Unpopular Opinions V. FP should go down more often
999 replies, posted
it's a popular attitude because it's a way to both think less and feel smarter. most people agree with it because it's the mental path of least resistance
I agree up until the Death of the Author stuff. I hate when analyses that aren't backed up by evidence from the language, but personal biases or cherry-picked readings, are treated as equally valid.
This is exactly my issue.
I spent a lot of time as a teenager in creative writing circles and the number of times I saw people completely disregard what a text was saying to insert their own ideas was staggering. It completely poisoned the concept of Death of the Author for me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGn9x4-Y_7A
this is a good take on the actual academic use of death of the author (i.e. not the same as how youtube commentors and middle schoolers use the term)
I think math* mostly gets a bad rep because of incompetent school teachers making students hate and/or be bad at math.
I'd rather view a work as unique experience or story someone wanted to share with the world than an interchangeable ink blot test.
And why is the authors intention an "unique experience or story someone wanted to share with the world" and the readers interpretation is not?
If the input of the author is so worthless, then books might as well be entirely blank. "Independence in thoughts and emotions" is one thing, egocentric self-confirmation is another.
Well no, not really. If you're going to talk about books, it still tells a substantive story. The argument is about non-substantive metaphors and such, which I'm arguing should be interpreted by everyone freely. In addition to that, as I've said, the authors intention isn't worthless, it's just less important than the readers.
Why not both
I value the author's interpretation more in most cases, because duh, that is how the book is written. If there is tension, it's likely building up to something that happens next, which I don't know, but the author did when he intended this feeling to be passed on to the reader. Interpreting the material as intended tends to be the best experience.
But that experience is my own. I don't share the feeling that I have when reading Hitchhiker's Guide with anyone. Why should my escapism not conform to whatever I want it to? If I find it more fun, why would I not follow my own interpretation?
What about Spring Breakers, by Harmony Korine? Some people say it's just a dumb film, while some will swear that it is only satire of dumb films. Some will agree to that, but interject that it is dumb satire. Korine himself has gone the route that makes him look best, but not everybody believes he's a good enough filmmaker to have made it as intentional as it seems to be. Who is right? If Korine was revealed to be 2 orangutans in a trenchcoat, proving he does not understand satire, would it be a bad thing to go into Spring Breakers with the perspective that it is actual, intelligent criticism of an exploitative culture, if doing so increased your own enjoyment of it?
It's always the author's job to make themselves understood by the reader. If the reader has to thoroughly dissect blue curtains to try and find meaning, either there is no meaning or the author failed at their job. Interpretation is not two mutually exclusive categories of "reader" and "author", I would argue that they are two sides of the same coin. The author is trying to tell a story and your own personal life experience is how you relate to that story.
Meaning is not necessarily analysis. Meaning derived can be subjective and personal. In a class, the teacher will expect you to justify this meaning with evidence from the text if you are trying to present it as analysis.
I've seen that goddamned Gillette ad three times and I can't see why people are upset. Is it fake news?
I'd understand if it was done in a super condescending way or something, but it's literally just saying "don't be a dick in the name of being 'manly'". Maybe don't wolf whistle at girls on the street, etc.
It's not saying men are inherently bad, it's saying that a lot of the values we've accepted as a society as "masculine" are just straight up toxic and don't help anybody, including other men. Hence the super-scary term "toxic masculinity".
You're not any less of a person for being a dude. I'd be pretty fuckin' hypocritical if I said that and I'll be the first person to say, I've got some traitsabout me that one might deem "problematic", but self awareness goes a long way and you can always get better.
Sorry, but if I see you catcalling a random woman on the street, I'm gonna hit on the arm and tell you that you're being a fucking asshole. I'll admit I don't exactly get my inbox blown up with people giving me unsolicited sexual comments every day, but it's happened many times in the past and every fucking time it happens, I get incredibly uncomfortable. I can't imagine dealing with that bullshit on a regular basis.
Seriously, all the ad was saying is "stop making excuses for garbage behavior just because you have a dick".
I find it crazy that these people that I see complain about it are the same people I see on Facebook going off about how "triggered" everyone is. Yet when something challenges them to think about themselves, they get all insecure and prove the fucking ad right.
How do people not see the irony in that?
can't stand people who are into sports cars or muscle cars. can't stand car racing. the idea of someone taking out a car loan makes me sad. seeing a kia soul makes me depressed. can't stand hummers, hate all SUVs. roll my eyes at people who parade around in flashy vintage cars. if i were dictator of the universe i would force everyone to drive a ford fiesta or a fiat panda or something. i hate car culture. i have no idea why. the consumer fetishism bothers me a bit, maybe? the personal symbolism of a car? such a boring thing to care about.
I'd recommend reading this Twitter chain if you haven't already.
https://twitter.com/a9ri/status/1085177058135810048
Given that the spot in question clearly pictures males has (apparently) naturally inclined to condone harassment and violence and even find it funny and "masculine", and that I am a male, yes, I found Gilette's spot insulting.
There's something I could say even about #metoo being (apparently) the turning point in the fight for women rights in the XXI century, but I don't want to dig myself deeper
i don't think the ad is saying that men are naturally condoners of violence but rather people are socialized to accept that as a norm and are thus less likely to deviate
having a peen doesn't make you violent, but when everyone before you was violent/condoned violence and the environment where you was raised had those kinds of attitudes, it's hard to not get into that mindset
People seriously fail to consider the imbalance of power, legally and socially, between the sexes. It really hasn't been that long since we established legal equality, with a handful of problem areas remaining, and we still have a long way to go socially. Women only make up 20% of Congress, they're hardly present at top levels of business, men are still usually the breadwinners etc. I'm not arguing for quotas or forced diversity, I'm saying that so long as there is disproportionate representation you're going to see certain effects. When it comes to masculinity and male gender roles, yes, men have a larger responsibility to set the proper example for a simple reason: they're men, and boys are going to look to them as role models. Growing up, they look to their fathers, uncles, brothers, cousins, and friends to figure out what it means to be a man and what you are allowed to do. That's not to say women have no presence in the conversation, they're simply not as influential in it.
Sexism is still a huge and legitimate issue. We just put a guy on the Supreme Court who very likely may have assaulted somebody. There's still a massive double standard between male and female sexuality. Just because tumblr feminists or overzealous college liberals say all men are oppressors doesn't mean there aren't legitimate conversations to be had about the power disparity and how men and women act in society.
It's kind of incredible how hard it is to get such a simple concept through some people's heads I swear to fucking god
and yes I'm directly referring to the Gillette thread, I'd feel bad if I didn't mention that
i thought it was cringy but that's about it
I think a lot of Americans lack an actual understanding of the North Ireland issue and the Troubles and we need to do away with the idea that it was an "Irish vs English," thing and better understand the Troubles as an ethno-religious conflict with roots dating as far back as the 17th century and earlier.
I think you're asking along considering most Americans probably don't even know there are two Irelands.
Wait there are two Irelands?
The Republic of Ireland which is independent, and Northern Ireland which is part of the United Kingdom.
I'm mostly talking about the IRA drives they used to have in Boston back in the '70's and '80's, plus I still hear a lot of stuff about how 'heroic,' the IRA was during the Troubles and how the people of Northern Ireland are an oppressed group.
It's a massive oversimplification of an incredibly complex issue that has become very popular in Irish-American circles.
For me personally, it's not so much the ad itself as the responses I've seen.
"Men need to hold other men accountable", as if men are the only ones who are capable of toxic behaviors (and as if they're the only ones with the power to speak up about it). There's nothing wrong with saying "call out abusive behaviors", but so many of these campaigns seem to squarely (and inaccurately) correlate being toxic or sexist or abusive with being a man, which is then used to justify people's preexisting biases. At its core, the ad is speaking out against things like sexual assault, which is a great and admirable thing to do. It's a beat everyone can dance to. But by focusing squarely on men, the message drifts somewhat from "sexual harassment/assault is bad". These are bad behaviors (assault, harassment, bullying, etc.) that literally anyone could be capable of exhibiting, yet they're only talking to a select group of the population. Gillette's ad was pretty well put together for what it was, but I've seen similar attempts at tackling the same issue that are about as tactful as saying "black people, you need to do better, PoC need to stop robbing and killing, please call out other PoC when you see them committing crimes".
As a guy, it's fucking stressful to think that there are people out there who truly believe all men are inherently monsters and it's gross to think that they're having their biases validated by mainstream organizations. And if I point out that this particular approach to addressing a very real problem makes me uncomfortable (since it can feel like it's painting all men with too broad a brush), I'm told I'm "fragile" and that my feelings don't matter (even though the entire mission statement against "toxic masculinity" is "men need to express their feelings").
It's literally everywhere, anytime I see someone expressing that they disagreed with the ad, there's a flood of horribly toxic comments; "you're not a real man if this bothers you", "you're a pussy", "you're a thin-skinned bitch", which is literally what toxic masculinity actually is. But it's directed at people who committed wrongthink, so it's okay. The guys who look at that ad and go full "I'm throwing out muh Gillette razors I don't need this liberal soyboy betamale cuckery" are being really stupid and justifying the insane fears of the #YesAllMen crowd, but the fact that the ad is purposely limiting its scope (from "toxic behaviors are bad" to "toxic behaviors are bad when men do them") makes to feel less like an attempt to actually add something to an ongoing conversation and more like stunt marketing meant to get the words "Gillette" on everyone's lips (for better or for worse) by co-opting a trendy social cause.
tl;dr
The ad itself is fine I guess, but lots of people are using it as justification to say really horrid shit about men (thus furthering the gender divide even more), so I'm not shocked that it's generated a good amount of ill will, even if it supposedly had good intentions beyond just selling razors to people.
Holden Caulfield wasn't "You like him as a teen, hate him as an adult". I always hated the character, and not even in a good kind of way, because it was constant whining after constant whining. Also, more avid fans can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there's a part of the book where he starts bad-mouthing his roommate and then gets fucking walloped and is like "wHy DiD tHaT hApPeN".
I seem to remember have feeling barely anything one way or the other about the book when I read it in school.
yes, there's yours and there's the real one
I actually read the book in one sitting because it was a summer read assignment I had put off until the weekend before classes started
I fucking hated it the entire time, then I had an honest to god "a-ha" moment at the very end when I realized the entire point of the book was that Holden was a stupid, smug, horny teenager who thought way too highly of himself that we were supposed to hate, and my opinion on the whole thing completely 180'd. I love it when books and movies are able to pull something like that off. It's like a Magic Eye painting, where if you just take a step to the side you suddenly see exactly what the author was going for.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.