05 August 2013
Titanic & Men's Choices
Guys,
I wanted to write this long ago, but for whatever reason, I never did. Since it's still talked about; since it was re-released in 3D; I thought it was appropos to discuss the movie, Titanic, at this time.
The movie, Titanic, could have been the home run that Apollo 13 was; it could have provided good drama while respecting the history of the event. However, Titanic, in the words of Time or Newsweek, was nothing but “a quasi Marxian epic.”
I had a few problems with Titanic. One was the meme that women didn’t have any choices in those days-as if men did. Two, the romance between Jack & Rose was BS! Three, the characters, especially Rose’s fiance’, were PC caricatures. Four, as the authoress correctly points out, Rose betrayed her husband to be.
One thing that pissed me off when I saw Titanic was the BS line Rose’s mother uttered about women not having any choices. What, you think that MEN did?! Come on! We had no choice but to marry and have families! We had no choice but to take on any work (no matter how demeaning, dirty, and/or dangerous) to do so. We, as men, had no choices in a lot of matters.
Ever been in a coal mine? I have. Trust me; it’s no place any rational person would want to work! Between the risk of death (black lung and cave-ins), maiming, darkness, and the drudgery of it all, what RATIONAL man would want to do this? Ah, but men did it by the thousands to take care of their wives and families! If a man was from ‘coal country’, what choices did HE have? That never, ever gets pointed out, let alone discussed; that angers me!
If a man lived out on the frontier, what choice did he have but to go out and get the food by old fashioned, hard, and DANGEROUS work? Feminists bitch about how women would be stuck in the home churning the butter, preparing the food, keeping house, etc.; what they ignore is how that food GOT there in the first place! The man had to go out and either farm it, working himself to the bone in the process; or, he had to go out into the wild to hunt and kill the family meals. When out hunting, he had to brave the elements, Indians, and wild animals also interested in his meals, e.g. bears wanting the same deer he was hunting. Feminists forget that just going out to get the family food was a life & death proposition in those days. Yeah, Wifey had to clean and cook the food, but Hubby had to risk life and limb just to PUT it there for her! Why do feminists overlook this? Why do feminists and women (I wonder if there’s difference) overlook the fact that men didn’t have choices, either?
Secondly, the romance between Jack & Rose was utter BS; that would NEVER happen in real life-never! Women, by their very nature, are hypergamous; that is, they seek out and marry men superior to themselves in terms of status, wealth, education, etc. Rose would never be caught dead with a man (i.e. Jack Dawson, Leo DeCaprio's character) from steerage or third class.
Thirdly, the characters in Titanic were PC caricatures. Jack, the working class man, was the virtuous hero. Rose was the put upon, oppressed, poor little woman. Rose’s fiance was the arrogant, uncaring, elitist, rich jerk who couldn’t be bothered with ‘the little people’. I recall that, when Time or Newsweek did a review of the movie (I can’t remember which magazine now, because this was in 1996, or 17 years ago now), they called the movie a “quasi Marxian epic”-and this was from a decidedly LIBERAL publication! The fact that one of those paragons of East Coast, elitist liberalism called the movie that says something.
Finally, Rose betrayed her husband to be-end of story. Even if Jack had had a practical skill and could find gainful employment upon arriving in New York, Rose betrayed her fiance. She’d made a commitment to him, so she owed it to stick by that commitment. Men get bashed for failure to make commitments to women, yet it’s women who break said commitments, e.g. by filing for divorce twice as often as men do.
In closing, I had a few problems with Titanic. One was that women had no choices, while men had endless choices; I demonstrated how that was false. Two was the fact that a woman like Rose wouldn’t be caught DEAD with a working class dog like Jack; her hypergamy wouldn’t allow it. Three, the characters were PC caricatures. Four, Rose betrayed her fiance and her commitment to him.
MarkyMark
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Such is how Hollywood contaminates our minds.
YOU see clearly what was going on. 85% of the viewers believe in the Romantic vision of what "could be, if only we weren't so..."
I never saw Titanic in its whole, but I've seen snippets. It's a horrible film full of platitudes and romantic memes that are false in their face and meaning. Any true understanding of the Romantics, or romance in general, would put an immediate lie to this story.
With regard to your point about the difference between women and feminists I am inclined to agree with you that there is none. At 55 I grew up during the whole feminist schtik and never once, until quite recently on discovering the manosphere, have I heard a woman have anything positive to say in defence of men when feminist shame and falsehoods are flying. This included ALL the women in my family until it came time to take legal action to gain custody of my son then there was support. My honestly held belief is that almost ALL women are incapable of seeing where the feminist agenda is leading them. When it becomes obvious to them that this is a bad choice I am sure that will return to blame men for their poor choices. Same old, same old as the Americans say.
“Votes for women!”
Was the cry,
Reaching upward to the Sky.
Crashing glass
And flashing eye-
“Votes for Women!”
Was the cry.
“Boats for women!”
Was the Cry.
When the brave
Were come to die.
When the end
Was drawing nigh-
“Boats for women!”
Was the cry.
I slightly disagree with your second point on the romance being BS.
First off, the female lead, Rose, is only 17-years-old. Teenagers are not known for making the best decisions.
Second, Rose was being forced into an arranged marriage with a rich man, 13 years her senior. While I agree with you about the hypergamous nature of women, I don't think a teenager would be completely enamored with this arrangement. A more likely scenario would be her starting college and falling for a junior or senior coed with a little dough. Now if she were to reach 30-years-old having never been married and with debt coming out of her ears, she'd gladly take a guy old enough to be her father if he had enough cash.
Third, the male lead, Jack, is played by Leonardo DiCaprio. DiCaprio is universally viewed as attractive, even more so in 1997. Of course Rose would be lured by him. However, when reading the description of Jack as a homeless, poor young man from Wisconsin, DiCaprio does not pop into my head. But this is a chick flick. A more accurate choice in 1997 would've been Ethan Suplee, but a movie headlined by Frankie Stechino probably would have bombed.
Fourth, Jack is a bad boy. He's handsome, he drinks, is dirt poor, and yet somehow has traveled to Paris. A man living such a life (or at least pretending to) has developed the gift of gab, i.e. game. If it's one thing even the staunchest of (heterosexual) feminists have fallen prey to, it's a bad boy with game.
Fifth, a teenage girl is going to do whatever she can to piss off her parents. Upper-crust Rose got on a cruise and willfully banged a derelict she met two days prior. The sexual pleasure combined with the satisfaction of upsetting mommy definitely would've led to a continued "romance."
Now, I'm not saying this combined with Jack's survival would've led to a long and prosperous marriage. On the contrary, the torrid affair might have gone on another year or so, but almost certainly would've ended in a crash-and-burn fashion. Their relationship was predicated on sex. She was used to a certain lifestyle. He can't keep a job. But hey, love conquers all, right?
- Igloo Ben
IB,
You raise some interesting points. I forgot that Rose was 17 in the movie. I only saw it once when it came out, which was some years ago; my memory isn't as good as it used to be...
MarkyMark
Anonymous wrote:
First off, the female lead, Rose, is only 17-years-old. Teenagers are not known for making the best decisions.
That's why parents in many parts of the world often arrange marriages for their children. It often works out surprisingly well since the parents on both sides have the best interests of their children at heart.
I don't think that was true in Rose's case, since her mother had made it clear that the marriage was for her benefit, not Rose's.
Second, Rose was being forced into an arranged marriage with a rich man, 13 years her senior.
That's far from an uncommon age difference in most parts of the world. But in Northern Europe and England smaller age differences were more the norm. Rose might have been put out by the fact that most of her friends were marrying boys (or had boyfriends) much closer to them in age. In addition to hypergamy, women are extremely influenced by what their age-peers and social circle are doing.
While I agree with you about the hypergamous nature of women, I don't think a teenager would be completely enamored with this arrangement.
If women can't find a male who 'pushes their buttons' in one hierarchy, they may simply move to another. So you have the scenario of a female white collar professional 'romancing' an indie rocker instead of another office drone.
Someone at the time asked if I saw the movie "Titanic".
My answer was "Why, I already know how it ends... The boat sinks."
Disregarding the stupid movie, I completely agree with you about the issue of "freedom of choice" for both men and women.
Good, decent, hard-working men and women stepped up to the plate and did, and still do, what *has to be done*. They don't expect a red carpet to be rolled out beneath their feet; no one owes you anything; no one is supposed to cater to your talents, ambitions, plans. Forget this and you're on the slippery slope of becoming a Bridezilla who whines because there isn't any cranberry juice.
Good, decent, hard-working men and women...who are are growing more
rare by the second. We usually
call such folks by a more correct
term now...suckers.
Post a Comment