Ah the "Real Women" wars again (sigh)

[creekland]

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. ;)

 

If it were fiction, I'd agree with you regarding the formula, but it's not really following a formula when what is being shown is what actually happened.  ;)

 

Plus, there were people who knew about their capabilities - those were shown in the movie too starting with the teachers taking a collection to support Katherine and her family going away to school, but continuing on to folks within NASA or even the judge.  Part of what is good about this "real" movie is it shows that there are folks helping along the way - it's not all bootstrapping by themselves.  These ladies did a ton themselves, but they had help to reach their potential or it never would have happened (as is true of anyone making it in life in reality).  This movie teaches folks to not look at stereotypes.  There is a ton more in it than formula.  Grit, lucky genes, and help/support all combine.

 

A made up fiction?  Formula and sappy - a movie I probably would never have watched TBH.  A real life story?  It shows what did and can happen IRL - quite inspiring (from family life on) along with the informative parts.  There were some changes, of course.  It wouldn't have fit into a 2 hour movie without some changes being made, but the real Katherine Johnson supposedly got to watch it and approved - meaning I suspect it's close enough.

[Bluegoat]

Being formulaic doesn't really mean it isn't, more or less, what happened.

 

It means the way it is presented is predictable, the way the characters are presented is predictable, the images and interactions.  One of the reviewers mentions, for example, the segregated toilets, which apparently were not there at that time at all, and the Kevin Costner character never got angry and bashed down the sign.  It's a made-up incident.  But segregated facilities bathrooms is a pretty well used trope in movies about intrepid African American women breaking barriers in the mid 20th century.  Audiences are familiar with it, it has a strong visceral effect because it feels so wrong and even bizarre. 

 

There are a lot of the feel-good true story films around, where disadvantaged people overcome great odds, and they pretty much all get shoe-horned into similar formulas. 

[creekland]

Being formulaic doesn't really mean it isn't, more or less, what happened.

 

It means the way it is presented is predictable, the way the characters are presented is predictable, the images and interactions.  One of the reviewers mentions, for example, the segregated toilets, which apparently were not there at that time at all, and the Kevin Costner character never got angry and bashed down the sign.  It's a made-up incident.  But segregated facilities bathrooms is a pretty well used trope in movies about intrepid African American women breaking barriers in the mid 20th century.  Audiences are familiar with it, it has a strong visceral effect because it feels so wrong and even bizarre. 

 

There are a lot of the feel-good true story films around, where disadvantaged people overcome great odds, and they pretty much all get shoe-horned into similar formulas. 

 

Yes, there are made up incidents to quickly portray (in general) what is going on and the bathroom (type) of scene was actually more closely experienced by Mary Jackson rather than Katherine Johnson, but there were colored bathrooms at the time.  Katherine just refused to use them.  The janitor scene is made up too.

 

The biggest difference the movie makes from reality is putting all three stories together compressed into the early 60s when in reality it stretches out far longer (back to the 40s) and involves quite a bit more going on.

 

For anyone curious... here's a good website:

 

http://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/hidden-figures/

 

(And yes, my family always looks up the truth about historical movies to see how far they stray - most stray quite a bit farther to make their story.)

 

Quite the rabbit trail from the billboard though.   :lol:

[Bluegoat]

My point wasn't so much that aspects were made up.  More that it very closely follows the feel-good true story formula, in terms f presentation of the story, people, nd also the film-making itself.  It didn't have to, necessarily.  It is probably pretty good material for that kind of movie, but it probably isn't ever going to be the very best in filmmaking - it tends to be just a bit too one-dimensional.

 

 

[SKL]

I agree - I doubt that I will "love" that movie because I pretty much already know how it's going to go.  But, I plan to see it when my kids are ready because they will probably learn something new to them.

 

I am a very picky movie consumer though.  It took a lot for my friends to convince me to go to the movies, and then to leave without bitching about how stupid they all were.  :P  I have to force myself into a "stupid" mindset so I am not unbearable at the theater.

 

I would welcome a surprise here and there, but I'm not holding my breath ....

[creekland]

My point wasn't so much that aspects were made up.  More that it very closely follows the feel-good true story formula, in terms f presentation of the story, people, nd also the film-making itself.  It didn't have to, necessarily.  It is probably pretty good material for that kind of movie, but it probably isn't ever going to be the very best in filmmaking - it tends to be just a bit too one-dimensional.

 

If folks want actual history as truthful as possible, they ought to be watching a documentary, not an historical drama.  There are documentaries out there.  I think that site I linked in my last post had links to some.  I know one critic (person, not professional) I read said the movie was bad because it didn't show all the actual smoking that went on in those days - replacing a little bit by gum.  If that's what makes a "bad" movie to them... I suspect I don't need to follow any of their reviews!  Some things happened that just don't add a thing to the movie and don't need to be shown (nor do the actors need to be exposed to all that smoke!).

 

Then too, a movie doesn't have to be "the best in filmmaking" for me to give it 5 stars.  It just has to be a really good movie for its genre.

 

I get that there are 6 viewers out of 100 who see it (assuming no trolls) who don't care for the movie.  I just suspect many of those would be in favor of the billboard in the OP.  I agree that's an opinion, but it's one that makes total sense to me knowing some who would agree with the billboard.  You're welcome to disagree.

 

 

I loved Hidden Figures because it was uplifting and it made me want to come home and do math :)

 

Sure, I could pick a million holes in it...as a work of art, it's lacking, and it's been made palatable to a white audience to some extent...but I still came out of it feeling positive, and motivated, and in awe of those women.

 

Ditto.  It's a movie on my "must have to show at school when needing to fill time" list - though I think school might use it during some other movie times (special events going on).  There is so much good shown in that movie in ways students can relate to - math, equality, positive family life, working together to get something done, etc.

[FaithManor]

Some of our rocketeers were able to go with us to see Hidden Figures. It had a positive impact for them. They needed to "see" the segregation, discrimination, and inhumane treatment because in this not particularly diverse rural, isolated area, their only "knowledge" is from books and Black History Month lesson plans. That is nothing in the grand scheme of things. A movie is not some great find, but it is something at least. They were very moved, very horrified. There is little I can do as a 4H leader, but this was at least an opportunity.

 

For more on the subject of "computers", Rocket Girls -about the JPL female computing department - is a great read!

[poppy]

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.

 

Ah.  I should have compared that movement to American history as a whole, which is also well known "for supporting racism to the point of actual genocide in the USA." , using values we most certainly strive to defend and expand today.

[Bluegoat]

If folks want actual history as truthful as possible, they ought to be watching a documentary, not an historical drama.  There are documentaries out there.  I think that site I linked in my last post had links to some.  I know one critic (person, not professional) I read said the movie was bad because it didn't show all the actual smoking that went on in those days - replacing a little bit by gum.  If that's what makes a "bad" movie to them... I suspect I don't need to follow any of their reviews!  Some things happened that just don't add a thing to the movie and don't need to be shown (nor do the actors need to be exposed to all that smoke!).

 

Then too, a movie doesn't have to be "the best in filmmaking" for me to give it 5 stars.  It just has to be a really good movie for its genre.

 

I get that there are 6 viewers out of 100 who see it (assuming no trolls) who don't care for the movie.  I just suspect many of those would be in favor of the billboard in the OP.  I agree that's an opinion, but it's one that makes total sense to me knowing some who would agree with the billboard.  You're welcome to disagree.

 

 

 

Ditto.  It's a movie on my "must have to show at school when needing to fill time" list - though I think school might use it during some other movie times (special events going on).  There is so much good shown in that movie in ways students can relate to - math, equality, positive family life, working together to get something done, etc.

 

I don't know if I'd call it historical drama.

 

I kind of think the point of a star rating system is that the very best films are the ones that get 5 stars.  They go a little deeper, they make you think new thoughts or see something in a different way.  Or they do something particularly perfect artistically.

 

Lots of movies are fun to watch, without being at that level, just like some songs are fun to dance to without being at the 5 star level.

 

I generally don't like the films that are like that in that genre, though - nor formulaic action movies or romantic comedies.  I get bored, rather than up-lifted.  If I want somewhat mindle-of-the-road movies or tv I tend to watch cozy mysteries or costume dramas.

 

I just think it's a little odd that you would think that someone who didn't like it, or give it 5 stars, was somehow against the content or being unreasonable or strange.  To me, it would be like giving 5 stars to a Meg Ryan, middle of the road romantic comedy.  Very watchable, if that is what you enjoy, but not 5 stars.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Bluegoat

[Bluegoat]

I agree - I doubt that I will "love" that movie because I pretty much already know how it's going to go.  But, I plan to see it when my kids are ready because they will probably learn something new to them.

 

I am a very picky movie consumer though.  It took a lot for my friends to convince me to go to the movies, and then to leave without bitching about how stupid they all were.  :p  I have to force myself into a "stupid" mindset so I am not unbearable at the theater.

 

I would welcome a surprise here and there, but I'm not holding my breath ....

 

I think with kids, their standards are quite different.  They haven't seen as many movies yet, so it seems fresh to them.

[SKL]

Ah.  I should have compared that movement to American history as a whole, which is also well known "for supporting racism to the point of actual genocide in the USA." , using values we most certainly strive to defend and expand today.

 

Correct.  You understand my point.  And that is what you would do if I started trouncing you for not singing the praises of the USA enough.

Edited February 25, 2017 by SKL

[SKL]

I get that there are 6 viewers out of 100 who see it (assuming no trolls) who don't care for the movie.  I just suspect many of those would be in favor of the billboard in the OP.  I agree that's an opinion, but it's one that makes total sense to me knowing some who would agree with the billboard.  You're welcome to disagree.

 

This sounds a lot like "if you don't agree with me, you are a bad person."  Which seems an odd thing to say about how good a movie was.

[poppy]

Correct. You understand my point. And that is what you would do if I started trouncing you for not singing the praises of the USA enough.

So you teach your kids to despise the USA the way you despise feminism? Wow. Ok.

 

I don't . But to each her own .

[creekland]

This sounds a lot like "if you don't agree with me, you are a bad person."  Which seems an odd thing to say about how good a movie was.

 

I have personal judgment about those who feel the only real men/women are those who provide or not (same judgment I feel for those who insist all should be in the workplace vs staying at home).

 

I'll admit to just not understanding those who opted to watch this movie and don't consider it a "thumbs up" (vs thumbs down).  When I don't care for a certain type of movie, I opt not to watch it.  There are definitely bad movies I've seen - War of the Worlds II is the most memorable as I type.  Hidden Figures, to me, would never get a thumbs down and it appears 94% of Rotten Tomatoes raters agree.  (FWIW, I haven't rated the movie anywhere - I rarely rate things online except with Netflix.)

[SKL]

So you teach your kids to despise the USA the way you despise feminism? Wow. Ok.

 

I don't . But to each her own .

 

What does this have to do with how I talk to my kids?  Come visit me if you want to talk about how I raise my kids.

[SKL]

I have personal judgment about those who feel the only real men/women are those who provide or not (same judgment I feel for those who insist all should be in the workplace vs staying at home).

 

That's not what the billboard said.

 

I think the billboard leaves room for multiple possible interpretations.  Which may have been the intention of whoever posted it.

[SKL]

 

I'll admit to just not understanding those who opted to watch this movie and don't consider it a "thumbs up" (vs thumbs down).  When I don't care for a certain type of movie, I opt not to watch it.  There are definitely bad movies I've seen - War of the Worlds II is the most memorable as I type.  Hidden Figures, to me, would never get a thumbs down and it appears 94% of Rotten Tomatoes raters agree.  (FWIW, I haven't rated the movie anywhere - I rarely rate things online except with Netflix.)

 

It may be as simple as some movie watchers have very high expectations.

 

I think 94% is a pretty high rating.  You can't please everyone.

 

[Saddlemomma]

I think, as a society, we've become WAY too sensitive.  The billboard doesn't specify what real men provide, or why real women appreciate whatever it is they're providing (no I didn't think it important enough to waste my time reading the article or seeing who came up with the pitch).  It's just a leading provocative statement in which you could insert several ideas.  Why is it we naturally gravitate towards the thought that somehow women are being downtrodden in that statement?  I guess I just don't care about the silly mind games marketers play to stir up interest in their product by stirring up imagined controversy.  

 

In my mind, I could project, "Real men (like DH) provide... a paycheck, so real women (like me) appreciate... the fact that I can stay home to provide an excellent education to my dd.

 

It's getting to the point that no one can say anything without hurting/offending somebody's sensibilities.  When is the madness going to stop?

[SKL]

Also let's not forget the % of women who are being saddled with more responsibility than they should be because a certain % of men refuse to be accountable for their choices.

 

I don't understand how it is anti-women to think men should contribute.

[SKL]

If they wanted to say only men should work outside the home and women should prefer it that way, then it could come right out and say that.

[creekland]

Also let's not forget the % of women who are being saddled with more responsibility than they should be because a certain % of men refuse to be accountable for their choices.

 

I don't understand how it is anti-women to think men should contribute.

 

One could replace all men/women words with each other in your statement, of course.

 

 (aka Let's not forget the % of men who are being saddled with more responsibility than they should because a certain % of women refuse to be accountable for their choices.  I don't understand how it's anti-men to think women should contribute.)

 

The billboard seems to imply it only works one way for "real" men/women.  It can work either way for real men/women.  Every couple (married or not) needs to figure out for themselves how they want their lives to work and who contributes what to the relationship.  Just because someone decides something different for themselves makes them no less real.

[SKL]

One could replace all men/women words with each other in your statement, of course.

 

 (aka Let's not forget the % of men who are being saddled with more responsibility than they should because a certain % of women refuse to be accountable for their choices.  I don't understand how it's anti-men to think women should contribute.)

 

The billboard seems to imply it only works one way for "real" men/women.  It can work either way for real men/women.  Every couple (married or not) needs to figure out for themselves how they want their lives to work and who contributes what to the relationship.  Just because someone decides something different for themselves makes them no less real.

 

Statistically in this country, women are more likely to be stuck taking care of kids on their own than men.  That's not fair to the women or the kids.

 

I know, the billboard doesn't say it's about "kids," but "provide" implies there is someone who is not 100% self-sufficient in the equation.

 

I agree there are many legitimate ways couples can decide how "provide" breaks down for them.  There is nothing in the billboard that implies otherwise.

 

I would assume the words "real men" are targeted at men who are more interested in a macho image than adult responsibility.  (And there are many of these men going around creating new lives who will suffer for it.)  The addition of "real women" second and in smaller letters appears to just be an attempt to use parallel structure in a catchy way - and I don't think it really succeeds, but that doesn't mean the intent was anti-woman.

[Corraleno]

It amazes me the contortions people will go through to insist that this is just an innocent statement against deadbeat dads. If it's about fathers, why explicitly exclude that word? Why doesn't it say "Real fathers provide for their kids"?

 

The reason is because that's not what it's about. It's saying that "real men" work while "real women" are grateful, stay-at-home wives who appreciate being provided for. "Real women" know their place. 

 

If it was about deadbeat dads, the organization that paid for it would not be hiding that fact. The people who paid for this billboard clearly knew it was going to piss people off, but were too wimpy to deal with the backlash. If you believe so strongly in a message that you're going to pay for a big billboard, then at least have the balls to own up to your beliefs and take the flak. So much for "real men."  :001_rolleyes:

SaveSave

[creekland]

Statistically in this country, women are more likely to be stuck taking care of kids on their own than men.  That's not fair to the women or the kids.

 

And men are more likely to be stuck at work than women... not fair to the men or the kids when he has to do so much providing...  ;)

[Corraleno]

I know, the billboard doesn't say it's about "kids," but "provide" implies there is someone who is not 100% self-sufficient in the equation.

 

That would be the woman. That is the whole point of the billboard — "real women" don't want to be self-sufficient, they appreciate being provided for by a man.

 

I agree there are many legitimate ways couples can decide how "provide" breaks down for them.  There is nothing in the billboard that implies otherwise.

 

"Otherwise" is exactly what the billboard implies: real men provide, real women are provided for — and grateful for it. 

 

I would assume the words "real men" are targeted at men who are more interested in a macho image than adult responsibility.  (And there are many of these men going around creating new lives who will suffer for it.)  The addition of "real women" second and in smaller letters appears to just be an attempt to use parallel structure in a catchy way - and I don't think it really succeeds, but that doesn't mean the intent was anti-woman.

 

The intent was anti-the-wrong-kind-of-women — the kind of women who want to work and provide for themselves, instead of letting their "real man" provide for them, as God/nature intended.

[creekland]

 

The intent was anti-the-wrong-kind-of-women — the kind of women who want to work and provide for themselves, instead of letting their "real man" provide for them, as God/nature intended.

 

I think they are just as anti-the-wrong-kind-of-men who are ok with women working and potentially even earning more than they do.

 

I can't envision any scenario where this is against deadbeats (husbands or fathers) - or the person/organization wouldn't be hiding.  They'd be explaining and fixing.  

 

For all we know, this could just be a troll with too much money enjoying his few minutes of fame, but I still suspect it's a very conservative religious based person or group.

 

(And again, I've nothing against stay at home parents of either gender - only the designation that stay at home females are the only real women.  Folks can choose for themselves, but when they start pushing that on others - through hiring or refusing to let daughters get higher education if they want it, etc, then it affects society in a bad way.)

[AimeeM]

I have personal judgment about those who feel the only real men/women are those who provide or not (same judgment I feel for those who insist all should be in the workplace vs staying at home).

 

I'll admit to just not understanding those who opted to watch this movie and don't consider it a "thumbs up" (vs thumbs down).  When I don't care for a certain type of movie, I opt not to watch it.  There are definitely bad movies I've seen - War of the Worlds II is the most memorable as I type.  Hidden Figures, to me, would never get a thumbs down and it appears 94% of Rotten Tomatoes raters agree.  (FWIW, I haven't rated the movie anywhere - I rarely rate things online except with Netflix.)

There are plenty of movies that the majority of society seem to enjoy -- but I don't. Star Wars, for example. It's mind-boggling to me that anyone would assume a person's character because... they didn't like a movie? I'm fully capable of agreeing with the sentiment of a movie, or the idea behind a movie, or the movement behind a movie--without actually liking THE movie. 

[SKL]

And men are more likely to be stuck at work than women... not fair to the men or the kids when he has to do so much providing...   ;)

 

I doubt you fail to understand what I am saying.  I'm talking about men making babies and then not providing for them.  That only very rarely happens the other way around.

 

And there are so many women who work [for pay] these days, including single moms who have to "do it all."

 

No, I don't think there is a fair comparison with men.  Sure, some men work so hard they net more contribution than the women in their lives.  Usually by their own choice.  But those are not the families causing mega social crises.

[SKL]

It amazes me the contortions people will go through ...

 

Your interpretation also involves plenty of contortions.

 

Who knows the underlying intent - and frankly, who really cares?  It's just a billboard.

[SKL]

And again - I think a lot of this argument is because of assumptions re the meaning of "provide."  I am going to assume the word "provide" was chosen specifically to allow for an expansive view of how a "real man" can contribute.  By this point in history, it's been generations since people understood a man's only contribution to be financial.  Let's not turn back the clock.

[SKL]

Oh well, I guess it is just crazy that I've worked [for pay] all my adult life, never was provided for by a husband / partner (nor were my kids), and yet the billboard does not offend me at all.

Edited February 25, 2017 by SKL

[Seasider]

Your interpretation also involves plenty of contortions.

 

Who knows the underlying intent - and frankly, who really cares? It's just a billboard.

If you have ever been caught up in a church culture that slid swiftly down the hill of patriarchy and authoritarian leadership, the words on that billboard would be familiar verbiage to you. Maybe it's my own personal experience that caused me to react so surely and quickly.

[Guest]

Your interpretation also involves plenty of contortions.

 

Who knows the underlying intent - and frankly, who really cares? It's just a billboard.

Agreed. I think the billboard-as-slam-against-feminists-and-disabled-men thingy is a lot more of a stretch. We all have our own framing paradigm though, so both interpretations are about as likely in lieu of confirmed intent of the people posting it.

 

Who cares? Not me. And I can't say I have any desire to see Hidden Figures either. Heresy around here, I suppose.

[Guest]

If you have ever been caught up in a church culture that slid swiftly down the hill of patriarchy and authoritarian leadership, the words on that billboard would be familiar verbiage to you. Maybe it's my own personal experience that caused me to react so surely and quickly.

Oh definitely, that's my point. Our experiences inform our framing of what we see and experience, but the fine line to remember is that just because we see and feel it strongly does not make it 'the truth'. That may in fact be what they mean and those of us who hear a different angle are wrong. Or vice verse. But the strength of association in the listener doesn't remove subjectivity and confirmation bias.

 

I don't have a lot of experience with the patriarchy thing, I have a lot more with child support issues and the associated relationship issues. So my brain goes there as a default and it seems a big stretch to assume it's some pseudo Christian slam against working women or whatever. That doesn't make it fact either, it's just my paradigm.

 

It will be interesting to see if the group gets revealed somehow, and see what they actually meant.

Edited February 25, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[Seasider]

Oh definitely, that's my point. Our experiences inform our framing of what we see and experience, but the fine line to remember is that just because we see and feel it strongly does not make it 'the truth'. That may in fact be what they mean and those of us who hear a different angle are wrong. Or vice verse. But the strength of association in the listener doesn't remove subjectivity and confirmation bias.

 

I don't have a lot of experience with the patriarchy thing, I have a lot more with child support issues and the associated relationship issues. So my brain goes there as a default and it seems a big stretch to assume it's some pseudo Christian slam against working women or whatever. That doesn't make it fact either, it's just my paradigm.

 

It will be interesting to see if the group gets revealed somehow, and see what they actually meant.

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck.... I'm calling it a duck. I don't believe the billboard is ambiguous at all.

[Guest]

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck.... I'm calling it a duck. I don't believe the billboard is ambiguous at all.

Well of course you don't. Neither do I. Which one of us is right? How can you prove it?

 

I say real men refers to men who take care of and provide for your families.

 

You say religious patriarchy (???).

 

The true intention of the message could be either or neither.

[creekland]

Oh well, I guess it is just crazy that I've worked [for pay] all my adult life, never was provided for by a husband / partner (nor were my kids), and yet the billboard does not offend me at all.

 

And I've seen too many gals at school shorted by parents who won't support them going to college, but will willingly support their brothers.  It's definitely not a majority of parents, but enough to raise my hackles.  FWIW, it's not always Christian religious groups either, but I honestly can't see other groups buying space on a billboard - even anonymously.  They tend to be quieter about their beliefs, albeit forceful, sometimes to the point of splitting families.  It's pretty sad.  Whenever it happens it's pretty sad.  There's no need.  The gals love their families.  They just feel called to a different life and there's nothing at all wrong about that different life.

[marbel]

Also, way to put pressure on men...imagine being unemployed, through no fault of your own, and struggling to find work, and reading all about how you're not a real man. Or being a SAHD...

 

All this real man/real woman stuff is crap.

 

Men and women come in all kinds, and make all kinds of decisions that work for them and their families. Nobody's business to go aroound making distinctions between 'real' and 'fake'. 

 

(And I say that as a woman in a pretty traditional set up).

 

This is true.  But also people don't have to take the billboard seriously, or they can just go "pfffft" at it as they drive by.  Just like any other billboard that doesn't apply to them.

 

I don't get why people are so outraged over a billboard.  It's not obscene; it's not racist; it's not suggesting anything illegal or immoral.  It's just espousing a philosophy that some people don't agree with.  Maybe.  No one really knows what the owners are trying to say anyway, much as we'd like to think our interpretations are correct. 

 

Sometimes I pass hand-made billboards taking Bible verses out of context.  As a Christian, I find them sad but also sometimes kind of funny, in their wrongness.   I still can't get worked up about it.  

Edited February 26, 2017 by marbel

[Bluegoat]

I have personal judgment about those who feel the only real men/women are those who provide or not (same judgment I feel for those who insist all should be in the workplace vs staying at home).

 

I'll admit to just not understanding those who opted to watch this movie and don't consider it a "thumbs up" (vs thumbs down).  When I don't care for a certain type of movie, I opt not to watch it.  There are definitely bad movies I've seen - War of the Worlds II is the most memorable as I type.  Hidden Figures, to me, would never get a thumbs down and it appears 94% of Rotten Tomatoes raters agree.  (FWIW, I haven't rated the movie anywhere - I rarely rate things online except with Netflix.)

 

Perhaps they were looking for more.  They wanted Hot Fuzz or The Big Lebowski and they ended up with The Mask or Pirates of the Caribbean. 

 

Critics pretty much always watch movies that way, that's their job.

[Scarlett]

I think, as a society, we've become WAY too sensitive. The billboard doesn't specify what real men provide, or why real women appreciate whatever it is they're providing (no I didn't think it important enough to waste my time reading the article or seeing who came up with the pitch). It's just a leading provocative statement in which you could insert several ideas. Why is it we naturally gravitate towards the thought that somehow women are being downtrodden in that statement? I guess I just don't care about the silly mind games marketers play to stir up interest in their product by stirring up imagined controversy.

 

In my mind, I could project, "Real men (like DH) provide... a paycheck, so real women (like me) appreciate... the fact that I can stay home to provide an excellent education to my dd.

 

It's getting to the point that no one can say anything without hurting/offending somebody's sensibilities. When is the madness going to stop?

Amen!

[Scarlett]

Also, way to put pressure on men...imagine being unemployed, through no fault of your own, and struggling to find work, and reading all about how you're not a real man. Or being a SAHD...

 

All this real man/real woman stuff is crap.

 

Men and women come in all kinds, and make all kinds of decisions that work for them and their families. Nobody's business to go aroound making distinctions between 'real' and 'fake'.

 

(And I say that as a woman in a pretty traditional set up).

I asked my husband ( currently unemployed) what that billboard means to him. He said 'high maintenance women who want lots of stuff'. And then some comment about sex that I can't really repeat.

 

Shrug.

[Guest]

I asked my husband ( currently unemployed) what that billboard means to him. He said 'high maintenance women who want lots of stuff'. And then some comment about sex that I can't really repeat.

 

Shrug.

HAHAHAHA!

 

My comment about individual framing and interpretation stands. And my husband probably would have said the same thing :p

Edited February 26, 2017 by Arctic Mama

[EMS83]

I asked my husband ( currently unemployed) what that billboard means to him. He said 'high maintenance women who want lots of stuff'. And then some comment about sex that I can't really repeat.

 

Shrug.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMI5H4fuYMI

 

:lol:

 

 

My musical taste defies all laws of everything, by the way.  :D

[Scarlett]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMI5H4fuYMI

 

:lol:

 

 

My musical taste defies all laws of everything, by the way. :D

:lol:

[Amber in SJ]

People are weird.

 

It's interesting to look at hunter-gatherer groups on this - it isn't the case that the men mostly provide.  IN some, the women who do the gathering provide most of the calories, and those are the most reliable sources too.  Meat of course is very concentrated and seen as particularly valuble, but it isn't like the women aren't out there bringing home the potatoes.

 

Where the men are really the main providers in such groups tends to be in climates where meat is a large part of the diet, like among the Inuit..

 

I know this off topic, but on Netflix there is a fascinating series called "Cooked" that explores the historical relationships with food and in the episode called "Fire," they discuss how in some aboriginal tribes in Australia both sexes hunt but whereas the men hunt the larger, more dangerous game (and consequently feed the family/ tribe less frequently) the women hunt the smaller game.  In fact they show the female elders setting huge grass fires and hauling big lizards out of their dens by their tails & whacking them on a rock.  It is awesome.  Also the episode "Earth" shows how chocolate is made. You might think you know how chocolate is made.  I know I did, but I had no idea.  Hugely recommended.

 

Sorry for the hijack.  You know us "real women," can't keep our minds on the topic :)

 

Amber in SJ

[EMS83]

My DH said that he could see how some people might be salty over that, as it either comes across as sexist, or so vague it's meaningless.  And that the providing and appreciating would hopefully be a given, but why assign gender roles to that?  It doesn't allow nuance for individual circumstances.  What about a guy missing both legs?  In that case it's her turn to provide and his turn to be appreciative.  ...Also, obligatory crude humor after an eloquent version of the above (I paraphrased).   :laugh:  I find the juxtaposition endearing.   :001_wub:  

 

I personally would be  :confused1:  if I randomly saw that billboard while driving down the road.  It begs too many question--what is being provided and in what manner is appreciation rendered?  I might blow it off, or I might spend the rest of the trip amusing myself with off-the-wall answers undreamed-of by the authors of said billboard.

 

 

[SKL]

Looking at long-term human history (and many other mammals), females instinctively provide; but for males it's not clear that the instinct is there or is as strong.  Hence societies devise ways to teach / convince men that they have responsibilities to others.  I've wondered if some of the traditions now viewed as sexist were invented to get men motivated to do their share.  And are the modern replacements effective enough?

[SarahW]

I think it's a bad billboard.

 

I also think the ad agency screwed up making the matched pair Real-Real. I suspect this sign will go into the textbooks as an example of the danger of matched messages.

 

On the plain level, it reads as patriarchal. But I suspect the author's intention was not anti-woman, but something along the lines of "Boys, get out of your mommy's basement and get a job, women dig that, really." But we all read our own response onto it.

 

I read it as being anti-selfish, for both genders (though it does presuppose certain herteronormative gender roles).

 

I've seen some divorces involving SAHM's, and yeah, the SAHM was definitely partially at fault. If your DH is pulling 2nd shift because it pays better so you can afford to get your kids music lessons, do not have your kids practice their instruments when dad is trying to sleep, seriously. Or the other case where the wife just openly told her husband that he was the last on her priority list, and when they divorced she expected that she would just keep the house, and have the husband pay to put the new roof on and pay the taxes, even though all the kids were grown. Oh, and in both cases the wife ran up HUGE credit card bills during the lead-up to the divorce on stupid, unnecessary stuff, and enormous late fees, with the expectation that the divorce lawyer would stick the bill on the husband. Huh? These weren't crazy women, they were regular middle-class church-going soccer moms. But they thought they were entitled to everything, unlike their husband's, who just had to get up before dawn every single day to do an hour commute to a job they didn't like.

 

Or, the other "type" I know, the working-class type, whose husband has to take up an undesirable job, like long-haul trucking, and then complains incessantly about how long her husband is gone for, and whines and bitches at him constantly when he is at home. I don't know what happened there, but they probably got divorced.

 

Women like to complain about irresponsible men. And there's far too many jerky men in the world, yes. But sheesh, do some women have to make the lives of responsible men such living hell? I guess there's also far too many jerky women in the world as well.

 

Maybe a better sign would be "Don't be a jerk to your spouse." But I fear that that would be too vague to get through to the real jerks.

[creekland]

I don't get why people are so outraged over a billboard.  It's not obscene; it's not racist; it's not suggesting anything illegal or immoral.  It's just espousing a philosophy that some people don't agree with.    

 

I think it's pretty much like anything else we humans deal with.  The closer we are to those negatively affected by something, the more it bugs us seeing someone promote it.  If we're not dealing with it ourselves or see it happen to someone we know well then it's really no big deal - just a minor problem out there - somewhere - in theory.

 

It doesn't have to be gender wars.  It can be anything - many of the chat board threads fall under this TBH.

 

And then some comment about sex that I can't really repeat.

 

Ha!  My mind went to this as second most likely interpretation too.  ;)  Then it got a chuckle wondering if those who wanted a primary thought from it realized this secondary one.   :lol:

 

I think it's a bad billboard.

 

I also think the ad agency screwed up making the matched pair Real-Real. I suspect this sign will go into the textbooks as an example of the danger of matched messages.

 

On the plain level, it reads as patriarchal. But I suspect the author's intention was not anti-woman, but something along the lines of "Boys, get out of your mommy's basement and get a job, women dig that, really." But we all read our own response onto it.

 

I read it as being anti-selfish, for both genders (though it does presuppose certain herteronormative gender roles).

 

I've seen some divorces involving SAHM's, and yeah, the SAHM was definitely partially at fault. If your DH is pulling 2nd shift because it pays better so you can afford to get your kids music lessons, do not have your kids practice their instruments when dad is trying to sleep, seriously. Or the other case where the wife just openly told her husband that he was the last on her priority list, and when they divorced she expected that she would just keep the house, and have the husband pay to put the new roof on and pay the taxes, even though all the kids were grown. Oh, and in both cases the wife ran up HUGE credit card bills during the lead-up to the divorce on stupid, unnecessary stuff, and enormous late fees, with the expectation that the divorce lawyer would stick the bill on the husband. Huh? These weren't crazy women, they were regular middle-class church-going soccer moms. But they thought they were entitled to everything, unlike their husband's, who just had to get up before dawn every single day to do an hour commute to a job they didn't like.

 

Or, the other "type" I know, the working-class type, whose husband has to take up an undesirable job, like long-haul trucking, and then complains incessantly about how long her husband is gone for, and whines and bitches at him constantly when he is at home. I don't know what happened there, but they probably got divorced.

 

Women like to complain about irresponsible men. And there's far too many jerky men in the world, yes. But sheesh, do some women have to make the lives of responsible men such living hell? I guess there's also far too many jerky women in the world as well.

 

Maybe a better sign would be "Don't be a jerk to your spouse." But I fear that that would be too vague to get through to the real jerks.

 

I could get behind that one!

[marbel]

<snip>

 

Women like to complain about irresponsible men. And there's far too many jerky men in the world, yes. But sheesh, do some women have to make the lives of responsible men such living hell? I guess there's also far too many jerky women in the world as well.

 

<snip>

 

Men continue to be irresponsible because women will still have sex with them.   I've known so many  women - not so much now, but when I was younger - who always went for the "bad boys" and ignored the good guys.  There is one young woman I know, supposedly desperate to marry, who keeps rejecting stand-up guys because they're too boring.  So she keeps going out with jerks who keep breaking her heart.