darkblue
-
Posts
22,191 -
Joined
-
Days Won
38
Posts posted by darkblue
-
-
And of course if someone is really against using the word "actress," you'd think they'd also be against using the word "female!"
Why?
"Female" is not an occupation. Neither is "male". It's one's biological gender.
-
The words female, woman, and girl may all be politically incorrect
How so?
-
Well I might have insulted Fred (I know he feels I did), but since I'm a political centrist, I still don't qualify.
You should know if you insulted him or not.
If I say I think someone is wrong - is that an insult?
-
I notice that here on this message board, sometimes a liberal insults me and other times a conservative insults me.
Like who?
Can you give us an example of an insult you've received on this board?
-
Let's keep personal attacks, political attacks and racism off this thread and off these forums, please.
Woo-hoo! For once it's not me responsible for stimulating the old personal attacks plea to the moderator.
-
how about 'sorceress' and 'murderess'.
these two designations also adapt perfectly to the distinct gender nomenclatures.
i'm glad they do.
and i hated the term 'mankind'; it's sexist, chauvinistic, misogynist and implies homosexuality.
The masculine equivalent of sorceress and murderess are sorcerer and murderer. Waitress and waiter can also be cited as examples.
Notice the 'er' at the ends.
While "actman" was quite a humorous suggestion by SansFin - a more proper word would be 'acter' as a masculine form for the feminine 'actress'.
Actor (or, not er) is a gender-neutral term and is applicable to both male and female. Actress is perfectly fine to use if one is speaking of a female actor, though some females might prefer the gender-neutral term if they are being spoken about.
By the way, is it true that stewardess is now an obsolete term? I believe 'flight attendant' is now the correct terminology - does that apply to 'steward' as well?
-
There's nothing wrong with anything an American says in movies or in public it's called freedom of speech. The only ones that complain are those that want to control what people think and say.
Telling the truth and telling lies are both freedom of speech. I sometimes complain about the lying, though.
-
I believe that the principal aspect of the movie that provokes the greatest resentment from "blacks" (and probably many "whites" as well) is what has been termed "the Negro dialect".
I can understand that many people just don't want to hear this rather pronounced affectation, finding it both inaccurate and demeaning.
Some will counter that they've truly known people who've spoken that way, but that doesn't mean that everyone is okay with it being represented as it is in a Disney movie.
For some reason, this aspect has not been highlighted much in this discussion - and yet I don't think there's a more obvious example of why this movie is known to rub so many African-Americans the wrong way.
But, Disney could release the movie on DVD anyway. There's no law preventing it. And it probably will at some point. After all, the movie has seen many re-releases since 1946 (1956, 1972, 1973, 1980, 1986). But given the problematic response that is always attached to a greater or lesser degree - depending on the moment in time - it's a decision that the suits at Disney are having a great deal more thought about than most of their product.
-
1
-
-
If it weren't for those a-holes, you would not be sitting here right now taking part in this conversation.
I sure as hell would. I'm not here because of anything those a$$holes did.
I'm here because Canada is a part of the Commonwealth and was very much so when my grandfather came from England as one of the Dr. Bernardo children back in the 1910's.
-
1
-
-
No reason to feel guilty about past slave owners. Washington, Jefferson, Madison, slave owners all.
I've always said the "founding fathers" were a-holes.
-
What I am saying, and have been saying all along is this: Show those "happy-go-lucky" films, but also show those films that portrayed blacks as multi-dimensional human beings, not merely as "entertainers" who were put on God's Earth to sing and dance for whites.
Seriously, is that really too much to ask?
Have you looked at tonight's schedule?
-
As Vautrin said, almost all of them. It's pretty darned hard to be satisfied with the movie if you've read the book first.
If you've not read the book, the movie will often seem quite good.
But I'm one of those weirdo's who enjoyed 'Return to Oz', so what do I know?
-
Why, "Br'er BARE" of course, dark!
(...OOOPS, sorry...I mean "Bear")
No, seriously, Dargs. Which creature's name are we not permitted to read?
-
, an’ Brer ****,
and Brer what?
-
A decayed Ben Franklin is better than most people un-decayed.
Wow. You're pretty kweer for Ben Franklin, ay?
Must be the pantaloons.
-
In a perfect world, I would rather have Ben Franklin around TCM than Ben Mankiewicz.
He'd be a little decayed, don't cha think?
-
TCM underground was mandatory Saturday night viewing. And now it's gone. Well it has been gone for awhile. The world needs TCM underground back. I feel a lost and I know I'm not alone. There is so many great almost unknown b movies and TCM did a wonderful job showcasing the obscure. Please bring the show back.
Yes, it was gone for the month of August. It will be again for the month of February. This is to allow two annual monthly traditions to take place. One is known as 'Summer Under the Stars' and the other is known as 'Oscar Month'.
'Underground' is back now.
-
My opinion has been a minority opinion since I was seven. I never had any problem with it, unless I was being bullied and berated for having that opinion
Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean you're being bullied.
-
1
-
-
dark, I can't ask you if you've been here much, 'cause I know you have. Fair doesn't enter into any of the manner in which the most post.
If one finds that their opinion is often a minority one, I can understand how they might begin to feel that there's something unfair about that.
But it's not unfair. It's just each person saying what they think; feel; prefer. Whichever "camp" one finds oneself in - minority, majority, unique - it's all just people expressing themselves and hopefully entertaining the other members.
-
And the same most who want to tell the others what to think instead of those most leaving everyone to their opinions
I don't see it as anyone telling anyone else what to think.
No matter what the topic, if the way one person thinks is different from what another thinks, each wishes to represent by posting. It's only fair.
-
At the time regretfully, but now gratefully, my parents watched a certain PBS show where the vocabulary used required concomittant access to a dictionary. As we only had one television it was either watch the show, or G-d forbid do my homework or read a book so a residual effect was a strong vocabulary.
Well, at least you can communicate with yourself, if no one else.
-
How appropriate. Poe with a poe-face.
Looks drunk to me.
-
The main issue is whether or not a family film is indeed offensive to the vast majority of American audiences (and I suspect that it in reality is not). And the secondary issue is whether it should remain commercially unavailable in North America.
The subjects of racism and political correctness are much greater than the scope of this film discussion. I am sure you agree with me on that.
The question being asked by this thread is:
DOES ANYONE FIND SONG OF THE SOUTH (1946) OFFENSIVE...?
It is not "Should Disney re-release this film?". That some people may find aspects of racial stereotyping in the movie and object to the film on that basis is just part of the answer to the question posed.
The film is available, as the OP stated, for those who really want it. But, as there is no big call for it outside of this forum (that I'm aware of), there was no need to take the discussion to questions of its distribution over and above what is already available. There was also no need for people to be accused of "political correctness" for admitting they know that some people find the film offensive.
If one doesn't find the film offensive, that's fine. If one does, that's their prerogative and that's fine too.
It's always interesting how quickly a discussion can go off point - which most people are okay with, being that discussions travel their own path. But then we get someone who all of a sudden declares that the discussion shouldn't be meandering to the other areas where it has gone, even while altering the original topic himself.
-
Kudos to Joni for writing a truly great song. And kudos to CSNY for giving it the performance that makes it immortal. My favorite version, played with passion!
Should actresses be referred to as actors or actresses?
in General Discussions
Posted
Doing your Bill Cosby routine again, huh.