Having seen only the original film, I wonder how "creepy" or "voyeuristic" the gender-specific telepathic premise of What Women Want would've been had the roles been reversed and a woman given psychic insight into the minds of men.
My guess is that it wouldn't be regarded as disconcerting at all in the post-feminism West. We'd probably hear all sorts of justification and misandrous malarkey along the lines of men being inherently suspect, untrustworthy, or otherwise deserving of such a violation of their privacy.
What I find amusing is that the emotional manipulations Mel Gibson's character engages in are virtually indistinguishable (save for the supernatural element) from how today's women treat men in the real world, yet some of them voiced and still voice discomfort at Nick Marshall's wanton utilization of his newfound ability. What do the majority of female magazines, websites, and shows talk about? Subtle ways to influence the behaviors of men in order to get them to do what you want. It's essentially a rite of passage for younger women.
Oh, but when a good, decent guy begins to study any school of pickup -- most of them preach honesty and masculinity -- in order to level the playing field, many women decry it as some sort of vile subterfuge. Or worse, we might even use our heretofore underdeveloped ability to read women for the purposes of critiquing their attitudes, behaviors, and marriageability compared to previous generations. How awful indeed.
I was also entertained by the film's use of Darcy Maguire (Helen Hunt) as little more than a plot device. She's merely a walking embodiment of the film's gender equality themes, brought in for the sole purpose of deposing the sexist caricature named Nick from his throne. Maguire has no significant personality or uniqueness to speak of, yet we're expected to sympathize with her when Nick cheats her out of a job.
Fuck Darcy.
My guess is that it wouldn't be regarded as disconcerting at all in the post-feminism West. We'd probably hear all sorts of justification and misandrous malarkey along the lines of men being inherently suspect, untrustworthy, or otherwise deserving of such a violation of their privacy.
What I find amusing is that the emotional manipulations Mel Gibson's character engages in are virtually indistinguishable (save for the supernatural element) from how today's women treat men in the real world, yet some of them voiced and still voice discomfort at Nick Marshall's wanton utilization of his newfound ability. What do the majority of female magazines, websites, and shows talk about? Subtle ways to influence the behaviors of men in order to get them to do what you want. It's essentially a rite of passage for younger women.
Oh, but when a good, decent guy begins to study any school of pickup -- most of them preach honesty and masculinity -- in order to level the playing field, many women decry it as some sort of vile subterfuge. Or worse, we might even use our heretofore underdeveloped ability to read women for the purposes of critiquing their attitudes, behaviors, and marriageability compared to previous generations. How awful indeed.
I was also entertained by the film's use of Darcy Maguire (Helen Hunt) as little more than a plot device. She's merely a walking embodiment of the film's gender equality themes, brought in for the sole purpose of deposing the sexist caricature named Nick from his throne. Maguire has no significant personality or uniqueness to speak of, yet we're expected to sympathize with her when Nick cheats her out of a job.
Fuck Darcy.
If we suffer a cataclysm brought about by human activities, it will most likely be the result of genetic pollution in our crops and fish stocks after these GMO monstrosities run completely out of control, supplanting all natural food sources. Eventually, the newfound lack of genetic variation will collapse our food supply and have inconceivable impact on ecosystems worldwide.
The man-made nature of this danger is real, unlike anthropogenic climate change which belongs in the same category as "intelligent design": Fraudulent, crackpot pseudoscience.
The man-made nature of this danger is real, unlike anthropogenic climate change which belongs in the same category as "intelligent design": Fraudulent, crackpot pseudoscience.
@Frosted Mini-Wheats: An encouraging transcript, but I disagree with your opinion regarding the judiciary being "the redeeming virtue" of our United States federal government.
What made the currently constituted federal government unique was that it was only granted a specific set of enumerated powers, with clear language ratified into the document that the States (or the People of those States) reserved the powers not prohibited to them nor delegated to Congress. There are explicit restrictions on both federal and State power, such as those in the Bill of Rights, but if the federal government wants to exercise some new or ill-defined power that isn't enumerated in the Constitution, they cannot do it. The end.
It is this very core limitation on the federal government that the Supreme Court has steadily destroyed since the early twentieth century, by reading new interpretations into federal powers in violation of the original understanding of the clauses.
Ruling our way on this case would be a rare example of the U.S. Supreme Court actually doing something correct.
What made the currently constituted federal government unique was that it was only granted a specific set of enumerated powers, with clear language ratified into the document that the States (or the People of those States) reserved the powers not prohibited to them nor delegated to Congress. There are explicit restrictions on both federal and State power, such as those in the Bill of Rights, but if the federal government wants to exercise some new or ill-defined power that isn't enumerated in the Constitution, they cannot do it. The end.
It is this very core limitation on the federal government that the Supreme Court has steadily destroyed since the early twentieth century, by reading new interpretations into federal powers in violation of the original understanding of the clauses.
Ruling our way on this case would be a rare example of the U.S. Supreme Court actually doing something correct.
@Raso719: Understandable points.
With respect to the short memory and sheep-like political behavior of the American public, it is a deliberately engineered condition brought about by decades of disinformation, psychological warfare and drugging of the population. We've been dumbed down and rendered passive, even cowardly. Having largely succeeded at turning citizens into mere consumers, the financial oligarchs behind the international banking scam proceeded with one of their main goals: The destruction of capitalism and establishment of a corporate imitation in its place.
Capitalism is based on morality. You have the right to earn wealth based on what you produce. Corporatism is a different animal -- you abuse your legal privileges to extract wealth without necessarily producing anything.
I could give a more detailed explanation, but let's just say the distinction is extremely important to understand. Americans are waking up at an exponential rate, though. There's sufficient hope to change things, especially with the planned dethroning of our currency and complete obliteration of the American middle class soon to come.
The Revolutionary War was won by five percent of the total population, after all.
As for ignorance, older or right-leaning Americans tend to be more knowledgeable in American history and the U.S. Constitution than the progressives. They're still wrong about a few things, and most of them are not aware of the history of bankers/financiers funding communism and socialist revolutions. "Big Money" loves collectivism; they've always controlled it. It was Wall Street and The City of London that financed the Bolsheviks in 1917.
The Constitution itself, though not perfect, is the best system we've got. It does not actually grant Congress the power to do what needs to be done with transnational corporations, but we can change that via the amendment process in Article V.
With respect to the short memory and sheep-like political behavior of the American public, it is a deliberately engineered condition brought about by decades of disinformation, psychological warfare and drugging of the population. We've been dumbed down and rendered passive, even cowardly. Having largely succeeded at turning citizens into mere consumers, the financial oligarchs behind the international banking scam proceeded with one of their main goals: The destruction of capitalism and establishment of a corporate imitation in its place.
Capitalism is based on morality. You have the right to earn wealth based on what you produce. Corporatism is a different animal -- you abuse your legal privileges to extract wealth without necessarily producing anything.
I could give a more detailed explanation, but let's just say the distinction is extremely important to understand. Americans are waking up at an exponential rate, though. There's sufficient hope to change things, especially with the planned dethroning of our currency and complete obliteration of the American middle class soon to come.
The Revolutionary War was won by five percent of the total population, after all.
As for ignorance, older or right-leaning Americans tend to be more knowledgeable in American history and the U.S. Constitution than the progressives. They're still wrong about a few things, and most of them are not aware of the history of bankers/financiers funding communism and socialist revolutions. "Big Money" loves collectivism; they've always controlled it. It was Wall Street and The City of London that financed the Bolsheviks in 1917.
The Constitution itself, though not perfect, is the best system we've got. It does not actually grant Congress the power to do what needs to be done with transnational corporations, but we can change that via the amendment process in Article V.
@Raso719: I agree that a total prohibition on American corporations from engaging in such questionable partnerships should be the decisive hammer on the nail. The problem is, you can't really implement it right away in a smooth manner. Tariffs would be a start, then a transition to a total "ban" is likely to be less volatile.
My top priority is to ensure that commerce in the U.S. does not collapse in the process.
My top priority is to ensure that commerce in the U.S. does not collapse in the process.
@Raso719: It's a miserable situation. Reform would have to be comprehensive, necessitating a transition to a publicly controlled monetary system, appropriate oversight of the financial/banking sector, and a shifting of the tax burden onto public sources of revenue (land rent, bank balances) instead of the productivity-destroying taxes on incomes & capital investment.
Until then, let's continue enjoying the delicious, genetically modified "food" provided by Monsanto and their ilk ... while organic family farms are increasingly attacked by those clowns in Washington.
I love the taste of cancer!
Until then, let's continue enjoying the delicious, genetically modified "food" provided by Monsanto and their ilk ... while organic family farms are increasingly attacked by those clowns in Washington.
I love the taste of cancer!
I am an American capitalist, and it is for that very reason that I oppose the tyranny of transnational corporations run amok.
Corporations are, inherently, non-capitalistic entities. Their very existence is based on the governmentally granted privilege of limited liability. Without the option of incorporation, capital usually will not concentrate to the extent needed for projects involving a considerable deal of research and development to get off the ground, and for certain aspects of society to benefit from large-scale commerce. The risks are too great.
With their management and investors generally immune to lawsuits or debt, corporations are not subject to the natural market forces that keep grassroots businesses in check. Intelligent and consistent regulation by government is the only thing that will balance the playing field here.
Failure to keep the creations of the state on a leash leads to stories like this one in China, and to far worse crimes in Third World hellholes around the globe. These multinational monstrosities laughably trying to pass themselves off as "the free market" have no regard for inalienable rights, nor any concept of patriotism.
Slap Chinese imports with tariffs based on wages and working conditions. I can assure you that every penny of that abominable trade deficit will be sucked back into the United States pretty fucking quick.
Corporations are, inherently, non-capitalistic entities. Their very existence is based on the governmentally granted privilege of limited liability. Without the option of incorporation, capital usually will not concentrate to the extent needed for projects involving a considerable deal of research and development to get off the ground, and for certain aspects of society to benefit from large-scale commerce. The risks are too great.
With their management and investors generally immune to lawsuits or debt, corporations are not subject to the natural market forces that keep grassroots businesses in check. Intelligent and consistent regulation by government is the only thing that will balance the playing field here.
Failure to keep the creations of the state on a leash leads to stories like this one in China, and to far worse crimes in Third World hellholes around the globe. These multinational monstrosities laughably trying to pass themselves off as "the free market" have no regard for inalienable rights, nor any concept of patriotism.
Slap Chinese imports with tariffs based on wages and working conditions. I can assure you that every penny of that abominable trade deficit will be sucked back into the United States pretty fucking quick.
@dissolved: You're right.
We shouldn't talk about things like Operation AJAX and the 1953 Iranian coup ... in which that nation's first democratic, secular government was overthrown with the aid of terror attacks overseen by the American and British governments. It doesn't matter.
So what if the CIA itself admits to this on its own website? [www.cia.gov]
I mean, who cares, right? Besides, my DVR is backed up with episodes of "The Real Housewives of D.C." and I need to catch up.
Oh, the scandal on that show! X8
We shouldn't talk about things like Operation AJAX and the 1953 Iranian coup ... in which that nation's first democratic, secular government was overthrown with the aid of terror attacks overseen by the American and British governments. It doesn't matter.
So what if the CIA itself admits to this on its own website? [www.cia.gov]
I mean, who cares, right? Besides, my DVR is backed up with episodes of "The Real Housewives of D.C." and I need to catch up.
Oh, the scandal on that show! X8
What a waste of time.
Everyone here is running around in circles and chasing their own tails over this when it is common knowledge by now that the Taliban was created and armed by U.S. intelligence in the first place:
[rupeenews.com]
Let's make better use of our critical faculties and talk about that.
Everyone here is running around in circles and chasing their own tails over this when it is common knowledge by now that the Taliban was created and armed by U.S. intelligence in the first place:
[rupeenews.com]
Let's make better use of our critical faculties and talk about that.
@Slagathorian: Stand tall and shake the heavens...: "While were at it, we may as well abolish all child abuse laws. Because they are nothing but a waste of taxpayer money and just more of uncle Sam telling us how to raise our kids."
You keep making this false comparison when the two arguments are not even remotely similar.
Harming your child is an initiation of physical force against another human being; buying them a bloody, gory video game is anything but.
You keep making this false comparison when the two arguments are not even remotely similar.
Harming your child is an initiation of physical force against another human being; buying them a bloody, gory video game is anything but.
@Slagathorian: Stand tall and shake the heavens...: There are far better methods for California to collect badly needed revenues than shifting more of the burden on the rapidly shrinking retail sector.
And if some dingy shop sells Manhunt 2 to your kid, go over there and make yourself heard. Organize a boycott, call the local news, etc.
This is what we do in America.
And if some dingy shop sells Manhunt 2 to your kid, go over there and make yourself heard. Organize a boycott, call the local news, etc.
This is what we do in America.
@Slagathorian: Stand tall and shake the heavens...: I whine about my public education all the time.
Public school systems, for the most part, teach scientific fallacies, distorted/omission-riddled history, and indoctrination into the fascist power structure.
Critical thinking? Hmph.
Public school systems, for the most part, teach scientific fallacies, distorted/omission-riddled history, and indoctrination into the fascist power structure.
Critical thinking? Hmph.
@Slagathorian: Stand tall and shake the heavens...: "What in the world are you basing this on?"
Reality, history, natural rights, the United States Constitution, and examples of the wrong approach such as Canada, a nation in which harmless people are regularly punished for their expression under the seemingly innocuous hate speech laws.
"Canada has had a law for over 20 years banning the sale of violent videogames to minors. And we still get all the games you do."
Canada's law does not conflict with or undermine the ESRB's rating system; as a result, developers have never been forced to arbitrarily change game content on account of that law nor abandon commercial releases altogether because of it.
The California legislation is written differently and in vague language, opening the door wide open for the State to become a de facto (and down the road, de jure) ratings authority.
"So I have 20 years of past experience on a grand scale to back up my claim.
What do you have?"
We have the 1st Amendment, and we'd like to keep it.
Reality, history, natural rights, the United States Constitution, and examples of the wrong approach such as Canada, a nation in which harmless people are regularly punished for their expression under the seemingly innocuous hate speech laws.
"Canada has had a law for over 20 years banning the sale of violent videogames to minors. And we still get all the games you do."
Canada's law does not conflict with or undermine the ESRB's rating system; as a result, developers have never been forced to arbitrarily change game content on account of that law nor abandon commercial releases altogether because of it.
The California legislation is written differently and in vague language, opening the door wide open for the State to become a de facto (and down the road, de jure) ratings authority.
"So I have 20 years of past experience on a grand scale to back up my claim.
What do you have?"
We have the 1st Amendment, and we'd like to keep it.
@Slagathorian: Stand tall and shake the heavens...: That is pretty much a non-response to a truthful statement.
The globalist bankers and international corporate elite have effectively bankrupted the States, setting up the excuse for an eventual federal power grab over local government. Our republic is collapsing before our very eyes, with California being the worst off -- call me crazy if I were to view the subject here discussed as unworthy of serious attention in this situation.
And what you said is patently untrue anyway. A bill does not become a statute until the legislature approves it, meaning that all members who cast votes in favor of the proposed law are involved in "making laws such as these."
The buck stops with our elected representatives, not their appointed bureaucrats.
The globalist bankers and international corporate elite have effectively bankrupted the States, setting up the excuse for an eventual federal power grab over local government. Our republic is collapsing before our very eyes, with California being the worst off -- call me crazy if I were to view the subject here discussed as unworthy of serious attention in this situation.
And what you said is patently untrue anyway. A bill does not become a statute until the legislature approves it, meaning that all members who cast votes in favor of the proposed law are involved in "making laws such as these."
The buck stops with our elected representatives, not their appointed bureaucrats.
Pac-Man.
@Shinta: This is one of several areas where modern day libertarians and Austrian economists drastically depart from the principles espoused by our Founding Fathers, whom they so vehemently claim to honor.
In the founding generation, there was a clear distinction between labor, capital, and land. Further, it was widely recognized that not all private fortunes are actually earned through production. The issuance of credit (loans, financial instruments, etc.) and the opportunity to invest in a venture that may profit you through no real effort of your own -- aside from your careful exercise of judgment as to where to place your money -- is based on privilege.
Banks are chartered. Businesses do not gain perks and unnatural advantages in the marketplace until they are given limited liability, becoming corporations.
I'm against the regulation of mainstreet proprietorships and unincorporated/non-financial business in general, but government should regulate what government itself creates in the first place.
A lot of people need to reassess what their perception of a free market is and relinquish this dogmatic belief that private is inherently good and public inherently bad.
In the founding generation, there was a clear distinction between labor, capital, and land. Further, it was widely recognized that not all private fortunes are actually earned through production. The issuance of credit (loans, financial instruments, etc.) and the opportunity to invest in a venture that may profit you through no real effort of your own -- aside from your careful exercise of judgment as to where to place your money -- is based on privilege.
Banks are chartered. Businesses do not gain perks and unnatural advantages in the marketplace until they are given limited liability, becoming corporations.
I'm against the regulation of mainstreet proprietorships and unincorporated/non-financial business in general, but government should regulate what government itself creates in the first place.
A lot of people need to reassess what their perception of a free market is and relinquish this dogmatic belief that private is inherently good and public inherently bad.
@ryoshi: There's no time for "subtlety" anymore. Anyone who fully comprehends and accepts the gravity of the situation understands that.
Clearly, this guy (terrible picture) understands that as well.
Clearly, this guy (terrible picture) understands that as well.
@Dante_Ravenkin: I don't see how it is an imposition of his concerns onto the player if it is the player who chooses whether or not to buy/play the game. Engaging a system of play is essentially the act of submitting to the world and system designed.
Having a Jehova's Witness come to your door and you browsing through possible purchases on your iPhone are not the same thing.
In any case, we don't have the luxury of escapism any more. This isn't another storm that will blow over; it is a full-on criminal conquest of the United States and the Western World by private international banks and the corporations who suck on their debt-pushing tit.
Having a Jehova's Witness come to your door and you browsing through possible purchases on your iPhone are not the same thing.
In any case, we don't have the luxury of escapism any more. This isn't another storm that will blow over; it is a full-on criminal conquest of the United States and the Western World by private international banks and the corporations who suck on their debt-pushing tit.
@Brian Crecente:
Oh my god.
That kid with the Alf t-shirt and Batman visor might actually be me. I clearly remember owning both of those things and playing NES games/demos at "some place" (I didn't care what it was called) in Manhattan.
I need to dig through some family albums to check this out ...
Oh my god.
That kid with the Alf t-shirt and Batman visor might actually be me. I clearly remember owning both of those things and playing NES games/demos at "some place" (I didn't care what it was called) in Manhattan.
I need to dig through some family albums to check this out ...
@kobeashi: Coco Austin, hands down.
As an aside, to all these jokers talking trash about how "hideous", how "unintelligent" this woman supposedly is and acting as if they have their pick of attractive females -- it's easy to pretend to be something you're not when ensconced in the warm glow of a computer screen.
The vast majority of men struggle with women in at least one major way ... unless you've always been naturally good with women, or you've painfully devoted serious time out of your life for at least several years in order to become good with women (I'm in the latter category).
So chances are, you trash talkers fall squarely into the Average Frustrated Chump-bracket. This doesn't make you a bad person; but unless you possess the BALLS to casually and nonchalantly approach a woman even half as attractive as Coco Austin, and do it with a confident expectation of success regardless of the actual outcome, you have no business behaving as if someone like Coco is beneath you. Grow up.
Now whether or not this girl is actually a good woman, deserving of personal happiness and the companionship of a decent man, is an issue that only Ice-T himself has the right to comment about.
As far as I can tell, he's quite happy with his marriage.
As an aside, to all these jokers talking trash about how "hideous", how "unintelligent" this woman supposedly is and acting as if they have their pick of attractive females -- it's easy to pretend to be something you're not when ensconced in the warm glow of a computer screen.
The vast majority of men struggle with women in at least one major way ... unless you've always been naturally good with women, or you've painfully devoted serious time out of your life for at least several years in order to become good with women (I'm in the latter category).
So chances are, you trash talkers fall squarely into the Average Frustrated Chump-bracket. This doesn't make you a bad person; but unless you possess the BALLS to casually and nonchalantly approach a woman even half as attractive as Coco Austin, and do it with a confident expectation of success regardless of the actual outcome, you have no business behaving as if someone like Coco is beneath you. Grow up.
Now whether or not this girl is actually a good woman, deserving of personal happiness and the companionship of a decent man, is an issue that only Ice-T himself has the right to comment about.
As far as I can tell, he's quite happy with his marriage.
