Here is an example of modern liberal media playing with fire,
One of Bonnie & Clyde’s biggest fans was the late Pauline Kael, who loved to champion the sort of pulpy low-brow culture that Quentin Tarantino has so profitably mined over the last twenty years. But as Robert Fulford wrote in his 2008 profile of Kael for Canada’s National Post, it’s nowhere near as much fun when that’s seemingly the only type of movie being made:
Her part in the process began four decades ago when she wrote an article for The New Yorker defending Bonnie and Clyde, the 1967 Warren Beatty film that treated two 1930s bank robbers with sympathy and raucous humour. Most critics found Bonnie and Clyde empty and trashy. The crusty old New York Times guy, Bosley Crowther, then one of the most influential American critics, decided that Bonnie and Clyde failed to meet his narrow, simple-minded, painfully respectable standards. It was too violent, and he thought the love story of its doomed, hare-brained title characters was “sentimental claptrap.”Kael, whose critical reputation was in its early stages, used Bonnie and Clyde as the opening shot in what turned out to be a war against middlebrow, middle-class, middle-of-the-road taste. Her New Yorker piece began: “How do you make a good movie in this country without being jumped on? Bonnie and Clyde is the most excitingly American American movie since The Manchurian Candidate. The audience is alive to it.”
She announced no less than a revolution in taste that she sensed in the air. Movie audiences, she said, were going beyond “good taste,” moving into a period of greater freedom and openness. Was it a violent film?
Well, Bonnie and Clyde needed violence. “Violence is its meaning.”
She hated earnest liberalism and critical snobbery. She liked the raw energy in the work of adventurous directors such as Robert Altman, Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas and Martin Scorsese. She trusted her visceral reactions to movies.
When hired as a regular New Yorker movie critic, she took that doctrine to an audience that proved enthusiastic and loyal. She became the great star among New Yorker critics, then the most influential figure among critics in any field. Books of her reviews, bearing titles such as I Lost it at the Movies, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang and When the Lights Go Down, sold in impressive numbers. Critics across the continent became her followers. Through the 1970s and ’80s, no one in films, except the actual moviemakers, was more often discussed.
It was only in the late stages of her New Yorker career (from which she retired in 1991) that some of her admirers began saying she had sold her point of view too effectively. A year after her death (in 2001) one formerly enthusiastic reader, Paul Schrader, a screenwriter of films such as Raging Bull and Taxi Driver, wrote: “Cultural history has not been kind to Pauline.”
Kael assumed she was safe to defend the choices of mass audiences because the old standards of taste would always be there. They were, after all, built into the culture. But those standards were swiftly eroding. Schrader argued that she and her admirers won the battle but lost the war. Acceptable taste became mass-audience taste, box-office receipts the ultimate measure of a film’s worth, sometimes the only measure. Traditional, well-written movies without violence or special effects were pushed to the margins. “It was fun watching the applecart being upset,” Schrader said, “but now where do we go for apples?
So Ms. Kael considered it good fun and games (and career enhancing no doubt) to chop away at film standards. There once was a time when films were considered to be literature brought to the screen. Probably none of you out there believe that to be the case today. Of course, she is not totally to blame, but the damage has been done.
Now consider Feminism. Did Feminists really consider where their crusade would lead? If so, did they not care? Was it all about the leaders themselves, and their self interests? Were there too many useful idiots that bought into it such that it could not be stopped?
We all know about the damage that feminism has done to men, women and society. Unhappy married couples, unhappy unmarried people, dysfunctional children, unmotivated men; the toll is seemingly endless. And there really seem to be no way out from as societal point of view. How can all of this damage be undone, and prevented from happening in the future? There is no longer a backstop to arrest the slide. As stated above,”It was fun watching the applecart being upset, but now where do we go for apples?”
As a bonus, commenter Ame has written about how feminism is damaging to girls/women; plus an approach to combat it.
I’ve thought about this some as it’s such a broad topic, but I think I can narrow it down some for a starting place:
– Feminism says that girls/women can be and do anything they want, regardless of what it is, who it hurts, or the cost of getting there.
– Feminism says that women are better than men and don’t need anyone, especially men, because they are enough all by themselves.
– Feminism says that males are the root of all our problems, and women are the answers.
When my oldest was one, I learned quickly that there were going to be a lot of things I’d have to say ‘no’ to, so I decided i wanted to say ‘yes’ to as much as possible. given that, I’m pretty flexible and laid back … except where i’m not. There are some things in our home that are set-in-stone. My girls know that if they try to cross that line, they will not be happy. To that end, they’ve heard a few things a lot over the years.
They’ve heard a lot that they get to choose how to obey me – the easy way (they do it on their own), or the hard way (I enforce it). they will both tell you they much prefer the easy way. either way, they get to choose.
Another thing they hear a lot is to tell the truth. I don’t care what the truth is, just tell it. I grew up with lies, my ex was smothered in lies, and I won’t do it. Just tell the truth. I also tell my girls that there is a truth and a lie, and they get to choose what they believe. They can choose either the truth or the lie, however, what they choose does not change what the truth is … but it will change the consequences of their choices. so choose well.
So, feminism is based on lies, and when something is based on lies, it sets everything up that’s based on those lies to be done the hard way. It is so seeped into our culture that to separate out the truth from the lie anymore is like separating conjoined twins. It’s almost indistinguishable. So I have to teach my girls the truth, teach them the lies that have permeated all of society, and teach them how to live with the truth in a society of lies. Adding to all that, it has seeped into christianity till churches that claim to be bible-teaching-churches don’t even know the difference, and truth is relative.
So, I teach my girls:
– Life is not fair, just, or equal. get over it.
– You cannot do anything you want to do, but you can do anything God wants you to do; He designed and created you for a purpose. find that purpose.
– This life and world are not all about you. Get over yourself.
– Your choices affect lots of people. Choose well. It’s not all about you.
– Though we are equal in God’s eyes and you will have to answer directly to Him someday, God established authority on this earth, and He did it for good reason. Respect and live within that authority.
– Treat men with respect. Get rid of any attitude that states otherwise.
– God lives in community, and He created us in community b/c we need each other. we are not islands. It is good for us to need each other, and it is good for women to need men, not bad.
– We are all sinners … and Eve at that fruit first. You are no better than men, and men are no better than you. Face your own stuff and deal with it. Admit your own truth, faults and all, and deal with it. Do not blame anyone else for your stuff. It’s yours; own it.
– Filter what you are taught through the bible, including and especially in churches.
– Separate God from church people.
– The truth will not be popular.
– Be wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove.