Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
"Banned in China"....yet another feather in Cameron's cap.
-
There may be a few members of the Cult of Brown who'll have a word or two to say about that.
Some people insist on instant. I've got whiskey and Karajoz in there too, if it ever comes to that, and the instant will be hidden, just like dak is hidden when ubersquares are there.
-
Because we don't understand reality except through fictions.
If you said it was an aide to understanding, I could maybe agree. But it seems to me that you are saying that reality is a fiction, and I don't agree with that. At least it seems a strange way to use the word "fiction" when it refers to something that is actually true. For instance, here's a little story "Today, I went to the beach". It's true, it did actually happen (well it will be true if I hurry up and finish this post). Is this a fictional story?
And when people remark that it doesn't matter, that it's all in the spectacle and that you shouldn't try to attach extraneous meanings, it also means something.
What does it mean? That I don't take something seriously that isn't serious?
So, in Avatar, there are fictions-which-have-become-our-reality
In most of your selection, these conflicts are real, and not just because of fiction. They appeal to people who have been victims of violence, been exploited by corporations, fallen in love with people they "shouldn't", seen nature they loved destroyed, or found themselves in some hierarchical power structure.
I suggest that ideological constructions of the world, and their role in our meaning-making, are inescapable.
I don't deny that, but I doubt that Avatar is a major part of our construction of the real world.
To deny the existence of ideological determinants, is an expression of ideology.
I'm not sure I know what they are to even begin to deny their existence. Certainly people have ideologies, and referencing them will make something easier to relate to. But that doesn't mean the thing you are relating to is real, or that you are under any illusions about that. I relate to Santa Claus, for instance - it's a nice idea that some guy is so nice he gives everyone presents.
if you come to a clearer notion of how you form your opinions, preferences and prejudices, it can be very liberating.
I'll let you know of the first prejudice or opinion that Avatar indoctrinated into me. But it is true that my fetish for kinky giant blue alien cyber-sex was never so strong.
Because - for our kind of animal - we reflect upon reality: not like a mirror, or some kind of duplicator- we dont deliver steaming chunks of 'reality' (whatever that is.)
I'm fairly sure I've made it clear I don't think Avatar is realistic.
Never think of a film as a reality (aside from the fact that it really is a film!)
even if it's a newsreel/live streamed.I think that it is possible for a film to represent reality. I've got a little clip of my son fooling about today. It looks almost exactly like what I saw happening with my own eyes. It doesn't seem fictional to me. If you saw it, I think you'd agree with me that it was a clip of my son fooling about, and that it was likely to be an event that had really happened.
-
It is possible that in seeking too much allegory in Avatar you show only your own prejudices. It's possible that the romantic relationship was intended to be at a deeper level than sex, that the Na'vi's lovemaking is actually love making, some form of mind melding. They are aliens , after all. As for homosexuality, it's just not mentioned, so we don't know. It's not clear if they are paternalistic, nor is the means of their procreation and childcare clear.
Nor does it matter. It's a fantasy movie. You either suspend disbelief, and enjoy it, or can't, or refuse to, and think it's ridiculous. Which it is. Most fiction is ridiculous. Personally I tend to find the fiction which is the most accurate the most ridiculous of all. If you want reality, why bother with fiction?
-
Our first experiences with the Zoo with my son were similarly anticlimactic. Despite having an interest in toy animals, there was little connection between them and the larger, camouflaged version standing 50 metres away. He could seldom see them, and took little interest, but was of course very interested in the unusual environment that our Zoo is. It's a very beautiful park, with many twists and turns and unusual structures everywhere. Also, the adults behave very strangely, often standing in clusters staring into the trees. It's also a pretty long walk to get through most of it, quite tiring for little legs. And lastly, the assortment of animals, out of context, makes them almost unbelievable. I don't think Marcus fully appreciates that elephants can't be held in your hand.
I think it takes a few visits to learn the norms of Zoo behavior, that making loud noise is not appreciated, that people read the signs in Zoos, that sometimes you even have to work for the experience, looking for quite a while into an enclosure before you actually spot anything. Marcus remembered a lot about the trees from the Zoo.
But the last time was better, and Marcus remembered a few of the animals he'd seen. The giraffe is an especially striking animal if he ever gets close, and we were blessed that the tiger was wandering around when we came, and chanced to walk within a few feet of us, whereupon Marcus came to realize that not all cats are smaller than him. It gave me hope that something I enjoyed as a child can be shared with him.
And thinking back to what I liked about the Zoo as a child, I must confess that the animals were only about 50% of it. There was also an excellent playground/park/maze in the middle (which used to be the best shortcut between walks too), we usually had some kind of picnic, and the peoplewatching was always different.
-
Can't believe I totally missed this debate. I was caught up in another addiction, online gaming, and lost several days.
But after forging through 250 odd posts, it looks like the whole debate is in good hands.
My own attitude to the evil weed is that it's something to keep in the cupboard, like biscuits, chocolate sauce, spirits, instant coffee, Panadol, cigars. Basically, because it is illegal, I don't care too much what anyone thinks about it. Anyone who has a problem will never know, anyone who likes it can have a smoke. My duty as a good host.
-
Re: judgeypanting about elective c-sections. We opted for one for our second child, as no better explanation for what happened to our first child has ever been offered than what I first suggested to the doctors after it had been ascertained that he had had a stroke - that area afflicted was right where the ventouse had been placed (you could tell by the bruising and the bulging lump). Extremely rare if true, it's possible that the ventouse damaged his brain. We didn't want to go through that particular nightmare again - the birth was only averagely traumatic, but the next 6 weeks....
However, given that a ventouse was even needed, if it had been a home delivery, I expect there would have been an ambulance to the hospital at some point, or my wife might have died. But we've never been a couple who worried about the medicalization of birth. It's one of main ways people used to die, giving birth, so I don't feel the least bit embarrassed about playing safe and being in a hospital at the time. We even went the whole hog and paid out for private obstetricians and paediatricans etc. But there's the rub - the boy still got his brain damaged. No path is 100% safe.
As for the second, it turned out he was 10 pounds. Given that my wife had a 20 hour labour over the first who was only a 5-pounder, the doctors all smiled knowingly afterward and said "it would have been an interesting natural delivery".
-
My point is more that I think your 'non-theoretical' theory about 'this is how you do feminism when it comes to work and parenting' for people in our relative positions (I'm including myself as privileged here, since I could conceivably give up work) is really limited.
Yes, it was deliberately limited to the mere millions of people like me. Other people can and are doing the theory.
-
OK, so "rape is a feminist issue" doesn't parse as "rape is an exclusively feminist issue". I'm fine with that. I presume there is some other meaning, like, perhaps "rape is something feminists talk about a lot"? Which I guess means I'm not a feminist after all since I don't really see much point in talking about it, other than to condemn it. In fact, if Danielle is right, there's no point me even mentioning anything about my feelings on the matter, they're meaningless, because only people in my demographic (basically 95% of the most powerful people in the world) could possibly find anything useful in it. I guess that leaves me with hegemonic discourse so I can serve as a whipping boy, or silence.
Cheers. Over and out on the subject.
-
But we aren't talking about whether or not you're a feminist.
I don't know what you were talking about. You boiled me down to 6 words, by some process I don't care to speculate on.
Is this like not knowing any rapists? Because statistically, you're likely to know a rapist. You just don't know who they are right now.
Yeah, it's like that. I'm sure they're there, but I sure as hell can't see them. Depends on what is meant by 'knowing' though. I meant within the smallish circle of people I would regularly converse. In the larger pool there are plenty of people I know are oppressed, by some standards of the word. Certainly there are lots of chauvinists.
> As for rape, I just don't see it as a feminist issue... Sure, only men ever do it
<double take> How do these two statements exist in the same paragraph?
By the obvious fact that whilst only men can do it, not only women can have it done to them.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 805 806 807 808 809 … 1066 Older→ First