• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wonder Women "Ladies Only" Screening Brouhaha...

I've always found the whole male/female only outrage thing a bit odd.

From both sides





Sent from my SM-J500Y using Tapatalk
 
johnny karate said:
Another successful screening last night (Warning: Embedded video contains graphic imagery of men being discriminated against).

I'm guessing all the delicate snowflakes of the male population in Austin were too busy not caring about this event or this event to muster the enthusiasm to show up and protest this blatant act of civil rights abuse.
Click to expand...


I'm more bummed that the US "brand" has become so spoiled that Wonder Woman no longer has her red white and blue uniform, and that the story takes place in the UK after WW1 (if I heard correctly) instead of in the US after WWII.

I read that 70% of all Hollywood movie tickets purchased are done outside the US, so we are not the target audience anyways. I guess the US has better taste in movies than I thought.
 
mgidm86 said:
I read that 70% of all Hollywood movie tickets purchased are done outside the US, so we are not the target audience anyways. I guess the US has better taste in movies than I thought.
Click to expand...

A successful run in China guarantees a movie's profitability, even if it tanks in the US. Warcraft is an example.
 
mgidm86 said:
I'm more bummed that the US "brand" has become so spoiled that Wonder Woman no longer has her red white and blue uniform, and that the story takes place in the UK after WW1 (if I heard correctly) instead of in the US after WWII.
Click to expand...

Considering that she's an Amazon, why would she wear the US flag colours anyway?
 
Ziggurat said:
You demanded that I object to events I didn't even previously know about. How can that possibly be a measure of my good faith? It isn't, and you know it isn't. Your own counter-argument is made in bad faith.

As for these events, I know how they are all advertised. I do not know how they are actually handled. Will the guy who bought a ticket to Wonder Woman be turned away? I don't know yet. Were any women who tried to go to a Broga class turned away? I don't know that either. It would be wrong if they were, but if no women even wanted to attend, then it's a moot point. It's not a moot point with Wonder Woman, because there's a man who wants to go.
Click to expand...

The Broga thing may or may not be illegal, but I might point out a reason why no one has objected to it: I think it's in response to a feeling amoung almost everyone practicing yoga, that not enough men are doing it. I think the ratio is about 10-1 women doing yoga, and those women generally want more men to do it. So sometimes yoga studios or teachers try to organise some way to make it appeal more to men. An issue is that generally men are less flexible than women and when they do come to a class they are intimidated by the fact that everything is so difficult for them while this room full of women seems to be doing it effortlessly. So the solution offered is sometimes to have a men's only class where they will be with people who generally have the same issues as them.

I don't actually agree with it, but it is based on an actual difference between the genders (though of course there are some men, like myself, who are more flexible than most women).

It doesn't have to be this way of course, as for instance in India most people who practice yoga are men. It's just a cultural difference that some people are trying to think of a way to change.

While I think men's only yoga classes are a bad idea: a) few women would want to go to such a class, as it will generally be structured in a way such as to make it easier for men new to yoga, and those women who are doing yoga will just find it boring and b) they generally support the idea of finding ways to get more men doing yoga, so they won't feel like they are being left out.

Again I still think that Broga is a stupid idea (and a stupid name) and if women are being turned away from broga classes then that is discriminatory. But I thought it worthwhile to explain from within the subculture why there hasn't been anyone really objecting to it.
 
Roboramma said:
The Broga thing may or may not be illegal, but I might point out a reason why no one has objected to it: I think it's in response to a feeling amoung almost everyone practicing yoga, that not enough men are doing it. I think the ratio is about 10-1 women doing yoga, and those women generally want more men to do it. So sometimes yoga studios or teachers try to organise some way to make it appeal more to men. An issue is that generally men are less flexible than women and when they do come to a class they are intimidated by the fact that everything is so difficult for them while this room full of women seems to be doing it effortlessly. So the solution offered is sometimes to have a men's only class where they will be with people who generally have the same issues as them.

I don't actually agree with it, but it is based on an actual difference between the genders (though of course there are some men, like myself, who are more flexible than most women).

It doesn't have to be this way of course, as for instance in India most people who practice yoga are men. It's just a cultural difference that some people are trying to think of a way to change.

While I think men's only yoga classes are a bad idea: a) few women would want to go to such a class, as it will generally be structured in a way such as to make it easier for men new to yoga, and those women who are doing yoga will just find it boring and b) they generally support the idea of finding ways to get more men doing yoga, so they won't feel like they are being left out.

Again I still think that Broga is a stupid idea (and a stupid name) and if women are being turned away from broga classes then that is discriminatory. But I thought it worthwhile to explain from within the subculture why there hasn't been anyone really objecting to it.
Click to expand...

That all makes perfect sense, and I personally have no problem with these men-only broga classes. Or any of the men-only events to which I've been linking and that are so easy to find.

Maybe now you can explain why people objected to these women-only "Wonder Woman" screenings.
 
johnny karate said:
That all makes perfect sense, and I personally have no problem with these men-only broga classes. Or any of the men-only events to which I've been linking and that are so easy to find.

Maybe now you can explain why people objected to these women-only "Wonder Woman" screenings.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Personally I don't think it's a big deal but I do disagree with it on a term of principle in the same way I disagree with the women's only screening. I think it's a pretty minor thing and wouldn't even bother following this thread except that I find arguments in support of it to be without merit. The only argument that makes sense to me is the one that you have implicitly made several times that it really isn't big deal.

I wouldn't hold a men's only yoga class at my yoga studio and if I ran a cinema I wouldn't run a women's only screening of a film, but if someone else does while I think it goes against principles that I support I can't be bothered to really care all that much about it.

I'm curious though if you read my post and see that there are difference between these two cases that don't impact upon the violation of principles of equality but do impact upon the sociological question of who would actually care about those violations.
 
mgidm86 said:
I'm more bummed that the US "brand" has become so spoiled that Wonder Woman no longer has her red white and blue uniform, and that the story takes place in the UK after WW1 (if I heard correctly) instead of in the US after WWII.

I read that 70% of all Hollywood movie tickets purchased are done outside the US, so we are not the target audience anyways. I guess the US has better taste in movies than I thought.
Click to expand...

Plausible deniability. They didn't want to invite too many comparisons with Captain America. That, and all superheros have to wear drab dark brooding colors these days. You won't see Aquaman wearing orange spandex in the Justice League movie.
 
Roboramma said:
<snip>
I wouldn't hold a men's only yoga class at my yoga studio and if I ran a cinema I wouldn't run a women's only screening of a film, but if someone else does while I think it goes against principles that I support I can't be bothered to really care all that much about it.

<snip>
Click to expand...


What if you ran six cinemas in the same town, with thirty seven screens between them, and exactly the same movie showing at all five of the others at exactly the same time (some of them on two of their multiple screens) as that screening on one of the two screens in that other one cinema?

That wouldn't change the moral calculus for you at all?

Nobody is being deprived of anything. A movie venue which began as an arthouse, known for its special events and promotions, had one such promotion at one of the thirty seven screens it managed in one of the six theaters it owns in that same city.

I'm not seeing anything reprehensible or even ethically dubious here.
 
Dudes like to hang out with just dudes sometimes.

Girls like to hang out with just girls sometimes.

Why do some people find it a big deal?

The only one I find slightly irritating is the "Solo mothers" groups that won't let in solo dads, as most smaller towns etc don't have the numbers to have a blokes one.






Sent from my SM-J500Y using Tapatalk
 
quadraginta said:
Sarcasm aside, I can't imagine you have missed all the posts whining about the violations of Constitutional rights against men
Click to expand...

I missed them. The only posts I've seen regarding the legal issues (mine included) have to do with anti-discrimination laws, not constitutional rights.
 
Ziggurat said:
As it turns out, you're correct: they let men go to the a "women-only" screening.

ETA: more info.
Click to expand...


FTFY.

Good article. And it was about a women only screening at an Alamo Drafthouse.

But it was a different Alamo Drafthouse, in a different city. In a different state.

The screening which provoked this thread was at the Alamo Ritz in Austin, scheduled for June 6.

The one in your article was at the Alamo Drafthouse New York. Not sure about the date.

So we still don't know if the poor, beleaguered, mistreated males of Austin were deprived of their God-given right to go to that one screening at that one screen in that particular location.

The fate of American manhood may yet be in jeopardy.
 
quadraginta said:
FTFY.

Good article. And it was about a women only screening at an Alamo Drafthouse.

But it was a different Alamo Drafthouse, in a different city. In a different state.

The screening which provoked this thread was at the Alamo Ritz in Austin, scheduled for June 6.

The one in your article was at the Alamo Drafthouse New York. Not sure about the date.
Click to expand...

Given that my only claim regarding legality was for New York City, that's the relevant one to my claim. And while the Austin one might have been the start, the thread title clearly encompasses the New York location as well, and so has much of the subsequent conversation.
 
Ziggurat said:
As it turns out, you're correct: they let men go to the "women-only" screening.

ETA: more info.
Click to expand...

What a hero!

Next stop on the Gender Equality Crusade: Continuing to ignore all the men-only events that violate the exact same law the author claims these screenings violated.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Well...

He bought a ticket to a different screening of the movie, and then went into the women's only one.
Click to expand...

He bought tickets for both. And his ticket was checked by an attendant at the "women only" screening.

johnny karate said:
What a hero!
Click to expand...

Nobody, including him, has made an even remotely similar claim. My link makes that pretty clear, if you actually read it honestly.
 
Ziggurat said:
Nobody, including him, has made an even remotely similar claim.
Click to expand...

He seemed pretty heroic to me up on that soap box moralizing about how this movie belongs to everyone.

He is truly the Rosa Parks of privileged white men.

My link makes that pretty clear, if you actually read it honestly.
Click to expand...

Oh I see. The problem is that I'm a dishonest reader. Not that this guy - and everyone else complaining about this one incident of supposed gender discrimination among all the other similar incidences - is totally full of ****.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom