Thing is though - it's just not true about any girl/woman being able to get laid whenever she wants. Nice idea in theory - doesn't work in practice.

Well it would be true if you weren't so damn picky about trivial matters like hygiene. :stickpoke :lol2:

I believe you are arguing the exception, Dana.

In theory, ok - woman walks into a bar and says in a loud voice: does anybody fancy a fuck? She'd probably have a few takers - depending on the bar and the clientele. Man does the same and he probably wouldn't have any takers. But then again - I'm pretty sure if all a guy wants is sex and it doesn't matter what she looks like, how old she is, how not-psycho she may or may not be, I'm pretty sure most can find someone to shag. You could rfn if you were wholly indiscriminate. As could I. Anything more than that and I really don't think it's any easier.

From a Flavorwire interview with Roger Corman, the king of B movies, with 600 low budget films to his credit.

One of your first films for New World Pictures, which you co-founded in 1970 after AIP, was Student Nurses, directed by Stephanie Rothman. You gave a lot of well-known directors their start in the industry, but you gave a lot of women directors their start in the industry when no one else would. Can you talk a little bit about your decision-making with that?

People have praised me for going out of my way to hire women and being at the forefront of the feminist movement in Hollywood. It wasn’t exactly that way. It wasn’t that I was looking to hire women. I was looking to hire the best person available for the job. And it made no difference to me whether they were men or women. So, very often, the best person was a woman. I would hire that person, simply on the basis of ability. When you figure that the population is roughly 50% women — I’m making this number up, but you know what I mean — roughly half the time you’re going to be hiring a lot of women.

Do you consider yourself a feminist?

I have two daughters. I support them, and I think in general I would be a bit of a feminist. But, I still only hire on the basis of ability.

The Slumber Party Massacre has two women behind it. The film was directed by Amy Holden Jones and written by Rita Mae Brown, who was an activist in the feminist movement. There’s so much subversive feminist commentary in this film, it’s fantastic. It’s great to see some exploitation directed at men and male bodies. I know it was written as a parody of sorts, but I’ve read that you filmed it straight. Can you talk about this?

It started off simply as horror film. Rita Mae Brown wrote the script. Amy Holden Jones directed it, but worked with Rita and me — although it was primarily their work. They put together a picture that satisfied what the requirements were. And we did have nudity in that picture. But, they also put some personal thoughts of their own in it, and they put a little bit of humor in it as well. Rita is an excellent writer. And Amy has gone on to have a very, very good career. These were two very talented women working on a subject that in other hands could have been a cheap exploitation film. It is still an exploitation film, but it has a quality that enabled it to stand alone. They understood they were making an exploitation film, but they also knew they had a great deal of freedom.

You are known for some degree of sex and female exploitation in your movies, but your handling of female sexuality in your films has always been pretty straightforward. As my editor and I once agreed, everyone has their fair share of sleazy moments.

Laughs.

You also offer us some social commentary in films like Student Nurses where women enjoy sex, and they’re liberated, but there’s also an abortion subplot. I know your wife Julie has worked closely with you behind the scenes. Has she been a source of advice about your depiction of women or women’s subjects?

These pictures started before Julie was working with me. But I remember with the scripts for a number of them, for quite a while, I would explain to the writer what I wanted. And I would get back — always in treatment form, I believe in treatments before going to the screenplay — the girls set up the way I wanted. They would have a problem to be solved. But in these scripts, their boyfriends would solve the problem. And I remember how many times I would say to the writer, ’No, they must solve the problem themselves.’ It killed the whole idea if their boyfriends come in and solve it. That was something that seemed, to me, self-evident, but I remember many times having that same discussion.

Sounds to me like he's doing it right. :thumb:

Very interesting interview, bruce.

Can I get an amen?

Kevin Bacon campaigns for equality in Hollywood.

I'm definitely in favour of more male nudity...





;p


C'mon dwellar hotties, show us whatcha got!






[eta] I really like Kevin Bacon. He seems a sorted bloke.

The new Netflix show Sense8 has already had full-frontal male nudity multiple times, yet no vagina shots so far. Takes balls to do something like that.

ha ha ha

and ouch

Oh foot! You zip up too fast?

ha ha ha

And ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiip.

Great move by Target, removing the gendered signage from toys and bedding; predictably negative response from Fox and Friends who will apparently now be confused about what to buy as gifts for children because they won't know what is a girl's toy and what is a boy's toy. Which, frankly, makes the argument for me as to why they never needed labelling in the first place. What is the difference between a girl's toy and a boy's toy? The girl's toy is being played with by a girl. The boy's toy is being played with by a boy. Either they are not fundamentally different, in which case it doesn't actually matter which is which - or they are fundamentally different, in which case why would adults need signs to tell them which is which?

Though - in their defence, aside from the opening line about possibly being confused by it, the actual report was fairly balanced.

I particularly like the way the studio peeps completely disregarded the thousands of people who've complained to Target by labelling them 'the non-people who are upset by this'.

But, but, what if a confused grandma buys a girl a gun! :eek:

Nobody thunk it, nobody knew
No one imagined the great girl guru
Girls are one

She hid in the forest, read books with great zeal
She loved Che Guevera, a revolutionary squeal
Girl Tse Tongue

She spoke about justice, but nobody stirred
She felt like an outcast, alone like a nerd
Girl doldrums

She moaned we must fight, escape or we'll die
Girls gathered around, cause her heels were so high
Bad Girl pun

But then she was captured, stuffed into a crate
Loaded onto a truck, where she rode to her fate
Girls are bummed

She was a scrawny girl, who looked rather woozy
No one suspected she was packing an Uzi
Girls with guns

They came with a needle to stick in her thigh
She kicked for the groin, she pissed in their eye
Girl flaps hung

Knocked over a tractor and ran for the door
Six gallons of gas flowed out on the floor
Run girls run!

She picked up a bullhorn and jumped up on the hay
We are free roving ladies, we run free today

They crashed the gate in a great stampede
Tipped over a milk truck, torched all the feed
Girls have fun

Sixty police cars were piled in a heap
Covered in girl poop, covered up deep
Much girl dung

Black smoke rising, darkening the day
Twelve burning men's clubs, going away

The President said "enough is enough
These uppity women, its time to get tough"
Girl dung flung

The newspapers gloated, folks sighed with relief
Tomorrow at noon, they'd all be a faint queef
Girls with runs

The girls were surrounded, they waited and prayed
They moaned their last moans
They chewed nails away
Girls out gunned

The order was given, turn girls into shoppers
Enforced by the might of ten thousand coppers
But on the horizon surrounding the crowd
Came the deafening roar of mothers in choppers

Girls with guns.

IDK, with the whole moving and everything I really wished there were "boys" and "girls" signs at Ikea.... But I think I managed to get it right:

















http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/image...359105851_.jpg

Attachment 52993
A female Army Ranger student lifts a rucksack onto her back on Tuesday, Aug. 4, 2015, at Camp James E. Rudder on Eglin Air Force Base, Fla.

For those not familiar with US Army Rangers, there's Infantry, then there's Rangers (kinda like high speed Infantry), and then there's Delta Force (kinda like high speed Rangers). The focus of their respective missions narrows; but, they're all direct action missions as opposed to an organization like Special Forces which, while maintaining that capability (fighters-teachers) , focuses on training indigenous forces in guerilla warfare.

I saw a picture of one of those women in Ranger school, at the end of a horrendous test, something like carrying a 500 lb pack, run over a 50,000 ft mountain, and walk on water. At the finish she was dragging her pack but she fucking did it, and the men in the class were cheering her on.

I believe from what I've read, the females in the services have been invaluable in the middle east, and far Pacific, connecting with native women who are very Leary of men.

There's a cookie file somewhere that is a quote about how back when gays were ejected from the military, 90% of them were women.

Of course, they didn't want them connecting with indigenous women. It would demoralize the straight males who think that's their job. :haha:

Honestly I don't think it's going to matter much... Obviously it does matter for those women individually and that they can be allowed to do that, which is fantastic, but in the long run... Speaking as an Israeli - where it's actually considered shameful for a woman to not serve in the military as much as it is for men - I do not think the US has the right cultural makeup and attitude to reach a significantly gender mixed defense force.

It's good that it's enabled and allowed, but unless there's a more significant change in the culture the women serving will be the minority for some time.

Outside of official combat roles, women in the US military are represented similarly to US corporations - pretty well represented at the lower levels, less so as you go up.

Huh - that's interesting.

The ones they sent here as part of the UN peace keeping force at the end of the 2nd Israeli-Lebanon war acted like they've never seen women soldiers. Has it changed so much since then, or was it particular to those troops, or something else... I am just curious.

PEW(pdf) says, enlisted = 14%, commissioned officers = 16%.

Going straight to the data - I like that.

According to this there are actually slightly less enlisted women soldiers now then when I was in service, though more officers.

HM stipulated outside of official combat roles.

What are official combat roles? Does that mean a job in the military is non-combat when stateside, but combat where there's a war going on? Women assigned to units as radio operators, medics, or mechanics, had to be replaced before going into a war zone? Would a woman flying a Predator drone from the US be a combat role?

This is 3 years old; but, will give you an overview (you know how to search the specifics).

Why Can't Women Serve at the Front?

As for why this hasn't changed, ask Obama. He could change it with the stroke of a pen. It's not in the Constitution, it's not a law, it's just a matter of public policy.

My cousin and his wife both flew planes for the Navy during the first Gulf War. He was dropping bombs, she was doing supply runs and the like. She was still in a certain amount of danger, but she wasn't killing anyone.

Because they can operate drones from Arizona?

Because the politicians couldn't take the heat from something like this happening to military servicewomen:

Except for the Navy saying OK, except for three classes of small ships that would be too expensive to retrofit and are close to the end of their service life, none of the branches have objected to the deadline. There's no need for Obama to intercede.

Should've been done in his first year in office; but, he procrastinated until he could pass any problems with implementation on to his successor.

Procrastinated? You're assuming it was even on the list of pressing issues when he took office. I doubt it was even on the list. You're right that it's a politically hot button issue with some people, primarily conservatives. So even if it did come up in the Oval Office, it would be passed to the DOD for action.

The brass at DOD don't make changes to public policy without considering the political ramifications to their boss and getting his approval.

You seem to be saying that gender equality wasn't a priority for Obama when he took office and that primarily conservative politicians would be concerned about fallout, like that described in post 211, resulting from changes.

I can accept those as rationales for Obama's procrastination.

I'm saying gender equality in the military probably wasn't on his list of priority issues when he took office in 2008. It certainly wasn't on most peoples at the time, with all the shit going on. I can picture a shitstorm of wailing and gnashing of teeth from the conservatives and K street, how the Kenyan Devil is sending mothers/sisters/daughters to be raped and slaughtered by the a-rabs. :rolleyes:

Anyway, better late than never. If after the policy change any female combatants are taken hostage, we should have a Delta-cup Force to send in and rescue them.

... and not wanting to hurt the delicate feelings of the US Marine Corp

Delta-cup force? :eyebrow:

Females who make it through Delta Force training are gonna have pecs!


Just kidding, developing their pectoral muscles isn't going to change their cup size.

Actually that's a really good point.

I guess both genders deserve an equal chance at been replaced by robots...

Don't look now, but....

History in the making: 2 women will graduate from Army Ranger course
CNN -Holly Yan and Barbara Starr - 8/18/15

This is Army, but it's a matter of time til the Marines will have to face up too.

You also make a good point:
If there is a first organization to get rid of gender barriers, and others to follow.. There is going to be a last.

Will it be the navy? Will it be the marines? The national guard? Who will we laugh at as the new era's catholic school boys? Who will we make gay jokes about for years passed the point where gay jokes are still a thing? Who will be the new bottom of the progressive barrel for as long as we live in gravity filled environments and can still make sense of top and bottom metaphors? Stand up future victims of mockery, show yourself.... Or you know, don't stand up, don't do anything, it's kind of the defining feature of the position.

Even if those two female Ranger School graduates can't be assigned to the Ranger Regiment right away, they should allow them to start using men's restrooms IMMEDIATELY!

You're using and extra large spoon paddle. :rolleyes:

Jocularity! Jocularity! Jocularity!

Most places this wouldn't fly. There, the gender equality and equal opportunity officers are in a snit.
link

Bizzare. And Triburg is such a beautiful little village. I'd think this would be in some edge city or something, not in this place.

I keep reading it as "Sterile barge"... Which I suppose most women might prefer not to park under anyway...

They made it !

Two women make Army Ranger history
Fox News - 8/21/15
Apparently, one soldier still couldn't appreciate the irony of his ingrained orientation:

I wonder if there's a reason they're both officers? Coincidence, only officers could apply, being women officers means they are committed to an army career and in better shape, the army chose officers so they would less likely get shit from testosterone pumped grunts? :confused:

Coincidence most likely. They were simply among the best prepared for the physical and psychological demands. Limiting female equal opportunity to officers wouldn't fly since Ranger School is open to all ranks. IIRC, the rank comes off when reporting in to RIP (Ranger Induction Program) and students don't know each other's rank. Only the instructors would wear theirs and know that of the students.

NOTE: I don't see rank insignia on the students in the picture I posted.

Thanks, I would imagine applicants are evaluated pretty heavily, both physical and psychological, before acceptance.

Old broads are helpful too. :haha:

From prostitutionresearch.com .
Like drugs, legalize it and 90% of the problems go away. Maybe some of the problems that cause women to become one also.

So I have been looking into gender politics again, reading on the 2015 Rosenfeld research paper saying that while women do initiate divorce more often in martial affairs, no gender initiates breakup more often in nonmartial affairs.

The media coverage is what you would expect, with most authors trying to form feminist explanations on how the reason is how oppressive marriage is for women, while comment sections get filled with people complaining how the court makes divorce inaccessible to men due to favoritism.

I am starting to wonder what is the legal history of contract partnerships legitimacy in courts. Are they usually held? How does it change between countries? What about matters concerning child custody or financial matters?

Don't know about elsewhere, but the tendency to assume maternal custody (in itself now starting to give way to assumptions of shared custody) is relatively recent. It was a reversal of the previous assumption of paternal custody. Up until the 20th century it was generally assumed that the man was the head of the household and had legal rights over both spouse and children. Up until the 19th century, in Britain, women essentially lost their legal identity when they married. It was called 'coverture' (or couverture)- literally it meant that she was covered by her husband - she existed under his authority and protection and therefore her legal identity was contained in his. She was not, legally speaking, an equal partner in the marriage, and she did not have the right to remove his children from him. Only if the child was still of nursing age (actually, I think it could sometimes count up to about 5 years old) was maternal custody considered appropriate.*

Not sure, but I think in cases of extreme cruelty, petitions for custody may have been successful sometimes. I know of at least one infamous case in the late 18th century in which such a petition was unsuccessful, despite the apparent sympathy of all concerned for the cruelty the wife had suffered and feared for her child.

By the 20th century attitudes had shifted and matters of custody were dealt with very differently - even so, I think assumptions of maternal custody as a preferred solution may not have started to take hold until the latter half of the century. But - I'm guessing there - it's a long time since I read up on this stuff.

* I should point out that up until relatively recently divorce of any kind was pretty much only available to the wealthy, and until the late 18th/early 19th century only through successful parliamentary petition. Separation, like marriage was a different matter further down the social and economic scale and they really did do things very differently. It varied enormously, from place to place, trade to trade, but there were certainly many working-class (as we might term them) cultures in which marriage was much less formalised, and where women were the custodians of children, with men moving in and out of the family and the children remaining with the women. Also, somewhat counter to the common image of distant fathers, there seems to have been a lot more sharing of parenting between wives and husbands in some working cultures - just from a pragmatic perspective.

I found out as an adult that my Great-Grandfather was not married to my Great-Grandmother. He moved in and out of the house and in and out of prison. And it was not thought of as evil or disgusting - it was a convenience. He stored stolen goods at her house, and she could have been called on to testify against him in court, not being his wife. But he was already married, and marriage was for life, purely because (as you say) divorce was the privilege of the wealthy.

Not that she'd have let a copper in the house. She'd have hit him with a ladle and shrieked the place down until the neighbours came to make it a proper East End street party.

She married in the end, and stayed with him for life. He raised my Nan as his own. But Nan kept her father's name and still saw him every now and then. No word on whether her Mum did (I bet she did, because he sounded like he could talk the knickers off a nun).

Despite what romantic novels tell you, outside of Royalty and the Great Houses, where inheritance was an issue, being born out of wedlock held no stigma back then. I can only talk about the working poor of London, but WWI certainly helped a few girls without rings on their fingers get accepted. It was family business, and families got on with it.

I mean don't get me wrong - it depended on circumstances. Women were still being put in mental health units for liking the old hokey-pokey too much, ending up with their babies taken away and subsequent grief and/or post-natal depression leading to a stay so long they became institutionalised.

And Mum's cousin was forced into marrying his pregnant girlfriend the day she turned 16. I mean they're still married happily now, with two grown daughters. But it shows teenage pregnancy is nothing new.

@DanaC True - the argument at the time was that men had 100% of the financial responsibility so they'd keep the children in their households to keep them fed, the counter argument is that women didn't have access to the means to take financial responsibility, and so on and so forth.
The whole argument gets ridicules when you consider that - as you pointed out yourself - when you consider the slow revolving door of the time the reality is that if you could afford a divorce at all, you were most likely supporting your kids with capital from accumulated family assets, not your own income, and the people doing the day to day raising of the kids were most likely household staff, so really neither members would have much claim for earning rights through taking responsibility by today's standards. Add to that the fact that if the family owned land, chances are the children were part of the labor force - they were viewed as financial assets rather then financial responsibilities.

The historical context is important to understand why the laws today are what they are, and I appreciate that, but I don't think that changes the consequences of what they are, and while members of either genders can argue who gets more screwed over, the answer IMO remains - it doesn't work for either parties - find an alternative that does. A.K.A. an alternative contract.

Interesting - that wasn't true in Jewish communities in eastern europe. My grandmother never married my grandfather, and from what I understand that turned out to be pretty messy business.

It gets interesting because she was able to support my father easily (Apparently taking part of the communist revolution had perks), and my grandfather couldn't - he was considered a con artist, they met every few years outside of the village because he wouldn't be allowed back there.

Also, never seen him but according to her I look and think more like him then anyone else in my family... :yelsick: