Impressive article. I think he’s completely right on pointing the issue: we’re still in the damsel in distress model, but the damsel no longer wants to be rescued.
Personally I would like to see more narratives were the damsel is leading the story arch, or where she’s a first level actor in the story (Less Galadriel, more Eowyn)
Disney princesses are not damsels in distress (but Sleeping Beauty is the damsel in distress per excellence). Some of the scripts are clearly dated, but they’re not Mario’s princess. It is disappointing to read some criticism to Disney work, specially taking into account how modern was at that time.
This was reading like a slightly insightful article on the “women in tech” issue that so many people love to talk about, but the last third took a very dark turn.
No, not the straw man that all men are constantly plotting rape, but that we live in an entitlement culture where guys think they need to be having sex with girls in order to be happy and fulfilled. That in a culture that constantly celebrates the narrative of guys trying hard, overcoming challenges, concocting clever ruses and automatically getting a woman thrown at them as a prize as a result, there will always be some guy who crosses the line into committing a violent crime to get what he “deserves,” or get vengeance for being denied it.
It’s interesting because while the text denies widespread evil intentions of men, it still blames them for a heinous crime. Incorporating subtext, I read it as if only men would stop glorifying their evil fantasies then we could live in a world without said evil. This is ludicrous to me. Do we really need to list all of the evil things people do that aren’t commonly glorified?
Anyway, maybe the author wasn’t intending to make the aforementioned claims. But in that case, the author is using mass murder as a rhetorical device, which makes it really hard to take him seriously.
I don’t see it as blaming men for “glorifying their evil fantasies,” as you put it – the author specifically lays the blame on culture for spreading the idea of women as a prize to be “deserved,” somehow. The fantasy of receiving a sexual prize for a culturally-expected effort is common, but it doesn’t have to be. The culture has to change: sex is not a prize, women are not objects, men do not need women in order to be happy/fulfilled.
The author isn’t even remotely as clear as you’re letting on here. Go back to the article and try to identify precisely what the author means by each invocation of the word “we” or “us.” The vast majority of the time, the context implies that he’s referring to “nerdy men.” e.g.,
So, a question, to my fellow male nerds:
What the fuck is wrong with us?
Now, maybe he really is talking about the total population in the piece I quoted in my initial comment. IMO, the context suggests otherwise. The article seems clearly targeted toward a specific demographic. Nevertheless, I concede that it isn’t 100% clear.
The culture has to change: sex is not a prize, women are not objects, men do not need women in order to be happy/fulfilled.
I don’t spend too much time thinking about trying to change culture myself (because I frankly don’t care, I care much more about local interaction and treating those I care about with respect), but I definitely think it’s a reasonable goal for people to strive for.
So that wasn’t my beef at all. I think I made it clear in my comment that my issue with the OP isn’t “culture has to change.” My issue is with, “culture has to change because of MASS MURDER!!!!”
His desire for self inflicted pain overwhelms the basic need for consistency and internal logic in the story he tells. Nothing is safe from his righteous wrath.
This is a strange reading of an article which, in the US at least, is both timely and resonates culturally.
to die on a cross and save us from misogyny, entitlement and maybe tone down the raping.
I don’t see any self-sacrifice offered, apart from perhaps the admission that the author has been in the wrong before - hardly a martyrdom.
Impressive article. I think he’s completely right on pointing the issue: we’re still in the damsel in distress model, but the damsel no longer wants to be rescued.
Personally I would like to see more narratives were the damsel is leading the story arch, or where she’s a first level actor in the story (Less Galadriel, more Eowyn)
Doesn’t that describe a lot of Disney “princess” movies?
Yes, I completely agree on that.
Disney princesses are not damsels in distress (but Sleeping Beauty is the damsel in distress per excellence). Some of the scripts are clearly dated, but they’re not Mario’s princess. It is disappointing to read some criticism to Disney work, specially taking into account how modern was at that time.
This was reading like a slightly insightful article on the “women in tech” issue that so many people love to talk about, but the last third took a very dark turn.
It’s interesting because while the text denies widespread evil intentions of men, it still blames them for a heinous crime. Incorporating subtext, I read it as if only men would stop glorifying their evil fantasies then we could live in a world without said evil. This is ludicrous to me. Do we really need to list all of the evil things people do that aren’t commonly glorified?
Anyway, maybe the author wasn’t intending to make the aforementioned claims. But in that case, the author is using mass murder as a rhetorical device, which makes it really hard to take him seriously.
I don’t see it as blaming men for “glorifying their evil fantasies,” as you put it – the author specifically lays the blame on culture for spreading the idea of women as a prize to be “deserved,” somehow. The fantasy of receiving a sexual prize for a culturally-expected effort is common, but it doesn’t have to be. The culture has to change: sex is not a prize, women are not objects, men do not need women in order to be happy/fulfilled.
The author isn’t even remotely as clear as you’re letting on here. Go back to the article and try to identify precisely what the author means by each invocation of the word “we” or “us.” The vast majority of the time, the context implies that he’s referring to “nerdy men.” e.g.,
Now, maybe he really is talking about the total population in the piece I quoted in my initial comment. IMO, the context suggests otherwise. The article seems clearly targeted toward a specific demographic. Nevertheless, I concede that it isn’t 100% clear.
I don’t spend too much time thinking about trying to change culture myself (because I frankly don’t care, I care much more about local interaction and treating those I care about with respect), but I definitely think it’s a reasonable goal for people to strive for.
So that wasn’t my beef at all. I think I made it clear in my comment that my issue with the OP isn’t “culture has to change.” My issue is with, “culture has to change because of MASS MURDER!!!!”
[Comment from banned user removed]
This is a strange reading of an article which, in the US at least, is both timely and resonates culturally.
I don’t see any self-sacrifice offered, apart from perhaps the admission that the author has been in the wrong before - hardly a martyrdom.