A predictable response to "Dunkirk"

One woman's take on "Dunkirk" here. No surprise, really. To expect a feminist to appreciate the silence of men and resolute determination that spells the difference between victory and defeat, life and death, is a bit much to ask. In fact I'd've been surprised at anything other than this. Still, seeing at least some number of women devalue and dismiss the experiences of men at war does have this positive effect: it diminishes the reinforcing effect that women traditionally have had on men going willingly into mass violence events that cost them life, limb, and sanity. Anything that discourages that has some virtue, in its own way. Excerpt:

'But my main issue with Dunkirk is that it's so clearly designed for men to man-out over. And look, it's not like I need every movie to have "strong female leads." Wonder Woman can probably tide me over for at least a year, and I understand that this war was dominated by brave male soldiers. I get that. But the packaging of the film, the general vibe, and the tenor of the people applauding it just screams "men-only"—and specifically seems to cater to a certain type of very pretentious man who would love nothing more than to explain to me why I'm wrong about not liking it. If this movie were a dating profile pic, it would be a swole guy at the gym who also goes to Harvard. If it was a drink it would be Stumptown coffee. If it was one of your friends, it would be the one who starts his sentences with "I get what you're saying, but..."'

up
55 users have voted.
I like this

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

LOL

What about all the movies that pander to women? That's perfectly acceptable. But making a movie that appeals to men makes you Satan, apparently.

up
6 users have voted.
I like this

Agreed

Yep. Movies written entirely and pointedly as a girls'-night-out thing are never condemned as such by anyone, nor does anyone talk about it. It is what it is, and that's fine. Let a film be shot with men as the audience in mind, and well... it's a travesty. After all, movies are for women and children, at least they are these days, or hadn't you heard?

up
8 users have voted.
I like this

If it's any consolation...

... the article got around via tweet from the magazine that published it, "marie claire". They got over 7,900 replies to it so far, the great bulk of them condemning the article for any number of reasons, with, it seemed to me, the solid majority of those condemning that article being women. So I guess we'd all do well to remember that just because a MSM publication churns out some piece of misandrist horse-shit, that doesn't mean the public is going to like it.

I think the so-called mainstream media will find itself increasingly isolated from the sentiment of its viewers/readers and exist progressively more (if that's possible) in a bubble of its own fancy while people just laugh at them, ignore them, or more of both, as they continue to lose exposure and lay off staff while making excuses for why they are doing so. As Ayn R. said, and quoted on MANN's page frame for all to see: "You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality." Today's media are advised to take notice. But they won't. The hubris of the Fourth Estate is notoriously thick.

up
6 users have voted.
I like this