Amid criticism, Texas theater doubles down on female-only ‘Wonder Woman’ showing

Article here. Excerpt:

'Management at a Texas movie theater laughed off criticism over alleged sexism in its decision to hold a women’s-only premiere of the film “Wonder Woman” starring the Israeli actress Gal Gadot.

The backlash against the Austin franchise of the Alamo Drafthouse Cinema chain took place on Facebook following its announcement on social media that it would be hosting the women’s-only screening on Wednesday. It prompted the chain to expand its women’s-only program to other franchises.

Alamo Drafthouse creative manager Morgan Hendrix told Mashable that his company is “very excited” that it is “providing an experience where women truly reign supreme has incurred the wrath of trolls,” saying it “only serves to deepen our belief that we’re doing something right.”'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Evince a behavior. People object to it. Their objection is evidence that the behavior is justifiable/right.

Apply this to other situations: Weimar Germany. Nazis went around saying nutty things. People objected and condemned the Nazis for what they were saying. This in turn only convinced the Nazis that they were in fact right about their beliefs, ie, because people at large objected to their rhetoric.

Fast-forward to today. You see where I am going.

Of course the fastest way to condemn anyone is to find a way that their behavior is similar to the behavior of Nazis. That is a post-WWII rhetorical strategy that is now a cliche. Given that Nazis did all kinds of things to gain power, sway voters, and then implement their designs, one can find virtually anything anyone does or says that was in a similar fashion done or said by some Nazi somewhere. So to find a parallel in behavior to Nazi behavior may be instructive but also rather thread-worn.

Nonetheless, I do so. That is because as with the Nazis, seeing an objection to your behavior as an act that reinforces its validity in your mind is not only a non-sequitur, it's positively batty. Most of us have heard that the definition of insanity is to do what you have always done but expect different results. What that really is saying is that people believe in crazy ways when they do not comprehend the basics of cause and effect. This is a different kind of crazy than one seeing fires where there are none, flying elephants, etc. It is alas a far more common kind of crazy that seems to have infected the SJW crowd as well as others. How one can conclude that because their behavior is objectionable by someone somewhere that this vindicates it categorically w/out further examination is beyond me. But crazy is as crazy does, as my old man used to say.

Like0 Dislike0

I've noticed that the word "defensive" is used on those defending themselves from something. Just call them "defensive" and you're automatically "right" and they're automatically "wrong". It couldn't be that those being called "defensive" are justified in defending themselves.

Like0 Dislike0

Accusing your opponent of "defensiveness" is a time-honored argumentative technique used to shift focus from his ideas to him. It's a red herring/ad hominem kind of strategy. Its use is a pretty good sign (to those who study this kind of thing) that your opponent doesn't have a counter to your position or is too lazy to try to posit it.

In terms of rhetorical skills, SJWs are rank amateurs. First rule of argumentation is: Be right. Taking the wrong position already sets you at a significant disadvantage. It's like waging a battle from the foot of a hill while the enemy sits at the hilltop. This is why SJWs have to resort to screaming, carrying on incoherently, and physical assault in order to "win" arguments. The Nazis, et al., have done the same to do likewise. Then it becomes less a matter of right v. wrong or strength of argument but now of politics. SJW issues are not about right and wrong. They are about politics. The politics of identity and claimed/purported victimhood (used to justify all manner of outrageous behavior), and of political correctness, including ethnic identity issues, gender/sex identity, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, and the list goes on ad nauseum.

All in all, it makes me very glad not to be involved in the worlds of academe and popular entertainment. Eventually within both areas of activity, this kind of thing will either burn itself out or completely wreck both fields or both. Only time will tell what the outcomes are.

Like0 Dislike0

I predict the women only viewing night will be a complete flop. I think stats indicate men are more avid movie goers, especially superhero type movies. Women also are more apt to share their opinions online and tend to be more critical, so if the movie is the slightest bit bad, the first female viewers will get the word out.

Like0 Dislike0

It may be true. But while to us who see these events for what they are, and I've no doubt you do Kris, it's more abt prohibiting men to even be in the company of women w/out a clear and compelling reason. Different anatomies and natural human modesty in the presence of the opposite sex are compelling reasons to legislate the availability of separate toilet facilities, for example. But that a certain movie is being shown in an otherwise public venue hardly arises to the level of 'compelling'. If this were a private screening say, by invite only, and in a non-public venue, fine. But allowing these kinds of events to go unchallenged is not much different from standing idly by while "No Coloreds" signs get posted or policies pursued by the same. To stay quiet in the face of this kind of thing is like taking no position on integration/segregation during the Jim Crow era. It may be one's right to stand by idly. But it is hardly an obligation, and to object instead is almost a moral obligation, IMO.

Like0 Dislike0