Posts Tagged ‘films’

Not even Gal Gadot looks good in pants

19642236_10155383620818398_7564370333664350165_n.jpg

Robot flirting

Notice how she gets down on her knees:

She does it here too:

A Russian “Hell March” with cute women

 

 

 

The Mexican armed forces are worth a look too:

 

 

The Mexicans seem to have a lot of “special forces”:

Wonder Woman will always be a fantasy

An actor, apparently promoting the new Wonder Woman movie, recently said that we need Wonder Woman because men aren’t that smart.

Another celebrity, a woman in this case, has claimed that men need to be given opportunities to be emotional. As somebody I know pointed out, men have been turning emotions into great art for thousands of years.

Let’s be honest. The great unspoken reality behind all these foolish public statements is that men are far more gifted and talented than women in nearly every area. There are rare sports that women excel at (ultra-long distance swimming); the occasional game (bridge, I understand); the occasional art or science (needlework, botanical illustration, confessional poetry.) But, by and large, men are overwhelmingly superior to women.

That’s fact. Modern people turn themselves into pretzels trying to deny it, but it’s true.

Simply put, women only excel at the things that only women can do. They don’t need enumerating. Sometimes it has been claimed rhetorically that women are generalists and men are specialists. Chesterton said something like that. But, in reality, men are the generalists. Women are specialists. They specialise in reproduction, and the arts that go with it: making themselves attractive; making a home attractive and pleasant.

Wonder Woman is fantasy.

Pink toenail polish

A haiku (strictly speaking, a senryu) I recently submitted to a journal:

that time
with your
painted toenails

“Audrey Rouget” paints her toenails in “Metropolitan” (1990) below. It is somehow in character that she is using pink while the more worldly girl is applying red toenail polish:

CFpaintinghernails

Does Deckard rape Rachael?

Here is an argument that he does, and some other criticisms of Deckard’s character:

THERE’S SOMETHING ABOUT “BLADE RUNNER”

 

I have written about this question previously: The Sexual Politics of Blade Runner.

I have also had my concerns about this controversial sex/rape scene. I notice two things on reviewing it. One is that in the theatrical version Rachael does say “put your hands on me”, unprompted, which tends to suggest she is open to having sex. On the other hand, he really does throw her hard against the wall beforehand. Of course, a display of masculine strength can be part of a normal sex act.

There is a boisterous discussion in the comments at ” There’s Something About ‘Blade Runner’ “. “Mike Freed” writes this:

“Second, I think it’s a real stretch to call the encounter between Deckard and Rachel a rape. Cinematically speaking, I think it falls under the category of category of “man talks woman into sex by overpowering her,” and that was fairly common at one point (James Bond’s rough seduction of Pussy Galore in “Goldfinger” comes to mind). It’s also not unheard of for women to be turned on by rough sexuality – Rachel clearly is. Not exactly a “girl power” moment…but not a rape, either.”

Also, there is no suggestion that Rachael resents Deckard afterwards. Rather, to the extent that a replicant can, she seems to have fallen in love with him.

In conclusion, I don’t know. I would welcome comment.

Putin’s security, beginning with dealing with Femen females