Why did you change from him to her when referring to the male character who had cosmetic surgeries in an attempt to pass as a female? Homo sapiens, like other mammals, cannot change their sex. This is not trivial. As long as people go along with using inaccurate pronouns, some people will continue to believe that men (adult human males) can become or are women (adult human females), which is simply not true.
Your book Why I Am Not A Feminist correctly criticizes the mainstream feminist movement for obliviousness, irrelevance, and cowardice—and in your book you demand nothing less than the total dismantling of the system of oppression women live under.
That oppression now includes men who claim to be women, who are invading women's single-sex spaces, depriving girls and women of privacy, dignity and safety. Women who seek refuge in women's shelters, fleeing domestic violence by men, are now being forced to undress, attend to intimate physical care and sleep next to men claiming to be women. Women in prison are being locked into cells with men who claim to be women, many of whom have been convicted of violent crimes against women and children. Some of these women have been raped and impregnated by these men. All women imprisoned with these men experience fear and many are sexually harassed by these men, even if not raped by them.
Why, then, do you submit to the demands of transgender ideologues by using the pronoun for a female to refer to a male character?
Adoptive parents are still referred to as "mothers" and "fathers" in common parlance, despite not being literally biologically related to their children, and have been for centuries. This isn't some grand assault on reality, it's just showing consideration and treating others how you would wish to be treated. No reason why pronouns have to be inextricably linked to chromosomes or gametes, either- they're nothing more than a linguistic tool.
As for your fearmongering about trans people in women's spaces, the simple statistical fact is that trans women are vastly more likely to be victims of sexual assault than the perpetrators. Trans women who are put in male prisons are subject to near-constant rape (look up the practice of V-coding) and all manner of other horrendous human rights abuses. Do their rights and safety not count just because they're a minority group? It's fundamentally irresponsible to put anybody with breasts and (at least a close approximation of) a vagina in close proximity to hundreds of criminal men. There is only ever going to be one outcome.
If we're going purely by biology, then women with Swyer syndrome are biologically men and should be locked up in male prisons, by your logic- despite literally being born with vaginas and being able to get pregnant. Or are you only interested in biology when it gives you a lofty justification to hound tiny minorities you don't like?
I loved Why I Am Not a Feminist. I can only conclude that Crispin’s complete lack of intellectual curiosity or rigor surrounding this subject stems from some sort of personal relationship or need for approval.
Her insistence that the human body is malleable and a transformation from male body to female body is somehow “easy” makes this an unserious analysis. Gascon is easily identifiable as male-bodied (“clockable,” as they call it) and it’s silly to posture as unquestionable that Gascon’s body is now female.
I don't know, dude, we know we could pick apart arguments from either side forever. It's remarkably easy. I've found that no matter how narrow a definition dug down to, you'll never reach some immutable truth. That's just language, you know, like a weary mailman perpetually harried by dogs (or asinine billionaires).
I'm not sure if that made sen--ahem, well, as someone agender, I must ask: How do you, personally, define 'male' and 'female?' This is a genuine question. Get as abstract and purple as you'd like. Me, I find strong gender identities nutters (love ya), and genetics is change--constant change that's exceedingly messy. C'est la vie. I recommend looking into interoception. I can, however, sympathize over souls, despite being born without religious capacity. Palliatives in a hideously impersonal universe.
Can't recommend attempting to speak for an entire populace, either. It's astonishingly easy to get twisted around in your head jumping between absolutes, groupings and individuals. Except for strong gender identities. You're all loons (love ya). Consider this a special interest of mine, and maybe you could unpack some weight. Here? I don't know; might get bounced.
Male and female are immutable sexes. All the nonsense you just typed is about gender identity, which I find to be an utterly tedious subject. If you’re going to use the scientific terms male and female, don’t be surprised when people assume you’re talking about sex and not “identity.”
You're still dancing around my question. I'm sorry. It's genetics? But we both know it's not immutable. Mutation, mutation. Life as we understand it wouldn't be possible otherwise. And it's really damn messy, leading to all sorts of less probable combinations. But that's the universe we live in. Do you believe a significant number of people think they're changing their genetics? I gotta say: There are whole online communities out there now in the bowels of the Internet dedicated to sowing discord through false perceptions.
Why would anyone do that? Why? It makes no sense. And there's no good answer. That's just the modern world we've made. Perpetual boredom, complete breakdown of socialization, infrastructure to support sitting in front of a computer 24/7, algorithmic attraction. A few true believers who've developed the crudest hyper-rationalized philosophies justifying anything with once-in-a-civilization-right-time-and-place billionaire backers.
You're worried about the well-being of what you identify with, yeah? You should be. You really should. I gotta say, given where we stand in the US (and even outside, as these things spread), I'd be far more focused on the alliance between Christian nationalists (Thiel and Musk's involvement with the Seven Mountain Mandate is telling) and, as economist Yanis Varoufakis puts it, technofeudalists, rather than a tiny, tiny number of individuals who've been made an effective wedge.
Really stupid, isn't it? And it ain't even something new. Historian Kim Phillips-Fein's book Invisible Hands is a good, quick accounting up to Reagan of these beliefs sniffing around each other in the mid-20th century. Anyway. Solidarity. Only thing history tells us that works.
I haven't seen it but I see the condemnations everywhere. Sounds like yet another non-serious woke garbage fire. There does seem to be an irony according to Crispin. The notion that men are strong and violent and women are weak and peaceful: Doesn't this just play into the Woke/trans ideas these people usually reject? (Fourth-wave feminists, too) Men and women are supposed to be "exactly equal," right? But in this analysis, we're being told women are calm, rational and peaceful (a sexist female trope) and men are violent and evil.
This was great!!! I’m too tired at the moment to say much more but wanted to at least say how much I loved reading this. So funny, so direct, and such vibrant writing. And right on about the film. Thanks!!!
"I was kind of hoping this would be true for Emilia Pérez, but about ten minutes into the film I realized this was unlikely to work out, and what I would be left restating was everyone has said. Emilia Pérez! What the fuck?!
Let’s just get some stuff out of the way. "
Very sophisticated film writing here. Who needs Reddit?
"Nothing sticks past the time spent in the viewing, no snippet of melody erupts through your consciousness as you make your morning coffee or walk down the street the next day".
Dead wrong. Every day when I wake up I say "Man into woman, woman into man? Man into woman. Penis to vaginaaaaaaaaa" much to the chagrin of my partner
Yeah, "the music from Emilia Perez isn't memorable" is a meme/groupthink spread by people who haven't actually seen the movie rather than a genuine criticism imo. They're not like... good musical theater songs, but they're undeniably catchy! (Similarly, Selena Gomez is obviously not a native Spanish speaker, but... her character is very explicitly a stateside chicana, right? This isn't a Gus Fring situation lol.)
I think this review suffers from “pretending that opinions about art/film etc can have some kind of objective take.” I am a decidely middlebrow film viewer - very comfortable and engaged at our indy theater most of the time, appreciative of some lower brow efforts, completely finished with superhero movies, and many other opinions.
But my views are opinions. I would not pretend to proclaim that a film is objectively great or poor - I will only tell you my reaction to it. Perhaps designated film reviewers have earned that status, but I rarely find such takes persuasive.
I had low expectations for EP but truly enjoyed it. I found the music and production to be original and compelling; I thought the story was interesting, and the acting was strong. Zoe Saldaña was deserving of praise (and the award), and I agree with you about Selena Gomez, and I found Karla Sofia Gascon to be credible and solid.
It was pulpy and not the most sophisticated or original story, but I thought it worked. It’s interesting that those who didn’t like it seem to operate with a level of vitriol that does not seem to fit the facts. I think a credible reviewer can recognize the strengths of a film more fairly and rationally, and it’s a fascinating matter in itself why this film seems to get such a disproportionate amount of heat.
I think there's an incredibly basic answer as to why it's getting a "disproportionate" amount of heat - it won Best Picture at the Golden Globes and had more Oscar noms than any other film. It's not as if pretentious critics are excavating some small, little-known piece of art just to bash it, they're reviewing what we're being told is one of the best and most important movies of the year, and finding it lacking.
I fully agree that anyone's views on a film are mere opinions; a critic's omission of "I think" and "my opinion is" at the beginning of each sentence is meant to render the review more readable, not imply that the reviewer is the sole objective authority.
Honestly the view from France is kinda stfu. Sans the astronomical Hollywood budgets, filmmakers have to make do and still be free to experiment, esp auteurs like Audiard, who are also blissfully unaware of the maniacal woke or DEI critiques so pervasive outre Atlantique.
Suffice it to say, we’ll take the messy experimentation of Emilia over the oversexed monotony of Anora any day.
I really appreciate how often Jessa critiques things by pointing to examples of other things that are trying to do something similar, but better. I'm glad I skipped Emilia Perez, but now I look forward to watching other Audiard films instead!!
I agree with Jessa. Why couldn't they think of a more interesting title than just the woman's name? Like the vast majority of movies coming out these days (movies that're hyped up as the best), this movie was not memorable. I think the film industry has just run out of new ideas and I think the standards are a lot lower these days -- the bar is much lower in film, literature, etc.
" She has written for many publications, some of which are still in existence."..........the story of times. We knew them well, but apparently not well enough.
Why did you change from him to her when referring to the male character who had cosmetic surgeries in an attempt to pass as a female? Homo sapiens, like other mammals, cannot change their sex. This is not trivial. As long as people go along with using inaccurate pronouns, some people will continue to believe that men (adult human males) can become or are women (adult human females), which is simply not true.
Your book Why I Am Not A Feminist correctly criticizes the mainstream feminist movement for obliviousness, irrelevance, and cowardice—and in your book you demand nothing less than the total dismantling of the system of oppression women live under.
That oppression now includes men who claim to be women, who are invading women's single-sex spaces, depriving girls and women of privacy, dignity and safety. Women who seek refuge in women's shelters, fleeing domestic violence by men, are now being forced to undress, attend to intimate physical care and sleep next to men claiming to be women. Women in prison are being locked into cells with men who claim to be women, many of whom have been convicted of violent crimes against women and children. Some of these women have been raped and impregnated by these men. All women imprisoned with these men experience fear and many are sexually harassed by these men, even if not raped by them.
Why, then, do you submit to the demands of transgender ideologues by using the pronoun for a female to refer to a male character?
Adoptive parents are still referred to as "mothers" and "fathers" in common parlance, despite not being literally biologically related to their children, and have been for centuries. This isn't some grand assault on reality, it's just showing consideration and treating others how you would wish to be treated. No reason why pronouns have to be inextricably linked to chromosomes or gametes, either- they're nothing more than a linguistic tool.
As for your fearmongering about trans people in women's spaces, the simple statistical fact is that trans women are vastly more likely to be victims of sexual assault than the perpetrators. Trans women who are put in male prisons are subject to near-constant rape (look up the practice of V-coding) and all manner of other horrendous human rights abuses. Do their rights and safety not count just because they're a minority group? It's fundamentally irresponsible to put anybody with breasts and (at least a close approximation of) a vagina in close proximity to hundreds of criminal men. There is only ever going to be one outcome.
If we're going purely by biology, then women with Swyer syndrome are biologically men and should be locked up in male prisons, by your logic- despite literally being born with vaginas and being able to get pregnant. Or are you only interested in biology when it gives you a lofty justification to hound tiny minorities you don't like?
I loved Why I Am Not a Feminist. I can only conclude that Crispin’s complete lack of intellectual curiosity or rigor surrounding this subject stems from some sort of personal relationship or need for approval.
Her insistence that the human body is malleable and a transformation from male body to female body is somehow “easy” makes this an unserious analysis. Gascon is easily identifiable as male-bodied (“clockable,” as they call it) and it’s silly to posture as unquestionable that Gascon’s body is now female.
I don't know, dude, we know we could pick apart arguments from either side forever. It's remarkably easy. I've found that no matter how narrow a definition dug down to, you'll never reach some immutable truth. That's just language, you know, like a weary mailman perpetually harried by dogs (or asinine billionaires).
I'm not sure if that made sen--ahem, well, as someone agender, I must ask: How do you, personally, define 'male' and 'female?' This is a genuine question. Get as abstract and purple as you'd like. Me, I find strong gender identities nutters (love ya), and genetics is change--constant change that's exceedingly messy. C'est la vie. I recommend looking into interoception. I can, however, sympathize over souls, despite being born without religious capacity. Palliatives in a hideously impersonal universe.
Can't recommend attempting to speak for an entire populace, either. It's astonishingly easy to get twisted around in your head jumping between absolutes, groupings and individuals. Except for strong gender identities. You're all loons (love ya). Consider this a special interest of mine, and maybe you could unpack some weight. Here? I don't know; might get bounced.
Male and female are immutable sexes. All the nonsense you just typed is about gender identity, which I find to be an utterly tedious subject. If you’re going to use the scientific terms male and female, don’t be surprised when people assume you’re talking about sex and not “identity.”
You're still dancing around my question. I'm sorry. It's genetics? But we both know it's not immutable. Mutation, mutation. Life as we understand it wouldn't be possible otherwise. And it's really damn messy, leading to all sorts of less probable combinations. But that's the universe we live in. Do you believe a significant number of people think they're changing their genetics? I gotta say: There are whole online communities out there now in the bowels of the Internet dedicated to sowing discord through false perceptions.
Why would anyone do that? Why? It makes no sense. And there's no good answer. That's just the modern world we've made. Perpetual boredom, complete breakdown of socialization, infrastructure to support sitting in front of a computer 24/7, algorithmic attraction. A few true believers who've developed the crudest hyper-rationalized philosophies justifying anything with once-in-a-civilization-right-time-and-place billionaire backers.
You're worried about the well-being of what you identify with, yeah? You should be. You really should. I gotta say, given where we stand in the US (and even outside, as these things spread), I'd be far more focused on the alliance between Christian nationalists (Thiel and Musk's involvement with the Seven Mountain Mandate is telling) and, as economist Yanis Varoufakis puts it, technofeudalists, rather than a tiny, tiny number of individuals who've been made an effective wedge.
Really stupid, isn't it? And it ain't even something new. Historian Kim Phillips-Fein's book Invisible Hands is a good, quick accounting up to Reagan of these beliefs sniffing around each other in the mid-20th century. Anyway. Solidarity. Only thing history tells us that works.
I haven't seen it but I see the condemnations everywhere. Sounds like yet another non-serious woke garbage fire. There does seem to be an irony according to Crispin. The notion that men are strong and violent and women are weak and peaceful: Doesn't this just play into the Woke/trans ideas these people usually reject? (Fourth-wave feminists, too) Men and women are supposed to be "exactly equal," right? But in this analysis, we're being told women are calm, rational and peaceful (a sexist female trope) and men are violent and evil.
This was great!!! I’m too tired at the moment to say much more but wanted to at least say how much I loved reading this. So funny, so direct, and such vibrant writing. And right on about the film. Thanks!!!
"I was kind of hoping this would be true for Emilia Pérez, but about ten minutes into the film I realized this was unlikely to work out, and what I would be left restating was everyone has said. Emilia Pérez! What the fuck?!
Let’s just get some stuff out of the way. "
Very sophisticated film writing here. Who needs Reddit?
"Nothing sticks past the time spent in the viewing, no snippet of melody erupts through your consciousness as you make your morning coffee or walk down the street the next day".
Dead wrong. Every day when I wake up I say "Man into woman, woman into man? Man into woman. Penis to vaginaaaaaaaaa" much to the chagrin of my partner
Yeah, "the music from Emilia Perez isn't memorable" is a meme/groupthink spread by people who haven't actually seen the movie rather than a genuine criticism imo. They're not like... good musical theater songs, but they're undeniably catchy! (Similarly, Selena Gomez is obviously not a native Spanish speaker, but... her character is very explicitly a stateside chicana, right? This isn't a Gus Fring situation lol.)
I think this review suffers from “pretending that opinions about art/film etc can have some kind of objective take.” I am a decidely middlebrow film viewer - very comfortable and engaged at our indy theater most of the time, appreciative of some lower brow efforts, completely finished with superhero movies, and many other opinions.
But my views are opinions. I would not pretend to proclaim that a film is objectively great or poor - I will only tell you my reaction to it. Perhaps designated film reviewers have earned that status, but I rarely find such takes persuasive.
I had low expectations for EP but truly enjoyed it. I found the music and production to be original and compelling; I thought the story was interesting, and the acting was strong. Zoe Saldaña was deserving of praise (and the award), and I agree with you about Selena Gomez, and I found Karla Sofia Gascon to be credible and solid.
It was pulpy and not the most sophisticated or original story, but I thought it worked. It’s interesting that those who didn’t like it seem to operate with a level of vitriol that does not seem to fit the facts. I think a credible reviewer can recognize the strengths of a film more fairly and rationally, and it’s a fascinating matter in itself why this film seems to get such a disproportionate amount of heat.
I think there's an incredibly basic answer as to why it's getting a "disproportionate" amount of heat - it won Best Picture at the Golden Globes and had more Oscar noms than any other film. It's not as if pretentious critics are excavating some small, little-known piece of art just to bash it, they're reviewing what we're being told is one of the best and most important movies of the year, and finding it lacking.
I fully agree that anyone's views on a film are mere opinions; a critic's omission of "I think" and "my opinion is" at the beginning of each sentence is meant to render the review more readable, not imply that the reviewer is the sole objective authority.
One of the best movies of the year. My take!
Honestly the view from France is kinda stfu. Sans the astronomical Hollywood budgets, filmmakers have to make do and still be free to experiment, esp auteurs like Audiard, who are also blissfully unaware of the maniacal woke or DEI critiques so pervasive outre Atlantique.
Suffice it to say, we’ll take the messy experimentation of Emilia over the oversexed monotony of Anora any day.
I really appreciate how often Jessa critiques things by pointing to examples of other things that are trying to do something similar, but better. I'm glad I skipped Emilia Perez, but now I look forward to watching other Audiard films instead!!
I agree with Jessa. Why couldn't they think of a more interesting title than just the woman's name? Like the vast majority of movies coming out these days (movies that're hyped up as the best), this movie was not memorable. I think the film industry has just run out of new ideas and I think the standards are a lot lower these days -- the bar is much lower in film, literature, etc.
" She has written for many publications, some of which are still in existence."..........the story of times. We knew them well, but apparently not well enough.