|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the things that disturbs me the most is that Lopez ("J Lo") is an extremely popular artist among young people. Given the nature of the film, I get the feeling that it is being directly marketed to teens rather than adults. And while I don't want to discourage any forms of activism, I doubt that picketing movie theaters would do much unless it could be done on a very large scale. What I had in mind might be more of a targeted editorial effort to help get the truth out about domestic violence in local newspapers, using Enough as a backdrop. But what do you think?
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is not the first time we have seen this ugly head. "Sleeping with the Enemy", among Julia Roberts fans has definately left us with the same self-serving image of the Domestic Violence Industry that constantly shows women as the only victims of this.
With the summer here, and more and more people attending social gatherings, I recomend we slip this into conversations somehow, as a matter of fact. Much like a Lisa Simpson anacdote.
I would try and avoid and hostile confrontations, but merely by mentioning "Oh Ya, I came across as site called 'Safe 4 all ' and it really shows how men suffer from domestic violence /stalkings/verbal,mental abuse etc... Its a terrible thing, but I think what I get from what the site was saying is that if ,we, look at the whole picture ,we, may have a better chance for a better solution" . Use this like a counter punch when someone says something about the movie etc... Or about it in general. The more people at the table the better. If one is smooth one can get the word out without lashback.
The point is made, and it doesnt matter if people believe it or not right at that moment, the important thing is that it was said.
If arguement follows (a polite one) make sure you have knowledge to back it up. That you have read the material and are able to deconstruct the myths that are constantly perpetuated in our society.
There are many other ways to do this, one can be very creative, and can have a great deal of fun with it.
Send emails to all your friends with the attachment phrase that denounces men something like "Oh Great now J.Lo is male bashing, this one sided view of domestic violence is getting pretty tired"
I know its pretty long for a signature line but...
I still think we should take advantage of the summer gatherings as much as possible and share our knowledge over beers and bar-b-qs. I know this isnt radical but it is something.
Letters to editors is one thing that is difficult if they have a certain slant thats for sure. But we need to make men grumble over this at the unfairness of it all. There are so many people out there that just accept blindly what is given them, maybe we can give them another version and maybe they will think twice about whats being given to them.
Simply by giving people the meaning of "Misandry" opens their eyes to a whole new world. Talk to whoever will listen.
Dan Lynch: Martial Arts for the Modern World.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I thought I would post this linc, its not on domestic violence, but it talks about and dismantles the same Myths, feminists create and shows how they are created and why.
http://www.leaderu.com/real/ri9502/sommers.html
Dan Lynch: Martial Arts for the Modern World.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me that the movie "Enough" is just a repackaged version of the older movie "Sleeping with the Enemy" As is typical with ANY movie women (and/or children) are made the "victim" to increase the emotional connection of the audience. A movie about a male victim of DV would not be as popular or widely accepted, males are rarely seen as victims in movies in the same manner women are.
By this I mean men are victims of crimes in a movie they are are not seen victims of an social injustice only victims of a crime. One would be hard pressed to find a movie or movie scene where a male was a victim and the a strong emotional connection to him as a victim is made by the audience. When men are victims it is often due to their inaction (usually a failure to protect a woman or child) or failure to meet stereotypical "male" ideals.
The movie also seems to say that the current social and legal systems are inadeqate in dealing with DV for women. this is at best a misrepresentation of the facts. very often the key break down in getting help is NOT in the system but the individuals willingness to get help. The number of DV shelters, phone hot-lines and state legal requirements for DV intervention is overwhelming but this is not dramatic.
The danger in this movie is that it calls for vigilantism. Defending yourself from harm is VERY different than taking the law into your hands. Anyone trained in self-defense is taught that you use the minimum force to neutralize the situation to escape.
It also portrays the idea that women can physically defend themselves against a male. Reguardless of the training a woman has she is often on the short end of the stick when it comes to strength and weight. While training can help to minimize these factors they are still important when it comes to a physical confrontation. (note: I have been involved in martial arts and self-defence for several years.)
The best bet is for women and men to use to legal and social system that currently exists.
(if anyone is interested in movie theory or analysis please contact me if you want more info menrights@aol.com)
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't say I'd agree with "trashing" the movie, only because anybody can argue that there are real-life women who have experienced this and therefore the film is making a valid statement - albeit one that's been made again, and again, and again. I will concede that there are some women in this world for whom movies like Enough are justifiably therapeutic. And while I hope that such women will choose to eventually "move on" from their anger (many don't, it seems), I don't want to deny anyone who has truly been a victim the emotional vindication of seeing someone in a similar position get revenge.
Which is why I think the better course of action, rather than trying to boycott movies about female victims of abuse, would be toward encouraging filmmakers to make more movies about male victims of abuse.
In other words - live and let live. BUT, only on the condition that there is equitable representation of the opposite scenario.
P.S. I actually have a feeling that if the film industry started pumping out movies about male victims of violence as a means of equity, movies about gender-themed victimization would slowly screech to a halt altogether. Feminists, critics and audiences alike - not wanting an influx of battered-men movies - would demand that both feminists and masculinists realize that "enough is enough already!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P.S. I actually have a feeling that if the film industry started pumping out movies about male victims of violence as a means of equity, movies about gender-themed victimization would slowly screech to a halt altogether. Feminists, critics and audiences alike - not wanting an influx of battered-men movies - would demand that both feminists and masculinists realize that "enough is enough already!"
We have seen this with Michael Douglas, oddly it was still the wife who saved the day.
Man cheating pig, but woman insane psycho, but the woman had an excuse to be pyscho, the man drove her to it.
Cant remember the name right now.
Dan Lynch: Martial Arts for the Modern World.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the Michael Douglas movie was Fatal Attraction (also starring Glenn Close). I've noticed that when women commit violence or criminal acts in movies they are portrayed as victims of male coercion, domestic abuse, or mental illness.
In the movie Death Wish, Charles Bronson's character was portrayed sympathetically as a victim but he was avenging the murder of his wife and the traumatic assault on his daughter.
Following up with what Tony said, women are protected from responsibility by Hollywood portrayals. Men are often demonized when it comes to family violence or relationship violence. Movie after movie that I've seen during the past dozen years or so portrays men as abusive husbands and boyfriends, incestuous or violent fathers, murderers including serial murderers, unfaithful husbands and partners or just inadequate and irresponsible human beings. Fathers are especially vilified as being abusive, unfaithful, selfish and insensitive. Mothers are idealized as loving, caring, compassionate and stoic. When women commit adultery, abandonment, or domestic violence, they are frequently portrayed sympathetically -- the man's personality or behavior or some condition like poverty drove her to it.
I'd like to see a movie portray unsympathetically a central female character who is abusive to her husband or boyfriend, or who murders her children, or abandons her family to go off with a rich man, or who commits serial or multiple murder, or who makes false charges of domectic/ sexual abuse or rape. It won't happen as long as Hollywood decision makers are sympathetic to the feminist world view AND are committed to appeasing female audiences with all the political and economic power that those audiences have. I don't think men are going to start grumbling in large numbers unless it gets a lot worse. Same with men demanding battered-men movies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mbr
(Domain part 1=arlsoft,part2=com,User=mbr)
on Monday May 27, @04:13PM EST (#10)
(User #821 Info)
|
|
|
|
|
It won't come from Hollywood. They're followers, not leaders. When the majority of the U.S. population was insensitive to the suffering of blacks, Disney made a cartoon version of "Song of the South". I remember seeing Disney cartoons of the Brer Rabbit stories on TV when I was a kid. Crows were used to portray blacks in the cartoon. I dare you to find a videotape of any of this Disney material anywhere in the U.S. nowadays. You won't find it. Because attitudes have changed and Disney is a follower, not a leader.
In much the same way, Hollywood studios will not lead in the movement to stop the vilification of men. To them, there's no such thing as bigotry or propaganda. There's only the bottom line! They hate controversy! Has anyone noticed that ABC (a wholly owned subsidiary of Disney, or is it the other way around) is cancelling Politically Incorrect? Too controversial! How can a show which was created to be controversial be cancelled for being controversial? Simple. Its original purpose was not to be controversial, but to attract viewers who would enjoy being fed the illusion that they were watching something which was controversial. When actual controversy erupted, they jettisoned the show. For those of you old enough to remember the Smothers Brothers Show back in the late 1960s, it was cancelled for just the same reason. They had Phil Ochs on the show to sing "Draft Dodger Rag". They had Pete Seeger on the show - the first time he was allowed on the national airwaves since he was blacklisted by Hollywood during the infamous period in the 1950s when Sen. Joseph McCarthy was holding hearings and destroying lives!
So, what's the answer WRT ending Hollywood's addiction to the vilification of men? Remember the Blair Witch Project? It was not generated by Hollywood. It was a small low-budget effort which made it big. Just like the original Night of the Living Dead. I think the solution is to get Hollywood to figure out that there's money to be made in movies that counter these myths. How? That's the hard question. All I can say is that any one effort (be it a movie made by college students or some other art form) has a very small chance of success. Only if there are thousands, or even tens of thousands of projects going on, will there be any chance that one of them will stumble onto something that Hollywood will see profit in. But you can be sure that when one of these efforts finaly hits it big, Hollywood will produce clone after clone of the original.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think we need to get the message out, simply, that DV is not the answer to DV. Drowning Earl in the trunk of his own car is not the answer.
The problem is, I don't think anyone will listen. They're either too full of their own venom or they're afraid of the venom of the feminists.
Perhaps we just don't go to any theatres where the movie is showing as long as it's being shown?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To Frank H
Not long ago I came across a column re domestic violence written by a woman who frequently writes on women's issues for my local daily paper. She espoused the usual feminist DV propaganda about women being beaten up by their male partners every 15 seconds and men committing 95 percent of DV, etc. I wrote her back and mentioned a list of facts about DV that are discussed in Glenn Sacks' articles. Her prompt response is revealing.
She basically said that because she writes on women's issues, it's reasonable to focus on only female victims of DV. (It didn't occur to her that to be consistent, she should also focus on female abusers and female victims of lesbian-perpetrated DV.)
She also said that it's reasonable to focus on only female victims because women are more likely to be seriously injured.
She dismissed the argument about DV being a human rather than a gender problem by saying "Why just stop at men. Why not include the elderly, children and animals?"
It amazes me how some of these feminist folks rationalize their sexism. Anyway, I'll never give to a YWCA DV program or any other DV program for that matter that ignores or downplays male victims and female perpetrators. Service and support programs (both publicly and privately funded) for *female* victims are plentiful. I'll give my donation to SAFE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mbr
(Domain part 1=arlsoft,part2=com,User=mbr)
on Monday May 27, @04:43PM EST (#12)
(User #821 Info)
|
|
|
|
|
I wholeheartedly support your willingness to donate to SAFE. They're doing good work!
I'd also like to let you know about another organization specifically dedicated to support for male victims of domestic violence - The Battered Men's Helpline (www.noexcuse4abuse.org). BMH runs a telephone hotline, and although BMH is based in the northeast, we accept calls for help from all across the country. BMH is a 501c3 organization (i.e. contributions are tax deductible), as is SAFE.
So, when you're looking for a tax deduction, you now have some worthwhile options.
If you have any questions, don't hesitate to e-mail me. In order to avoid SPAM, I'm not going to format my email address as: pleasespamme@myisp.com, but if you shuffle the pieces around and punctuate it properly, you can reach me by e-mailing me at domain "arlsoft", which is a subdomain of "com", with a user id of "mbr".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you think "Enough" is bad, here's another anti-male movie that has recently appeared...
While I was visiting a local theater, I happened to come across a description of a movie called "Sorority Boys." The plot appears to
be a sterotypical misandristic portrayal of a group of fraternity guys who get kicked out of their fraternity for being too rowdy. They end up joining a sorority named DOG (intended for unattractive women)where they must dress in drag in order to learn about how mean they have supposedly been to girls all their lives. The whole thing sounds like a feminist remake of Animal House.
A description of the movie can be found at:
http://movies.go.com/
You need to type "Sorority Boys" into the search engine to find this movie. Hopefully it will soon fade into the obscurity that it deserves.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just want to thank the MANN community for providing me with what amounts to "The Misandry Index" on these two movies. I hope this practice continues, and I hope that it can become more timely.
OBTW, the most recent movie I've seen is the new Star Wars. As a regular Star Wars fan, I cannot judge it in terms of an independent film, so I cannot offer any contrast on what the reviewers have said. But in terms of the Misandry Index, I'd call it neutral, which from my perspective, is the best a movie should get. (A negative being misandric and a positive being misogynistic. Not that I think misogyny is a good thing, but I had to polarize it somehow.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no doubt that George Lucas has been careful in this one.
He adds a female villian, and more female jedi,
but with the female bounty hunter assasin, he makes her a changling, so she's not human, etc...
But at the same time makes out that a woman can be a murderer. George is trying to balance this as best he can Im sure, he is very pro male, but he is also pro female, if one wants to learn the deeper meanings to Lucas' films the writings of Joeseph Campbell is highly recomended. Namely the hero with a thousand faces, and there is an intereview with J.Campbell that takes place at skywalker ranch by bill moyers, "The Power of Myth", . Joeseph Campbell was brilliant and was right about more things than he was wrong.
Dan Lynch: Martial Arts for the Modern World.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone at Mensactivism seen this yet? Our worst nightmare come true. Don't worry, none of my hard earned money went to support this trash. I paid for Starwars II. The next showing sold out. I had three hours to kill. So with arms full of move theater bought refreshments I had no problem walking into this near empty theater showing this sick twisted propaganda hate film. Let me tell you this is Liberal, Feminist, Hollywood at it's worst. Yes, a new low. Worst than it's usual bad. The only way to describe it is to compare it to Nazi Germany anti Jew propaganda hate movies, and documentaries. How clever the feminist use of J. Lo. A most popular female teen idol to lure young female teens in to see this hate propaganda. Like the tobacco co. use of Joe Camel to lure youth to smoking. This film targets young female teens. Filling their young minds anti white male hate. All white men are depicted as brainless unsympathetic, evil, not worthy to be near children monsters. The only positive male figure, of course a victimized by white man, black self defense instructor. With the screaming motto "Self defense is not Murder" the movie preaches violence and hate towards men & boys. How perfectly the message dovetails with the law, Battered Women's Syndrome. Were we all know is legalized murder of male spouses? Not only is this movie sick in the worst possible way but scary to men kind. How can we fight with a generation of corrupted minds?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While I have not seen the movie It sounds like we have pegged the movies philosophy and psychological tilt very well. The fact that the only positive male figure was a black male is very important in the context of the movie and representation of men. As a minority blacks are often lumped in a group with women as victims of white male patriarchy (i believe Bell Hooks frequently uses this term)so the movie also gives a layer message of ALL oppressed people under the heel of the feminist defined patriarchal society to fight back aginst their oppressors.
As for the movie being a cathartic release for abused women research shows this type of release would not resolve any issues other than create a possible justification for violence in retaliation.
[Note: anyone interested in getting the book Spreading Misandry check out the site www.powells.com they have a used copy in excellent condition for under $30 and they deliver.]
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This black man sound like the "token woman"
What we should be telling these minorities is that, these people are using your status for control, and the first chance they get to turn on you they will.
Dan Lynch: Martial Arts for the Modern World.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday May 28, @11:29AM EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
I for one will not pay 1 cent for such trash, and almost every female I've talked to said they have no interest in seeing it....
Enough
With character that's slim, Lopez is unreal in thriller that exploits issue of domestic abuse
By Renee Graham, Globe Staff
Boston Globe
Published: 05/24/2002
Maybe what Jennifer Lopez's lousy new movie ''Enough'' really needs is a hot hip-hop remix featuring Ja Rule or Nas.
Such calculation has certainly extended Lopez's ''singing'' career well beyond the point of reason, and perhaps a similar trick could make ''Enough'' palatable. Then again, maybe not. There's nothing salvageable about this awkward, offensive film, the brain-dead spawn of ''Sleeping With the Enemy'' and ''Death Wish,'' with Lopez as a woman trying to escape her abusive husband.
As Sheryl Crow's jaunty ''All I Wanna Do'' plays, we first spy Lopez's improbably named Slim, a waitress in a neighborhood diner. We know she'll meet her future husband-tormenter here because a handy-dandy chapter title, ''How we met,'' pops up on-screen. This annoying, pointless device is used repeatedly throughout the movie.
Slim meets Mitch (Billy Campbell, of ABC's canceled ''Once and Again'' playing way against type) when he defends her against a customer, played with thick smarminess by Noah Wyle. Slim goes all dewy, and hey, it certainly doesn't hurt that Mitch is really handsome and really rich. Not that he could blind her with his bling-bling - didn't she tell you her love don't cost a thing?
Faster than you can read the next chapter title ''To have and to hold,'' Slim and Mitch get hitched at a lavish wedding. Staring into Slim's eyes, Mitch coos, ''You're safe with me,'' which played backward intones, ''If you leave me, I'll hunt you down and kill you.'' Five years into the marriage, Slim discovers Mitch is having an affair (note to unfaithful spouses: Don't leave your beeper lying around) and Mitch's defense is to beat Slim down. ''I make the money, so I make the rules,'' he says. After a few more violent run-ins, Slim scoops up their daughter Gracie (a cute-but-not-cloying Tessa Allen), and skips from town to town trying to ditch Mitch.
Now, it never occurs to Slim to file charges against Mitch - not after he beats her, not after he stalks her around the country. Instead, she takes self-defense classes, which look an awful lot like Tae Bo, then devises an elaborate plot to turn her predator into prey. Hey, who needs the cops when you can take the law into your own hands? We're also supposed to assume that those classes also taught Slim to pick locks and disable cellphone transmissions. (Maybe she learned those tricks as a waitress.)
Lopez, once on the brink of a serious acting career with 1998's sharp, sexy ''Out of Sight,'' now seems hopeless on the big screen. Her oversized, overexposed Jennifer-ness may work in videos or on the red carpet, but it smothers any ability she may have had to convincingly play a character.
Yet, that's not the worst of it. ''Enough'' shamelessly exploits the horror of domestic violence for melodramatic, cheap thrills. Campbell effectively channels his inner-creep, but in Nicholas Kazan's DOA script, Mitch is abuser-as-bogeyman, a suburban Jason or Freddy Krueger jumping out of the shadows. It's all just a lame setup for Lopez's big moment as a black-clad, butt-kicking, ninja chick, demonstrating moves she'll probably hawk someday as the latest hip workout.
How's this for a chapter title: Give me a break.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday May 28, @01:29PM EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Jennifer Lopez
C/O International Creative Management
8942 Wilshire Blvd
Don't just vent here. Send her mail and tell her WHY you are so upset with her. Keep in mind that if you can convince her she may at least mention male victims while hawking her movie on talk-shows. And that would be a great win for us, especially since there is no taking back this hate crime now that it is in theaters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let me repeat this because... Just because I think it bears repeating:
I recommend that anyone who concurs with our position here on this movie does not go to see any movie in any theatre where this film is showing for as long as it is being shown. Further, I recommend that you advise the manager of that theater why he (or she) won't be seeing your bright and shining face for that period, and why.
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you're interested, Roger Ebert wrote a highly unfavorable review of the movie (* 1/2), in which he picked apart the film's "subtle" symbols pertaining to race and gender stereotypes. Early on, he expresses surprise that Jennifer Lopez and the film's director - both of whom he highly regards - would be connected to such drivel. My theory is that perhaps they were blindsided by the feminist overtones, which today seem to be confused with marks of automatic nobility.
The review can be read here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, too, I was taken aback to see that the film is rated PG-13 - which means that children can be admitted to see it (theoretically with parents "strongly cautioned", but you know how that goes). I'm sorry, but even aside from the gender aspect, I think that any film which graphically depicts adults cruelly beating each other up should be restricted to an adult audience.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
