On the Basis of Sex

In reply to Robbie :

and as long as i've got your attention, why hasn't my challenge build (linked in the "link your challenge builds here" thread) been added to that watchlist?   your burner ID is slipping.

AngryCorvair said:

In reply to Robbie :

and as long as i've got your attention, why hasn't my challenge build (linked in the "link your challenge builds here" thread) been added to that watchlist?   your burner ID is slipping.

HA!

The answer (if you really want it) is excuses in two-fold.

1. I made the burner account password much to complex for myself, and I have to go look it up every time I want to log in. That bit of extra work makes it really easy to put off. 

2. I also feel a significant guilt that makes me mostly stay out of the build thread section when it has been too long since I have updated any of my own builds. It's like if I haven't been adding to the best corner of the internet, then I shouldn't be enjoying it either. Maybe this is really weird? Should I stop doing this to myself?

I'm updating the thread right now. (after I find my stupid password). 

I'm sure glad we have so many thinkers on this forum.

02Pilot said:

AngryCorvair said:

and poo-slinging starts in 3... 2...

IBTL because human nature 

It won't be from me. I'm exchanging perspectives on a topic. I'm perfectly content if others don't share my views, nor do I feel a need to have the last word. If anyone other than the OP had continued the conversation I would have bowed out as I said was my intention so as not to derail the thread; if the OP is OK with going in this direction, then I'll continue as long as it's a civil discourse.

Goodness- you are much more on topic than SOME people!

Please carry on!...

In reply to 02Pilot :

I will say this...

The historical accuracy of the representation of the person of RBG is probably different than the historical accuracy of the issues represented by the movie. 

There are a lot of facts in there (cases, laws, etc). The fact that US law enabled discrimination against women, that RBG was a Justice, that she transformed the landscape of gender equality, etc. 

I think the message of the movie is important, and that the fact that it had historical significance is also important. There is accuracy to the message, even if there are discrepancies in the details. 

There is a great deal of noise about gender these days which is thoroughly confused and can be assisted with a look back, even if it includes some level of artistic license. 

I agree with you. I am just concerned that the importance of the message can be lost when someone with your experience steps in and says, “Don’t worry. It’s not historically accurate, even though I haven’t seen it”. 

Your experience gives you influence, and may be dismissing something important that people need to hear.

iI will watch the movie when it hits Netflix or similar.  I am aware of the general idea of RBG, but being Canadian, I don't have a great deal of knowledge about her. 

I presume she experienced a great deal of kickback from the establishment of the time.  I presume she had some people in her corner, and was just tough enough to not give a E36 M3...

To the historical accuracy point, this discussion could very easily have been about "Hidden Figures".  I enjoyed the heck out of that movie, even though I'm quite sure it made some people better and some people worse than they were in real life.  And- this may be a more important point- I was completely unaware of the "Colored Computer" department at NASA, and because of the movie, I have been made able to learn more about the whole story,  which is a heck of a deal itself.

I'm sorry.  I seem to be lost.  Can someone show me the way out? 

SVreX said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

I will say this...

The historical accuracy of the representation of the person of RBG is probably different than the historical accuracy of the issues represented by the movie. 

There are a lot of facts in there (cases, laws, etc). The fact that US law enabled discrimination against women, that RBG was a Justice, that she transfigured the landscape of gender equality, etc. 

I think the message of the movie is important, and that the fact that it had historical significance is also important. There is accuracy to the message, even if there are discrepancies in the details. 

There is a great deal of noise about gender these days which is thoroughly confused and can be assisted with a look back, even if it includes some level of artistic license. 

I agree with you. I am just concerned that the importance of the message can be lost when someone with your experience steps in and says, “Don’t worry. It’s not historically accurate, even though I haven’t seen it”. 

Your experience gives you influence, and may be dismissing something important that people need to hear.

Agreed that fiction can raise important topics of conversation in ways that may otherwise be overlooked or ignored. If this movie accomplishes this - or as suggested about another film below, encourages individual investigation into some topic or perspective that was previously unknown - then it certainly serves a positive purpose. Unfortunately, movies are not only the beginning of someone's understanding of a topic but also the end, leaving them with a deeply flawed understanding that, when they try to relate it to actual history, can cause serious problems.

My initial statement was general and I stand by it: entertainment films portraying historical figures or events should not be taken as history. It doesn't mean there isn't value in seeing it, just that it's not a source of historical information that stands up to a reasonable evidentiary standard.

For the record, I have used entertainment films in history classes as sources and to spur discussions about events. They have always been accompanied by supporting readings and where possible archival photographs and footage. I've even got an idea in my head about creating a class that would be cross-listed with the film department, utilizing period films to better understand the social history of America in the Cold War. Used carefully, they can be useful tools.

In reply to 02Pilot :

That’s fine. 

I never said it should be taken as history. I just recommended a movie. 

In reply to SVreX :

No you didn't. My response was a general caution likely to be fairly broadly applicable, based on how frequently I contend with this issue. Perhaps a bit knee-jerk on my part, but when you've tried to explain to students utterly insistent upon their knowledge of people and events that Hollywood has no interest in producing or obligation to produce historically-correct and -complete films as often as I have, it becomes a reflex.

I got to see discrimination like this first hand with my mother, the doctor, from the same era.  She was one of 3(three) women in her graduating class and the only one that actually practiced medicine.  The rap on female professionals was, and has been, that they will not carry on with their career when they had children, or they were just there to find someone to marry, hence spots on females were wasted too often.  She got grief prior to going to med school, related to those specific things.  When she graduated from a midwestern university, they guy you talk to about your residency asks if she wants to go into pediatrics or obstetrics, not interested in either.  

"But you are a woman?!"

Yes, I know, I am a doctor, I know the difference between men and women.

"But you are a woman?!"

True, but I am still not interested in being a pediatrician or obstetrician.

"You will never get a residency in this state in anything but pediatrics or obstetrics"

They moved to California.  The California Medical Assn, does not include all Medical Doctors in the state, but it is a lot of them, most of them back in the day.  In 1970, she was one of 3(three) female members of the California Medical Assn.  One of them was a retired, emeritus type member, so really two, not three.  Think about that for a second or two.

I have no interest in seeing a dramatized biography.  It has been portrayed as an accurate depiction of events, and is almost certainly not

In reply to Toebra :

Me neither. 

In reply to SVreX :

That is what your thread is about though, so apparently you do, and are recommending it to others.

Carry on.

Some of you are awfully quick to pass judgement on something you know nothing about. 

I did a fact check on it. Almost nothing of significance was incorrect.  

Its not about a person, it’s about a culture. That still exists. Even here. 

For those who would like to see it, I recommend it. 

Thanks for the recommendation. I'm gonna check it out, eyes wide open. It may give me flashbacks to a couple years of unintended liberal arts education that came with my degree in architecture but that's perfectly alright. Because that part of the education was something I needed and hadn't realized prior.

SVreX said:

Some of you are awfully quick to pass judgement on something you know nothing about. 

Yeah, but if you say it with confidence people believe you. 

I typically just don't watch/listen/read something I'm not interested in. 

It's a very difficult thing to do. 

I hate to say it but the friction in here is typical here. 

Thank you for the recommendation SVreX, I’ll check it out when I get a chance! And I agree 100% on the culture thing. 

z31maniac said:

I typically just don't watch/listen/read something I'm not interested in. 

It's a very difficult thing to do. 

Yes, but...  I am the same.  I also manage, quite regularly, to roll that over to "Something I don't  want to listen/watch/read."  That isn't good. I think the saying goes something like,"Listening to opposing opinions is a sign of intellectual honesty."

Doesn't mean I can listen to Justin Trudeau or your guy without wanting to shoot the TV.

Edit: Maybe that is a sign of honesty in me, because while they are both gargantuan ########s, they are pretty much at the opposite end of the political scale.

I am always interested in historical content, but am (I think very rightly) very suspicious of Hollywood in it's presentation of history.  It sounds like this one hits the important points correctly and only alters less important points (which is reasonable). It is I think, very important to do a check (as was done above) on such movies (History vs Hollywood seems to be a good source)

In general, I feel, it is far worse to teach something incorrectly, then to not teach it at all.  In this Hollywood has clearly failed to various degrees in the past and seems very unapologetic about it.

The subject is of some interest, but as noted, it seems to be a pretty heavy "message" movie.  In that I think it is a bit of fail.  Why? Well, anyone who might need to get this message is highly unlikely to see it because it is so obviously a message movie and what the message is.  Also, showing the historical aspects of the subject (that still exist in some ways today) only weakens the point.  It makes it too easy to say, "yeah, but that was then".

One thing that always bugs me about any movie with an historical base is when it lacks reference to the actual person.  For example, Walk The Line (good movie), had zero pictures of Johnny Cash or played his actual voice (all music was sung by the actor), and Johnny Cash of course has a very distinct voice.  I find that almost insulting.  On the other hand Bohemian Rhapsody has a number of pictures of Freddy Mercury and his band at the end and does use actual vocals.  There is a movie about Elton John coming out (Rocket Man) and it sounds like they actually going to re-record all the songs (argh).