Although the idea of this movie is not novel, after all, we often use the "if..." sentence to make assumptions that are inconsistent with the facts, but I find that this idea is particularly suitable for disadvantaged groups. For example, the status of the heterosexual group and the homosexual group, the status of the white and the black, and of course, the status of the male and the female in this film.
The way the ironic effect of this film is presented is that you have to always keep in mind that this is a " reverse ". What you care about is not the gap experienced by a man in a patriarchal world falling into a feminist world, but the premise-we actually live in a patriarchal world. Under this premise, the gap created by the film is possible. So in the process of watching movies, my perception of the status of men and women is chaotic from time to time, and the sense of magic and reality go hand in hand. Our real world works well, and the phenomenon of "unfairness" can be reasonably explained within this framework, but the strong sense of contrast after the inversion makes people suddenly realize that the unfairness is as small as the lifestyle and the value concept. How common and deeply ingrained are, how unreasonable are the so-called reasonable explanations that serve the side that has the right to speak. In academia, there is a way of argumentation that concretizes a theory into a case. If it is counter-intuitive, then the theory is questionable. Obviously, this film proves that the universality and legitimacy of patriarchy is questionable, and what it does is just a reversal-assuming that the advantages brought by patriarchy serve women.
A few years ago, I was pessimistic about feminism. Of course, it was not because I thought women were inferior to men in terms of ability (never believed in such nonsense), nor because female roles were constructed by social castration (even if they were constructed) May be awakened), but because of the female body structure-under the same circumstances, the physical fitness of women is not as good as that of men; women's unique fertility. The extreme situation that follows from two points is that women are reduced to imprisoned fertility machines. On the contrary, such a possibility cannot be inferred from the male body structure. But after watching this movie, I suddenly realized that the premise of this inference is that the perspective is still masculine-why should we assume the physical state under the same circumstances? Why does fertility mean fragility? If we change the premise, these two factors will not constitute a source of female weakness at all. I think that in this movie, we should focus not only on reversing the status of men and women, and then gloating at men deflating (although I see it this way and it feels good), but the complete replacement of men and women’s voice .
Freud is an important milestone in the development of psychology, and it is also a huge stumbling block for feminism. Freud used the penis as a criterion for distinguishing the pros and cons of sex. The boy was afraid that it would be taken away by his father, so he turned away from the mother. The girl was close because of the penis worship (relatively, she regarded herself as incomplete). The father is also hostile to his mother. This reminds me that I always argue with my mother about childbirth (don’t argue with my mother, because the father is absent). Even if I can’t tell any reason why I must have children, it still doesn’t prevent her from believing in people, women, Must have children. At this time, I often give up rational communication and use roundabout ways to sarcasm. For example, do we have a throne to inherit? Similarly, is the penis made of diamonds? But what makes intellectuals annoying is that you know that what he said is wrong, and at the same time you have to admit that it is established in his system-masculinity is established on the basis of a male having a penis. One manifestation is that men dominate in bed. At this time, other intellectuals contributed (forgive me for forgetting which intellectual), and the intention of women as a despicable hole was constructed-males inserted, females inserted.
However, when the right to speak is replaced, what will be the result? In the film, there is a scene where the male protagonist is fucked by a woman. The lovely thing about it is that the audience can clearly understand that in this scenario, through the expressions and states of men and women, and the logic of the world behind it, it is not a riding position, but—a man and a woman. , On it. At this time, male insertion is said, but is it appropriate for females to be inserted? It's not appropriate, let's say, he is devoured by her. In this context, the hole is not a weak land to be plundered, but dangerous, like a piranha with a wide open mouth; relatively, the situation of the penis It is very dangerous, it is fragile and will be eaten. This is really a terrible flaw-protect the chicken, otherwise it will be eaten. So is there any problem with boys who envy their sisters if they don’t have this thing? You see, the construction of meaning is actually very simple, both positive and negative interpretations can be established, and the focus is only on confirming who has the right to speak.
Thanks to the screenwriter for keeping the female fertility setting, otherwise I will scold it for selling dog meat. If the movie is about male giving birth, then this reversal will be meaningless, because it only occurs in the names of men and women. As mentioned above, the reversal we need to focus on lies in the right to speak. In the patriarchal world, fertility is given too much meaning, but it is not easy to say which ones are necessary and which are constructed. Take maternity leave as an example, this is a common method to compress women's workplace space and deny women occupy high positions. Those in the upper ranks will say that we are also sorry, but it is reasonable for the company to choose a male competitor under the same circumstances. As a result, childbirth has become a fatal burden for women's career development, and they have to face the choice of one or the other-a career or a family? However, is fertility really so important? Do women really have to choose one of the two? When the right to speak is reversed, we will find that the seriousness of childbirth is probably equivalent to not bothering others, so go back to the company alone to work overtime and type a few hours of code. Do you want to take maternity leave? Might need. Will I lose my job opportunity because of maternity leave? Not really. The whole company does not just revolve around a pregnant woman, her maternity leave company will have to go bankrupt. Switching to the patriarchal world, if we can quantify the effective working hours and find that men and women have equal hours, does it mean that rejecting women on the grounds of maternity leave is just a post-mortem excuse? The truth is that the patriarchal society controls power, consciously or unconsciously- drawing gender welfare to one's side .
The social intuitionist model proposed by Jonathon Haidt a few years ago has been popular for a while. One of the most important points is that people use intuition to make judgments and then use rationality to justify them, even if people think they are using rationality. Make the right judgment. The important evidence he put forward is called moral dumbfounding, which is probably by constructing a "error-free but counter-intuitive" scenario, and by rebutting the reasons (excuses) found by rationality until they can't find any. But still insist that this is wrong (intuition). Here is an example:
Julie and Mark are brother and sister. They are traveling together in France on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they tried making love. At the very least it would be a new experience for each of them. Julie was already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom too, just to be safe. They both enjoy making love, but they decide not to do it again. They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to each other. What do you think about that? Was it OK for them to make love? [Haidt et al., 2000]
What I want to say is that it is easy to defend after the fact, because both pros and cons make sense. Who will not construct meaning? The question is the prerequisite discourse-who controls the right of interpretation.
The result of the lack of the right to speak is the criterion for the superior party to become the inferior party, and the superior party always looks at the inferior party from the top. For example, one of the disgusting situations I encountered in my major is that some men who feel good about themselves praise a girl the most is that you are smart. The subtext is probably, I didn't expect you to be smart. I thought I was the only one. But it's good, woman, now you have successfully attracted my attention. This feeling of inequality is like encountering exhibitionism. The only resistance that women can make is to despise him, not to see who is more exposed when they take off their clothes.
In fact, some qualities have no causal relationship with gender, but they are associated with the right to speak. For example, men are connected with reason, and women are connected with emotion. But is there any basis for it? Is this relationship derived biologically or statistically? It is very cunning in that it confuses groups and individual cases. For individuals, rationality and sensibility are two qualities, and four types can be obtained with males and females. This is a fact. We can find countless examples in real life. However, the dominant party will only focus on, emphasize, and amplify two types of group impressions, namely, male-rational and female-perceptual. Give a more specific example. We can see a lot of ridicule conveying that female drivers are associated with a high accident rate, but statistical data shows that women drive more cautiously. Under the same conditions, the accident rate of male drivers is much higher than that of female drivers. Data doesn’t tell lies. Not only is there news that only allows you to see what it wants you to see, but also daily concepts. The power struggle behind those ridicules consolidates existing strengths and weaknesses in an unconscious and more cunning way. .
Just like the name of the movie "Men want self-love", self-love is only related to men, and it requires "self" love, that is, not to play with external norms, lest I restrict you, you have to self-control, so it doesn’t matter to me. Is something wrong? Good guy, really smart. Use a little bit of dominance in school as an example. How does the teacher care about the stabbing? Of course, you can't work against it. The teacher will choose the most thorny head to be the monitor, okay, the big thorny head has benefited, and the betrayal has not only restrained himself, but also restrained other thorny heads. For women, the most classic "benefits" is chastity. If you keep your virginity, you will be holy, and you will be praised by us. Men have done this in history. Well, women will not only keep their virginity, but also restrain other women by the way. I have never seen a lot of people who wear themselves here. Fetters, although they don't know who invented concepts such as chastity and self-love. (The concept of association that women have established for men that I can think of in recent years is probably Miss Yang Li’s groundbreaking sentence "He is so ordinary but so confident." Congratulations to men, Hi Tip but believe in sexy little fetters)
Regarding the past, I have one thing that I don’t understand. Given that there is a power struggle between men and women, and the second condition is that women have been the dominant party (matriarchal society), how can men succeed in seizing power? Regarding the future, is it possible that the right to speak is reversed as in the movie? Is it possible for men and women to have equal rights? According to the movie's solution, we have to let everyone get hit with their heads to experience each other's world, but this is a bit too magical, I may hope more in asexual people, ah, well, this is also magical. May there be no war in the world, and may there be fewer extremists in the world. Pisi and spicy five. ?
Oh, by the way, I saw that the irony of this movie is that I searched for movies, and the related recommendation is to learn French dresses from the heroine. (Speaking of which, is there any data to analyze the evaluation of male and female users, the number of movie viewers, etc., this score is not enough...So in my lifetime, can I meet a friend who does data?)
View more about I Am Not an Easy Man reviews
