Out of touch, eh?

[ddstory.livejournal.com]

It's curious how Meryl Streep's speech (a giant in the profession of acting), which mostly dealt with not-so-overtly political issues, as much as it was calling for empathy and civic vigilance in the upcoming Trump era, was massively denounced (because, you see, an actress has dared to speak of something beyond the latest Gucci outfit, the pearl necklaces of the celebrities, Kim's fake ass, or on some rare occasions, the creative process in cinema in the best case)... And Leo DiCaprio (admittedly an underrated actor, but hardly of Mrs Streep's caliber even in the best case estimations) receives emphatic pats on the back and massive admiration merely for making 40 years of age and having assumed the role of some sort of Al Gore v.2.0? Am I the only one to sense double standard here?

The way I'm reading this, because Leo has a penis this gives him much greater leeway; hell, Robert DeNiro had a boorish statement about Trump, and he wasn't scolded even remotely as harshly as Madonna was. In 2003, Sean Penn gave a rambling speech about the fake WMDs at the Oscars, but again no one decided an actor has no right to use that tribune to flount their political biases. But when an actual actress even hints at a political commentary - Vanessa Redgrave for instance - everyone instantly dogpiles her, hastening to point a finger and put her in her place.

Because, you see, Leo DiCaprio who's been waving his beer belly flanked by an entourage of 18 y.o. wannabe starlets, cannot be declared out-of-touch, but Meryl Streep, Susan Sarandon and Vanessa Redgrave suddenly live in their "Hollywood bubble" and don't know shit about the problems of the regular Joe from Iowa? Please.

On a side note:
2012 Trump: Meryl Streep is one of my favorite actresses!
2017 Trump: Meryl Streep is one of the most overrated actresses!

Sounds just like,
2012 Trump: The Electoral College is a disaster for democracy!
2017 Trump: I won so big OMG LOL!

Comments

(frozen) (no subject)

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

I have already stated, in multiple replies, that I disagree with you that what they are doing is objectification in the first place. There is a reason I am quibbling on definitions: the great moral evil of objectification has nothing to do with sexuality. The evil is in reducing someone only to a commodity, to a product for consumption without their consent, robbing them of their self-agency.

The fact that they are acting out sexually has nothing to do with objectification - and even if one could say that they are making themselves into a product, you must remember the second part of that definition involving agency and consent.

This leaves the question of where the objection lies, and the only remaining thing to object to is the sexual nature of the expression - which raises the question: what is actually being objecting to, and why?

(frozen) (no subject)

[dreamville-bg.livejournal.com]

"The fact that they are acting out sexually has nothing to do with objectification"

Not true (https://www.bustle.com/articles/22050-why-is-objectification-bad-the-sneaky-way-womens-bodies-are-cropped-to-pieces).

"even if one could say that they are making themselves into a product, you must remember the second part of that definition involving agency and consent"

And I have already stated in multiple replies that with or without consent, objectification IS wrong. Or in the very best case, it strips the one doing it from the moral right to preach against it.

Look, we're going in circles. Multiple times at this point. This is getting a bit tiring.

(frozen) (no subject)

[garote]

I think I'm still having trouble seeing something clearly here. Could you explain to me what "self-objectification" is? I ask because I haven't heard the phrase in all my 40-odd years, until you coined it in this very discussion in order to denounce it.

(frozen) (no subject)

[dreamville-bg.livejournal.com]

If you stopped acting dumb like you've admitted doing above, perhaps you wouldn't be having so much trouble seeing things clearly - even after I've repeated my point several times, point-blank.

Self-objectification? Presenting oneself as a sex trophy for others to consummate, be it actively or passively. And making profit out of it.

I repeat for the umpteenth time. They can do that if they want. I have no problem with that. It's their choice. What I DO have a problem with, is the same persons then going on and claiming the moral high ground to pontificate against other people doing it. It's hypocritical. It's degrading to women. It's SELF-degrading. It's consentual, I get it - but that still doesn't stop it from being degrading. It's amazing that you're defending the self-degrading of women.

This is just common sense. I've been called many things over this thread: a nun, Medieval, cretinous, and whatnot. I think this very much shows who's capable of a civilized discourse and who the real bully here is.

(frozen) (no subject)

[garote]

Now we've moved from "self-objectification" to "self-degrading", I see. Very well.

You and I are probably never going to agree here. I don't know why you're insisting that women who incorporate sexual innuendo into their stage acts are losing a "moral high ground" - or even that they need a "moral high ground" in order to make progressive statements about women's rights.

Thomas Jefferson owned a whole freaking plantation full of slaves, but he wrote some pretty important and powerful things about slavery. You can go ahead and dismiss all of it, but it would be your loss. Constructing a need for a "moral high ground" as a qualifier for a right to be heard on a given topic is a logical fallacy known as the "genetic argument" and is more arrogance than wisdom.

In this specific case, it's also uncomfortable close to, "if she didn't want to get raped, she shouldn't have worn that skirt".

Shall we argue about that one next?