Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons!
Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2015 9:39 am
The official Spiritualized board
https://spiritualized.band/
Most definitely. Shame about the latent misogyny marring what should be a very entertaining thread Anyhoo, Spacemen 3 on the Simpsons - who'd've thunk it? Sure, the show is a pale shadow of its (long since past) heyday, but it's still something to celebrate. Even the official Spiritualized Facebook page posted a linkclewsr wrote:yeah I share your thoughts on Lena Durnham there Mr Sighs.
The last line from that episode is probably my all time favourite Larry David scenario: Mommy Mommy, that bald man is in the bathroom and there's something hard in his pants!angelsighs wrote: Curb Your Enthusiasm, now you're talking. one of my favourite comedy shows of all time (easily my favourite american comedy) from the unique mind of Larry David. The Doll episode in particular leaps out as near perfect a 30 mins of comedy as I've ever watched.
Larry is still undecided about doing any more seasons apparently.
You're right that you didn't say anything overtly misogynistic; for my part, I used the phrase "latent misogyny", or more broadly defined, "hidden or concealed hatred or strong prejudice against women." Why did I use this phrase? I'll attempt to explain myself.mojo filters wrote:Before folks begin to throw around accusations of offensive behaviour such as misogyny, they may want to reaquaint themselves with the definition.
My remarks were directed at one person. It was purely poking fun at someone who consistently and unnecessarily prevails upon their audience, by writing material which appears at every opportunity to shoehorn in scenarios in which they are either partially or wholly undressed.
The absurd regularity of this implies a clear exhibitionist tendency. It has been noted by TV critics, and I'm quite sure Lena Dunham has admitted as much, in this respect.
If I had been critical in a more pejorative way, or used language specifically articulated as gender offensive - that would have been different. However all I did was pass comment on one person, without ascribing any offensive character to my description. I in no way deviated from established facts or harmless subjective opinion.
As already stated I did not use gender biased language, nor did I imply my remarks referred to anyone beyond the individual mentioned. If the subject of my remarks had been of the opposite gender - the tone and content could easily be just as applicable.
I accept there is potential in my remarks for those especially sensitive to body image concerns to take offence. As the unhappy owner of an unwanted beer gut I would class myself in such terms - but that doesn't mean I can't have harmless fun with the issue. This is quite different to the mis-application of a specific term, and furthermore such mis-application can potentially dilute the strength of such terminology.
Whilst I'm sure folks made reference to potential misogyny with the best of intentions, I think it is not fair to cast around inaccurate and unpleasant aspersions. Genuine misogyny - like any form of hate directed at specific groups and categories of people - is an unpleasant and unnecessarily cruel way to behave in a civilized society. It does the cause of eliminating such no favours, if the terminology is misapplied or misunderstood. It's also unpleasant to be accused of such, when it was neither present nor intended.
Let me address this point by point.mc wrote:Fair enough; I'll explain myself.mojo filters wrote:Before folks begin to throw around accusations of offensive behaviour such as misogyny, they may want to reaquaint themselves with the definition.
My remarks were directed at one person. It was purely poking fun at someone who consistently and unnecessarily prevails upon their audience, by writing material which appears at every opportunity to shoehorn in scenarios in which they are either partially or wholly undressed.
The absurd regularity of this implies a clear exhibitionist tendency. It has been noted by TV critics, and I'm quite sure Lena Dunham has admitted as much, in this respect.
If I had been critical in a more pejorative way, or used language specifically articulated as gender offensive - that would have been different. However all I did was pass comment on one person, without ascribing any offensive character to my description. I in no way deviated from established facts or harmless subjective opinion.
As already stated I did not use gender biased language, nor did I imply my remarks referred to anyone beyond the individual mentioned. If the subject of my remarks had been of the opposite gender - the tone and content could easily be just as applicable.
I accept there is potential in my remarks for those especially sensitive to body image concerns to take offence. As the unhappy owner of an unwanted beer gut I would class myself in such terms - but that doesn't mean I can't have harmless fun with the issue. This is quite different to the mis-application of a specific term, and furthermore such mis-application can potentially dilute the strength of such terminology.
Whilst I'm sure folks made reference to potential misogyny with the best of intentions, I think it is not fair to cast around inaccurate and unpleasant aspersions. Genuine misogyny - like any form of hate directed at specific groups and categories of people - is an unpleasant and unnecessarily cruel way to behave in a civilized society. It does the cause of eliminating such no favours, if the terminology is misapplied or misunderstood. It's also unpleasant to be accused of such, when it was neither present nor intended.
You're right that you didn't say anything overtly misogynistic; for my part, I used the phrase "latent misogyny", or more broadly defined, "hidden or concealed hatred or strong prejudice against women." Why did I use this phrase? I'll attempt to explain myself.
First of all, there was your various disparaging references to Lena Dunham's body: "lardy arse"; "flabby stomach, chunky thighs"; "wobbly bits wobbling unnervingly". Now, you talk about this as being more of a body image issue, which is fair enough. Trouble is, unwittingly or not, this is gender-specific because men simply do not get this level of focus, criticism and disgust levelled at their bodies. The presence of a perfectly normal beer-belly on a man in the public eye is of little consequence to the world, but a woman with a similarly normal body (i.e. Lena Dunham-esque in build) gets scrutiny and abuse. I'm no fan of rampant exhibitionism either, but as others have pointed out, would this be an issue if Lena Dunham were tall, skinny or otherwise conventionally attractive? Perhaps sometimes one has to go over the top to drive a point home.
Then you said "to this day I can't shift those wobbly visuals. They haunt my nightmares and disturb my days." Okay, I concede this might be an attempt at humour, but I read a genuine disgust in this that ties in with what I've written above. Lena Dunham is the specific person you're discussing, but what reception would you give a similarly built woman in a similar role? My assumption was that it'd be negative, from your language.
Next up, we've got the "Despite my kind efforts under duress, she then thanked me by telling her friends I watched the show. That information inevitably led to a sucession of folks poking fun at my expense."
Folks poking fun at your expense because you watch a TV show? Again, because of the language you've used, I assumed that you're getting laughed at because it's a TV show aimed primarily at women, and you don't appreciate being accused of watching such things.
We've later got "I previously just about tolerated Sex & the City, and Desperate Housewives before that. But in my opinion Girls just sunk trashy TV to a new low."
This read to me as you dismissing SATC, DH and then Girls - all programmes written by women and primarily for women - out of hand for being as such. Of course one doesn't have to like these shows, but again the dismissive language suggested more than mere dislike but something more akin to deep mistrust and yes, prejudice or hatred.
Last of all, I squared my interpretations of your comments with your (a few months back) discussion of Laura Snapes' sexual harrassment at the hands of Mark Kozelek. Let's be honest here, what he did was humiliating sexual harassment, and your easy dismissal of her concerns as a victim, staunch defence of the perpetrator (along with your own personal ridicule aimed at the woman) had a misogynistic ring to it that left a bad taste in my mouth.
So, in summary, thanks to all of the above, I assumed "latent misogyny" on your part in the current discussion. I'm not going to speculate whether that assumption has any base in reality, whether deliberate or unwilling; I've just attempted to explain why I came to that conclusion. I'll certainly admit that all of the above is based on my own personal assumptions, and if I'm well wide of the mark I wholeheartedly apologise for jumping to unfair conclusions. At present I'll apologise for being passive-agressive about it rather than tackling this head on.
On another note, I'm a fan of CYE myself, but haven't watched it since season 4. Perhaps it's time to catch up
Thank you for acknowledging that I made an effort to avoid anything that could be specifically construed as misogynistic. That was my intention. However to address your further point - I in no way intended to be covertly misogynistic. I tried to ensure everything I wrote on this page could not be correctly characterized as any form of misogyny.mc wrote:You're right that you didn't say anything overtly misogynistic; for my part, I used the phrase "latent misogyny", or more broadly defined, "hidden or concealed hatred or strong prejudice against women." Why did I use this phrase? I'll attempt to explain myself.
The terminology was deliberately non-gender specific. I agree in general with your point that women are more frequently subjected to an unnecessary and unpleasant spotlight, that shines more brightly on issues affecting them, compared with men.mc wrote:First of all, there was your various disparaging references to Lena Dunham's body: "lardy arse"; "flabby stomach, chunky thighs"; "wobbly bits wobbling unnervingly". Now, you talk about this as being more of a body image issue, which is fair enough. Trouble is, unwittingly or not, this is gender-specific because men simply do not get this level of focus, criticism and disgust levelled at their bodies. The presence of a perfectly normal beer-belly on a man in the public eye is of little consequence to the world, but a woman with a similarly normal body (i.e. Lena Dunham-esque in build) gets scrutiny and abuse. I'm no fan of rampant exhibitionism either, but as others have pointed out, would this be an issue if Lena Dunham were tall, skinny or otherwise conventionally attractive? Perhaps sometimes one has to go over the top to drive a point home.
Then you said "to this day I can't shift those wobbly visuals. They haunt my nightmares and disturb my days." Okay, I concede this might be an attempt at humour, but I read a genuine disgust in this that ties in with what I've written above. Lena Dunham is the specific person you're discussing, but what reception would you give a similarly built woman in a similar role? My assumption was that it'd be negative, from your language.
You are correct - I did not enjoy fun made at my expense, purely based on a childish interpretation of the inherent humour in a man being forced to watch girly TV shows. Please bear in mind this was not an audience of carefully selected sociologists or anthropologists. Is it my fault that other people found this situation amusing? If this happens again, should I chastise such folks for their temerity in finding such funny?mc wrote:Next up, we've got the "Despite my kind efforts under duress, she then thanked me by telling her friends I watched the show. That information inevitably led to a sucession of folks poking fun at my expense."
Folks poking fun at your expense because you watch a TV show? Again, because of the language you've used, I assumed that you're getting laughed at because it's a TV show aimed primarily at women, and you don't appreciate being accused of watching such things.
I did not dismiss any of these shows; I was dismissive in my attitude towards them, through explicitly expressing an opinion. There is a significant difference!mc wrote:We've later got "I previously just about tolerated Sex & the City, and Desperate Housewives before that. But in my opinion Girls just sunk trashy TV to a new low."
This read to me as you dismissing SATC, DH and then Girls - all programmes written by women and primarily for women - out of hand for being as such. Of course one doesn't have to like these shows, but again the dismissive language suggested more than mere dislike but something more akin to deep mistrust and yes, prejudice or hatred.
I admit I jumped right into the Mark Kozelek/Laura Snapes issue without due care and attention. I was exceptionally enthused and under various influences, when I mis-characterized her Guardian article and the whole situation. I knew very little about him at that point, other than he'd made a few records I just discovered and was immediately drawn to. I regret causing any offence in that instance.mc wrote:Last of all, I squared my interpretations of your comments with your (a few months back) discussion of Laura Snapes' sexual harrassment at the hands of Mark Kozelek. Let's be honest here, what he did was humiliating sexual harassment, and your easy dismissal of her concerns as a victim, staunch defence of the perpetrator (along with your own personal ridicule aimed at the woman) had a misogynistic ring to it that left a bad taste in my mouth.
No need to apologise. Everyone has the right to express their opinion. Ideally one person's opinions would never offend another person, but that could make life rather dull. I enjoy the intellectual rigour of folks picking up what may be some ill-thought-out remark on my part.mc wrote:So, in summary, thanks to all of the above, I assumed "latent misogyny" on your part in the current discussion. I'm not going to speculate whether that assumption has any base in reality, whether deliberate or unwilling; I've just attempted to explain why I came to that conclusion. I'll certainly admit that all of the above is based on my own personal assumptions, and if I'm well wide of the mark I wholeheartedly apologise for jumping to unfair conclusions. At present I'll apologise for being passive-agressive about it rather than tackling this head on.
Hard to say, really! I can't imagine Merc will be 1.5s off the pace again, given that every other race they've had on the soft/super-soft combination went fine for them, but it does suggest the lap times will be closer than the likes of Spa & Monza. Perhaps the extra heat and extremely twisting nature of the Singapore circuit was a big part of that time deficit? I think Hamilton might've wrestled his Merc onto the podium given better luck, but Vettel was clearly out of sight - he really is a master at that track. Whatever happens, hopefully Sochi will be more interesting than last year's race; the lack of tyre deg meant Rosberg really lucked out after that atrocious attempt at an overtake at the start. Bad planning means I'm travelling whilst it's on telly, so it'll be Five Live on my car's crappy MW radio channel for me. I'm keen on a good battle for P2 on the championship, but HAM can stay nice and clear at the top as far as I'm concernedBTW do you think Mercedes will have another Singapore situation, with the soft/supersofts again at Sochi? They claim to have found out what the problems were, but to suddenly end up 1.5 secs off the pace suggests a big problem that can't necessarily be fixed. I guess keeping the Mercs off then podium again would mix things up nicely for the climax of the season, another DNF would bring HAM back within nearly 1 race's worth of points - keeping things exciting. Last year Sochi was so uneventful (except for Putin getting so much coverage) with the conservative choice of tyres (Rosberg managing 52/53 laps on one set of primes!), I just don't know what to expect. On paper it looks like an interesting circuit, especially the big turn 3, but it's a street circuit with lots of runoff - so you end up with the worst of both worlds...
I'm a HAM fan too, but I can't deny that the daft Abu Double situation last year kept things interesting. I was all ready with righteous indignation had ROS stolen it, but we got a nice outcome.mc wrote:Hard to say, really! I can't imagine Merc will be 1.5s off the pace again, given that every other race they've had on the soft/super-soft combination went fine for them, but it does suggest the lap times will be closer than the likes of Spa & Monza. Perhaps the extra heat and extremely twisting nature of the Singapore circuit was a big part of that time deficit? I think Hamilton might've wrestled his Merc onto the podium given better luck, but Vettel was clearly out of sight - he really is a master at that track. Whatever happens, hopefully Sochi will be more interesting than last year's race; the lack of tyre deg meant Rosberg really lucked out after that atrocious attempt at an overtake at the start. Bad planning means I'm travelling whilst it's on telly, so it'll be Five Live on my car's crappy MW radio channel for me. I'm keen on a good battle for P2 on the championship, but HAM can stay nice and clear at the top as far as I'm concernedBTW do you think Mercedes will have another Singapore situation, with the soft/supersofts again at Sochi? They claim to have found out what the problems were, but to suddenly end up 1.5 secs off the pace suggests a big problem that can't necessarily be fixed. I guess keeping the Mercs off then podium again would mix things up nicely for the climax of the season, another DNF would bring HAM back within nearly 1 race's worth of points - keeping things exciting. Last year Sochi was so uneventful (except for Putin getting so much coverage) with the conservative choice of tyres (Rosberg managing 52/53 laps on one set of primes!), I just don't know what to expect. On paper it looks like an interesting circuit, especially the big turn 3, but it's a street circuit with lots of runoff - so you end up with the worst of both worlds...
mojo filters wrote: The last line from that episode is probably my all time favourite Larry David scenario: Mommy Mommy, that bald man is in the bathroom and there's something hard in his pants!
Though as someone cursed with premature hair loss, the quote that comes to mind most often is: Bald asshole? That's a hate crime!
I hope if he does another season of Curb it's as good as the rest. The same team of writers/producers from the last few series were responsible for the terrible HBO film Clear History. I was genuinely shocked at how bad that film was. It's not like LD can't act - I thought he was brilliant in Woody Allen's Whatever Works, which was the best recent Woody Allen film by far in my opinion. I guess it helped that Larry David's character was originally written for Zero Mostel, and the script was originally written in the late 1970s, not long after Annie Hall and Zelig.
LATENT MISOGYNYShinesalight wrote:Surely the Spiritualized forum is the ONLY place where a highbrow debate over accusations of misogyny can transform in to a petrol-head love-in
They're petrol-electric hybrid engines, ACTUALLY. So as well as inhaling petrol fumes, you might get to "taste the ozone" too. See, that's (sorta) Sp3 relevantolan wrote:Mods, can we please move the exhaust fumes of Bernie's F1 Empire to another Forum. The petrol fumes are spoiling the Spacemen 3 vibe just here...