Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 207
- 2
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So, I went to see Barbie despite knowing that I would hate it, my mom really wanted to go see it and she feels weird going to the theatre alone, so I went with her. I did, in fact, hate it. It's a film full of politics and eyeroll moments, Ben Shapiro's review of it is essentially right. Yet, I did get something out of it, it showed me the difference between the archetypal story that appeals to males and the female equivalent, and how much just hitting that archetypal story is enough to make a movie enjoyable for either men or women.
The plot of the basic male story is "Man is weak. Man works hard with clear goal. Man becomes strong". I think men feel this basic archetypal story much more strongly than women, so that even an otherwise horrible story can be entertaining if it hits that particular chord well enough, if the man is weak enough at the beginning, or the work especially hard. I'm not exactly clear what the equivalent story is for women, but it's something like "Woman thinks she's not good enough, but she needs to realise that she is already perfect". And the Barbie movie really hits on that note, which is why I think women (including my mom) seemed to enjoy it.
You can really see the mutual blindness men and women have with respect to each other in this domain. Throughout the movie, Ken is basically subservient to Barbie, defining himself only in the relation to her, and the big emotional payoff at the end is supposed to be that Ken "finds himself", saying "I am Ken!". But this whole "finding yourself" business is a fundamentally feminine instinct, the male instinct is to decide who you want to be and then work hard towards that, building yourself up. The movie's female authors and director are completely blind to this difference, and essentially write every character with female motivations.
I think an even more basic male story is "Man is already strong. Man uses strength to serve God/Tribe/Woman and is appropriately rewarded. All live happily ever after or at least until next week's episode". That one goes all the way back to Gilmagesh - his character development is that he acquires the wisdom to use the strength that is already manifest at the beginning, not that he acquires strength. The same applies to the Greek heroes and most modern superhero material. The earliest examples of Took a level in badass on TVTropes are around 1800, which is consistent with the origin of the Bildungsroman as a genre - I can't think of obvious earlier examples of the "Weak man becomes strong" plot, unless you count tragic antiheroes like Macbeth or Faust who become strong in a cheaty, corrupting way that sets them up for a fall.
This feels right to me.
I guess Journey to the West includes Sun Wukong ascending to Buddhahood? Then again, he started out the story as a threat to heaven, so it’s the definition of a wisdom upgrade. And the real main character is explicitly more virtuous.
The archetypal Bible story is some dude thinking he’s so tough, but only achieving anything meaningful through God. It definitely equates this sort of moral upgrade with material improvements, a la Job’s health and wealth.
I think deontology tends to emphasize “correct” work rather than “hard” work. Thus you have very strong men and women from the start, they just have to get aligned correctly.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link