K. So out of interest, why would it be beneficial for the female characters to be more "feminine"? Would it carry exactly the same benefits if they kept male-sex characters and just had them be more feminine? I assume so.
Funny events in anti-woke world
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Slight word flip, it could be beneficial to have the feminine character be female, as there are different expectations from the audience. Writing good fiction requires a delicate balances of meeting and subverting the audience's expectations, so a writer who wants a feminine character is likely to use a woman in that role if they intend to subvert expectations elsewhere.
With few exceptions, gender roles, masculinity, femininity, etc are performative. Fashion for men or women changes frequently, there's nothing inherent about any particular clothing style, yet men will wear what is in fashion for men, and the same for women. That's not biological, that's performative, it's all done as social signals, we know what people expect and tend to meet those expectations. That's not something to advocate for, that's not a good thing to build your life around. Fiction is a different story, good writing uses those social cues, and is aware of how all these things impact the perceptions of the audience. In as much as gender is performative, an actual performance is the exact right place to take advantage of gendered concepts.
And if male characters are always acting in traditionally masculine ways, and female characters are always acting in traditionally feminine ways-- you don't think that's going to end up reinforcing perceptions of how the sexes 'should' act, and what's acceptable/expected of them?
If you think society should not associate X inherently with Y, it's an odd stance to take that fiction should ensure that X goes with Y and criticise it when it doesn't.
Not as much as you think. Art is a reflection of the culture that produces it, if you want to change art you must change the people, not the other way around.
Edit: that being said, the culture of Hollywood is hell on Earth, so it's no surprise the art they make is full of garbage.
Some art reflects and explores what is. And some art-- including a lot of the greatest in history-- challenges what is.
Besides, plenty of men do adopt traditionally-feminine roles, and vice-versa. You yourself have said so, and said you think that's fine. That's part of "what is". So why should art not also reflect that part? Why should it limit itself to the narrow traditionalist view?
Art does often reflect that part, though likely not proportionately to reality. Again, it's about using people's expectations, and people's expectations are going to be to expect the 80% result 100% of the time.
No thanks Tstorm
All the 'Masculine' things that people pretend are in movies are completely fake
The real life Arnie/ man is much closer to Kindergarten Cop than to Terminator. There is no reality in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly and a real life Taxi Driver leads to Trump being shot at
All those 80s Masculine movies is just propoganda and if you want to know the history, I can tell you how this troupe was for gay men, not hetero ones
All the 'Masculine' things that people pretend are in movies are completely fake
The real life Arnie/ man is much closer to Kindergarten Cop than to Terminator. There is no reality in The Good, The Bad and The Ugly and a real life Taxi Driver leads to Trump being shot at
All those 80s Masculine movies is just propoganda and if you want to know the history, I can tell you how this troupe was for gay men, not hetero ones
But... but they taught me that cities are lawless wastelands that can only be tamed by one angry white man with a very large gun!
Trump told nephew to let his disabled son die, then move to Florida, book says
Fred C Trump III calls comment ‘appalling’ in new book All in the Family, to be published next week
www.theguardian.com
I told my county democratic party that I am a Republican after anti-Asian attacks on Asians on TikTok at the Supreme Court hearing on college admissions. But this type of talk is so blatant.
Why can't we just have an election where the Republicans can field someone who isn't bringing this country down to its knees like in 2008, and 2012?
Do you believe that story? Do you believe that Donald Trump hosted meetings with advocates for the rights of the disabled with lots of potential witnesses to confirm the conversations that took place, and then only after everyone had left privately told his nephew that disabled people should just die, and said nephew kept that comment completely under wraps until it was time to sell a book?Trump told nephew to let his disabled son die, then move to Florida, book says
Fred C Trump III calls comment ‘appalling’ in new book All in the Family, to be published next week
I told my county democratic party that I am a Republican after anti-Asian attacks on Asians on TikTok at the Supreme Court hearing on college admissions. But this type of talk is so blatant.
Why can't we just have an election where the Republicans can field someone who isn't bringing this country down to its knees like in 2008, and 2012?
Why not?
It's credible that Donald Trump thinks disabled people should just die as a burden to everyone else, but is sensible enough not to say that in a meeting with advocates for disabled rights. Especially given he seems to have a history of believing repellent things which he'll loosely-lipped spill in a more private setting (e.g. grabbing women by the pussy, dead servicemen being losers, etc.)
What you might want to question is timing and medium. If you bear in mind that Fred Trump III reports that this occurred in 2020, add in some time to let Fred think, discuss with others and the issue fester, and then that he would choose to write a book, four years seems a reasonable timeframe. One can obviously accept that timing to maximally hurt Donald Trump and maximise book income for Fred. One might ascribe some malice or personal gain to Fred very easily, but that does not necessarily extend to assuming he is lying.
As some extra context here, Donald appears to have been the only one amongst his siblings who helped with Fred's child's care. Even if not apparently with much grace or consistency, it's some plus in Donald's column. So one can perhaps accept that whilst Fred might not have much liked Donald, and really ended up resenting his comments, he might have had elements of mixed loyalty such that he was hardly about to dash out of the meeting where Trump shot his mouth off and stick the knife in.
Why are you so confident that Donald Trump would not wonder why the USA should waste money keeping disabled people alive?
Given Trump's fairly vocal stances on "life's winners and losers" and that people in general confess to pretty terrible things in private.. sure. It's not unreasonable thing to consider he said it.
The fact someone is capitalising on sharing it for themselves and potentially hurting him in the process doesn't make something automatically untrue or lies.
The fact someone is capitalising on sharing it for themselves and potentially hurting him in the process doesn't make something automatically untrue or lies.
Firstly, because the actual term was "let die", which isn't quite the same thing. Letting people die has been a very longstanding feature of the US healthcare system (albeit mostly because they are poor, rather than as here disabled), it's hardly a rare view. Nor is support for euthanasia, if a person's quality of life is low enough.
Secondly, because it feels like such a Trump-y thing to say. It's the transactional nature of the way it was put. Not just to let him die, but to let him die because he does not recognise Fred: i.e. what's the point of a child that won't love / admire / thank / owe you? And then the thing he said with disabled advocates, again in transactional terms: why are we paying for this, wouldn't it be cheaper if they just died?
This from the guy trying to tell us that Donald "It Is What It Is" Trump is so compassionate.
You're a clown.
Did you really just link Donald Trump saying they were doing everything they could to prevent deaths as evidence that he thinks people should just die?