Ah the "Real Women" wars again (sigh)

[Scarlett]

I would like to see a break down by age. When I listen to high school girls, young college women, and up to mid twenties I find that security is a bigger issue for them than women in their thirties and beyond marrying for the first time. Life experience can play a key role in expectations.

 

Interestingly, marriage has brought less security for me. If I had not married and had children, chosen homeschooling but remained single longer while pursuing my music career, my financial situation, retirement savings, general situation as a whole would be in much better shape than it is now. I know tons of women in this boat.

I married too young to know for sure but I feel certain I could have supported myself just fine. But since made a commitment to marriage I certainly wanted the security of having a husband who would work and support our family. And when I say that I don't mean that I am some high maintenance wife....I work quite a bit now because times are tough....but I know my husband will do whatever it takes to make sure we have what we need. It is part of why I work....to take some pressure off him.

[SKL]

You may not be very feminist but you can thank the women who came before you for your right to vote, your right to own property, your right to have a credit card in your name, your right to higher education, your right to have your rapist brought to justice, your right to have your husband convicted of marital rape (should you be married to such a person). None of these things would have happened without the feminists who suffered beatings, insults, force feedings, the humiliation of going in front of a jury of men, and fought for your right to be equal.

 

And if you're black or of many other marginalized groups, you can thank historical feminism for supporting racism to the point of actual genocide in the USA.

 

Or, maybe we move on and treat today's feminist movement as what it is today.

[Scarlett]

I think this is true, maybe of women especially, but of all people - and they often mistake the need for security with the need for high income.

 

I find this in economics discussions in general - it seems like the people running the economy put too much emphasis on the potential for some people to earn a lot, rather than the idea that most people will have security in terms of their lifestyle. Most people probably don't want to be poor, but they may not mind being, for example, working class so long as they can live with dignity as a family through to their deaths, without undue stress over it.

Exactly. This is what I am trying to get through to my son right now.....don't focus on how much you can make but rather how much you need to live a life of dignity.

[FaithManor]

Something about this conversation is making me think of the movie Mona Lisa Smile!

[kewb]

And if you're black or of many other marginalized groups, you can thank historical feminism for supporting racism to the point of actual genocide in the USA.

 

Or, maybe we move on and treat today's feminist movement as what it is today.

Not going to lie, this is an area I am uneducated in. As someone who can pass for white, even though supremacists would not consider me as white, and spent a fair amount of her youth campaigning for the passage of the era, I will have to start learning.

 

I am curious as to what you believe the feminist movement is today.

[TravelingChris]

I don't have a problem with the billboard.  I interpret it as men who can work should work to provide for their families and the women in their lives appreciate that work.  Doesn't mean the woman might not work too.  Doesn't mean that work is the only thing a man is appreciated for or that whatever work a woman does should not garner appreciation by a man.  But the sociological studies I have read said there is a growing problem with men who don't work and depend on women to support them while they hang around friends, play video games, do drugs or whatever it is that they do instead of getting a job.  

 

In terms of looking for women looking for a man who can provide- when dh and I got married, we both thought the other would be a good provider.  As it turned out, due to family and health issues, I ended up raising our children as my only job shortly after giving birth to my second child.  But for me, yes, the intelligence, hard work ethic, striving to do better, were part of the attraction to my husband and all those factors equal into having a good salary.  Just like I would have ended up with a good salary if my health was better and my husband wasn't in the military where we moved around all the time.  

 

I see my daughters judging men for good work ethics and wise money handling too.  My youngest was telling me about a guy in her college that was interested in her but she wouldn't date him because he smoked marijuana.  Her issues weren't just the illegality of it but that she thought it showed what he valued and since she thought that going to a concert, restaurant, buying a game, visiting a museum, etc, etc, were all better choices to make for spending both money and time, she wasn't interested.

[Garga]

Do women really consider earning potential a factor when they choose their husbands?

I don't think my DH's earning potential ever crossed my mind when I chose to marry him.

 

Yes, they do consider it a factor.  But not always like Faith's story below.

 

 

It did to my sister in law and men making less than $150,000 per year did not get another date once she figured that out. She actively seduced a married man - so I have this brother in law as well as a sister in law I have no respect for - because he was making a quarter million in salary per year. Had the affair, made sure the wife found out about it, married the day after the divorce was final, and lived high off the hog for five years due to his many investments. (Her "allowance" for just spending on whatever she wanted...not household budget...was $6000 a month.) Then karma acting in its ever so predictable pattern bit her right in the hind end. He got caught sexually harassing several women in his division and was fired for cause. Could not get another job in his field for two years and then when he found one, took a fifty percent pay cut! They lost their Palm Beach house, and ended up in a modest rental while she went back into the work force. His investments tanked at the same time - I think that he had some of it in risky portfolios - so since he had given up half to the ex, his retirement suddenly didn't look quite so fun.

 

My other sister in law openly said after she married my brother that it was for his earning potential because she was tired of being low income. He is in a rut career wise and has said to many that she would never have married him if she had known that 16 years later he would not be making low to mid six figures.

 

So yeah...some shrews do marry with the dollar signs in mind. That said, it isn't like marrying for money, dowry, land, prestige, political position, and treaty is a new thing. Women have been sold for such male desires for thousands of years so it probably should not be surprising that a few women have jumped on the bandwagon of marriage for money.

 

A friend of mine was considering marrying a man, but he worked at an entry level job somewhere (fast food or somewhere like that--I don't remember exactly.).  She told him that she didn't want to struggle her whole life with him.  She was willing to work and earn money (she's never not worked full-time), but she also needed to know he could pull some weight, too.  He got a job delivering packages at UPS and they got married after that.  He made a low, but steady and decent salary and slowly got raises.  It was important to her that he could pull his own weight and provide for them, as much as she would provide.  

 

It doesn't have to be as dramatic as looking for a millionaire.  It can be as simple as wanting a partner who helps you have a life life, vs struggling on a McDonald's salary.

 

 

 

Ambition and a strong work ethic are attractive qualities in a man. It doesn't necessarily have to be about earning a high salary, but I would not want a lazy mooch in my life.

 

During the Great Recession when my DH was between permanent positions he turned a short story he had written into a full-length novel that is now under consideration at a major publisher. He may or may not ever sell it, but that shows the ambition and work ethic that attracted me to him decades ago.

 

Yes, I think more than the exact salary, women don't want a guy that will be a weight around their neck.

 

 

I would like to see a break down by age. When I listen to high school girls, young college women, and up to mid twenties I find that security is a bigger issue for them than women in their thirties and beyond marrying for the first time. Life experience can play a key role in expectations.

 

Interestingly, marriage has brought less security for me. If I had not married and had children, chosen homeschooling but remained single longer while pursuing my music career, my financial situation, retirement savings, general situation as a whole would be in much better shape than it is now. I know tons of women in this boat.

 

 

This is sooooo me.  If I had to get a job now, I have no clue what I'd do.  I feel very insecure.  I mean, on the one hand, my dh provides and that's great, but if anything at all happens to change that, I will literally be working a couple of jobs at fast food places while I try to go to college sometime between my fast food jobs so get ahead.  I am very insecure in my ability to provide for myself.  It was stupid to get in this position and I know it, but I can't get in a time machine and change it right now.  I wish I'd made different decisions and didn't have to rely on someone else.  I feel uneasy and feel less secure being cared for financially by someone else than if I took care of myself.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Garga

[LucyStoner]

Eh, call me a traditionalist, but calling men to the carpet to step up and take fiscal and emotional responsibility for the women and children they're involved with? Good. I take the real woman part of it to be tongue in cheek.

 

But I'm not very feminist or PC, so I'm probably missing why this is outrageous. I can't say I've actually met a single female who doesn't want her partner or spouse to be a provider, regardless of whether *she* pulls a paycheck herself or not.

 

 

Flame away.

 

(ETA: I own all the typos. Ugh!)

I think the message of the sign is problematic for men who are either caregivers (instead of breadwinners) or who aren't able to provide. Should my husband become disabled and no longer able to bring home a paycheck filling prescriptions or setting up the IT systems that pharmacies use, does that mean he's not a "real" man?

 

If I provide, does that mean I don't appreciate my husband?

 

Real families allocate their roles and responsibilities in many different ways. All should be acceptable and respected.

 

I don't think that the message of the sign is horribly offensive but I don't respect it either- life is much more diverse than man provides, woman appreciates.

 

ETA- I have LITERALLY had people challenge my husband's masculinity because he's a hands on caregiver who took FMLA time and who, once for a year, we relied entirely on my income while he was in school and taking care of our son. Right now, we rely basically on his income and I am home taking care of my sons and no one seems to think that makes me less of a woman. Oh wait, I actually did have a woman tell me that getting my CPA and planning to work more when the boys were older meant I "must not be committed to my marriage". As though total economic dependence is a sign of a strong committed marriage. 🙄 So while I don't apologize for my feminism, I don't think one needs to be a feminist to see the ways that this sign has demeaning or just overly broad statements. It's as derisive to men as it is to women. The fact that they won't say *who they are* shows they actually do mean it in a somewhat demeaning way. Otherwise, own your words. It's ironically rather unmanly... and unwomanly not to.

Edited February 24, 2017 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

The reference to Hidden Figures is my own - since that movie talks about the real life of three very important women in fairly recent history and shows some of what they had to go through to get accepted by many men as equals.

 

Rotten Tomatoes lists the fans approval of the movie at 92%. Having seen the movie three times at the theater now (with my mom and two of my boys respectively), I've yet to figure out the other 8%... ;)

I've seen people (and I will be clear: white male people) claim it's "libtard globalist anti-white propaganda garbage". <<<<<<<<See, this is why we can't have nice things. There is unmitigated stupid in the world.

[SKL]

As a single mom of girls, I wonder how my daughters will "evaluate prospective husbands" when that time comes.  Their experience does not lead them to expect a man to be a financial provider (or a financial drag either).

 

Personally, before I devoted my life to being a mom, I was attracted to men who had a reasonably modest ambition level.  I remember being very turned off by men who whined that someone else wasn't doing enough for them.  The men I dated weren't always employed, but they always had a goal and worked toward it employment-wise.  Though, the last guy was "after my money" (which is why that one didn't work out).

 

The first guy with whom I dated and discussed marriage for 6 years was unable to give me unconditional acceptance.  He really struggled with how he thought I should try to be.  It may or may not have been related to the fact that he was struggling himself in a fledgling business (along with other baggage).  That tends to stress people out and bring out their worst side.  In his case, he was not the emotional provider he needed to be, and he knew it.  I would have married him unemployed if he could be less of a butt.  :P

[Julie Smith]

When I was a kid. The neighbours had the dad doing all the household things. And he did them very well. Sometimes his wife would get mad at him for not bringing in his fair share of the income. (She thought it was fair if they each brought in 50% of the income). But he had to move to the area for her job. So had no connections in the area. He also had to Get the two kids up, feed, and to school, pick them up from school, and do the almost all the household chores. He was also the one who would take off work for all kid sports related illness, appointments, ... I remember liking the dad. He was really nice. I remember her as the fancy dressed up woman who wasn't around much.

 

By some standards he didn't provide much, money wise. But he was the glue that held that family together.

 

 

As for the 8% that didn't like hidden figures. My Dh would be in that number. He wouldn't watch any tv shows or movies that have racism, sexism, ... as a major plot point. I know if he was to watch it he would have walked out at the first scene of the police officer questioning the women. Dh says, "I know that is how it was, but I don't like watching that sort of thing."

[Greta]

The group that bought the space doesn't want to be identified?  Oh come on, I'd like to know.

 

I found it rather amusing that they wanted to send this message to the world . . . but they didn't want to sign their name to it!

 

 

 

Real families allocate their roles and responsibilities in many different ways. All should be acceptable and respected.

 

I don't think that the message of the sign is horribly offensive but I don't respect it either- life is much more diverse than man provides, woman appreciates.

 

 

 

 

:iagree:   Nicely said!

[Guest]

Not sure how others feel but I am not talking about a high salary. I am talking about a man who will work to provide for his family.

And a man who is staying at home by the agreement of his wife is absolutely providing, it just isn't monetary. He is present and active in the partnership. I don't think the billboard was discounting that. But scrubs need not apply.

[SKL]

Wouldn't it be funny if a woman / women's interest group posted that billboard?

[creekland]

There were some pretty good representations of men with progressive attitudes, too. I have decided I need to read the book. Was John Glenn really like that?

 

When I looked up the "truth" behind the movie, his words were real (needed that girl to check the numbers before he was willing to fly - didn't trust the machine), but he also didn't think women should be astronauts, so there was a limit.

 

sure. But I'd save my energies protesting something else. It's not as if there aren't plenty of issues.

 

Well, protesting and starting a thread are two different things.  Had we driven past the billboard I'd have just yawned and wondered why folks felt the need to insist their way is the only "real" way - just as I always do with mommy and gender war types of things.  It only gets to me when those types put obstacles in women's way (or men's).  I'm afraid that still happens and it bugs me that some are so blatantly supporting it now (via the billboard - not this thread).

 

I've seen people (and I will be clear: white male people) claim it's "libtard globalist anti-white propaganda garbage". <<<<<<<<See, this is why we can't have nice things. There is unmitigated stupid in the world.

 

No doubt here!

[Guest]

Wouldn't it be funny if a woman / women's interest group posted that billboard?

That's what I was thinking. It could be a group of women who are sick of men shirking their duties and leaving them stuck with the child raising and the associated costs.

[creekland]

Wouldn't it be funny if a woman / women's interest group posted that billboard?

 

If true, I bet they wouldn't be hiding their identity.  My suspicions lie with a very conservative church of some sort.

Edited February 24, 2017 by creekland

[Guest]

If true, I bet they wouldn't be hiding their identity. My suspicions lie with a very conservative church of some sort.

I have to say I've never heard that sentiment outside of the crisis pregnancy centers and child support office here in town. That's where the real men provide sentiment is strongly associated locally. Who knows though?

[Guest]

Whatever my thoughts on what men and women in marriages with families OUGHT to do, which ftr is everybody do whatever needs to be done  (I feel like this isn't as complicated as people make it out to be?) ...

 

I don't see why anyone but a bunch of jerks would rent a billboard to say that. And jerks would do it, obviously, because jerks gotta jerk and they need people to know they disapprove of them.

 

Look, I disapprove of deadbeat dads, too. Who doesn't? But to rent a billboard to say it? ---- jerk move!

[Crimson Wife]

Yes, but I should clarify what that factor means to me. It means someone with a good work ethic. When there is a good work ethic earnings tend to be steady and reliable. So yes, I looked at earning potential as a factor. I didn't want to marry a lazy, good for nothing, moocher.

 

The bolded is going to be industry-dependent. There are industries that are feast-or-famine, where good work ethic and performance does not translate into reliable income or job security. Anything that is tied to the stock market is going to be pretty unstable. When times are good, better put away that money for the next rough patch.

[SKL]

Whatever my thoughts on what men and women in marriages with families OUGHT to do, which ftr is everybody do whatever needs to be done  (I feel like this isn't as complicated as people make it out to be?) ...

 

 

Well first of all, I wouldn't assume this was to men "in marriages."

[Ravin]

Nice sentiment, but I highly doubt that this is in any way effective. I don't think deadbeat dads are unaware that they're doing a shitty thing.

 

Given that the majority of "deadbeat" dads are men who do not have the resources they have been ordered to provide...not out of spite, but because they are poor...I doubt it's the least effective. The small percentage who don't pay out of spite aren't going to change their minds because of a snarky bulletin board.

[regentrude]

 

 

Well, protesting and starting a thread are two different things. 

Oh, I did not mean your thread! I read the article you linked, and it talked about a protest march against the billboard. THAT was what I was referring to!

[SKL]

I also wouldn't assume this was about what "deadbeat dads" usually implies, i.e., people failing to pay court-ordered child support.

 

Many low-income non-custodial parents don't have to pay any child support by law, because it is pegged to their income.  Thus they are not "that kind of" deadbeat dad.  But they should still provide for their kids in whatever ways they reasonably can.  Quality time, emotional support, role model, what material items they can afford, and, if there is any relationship with the mom, then some physical help around the house.

[kewb]

The bolded is going to be industry-dependent. There are industries that are feast-or-famine, where good work ethic and performance does not translate into reliable income or job security. Anything that is tied to the stock market is going to be pretty unstable. When times are good, better put away that money for the next rough patch.

Putting away during good times is common sense. Any industry can be feast or famine. My dh was a consultant for a number of years. That was feast or famine. He was unemployed for pretty much the first year of dd's life due to the internet bubble bursting. Now he is disabled. Permanent famine. But his work ethic helped us get through the lean times. Proper money management is a tool for everyone.

[TravelingChris]

About the 8%, I don't think anything about that.  I don't think I have ever seen a movie that had 100% likes.  I haven't seen the movie and not because I have a problem with it since I will watch it probably sometime on Netflix or Prime, but somebody could have been dragged to the movie and doesn't like it because it isn't a shoot em drag em movie.  Somebody may have thought the movie would be more like some other science movie or sci fi movie they liked and it wasn't.  As someone above said, some people don't want to watch movies about bad times past.  Some people may not like it because they are prejudiced but then I doubt they go to the movie.  Some people like to make trouble.  Lots of reasons for the 8% but it isn't unusual at all.

[Julie Smith]

I don't think I have ever seen a movie that had 100% likes. 

 

For awhile the cartoon tv series, "One Punch Man" had 100% likes and was the highest rated show on IMDB.

[SKL]

I have been reluctant to go to the movie because I would rather my kids be a little older first.  I am glad the movie was made and all that, but I don't ever go to movies without my kids.  :)

[FaithManor]

I think the message of the sign is problematic for men who are either caregivers (instead of breadwinners) or who aren't able to provide. Should my husband become disabled and no longer able to bring home a paycheck filling prescriptions or setting up the IT systems that pharmacies use, does that mean he's not a "real" man?

 

If I provide, does that mean I don't appreciate my husband?

 

Real families allocate their roles and responsibilities in many different ways. All should be acceptable and respected.

 

I don't think that the message of the sign is horribly offensive but I don't respect it either- life is much more diverse than man provides, woman appreciates.

 

ETA- I have LITERALLY had people challenge my husband's masculinity because he's a hands on caregiver who took FMLA time and who, once for a year, we relied entirely on my income while he was in school and taking care of our son. Right now, we rely basically on his income and I am home taking care of my sons and no one seems to think that makes me less of a woman. Oh wait, I actually did have a woman tell me that getting my CPA and planning to work more when the boys were older meant I "must not be committed to my marriage". As though total economic dependence is a sign of a strong committed marriage. 🙄 So while I don't apologize for my feminism, I don't think one needs to be a feminist to see the ways that this sign has demeaning or just overly broad statements. It's as derisive to men as it is to women. The fact that they won't say *who they are* shows they actually do mean it in a somewhat demeaning way. Otherwise, own your words. It's ironically rather unmanly... and unwomanly not to.

I agree. It was derisive, dismissive, and ignorant no matter what. Hiding behind anonymity indicates it was absolutely meant to be demeaning and the sponsor knows it.

[LucyStoner]

That's what I was thinking. It could be a group of women who are sick of men shirking their duties and leaving them stuck with the child raising and the associated costs.

Posted by men or women or both its demeaning attitudes to men and women stand. Patriarchy and sexism isn't perpetuated by men alone. Women bring plenty of gender bias to the table.

Edited February 24, 2017 by LucyStoner

[Meriwether]

Dh didn't propose until after he got a job after college. It was important to him that he would be able to provide for our family. I wouldn't have been interested in a man who wasn't willing to be the provider. Life doesn't always work out neatly, though, and that's okay. I worked until we had kids and will probably go back to work after the kids are grown. Not professionally, though. I'll have been a SAHM for almost 30 years. If something happened to Dh, I wouldn't have a problem (emotionally) providing for our family. Practically would be a different matter. I don't think I'd make a third of what Dh makes.

[SKL]

The song "Fast Car" comes to mind ....

[Katy]

I've rarely found men who are sexist pigs who are ashamed of the fact.  As a result, I think there's an at least 40% chance this billboard was put up by someone else entirely: possibly a women's religious group, possibly a feminist group.

[wonderchica]

I have to say I've never heard that sentiment outside of the crisis pregnancy centers and child support office here in town. That's where the real men provide sentiment is strongly associated locally. Who knows though?

Odd. Do you spend a lot of time at your local crisis pregnancy center and child support office? When I hear that sentiment, it's at church or by church folks.

[poppy]

And if you're black or of many other marginalized groups, you can thank historical feminism for supporting racism to the point of actual genocide in the USA.

 

Or, maybe we move on and treat today's feminist movement as what it is today.

 

"Historical feminism"  .... I"m scratching my head.Are you talking about the progressive movement? Cause, that's not "historical feminism", it is Christianity.

 

As for the billboard:  Gender-shaming into "proper" roles is never, ever, in any sense, ever a good idea.

[Guest]

I wouldn't protest it, but I've crossed NC off my list of places I'd consider moving to. LOL

Eh. I did this a while ago over Bathroomgate.

[TravelingChris]

I like North Carolina.  It is a pretty state but my dh's job is very unlikely to ever move us there.  Go there sometime on vacation again- yes since I want to do the Blue Ridge Parkway again all the way through.

[marbel]

I wouldn't protest it, but I've crossed NC off my list of places I'd consider moving to.  LOL

 

What the heck?  You think there aren't people who think that way* in every state?  What does the state have to do with it?  Should the state government control what people put on privately-owned billboards?  

 

*Whatever way the people who put up the message are thinking, since none of us really knows.

Edited February 24, 2017 by marbel

[Bluegoat]

"Historical feminism"  .... I"m scratching my head.Are you talking about the progressive movement? Cause, that's not "historical feminism", it is Christianity.

 

As for the billboard:  Gender-shaming into "proper" roles is never, ever, in any sense, ever a good idea.

 

My guess is that she means the relation to eugenics - hygienic feminism, I think it's called.

 

ETA:, no, I'm wrong, I was thinking of "mental hygiene", but it is around early feminism and the eugenics movement.

Edited February 24, 2017 by Bluegoat

[SKL]

My guess is that she means the relation to eugenics - hygienic feminism, I think it's called.

 

ETA:, no, I'm wrong, I was thinking of "mental hygiene", but it is around early feminism and the eugenics movement.

 

Yes, eugenics and the fact that eliminating black people and other "undesirables" was a main original goal of the pro-abortion movement.  That was their policy - to minimize those populations - and I'm sure abortion wasn't the only method they supported either.

[poppy]

Yes, eugenics and the fact that eliminating black people and other "undesirables" was a main original goal of the pro-abortion movement. That was their policy - to minimize those populations - and I'm sure abortion wasn't the only method they supported either.

Oh. Yeah, that sounds terrible. And it sounds as relevant to feminism as Mengele is to medicine .

[SKL]

Oh. Yeah, that sounds terrible. And it sounds as relevant to feminism as Mengele is to medicine .

 

Perhaps you should go back to the original reason for my post on that matter.  Another poster was being criticized for not bowing to modern feminism because long past feminist activism may have improved the lives of women today.  Long past feminist activism got some things right and some things wrong.  If we're going to insist on "honoring" it then let's acknowledge all of it.

 

And no I do not agree with your comparison.  Mengele's methods aren't something doctors strive to defend and expand today, unlike abortion and today's feminists.

Edited February 25, 2017 by SKL

[Bluegoat]

Oh. Yeah, that sounds terrible. And it sounds as relevant to feminism as Mengele is to medicine .

 

it was connected to the suffrage movement. 

 

The post said that women who didn't care to call themselves feminists should keep in mind they owe suffrage and various related right to the historic feminist movement.  The suggestion seemed to be that to enjoy those rights without acknowledging the importance/truth of the movement they came out of is not quite right.

 

But, I think maybe we can appreciate particulars of a set of ideas without identifying with the thing as a whole if aspects of it do not seem correct to us.

[creekland]

Oh, I did not mean your thread! I read the article you linked, and it talked about a protest march against the billboard. THAT was what I was referring to!

 

Oh, gotcha - and right there with you.  Protesting this billboard in person is a waste of time IMO.

 

I have been reluctant to go to the movie because I would rather my kids be a little older first.  I am glad the movie was made and all that, but I don't ever go to movies without my kids.  :)

 

Well, I suspect folks who don't go to the movie also don't go on Rotten Tomatoes and rate it.  ;)  Maybe they do though.  Maybe there is a troll percentage there.  It's not unthinkable.  I've yet to meet anyone who has seen the movie who didn't enjoy it.  It's been interesting listening to folks after the movie ends too - making their comments as they leave, etc.

[Janeway]

My apologies if this has already been posted, but I just saw it this morning:

 

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article134440999.html

 

It's a billboard in NC that claims:

 

"Real men provide

Real women appreciate it"

 

I suspect it was raised by "men." :lol: I've always wondered who the 8% are who didn't like Hidden Figures (movie). I suspect they're in the group who feels it was so important to announce their definition of "real women." :glare:

 

As an added note of my own, I think all of us are real men and women - no matter what our preferences are for working at a paid job or not.

 

I wish more people - that last 8% - could figure that out.

 

And if anyone has yet to see Hidden Figures... it's VERY worth watching... and makes a terrific "content" homeschooling movie if you need an excuse.

There is nothing about that that makes me think a man must have done it.

[creekland]

So... if this is about deadbeat dads... why didn't the creators have the second line say, "Real kids appreciate it?"  That would more easily get that idea across IMO.

 

 

[creekland]

There is nothing about that that makes me think a man must have done it.

 

The folks who posted it are certainly able to clarify if they wanted to.  It seems they don't want to - again - making me think the way most folks read it is the way it's meant.

 

And yes, there are people of both genders who feel the man should be the provider and the woman in the kitchen.

 

I have no issues with anyone choosing to live that way.  I have massive issues with those who deem that those who choose that way of life are the only "real" men/women.  Real men can choose to stay home.  Real women can be the providers.  Real parents can both work and provide.  It's up to the couple to decide what their preference is.  All are valid, real choices.

[Garga]

Oh, gotcha - and right there with you.  Protesting this billboard in person is a waste of time IMO.

 

 

Well, I suspect folks who don't go to the movie also don't go on Rotten Tomatoes and rate it.   ;)  Maybe they do though.  Maybe there is a troll percentage there.  It's not unthinkable.  I've yet to meet anyone who has seen the movie who didn't enjoy it.  It's been interesting listening to folks after the movie ends too - making their comments as they leave, etc.

 

 

You can read all the reviews on the Rotten Tomatoes website.

 

The professional reviewers gave it a 92%.  (critic reviews here)

 

 Audience members (regular people like us) gave it a 94%. (Audience reviews here)

 

I've found that the professional reviews and the audience reviews can be very, very different.  Professional reviewers often look at the artistry of a film, while sometimes the audience doesn't care.  

 

For example, the recent movie "The Space Between Us" got a 17% review by the professionals, but 64% by regular people.  A lot of regular people wrote things like, "Reviewers hated this movie, but reviewers aren't teenaged girls.  My daughters loved this movie."

 

So, some of the negative reviews were about the actual filmmaking or storytelling and had nothing to do with the message of the film.  I read a bunch of the negative reviews from professionals.  I also read some of them from regular people.  

 

A lot of the people who gave it 3 stars said it was a good movie, but overly sappy and too obvious--no subtlety.  And honestly, that's exactly what I thought about it.  I enjoyed the movie because I'm not picky (I liked "The Space Between Us"), but I was thinking, "This is soooo predictable and has very little depth, but it's fun to be out watching a feel-good movie and eating popcorn."

 

I think the reviewers were a little more generous than they needed to be.  So I don't think the 8% who didn't like it had anything to do with sexism/racism.  And when I read the reviews, they felt it was too sappy/soapboxy and knocked off points for that.

 

 

 

And that sign makes me immediately feel angry.  If the spin is supposed to be shaming lazy dads/husbands, then maybe that makes it a little better, but to me is smacks of trying to fit everyone into gender roles where Man is Provider and Woman Submits in adoration-filled gratitude.  I hope it wasn't meant that way and that it was letting lazy men know they'd get more dates if they'd step it up.  Which is also icky to me.  That men will only do something if you dangle a woman as a carrot in front of him.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Garga

[creekland]

 "This is soooo predictable 

 

I had read some negative reviews mentioning this and wondered if they thought perhaps the writers should have revised history instead - making John Glenn not return home or something?  Or have some of the families break up rather than stay together?  Maybe toss in a Russian bomb or two dropped on us from Sputnik? 

 

Personally, I like it when movies about history get the history part correct (acknowledging that they did have to make significant changes to make this movie fit a couple year period when the whole thing took longer, etc).

 

When I want unpredictable, I don't choose historical films.  I choose fiction.  

 

Few people I've met who have seen the movie had any idea those three ladies existed prior to watching it (or at least Timeless on TV).  Even fewer knew that "back in the day" math was a "woman's job" (from WWII on anyway) or that humans were the original computers with our machines getting the name they have by replacing people.  There's a fair bit that's "new" in the movie for most viewers - if they look at the whole thing.

[Garga]

I had read some negative reviews mentioning this and wondered if they thought perhaps the writers should have revised history instead - making John Glenn not return home or something?  Or have some of the families break up rather than stay together?  Maybe toss in a Russian bomb or two dropped on us from Sputnik? 

 

Personally, I like it when movies about history get the history part correct (acknowledging that they did have to make significant changes to make this movie fit a couple year period when the whole thing took longer, etc).

 

When I want unpredictable, I don't choose historical films.  I choose fiction.  

 

Few people I've met who have seen the movie had any idea those three ladies existed prior to watching it (or at least Timeless on TV).  Even fewer knew that "back in the day" math was a "woman's job" (from WWII on anyway) or that humans were the original computers with our machines getting the name they have by replacing people.  There's a fair bit that's "new" in the movie for most viewers - if they look at the whole thing.

 

 

These are good points. I certainly didn't know those all those things before entering the theater.

 

When they say it's predictable or sappy, what I think they mean is that the storytelling devices were predictable. The movie was formulaic in how it allowed the story to unfold.  Now, granted, the formula is there because it works, so that's ok and most people were fine with it.  But the negative reviewers seemed to be tired of the formula.  

Even if I didn't know the details of the story, I could have figured it out:

 

Start off showing the unfairness of being a black woman in the 50s.

Show how the women being treated badly were actually the smartest people in the room...but no one knows it.

Show how people ever-so-slowly realized the women were smart, but didn't want to admit it.

Show the women getting angry and confronting someone.

Have a climax where the smart women save the day.

Have everyone around them finally acknowledge their brilliance and give them their due.

 

You know what's going to happen before you even set foot in the theater.  But that's ok.  It was a great movie.  I loved it.  But some of the people reviewing seemed tired of the formula.  And of course the formula won't change anytime soon.  It works to tell a good story.  It's just not edgy or new, so some people will point that out in their reviews.

 

I can give you the formula for a monster movie, an action movie, a disaster movie, a romance.  They follow the same pattern each time.  You don't never need to know anything about the movie to know what'll happen.  :)  And when you watch a movie that doesn't follow the formula, it's so much fun.  But they're rare and sometimes everyone hates them so they're risky film-making. ;)