Personality Cafe banner

101 - 120 of 151 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,931 Posts
I'm actually really pissed off at Netflix for this TBH.
As someone who's been involved in dance in one form or another since the 80's, you can go to any professional or even non professional dance show and see similar moves performed by girls this exact age if not younger. Over sexualization of girls in dance has been an thing since I was 9 and remember there being a big to do about another group doing hips thrusts to Push It. Or at 11 when I was told my body was too proactive for ballet. (Remember a few years ago the controversy about 8 year olds dancing in bras and spankies to Beyonce?) Is it all of them? No. But it is enough that if I had a daughter I'd have to seriously vet any dance company she studied with, should she choose to dance.
I could google a dozen videos of similar performances, and while they would be at a distance, don't think for one second that there aren't close ups just like this video.



Anyone interested in the actual plot of the movie here it is:




This is not showing dancing proactively as being sexually empowering. Quite the opposite in fact.
(formatting is messing up so hopefully it works this time)



Yep. I hadn't watched the film but decided to because of this thread and what you wrote here. I wanted to see for myself.

I am kind of sensitive to too much fucked-up-ness about sexuality so I was worried--like American Beauty was really disturbing to me and I had to walk out of the movie theatre instead of finishing the movie Kinsey.

But it wasn't that bad--I cried several times. I think it's a good movie and it was well told, and I agree with you that the message definitely isn't that sexualizing girls is empowering. It's actually very moving and well made imo.

I can see how some sick nasty pedo might think differently, but it is NOT soft core porn. It's social commentary about what kind of influences young, probably especially poor immigrant, girls face. Being caught between western capitalist pressures and the pressures of constricting traditional gender roles.

I was thinking the same thing at first--about how there are so many influences that are putting that kind of pressure on young girls, and usually people are just like "oh they are just cute kids" etc. when you see a dance number that you're like really? And this movie goes past that and also just the abhorrence of the violation of the traditional viewpoint, and focuses on how it affects the actual young girls lives, and their perception of it.

So yeah I totally agree--this movie is social commentary that criticizes the sexualizing of young girls. It actually opens up a dialogue rather than it being "oh how cute!" or stupid qanon bullshit.

Attacking it as promoting abusing children is basically shooting the messenger. It's bringing up the issue of how these influences affect young girls rather than just falling back into treating girls like cute objects that should be dressed up by adults (either through the influence of pop culture and how we treat women, or literally in whatever parents think is appropriate for a girl to wear according to their desires for her expectations as a woman).

It was certainly uncomfortable to watch at times, but it treated the topic with dignity, realism, and respect. I think it was well made though perhaps there are things they could have done differently. idk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
(formatting is messing up so hopefully it works this time)



Yep. I hadn't watched the film but decided to because of this thread and what you wrote here. I wanted to see for myself.

I am kind of sensitive to too much fucked-up-ness about sexuality so I was worried--like American Beauty was really disturbing to me and I had to walk out of the movie theatre instead of finishing the movie Kinsey.

But it wasn't that bad--I cried several times. I think it's a good movie and it was well told, and I agree with you that the message definitely isn't that sexualizing girls is empowering. It's actually very moving and well made imo.

I can see how some sick nasty pedo might think differently, but it is NOT soft core porn. It's social commentary about what kind of influences young, probably especially poor immigrant, girls face. Being caught between western capitalist pressures and the pressures of constricting traditional gender roles.

I was thinking the same thing at first--about how there are so many influences that are putting that kind of pressure on young girls, and usually people are just like "oh they are just cute kids" etc. when you see a dance number that you're like really? And this movie goes past that and also just the abhorrence of the violation of the traditional viewpoint, and focuses on how it affects the actual young girls lives, and their perception of it.

So yeah I totally agree--this movie is social commentary that criticizes the sexualizing of young girls. It actually opens up a dialogue rather than it being "oh how cute!" or stupid qanon bullshit.

Attacking it as promoting abusing children is basically shooting the messenger. It's bringing up the issue of how these influences affect young girls rather than just falling back into treating girls like cute objects that should be dressed up by adults (either through the influence of pop culture and how we treat women, or literally in whatever parents think is appropriate for a girl to wear according to their desires for her expectations as a woman).

It was certainly uncomfortable to watch at times, but it treated the topic with dignity, realism, and respect. I think it was well made though perhaps there are things they could have done differently. idk
I'm glad you listened! It frustrates me that people latched onto the marketing and haven't given this movie a chance.
 

·
Registered
🌈🎹☮INFJ 666 sx/sp🇺🇸💃🏻💋
Joined
·
2,793 Posts
^ Haven't watched the film, it kinda seems to me like a bad choice to show them dancing in those angles, would perhaps do more for the symbolism of how absurd it is if they showed us a static audience view. I guess if the director wanted to shock and make us uncomfortable it works but doing so with real children doesn't seem like a great choice...

but in the end, this film is prob not worth the outrage compared to the real damage tiktok and insta do to kids in that regard, tiktok especially.. spending hours in front of the mirror & camera to achieve the best dance moves and look the sexiest...sets a bad precedent for social approval. But maybe those types of kids who invest in this don't have the nature to do something else anyways, and the rest will just grow out of it.
One of the loudest parts of the movie for me was the overwhelming silence and lack of proper guidance between the parents and the children. So many points to make about Internet safety, puberty, the need to belong, navigating womanhood etc

The ease at which children can gain unfettered internet access is staggering.

I also know plenty of moms who are outraged at this movie, but don’t monitor phones, social media or who have let their girls dance provocatively under the guise of competition. But that’s a whole other topic.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,931 Posts
Regarding the monitoring of children in the movie (or the lack of monitoring).

I sort of thought of that in terms of immigrant families. I know that in California, where I live, immigrant families tend to work harder and longer hours than anyone else, on average. Like there was a moment when the little girl with glasses almost started crying because she talked about missing her parents because they always work at the restaurant now.

I see this happening in immigrant families here that they can't really be there for their kids as much as they'd like because they are working all the time.

Additionally, there can be language barriers and technology barriers that are more pronounced. Like even though the little girl who was the main character didn't have a computer or a phone, she still got one. I doubt her mother had an account or had any idea that her daughter was doing anything online, let alone the scope of it, until the school called.

So while I think sometimes there's a generational gap of understanding technology, it might be even more pronounced in poor immigrant households where they don't really even have that much of a tradition of using the technology (if they come from rural areas).

I remember when I was in juvenile hall as a kid, there were two brothers that were locked up too. An older brother who I saw one day he wouldn't stop getting angry in his room. I don't know why he was angry, though they only let us outside one hour a day to a small yard, so imo he could have maybe needed to get more of his energy out. But he started banging on the door and walls of his cell, so the guards couldn't get him to stop and so finally they opened the door and pepper-sprayed him right in the eyes, and then grabbed him and put him in the "padded room."

But he also had a little brother there that was only like 12 or something. And I assume the little brother was following in the big brother's footsteps. The little brother did this weird rap about the devil and I'm not sure if he was trying to impress me. The content was quite adult but overall he still just seemed like a little kid.

Well anyway, one day I saw their parents (or grandparents) come in during visiting time, and it was just two totally traditionally dressed parents--very very short as is typical of some of the indigenous groups of northern Mexico. The husband and wife both just had the most downcast faces and you could tell by looking at them that they were the type of people who worked hard every day in their lives. It was so sad to see.

But it made me think about the kinds of things immigrant families end up giving up when they come here and end up exploited for labor. It's hard to explain. And as if their children don't fully belong to them--they can't always be there as much as they would want, but their children are also in some way rejected by society here and cannot really find belonging. I just felt so bad for those people--they looked like the type of people who probably prayed and worked all day and their kids were just being influenced by so many forces outside their understanding. I don't think either of them could speak English either, by their body language and the way they were talking to the reception.

But it's such a fight on so many levels to keep kids out of the hands of negative influences. For them, I think it was probably gangs like MS13 that had gotten to the kids, especially with that little tiny 12 year old rapping about the Devil.

Though I agree about the hypocrisy of criticizing the film while giving kids access to technology beyond their age--and technology isn't just affecting immigrant families. And yeah the competitive dancing thing seems a bit hypocritical too. Also, I feel like this fear of pedophilia is really sort of selective, because this movie is getting criticized but then there are groups that are super supportive of Trump, and the comments he's made about going behind miss universe competitions while the women were naked to "inspect" it, and just how he can just grab any woman etc. Well he also owned Miss Teen USA. I mean, but then the same people who would criticize a movie like this would probably give excuses for competitions like that that are run by people like that. Though that is also another topic and this one doesn't need to be derailed with Trump.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,931 Posts
A family member shared this because they thought it was so funny, but I also thought it was so cute.

I think I said in this thread, at some point, that I'd rather not be in a shitty relationship than to just be alone and have an ideal to imagine or create artistically, but this video is such a cute example of what I wouldn't consider ideal (really at all), but still so worthwhile.

These people look so happy and they are laughing so much, and also adventurous to try new things. I found this video weirdly affirming of romance, and of course it also has a boat in it which somehow might tie into what I was talking about earlier. But I just think it's so cute. But I'd rather be part of this group for sure than yacht guy. They know how to laugh and enjoy life.

So this is also media, but I just think it's rarer to see scenes of joy or just such laughing and being open to trying new things. I realize that part of the theme of this video is to make fun of the women's weight because of the size of the boat, but their attitude is so amazing--all of them. I just love it as an example of enjoying life and trying new things, and dealing with adversity with a good attitude. It redeems relationships to me.

Because if humans are shitty and imperfect, at least they can try new things and laugh a lot? And their sense of community and care, and willingness to come together and stuff. It's just seems so good.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
A family member shared this because they thought it was so funny, but I also thought it was so cute.

I think I said in this thread, at some point, that I'd rather not be in a shitty relationship than to just be alone and have an ideal to imagine or create artistically, but this video is such a cute example of what I wouldn't consider ideal (really at all), but still so worthwhile.

These people look so happy and they are laughing so much, and also adventurous to try new things. I found this video weirdly affirming of romance, and of course it also has a boat in it which somehow might tie into what I was talking about earlier. But I just think it's so cute. But I'd rather be part of this group for sure than yacht guy. They know how to laugh and enjoy life.

So this is also media, but I just think it's rarer to see scenes of joy or just such laughing and being open to trying new things. I realize that part of the theme of this video is to make fun of the women's weight because of the size of the boat, but their attitude is so amazing--all of them. I just love it as an example of enjoying life and trying new things, and dealing with adversity with a good attitude. It redeems relationships to me.

Because if humans are shitty and imperfect, at least they can try new things and laugh a lot? And their sense of community and care, and willingness to come together and stuff. It's just seems so good.

So much squawking! LOL!

When I look at old letters from writers like Emily Dickinson, I see how normal it was to have deep, meaningful relationships outside of romantic and parent/child relationships. Somewhere along the line the message became about the nuclear family, probably somewhere in the middle of households ceasing to be multi-generational homes and became almost exclusively nuclear families. Meaningful friendships and the value of extended family were devalued in the shuffle. But I've read old letters and I see it wasn't always like that. I think families lost some foundational supports elevating romantic and parent/child relationships so high and lowering the value of other relationships.

I don't see a lot of push toward those traditions but people pushing "family values" remembering the 20th century. In the grand scheme of things the nuclear family is a recent invention. I think society suffered through the industrial revolution and never entirely recovered. Wage work instead of task work had twisted a lot about our world, including our relationships. I don't think a romantic partner can or should be responsible for being a person's sole emotional support in the world. I don't think it's healthy or fair to them. I think it places too much burden on romantic relationships to be everything and no one can or should be your everything. I doubt the health of that ideal.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,931 Posts
So much squawking! LOL!

When I look at old letters from writers like Emily Dickinson, I see how normal it was to have deep, meaningful relationships outside of romantic and parent/child relationships. Somewhere along the line the message became about the nuclear family, probably somewhere in the middle of households ceasing to be multi-generational homes and became almost exclusively nuclear families. Meaningful friendships and the value of extended family were devalued in the shuffle. But I've read old letters and I see it wasn't always like that. I think families lost some foundational supports elevating romantic and parent/child relationships so high and lowering the value of other relationships.

I don't see a lot of push toward those traditions but people pushing "family values" remembering the 20th century. In the grand scheme of things the nuclear family is a recent invention. I think society suffered through the industrial revolution and never entirely recovered. Wage work instead of task work had twisted a lot about our world, including our relationships. I don't think a romantic partner can or should be responsible for being a person's sole emotional support in the world. I don't think it's healthy or fair to them. I think it places too much burden on romantic relationships to be everything and no one can or should be your everything. I doubt the health of that ideal.
I don't think I've read any of Emily Dickinson's letters, but that reminds me of one of my favorite books which is called the Summer Book by Tove Jansson, which is about a family living on an island, but a lot of it is specifically the grandaughter and the grandmother's interactions and discussions. It's a really beautiful book.

I hadn't thought about how the push for the nuclear family puts too much emphasis on the romantic relationship aspect. I guess I tend to think more of disturbing fifties housewives commercials when I think of the "ideal" "nuclear family" (like where they are thrilled to get a new vacuum cleaner or something). But it makes sense that would influence ideals about love.

And I agree with you that the industrial revolution really did a number on people--on their families and on their happiness. Women, especially, were thrust into the industry without having a lot of safety imo. I don't think family was supported at all at their work? Like they were moreso expected to just be single women because of the idea that for a mother or a married woman, work was not respectable. And because men oversaw women and probably forced similar expectations on them that they would have had for themselves, despite man being able to engage in the workforce because a woman was home to care for the kids (if it was a wealthier man).

That's really interesting to think of how the notion of romance was changed by the industrial revolution--it really seems to make sense though, and be part of modern notions of romance.

When I think about the romantic poets, they focused a lot on nature and I think the industrial revolution would have been the opposite of their ideals. Of sort of conquering nature and trying to subordinate it, which wasn't in line with romanticism I don't think.

Even back in the earlier romances--like the Chivalric romances, it's mostly about the two lovers. They sort of defy every other convention except their own passions. But that's also why they are often sort of tragic, because that kind of love doesn't really offer the type of support that the more traditional systems would (of like marrying for family wealth or whatever).

But women have always been the ones left to bear the burden after "romantic" encounters that aren't consummated legally. I think for working women, they've always been vulnerable to that as they tend to be of lower status and less protected. I think the term "slut" came from the term for a kitchen maid, who worked in the kitchens. It was easy for women who were unprotected by their families and working in the homes of more powerful men, to end up being subjected to the men's erotic motivations. And it was also terrible to then have to carry the pregnancy and the baby in abject poverty if the woman was left unsupported.

I imagine that some of those notions about the sexual privileges of powerful men and the vulnerability of working women did carry over, to a degree, through the industrial revolution and after it.

It's healthier to have a broader support group than just a single partner, like family and friends or other communities. So I agree. For sure women also need to access accomplishments outside the sphere of domesticity, as men have generally had access to as well, which didn't really work that well during the industrial revolution, though I think we are trying to allow that now.

Those sound like interesting letters to read.

Perhaps some ideals about the nuclear family were supposed to enhance consumerism in a family instead of idk older family ideals such as caring for or developing deep bonds with extended family for support?

It seems like it's really tied to the idea of the middle class--the nuclear family? And I really can't help but think of products to care for the house and stuff...I guess perhaps family wasn't as important if people were to be "self made" as some modern American ideals. They wouldn't have ties to an old family house like a middle class family of the past would? And they would always need the newer gadgets to make their lives easier, rather then servants or extended family to help with running the household? Idk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
177 Posts
I suspect that our civilization is banking on the hope that despite the overexposure of explicit content, we will all somehow have the restraint, discipline, and maturity to deal with it all in a way that is conductive to civil society. That's a dangerous gambit. If you're the type of person who has that kind of maturity, then living in this overexposed world isn't difficult at all. You just don't look or listen and go on with your day, but this kind of world is new. Almost every kind of craving can be met with some product, every desire justified, every fantasy met with some show or movie. Even if you yourself don't indulge, the odds are it effects your relationship with someone else who does.

I think we've always had to decide what we want to protect our children from and what to allow them to experience so they have the ability to deal with real life. However, how much is too much? If the world/real life is full of every temptation and danger and those are easily accessible, is protecting your kids from it even a reasonable strategy anymore? Protecting them from it could hinder their ability to deal with the inevitable facing of it. Maybe this is part of the reason why parents may be taking the "hands off" approach to parenting. The world is just way more complicated than it was before and the only way for a child to be prepared to live in this world is for them to learn by trial and error themselves.

Now personally, I don't believe in a "hands off approach" to parenting. That's just laziness and children needs lots of guidance, but there is a point wherein a parent simply cannot prepare a kid for the world. That world is increasingly shaped by media, technology, etc.

So what do we do? I think we just need to accept the reality that the world is complex, that our perception is highly biased by a variety of factors, that there are limitations to how much control we have, and that we have to do what we can to combat those more negative forces so that our lives and others' don't fall to ruin.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
I don't think I've read any of Emily Dickinson's letters, but that reminds me of one of my favorite books which is called the Summer Book by Tove Jansson, which is about a family living on an island, but a lot of it is specifically the grandaughter and the grandmother's interactions and discussions. It's a really beautiful book.

I hadn't thought about how the push for the nuclear family puts too much emphasis on the romantic relationship aspect. I guess I tend to think more of disturbing fifties housewives commercials when I think of the "ideal" "nuclear family" (like where they are thrilled to get a new vacuum cleaner or something). But it makes sense that would influence ideals about love.

And I agree with you that the industrial revolution really did a number on people--on their families and on their happiness. Women, especially, were thrust into the industry without having a lot of safety imo. I don't think family was supported at all at their work? Like they were moreso expected to just be single women because of the idea that for a mother or a married woman, work was not respectable. And because men oversaw women and probably forced similar expectations on them that they would have had for themselves, despite man being able to engage in the workforce because a woman was home to care for the kids (if it was a wealthier man).

That's really interesting to think of how the notion of romance was changed by the industrial revolution--it really seems to make sense though, and be part of modern notions of romance.

When I think about the romantic poets, they focused a lot on nature and I think the industrial revolution would have been the opposite of their ideals. Of sort of conquering nature and trying to subordinate it, which wasn't in line with romanticism I don't think.

Even back in the earlier romances--like the Chivalric romances, it's mostly about the two lovers. They sort of defy every other convention except their own passions. But that's also why they are often sort of tragic, because that kind of love doesn't really offer the type of support that the more traditional systems would (of like marrying for family wealth or whatever).

But women have always been the ones left to bear the burden after "romantic" encounters that aren't consummated legally. I think for working women, they've always been vulnerable to that as they tend to be of lower status and less protected. I think the term "slut" came from the term for a kitchen maid, who worked in the kitchens. It was easy for women who were unprotected by their families and working in the homes of more powerful men, to end up being subjected to the men's erotic motivations. And it was also terrible to then have to carry the pregnancy and the baby in abject poverty if the woman was left unsupported.

I imagine that some of those notions about the sexual privileges of powerful men and the vulnerability of working women did carry over, to a degree, through the industrial revolution and after it.

It's healthier to have a broader support group than just a single partner, like family and friends or other communities. So I agree. For sure women also need to access accomplishments outside the sphere of domesticity, as men have generally had access to as well, which didn't really work that well during the industrial revolution, though I think we are trying to allow that now.

Those sound like interesting letters to read.

Perhaps some ideals about the nuclear family were supposed to enhance consumerism in a family instead of idk older family ideals such as caring for or developing deep bonds with extended family for support?

It seems like it's really tied to the idea of the middle class--the nuclear family? And I really can't help but think of products to care for the house and stuff...I guess perhaps family wasn't as important if people were to be "self made" as some modern American ideals. They wouldn't have ties to an old family house like a middle class family of the past would? And they would always need the newer gadgets to make their lives easier, rather then servants or extended family to help with running the household? Idk
Sounds like an interesting book. I'll have to make a point of picking that up.

I think there are divergences between what happened in Europe and America during the industrial revolution. If you look at the average age of a woman getting married (first marriage) from the early American settlements, industrial revolution and into the 20th century, American's married younger. Europe had more women than men and America more men than women. America had a more migratory population and was a magnet for young men. Settling in America cut a lot of ties with extended family. Europe was short men because so many emigrated and higher paying work overseas as merchants, navy, army, etc...European women stayed in the workforce for longer before marrying and the lower classes continued working after marriage. Lower class European women typically stopped working as house servants after marrying but often still worked and their kids worked or looked after younger siblings. Middle and upper class looked down on them criticized the kids lacking supervision and running in the streets. The insular nuclear family took off earlier in America and the ideal of women staying home reached the lower classes earlier. Sort of copying the upper classes and Greeks/Roman's from Classical literature.

I guess I'd seen women staying home as a traditional western thing but it's not as straight forward as that. Working class European didn't have that privilege to start with. But thinking about it, my mother's parents were European immigrants, my grandmother married in her late 20's and never stayed home with the kids, she always had to work. My father's American mother never worked outside the home. She went straight from college to housewife. Even in America, it doesn't look like immigrants or women from minority groups stayed home with the kids. The self-sufficient, independent ideal for families might not be all that healthy. I was also thinking about the middle class and that it's a relatively new. I can't remember what the percentages were but originally there was the upper class and working class. With banking a middle bourgeoisie started in the renaissance. Then in the 19th century the middle class grows to be large enough to require upper classes to cater to and include in voting. Then the 20th century the middle class became the majority of the population.

Back when your spouse wasn't the largest part of your support system, I have my doubts that so much weight was placed on picking the perfect partner. Some people had closer relationships with friends than their spouse. If you don't have a self-sufficient, independent, nuclear family, but instead have multiple deep, meaningful relationships beyond your spouse and children, you aren't 'stuck' with this person in isolation for the rest of your life. It's great if some people have really amazing romances, but I think it became hyper-emphasized and expected by just how insular families have become. The exception became an expectation. When people talk about a city or town becoming too expensive to live in, the first reaction is 'move' but when people pick up and move over and over again, they lose their support systems and puts more pressure on marriages that their partner needs to be their everything. I think a starting point would be things like trying to solve problems as communities instead of the response that it is each family's problem living in the community and they need to solve it alone. Anyway, just some of my thoughts.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,931 Posts
Sounds like an interesting book. I'll have to make a point of picking that up.

I think there are divergences between what happened in Europe and America during the industrial revolution. If you look at the average age of a woman getting married (first marriage) from the early American settlements, industrial revolution and into the 20th century, American's married younger. Europe had more women than men and America more men than women. America had a more migratory population and was a magnet for young men. Settling in America cut a lot of ties with extended family. Europe was short men because so many emigrated and higher paying work overseas as merchants, navy, army, etc...European women stayed in the workforce for longer before marrying and the lower classes continued working after marriage. Lower class European women typically stopped working as house servants after marrying but often still worked and their kids worked or looked after younger siblings. Middle and upper class looked down on them criticized the kids lacking supervision and running in the streets. The insular nuclear family took off earlier in America and the ideal of women staying home reached the lower classes earlier. Sort of copying the upper classes and Greeks/Roman's from Classical literature.

I guess I'd seen women staying home as a traditional western thing but it's not as straight forward as that. Working class European didn't have that privilege to start with. But thinking about it, my mother's parents were European immigrants, my grandmother married in her late 20's and never stayed home with the kids, she always had to work. My father's American mother never worked outside the home. She went straight from college to housewife. Even in America, it doesn't look like immigrants or women from minority groups stayed home with the kids. The self-sufficient, independent ideal for families might not be all that healthy. I was also thinking about the middle class and that it's a relatively new. I can't remember what the percentages were but originally there was the upper class and working class. With banking a middle bourgeoisie started in the renaissance. Then in the 19th century the middle class grows to be large enough to require upper classes to cater to and include in voting. Then the 20th century the middle class became the majority of the population.

Back when your spouse wasn't the largest part of your support system, I have my doubts that so much weight was placed on picking the perfect partner. Some people had closer relationships with friends than their spouse. If you don't have a self-sufficient, independent, nuclear family, but instead have multiple deep, meaningful relationships beyond your spouse and children, you aren't 'stuck' with this person in isolation for the rest of your life. It's great if some people have really amazing romances, but I think it became hyper-emphasized and expected by just how insular families have become. The exception became an expectation. When people talk about a city or town becoming too expensive to live in, the first reaction is 'move' but when people pick up and move over and over again, they lose their support systems and puts more pressure on marriages that their partner needs to be their everything. I think a starting point would be things like trying to solve problems as communities instead of the response that it is each family's problem living in the community and they need to solve it alone. Anyway, just some of my thoughts.
Yeah--it's a pretty book. I read it while I was living with my grandmother for a while, so it took on sort of an extra meaning. My grandmother was a very important person in my life and I just love this book (even though no one in my family is Finnish). And some parts make me laugh--like the little girl's monologues.


That is a good point about the idea that people should just move from their communities if they can't afford it, as that takes away their support systems. Plus, people need to adapt to a community to be part of it. And then, just morally (or something), it seems wrong to treat community members as expendable--if they helped build the community, just to be driven out if someone richer decides that they'd rather live there and so the original community members should no longer live there if they can't afford it.

So I agree with you about solving problems as a community--it's part of what makes a community.

I feel like staying at home with the children while working is more of an agrarian society thing. Like when you work on your farms, then it's different then when you are in some city working in a factory.

Farms and rural areas, or societies that aren't that industrial, they can allow children to be a part of daily life so women can still work but also care for children. Or, at least, there can be older community members who may not be as strong of laborers, but they can focus more on watching over the children as they learn to work along with adults (like at a healthy normal pace--not as in child labor).

Centers of industry also tend to require these rural people to move away from their families and live in cities. And then the standards for work are more cut throat imo--unlike a homestead where people all work together communally to provide for the community. Children in agrarian communities are helpers, whereas children in post-industrial, capitalist communities are liabilities as they are less profitable.

Plus, in post-industrial communities where there is a lot of wealth disparity, the wealthy don't consider themselves part of the same community as the poor, and vice versa. So there is also a reduced concern for what to do with the poor's children, I guess? Maybe?

My great grandmother was from a more agrarian part of England and then her mother ended up taking work for a middle class family--probably keeping their house or helping tend to their bar. She ended up getting pregnant by the man who she worked for, even though she was also already married to her actual husband. Then both her and her husband died in the same year, fairly young and their other daughter sort of disappeared or died as well. But fortunately for my grandmother's survival, I guess, the richer middle class man who was actually her father adopted her and she was able to escape whatever influences killed both her mother and her mother's husband. I assume it was related to socio-economics because the poor workers lived in much different conditions than the middle class. I guess that's what reminds me of the industrial revolution--not sure where else I was going with that. I guess how it disrupts family systems--even nuclear family for the poor.

But yeah--that makes sense that perhaps the view of needing to be an independent, self-sufficient nuclear family unit would push this idea that you need to find the perfect partner for that life, because they are more of a larger support without an extended support system. Family (as in children) is also more of an expense now, whereas in an agrarian society it wouldn't be such a negative influence, and the kids would actually help. But in a very difficult environment financially, I guess both children and the elderly are seen more as expenses since they aren't quite as profitable?

For me the "ideal" comes more from trust issues--I just have been in too many situations with men who acted more like predators than community members with me. I would rather not be in an intimate relationship with someone who I feel could take on the role of exploiter or whatever, and unfortunately, it does seem common for some men to take that role (like the old yacht guy) with women, rather than like treat them like "tribe members" or whatever--like they are in survival together.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,396 Posts
^^^^ i love tove jansson. the moomin books all have this weird quality that reminds me of what someone once said about something else. 'classic valiant. equal parts creepy and reassuring.'

bringing this back to more simplistic questions, i was thinking today about how one of the most stupid memes is also so pervasive and so long-standing that i didn't even remember it till today. that's the 'antagonism::attraction' from so many totally mainstream sources. the original star wars movie is a classic example. two characters sniping and putting each other down is so universally accepted as somehow [and i always seem to miss the moment where the transition makes sense] suddenly switching polarities and being revealed as something else.

i think that's dangerous. not as overtly and obviously dangerous as a pretty woman type thing, i guess. but my god, the number of couples i've been around where that kind of cheap-ass putdown comedy is the norm. if a guy is acting antagonistic towards me i don't think he 'likes' me. even if he DOES like me, all roads still lead to 'i think that it means he's a dick'.
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Mignones? As if the whole theme of the film was not terribly bad and dangerous beyond the "mere" vulgar movement of those tiny little bodies.

Imho only people without children or even hate children could ever defend this film in its entirety. Pick one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,208 Posts
Mignones? As if the whole theme of the film was not terribly bad and dangerous beyond the "mere" vulgar movement of those tiny little bodies.

Imho only people without children or even hate children could ever defend this film in its entirety. Pick one.
Your opinion will matter when you've actually watched it. The point is that it should make the audience uncomfortable.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
326 Posts
Mignones? As if the whole theme of the film was not terribly bad and dangerous beyond the "mere" vulgar movement of those tiny little bodies.

Imho only people without children or even hate children could ever defend this film in its entirety. Pick one.
I guess a lot of people have picked one. Talking about how terrible a movie is for showing bad and dangerous themes VS facing the reality of these same bad and dangerous themes actually occurring in real life. Canceling your Netflix subscription, calling on Netflix to remove or censor the movie, even talking about what a delight this movie is for pedophiles is not about taking action against these things happening to real kids. It's more about covering up how uncomfortable this movie makes you feel.
 

·
Registered
🌈🎹☮INFJ 666 sx/sp🇺🇸💃🏻💋
Joined
·
2,793 Posts
I'm actually really pissed off at Netflix for this TBH.
As someone who's been involved in dance in one form or another since the 80's, you can go to any professional or even non professional dance show and see similar moves performed by girls this exact age if not younger. Over sexualization of girls in dance has been an thing since I was 9 and remember there being a big to do about another group doing hips thrusts to Push It. Or at 11 when I was told my body was too proactive for ballet. (Remember a few years ago the controversy about 8 year olds dancing in bras and spankies to Beyonce?) Is it all of them? No. But it is enough that if I had a daughter I'd have to seriously vet any dance company she studied with, should she choose to dance.
I could google a dozen videos of similar performances, and while they would be at a distance, don't think for one second that there aren't close ups just like this video.



Anyone interested in the actual plot of the movie here it is:

 

The girls family is a traditional Muslim family from Senegal and they live in a poor region of Paris I believe. She is upset that her father is taking a second wife and has to watch her mother feign excitement despite being very upset. She befriends a girl in her apartment who is trying to, with some other girls, win a dance contest. These girls do dress in crop tops and just seem more grown up. Possibly they also have very little parental supervision. But the dance moves they do are not overtly sexual. She does steal a phone and see some provocative dance moves performed by adult women, which she teaches the other girls. While watching the dance moves on the phone, the adult woman dancing lifts her shirt exposing her breasts. There is a scene where they flirt with some older boys but the boys have no interest and leave. There is also a scene where some older girls bully her and pull her pants down and make fun of her child like underwear. She also starts her period. She is told she is a women now and her grandmother tells her how shortly (a couple years) after she started hers she was married off. When the person who owns the phone sees she has stolen it, he argues with her and wants it back. She tries to seduce him by taking her shirt off (reveling a crop top) and starts to unbutton her pants. Disgusted, he leaves and then she locks herself in the bathroom. She takes a photo of her vagina (implied not seen) and posts it on social media. The her friends get mad at her for this and make fun of her. Her new group of friends no longer want to be friends with her, and kick her out of their dance group.

She is bound and determined to still dance at the competition with her friends. At one point she pushes one of the other dancers in a river/canel so that she can take her spot. At first their dance is the simple dance moves they did in the beginning. Then, they switch and start doing the overtly sexual and provocative dance. The audience is appalled by their dance moves. Literally they are disgusted. They boo them and they camera pans to a nasty looking creeper who is obviously enjoying it. Midway through the dance she runs off stage and goes home. Her family is getting ready for her father's wedding to his second wife. The aunt is furious with her but the mother intervenes and tells the aunt to back off. The girl does not want to be a part of the wedding. The mother lets her leave.

There is a dress in the move that symbolizes her heritage. It’s ugly and what she has to wear at the wedding. That dress and the dance uniform symbolize the two extremes the girl is dealing with if her “coming of age moment”. When she leaves see finds some kids jumping rope and joins them. It’s obvious she is finding some middle ground in her transition of cultures and growing up.


This is not showing dancing proactively as being sexually empowering. Quite the opposite in fact.

It's slow moving (I've literally seen paint dry faster than this movie moves) and while I do question some of the decisions made here, the director has stated that there was a child psychologist and also a social worker on stage working with these girls and putting everything into context for them.

My friend called it a remake of the movie Thirteen but with French subtitles.

Quoting myself to add, and because I just remembered this, Dance Moms aired for 8 years I believe and did shit like this fairly often. But NOW this is an issue.

(They did a burlesque style dance with feathers. There was even a dude filming so people could buy copies of the dvd later. The audience is obviously uncomfortable, but no one says anything)

868239




And this is not an anomaly for ratings. This happens all the damn time in the dance world. You can google similar routines from kids younger.
Im honestly glad that this is becoming an issue, but until this stops all together it just screams hypocrisy. Cancelling Netflix but ignoring the larger issue will fix nothing. Its moral masterbation.

Lifetime eventually pulled this episode from rotation but its still available online as are plenty of other routines ten year olds should not be doing.
 

·
Registered
INFJ
Joined
·
5,866 Posts
Discussion Starter #116
Your opinion will matter when you've actually watched it. The point is that it should make the audience uncomfortable.
I guess a lot of people have picked one. Talking about how terrible a movie is for showing bad and dangerous themes VS facing the reality of these same bad and dangerous themes actually occurring in real life. Canceling your Netflix subscription, calling on Netflix to remove or censor the movie, even talking about what a delight this movie is for pedophiles is not about taking action against these things happening to real kids. It's more about covering up how uncomfortable this movie makes you feel.
Quoting myself to add, and because I just remembered this, Dance Moms aired for 8 years I believe and did shit like this fairly often. But NOW this is an issue.

(They did a burlesque style dance with feathers. There was even a dude filming so people could buy copies of the dvd later. The audience is obviously uncomfortable, but no one says anything)

View attachment 868239



And this is not an anomaly for ratings. This happens all the damn time in the dance world. You can google similar routines from kids younger.
Im honestly glad that this is becoming an issue, but until this stops all together it just screams hypocrisy. Cancelling Netflix but ignoring the larger issue will fix nothing. Its moral masterbation.

Lifetime eventually pulled this episode from rotation but its still available online as are plenty of other routines ten year olds should not be doing.
The problem people have with the film has nothing to do with it making people uncomfortable.
It's because the film maker felt the need to HIRE ACTORS AND TO DIRECT THEM TO DO THESE ACTS!!!!!!!!!!
Nobody would have a problem if this would have been a DOCUMENTARY.
The above shows there are plenty of REAL LIFE EXAMPLES OF THIS HAPPENING.
Yes, it's bad and it should be exposed.
What some people don't get it is it makes no sense to HIRE MORE ACTORS TO SEXUALIZE WHEN REAL LIFE CHILDREN ARE ALREADY BEING SEXUALIZED.
People's outrage has nothing to do with the plot, the premise or the reality: it was about the hypocrisy in how the film was made.
It's like....well, killing puppies, yourself, to expose the ugliness of puppy murder, instead of documenting cases of puppies who have already been murdered
868251
 

·
Registered
🌈🎹☮INFJ 666 sx/sp🇺🇸💃🏻💋
Joined
·
2,793 Posts
The problem people have with the film has nothing to do with it making people uncomfortable.
It's because the film maker felt the need to HIRE ACTORS AND TO DIRECT THEM TO DO THESE ACTS!!!!!!!!!!
Nobody would have a problem if this would have been a DOCUMENTARY.
The above shows there are plenty of REAL LIFE EXAMPLES OF THIS HAPPENING.
Yes, it's bad and it should be exposed.
What some people don't get it is it makes no sense to HIRE MORE ACTORS TO SEXUALIZE WHEN REAL LIFE CHILDREN ARE ALREADY BEING SEXUALIZED.
People's outrage has nothing to do with the plot, the premise or the reality: it was about the hypocrisy in how the film was made.
It's like....well, killing puppies, yourself, to expose the ugliness of puppy murder, instead of documenting cases of puppies who have already been murdered
View attachment 868251
I actually agree that child actors should not have been used. Its one of many problems I have with the movie. Technically if anything body doubles should have been used like they did for Jodi Foster in Taxi Driver. The director had both a child psychologist and social worker on set to talk with these girls and to put everything into context for them. Which is more than other girls doing this IRL get.
But this is not the issue I’m hearing from people IRL Is not them using actual children. Im seeing a whole lot of hypocrisy over this movie vs what they allow their own daughters to do. One who canceled her Netflix but has no problem letting her 13 year old wear a cheeky bikini.
 

·
Registered
🌈🎹☮INFJ 666 sx/sp🇺🇸💃🏻💋
Joined
·
2,793 Posts
Basically, I understand the outrage and don’t really disagree, but i just think it’s misplaced and useless unless its focused at the larger IRL picture.

I actually agree that child actors should not have been used. Its one of many problems I have with the movie. Technically if anything body doubles should have been used like they did for Jodi Foster in Taxi Driver. The director had both a child psychologist and social worker on set to talk with these girls and to put everything into context for them. Which is more than other girls doing this IRL get.
But this is not the issue I’m hearing from people IRL Is not them using actual children. Im seeing a whole lot of hypocrisy over this movie vs what they allow their own daughters to do. One who canceled her Netflix but has no problem letting her 13 year old wear a cheeky bikini.
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Your opinion will matter when you've actually watched it. The point is that it should make the audience uncomfortable.
What kind of struggle that makes it interesting? The kind of struggle where bunch of children dare to fight their parents just in order to express themselves in skimpy fabric while doing the dick grinding movements as if there are no other options in their early taste of what life can give them? Is that the kind of INSPIRING STRUGGLE THE PRODUCER AND YOU WANT TO PROMOTE?

Whatever happen to story of children who struggle just to be able to eat? Or to get to school? Or to help their parents through hardship? Or to realize their dream to be doctors, or ceo, or writers, or rocket scientist, or ballerina, or folk dance, or any other kind of dances from so many options that DO NOT require them to perform dances in skimpy fabric while doing the dick grinding movements?

Does a movie needs actual depiction of people beating dogs just for them to know it is bad?
Does a movie needs actual depiction of people raping people just for them to know it is bad?
Does a movie ...................................?
Does a movie ...................................?
Those are really insulting arguments. Truly.

Children is pure, sacred, protected. There is always universally applied limit of things anyone may expose to children, let alone for the children to actually perform, regardless of where you live in this planet. Does not matter, ESPECIALLY for all things sexual. Even the most heinous criminal in prisons knew it that's why they always treat any kind of sexual offenders, even worse for children as the victims, in very special way. Smh.
 
101 - 120 of 151 Posts
Top