For one thing there was a lot of politics behind Lincoln's push to end slavery, it wasn't really that he was such a great guy that thought slavery was evil and thus had to be abolished at all costs.

But more importantly Lincoln lived over 150 years ago, it's an entirely different country and an entirely different world, he's not a valid antecdotal argument for you to use.

Mark Twain was skewering racism and the hypocrisy of it. Do you think that is an invalid viewpoint to have simply based on his race?

He was picking on white people and that culture, but people are attempting to taking the language out of context and focusing on an individual word.

Dude I haven't lived an ivory tower life either. I didn't grow up in the hood, but I have spent plenty of time living in the hood over the past 10 years. Last year my neighbor living just a few feet away from me right next door got stabbed in his throat while I was home right next door. Just a few weeks ago an armed robbery and carjacking happened literally right outside my house, just a few yards from the window near where I was sleeping.

So I know a thing or two about being a white guy living in the hood myself.

So whatever experiences you've had I'm pretty sure aren't going to go over my head.

Or you are just avoiding the question, well then OK there's that too.

Sure. More recent example then. Should I ignore MLK's arguments on women's rights because he isn't a woman?

ITT, it must be tiresome to have to look up the race and gender of every author prior to you reading the work.

Countries changed a lot over the past 50 years as well, so MLK still not the best example, although he is at least a minority.

Should you ignore his endorsement of women's rights? No, you should not ignore that.

Should you ask him to be a voice for the experience of being a woman in America? No, you should not and if he tries to be one than yes you should largely ignore that...Or at least take it with a grain of salt as I said in my initial post.

Don't think anyone in this thread is trying to be the voice for the experience of anything.

We're discussing the merits of book edits, gender specific movie showings, and actors playing a role of a different race.

Based on how heavily you value experience and to bring the thread back from the tangent, are you of the opinion that a black actor should not play the role of Nick?

Yeah, the Albee situation is interesting to me

I think a black actor playing a historically white roll is actually pretty trivial and should be treated as such. I will say that when it comes to Idris Elba being considered forBond or Black Panther being a woman in new comics etc. etc. my personal response is 'I'm all for diversity in pop culture and would love to see more black and female heros and strong protagonists, but why not do that by making new heros instead of turning traditionally white ones black or traditionally male ones female,' So personally I would say, keep James Bond white and make a new secret agent franchise starring Idris Elba (or perhaps a slightly younger black man as Idris is getting up there in years already.) Keep Black Panther as a black man and if you want to introduce a kick ass black heroine, then make her a completely new super hero in the MCU. That's my take on it, since you asked, but IF Elba was cast as Bond or the new Black Panther was a women I wouldn't have a problem with it...Not really.


I think Confederate flags being flown in every day public spaces should absolutely be taken down, and I feel exactly the same way about monuments to Confederate leaders and supporters. I think Confederate flags or monuments that are inside museums should not be taken down or removed as the history argument holds up in that case being that that's the entire point of a museum.

I feel the question of whether or not to keep the N word in the text of Huck Finn to fall somewhere between those two distinctions. If it is to be changed instead of just completely removed, I definitely don't feel like Slave is the optimal replacement word. Although my guess is most black people taking issue with it's inclusion would not consider replacing it with Negro to be sufficient, my personal opinion is that's the best word to replace it with if that's the route you were to go with it. It also happens to be the nearest possible replacement word as well, which feels like an added bonus from a literary standpoint.

As for 'Women's only,' screenings of Wonder Women they may technically be illegal and may fall under the strict/traditional dictionary definition of sexism, but honestly who really cares? Or at least who really should care? And the answer is nobody IMO. Male privledge is a thing, like an actual real thing. Maybe this does technically qualify as sexism and discrimination against men. But you know what as a man I honestly can say I have no problem with that, and I don't think other men should either. Because even if this does qualify as sexism and discrimination against men there's so many more instances of sexism and discrimination against women out there than their has ever been or will ever be against men that I feel like it's OK we can let this one go, we can give it a pass.

And LOL at saying ladies drink cheaper/for free in bars is an example of sexism against men.

I dont think definitions of racism or sexism should be based on "who is in power" or "who holds more power".

Things become very subjective and impossible to gauge then.

Consider the recent case of The Martian, in which Chiwetel Ejiofor plays a role meant to be South Asian.

Is this racism?

Are you replying to me? I didn't use that as my definition of either racism or sexism in my post at any point.

When I said there are more instances of sexism against women than there are of sexism against men that has nothing to do with who holds more power, it's just a true fact. There are indeed more instances both in America and in the world of sexism against women than there are of sexism against men.

Also think about the effect one has upon the other.

Why do you suppose women feel the need for a safe space like an all women's screening of Wonder Women in the first place?

Do you think maybe it has something to do with all those instances of sexism and misogyny against women that they have felt and experienced in their lives? Hint...It does.


Thus the question men should be asking isn't 'Is it legal/sexist for there to be an all women's screening of Wonder Woman,'? Or even 'Should there be an all women's screening of Wonder Woman,' but instead they should be asking...

Why do women feel the need for an all women's screening of Wonder Woman to even exist at all?

From there they can ask them selves an even bigger question still...

Why do any of these marginalized minority groups feel the need for safe spaces anywhere at all?

The answer...

Because they are all a bunch of thin skinned, soft, weak, pussy, snowflake, cucktards...

May feel like an easy answer that makes you feel better about yourself and your role in things, but that doesn't mean it's the correct answer.

And it probably isn't the correct answer.

You are assuming alot about me even prior to confirming whether i was replying to you nor do you address my point. You also continue to hint at my race and political affiliation without knowing anything about me and it is frankly insulting.

The assumption that a single showing of Wonder Woman is a safe space is also off the wall.

A safe space would be separate subway cars in Japan for women. Something that is an absolute neccesity and something I am completely for.

A single showing of a single movie done as a profit driven publicity stunt by a single corporation is anything but.

Back to my original point. I am not denying that there has been more cases of sexism against women. What i have a problem with is defining sexism or racism by a sliding scale where only a member of the group who got the worst of it can be the victim.

Uh...I didn't include any of my assumptions about you in my last post nor have I in any of my posts. Not sure what you are talking about.

Also I thought the Wonder Women thing was a nation wide issue, that was being done at theaters all over the country. It was only done at a single theater and it's been blown up into a national issue. For real?? Jeez that might be even more pathetic than upset men making a national/international campaign to make the all female Ghostbusters trailer the most downvoted trailer/video ever on the internet.

If that's only being done at one theater that's not even a legitimate complaint of sexism. You guys realize most women walk the streets on a daily basis legitimately afraid of being harrassed, stalked and raped and you guys have the gall to complain on a national stage about one theater deciding to host a women's only screening of a movie. And this from the same group of guys that largely thinks male privledge isn't a real thing, when that right there is a perfect example of male privledge being a very real thing.

Are you implying that the above statement assumes nothing about me?

You seem to be setting up strawmen everywhere and attributing positions to me that I haven't taken in the slightest.

today we learned women everywhere get raped while walking down the street.

And it's not one screening. It is for an entire chain of theaters called the Alamo Drafthouse, which is found all across the country. It sucks because it is the best friggin' theater you can ever go to. They are pissing of half the population, those terrible sexist rapists, who attend more movies and quote often pay for the women they are attending with.

You don't go to the Alamo and pay a move ticket alone... doing that takes away from the experience of going.

It's a mean-spirited narrative to sell and and to profit off of.

Way too much general politarding and not enough focusing on it as it pertains to art.

Art cannot be racist or sexist. Only people can be racist or sexist. Huckleberry Finn is a book, books can't be racist. If you wanna accuse Mark Twain of being racist, go for it. If you wanna accuse people who like the book of being racist, go for it.

Retconning projects or characters to change the race or gender of the characters is bastardizing the source material no matter what direction it goes. This is sometimes done for business reasons or sometimes political ones, but it's always a bastardization. There's absolutely nothing stopping anyone from creating their art that showcases any race or gender they want in any manner they want.

Does this question even need to be asked? You know exactly how that would go over in the entertainment and social media'sphre. The same outlets championing the Wonder Woman stuff would be on the front lines of the "I'm outraged!" mob.

While racism towards white people or sexism towards males are much, much smaller societal problems than the opposite, it is pretty odd how many people furiously seek to either
A. Excuse it as acceptable (or even downright encourage it)
B. Deny that is actually is racism or sexism, by some bizarre mental gymnastics required to redefine the terms.

The whole "you aren't X so you can't possible understand what I'm saying and your opinions have no merit" angle can easily be turned around to show how ludicrous it is.

Can I just say "Being a man is more difficult than being a woman" and when any women tries to present counterarguments or differing opinions simply say "Well, you're a woman, you can't possibly relate to what it's like being a man, therefore you should just shut up, your opinions have no merit."

Just because someone comes from a different perspective does not make their argument any more or less valid. Getting opinions from as a wide variety of perspectives is a great goal. Trying to exclude people's perspectives because you don't like their race or gender is pretty much textbook racism/sexism.

This is an interesting discussion. I am not against "diversity" in any way but I feel modern media has way too much "forced" diversity. I think it is overdone in many cases. SNL had a good take on it a while back.



Sexism, racism, pro or anti PC are fine in movies/books/TV if they fit the narrative. Diversity is fine too if it too fits the narrative. Going overboard in either direction is where both sides start to lose me.

I was actually using the general you in that particular grouping of sentences, as I was in a lot of what I wrote yesterday. I'm sure I must have at some point written the specific you when I was referring to you specifically, but it wasn't in that particular grouping of sentences and I don't believe I made any unfair assumptions about you any of the times that I did.

And DaveT, I didn't say women everywhere get raped while walking down the street, I said many of them often feel the fear of the possibility of being raped while walking down the street everyday. And that's true, they do feel that fear. OK, so it is only one theater doing it they just happen to have multiple locations across the country. Are there no other theaters nearby you that have regular screenings of the film? How much were you planning on seeing Wonder Woman in the theaters anyway, prior to learning about this?

Great topic. This reminds me of the Fearless Girl statue near Wall Street. The artist who created Charging Bull is very unhappy about the placement of Fearless Girl. He claims that this action has completely changed the meaning and intent of his sculpture, which was to show a positive message about the strength of America. His wonderful bull has now been transformed "into a negative force and a threat.” “The placement of the statue of the young girl in opposition to ‘Charging Bull’ has undermined the integrity [of] and modified the ‘Charging Bull,’ ”

I agree with him and feel attention is now mostly on Fearless Girl and his art has been diminished. He is thinking of suing the city. What do you guys think?

Artist have the perpetual right to have their art left alone and recognized as theirs. To be used how they specified in the terms of sale. If a company wants to print a Twain work, it's as Twain wrote it or how he approved it's publishing (for payment). Without that permission, it's not his work. A clean version sucks and reflects badly on those who created it.

Have no problem with women only showing of WW. It's their art, they can present it how they want. As a communal experience, who you watch a movie with makes a difference. A female only audience probably >> mixed gender audience.

The Bull guy is SOL unless he only loaned the sculpture. Once it's sold, it's gone. I feel for him, but the world has changed, and his art's significance along with it.

Ps: and I love whoever put Pissing Dog next to Girl confronting the Bull.

I mean no personal offense to this, but my run-in with you in the politics thread descended into you accusing me of using language I didn't say, editing posts as if I somehow mis-wrote them, and building up false ad hominems. Your first post in this thread was accusing all the posters in this thread of being white males. I can assure you that wasn't true at the time you posted, and with the addition of Katy Seagull, obviously isn't true now.

He's calling you out on that and asking you to not do it again. In any case, this isn't a politics thread, it's about art, and while politics is a part of art, it isn't a direct debate on policy, see Cotton Hill's post.

Fear or not, this isn't happening.

I find the narrative disturbing. We shouldn't be encouraging women to be afraid of men.

For those who have been raped, I hope the best of their well-being and that the bastard who did to them was sent to jail, but that's not up to a theater to fix this.

You obviously never been to the Alamo. They are the only theater chain in the US that could go forward despite push back. Everyone else would crumble, send out a PR-laden apology, and possibly be completely boycotted.

The Alamo is that ****ing good.

I don't know about NYC, but I know many major cities have policies about protecting art, so it's not impossible for him to win.

I do agree with him here. It goes without saying that a "bull market" is a positive term as well.

Exactly. Well said.

I think we need to get away from discussing the WW issue as it is a decision by the theatre and not the movie studio.

Sorry if I point out the contradiction here, but was it up to the director and actors to create a movie that was only for women to see? I'm not a comic book fan, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are ton of guys into her as well. Her books sold very well, and considering the main comic book audience...

Not exactly...

Visual Artists Rights Act:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_Artists_Rights_Act

Some interesting stories here:

http://www.npr.org/2015/06/27/417204...-they-paint-on