Slashdot Mirror
Men's Rights Activists Call For Boycott of Mad Max: Fury Road
ideonexus writes: Aaron Clarey, author of the blog Return of Kings and prominent figure in the Men's Rights Movement, is calling for a boycott of George Miller's new edition to the Mad Max franchise "Mad Max: Fury Road," calling the film a "Trojan Horse feminists and Hollywood leftists will use to (vainly) insist on the trope women are equal to men in all things..." and citing the fact that "Vagina Monologues" author Eve Ensler was brought in to coach the actresses on playing sex slaves who escape a warlord's possession. Critics have been applauding the film, which currently scores 98% on RottenTomatoes.
and they fear payback.
I think that is a relatively healthy fear.
I am not a "men's right's activist", nor am I feminist. I don't believe in men's rights, or women's rights or any kind of "group rights." Just individual rights. Equal rights to all under the law. Cover the individual and cover every smallest minority imaginable without playing favourites.
Growing up, I knew a lot of men who went through divorces. They would all complain about how biased the system was in favour of their ex's and how screwed they were getting. I always assumed they were just bitter and angry and biased themselves (I was taught that there is always two sides to every story). Until I went through a separation myself, and my lawyer (who represents both men and women and comes across as a very down-to-earth guy; e.g he urges his clients to seek mediation and not litigate whenever possible), told me flat out that in his experience the system is biased in favour of women. That's not necessarily feminism, in fact it's ANTI-feminist because it treats women like helpless, disadvantaged charity cases who need the support of men to take care of them. But I think that's what a lot of "men's rights activists" fear, and rightly so. It's unfairness in the disguise of seeking fairness.
More and more women are losing custody of their children. I'm an example, have custody of three children. Men's rights are alive and well.
Men's rights and white power groups and other groups that "fight" for the rights of an already empowered majority exist only because they choose to ignore history.
I have a cousin, who for gender-related reasons, is having difficulty getting into college. Is this right? No, you do not get to know the gender of my cousin, that is irrelevant to whether or not it is right or wrong.
These people that you think are ignoring history, they really aren't. The men's rights groups that fight for discrimination that favors men, as wrong as they may be, aren't ignoring history, they are trying to preserve it, to preserve their power and influence. Again, I am not saying such groups are right, just that they are not ignoring history.
Likewise, the men's rights groups that fight for a genuine end to discrimination instead of discrimination that disfavors men, they know from history that hate just leads to more hate, discrimination just breeds more discrimination, and that the way to stop it, isn't to change the status quo from discrimination that favors men to discrimination that disfavors men, it is to fucking end discrimination.
But hey, thanks for trying to make this into an "us" vs "them" situation and just overall being part of the fucking problem.
No, it isn't a good movie. Not anywhere near a good movie. Actually kinda a dumb movie. It does have lots of car chases and explosions to distract you from the fact that it is a bad movie. I'm sure it will be successful - nobody eats at McDonalds for quality food but they still eat there.
It's the first big-budget action movie in many years with practical effects. This is a huge deal for fans of the genre. Action movies have been shot badly for so long now people start to forget wheat they're supposed to be like. All CGI and jumpcuts to hide the fact the actors aren't in the action, which really detracts from the fun. Long (duration) shots with no jumpcuts so you feel the action rather than yawn at camera tricks, wide shots so you can actually follow what's going on in a fight: this is the stuff that makes action entertaining. The action scenes in the Indiana Jones movies (recent abomination excepted) are great examples, with shots that last about 90 seconds between cuts, practical effects, and stuntmen performing all the action on screen, it all makes the movie immersive in a way that, say Guardians of the Galaxy isn't. I liked the latter too, but none of the fights made me wince when someone got hit - a neat film, but not engaging in that way.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
It's a damn good, straight-to-the-chase, no-holds-barred action flick, with absolutely stunning fabrication and stunt work and very little CGI. It is visually stunning, darkly humorous and never boring.
Is is arthouse cinema with obtuse symbolism and pathetic neurosis-filled characters? No, and it doesn't have to be. It's meant to be a big fun rollercoaster ride, and doesn't try to be anything else. There's no romantic subplot pointlessly tacked on, the closest to that is a very brief between two characters where one of them has been a sex slave all her life and one is a gasoline-crazed psychopath, but that's OK. It's very brief and sets up the latter character for his eventual act of ultimate heroism. There is no filler, just action from start to finish.
It delivers exactly what it set out to do and doesn't try to be anything more than it is.
Eat the rich.
I was so ready to be disappointed, fearing that this would be another jumpcut, way-too-zoomed-in CGI-infested snoozefest like so many other action movies of the last few decades.
I was pleasantly surprised to be presented with a lean mean, no-holds-barred guns-a-blazing action blast with tons of awesome practical effects and long-duration shots that really let you take in every bit of the insanity instead of only showing you glimpses. It was great, honestly, truly great.
Eat the rich.
I went to their site, and the site itself disassociates itself from the MRA movement. When someone claims not to be associated with x ideology, we might consider taking them up on their word.
When you claim that there was no plot after 5 minutes into the first movie, you prove your bias and stupidity. The Road Warrior had more plot than similar movies of the time. The plot could be summed up as "standard siege film" but that's more a genre of plot, than specific plot. There were side/sub plots about father figures, redemption and such.
What helps is to identify the protagonist. By the classical definition, it's the character with change. Mad Max undergoes no change. The protagonist in the movie is not Mad Max, but instead the wives/harem. And the antagonist is the villain (not always the case, but is here). The villain wants the harem to not change.
Same setup as #2. Where Mad Max wasn't the main protagonist, but a plot device for the villager's protagonism (yes, I know that isn't a word, but it's still a word if you know what I mean).
If there's "no plot" then the speaker is too dumb to find it. If it had "no plot" then it would fail in the theaters, no matter how much of a spectacular it is.
Learn to love Alaska
No, I've been around, but to keep calling some site an MRA site when it explicitly says that it is not is ridiculous.
You haven't really lived yet Amiga.....
I spent about a year paying child support in NC that was redirected by the state to go to the father of another child by my ex-wife. The other father had a fairly wealthy family and connections to get custody and require support from my ex who couldn't/wouldn't pay so the authorities gave them my payments. My child’s needs were evidently irrelevant. Thank God I was able to get custody of my child eventually by waiving support from my ex.
There is some really sick shit going on in family courts and Social Services departments these days. Thank God we survived, my child is now about to turn 22, but I pray for all those who have to deal with the "system" our officials have put in place.
When the king heard the words of the Book of the Law he tore his robes.2Kings22:11