Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Million Dollar Douchebaggery
A fine example of this would be Top
...we predicted, quite accurately, that the cinema elite would find irresistible this oh-so-serious Clint Eastwooder with its doubly politically correct whammy of female boxing and plug for euthanasia. [emphasis added]Translation: Women who choose non-traditional careers or hobbies are just tokens of a PC-conspiracy. Their choices are clearly substandard to those made by traditional women. In fact, they are so substandard that there ought not ever be movies made about them. After all, it's just the majority that counts. No one wants to see a movie about someone who steps outside a narrowly-prescribed role. You know... it's the conforming, predictable people who are the most interesting.
And women boxers don't really want to box. They just endure getting the crap beat out of them in order to make a feminist statement. Hey, it's all for The Sisterhood.
Plus, it's not like there are any movies made about male boxers. PC whammy, indeed.
Come to think of it, I have been duped! All along I thought I really liked playing music. Now I see that feminists have brainwashed me into having such interests so I can serve their agenda. Shit, I hope Hollywood never makes a movie about a chick drummer.
I have a question, though. When did euthanasia for disabled persons become politically correct? It seems like only yesterday that Republicans named disability awareness as part of the PC agenda. If Allen wants to claim that Million Dollar Baby is politically correct, there are a lot of activists for the disabled who would disagree.
Thanks for sharing, Ms. Allen. Too bad you didn't stop there.
There’s the girl-boxing thing--ouch! I’m sorry, but my father was an amateur boxer (and South Bronx champ) in his youth and an air-jabbing aficionado of the "fights" that were practically all there were on Friday night television when I was a young ’un. So I know the Marquis of Queensbury rules fairly well, and the Marquis of Queensbury says that the the entire upper torso is a free-fire zone. I know the gals put a lot of tape over their breasts, but you can’t tell me that it still doesn’t hurt.Well, there's only one way to find out. I'm game if you are, Charlotte!
And I don’t want to see women pommel each other in the face and wreck each other’s looks.Baby, I've got a million dollars that says Swank's swollen-eyed face looks a lot better than your naturally asymmetrical one. (Okay, so I don't have the money. But still...)
A guy with an eye swollen to a slit looks like someone you might want to kiss the hurt away on;Good point. I absolutely cannot watch a movie unless the protagonist is someone I want to kiss.
a gal looks like (and is, in my book) an abuse victim.Wait a second... did she say victim?
By golly, I think she did!
Yes, yes, that's right! Women are victims! And all along I thought it was the lefties who were revelling in victimhood. (Whoa, I'm feeling some déjà vu.)
Ms. Allen is saying that a female boxer is an abuse victims. It doesn't matter that it is her choice to box. It doesn't matter if she is also throwing punches. She's still an abuse victim, plain and simple.
Are there any men's rights activists who disagree with Ms. Allen here? Is a woman who throws punches a victim? Well, with mentality like this, I can see exactly why society doesn't take violence perpetrated by a woman seriously. Conservative ideologues like Allen paint her the fragile victim every time.
What's worse is that Ms. Allen has a tendency to talk out of both side of her overgrown arse. Check out this quote from the Inkwell.
We at the IWF believe very strongly in equal opportunity for women--in education, in political life, in the job market (pay and promotions), and in the financial marketplace. We don’t believe that a woman’s place is in the home--unless she wants to be a full-time homemaker and mother, and then we support that decision, too.Aw, that sounds great and everything, Ms. Allen. It's too bad that, in reality, you and the IWF dedicate yourselves to berating women who make choices outside your strict gender code-of-conduct.
The subtext is: life was near perfect in the pre-revolutionary Puritan colonies with respect to "families" (I'm exaggerating here, but only a little). Their particular reading of the Bible spelled out exactly, the roles of men, women and children (in that order).
RE euthanasia: they see it as the gateway drug to mandatory abortion.
I suppose the counter-weight to this would be the "left" ignoring the differences among individuals and diverting the blame of the world's ills to capitalism and guns.
Oh fuck! Somebody alert Joan Jett! Actually, someone give her a call so she can box with those IWF folks.
"Is a woman who throws punches a victim?"
As a general case, I'd hit back at some guy who hit me, but if it was a girl who threw the punch, I would be greatly less inclined to hit back unless I really had to. Strictly speaking, this is kind of sexist, but it's hard for me to emotionally decouple that act of violence-upon-females from abusive connotatons. I'm not talking about a moral case of "what one is allowed to do", but rather that the accompanying emotions would (theoretically) make it a course of action I couldn't easily take.
Does this above seem like a very sexist position, or an understandable one?
I think your position on not hitting women is an understandable one. But if you DID hit a woman after she hit you first, I wouldn't consider her a victim.
I think it's natural for a person to refrain from hitting someone who is not as physically strong. I mean, think of the puny guy who gets his ass kicked by a big guy. Most people would say the big guy should have held back a little.
I also think chivalry toward women is ingrained in us. Hell, even I do it sometimes! Perhaps the best way to cope with female violence is to not hit back, but rather to hold women accountable when they are violent. They should receive the same legal punishment as violent men.
It's always (supposedly) best to turn the other cheek, unless you are defending yourself or a friend. Few of us can actually do that.
Victims? I think not. Both women are in the ring 'cause they WANT to be. But, I suppose someone somewhere could argue that it isn't actually a "free" choice due to social circumstance/conditioning, yatta, yatta, yatta..
I'm going to tour around the rest of your blog! Good to find you.