Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Feminists don't hate men, but it doesn't matter if they did watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    A feminist and The Guardian = worst combo EVER!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    But there is far more demand for hot young female actresses, relatively independent of acting ability too - then they whine when they lose their looks and get dropped. Earning big money 20 years earlier translates to a pretty sweet compound interest as compared to a man who may have a longer career but starts later and earns big money even later than that.

    Looking up four high profile male actors from all different eras off the top of my head: Robert de Niro, Robin Williams, Daniel Craig and Michael Caine, not one of them made their breakthrough prior to age 30. Quite apart from the cash flow structure of a late starting career, by 30 you are far too old to be messing around chasing rainbows, unlike women aged 21 when you still have scope to give it up and get a sensible career. A little bad luck and they could still be sweeping the floor on set today.
    But that's the point, there's demand for hot young female actresses, then when they're not hot and young anymore, suddenly they're worth less.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lucymellor)
    But that's the point, there's demand for hot young female actresses, then when they're not hot and young anymore, suddenly they're worth less.
    Yes, and had they been hot young male actors with the same level of ability they'd have had to wait - and fund - ten more years for a breakthrough, let alone their best roles.

    This means male actors are likely to be better than female ones on average as the latter get their breaks at least partly because of looks and after that can coast by trading on the name. We shouldn't be surprised therefore that the men have longer careers.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lucymellor)
    But that's the point, there's demand for hot young female actresses, then when they're not hot and young anymore, suddenly they're worth less.
    So it's like professional sport then.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    But there is far more demand for hot young female actresses, relatively independent of acting ability too - then they whine when they lose their looks and get dropped. Earning big money 20 years earlier translates to a pretty sweet compound interest as compared to a man who may have a longer career but starts later and earns big money even later than that.
    The flip side to this is that less attractive women haven't a hope in hell. At least with blokes it is based more on ability. Which is something you can work on compared ot if you are just born ugly. Also have you seen male heroes? They are all predominantly good looking action men.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Eigo-Jin)
    Seems that the collective IQ of feminists today is that of a peanut.
    I do think that what happens with a lot of feminists like Jessica Valenti is that they're treated like idiotic or neurotic people for much of their lives and they come to believe that the reason they're treated in such a way is because of prejudice towards women, rather than it being down to the fact that they're actually just idiotic or neurotic.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    I do think that what happens with a lot of feminists like Jessica Valenti is that they're treated like idiotic or neurotic people for much of their lives and they come to believe that the reason they're treated in such a way is because of prejudice towards women, rather than it being down to the fact that they're actually just idiotic or neurotic.
    Well modern feminism is heavily built on victim-hood so they seize their opportunities where they can.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    But... Patriarchy. False statistics. Logical fallacies. What's not to love? Why not put your trust in a deluded movement that died ages ago. Come on society, wake up, We need to stop mansplaining and begin to BELIEVE the victims. Because obviously we should get rid of our justice system. Men are too privileged. #killallmen. It must be done. So why don't we do it together and have fun?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    So basically, some feminists hate men. But being the all powerful Valenti, with my own column in a national newspaper, I am not going to try and persuade feminist to stop hating on men. Instead I am going to persuade men, that because of a few outlying examples of powerful men, they deserve it. I really don't get the logic here. Just because someone was born as a white male, doesn't mean that they are going to be the head of a company, or run a country."Besides, when women hate men, we hurt their feelings. When men hate women, they kill us: mass shootings have been attributed to misogyny, and sexual and domestic violence against women is often fuelled by a hatred for women." So by this logic, men have never hurt a women's feelings before, as men only kill women. Only one of the links that she uses goes to an actual Wikipedia article on one mass shooting perpetrated by someone who hates feminism. the other goes to an opinion piece, by herself. So good luck with drawing a meaningful, unbiased, conclusion from that.

    So basically this article is, men believe when feminists say and defend us from criticism. But when we hurl abuse at you, you deserve ti for being born wrong.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lucymellor)
    But that's the point, there's demand for hot young female actresses, then when they're not hot and young anymore, suddenly they're worth less.
    http://tutor2u.net/economics/gcse/re...mand_intro.htm
    Pretty much all you need to explain why the demand is there in the first place.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by THE EPIC Panda)
    So basically this article is, men believe when feminists say and defend us from criticism. But when we hurl abuse at you, you deserve ti for being born wrong.
    The funny thing about theory of white privilege or male privilege or straight privilege or anything like this is it is supposed to describe a symptom of discrimination but is in itself an agent of discrimination. If a man tries to argue against certain feminists they are liable to be shouted down for "mansplaining". You belong to group X, therefore you are not allowed to do Y. Discrimination at it's purest; this stuff is such a hilarious parody of itself.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    She's evidently an utter moron


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    She's evidently an utter moron


    Posted from TSR Mobile

    It appears so, sir.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Yes, and had they been hot young male actors with the same level of ability they'd have had to wait - and fund - ten more years for a breakthrough, let alone their best roles.

    This means male actors are likely to be better than female ones on average as the latter get their breaks at least partly because of looks and after that can coast by trading on the name. We shouldn't be surprised therefore that the men have longer careers.

    That is so not why men have longer acting careers than women. Maggie Gyllenhaal was told at 37 she was 'too old' to play the love interest of a 55 year old man. There is ageism against women in Hollywood.

    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    So it's like professional sport then.
    No. Professional sportspeople cannot carry on their careers past 40 because of muscle degeneration etc., i.e. they physically cannot perform anymore. As a woman gets older she doesn't gradually get worse at acting. If people got worse at acting with age, why are there so many old male actors?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobbyFlay)
    http://tutor2u.net/economics/gcse/re...mand_intro.htm
    Pretty much all you need to explain why the demand is there in the first place.
    That is one of the worst metaphors I've seen, try again buddy:lol:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lucymellor)



    No. Professional sportspeople cannot carry on their careers past 40 because of muscle degeneration etc., i.e. they physically cannot perform anymore. As a woman gets older she doesn't gradually get worse at acting. If people got worse at acting with age, why are there so many old male actors?
    You gotta admit there are similarities. Sports players can still play say tennis past 40, retired pros will still be amazing at it. It's just they can't compete on a level that allows them to earn the big bucks they were doing since the market will not allow it.

    Same with female actors. Whether you like it or not there is a market for attractive young female actors fro certain roles. Once they are no longer young and nubile looking the market will make them no longer suited for those roles.

    I'm not saying you are wrong to be angry about this kind of thing, nor am I saying you are wrong it describing it as an injustice. But the problem here is how capitalism works more than anything else and it also applies to issues that are not related to gender. If you are gonna be a feminist then you need to be a left wing feminist like how heaps of feminist used to be in the olden days instead of what we got now :hmmm:

    Also I would argue that the sorts of women actors that get into the lime light on these issues are not the sorts of people that are being overly oppressed relativity speaking. Just like how top 10 seeded tennis player will be able to retire incredibly wealthy so will the likes of Jennifer Lawrence. I just can't care about their personal plight. The sports players or actresses that are effected more by this are the ones lower down the pecking order (in terms of money making and their place in the market). So I woukld agree that say a young Victorian actress that just about gets by, then due to her age gets sacked and can't find work and then gets forced into prostitution to survive, is an exemplar of woman being oppressed by a patriarchy and an unfair class economic class system.

    If you are going to be a feminist you need to be a intersectional one at the very least.

    At end of the day I would rather be a millionaire Hollywood actress that now can't get work due to sexism than a poor working class white male working into his 60s just to make ends meet.

    Again, I'm not taking a dig at you or at feminism, rather the complete shutting down of political discourse revolved around socioeconomic class, like it doesn't exist. That in itself is harmful to lots of women as it lets incredibly class conscious governments take away stuff like tax credits from women with children.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    You gotta admit there are similarities. Sports players can still play say tennis past 40, retired pros will still be amazing at it. It's just they can't compete on a level that allows them to earn the big bucks they were doing since the market will not allow it.

    Same with female actors. Whether you like it or not there is a market for attractive young female actors fro certain roles. Once they are no longer young and nubile looking the market will make them no longer suited for those roles.

    I'm not saying you are wrong to be angry about this kind of thing, nor am I saying you are wrong it describing it as an injustice. But the problem here is how capitalism works more than anything else and it also applies to issues that are not related to gender. If you are gonna be a feminist then you need to be a left wing feminist like how heaps of feminist used to be in the olden days instead of what we got now :hmmm:

    Also I would argue that the sorts of women actors that get into the lime light on these issues are not the sorts of people that are being overly oppressed relativity speaking. Just like how top 10 seeded tennis player will be able to retire incredibly wealthy so will the likes of Jennifer Lawrence. I just can't care about their personal plight. The sports players or actresses that are effected more by this are the ones lower down the pecking order (in terms of money making and their place in the market). So I woukld agree that say a young Victorian actress that just about gets by, then due to her age gets sacked and can't find work and then gets forced into prostitution to survive, is an exemplar of woman being oppressed by a patriarchy and an unfair class economic class system.

    If you are going to be a feminist you need to be a intersectional one at the very least.

    At end of the day I would rather be a millionaire Hollywood actress that now can't get work due to sexism than a poor working class white male working into his 60s just to make ends meet.

    Again, I'm not taking a dig at you or at feminism, rather the complete shutting down of political discourse revolved around socioeconomic class, like it doesn't exist. That in itself is harmful to lots of women as it lets incredibly class conscious governments take away stuff like tax credits from women with children.


    Whilst agreeing with your points, I cannot agree that feminism will solve this problem or any real problems in the future. The real movement has died and the radical sector is increasing, giving feminism a bad name which is likely to survive for a very long time.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lucymellor)
    That is so not why men have longer acting careers than women. Maggie Gyllenhaal was told at 37 she was 'too old' to play the love interest of a 55 year old man. There is ageism against women in Hollywood
    The people watching the film, male and female, likely want to see a young woman. (And it is likely that the script called for a young woman to play the role, nobody seems to have said which film it is so we can't judge.) Therefore there will have been better candidates than Gyllenhaal for the role; an older woman may be cast if she is a superior actress or is a big enough name. Film-makers are in the business of profit maximisation and producing entertaining features, not of political virtue-signalling.

    Once a woman comes up to middle age she loses her cachet as a love interest, both in real life and in film. A female actress, having established a presence via playing roles like love interest in her younger years, ought to position herself later on for roles which are not love interests. All actors typecast themselves.

    Similarly I would not expect a black actor or female actress to expect to play James Bond. The character can only be a well-to-do white British man. They will have to position themselves for those roles which Daniel Craig, say, could not play due to not being black and not being a woman.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    The people watching the film, male and female, likely want to see a young woman. (And it is likely that the script called for a young woman to play the role, nobody seems to have said which film it is so we can't judge.) Therefore there will have been better candidates than Gyllenhaal for the role; an older woman may be cast if she is a superior actress or is a big enough name. Film-makers are in the business of profit maximisation and producing entertaining features, not of political virtue-signalling.

    Once a woman comes up to middle age she loses her cachet as a love interest, both in real life and in film. A female actress, having established a presence via playing roles like love interest in her younger years, ought to position herself later on for roles which are not love interests. All actors typecast themselves.

    Similarly I would not expect a black actor or female actress to expect to play James Bond. The character can only be a well-to-do white British man. They will have to position themselves for those roles which Daniel Craig, say, could not play due to not being black and not being a woman.
    The point is that it's ingrained sexism that we want to see young hot women in films as opposed to older women who are equally as capable.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    You gotta admit there are similarities. Sports players can still play say tennis past 40, retired pros will still be amazing at it. It's just they can't compete on a level that allows them to earn the big bucks they were doing since the market will not allow it.

    Same with female actors. Whether you like it or not there is a market for attractive young female actors fro certain roles. Once they are no longer young and nubile looking the market will make them no longer suited for those roles.

    I'm not saying you are wrong to be angry about this kind of thing, nor am I saying you are wrong it describing it as an injustice. But the problem here is how capitalism works more than anything else and it also applies to issues that are not related to gender. If you are gonna be a feminist then you need to be a left wing feminist like how heaps of feminist used to be in the olden days instead of what we got now :hmmm:

    Also I would argue that the sorts of women actors that get into the lime light on these issues are not the sorts of people that are being overly oppressed relativity speaking. Just like how top 10 seeded tennis player will be able to retire incredibly wealthy so will the likes of Jennifer Lawrence. I just can't care about their personal plight. The sports players or actresses that are effected more by this are the ones lower down the pecking order (in terms of money making and their place in the market). So I woukld agree that say a young Victorian actress that just about gets by, then due to her age gets sacked and can't find work and then gets forced into prostitution to survive, is an exemplar of woman being oppressed by a patriarchy and an unfair class economic class system.

    If you are going to be a feminist you need to be a intersectional one at the very least.

    At end of the day I would rather be a millionaire Hollywood actress that now can't get work due to sexism than a poor working class white male working into his 60s just to make ends meet.

    Again, I'm not taking a dig at you or at feminism, rather the complete shutting down of political discourse revolved around socioeconomic class, like it doesn't exist. That in itself is harmful to lots of women as it lets incredibly class conscious governments take away stuff like tax credits from women with children.
    I do mostly agree with what you've said here, you make some good points.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.