Feminization of TPM & SW

"which is a step towards a unisex type race"

Or perhaps a race in which gender does not decide our roles, just as religion and color of our skin should not decide what our roles are either.

 

true that, mist.

 

if you have a religion, then you must certainly believe that it is God who decides what the roles of people should be. you cant exactly say, "well, even though god created the universe and all people, i dont agree what women should be in this role and men in that role, because i dont think its right, so i'm not going to accept it"...if there is an omnipotent god, then obviously whatever he says is right. so religion should definitely dictate gender roles for those who are religious. its a different story for those who are not, however.

 

It's so hard to discuss this notion without stepping on people's toes. It's so hard to discuss this thread, because what I am trying to get across will most assuredly be discombobulated by anyone reading it. It's hard to discuss this thread without defenses being put up and hearing only what you want to hear. It's hard to discuss this thread without name calling and pre-concieved notions to spring on anyone they veiw as "wrong".
The more you defend your view, the more extreme you get to defend it, the more extreme you seem to others.
Men and women often define themselves by what the other sex cannot do and we all know what those are. From those come the ideas that women are better care-takers and cooks while men are better leaders/fighters and hunters. Reason being we excel at these things, defined by our biological pre-dispotition etc.
The thing is, what I consider a woman to be...and a man is different than others, but I maintain that, and have to hear any proof otherwise, that women seem to want all the benefits of being a man and a woman. The idea that women want what men have is an invasion on who men are, simple as that-of course it's going to be seen as that.
Men, in general, do not do womanly things otherwise you aren't a man(this is where people will misinterpret me). Woman, in general, don't do manly things(or weren't supposed to), otherwise you aren't a woman.
Woman want what men have i.e. economic status, political status etc.
Women want these things, to grow outside of their cultural feminine roles. This has grown to be accepted for the most part obviously, but this transition is harder for men.
Men often define themselves by what they do, their economic position, political etc. To have women invade the things that makes a man a man is an affront. It is harder for men to grow outside this, to do "womanly" things because it is not manly to do so. It is hard because, like i said earlier, men define themselves by doing manly things, things that define your position in life. This is important.
But why should I have to change, I believe in what makes a man a man. I recognize our boundaries as men as women. Why should I give up with what I have. Argue that I am a man and that of course I want to keep the status quo, but what is wrong with that? It seems that I have to give up these comfortable social standards, so that future men become something I don't want them to be. I hope some people can be tolerant of my view, though I know we all cannot be tolerant of everything.
...I hope this makes some sort of sense, though it is I would say sloppy, but I hope it made some wheels turn.

Ciou-See the Sig

 

"{Men are} responsible for 99.9% of the evil and stupidity that has ever existed. I think this discussion has turned into flaming."

Um, isn't insulting 49.5 percent of the human race *itself* an act of "flaming"???


Having said that, let me ask this:

TrueJedi, weren't women *always* strong in the 'Star Wars' universe??

I mean, Leia was the toughest and smartest character --- at least in 'A New Hope'. (It wasn't until 'Empire' and 'Jedi' that her character's main function was to worry about the various predicaments of the men in her life.....)


Other than that, I'm stayin' outta this one!!!

As I've found out, being politically-incorrect on this site is just *asking* for trouble.

 

First of all don't you DARE bring God into this. Hurricanes, floods, and evil exist in the world and while he laid the groundwork that created the potential for these things he isn't directly responsible for their effects.

Now let me point this out...

1. Female Jedi

The Jedi is a religion not a military order. Jedi KNIGHTS might (accent on the might and maybe a could) be a male centered work but sword work is not necessarily that difficult especially with an object that needs no strength to cut through even the hardest substances....

The idea they can't be a Jedi is to profane a woman's ability to be spiritual (traditionally the role of women in many societies but THANKFULLY now open to men as well as women) and have a relationship with God.

An abomination that should be stamped out is the restricting of this.

2. Women in Combat

The United States does accept women fighter pilots and really I can find no biological or psychological difference that should prevent women from being able to fight with the best of Rogue Squadron in a society with technology enough to control inertia etc in space.

As a man does it offend me that women might be putting themselves in danger? Yes but I'm also a pacifist and offended by all such things.

As for Natalia Portmore leading a battle assault, let's be honest that in a combat situation a single shot would have killed her...that's her main disadvantage. However she's 14 and at this point a 14 year old GUY leading an assault while Panaka is available is silly...

Thus her attack was no more than anything else.

3. Name me one Female Bounty Hunter

Samus Aaron from Super Metroid, Metroid, and Metroid 2

Zam Wessel's "spiritual ancestor" used a body suit which naturally augmented her formidable physical abilities (whether a man can exceed a woman is not the point but that women can train themselves extremely well with muscles is not) and gave her a vast repository of weaponry at her disposal of a variety of different places.

In a fictional universe (not even bringing up Conan's girlfriend Valaria, Red Sonja, the Amazons, and even Xena, Lara Croft, and Buffy) there is the possibility of drug enhancement for strength, genetic surgery, and cybernetic enhancement. I recognize only Amazons are taken from history but in the end Star Wars IS fictional...the circumstances are different.

Aurra Sing was supposadly a Jedi Padawan kidnapped by pirates and while a crack shot with a weapon her chief ability was like all Jedi she was extremely strong, fast, and accurate with her weapons...well beyond normal living beings.

In Highlander the series there was Reagan Cole and the Huntress series on USA. Basically women who used less physical methods of weaponry and the frank intimidation value of a gun.

4. Women in Firefights vs. Men

Traditionally men are taught to respect, value, and cherish women in most societies that don't say the opposite (which I have very little sympathy for-God help me) thus in a standard paradigm of course men are going to be chivalrous and try and rescue women...

It's only natural.

However in Afghanistan the very same sex (my sex) is stoning to death women and doing nothing but cheering on their suffering.

Someone has mentioned female cops and this is quite true...technology advances over physical attributes and while some aspects such as stamina and the like are still of considerable concern...

In Star Wars less so.

5. Sexless Societies.

George Lucas has already shown us that particular vision of the Future better than anyone else could argue in THX-1138 (Rent it now). Basically sexuality was outlawed, men were kept head shaven, both wore the same uniforms, and they shared apartments with drugs to keep mating from occuring...

(If Sexuality is drugged out then there's no danger whatsoever of pairing up the sexes)

The point of that story was still men and women will feel drawn to one another no matter what roles they occupy in even a faceless deathless society as love and the human spirit identify well beyond th

 

You know what guys, this debate reminds me of Starship Troopers. (Now put the movie entirely out of your head.) Heinlein asserted that women have better hand-eye coordination and visual precision, and for that reason, all star pilots are women. On the other side of it are the Troopers themselves. The MI (Mobile Infantry) all wear very heavy power armor, and brute strength is the only thing that will help control them, so all MI are men. Do a search on Starship Troopers or Robert A. Heinlein, and you'll come across a spectacular review somewhere about the book vs the movie and the author vs his detractors. It goes in depth about all this stuff and more. The movie resembles the book in no way, btw. It's the worst adaptation ever.

 

Some of the best WW2 Russian pilots were women; 350,000 American women enlisted, and over 40,000 Canadian women enlisted. On the homefront, it was largely women working in factories, and it was a woman who led some of the most important fighter plane design teams in Canada (specifically the Hurricane).

Military roles in our history have hardly been filled solely by men.

 

Yeah, but you harldy ever see them in War movies.

And you know why that is? BEcause girls don't count.

 

Guys, guys, guys,...give it up. You're all delving into the exception rather than the rule with your attempts to portray women in masculine combat roles.

I don't think many of you are even really thinking about what society would become once we give up the notion of protecting and honoring our women. Yes, honoring and protecting women. As far as I'm concerned, I put women on a higher level than men. That's the very basis of Western civilization. It doesn't seem like many of you understand that ideal.

Some of you seem to think that if we don't allow female combat soldiers then we're somehow hurting women. Nonsense. There isn't a person on this board that honors and revers women more than I do. I can assure you that my desire to keep women out of harms way is not due to some discrimination concept but to honor and protect.

Are any of you ready to give up the notion of "women first"? I know I'm not. Because if you say give women equality to men, then that is EXACTLY what you HAVE to do. You reduce women to the same level as men. Are any of you getting this?

How many of you, when enlisted in a possible future conflict, are willing to actually bayonet a woman in the stomach? Even more so, how comfortable would you be knowing that the woman you just bayoneted was carrying a child?

Perhaps it will be your sister or mother in combat. Perhaps she's captured by the enemy and raped and then killed. How do you like those thoughts? Think about it before you try and reply.

Yes, my dear friends, consider the gravity of your desire to lower women to our level before you start shouting about female soldiers.

Think about the Titanic. Considering your "New World Order", women should have to fight for seats in the escape boats. Why should men allow women to go first when men are equal to women? It's everybody for him or herself. What do you think about that? Consider your rants carefully.

In the end, the purpose of this thread was to state two things:

(1) That GL has been slowly feminizing the saga;

(2) I and many other fans don't like it.

It seems universal that everyone agrees that we are seeing a feminization of the saga. Thanks for agreeing and sharing your thoughts.

 

cbjedi:

What in the world is refreshing about that? I would find that to be terribly unrealist and boring.

I agree. But, keep in mind those are not my comments and I don't agree with everything in the article, including that one. However, there are submissive females in SW. I can't remember their names but they are blue-skinned women and were tending to Sebulba's needs prior to the race. Also, the same race of females who were dancing for Jabba. You know the ones. They were submissive and I thought GL did a good job with them. We don't need anything more than that.


***???? What makes you think that the girls of today are 'ashamed of their femininty'?

Once again, not my thoughts, and I don't believe that applies to every girl but I can tell you one thing, the high school girls I see at the mall and elsewhere, are no where near as well kept in their appearance and more over-weight than any I have ever seen in my life. Perhaps that's what the author is referring to.


Just look at how the average women today dresses.

Women, not girls, do a better job but too many office workers dress like slobs. Have you been in an office environment lately? Not like it was 10 years ago.


Clothes for the average girl today hilight their femininty, not hide it.

Some do but I see far too many high school aged girls walking around with their pants baggy and looking unkept. I'm surprised you can't relate. Don't they have malls where you live?


How are girls of today letting their appearance slack?

Already answered this one.


Do you have any idea how much time and effort the average female puts into her appearance? Probably quadruple of that of even the most vain male. Click here for proof.

Yeah, the ones that bother to go through the effort, I agree.


What in the world is wrong with 'behaving confrontational'? Stand up for what you believe in I say. And are you saying that the women of today have no 'honor and accountability'? If so that's a very predjudiced thing to say.

I didn't say any of those things so please don't put those words in my mouth. However, I think the author may be referring to the kinds of "confrontational skanks" we see on shows like Jerry Springer. Wouldn't you agree those are not the cream of society?

 

One big mistake about the perception of feminism is that men think that they should give up what they are. Who asked that? It's about women being independant and having no more social boundaries. Nothing to do with wanting men to be weak. We don't like to be like that ourselves why would we want to hang around submissive men? Maybe feminisim at first asked for that, but if you had read a magazine since the ten last years you would have seen that thing have changed. Men do not have to change the way they are. maybe it's too much to ask for respect, an open-minded spirit and no more paternalism?

Years ago in my city a men shooted at a school, making 14 victims, because he didn't like women in progressive role. I was ten years old at this time and i was shocked. I was afraid that the same thing would happen to me, but quickly it convinced me to continue to do whatever i want regardless of centuries old perception of what women should be and thast what a lot of girls learned to, things changed. live with it.

Myself i beated a bunch of guys. i'm not a mutant. i'm just strong (and a fan of action movies
). And i case you don't know women can learn karate, boxe and other form of combat. There is plenty of place where you can learn those things, as holding gun and shoot. Well i'm not connected to any bounty hunter to know if a female one exists but that won't be a shock to me.

See those kind of thought doesn't mean that i don,t want to get married and having children. That i don't wear make-up and high-heel. I can do the dishes and cook things like my grand-ma did without a second thought.My companion doesn,t have to play the maid, and if we want to be protective i won't be angry by it.

Why can't people just live and let live?

Now about Star Wars, well maybe it's just a reflection of those changing times. It's still inpired by old myths. But adapted to modern era for modern people and mostly children. There is tons of princesses in fairy tales, a bounty hunter and a few jedi knights is refreshing to see. And i and others, like those new kind of women. They match well our kick-ass side.

 

Protecting women........Protecting from WHO?

(99.9 percent of the time the answer is protecting from other men).

A woman with a gun can be as effective as a guy with a gun - or at least effective enough. We're not living in caves and bashing each other over the head with clubs anymore. (well, most of us aren't)

What this thread is really about is that some men feel threatened, that their role in society isn't as clear as it used to be, and that they're in danger of becoming irrelevant. That's why, in these 'politically correct' times there are like 50 'Man Show' type programs on tv, when in the past, something like that didn't seem to be needed.

Things are changing because society is ALWAYS changing. It's possible that there always has been more variation in humanity and that can be seen in a simple 2-D male/female dualism.


As far as George Lucas goes, it's possible that he ALWAYS believed in showing more diversity, but that it woudl have been almost impossible to show it as much as he wanted in ANH, since he didn't actually control the movie - he had to answer to the studio.

When Gene Roddenberry did the first pilot for Star Trek, he and an Alien on the bridge (with darker skin , no less - remember mose people had b&w sets) AND a woman first officer. After it was finished the studio basically wanted to get rid of them both, and eventually allowed him to keep on or the other. Which is why SPock stayed on and Number One became Nurse Chapel. ANH was beign made only 7 or 8 years later.

What's amazing to me is that mostly no one notices that there are more women in physically demanding roles. If it had happened in 1977 it there probably have been more of a public controversy about the whole thing.

 

Star-Queen, did you read my post above? If not, here it is re-written and addressed to you.

I don't think you are even really thinking about what society would become once we give up the notion of protecting and honoring our women. Yes, honoring and protecting women. As far as I'm concerned, I put women on a higher level than men. That's the very basis of Western civilization. It doesn't seem like you understand that ideal.

You seem to think that if we don't allow female combat soldiers then we're somehow hurting women. Nonsense. There isn't a person on this board that honors and revers women more than I do. I can assure you that my desire to keep women out of harms way is not due to some discrimination concept but to honor and protect.

Are you ready to give up the notion of "women first"? I know I'm not. Because if you say give women equality to men, then that is EXACTLY what you HAVE to do. You reduce women to the same level as men. Are you getting this?

If you were enlisted in a possible future conflict, are willing to actually bayonet a woman in the stomach? Even more so, how comfortable would you be knowing that the woman you just bayoneted was carrying a child?

Perhaps it will be your sister or mother in combat. Perhaps she's captured by the enemy and raped and then killed. How do you like those thoughts? Think about it before you try and reply.

Yes, consider the gravity of your desire to lower women to the level of men before you start shouting about female soldiers.

Think about the Titanic. Considering your "New World Order", women should have to fight for seats in the escape boats. Why should men allow women to go first when men are equal to women? It's everybody for him or herself. What do you think about that? Consider your comments carefully.

In the end, the purpose of this thread was to state two things:

(1) That GL has been slowly feminizing the saga;

(2) I and many other fans don't like it.

It seems universal that everyone agrees that we are seeing a feminization of the saga. Thanks for agreeing and sharing your thoughts.

 

Darth23:

Protecting women........Protecting from WHO?

Dude, you really need to give me your home address. Why? because I need to fly out there and whack you in the head for your inability to understand the simple reasoning I'm using here. Protect from who? WHO CARES?!! The point is to protect them. Period. Why does it matter if it's from men, women, or mother nature. The point is the very basis of Western civilization is about protecting women and I'm sorry to see you're not getting this point.


A woman with a gun can be as effective as a guy with a gun - or at least effective enough. We're not living in caves and bashing each other over the head with clubs anymore. (well, most of us aren't)

The point is, how comfortable would you be gunning down a woman in combat? I asked you in my post above to think about this but either you didn't heed my advice or you have no problem killing women. Which is it?


What this thread is really about is that some men feel threatened, that their role in society isn't as clear as it used to be, and that they're in danger of becoming irrelevant.

Sadly, you're wrong again. I already explained the purpose of this thread but you either missed it because you didn't read my comments or you're working for the National Organization for Women trying to recruit new feminists. Which is it?


That's why, in these 'politically correct' times there are like 50 'Man Show' type programs on tv, when in the past, something like that didn't seem to be needed.

Lol. The "Man Show"? Are you serious? The Man Show is really about guys looking at beautiful girls and getting them on trampolines. The Man Show is not some type of excersise in anti-feminism. Sorry you don't get the point of the show.

As for your other comments, there's no evidence that GL had ever planned on putting more women into the saga, so that sounds more like wishful thinking on your part.

 

True Jedi, i still disagree.

I'm for human life wether it's a man or a woman. Seeing my sister or my mother dying will hurt me for sure. But my brother's life is no less valuable and dear to me and i will protect him if i can. A fatherless child is not more fortunate than a motherless one. Gender have nothing to do with these kind of matters.

Female or not if a person is dangerous i'll shoot.

 

TrueJedi,

Do you have any response to the points I raised? If not, perhaps I could just get your answer to one question: How do you explain the fact that, for roughly 2,000 years, women held the dominant social and familial position in society?

The society I'm speaking of is that of the Fertile Crescent, from about 8000 to 6000 BC. This society was, of course, the birthplace of Western Civilization - farming, animal domestication, ceramics, and metallurgy all originated here. Given that you feel "the very basis of Western civilization is about protecting women", how do you explain the fact that for 2,000 years women were the ruling gender, and - to a certain degree - had to protect men? Does this not indicate that both women and men are equally capable of fulfilling the protector/bread-winner roles, and that our current gender stereotypes are more or less arbitrary?

I anxiously await your response.

 

"Dude, you really need to give me your home address. Why? because I need to fly out there and whack you in the head for your inability to understand the simple reasoning I'm using here. Protect from who? WHO CARES?!! The point is to protect them. Period. Why does it matter if it's from men, women, or mother nature. The point is the very basis of Western civilization is about protecting women and I'm sorry to see you're not getting this point. "

Why do you continually claim that people "missed the point"? Perhaps your ability to communicate is not as sell developed as you think it is.

'Whack me in the head?"

Are we issuing threats now?


Perhaps women need to be protected beacue Masculinity and Violence have been so tightly linked for so long. Mayeb if men stopped acted a little less like 'Real Men' then women wouldn't NEED to be protected - or at least not nearly as much.


If you're going to CLAIM that 'the very basis of Western Civilitzation' is 'protecting women' then I think you're going to have to offer some supporting PROOF for this claim. It could easily be argued that the very basis of Western Civilization is violence, war and conquest. Claims need suppoting evidence, that's the nature of 'reasoning', not threatening to whack people over the head.

 

cbjedi:

Why? There are pleanty of strong willed women in rl, why not have them represented in SW?

I would rather GL sticks to the story rather than create a platform to advertise feminist characters.


I've been around for a little while now, and the girls I see are no better or worse than the girls 15 years ago. Maybe a little heavier, but that's effecting both sexes. It's a known fact that kids aren't exercising as much as they used to.

Well, my perspective is different. Girls are dressing far different than 15 years ago. Girls back then dressed to impress, not so with the overweight, unkept girls running around now. Sad.


Every office enviorment I've been in the women are dressed just as nice as the men. If not better.

Perhaps it's a California problem. Either way, that's my experience.


The grunge thing is going out of style, and besides it's no different than the punk style of the late 70's and 80's.

Well, if it's going out of style, someone should tell these girls because they're wearing that crap more so now than a year ago.


Oh, and another quick fact; I think it was wonderbra that said that the average bust size has gone up a full cup in the last 20 years due to the less constrictive clothing that is worn nowadays. Simple fact is that women today are proud of their femininty, and today's clothes showcase the natural curves of the female form more than in the past.

Actually the real cause for bra sizes going up is that women are more overweight. More overweight = larger bra sizes.



But let's not go saying that the people on Springer are an accurate representation of society.

No, but I was explaining what the author might have been thinking.


I guess you can say I agree with your putting women one step above us. On the rare occasion that I have a girlfriend I like opening doors for her. I like picking up the check. But some women don't want it. I still think that strong, self confident women are cool.

I agree.


Some women are fully capable of engaging men in combat.

Sure, but did you think about whether that's the sort of thing you want to see? Bayoneting a woman can't possibly have the same impact in your mind as bayoneting a man, can it? Or, hearing that your sister or mother who was drafted during a war was raped and killed? Sure, I know that having a father or brother killed is no better, but doesn't the image of your mother being so harshly treated create a more disturbing image? That's really the essence of my point regarding Western Civilization's concept of honoring and revering women. And, when others suggest that they support women in combat roles, they're either not thinking about what they're saying or their thoughts fly in contrast to Western Civilization's philosophy.

 

Here's another question for all of those who like to see a larger role for women in SW:

Do you want to see women represented as much in the SW films as is equal to their representation in numbers as is in real life?

 

Dionysus:

TrueJedi,

Do you have any response to the points I raised?

Yes, I already responded. Sorry you didn't like the answers. Also, keep in mind that I'm responding to alot of people so I can't spend an enormous amount of time addressing issues which go beyond the scope of this topic. Lastly, you haven't addressed any of the points in my posts above. Are you thinking of doing that, or are you intent on carrying on your own topics in this thread?


If not, perhaps I could just get your answer to one question: How do you explain the fact that, for roughly 2,000 years, women held the dominant social and familial position in society?

The society I'm speaking of is that of the Fertile Crescent, from about 8000 to 6000 BC. This society was, of course, the birthplace of Western Civilization - farming, animal domestication, ceramics, and metallurgy all originated here. Given that you feel "the very basis of Western civilization is about protecting women", how do you explain the fact that for 2,000 years women were the ruling gender, and - to a certain degree - had to protect men?

While I agree with the fact that women have maintained the home and helped create and strengthen civilization, what are you referring to when you suggest that woman "were the ruling gender"? That's true inside the home but not so outside the home.
Can you post a reference for your comments suggesting that women have been protecting men outside the home?


Does this not indicate that both women nd men are equally capable of fulfilling the protector/bread-winner roles, and that our current gender stereotypes are more or less arbitrary?

No, this is evidence that unless men and women work together, all of civilization is doomed. And, there's nothing to indicate that gender roles are arbitrary. Can you post a reference?

 

TrueJedi, I think your idea that "women are better than men and should be revered" is sexist, in the sense that it does not promote equality. I myself have tried to use this old argument in the past... "I'm not sexist, I think women are BETTER than men! I want to admire and protect women!". And you know what people said to me? They said, "That is sexist too". I didn't really understand at the time. But now I'm seeing it from that perspective.


I don't think you are even really thinking about what society would become once we give up the notion of protecting and honoring our women.

It would become... uh... equal. It is easy for men to pat themselves on the back for "protecting and honouring" women, when they are doing it in THEIR comfortable patriarchal society. A lot of women don't want to be protected or honoured... they want to be THEMSELVES.



As far as I'm concerned, I put women on a higher level than men. That's the very basis of Western civilization. It doesn't seem like you understand that ideal.

I mentioned this above. I don't see this as an "ideal". Equality is an ideal. You think you have good intentions, I know. I used to argue like you are arguing now, almost word-for-word. I thought it is a COMPLIMENT to women, that it shows RESPECT for women, and how can complimentary respect be sexist? But it is. In today's society women don't need to be physically protected. It is PSYCHOLOGICAL protection... the IDEA that women need to be protected from the harsh world, rather than any realistic fact that this is so. You are half-right that it is the basis of Western civilisation: it has always been male psychology to protect women from situations that could jeopardise their ability to be a mother to your children. However, this does more HARM than good... it opresses women and prevents them fulfilling their potential as human beings.



I can assure you that my desire to keep women out of harms way is not due to some discrimination concept but to honor and protect.

It is discriminatory to assume that women need to be protected. Your good intention to protect women actually supresses women. The best example I can give to make you understand is this: Remember when you were a kid? Imagine you want to ride your bike outside... a fairly normal thing, something you are physically very able to do. But your mum says, "No! You might fall and hurt yourself! You might meet bad people on the streets! You can't ride your bike!" Your mum says this because she loves you and doesn't want you to come to harm. But she's actually making your life dull, and supressing you! Now, imagine that example on a MASSIVE scale. Imagine its not about riding your bike... its about getting a job, or travelling, or wishing to serve your country in the armed forces. And you have well-meaning men saying, "No! You might hurt yourself! I won't allow it!"


Think about that

Edit: PLEASE don't close this thread, moderators! I'm sorry I kind of had to address it personally to TrueJedi, I could see no other way. For the record, I have no bad feelings towards him at all, and I'm actually very thankful for the chance to stretch my dabating muscles in a good old-fashioned debate like this.

 

"I agree. But, keep in mind those are not my comments and I don't agree with everything in the article, including that one."

ARTICLE, what article? It was a post made by someone on the sci-fi.com message board. Was it printed somewhere else? Who wrote it? Is there a link? Why wasn't the authors name posted?

We have no way of knowing who this XXJohnXX person actually is. It COULD be one of us, even.

--------------------
"So are you telling me we need more of that? I don't think so. I say bring back the old myths, George, and tell them true. "

The author of this 'article' obviously doesn't understand Lucas. GL has always said that he wanted to creat NEW myths for a NEW generation. if he simply wanted to repeat old legends when we wouldn't see droids, spaceships, galatic civilizations and aliens.

Technology is everywhere in Star Wars because technology is everywhere in our lives. Women are in a wide variety of roles in Star Wars because the are (or should be, in GL's mind) in real life.


If you want the same old myths then go to the video store and rent Beasmaster or Conan. Not the second one though cause there's a woman warrior in it.

Also, stay away from Terminstor 2 as well, adn Starship Toopers (the movie) Alien/Aliens, Red Sonja, Mulan, The Messenger, a whole lot of Hong Kong action movies, The Matrix, of course, Shrek, Charlies Angels, Spy Kids, Total Recall, Supergirl, X-men, La Femme Nakita, Crouchign Tiger, Hidden Dragon, obviously, Men in Black (the girl saves the guys at the end), Space Balls, and 10 Things I Hate About You.


Come to think of it, maybe we should just compile a list of Officially Approved non-PC movies.

 

Darth23:

Why do you continually claim that people "missed the point"? Perhaps your ability to communicate is not as sell developed as you think it is.

Perhaps, but I really think you really are missing the point or you're not taking the time to think about what I'm saying.


Are we issuing threats now?

You know I'm kidding, now.


If you're going to CLAIM that 'the very basis of Western Civilitzation' is 'protecting women' then I think you're going to have to offer some supporting PROOF for this claim. It could easily be argued that the very basis of Western Civilization is violence, war and conquest. Claims need suppoting evidence, that's the nature of 'reasoning', not threatening to whack people over the head.

You really don't know that protection of women is a fundamental aspect of Western Civilization? Where did you think the concept of "women and children first" came from? That's not so in other cultures where women have to walk behind men.

I thought I was chatting with people that would be well acquaintited with that concept. I'm sorry if we're going a bit outside the scope of this topic. I would be happy to post it but that would require I go through my philosophy info. I'll see what I can find for you.

 

"You know I'm kidding, now"

Now you're telling me what I know. I only know what I read.