The Big Picture: Pink Is Not The Problem
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't see what's wrong with your observationCymbaIine said:
If anything you need to question why this rich VS poor thing is done as a "weak sissy ppl VS strong fit" people...
Are you supposed to see the movie and think that rich people are automatically weaklings who can't do anything on their own, while the downtroden poor are powerhouses that are just waiting to burst out and retake power?
...because if we look at obesity statistics, then the poor are far more likely to get fat in pretty much every part of the world, compared to those rich enough to dine on high quality foodstuffs... (and yes, there are plenty of other factors, this was just one example)
You should be asking: "Is the movie meant to make people who are poor in real life feel better?" "Is the movie taking the piss on how fake and superficial high society life can be?"
I've seen the first film (yet to see the second), and you're pretty much on about what Bob was trying to say. Yes, all the pageantry of the Upper Class in The Hunger Games is definitely a cue as to who is rich or poor. However, the people of the capitol are ostensibly evil. They celebrate a war victory for 75 years by forcing the 12 districts to sacrifice their children in a fight a to the death. Never mind the socio-economic oppresion the capitol inflicts on the 12 districts every day. The capitol wants to punctuate the 12's loss in blood sport as a reminder that there is no hope or victory.Gorrath said:
Sorry I confused my point a little with the quote. I was more talking about male/female than rich/poor.webkilla said:
I can't say for sure but I would bet good money that this "if we look at obesity statistics, then the poor are far more likely to get fat in pretty much every part of the world" is wrong. Maybe the Western world.
I disagree with your assertion that the characters in Hunger Games are coded male and female. They are coded hero and villain. The hero, a female, exhibits qualities that you assert are male because... they are traditionally associated with males. That is fallacious, because those traits are also traditionally associated with heroes. The Villains in Hunger Games have traits that are typical of villains and otherwise unattractive. You assert that those same characteristics have traditionally be used to characterized females, but you would have to cherry pick your examples in supporting that assertion, because for each example you give, I can name a female that is not characterized that way.
Your line of logic would suggest that the solution is to give the hero unattractive characteristics and the villains attractive characteristics in order to overcome a perceived gender problem. I don't think so.
Your line of logic would suggest that the solution is to give the hero unattractive characteristics and the villains attractive characteristics in order to overcome a perceived gender problem. I don't think so.
We don't differ too much here, and you bring up some good points that I never thought of (if I do think some of it's a bit of a stretch)MovieBob said:
My question is did you read the Hunger Games books? Like you mentioned Katniss's inner monologue, the true nature of the of how the Capital is evil is their brutal oppression of the Districts, and the only way they can show that on screen is they dress nicer and have the time and money to worry just about their appearance and finding new ways to change themselves while people in the Districts are needlessly starving and dying.
(before you say anything about class warfare or Capitalism, I want to bring up that this is a government ran socialist style economy more like Stalin's Russia working his people to death in camps for the people he didn't like but took care of "the party" and allies (like Districts 1 and 2, but back to the issue...)
Ok, now to the bullet points
1. I don't think the books or the movie intentionally show feminine as evil as more as over decadence and getting genetic surgery to make yourself look like a cat while you watch children fight to the death on reality TV, and the government they support is working millions of people to death with no food, or freedom to make their own way in life outside the government saying "your district does this" IS evil. At best it's showing the folly and out of touch attitude of Ancient Rome and of the Modern Age. And I think they only way they can show this over decadence is fancy clothes, makeup, and big buildings and houses.
2. There are genetic, chemical, emotional, and physical differences between men and women. It's fact. It's not someone trying to devalue someone, but the vast majority of girls do trend a certain way and the vast majority of boys do the other. HOWEVER I do agree with you that if a little boy wants to play with dolls or a girl wants to play with Nerf Guns its awesome.
I think its a positive sign when they make female style gear for sports teams, and I even saw pink Nerf Guns while shopping for my infant twin niece and nephew. It adds more variety and choice of a girl that wants to feel feminine and have clothes, toys and accessories in the thing she enjoys.
3. I still think you overthink.... (yeah, GameOverthinker, it was intentional). I like you, I watch your shows, and even though we disagree on politics, on most occasions you at least give me a someone sensible view of the other side. A debate show with you would be amazing. lol
Keep on keepin on man.
EDIT: I will remind you that "stuff is stuff" and "stuff is neutral" if you ever bring up gun control, just saying
A lot of people are pointing out that the villains of the Hunger Games franchise are portrayed as rich, not feminine. The thing is, they're right, it's just that the franchise gets its message across in an unfortunate, slightly bigoted way, because it's just not very smart, and designed to appeal to people who're not used to thinking about the media they consume.
I don't know. The Capitol in Catching Fire is filled with fallos symbols. But I guess that don't fit in to Bob's analysis.
Not so sure about 300 either. All the heroes in that movie is running around half naked and poking their long spears (fallos symbol) into other men, resulting in liquid spraying all over. Our heroes is also often very happy and satisfied after an aggressive effort. Seems kinda gay, so perhaps this movie is actually a celebration of gay power. After all Leonidas leaves his wife without looking back and turns his back to the man (the villain) with the most female characteristics. He even goes as far as to detach himself of his long spear in an effort to keep the feminine man away, resulting in his own death.
But I guess that don't fit in to Bob's analysis.
Not so sure about 300 either. All the heroes in that movie is running around half naked and poking their long spears (fallos symbol) into other men, resulting in liquid spraying all over. Our heroes is also often very happy and satisfied after an aggressive effort. Seems kinda gay, so perhaps this movie is actually a celebration of gay power. After all Leonidas leaves his wife without looking back and turns his back to the man (the villain) with the most female characteristics. He even goes as far as to detach himself of his long spear in an effort to keep the feminine man away, resulting in his own death.
But I guess that don't fit in to Bob's analysis.
It's sort of bizarre to get so much more insight in an issue like this from someone who makes a living as a nerd/pop-culture commentator than the people debating it in popular and public space.
Edit: To add onto the discussion, most people seem to think being coded rich/poor and masculine/feminine are mutually exclusive. I'd personally disagree. They're supposed to be extravagantly decadent, and the intention is to show the Capitol superficial and shallow.
It's just the issue that those things are ALSO 'coded', as Bob puts it, feminine.
Now, I'd like to also point out how Bob sort of missed out on some things that makes it more interesting, primarily the fact that Peeta, supporting male character, is very much 'coded' feminine, and is supposed to be found, (I think), more likable than the pretty cold Katniss.
Edit: To add onto the discussion, most people seem to think being coded rich/poor and masculine/feminine are mutually exclusive. I'd personally disagree. They're supposed to be extravagantly decadent, and the intention is to show the Capitol superficial and shallow.
It's just the issue that those things are ALSO 'coded', as Bob puts it, feminine.
Now, I'd like to also point out how Bob sort of missed out on some things that makes it more interesting, primarily the fact that Peeta, supporting male character, is very much 'coded' feminine, and is supposed to be found, (I think), more likable than the pretty cold Katniss.
I think that is something that flies over too many heads sometimes, that pointing out something has unfortunate implications is generally not an attack and saying the person who created it is malicious, just hasn't really thought things through, or rested on old ways or assumptions. (IE, conscious vs unconscious)Piorn said:
Well the anthropologist with an interest in Sex & Gender roles definitely approved this one. You even managed to use "Sex" and "Gender" (not equal terms) correctly from what I noticed. Props.
To PPG's defense their villains were wide and varied. The Rowdyruff Boys, The Ganggreen Gang, and Fuzzy Lumpkins could all be considered "masculine."Yal said:Funnily enough, it was Powerpuff Girls where I first noticed this problem. Remember this guy?MB202 said:
Even back in the 90s, that one was blatant enough to rub me the wrong way.
But with that being said, Him is a very good example of what Bob is talking about.
I have to agree with this one.
Pink isn't bad. Pink is a color. There are men that like pink, would want to wear pink and only don't because of how society views the color and may react to them. Not just gay men. Gay men may, or may not, like pink. The same goes for bisexual men. However, a perfectly straight man can like pink. It's not a bad color. It's, as Bob said, what's done with the color that's the issue.
Personally I've always been a bit sad when I go into a clothing store, and look at men's clothing. When I was younger, as a male, I had better options. I chose alternative styles of clothing because they were simply more visually interesting to me, than the norm. I got labelled all sorts of things from goth to a much more offensive word for gay and so on. Back then I could pull these things off, I was just a pretty little thing back then. I could get away with wearing a lot of things then that the grown man I am today can't on two levels, one being I'm just older and not very pretty anymore but the other is . . . well . . . I have to live. I have to work. There are locations I could work in clothing like that, if I could still look good in it, but they're rare, far and few between, and, more importantly, don't tend to pay as well unless I'm a rock star.
I'm not a rock star.
Must I do find the clothes I have to wear, day to day, as a male, quite boring. Women's clothes, I'd never want to wear, because they simply aren't made with someone of my body type in mind, but I acknowledge on a visual level that they are just more visually interesting and varied. I'm a fairly conservative person, really, even when I was a kid I was, I'm not hugely liberal on many points. I am, however, very much into customization. Of all things. From characters in my video games, to myself and to my clothes. I like to fiddle. I get bored easily.
Society finding the entire pallet acceptable for people of both genders, to me, isn't about gender roles. I get that's an issue, and do think we should move past it, but for me, personally, it's just about having more options. I like choice. I like options.
I think that's what society needs more of for everyone. Choice. Options. Customization of your body, clothing, sexual preferences, lifestyle and so on, and so forth, to whatever you like, be in a choice or something that was there all along.
Pink isn't bad. Pink is a color. There are men that like pink, would want to wear pink and only don't because of how society views the color and may react to them. Not just gay men. Gay men may, or may not, like pink. The same goes for bisexual men. However, a perfectly straight man can like pink. It's not a bad color. It's, as Bob said, what's done with the color that's the issue.
Personally I've always been a bit sad when I go into a clothing store, and look at men's clothing. When I was younger, as a male, I had better options. I chose alternative styles of clothing because they were simply more visually interesting to me, than the norm. I got labelled all sorts of things from goth to a much more offensive word for gay and so on. Back then I could pull these things off, I was just a pretty little thing back then. I could get away with wearing a lot of things then that the grown man I am today can't on two levels, one being I'm just older and not very pretty anymore but the other is . . . well . . . I have to live. I have to work. There are locations I could work in clothing like that, if I could still look good in it, but they're rare, far and few between, and, more importantly, don't tend to pay as well unless I'm a rock star.
I'm not a rock star.
Must I do find the clothes I have to wear, day to day, as a male, quite boring. Women's clothes, I'd never want to wear, because they simply aren't made with someone of my body type in mind, but I acknowledge on a visual level that they are just more visually interesting and varied. I'm a fairly conservative person, really, even when I was a kid I was, I'm not hugely liberal on many points. I am, however, very much into customization. Of all things. From characters in my video games, to myself and to my clothes. I like to fiddle. I get bored easily.
Society finding the entire pallet acceptable for people of both genders, to me, isn't about gender roles. I get that's an issue, and do think we should move past it, but for me, personally, it's just about having more options. I like choice. I like options.
I think that's what society needs more of for everyone. Choice. Options. Customization of your body, clothing, sexual preferences, lifestyle and so on, and so forth, to whatever you like, be in a choice or something that was there all along.
Just to expand a bit on the point you made about "girls who like girly things are criticised for it": I'm sick and tired of parents complaining that their daughters like Barbie dolls and pink stuff. If people really want girls to be able to choose what they want to like, there should be just as much freedom to like 'girly stuff' as there is to like 'boy stuff'.
One of my favourite examples of this is (again, briefly mentioned by you Bob), the success of LEGO Friends. I remember the initial backlash against the theme's reveal "This is so sexist", "LEGO is gender neutral" etc. etc. So, how did it go? Well, according to LEGO's 2012 financial report, even doubling the initial production run wasn't enough to fully meet the demand for the sets [http://aboutus.lego.com/en-gb/news-room/2013/february/annual-result-2012?CMP=TWC-CO2012Annualresult2012]. Surprise surprise, it seems some girls actually want 'feminine' LEGO. Yes, LEGO is a gender neutral product, and nothing is stopping girls from buying other LEGO themes. But not every girl wants to play with construction vehicles and police stations, and that's OK! It's just as OK for girls to want and enjoy the 'pink LEGO' as it is for them to enjoy any other LEGO.
One of my favourite examples of this is (again, briefly mentioned by you Bob), the success of LEGO Friends. I remember the initial backlash against the theme's reveal "This is so sexist", "LEGO is gender neutral" etc. etc. So, how did it go? Well, according to LEGO's 2012 financial report, even doubling the initial production run wasn't enough to fully meet the demand for the sets [http://aboutus.lego.com/en-gb/news-room/2013/february/annual-result-2012?CMP=TWC-CO2012Annualresult2012]. Surprise surprise, it seems some girls actually want 'feminine' LEGO. Yes, LEGO is a gender neutral product, and nothing is stopping girls from buying other LEGO themes. But not every girl wants to play with construction vehicles and police stations, and that's OK! It's just as OK for girls to want and enjoy the 'pink LEGO' as it is for them to enjoy any other LEGO.
We segregate lots of things by gender; why not toys? I'm not saying they should, but that it is no real harm. Hygenic products are segregated, clothes, perfumes/ colognes, sports, games, movies, TV shows ... I could go on. What I'm seeing nowadays in the imposed breaking down of binary oppositions for no reason other than its own sake.
Most of the traits that are associated with femininity are actually negative, that's the problem. Overly emotionally rather than logical, appearance obsessed, naive, materialistic, vain, weak, incapable and worst of all passive. ?Feminine power? is usually portrayed as being manipulative to get other people to do shit rather than just doing it which is still negative or tied in with magic which doesn't exist. Nurturing and caring are good traits often associated with women and they aren't usually portrayed as negative thing.
I don't like the typical princess in distress not because they are feminine but because they are leaches and not a role anyone should aspire to be. Social construct, biological or choice. I don't care. Female heros are going to end up being more typically ?masculine? because otherwise they wouldn't be heros.
I don't like the typical princess in distress not because they are feminine but because they are leaches and not a role anyone should aspire to be. Social construct, biological or choice. I don't care. Female heros are going to end up being more typically ?masculine? because otherwise they wouldn't be heros.
Not at all, I used environmentalism as a term since it's a subset of behaviorism that posits environment is the primary cause of human psychological development and evolution. It goes a little further than behaviorism and is in many cases used to reinforce racism, the basic argument being that the environment in which white people evolved ultimately lead to a stronger, smarter, and more capable group of people than developed in other parts of the world, something which cannot be undone or changed over a period of time. The early "boost" human civilizations received due to conditions around the fertile crescent having in a lot of cases lead to a somewhat "softer" less intelligent and capable breed of humanity in the form of a lot of the darker skinned folks, who hit a peak, but then were rapidly overwhelmed by the same people they themselves once oppressed who in turn created most of the modern civilization. The basic argument turning into one where you might be able to argue in terms of genetics that there are no differences between humans, but psychologically and in term of mental function there is a huge, evolved, difference. Needless to say it amounts to a lot of bunk, you don't see a lot about it recently. On a lot of levels though this is similar to the kind of argument that Bob is making, that women are being conditioned into certain roles by society and conditions, and that without those conditions they would be well... just like men. That's not true, as your looking at an intrinsic, difference. Not that they are inferior, in any mental sense, but that they are wired with some very different sets of instincts, and instinctive likes and dislikes. Like other animals human men and women are intended to fill different roles, and our entire makeup of chemicals, electricity, etc... reinforces this. Sometimes exceptions occur like we also see with animals, but for the most part women are intended to be more docile, domestic, and nurturing, while men are the aggressive, and practical ones. The two different outlooks intended to work together since we are already unified as a species we already need each other to survive. If some girl winds up being a tomboy, or a guy winds up being more passive and introspective, so be it, that's no huge deal, but that kind of thing represents an exception, not the rule, and it's not something that can ever truly be made the rule as much as some people might want to, nor would it really be a good idea to do so as humanity benefits from both perspectives. What's more if the civilization that allows introspective analysis of such things and people to question it "morally" was ever to collapse, we would be in real trouble since we're looking at the instincts and tendencies that allowed us to survive, thrive, and eventually totally dominate our environment.CymbaIine said:
As far as hardwiring goes, I'm using the term more generally than that article is. That article is generally talking about electronic pathways in the brain for the most part, as opposed to instincts and such intristic to humanity. Yes, people's electronic paths change, as is necessary given the nature of the brain. As parts of the brain die and don't get replaced by new cells, the electrical impulses are forced to reroute. At the end of the day we don't know a whole lot about the specific function of the brain (and likely couldn't find out without a whole new age of Mengela-like experimentation). After all in some cases people can have a metal rod stuck through the brain and be pretty much fine afterwards (rare), but in others even a slight amount of trauma can cause a variety of disorders. Then of course we've got the whole concept of "Electroshock Therapy" which remains controversial to this day.
At any rate, understand that most psychologists and psychiatrists taking a pluralistic approach is exactly my point. Bob's entire argument is one that this phenomena is 100% caused by society forcing specific roles and attitudes onto girls, a sort of paternalistic brainwashing. He's saying "change the environment, and what you tell girls is normal,
and you will change the girls" that's not true, and represents pure, unfiltered, behaviorist thinking, bordering on environmentalist if he wants to take the argument to the point of saying girls have been turned into this simply because of generations of male dominated society. After all once you start saying that, then since it's a universal truth, it by extension applies to everyone, and then we're rapidly entering into racism territory since what applies to men and women also then applies to humanity in general, and you arrive at the simple point where you have no choice but to argue that those at the top of the socio-political food chain culturally have simply become better than those who were ultimately gimped by their environment. I'd personally find it amusing to see Bob ever say that given his general politics, and really I think it's one of those cases where he's so intent to rail against what he thinks are injustices in the social order, that he really doesn't think things through, or consider that any argument he makes on something like this can wind up shooting his overall position in the foot when it's simply applied to something else.... Of course this isn't a problem unique to him, and it's typically why we oftentimes see the amusing situation where the least racist or bigoted person in a room is oftentimes considered the biggest bigot by people who are actually far more racist without realizing the ramifications of what they are saying.