relationships the words reflect. Rape=/= sex, and if we can't agree on that, I'm not sure we can debate without just speaking past each other. TheoryOfPractice 13:22, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
Then we are speaking past each other. Rape is a form of sex; non-consensual sex. If you can't see that, you need to take another look at reality. Z3rotalk 13:25, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
EC So just to be clear: "having sex with her" is, to you, a reasonable description of what a man is doing to a woman who does not, or can not, consent to being penetrated or having her body otherwise used by a man for his own purposes? TheoryOfPractice 13:29, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
"Having sex with her" is a general term, which can be further subdivided. "Having sex with her without consent" is rape. You need to make the clarification, as rape is a form of sex. Z3rotalk 13:33, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
TOP, if you keep up with this straw-man bunk, I never want to hear another complaint out of you if someone (me, for example) uses an unorthodox definition of a word. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 13:27, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
Listener, language and power are closely related--you can dismiss the idea as "PC" or "bunk," but that does nothing to change that fact. TheoryOfPractice 13:31, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
(ec) What we have here is a failure to communicate. TOP, you're usualy popular meaning, while Zero is using proper meaning. TOP, no Rape is not the same as Consentual(sp?) sex. But Rape is a type of sex. You really can't deny that... It's like a mugging. A mugging is a type of robbery, if you were mugged, you were robbed, but you weren't mugged just because you were robbed.... It's the same thing. If someone is raped, there was some form of sexual penetration, but just because there is penetration, it doesn't mean they were raped. SirChuckBLeave Death Threats Here 13:33, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

". TOP, you're usualy popular." Wrong. I'm never popular. That's why I'm at home arguing on the internet and not out having sex. TheoryOfPractice 13:36, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Whoops :-) that should read "using popular meaning." I type too fast for my own good. SirChuckBLeave Death Threats Here 13:40, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
You bet language and power are closely related; totalitarians find it necessary to alter language and the meanings of words to make their twaddle appear to hold water. Orwell recognized this better than anyone. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 13:43, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
Funny how the people who benefit from being on the good side of the power relationships that are maintained through discursive constructions are the first ones to go all Godwin's when that power is threatened. TheoryOfPractice 13:46, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
Excellent argument, until it is revealed just where these notions of "power relationships" came from. Compare: "Only people who have sin that they want to excuse ever renounce Christianity." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 13:52, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

It's not PIDOOMA--you can trace these ideas through Foucault, Derrida, Negri, Althuser, Bourdieu, Deleuze, Guattari, Butler, Rubin and quite a few others...TheoryOfPractice 13:57, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Well, I think that answers the question why you're not out having sex ;) Z3rotalk 14:02, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
(EC) In the comparison above, that would be like citing Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Kent Hovind, Arlin Horton, Jack Chick, and Mr. Schlafly to support your position. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 14:07, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
Yeah. 'Cause Jacques Derrida and Antonio Negri are the intellectual peers of Andy Schlafly. I hear that Schlafly held a chair at the College de France at the same time as Michel Foucault. When you have some idea of what you're talking about, come on back. TheoryOfPractice 15:21, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
If you did not like my examples, any number of highly educated, credentialed theologians will fit the same bill. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 15:29, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
How would what theologians--experts on God and, religious dogma and religion--have anything relevant to say about social theory, language, power and gender? — Unsigned, by: TheoryOfPractice / talk / contribs
I made a claim that Marxist theory had been plucked out of the air and you responded by citing several Marxist theorists (i.e., the ones doing the plucking in the first place). The parallel is countering a claim that points in Christian theology were plucked out of the air by citing theologians (or the Bible, for that matter). Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 16:22, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Stop sign.svg

This conversation is about to go badly downhill, inevitably ending in comparisons to Hitler, and hurt feelings all around.
Stop now. Step away from the keyboard.
Go pet a jerboa, or milk a goat.

[edit] Fear o' Words

For you youngsters out there: I recall a movie made, oh about 1983, (had several pythons in it) called Yellowbeard. The title character was a pirate, (how topical, no?), who was forever going on about the day-to-day business of being a pirate. Fer Instance:

Betty: Well, it's been awhile since we had a little cuddle.

Yellowbeard: I raped ya, if that's what you mean.

Betty: Okay. It was half-cuddle, half-rape.

At the time, (back in the olden-days, like it was,) the word "rape" was still rather verbotten in polite movies. The usage here though had to do with the sexual mores of the time the movie was set: No unmarried woman would ever "allow" a man to have sex with her, ipso facto if an unmarried woman had sex with a man it is obvious that he raped her.

The use of the word "rape" to denote consensual sex threw into sharp relief the sexual mores of the day (1983). Sadly, the movie didn't adhere to its internal morality and "rape" was used for both consensual sex and (possibly) sex by coercion.

What was my point? Oh yeah. The words we use are only as powerful as we allow them to be. If they are forbidden to be used outside the carefully proscribed boundaries set for them, they become sequestered from "normal" everyday conversation and "rapeseed" oil becomes (magically), "canola" oil. CЯacke® 13:11, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

Don't agree. Surely the term "rape" was used accurately (if flippantly) in the context of the character's pirate/criminal lifestyle. (Clip is here). ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:21, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Drunken Babble

Is abortion okay of the fetus consents to it? --e|m|c [TALK] 12:27, 21 April 2009 (EDT) Relevancy FAIL. Harmonic cubic Phantom! 12:30, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

I forgot my red herring alert. --e|m|c [TALK] 12:32, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

??? Z3rotalk 12:30, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

[edit] A return to the original questions

I.E. Are feminists going too far by focusing ire at a silly movie which would be better directed at larger targets?

No, of course not. Having firm opinions (e.g. identifying as a feminist) doesn't carry an obligation to focus attention on one particular area or prime target. Hell, take a look through some of the obscure subjects we write passionately about at RationalWiki. Some critics would say we should be concentrating on bigger targets; it doesn't matter - especially regarding blogs, etc. Whatever inspires or affects or annoys you enough to write about is what's important. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 14:40, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

I think the question is less are they going too far then are they doing what is smart. Going too far, as you said, is hard to define. I don't think, though, that it is a particularly good way to achieve their goals. Z3rotalk 14:57, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
But why assume that it's all about achieving their goals? The blog isn't a call-to-arms; it's criticism of something objectionable in the media. Anybody can discuss their opinion about a movie, & it's a pretty common subject for blogs. Yet because this blog is written by a feminist, people are saying "they should ignore this subject; shouldn't just be writing about a film; they have bigger fish to fry". I don't get it. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:11, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
But the original post was more about the movement in general, not one blog poster. Hence, the concern about whether it is relevant. Z3rotalk 15:13, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
Wait a sec Weasel, your mistaken in my original question. I wasn't saying that they should ignore the subject.... I was simply asking if, with all the major issues going on right now, Seth Rogan's movie is of such monumental importance that we need a call to arms over it. And for the record, the blog was a call to arms, it's openly advocating a boycott (or maybe it was in the comments somewhere). All I'm saying is that there are bigger issues to deal with. SirChuckBLeave Death Threats Here 15:53, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
Openly advocating a boycott maybe in the comments somewhere? I see. . . . Nothing in the blog you linked to looks to me like a call to arms, & none of the comments posted by the originally author are calling for action either (haven't read all 89 comments by others). I glanced at a few other blogs by Amanda Hess, & they're mostly about media, websites, surveys, etc. - fairly run-of-the-mill subject matter for a blog with a social/political slant, & there's no reason to read that as a benchmark for the focus of the feminist movement as a whole. ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 16:24, 21 April 2009 (EDT)
Oh no, I don't think this is a big focus in general, I'm more interested in the fact that this is considered so important... It's a lot like the black community.... We spend so much energy dealing with Don Imus and Kramer types while we completely ignore the rappers and political figures who say things much worse. SirChuckBLeave Death Threats Here 16:35, 21 April 2009 (EDT)

[edit] Hey check this out.

Feminist makes a blog about this scene in a movie, right? And like, I think we should discuss it and have a serious discussion/debate that deviates into utter irrelevancy about Marxism. Come on guys, let's take ourselves too seriously again! Woohoo! --e|m|c [TALK] 22:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal tools