Barbie! Oh Noes!

[Derec]

Hunt for Red October was based on a true story. It was as real as 42 was. Or What’s Love Got to Do With It. Or The Diary of Anne Frank. Or dozens of other movies.

It was based on a novel by Tom Clancy, not a true story.
Dr. Jack Ryan is not a real person. Neither did he become president after some Japanese pilot did a more "successful" 9/11.

 

[Derec]

Hunt For Red October was real,

What do you mean by "real"? It was based on a novel.

then it needed to be pretended to be fake because Baldwin wanted too much for a sequel, screwing McFadden out of a role.

Baldwin screwed himself out of a role in the sequels, which went to Harrison Ford. And McFadden did all right for herself as Dr. Beverly Crusher. Which is also totally real, I bet.

I don't even know what is meant by "woke" anymore. It has been twisted so much. A reason, why I try to not to get stuck on labels, but general contexts of what is said.

My understanding of "woke" - pretending to be, and even believing yourself to be, aware of societal issues, but in reality having a misconception or a superficial understanding of them. I base that on all the people who called themselves 'woke' during the Ferguson and Baltimore riots when the term entered the mainstream lexicon.
Type specimen:
In the Aftermath of Ferguson, Stay Angry and Stay Woke

 

[Derec]

We are discussing a movie in which faux feminists created a matriarchy. If you think that is real or proclaim it to be real, you are feeding into conservative paranoia. Feminism is about equality, not matriarchy.

Is it? Then why it is called "feminism"?
Now some people who called themselves feminist may believe in gender equality, but others, specifically radfems, explicitly do not.

 

[Derec]

There still has never been a woman as POTUS. Eight years of a black man as POTUS followed by a woman candidate date for the office blew so many conservative minds that we got an orange imbecile as their reaction.

The thing is that we elect individuals, not nondescript ciphers for groups like "white male" and "black female". Hillary had a chance to win. She had an empty goal, so to speak, and still missed. And just because a candidate is female does not mean she is the best person for the job and she should not be elected merely because she is a woman.
Maybe the first woman president will be a Republican. Who knows.

 

[Toni]

Hunt for Red October was based on a true story. It was as real as 42 was. Or What’s Love Got to Do With It. Or The Diary of Anne Frank. Or dozens of other movies.

It was based on a novel by Tom Clancy, not a true story.
Jack Ryan is not a real person. Neither did he become president after some Japanese pilot did a more "successful" 9/11.

https://www.colorado.edu/polisci/last-sentry-true-story-inspired-hunt-red-october#:~:text=Providing%20inspiration%20for%20Tom%20Clancy's,Brezhnev%20and%20the%20Soviet%20government.

And https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunt_for_Red_October#:~:text=The%202020%20Muse%20Entertainment%20documentary,recovered%20by%201974's%20Project%20Azorian.

• The 2005 book The Last Sentry: Valery Sablin and the True Hunt for Red October by Gregory D Young and Nate Braden suggests that the novel was based on the Soviet frigate Storozhevoy mutiny in 1975.[10]
• The 2020 Muse Entertainment documentary The Real Hunt for Red October claims that the story of Red October is based on the loss of Soviet submarine K-129, which was lost in 1968, and recovered by 1974's Project Azorian.

The Hunt For Red October is a film based on a novel of the same name, purportedly based on real events.

Jack Ryan does not become POTUS in the novel or the film. I believe he becomes Bo in the 7th or 8th novel in the series and POTUS in the next subsequent one.

 

[Derec]

And people were pissing their pants when Biden said it'd be a black woman...

Nobody pissed themselves. But he was rightly criticized for limiting himself like that just to score political points and to win South Carolina. It was the new corrupt bargain between him and Jim Clyburn.

cause that ain't fair to all the white candidates out there.

Every candidate should be evaluated on their merit. And Dems have not put a man on SCOTUS since 1994 - almost 30 years ago!

 

[Toni]

There still has never been a woman as POTUS. Eight years of a black man as POTUS followed by a woman candidate date for the office blew so many conservative minds that we got an orange imbecile as their reaction.

The thing is that we elect individuals, not nondescript ciphers for groups like "white male" and "black female". Hillary had a chance to win. She had an empty goal, so to speak, and still missed. And just because a candidate is female does not mean she is the best person for the job and she should not be elected merely because she is a woman.
Maybe the first woman president will be a Republican. Who knows.

It’s long been predicted that the first female POTUS will be a conservative. Looking at that field, I shudder.

No one I know believes that Hillary deserved to be president because she is female. I think almost all of us believe she would have been far better than that horror show that was inaugurated.

 

[Toni]

And people were pissing their pants when Biden said it'd be a black woman...

Nobody pissed themselves. But he was rightly criticized for limiting himself like that just to score political points and to win South Carolina. It was the new corrupt bargain between him and Jim Clyburn.

cause that ain't fair to all the white candidates out there.

Every candidate should be evaluated on their merit. And Dems have not put a man on SCOTUS since 1994 - almost 30 years ago!

Why? Why was his announcement to nominate a black woman limiting or corrupt?

You would have a valid point if there were not a good sized pool of black women who are well qualified to serve on SCOTUS. Certainly better qualified than any of Trump’s nominees. I was quite impressed by the number in that pool.

Of course I can see why you would be upset at the announced decision to nominate a black woman. After all, I’ve been there, as have all women and black people throughout most of US history, knowing that the pool of qualified candidates would —not magically but by racist and sexist design, be comprised entirely of white men. It at least men. We all know women in positions of authority are simply a bridge or two to far.

 

[Derec]

https://www.colorado.edu/polisci/last-sentry-true-story-inspired-hunt-red-october#:~:text=Providing%20inspiration%20for%20Tom%20Clancy's,Brezhnev%20and%20the%20Soviet%20government.

Exactly. It was an inspiration to write a story about a mutiny on a Soviet naval vessel, but the THFRO story is very different. A major feature of the plot is submarine warfare, but this mutiny was aboard a destroyer, a surface ship. The destroyer was also meant to sail to Leningrad, and foment a revolution against the Soviet state, not defect to the US.

The Hunt For Red October is a film based on a novel of the same name, purportedly based on real events.

As I explained, "based on real events" is quite a stretch. There was a mutiny in both the novel/movie and the real event. That's pretty much it.
And of course, military and foreign affairs novels do take inspiration from various real life events. Does not mean they are based on them - that implies some resemblance to real events, not just a vague inspiration.
By the way, submarine warfare also plays a role in a non-Ryanverse Clancy novel "Red Storm Rising". It's about a conventional war between NATO and Soviet Union. Kinda relevant now with Russia and all.

Jack Ryan does not become POTUS in the novel or the film. I believe he becomes Bo in the 7th or 8th novel in the series and POTUS in the next subsequent one.

HFRO was the first Ryanverse novel. Ryan was still a very junior CIA officer. At the end of "Debt of Honor", he is about to be confirmed as veep, but almost the entire government gets wiped out in a 9/11 style attack on the US Capitol and he becomes president.
Most Ryanverse novels have never been adapted as movies though.
What's Bo?

 

[Derec]

Why? Why was his announcement to nominate a black woman limiting or corrupt?

It's self evidently limiting - he is a priori excluding most candidates merely because they have the wrong skin color and gender.
And I already explained why it is corrupt - he did it to secure support by Jim Clyburn and win SC primary. His campaign was on the ropes before the corrupt bargain.

You would have a valid point if there were not a good sized pool of black women who are well qualified to serve on SCOTUS. Certainly better qualified than any of Trump’s nominees. I was quite impressed by the number in that pool.

That's not the point. There was no reason to limit himself to just certain genitals and certain skin color.

Of course I can see why you would be upset at the announced decision to nominate a black woman. After all, I’ve been there, as have all women and black people throughout most of US history, knowing that the pool of qualified candidates would —not magically but by racist and sexist design, be comprised entirely of white men. It at least men. We all know women in positions of authority are simply a bridge or two to far.

I do not have a problem with "women in positions of authority". I have a problem with quotas and other forms of race and gender preferences.

 

[Derec]

It’s long been predicted that the first female POTUS will be a conservative. Looking at that field, I shudder.

It's possible, but now <<50% likely with Kamala being veep and Biden super old.
A conservative woman could still be first to be elected POTUS though.

No one I know believes that Hillary deserved to be president because she is female.

But nevertheless that was a major part of her campaign. Remember Madeline Albright?
Albright: 'There's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other.'
I.e. you are going to hell if you don't vote for Hillary.

I think almost all of us believe she would have been far better than that horror show that was inaugurated.

A high bar indeed.

 

[southernhybrid]

I'm not a fan of newer movies. I don't even have the attention span to watch them, but it sounds like a satire to me, based on some of the comments. Is the movie satirizing male dominance by making up a world dominated by females, or am I missing something?

The amazing thing to me, is that some men seem annoyed by a movie about a pretend matriarchy, based on what was once referred to back in my day, as a "teenage doll". Too bad we didn't evolve to be more like bonobos, instead of chimps. That way we would have always been part of a peaceful, sexy matriarchy, instead of a violent, greedy patriarchy.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Why are Conservative Men so Mad About Barbie?

Less than a week after its release, The Barbie Movie has garnered an intense reaction from the Right, from accusations of “delivering more lectures than

www.counterpunch.org

Again, I have seen at least an order of magnitude more leftists bitching about conservatives, than actual conservatives complaining about this movie.

Who cares?

Nevertheless, let me comment about some points:

n their urgency to crush a perceived feminist agenda, Right Wing commentators are missing the film’s remarkably balanced attempt to mend a rift in the cultural dialogue about gender and identity. Rather than heeding the critics who cry “woke”, conservatives would do well to see the film and judge for themselves.

Even-handed? From the summaries I have seen it's a movie about a Barbieland which is a matriarchy. Ken tries to rebel and give men in the land equal rights,

No, Derec. It's a fantasy land ruled by Barbies with qualifications. The Ken dolls do not have degrees and Nobel prizes like the Barbie dolls. Ken tries to implement patriarchy, not equal rights.

but his "coup" is squashed by the end when Barbie restores matriarchy. How is that even-handed? It explicitly praises and supports rule by women.

No, it doesn't Derec. While I am not surprised you are for Affirmative Action and quota systems for men, the movie doesn't explicitly endorse matriarchy in the real world, but instead moving toward equality in BarbieLand. The lesser qualified Kens get some positions as federal circuit judges and it is clear this will expand with more qualifications in the future. That's why it's a parody to real world history and satirical.

Third article from Counterpunch? Are they getting paid by Matell?

Burn Your Barbies, Pause the Pink

A few months ago, my two sons, aged 10 and 15, told me they were excited to see the new Barbie film. I was surprised. They are not interested in dolls,

www.counterpunch.org

I see the chief complaint the author has against the Barbie dolls (not the movie) is that they are too sexy and too white (and given her podcast, she seems to really not like white people!) An interesting tidbit from the article, about the German doll that was kinda used as an inspiration for Barbie:

When a police officer informed Bild Lilli that the two-piece swimsuit she was wearing was in violation of decency laws, she responded earnestly, ‘Which piece do you want me to take off?’”

Sonali doesn't seem to get the joke. To her that shows how stupid Bild Lilly (OG Barbie) is. But there is another interpretation - that Lilli understands, but is deliberately offering her reply as a subversive FU to the oppressive decency standards of the day. Note that many radfems would love to go back to those days.

So that had an indecent male doll, too?

Is Barbie feminist? Not for all women

The film's a marketing success, but its limited vision doesn't apply to most women, for whom the world is grim not pink

www.aljazeera.com

Al-fucking-Jazeera? I bet there is a "Hijab Barbie" by now to appease them. Many radfems support that too.

And closing with ad homs, after mistake after mistake by you. Predictably terrible post.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

We are discussing a movie in which faux feminists created a matriarchy. If you think that is real or proclaim it to be real, you are feeding into conservative paranoia. Feminism is about equality, not matriarchy.

Is it? Then why it is called "feminism"?
Now some people who called themselves feminist may believe in gender equality, but others, specifically radfems, explicitly do not.

Some feminist are also lesbians or like McDonald's. It doesn't make feminism about lesbians and McDonald's. What particular individuals like is irrelevant. Feminism is a movement to catch women up to gender equality since historically they've been kept down. That's the fem part. Words have meaning. Don't bias them with your likes and dislikes.

 

[Elixir]

FCOL!!
*Someone* needs to go see the movie before making an even bigger fool of themself bloviating on what it is about, what it means, what it was intended to mean …

 

[ZiprHead]

The Ghostbusters (female version),

That movie was bad and Paul Feig should feel bad. Besides, the gender reversal was done just for gender reversal sake. Not to mention that they completely objectified the male receptionist, something the original Ghostbusters did not do with their female receptionist.

No, it wasn't. The story was originally meant for the original cast. But Bill Murray balked at it. Then Harold Ramis died. The studio still thought the script would work but decided to use a new female cast because the old one just would not work in the state it was in.

If you're going to mysoginize history, at least get it right.

 

[Toni]

Why? Why was his announcement to nominate a black woman limiting or corrupt?

It's self evidently limiting - he is a priori excluding most candidates merely because they have the wrong skin color and gender.
And I already explained why it is corrupt - he did it to secure support by Jim Clyburn and win SC primary. His campaign was on the ropes before the corrupt bargain.

You would have a valid point if there were not a good sized pool of black women who are well qualified to serve on SCOTUS. Certainly better qualified than any of Trump’s nominees. I was quite impressed by the number in that pool.

That's not the point. There was no reason to limit himself to just certain genitals and certain skin color.

Of course I can see why you would be upset at the announced decision to nominate a black woman. After all, I’ve been there, as have all women and black people throughout most of US history, knowing that the pool of qualified candidates would —not magically but by racist and sexist design, be comprised entirely of white men. It at least men. We all know women in positions of authority are simply a bridge or two to far.

I do not have a problem with "women in positions of authority". I have a problem with quotas and other forms of race and gender preferences.

Of course there was a reason given that among the pool of highly qualified and highly suitable candidates, it was more than time to nominate a black women and increase the diversity of perspectives on the bench.

If there were no suitable black women, you’d have a point.

The fact is that most positions of power and influence are held by white men because for centuries, they comprised the entire pool of candidates considered suitable, precisely because they were white and male.

 

[TomC]

No one I know believes that Hillary deserved to be president because she is female.

There probably are people like that.
I'm not one.

I didn't even like Hillary the high powered Neolib very much. I'm just not into that political spectrum all that much.

But the fact is she rose to the top, despite being a girl politician. She had to be twice as good as her male counterparts to get anywhere. But she kicked ass. I wanted her, in 2016, because I was confident that she could outperform Sanders on his own platform. Because she was better at her game than Slick Willy.

She was like the Ginger in Astaire and Rodgers. She did everything he did, only backwards and in high heels.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

An odd comment seeing Astaire was entirely self taught. Also, Astaire did a lot more dance overall. Rogers was the better actor.

 

[TomC]

An odd comment seeing Astaire was entirely self taught. Also, Astaire did a lot more dance overall. Rogers was the better actor.

An odd comment, considering how little it had to do with my post.

I wanted her, in 2016, because I was confident that she could outperform Sanders on his own platform.

How about that part?

Tom