https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1399118440703696902?s=19
https://nitter.snopyta.org/nytimes/status/1399118440703696902?s=19
If you ignore the shitting everywhere and risk of dehydration, diarrhea has always been a story of renewal
If you set aside the corruption and becoming-indebted-to-the-IMF plots, Bolivia's Jeanine Áñez has always been a bit of a feminist fantasy.
Oh shit they look the same! Dye Anez' hair and she could star in the live action.
Real girl bosses skin all the dogs they want. I think a comrade has infiltrated the new york times and is shitposting
I hope you're right, can't wait for the NYT to follow the Teen Vogue path
Some leftists got hired, hired more comrades, they unionized and now they post articles like What Capitalism Is (an explainer on what capitalism is and why people oppose it) and The Indian Removal Act Was Used by the U.S. Government to Commit Ethnic Cleansing
I can't wait for the NYT to follow the Charlie Hebdo path
Is this because Disney are releasing that Cruella De Vil movie where they try to make her a feminist icon?
Maybe but they throw a lot of anarchy signs into the promotional stuff as well.
It also doesn’t hurt, he said, that she’s beautiful, unlike Disney villains like Ursula
wrong
Sure, she lies, steals and hot-wires a luxury car, but she has a clear motive: Revenge. And, as a lower middle-class girl who becomes a rising fashion star by cleaning bathrooms and scrubbing floors, weirdly relatable
Cruella is lumpen
They left out the part where she kidnaps dogs to have them skinned, that's probably the most relatable part for them parasites.
"We need to revise Cruela to make her more marketable to the lady boss of today. I got it! Instead of her murdering puppies for profit, let's make it about revenge! Oh, and she's a self-made millionaire from scrubbing toilets or something. People most definitely relate to becoming millionaires by scrubbing toilets and being mauled to death by dalmatians, not having their loved ones captured and killed by capitalists. Who else agrees?" Asked the Lady Mouse Boss to a room of writers with terrified looks upon their faces. Their gazes locked on a dimly light projector screen where a video of their loved ones were tied to chairs played without audio. Mere inches away from them was a pack of ravenous dalmatians, foaming at the mouth, and lunging towards them. The dogs were only held back by off-screen handlers. Both the captives and dalmatians looked like they hadn't eaten in some time.
The room was silent for what felt like an eternity, occasionally the muffled sounds of a some writers crying could be heard. Suddenly, the room filled with the sound of plastic rollers screeching across the tile floor, followed by Tom jolting up from his chair.
"I love it!" decried Tom, who was dressed in his usual faded Harvard sweater that was so old now it was beginning to fray much like Tom had when he became fascinated by Ayn Rand in junior high school.
She is always surrounded by a cloud of sickly green smoke. Lady looks like a demon from a medieval painting
Ursula's got way more sex appeal. Velumptuous curvature and tentacles is my fetish. That's not even taking into account that she can change her appearance with magic.
Did Cruella De Vil effectively utilize girl power when she snatched and then skinned over a hundred dogs alive?
Feminism is when a woman is powerful. The more powerful that individual woman is, the more feminist she is
:hillgasm: when a woman makes a billion dollars by exploiting thousands of men and women
There's a constant struggle session in animal-rights adjacent circles whether fighting for right of female animals is connected to feminism or if expecting women to have solidarity with cows is dehumanizing to women.
Female is female across species if you ask me. The only difference is that we evolved fat frontal lobes, when you really get down to it.
So's I understand, is the reading here that equating the gendering of humans, which is socially and individually constructed, with the sexing of animals, which is scientific and instrumentalist (for the purpose of producing and consuming the animals) incorrectly reduces the former to the latter? And could they instead be arguing that the gendered treatment of animals is also a human construct?
Yeah, pretty much.
Not so much the instrumentalist thing, though. Just saying that I don't think (non-human) animals can have genders, and so they can't be women, etc.
sorry its not super specific but I just lump trans women in with my idea of female. Because trans animals don't exist that we know of yet, I feel like we can give a little pass on being decisive on a cow's gender.
This whole line of thought runs a whole spectre of nuance from discussing the intersectional nature of oppression and destruction of environment to the idea that oppression of both women and cows is based on their reproduce abilities (which is occasionally criticized as transphobic).
Here's a wikipedia article about this loosely defined movement.
If you overlook the repression of the working class, insane neoliberal policies, and alliances with fascist juntas (Which are admittedly very hard to overlook,) Maggie Thatcher has always been a bit of a feminist hero
I think that literally happened last year yes (or was it 2019? time)
and people wonder why the movie is a premature hit with the brainwormed
and didn't they already do this with maleficent, are these movies like an extended op to rebrand fascism as okay if there's a girlboss?
Don't have to read the article. I know the argument. She's rich, therefore feminist.
Anyone else concerned that apparently the scope of feminism has been entirely reduced to saying dumb things about kid's cartoons? I don't think patriarchy's actually been overthrown, and I feel like there's still good work to be done in the adult world.
I mean yeah. Girl boss feminism is basically just boils down to having money or faking it till you "make it" (or in many cases dont.) We also got that level of it where the CEO or high ups of the defense industry is "feminism" when they're direct links to oppressing 10,000x+ more women
Cruella in the original novel is a rich woman with a rich husband who obsesses over fur and drowns an entire litter of kittens. This movie is just glorified fanfiction
The 1961 version I think is an interesting cultural snapshot of post-imperial Britain. The humans all would have been children during the blitz, and many of the supporting animals are these caricatures of armchair British veterans.
I got holocaust allegories from that whole movie.
...which I imagine is the point?....like...she is literally rounding up one type of animal in a central place to kill them.
Her name is literally Cruel a Devil
she is ridiculously not a two dimensional character. If anything it was sexist to make the woman villain evil because of their fashion obsession
