-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Michael Moore Getting Ethered On Twitter
- Thread starter Luschient
- Start date
- Status
But it's not really positive because it makes women out to be these creatures that are incapable of wrong doing.
Sibersk Esto
Banned
I've seen it pop up frequently during stand up routines. Carlin did it during a spiel about god once.
Jezbollah
Member
The funny thing is that she could have done better.
Introducing Leona Woods, member of Enrico Ferme's team who produced the first human-made self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction. This was part of the Manhattan Project.
So this woman was (and were so many others) key in inventing the Atomic Bomb.
Introducing Leona Woods, member of Enrico Ferme's team who produced the first human-made self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction. This was part of the Manhattan Project.
So this woman was (and were so many others) key in inventing the Atomic Bomb.
Might wanna make sure she's not pooping with someone else...
Tranqueris
Banned
Huh.. I thought this was gonna be about his "Trump is gonna win! you'll see! YOU'LL ALL SEE!" nonsense.
AsylumBlue
Member
So his point is that women are less violent than men and commit far fewer crimes?
2 Slice Toaster
Member
But absolutely incredible for "ethering", "dropping truth bombs", and "spitting hot fire".
PJV3
Member
I get that, he didn't think it through and now looks like a complete plonker.
I'm sure he didn't mean it when he wrote it, maybe I'm wrong though.
Doesn't mean I haven't thought it about it
I mean that's human but I think the point still remains that guys still do more bad things that have nothing to do with physical differences.
So at least we can all agree over the course of civilisation, guys have done way more evil, not to take away from the bad stuff women have done but it's just a fact we've racked up a higher record.
Team Filler
Member
Yeah no, women have just as much a capacity for destruction as men, and to assert differently is misguided othering and shows superficial thinking.
Clara Jeffrey of Mother Jones basically said the same thing last week on Twitter after the Weiner email scandal broke (a sentiment I've seen repeated here by some in defense of HRC). As if an election between HRC and Bachmann/Fiorina/Palin would be much better than what we have now.
To be fair to Moore though, Twitter is a piss poor medium for having any sort of actual conversation or trying to articulate anything more than snark and/or bumper sticker musings.
To be fair to Moore though, Twitter is a piss poor medium for having any sort of actual conversation or trying to articulate anything more than snark and/or bumper sticker musings.
MisterFalcon
Member
She could also have mentioned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lise_Meitner who led the scientific team that discovered nuclear fission and as such the atom bomb.
Banana Aeon
Member
Congratulations, you played yourself.
Insane Metal
Member
Wow, that was fucking stupid (of him).
Pamplemousse
Member
To even entertain the thought that female perpetrated voilence or aggression is anywhere close to the level of male perpetrated violence is absurd.
While his statement isn't accurate, it's general message is: men are far more inclined to commit acts of aggression. Take your ire elsewhere.
While his statement isn't accurate, it's general message is: men are far more inclined to commit acts of aggression. Take your ire elsewhere.
Latvian Hitman
Member
Which is too bad. Is he married? He must not have ever married. He'd have no such illusions were that the case.
Yeah I'm not much of a feminist and I've no problem saying that men are far more violent than women. That's just statistical fact.
The problem is when we assume that's universal across all types of crime... Specifically, domestic violence, in which the ratio is much closer to 50/50 than in something like homicide.
The problem is when we assume that's universal across all types of crime... Specifically, domestic violence, in which the ratio is much closer to 50/50 than in something like homicide.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
I don't know, a woman was responsible for Twilight so it probably evens out.
I mean, she spells it out in facts and gives an airtight explanation as to why what Moore was saying is dangerous . Moore was merely being sexist with a smile. You should always pounce on sexism. That's how people learn. The ones that refuse to learn because of someone's tone never gave a shit anyways, it's never about the feelings of the sexist.
makingmusic476
Member
I've seen people take this sorta stance before, but it's usually 50/50 commentary on stereotyping groups of people (like when I bring up white male school shooters in response to calls to ban muslims) and 50/50 joking.
Michael Moore's lost the plot.
Michael Moore's lost the plot.
In history women have used weapons of cunning instead of violence to murder. There's a reason why poison is considered the weapon of women. I'm sure more than a few just didn't get caught.
PlayALLtheGames
Banned
I think it comes down to pure physical strength. Women aren't out there getting into fist fights on bar night because well..we aren't strong enough. Tend to not be able to move bodies either. And drug dealing, which is like a super high reason to get thrown in jail, is dangerous because we are less likely to be able to defend ourselves against coked out dudes.
My opinion, of course, I could be wrong. I can't imagine myself carrying out a murder.
Doesn't mean I haven't thought it about it
This line of thinking is on point, when you look at nonviolent crimes the gap closes a lot, like fraud it is almost equal. Violent crime is what heavily skews incarceration rates towards men, which is one of the accepted differences between the sexes. Not that women do not have the mindset for crime, they just won't typically get as violent about it. I think on some level there is a greater capacity for empathy overall, though. Look at methods of suicide, women are always much less messy and the accepted wisdom seems to be they are worried about who has to clean up. The purity angle is silly but there does seem to be more of a focus on how they influence their environment maybe?
Riposte
Member
There's this sense of masochistic, pedestal sexism where guys tear down their own gender without realizing they are simplifying women in the process. Moore is basically backhandedly complimenting women for being non-factors in science, industry, and war in the last century, which is more false than true, among other things. Louis CK was doing it when he was talking about how women are automatically significantly better at raising kids than men - that's why Clinton should be president.
I think I get Moore's intention of trying to infer women may be more compassionate than men, because maybe men are "supposed" to conquest and be strong and all of that alpha male shit and he was addressing that problem of imaging. But he forgets it's people who get conditioned into behavior, into action, and there is nothing saying women are omitted from the same possibilities. He even negated their role within that stuff.
It's pretty poor to paint the picture Moore was highlighting. How about you deal with the attitudes to everything he was pressing in a negative light without making it a man vs women social game.
It's pretty poor to paint the picture Moore was highlighting. How about you deal with the attitudes to everything he was pressing in a negative light without making it a man vs women social game.
Vicetrailia
Banned
I see his good intentions, but she's right. It's a bit off topic of him defending Hillary though.
That is not really the point. Men are no doubt greatly overrepresented in any violent crime statistic.
The point is that Michael Moore was implying that a woman wouldn't do any of those bad things.
He discusses this in his new film (which is actually pretty good), but it obviously comes off as patronizing and sexist via tweet.
Basically in the film he discusses the perceived negatives of a woman being President, and uses examples to present the counter-point to those arguments.
So yeah, I believe his intentions were fine, but he shit the bed in his delivery.
Basically in the film he discusses the perceived negatives of a woman being President, and uses examples to present the counter-point to those arguments.
So yeah, I believe his intentions were fine, but he shit the bed in his delivery.
XGRaViSmOrSX
Member
Wait isn't this just reposting what some other person already came out and said? so confused because I had seen this before just not from the same person lol
the internet is just becoming a big ass circular repost.
the internet is just becoming a big ass circular repost.
I'm more annoyed that author created a book called The Host that went on to have an equally awful movie that makes the far superior South Korean film of the same name even more obscure than it already is.
True, reminds me of that story about the Angel Makers, about a community of women that enjoyed having lovers while their husbands were off in WW1, but when the men returned and wanted to pick up where they'd left off the women decided to poison them.
They even went on to kill parents or children they felt had become a burden to them.
CassidyIzABeast
Member
Well dayum
Zvonimir Boban
Banned
Well I'm convinced. Women are evil.
CharminUltra
Member
And ya'll want to elect a woman president! What were you thinking.
I think her broader point was pointing out that his heart was not in the right place, though unintentionally.
jacob armitage
Banned
Its a difficult discussion to have but most of the atrocious acts of mankind certainly come from the male sex.
It certainly could have something to do with patriarchy culture and structure too.
It certainly could have something to do with patriarchy culture and structure too.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
The best kind of fuckup, you can see what he was going for and NOPE disallowed.
Not just most atrocious, most everything. Men were always allowed to do more than women so they have a monopoly on being both great and terrible.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked