Quote:
Originally Posted by BullDog
So you see nothing wrong with a video that strips away the dignity of women (among other things) but chastize someone that you think is doing that here?
|
I get the feeling you aren't actually reading what I've written when you accuse me of "seeing nothing wrong with a video that strips away the dignity of women." If this is a satire, and I have good reason to believe it is,
it is not attempting to strip women of their dignity (therefore, it is not about me making light of women or men's dignities). In fact, it is attempting to do the exact contrary by highlighting the existence of this tendency (of stripping women of their dignity) in society. Just because something displays a certain event does not mean it desires to perpetuate it. It can very well be a commentary on it, and where we are as a society.
For example, in Voltaire's
Candide you have Pangloss who preaches theodicy, and no matter what ridiculously violent and terrible things happen to Candide and his party, Pangloss continues to claim that it is "the best of all possible outcomes." Is it because Voltaire supports Leibnitz's philosophy? No! It is entirely to the contrary: he stages theodicy in the forefront precisely
because he disagrees with it and perceives it as a danger to society (thus allowing for little upwards class movement, since it supports the notion that the lower classes should stay where they because their current station is the "best of all possible worlds.") There are horrible scenes of rape, dismemberment and so on that are made light of, and not because Voltaire supports such things,
but precisely because he does not. The violent and horrific things that occur to the party, and the fact that it is being made light of is the contrast. The overexaggeration of horrific events is needed in order to get the author's real point across.
I'm not claiming the creator of this video is anywhere near approaching the genius of Voltaire, but it appears that he is taking a similar approach in attempting to ridicule something by placing it in the forefront. And that
something is not lesbians, but the stereotypes surrounding them that are commonly used in popular culture. It "makes light of" in order to make people aware of what they themselves may very well be perpetuating. Could it have been better written? Yes, but just because the creator was not a particularly gifted writer is not reason to claim that he was attempting to demean women, when that doesn't appear to have been the intention.
To use the Borat example again: Sacha Baron Cohen is not demeaning or ridiculing Jews when his character, Borat, makes anti-semitic comments. He is trying to make people aware and accountable for what continues to occur within modern society. The fact that he takes the role of an "ignorant Kazakh" even further plays into American perspectives on non-western nations, when Americans themselves are guilty of precisely the same behaviour.
As for my comments to softness, please explain to me what such comments achieve and why it is ever right to attempt to humiliate someone because of their sex/gender/race/ethnicity/age etc.? What does it achieve? If you have a logical argument against someone then state it. Don't turn it into an emotional maelstrom that may very well just get otherwise important issues ignored. I haven't seen anyone explain that to me yet. And since when is the whole eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth method ever effective in getting your message across in a logical and coherent manner?