Page 1 of 1

Guerrillas in our midst (Hollywood bias or conspiracy theory

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 5:58 pm
by Akil Todd Harvey ... 4255.story

This year's Oscars can't seem to escape all sorts of politics, as a women's group puts Hollywood bias on display.

By Shana Ting Lipton, Special to The Times
February 26 2006

JUST when some may have thought that the 78th Annual Academy Awards could not get any more political, masked feminist arts crusaders better known as the Guerrilla Girls are trying to up the ante with some roadside commentary.

Near the northwest corner of Sunset and Cahuenga boulevards, just blocks from the Kodak Theatre, where the Oscars will be held, drivers and passers-by see a transvestite King Kong towering above a building — on a highly provocative billboard, that is.

The gown-clad, lipstick-wearing Kong is depicted in chains, Oscar statuette in hand, next to the phrase: "Unchain the Women Directors!" The image — which costs $4,500 a month and will stay up until the day after the Oscars — was created and funded by 13 women's organizations, including Women in Film and the Fund for Women Artists.

The billboard cites these statistics: "Women directed only 7% of the top 200 films of 2005," and "No woman director has ever won the Oscar. Only 3 have been nominated."

Sporting gorilla masks and pseudonyms of deceased female artists, the Guerrilla Girls are a 20-plus-year-old global secret society that challenges the art and entertainment worlds to be female-friendly through creative campaigns and speeches. "We have figured out a way to take our anger and misery over the state of the world and make it not only fun for us but for other people too," said a founding member who goes by the name "Kathe Kollwitz."

The "Unchained" campaign marks the third attempt in an ongoing campaign to get Hollywood power players to take notice of the dearth of female directors. Despite gains for female studio executives, the only women nominated for Oscars for directing a feature film have been Lina Wertmüller (1976), Jane Campion (1993) and Sofia Coppola (2003).

In 2002, the Girls introduced the "Anatomically Correct Oscar," with a billboard depicting the statuette as a bald, hairy white male, "Just like the guys who win!" The Guerrilla Girls' last Los Angeles offensive came three years ago and featured an Oscar statuette with the face of Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.). It claimed that even the U.S. Senate was more progressive than Hollywood, with 14% of senators being female versus 4% of directors.

However, this latest billboard has ruffled some academy feathers because it is the first to depict an Oscar — a trademarked image — sans caricature on an advertising billboard, yet the academy's response is "No comment."

It's been difficult to gauge reaction to the "Unchained" billboard. Guerrilla Girls' "Kollwitz" said she's heard backlash on conservative talk radio: "Some guy called up and said it was disgusting and that naturally women shouldn't be directors." Other responses have been more hopeful. Sebastian Dungan, a producer of "Transamerica," whose Felicity Huffman is nominated for an Academy Award for playing a transsexual, said: "The statistics are an undeniable sign of discrimination. I certainly want to be part of changing that."

And, in the true enterprising style of a producer, Dungan invites female directors to send him their scripts.

Anything doesnt go women's way and it is a need for proof.......forget that noise........the mere existence of an inequality of women to men is sufficient evidence of a de facto discrimination against women?????!??!??!??!?! and any imbalance toward women (against men) shall be ignored, justified, pooh poohed, and refused to be debated........

I was watching this skateboarding program the other day and they werre interviewing some professional women skateboarders........talking about the history of the evolution of the sport.......and then the inevitable male conspiracy theory juts out its ugly head........the big bad male skateboarders wouldnt let rudolpha play in any of their hoo......we all should fell bad for her, she was forbidden (implied, not stated) from joining in the boys game........

if that werent the consparacy theory from hell, i dont know what is........some time ago, not too long ago.......there was no such thing as professional skateboarders..........mostly guys who had lots of creativity and little fear started a new sport from scratch, built up an interest and a following, they suffered often through years of obscurity, lack of recognition, little or no sponsorships, belittling by all the accepted sports and sport enthusiasts, mostly ignored by women, if not ostracized by them, and now the women want to co-opt them, now that that they have made it (found success, found an audience, developed a sport and sponsors and companies to provide the needed gear)......yup, the women who were quick to ignore and belittle the sport of skateboarding are now claiming they werent allowed there in the first place...........

hey ladies..........rather than getting mad at not having been included in somethign totally new, why not try inventing something new yourself.......

few women were on the cutting edge of skateboard development??????WHY


cuz they were excluded? or cuz they excluded themselves.....

women generally excluded themselevs from developing ALL the new EXTREME sports cuz there was no money in it, there was no glory, only pain and irrelevance, only sacrifice ..........

and what happened when interest and money followed the new sports? Now women became interested in knowing why the women were being excluded?

clearly, if women werent there, it must be because they were excluded by men and boys, not because they self selected out of such activities that in the past had seemed like wasted time, but was now a possibly lucrative opportunity.......

women love to say how much men waste time (or how lazy we are), when the reality is most men who may appear lazy at any given time, are really either A) recharging their batteries in anticipation of some big event, test, exam, etc (like moving acorss country-me) B) inventing something new that will benefit society (there was a time when men were valued for inventing things, not merely villified for creating global warming)

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:09 pm
by Akil Todd Harvey
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Well, interestingly, of all men who are divorced, only 15% get custody of the kids? about the same percentage of film directors who are women.......

Where is the conspiracy theory to explain this inequality? Where is the outrage and the clamour to do something about THIS inequality of the sexes?

LOL.............there is none........except a few men (and far fewer women) on the fringes with the guts and the temerity to discuss the problem (it is not even a problem worth discussing for most women so you can go back to whatever you were doing now)........those few men who dare to speak up against the feminist conspiracy are immediately labeled "bitter" and promptly ignored..........or maybe we will declare your need for "Help" as we quickly dismiss likely have "Issues" you havent resolved and trust me, they do not intend for you to discuss your issues with women, anywhere women regularly hang out, or anywhere women might get a wiff of the fact that you are MAD AS HELL AND YOU ARENT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE.........

you can direct the movie, but i dont have to like it.........not that i would object to women directing movies, but that in and of itself is not enough to draw millions to watch the flick in the first place (or if they liked it, in the 2nd place)........if people like a movie, they go to see it and if a movie is really that good and it doesnt win the oscar, then people will get all excited and po'd to the point that they will want to do somethign about it........

i read all this talk about the movie industry and how it is changin from technology, competitors, is so funny to watch them put out a whole slew or remakes, and men hating movies and then poeple cant figure out why no one wants to go see the movies in the first place, much less seeing the movie a second time (gasp)......even the women are probably getting tired of the movie thats whole point is to make us know how dumb men are or how bad men are or how (fill in the blank with your pet peeve about men) and make a movie about it.........

same for tv........duh, you think we wouldnt rather do a thousand things other than watch tv that denigrates men at almost every turn??!?!?!?!?!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

sorry beehatches but we is really tired of the bad men movie and the bad men tv show crap, just a tad too often and a tad too over the top........

i have read so many reviews of tv shows, movies and the industries that support them (one of the hazards of living in socal) and none of them can imagine the reality that we men are tired of watching suppsed entertainment that's only purpose for being is to tell us men that we are doing things wrong and badly.........

men bahaving badly....the men get to behave badly and we all get to laught at them...we all know men are worthy of being laughed at......and when they have women bahaving badly, it is still the men they are laughing at.......

Beauty and the Geek.......this is pretty obvious form the name of the show that the women will rarely be insulted or belittled for things they dont know (women are described as beauty-somethign which is valued), while the men are described as geeks, made fun of unmercifully, and are basicly the targets for female aggression..........

it is not all gloom and doom.............there is some hope in other words...........

i really like the show "Dog whisperer" (this show says a whole heck of a lot about the times in which we live---------the show is about people who let dogs run their lives-imo)

and i really like the show "wife swap" sure they have a tendency to follow the feminist ideology.....but they also show the shortcomings of ideological feminism as applied to real people in real life......when i first heard of the show wife swap, i was realy concerned, but pleasantly shows that we all have something to learn from others-imo

PostPosted: Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:39 pm
by IJ
"Anything doesnt go women's way and it is a need for proof.......forget that noise........the mere existence of an inequality of women to men is sufficient evidence of a de facto discrimination against women?????!??!??!??!?!"

It's soooo tired. We've read this thread before... do you have any new material? Can you, especially, distinguish your outrage about any inequity for men with the women's outrage about the oscars?

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 3:06 am
by Stryke
I`m kind of outraged that people think the oscars and hollywood have anything to do with artisitc merit :lol: :lol:

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 3:27 pm
by Akil Todd Harvey
I was watching the movie, "Searching for Bobby Fischer" last night and saw an unusual statistic...........It said, that only 7% of US Federation of Chess members are women.......And I started thinking......oh my gosh, the chessnuts have done one of the best jobs of keeping women out of their games, tourneys, etc...........The chessnuts have the martial arts nuts beat big time on this misogyny thing and keeping women in the closet thing..........

the mere fact that women represent such a small fraction of chess players must, in and of itself, be de facto PROOF positive that men are scoundrels who work hard to keep women in their place.......Who cares that there is like NO PROOF WHATSOEVER......

Hey Dana????!?!?!??! Where are the lawsuits against the US Chess federation?????!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!?

Why arent the ACLU & NOW sending their lapdog lawyers after the US chess federation???!??!?!??!?!?! Clearly, if women arent being represented in their percentage in the population in the game of chess, then there must be real and imagined barriers keeping women from playing more..........

and i wonder what those barriers might be? are they skull and bones society kind of secret keep women out clubs???!??!?! lol.........or are they direct rules that say no women?????!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?

In the 1890's attempts were made to establish segregated competitions for women. In 1897, The American Chess Magazine had this comment: "Ladies' chess clubs are quite the fashion now and have successfully launched recently both in London and New York." (Earlier women's clubs had existed in great Britain.)

yup, and i bet they expected the same purses even though they werent playing the highest caliber terrible you say.....duh......look at tennis, the women want equal purses for the winner, but they rarely, if ever, play as many games as men, rarely if ever hit the ball as hard as a man and rarely, if ever, could actually beat the best man, and yet they expect equal purses.......(for the winner) equally well against a man and beat him at his game and you can get his paycheck....equal pay for equal work, not equal pay for substandard play......

Chess has long had an image problem: bespectacled men in tweed jackets unable to string a sentence together. Entirely unfair of course. But one part of the stereotype is true; 95 per cent of registered players in Britain are male.

What is the image problem with Chess??????? That men are having fun without women bering around??????? The insults aimed at men who dare to participate in activities that women choose not to is significant.........above the men are described as unable to string a sentence together.............which Ian and Danda probably find amusing (since making fun of straight men is a major pasttime nowadays)..........I cannot imagine how upset Ian and Dana would get if the Chess federation advertises how dumb women are who choose activities that men do not participate in.......... ... u_02.shtml

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 3:50 pm
by Akil Todd Harvey
It's soooo tired. We've read this thread before... do you have any new material? Can you, especially, distinguish your outrage about any inequity for men with the women's outrage about the oscars?

You've read this thread b4????? go one required you to be have nothing to have nothing to subtract, you merely are hear to state that I am out of whack.......

Yes, I have outrage and do you, Ian, but i do not see you going away nor do i expect you to, nor do I expect you to have any empathy for straight if.......

The article posted seemed to sugest that there was some supreme conspiracy to keep women directors from getting a directors job in the first place and to keep women from winning the oscar (assuming that the women are the makers of the best pictures)...........That is a mighty big conspiracy, Ian, mighty big and quite hard to hide..............

and it is not that there have not been conspiracies in the past to keep women down, horrible ones, there have been, for sure, but it is certainly not the case that in every instance of women not equaling men in achievement that men are the conspiratorial agents that prevent women from making ALL acomplishments that men do.........

women will happily tell you that men cannot make babies and will get psised off if anyone tells them that there is even one thing that a man can do that a woman cannot...........Thus, women are afforded tasks and identities that make them unique while we refuse any unique aspect to men's identity.........

I can easily feel compassion and empathy for women who have been disciminated against, but i feel no sympathy for women who have opted out of an activity due to lack of interest with the result being that women are left underrepresented in specific fields of pursuit like science careers, chess tourneys, and apparently directing films..........

Ian & Dana- if the article had come out with PROOF that there had been a hollywood conspiracy to keep women from being directors and they cited the case law that demonstrated that they at least had enough evidence to start a lawsuit, much less win one...........I WOULD be the first one to say that women need to be allowed to be directors........

IF, DANA & IAN, IF AND ONLY IF, there was a LACK of PROOF that women were being deliberately kept out of the profession of directing major films and they still came up with the conspiracy theory (SANS PROOF - THAT IS without the proof), then I say that is just sour grapes.........

you say the women have been denied the chance to direct major films and i say that women dont play chess cuz they dont want to......that doesnt make them bad people, but that certainly doesnt a conspiracy make........

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:00 pm
by Akil Todd Harvey
In the 1890's attempts were made to establish segregated competitions for women.

Why do women so often require segregated competitions if they can be as good as a man at so man things???!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

anyone remember when the first women joined the NBA?????????

Why did she leave? conspiracy or inability?

and why start the WNBA? cuz women couldnt compete at the same level as the men but they still expect to be paid just as much even though the level of interest in the WNBA is nowhere near the level of interest in the faster paced, higher flying men's game.............

if women can do anything a man can do, then let them beat us at our own games in our own leagues...........they can get the same pay if they do the same work...........equal pay for equal work is what I always heard was sought after

let us see the top women tennis players go against the top men's players......I think they should play only best of three sets (we wouldnt want to work the women too hard and make em play as long as men usually do).....and if the best women can beat the best men, then they should get the top dollar.....equal pay for equal work.........

PostPosted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 5:09 pm
by Panther
Now that it has been mentioned to me by a number of different people, I must agree that enough is enough.

It is admirable for anyone to be passionate about their beliefs. In this case, it is starting to sound like a one-song broken record.

There are three types of folks who read a thread.

1. Those who agree with the thread and won't have their minds changed.
2. Those who disagree with the thread and won't have their minds changed.
3. Those who will make their decision based on the two sides of the debate.

At this point, on this topic that has been the crux of a large number of threads, those people who were formerly in the third group have certainly made up their minds and joined one of the first two groups. Therefore, those reading this topic either agree with the premise, don't agree, fall somewhere in between, or simply don't care. Regardless, their minds are, by now, certainly made up.

If anyone is still "trying to make a decision" on this topic, speak up otherwise this thread should be and will be put to rest.

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 8:08 am
by Stryke
4) those that think both sides have valid points , but the real world lives somewhere in the middle and not lala land

8O :? :oops: :lol: 8)

PostPosted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 5:05 pm
by Panther
After going back over this thread, I need to make something very clear based on these comments:

Akil Todd Harvey wrote:Hey Dana????!?!?!??! Where are the lawsuits against the US Chess federation?????!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!?

which Ian and Danda probably find amusing (since making fun of straight men is a major pasttime nowadays)..........I cannot imagine how upset Ian and Dana would get if the Chess federation advertises how dumb women are who choose activities that men do not participate in..........

First, I do not see Dana participating in this thread at all and I am absolutely certain that she has no control or concern over any lawsuit being filed by anyone against the US Chess Federation.

Second, Ian's response in this thread is typical of the comments that I have gotten from quite a number of forum members concerning the repetative nature of the subject matters of a large number of your posts. I have not read anything that indicates that either Ian or Dana make fun of heterosexual men as a pasttime in any way.

Third, Any organization, company or group (including the Chess Federation) would have serious legal consequneces or at the very least face severe ridicule if they were to state that a group of people has less intelligence because that group choses different activities from another group. However, I do feel confident that both Ian and Dana would join me in ridiculing such a person or group. Upset? maybe... maybe not... Ridicule? Definitely!

Finally, I have said a number of times that you were asked to leave before and that I have just been nice in not asking you to stay away now. That previous incidence occured in the Fall of 2003. By repeatedly targetting certain people, regardless of whether they are participating in the thread at all, I feel that you are pushing the limits. Perhaps the word wasn't used in the rules of this forum, but I consider "harassment" of other posters in a perjorative manner as a violation of Rule #4. Tone it down. Such comments certainly do not help your case or your cause.