Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
500<400 (Nominations Sep 22nd)
Polls: Animation (Results), 2016 awards (Aug 25th), 1987 (Aug 25th), Benelux (Aug 30th), Knockout competition (Round 1)
Challenges: Romance, UK/Ireland, <400 Checks
Film of the Week: Hospital, September nominations (Aug 30th)

ICMForum's Favourite Films Directed by Women [RESULTS]

500<400, Favourite 1001 movies, Doubling the Canon, Film World Cup and many other votes
Post Reply
User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 1035
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

Re: ICMForum's Favourite Films Directed by Women [RESULTS]

#241

Post by cinewest » May 5th, 2019, 12:14 pm

albajos wrote:
May 5th, 2019, 11:04 am
To generally criticise a list without argument is not discussion, it's trolling.

If you want to point out particular movies, you're free to do so.

But as always, there is no objective truth in movie quality. It's all about the subjective perception. There are way too many that think that their subjectivity are the objective truth, so that's why we have a democratic vote
I have commented on films through the nomination and publication process, and am willing to discuss any of my comments further.
No need to open up the objective vs. subjective truth discussion which neither side provides satisfactory arguments for.**
What I will say is that all beliefs are based on certain values, but not all values or beliefs are very (or equally) substantial.

As for democracy, it's a nice idea like a lot of other ideas, but it doesn't function very well or maintain its integrity when the participants are uninformed, ignorant, or unable to assess and make the best choices, or when the system is as corrupt as it is in so many circumstances

At least the "democratic" process, here, outside of a certain clicks, jokingly referred to as "mafias," doesn't seem corrupt, which is a very good thing, only a bit too self congratulatory and lacking in the kind of self examination* that leads to improvement.

*Not being able to take criticism or engage and explore it is one aspect of this.

**Saying Pizza Hut doesn't make good pizza is not simply a matter of opinion.
Last edited by cinewest on May 6th, 2019, 8:40 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 3709
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#242

Post by Dolwphin » May 5th, 2019, 12:41 pm

cinewest reminds me so much of 3rd, a second account perhaps?
Top 200 | https://rateyourmusic.com/~Dolwphin

Member of the Experimental Mafia.

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 7742
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#243

Post by Lonewolf2003 » May 5th, 2019, 12:48 pm

To me it’s just that your (cinewest) remark is just such an open door, that adds nothing. We (almost) all have movies and filmmakers we feel are left out in every list (unless maybe if somebody submits an ultra short list of which all are injured in the results), so to me there is no reason to state that, I take that as a given. Remarking in which specific films or filmmakers one misses and feel are underrated is (more) interested.

User avatar
TraverseTown
Posts: 246
Joined: Jan 25, 2013
Location: USA
Contact:

#244

Post by TraverseTown » May 5th, 2019, 1:10 pm

Last time I checked, the list is titled "ICM Forum's Favorite Films Directed By Women", not "Greatest Films Directed by Women". My lists of favorites I submit to these forum list include films that have a personal connection to, perhaps I enjoy watching them with friends, or enjoy their camp qualities, or I have a positive memory associated with watching it. Like, I've seen and can appreciate a film like Jeanne Dielman, 23, Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles for example. But I'm not going to include it on a list of favorites, because it's not one of my favorites.

To say " Too many very good films and filmmakers left out, while some inclusions were reaches, at best" seems like a misunderstanding of what I thought these forum lists were supposed to be.

User avatar
joachimt
Donator
Posts: 29154
Joined: Feb 16, 2012
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

#245

Post by joachimt » May 5th, 2019, 2:55 pm

cinewest wrote:
May 5th, 2019, 12:14 pm
As for democracy, it's a nice idea like a lot of other ideas, but it doesn't function very well or maintain its integrity when the participants are uninformed, ignorant, or ill prepared and unable to assess and make the best choices, or when the system is as corrupt as it is in so many circumstances
Are you talking in general here how a democracy doesn't work, or are you really talking negatively about this userbase?
ICM-profile
Fergenaprido: "I find your OCD to be adorable, J"

User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 1035
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#246

Post by cinewest » May 5th, 2019, 3:09 pm

joachimt wrote:
May 5th, 2019, 2:55 pm
cinewest wrote:
May 5th, 2019, 12:14 pm
As for democracy, it's a nice idea like a lot of other ideas, but it doesn't function very well or maintain its integrity when the participants are uninformed, ignorant, or ill prepared and unable to assess and make the best choices, or when the system is as corrupt as it is in so many circumstances
Are you talking in general here how a democracy doesn't work, or are you really talking negatively about this userbase?
I tried very hard to be clear. Read carefully. I am not attacking anyone, just responding to and riffing off what Albajos said to me

User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 1035
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#247

Post by cinewest » May 5th, 2019, 3:14 pm

Lonewolf2003 wrote:
May 5th, 2019, 12:48 pm
Remarking in which specific films or filmmakers one misses and feel are underrated is (more) interested.
I did some of that earlier throughout the thread, though I highlighted some the less obvious absences

User avatar
RBG
Posts: 6108
Joined: Feb 13, 2016
Location: desert usa
Contact:

#248

Post by RBG » May 5th, 2019, 3:34 pm

why are men fighting about the films directed by women list :lol: give it a rest plz
icm + ltbxd

NO GODS NO MASTERS

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 3709
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#249

Post by Dolwphin » May 5th, 2019, 3:47 pm

RBG wrote:
May 5th, 2019, 3:34 pm
why are men fighting about the films directed by women list :lol: give it a rest plz
very woke :rolleyes:
Top 200 | https://rateyourmusic.com/~Dolwphin

Member of the Experimental Mafia.

User avatar
RBG
Posts: 6108
Joined: Feb 13, 2016
Location: desert usa
Contact:

#250

Post by RBG » May 5th, 2019, 3:52 pm

thanks flipper
icm + ltbxd

NO GODS NO MASTERS

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 3501
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#251

Post by OldAle1 » May 5th, 2019, 3:56 pm

RBG wrote:
May 5th, 2019, 3:34 pm
why are men fighting about the films directed by women list :lol: give it a rest plz
1 - there aren't enough women here
2 - men love to fight!

User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 1035
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#252

Post by cinewest » May 5th, 2019, 4:00 pm

TraverseTown wrote:
May 5th, 2019, 1:10 pm
Last time I checked, the list is titled "ICM Forum's Favorite Films Directed By Women", not "Greatest Films Directed by Women". My lists of favorites I submit to these forum list include films that have a personal connection to, perhaps I enjoy watching them with friends, or enjoy their camp qualities, or I have a positive memory associated with watching it. Like, I've seen and can appreciate a film like Jeanne Dielman, 23, Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles for example. But I'm not going to include it on a list of favorites, because it's not one of my favorites.

To say " Too many very good films and filmmakers left out, while some inclusions were reaches, at best" seems like a misunderstanding of what I thought these forum lists were supposed to be.
Have had this discussion before, and while I might agree that what I admire most isn't always what I enjoy the most, I think most people believe their favorites are among the best, certainly not among the mediocre or the worst.

The very fact that people take the time to rank movies in some kind of order implies there are not only preferences but also films being ignored for one reason or another, doesn't it?

If a friend of mine showed me a list of "favorite movies" like the one here, I would probably respond pretty much as I have in this thread. I would most likely start out by saying, "Oh yeah, I liked this one too (maybe a little more, maybe a little less), but what did you like about that one, and did you consider these?"
In fact, I did all of this within the thread before coming to my conclusion about this list of "favorites."

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 7742
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#253

Post by Lonewolf2003 » May 5th, 2019, 5:13 pm

cinewest wrote:
May 5th, 2019, 4:00 pm
TraverseTown wrote:
May 5th, 2019, 1:10 pm
Last time I checked, the list is titled "ICM Forum's Favorite Films Directed By Women", not "Greatest Films Directed by Women". My lists of favorites I submit to these forum list include films that have a personal connection to, perhaps I enjoy watching them with friends, or enjoy their camp qualities, or I have a positive memory associated with watching it. Like, I've seen and can appreciate a film like Jeanne Dielman, 23, Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles for example. But I'm not going to include it on a list of favorites, because it's not one of my favorites.

To say " Too many very good films and filmmakers left out, while some inclusions were reaches, at best" seems like a misunderstanding of what I thought these forum lists were supposed to be.
Have had this discussion before, and while I might agree that what I admire most isn't always what I enjoy the most, I think most people believe their favorites are among the best, certainly not among the mediocre or the worst.

The very fact that people take the time to rank movies in some kind of order implies there are not only preferences but also films being ignored for one reason or another, doesn't it?

If a friend of mine showed me a list of "favorite movies" like the one here, I would probably respond pretty much as I have in this thread. I would most likely start out by saying, "Oh yeah, I liked this one too (maybe a little more, maybe a little less), but what did you like about that one, and did you consider these?"
In fact, I did all of this within the thread before coming to my conclusion about this list of "favorites."
And then the friend responds to your suggestions with: "No I never seen that one, does(n't) looks interesting. That one I did also vote for. That one I didn't like enough to vote for. And that one I didn't care for." And you and your friend for the umpteenth time come to conclusion there is different strokes for different folks. So a consensus list made out of favorites from different folks can never perfectly reflect the taste of one of those participants. (and if that participant didn't even participate that's even harder to do).

With which I don't want to say you can't criticize a list, discussing or suggesting titles can be interesting. And those discussions happen too little nowadays in these topics unfortunately (And I know I myself am to blame as much for that as anyone here). But those general statements about lists which are inherent to the character of these lists just don't add anything meaningful.

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 7742
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#254

Post by Lonewolf2003 » May 5th, 2019, 5:38 pm

cinewest wrote:
May 5th, 2019, 3:09 pm
joachimt wrote:
May 5th, 2019, 2:55 pm
cinewest wrote:
May 5th, 2019, 12:14 pm
As for democracy, it's a nice idea like a lot of other ideas, but it doesn't function very well or maintain its integrity when the participants are uninformed, ignorant, or ill prepared and unable to assess and make the best choices, or when the system is as corrupt as it is in so many circumstances
Are you talking in general here how a democracy doesn't work, or are you really talking negatively about this userbase?
I tried very hard to be clear. Read carefully. I am not attacking anyone, just responding to and riffing off what Albajos said to me
Maybe I am misinterpreting you and how your comment come across to me isn't how you meant it (not this one, but many you make in these kind of threads), in which case that's totally my fault and prejudices. But to me it seems you do feel that lowly about this userbase and you feel that your subjectivity is the objective truth, like albajos called it.

User avatar
GruesomeTwosome
Donator
Posts: 2594
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Industrial Wasteland, USA
Contact:

#255

Post by GruesomeTwosome » May 5th, 2019, 5:48 pm

Lonewolf2003 wrote:
May 5th, 2019, 12:48 pm
To me it’s just that your (cinewest) remark is just such an open door, that adds nothing. We (almost) all have movies and filmmakers we feel are left out in every list (unless maybe if somebody submits an ultra short list of which all are injured in the results), so to me there is no reason to state that, I take that as a given. Remarking in which specific films or filmmakers one misses and feel are underrated is (more) interested.
Yes, exactly this.
I’m to remember every man I've seen fall into a plate of spaghetti???

My IMDB profile
ICM
Letterboxd

User avatar
russa03
Posts: 76
Joined: Jun 28, 2015
Contact:

#256

Post by russa03 » May 5th, 2019, 6:51 pm

Criticism is good when it's constructive. Suggesting films you think are left out with a line about it and giving vague criticisms of the list, is this going to change the opinion of anyone? There are millions online criticizing so you are going to have to do better.

User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 1035
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#257

Post by cinewest » May 5th, 2019, 11:53 pm

russa03 wrote:
May 5th, 2019, 6:51 pm
Criticism is good when it's constructive. Suggesting films you think are left out with a line about it and giving vague criticisms of the list, is this going to change the opinion of anyone? There are millions online criticizing so you are going to have to do better.
And I'll repeat what I already said to others that I have commented more specifically throughout the nomination of and revealing of the list before coming to the conclusion I did.

User avatar
cinewest
Posts: 1035
Joined: Feb 15, 2017
Contact:

#258

Post by cinewest » May 6th, 2019, 1:28 am

Lonewolf2003 wrote:
May 5th, 2019, 5:38 pm
cinewest wrote:
May 5th, 2019, 3:09 pm
joachimt wrote:
May 5th, 2019, 2:55 pm

Are you talking in general here how a democracy doesn't work, or are you really talking negatively about this userbase?
I tried very hard to be clear. Read carefully. I am not attacking anyone, just responding to and riffing off what Albajos said to me
Maybe I am misinterpreting you and how your comment come across to me isn't how you meant it (not this one, but many you make in these kind of threads), in which case that's totally my fault and prejudices. But to me it seems you do feel that lowly about this userbase and you feel that your subjectivity is the objective truth, like albajos called it.
Let me clarify:

1) I do not feel "lowly" about this user base (that is how you have interpreted me) but have more or less said what I think and feel pretty directly on various threads.
If I were to "criticize" the user base, or say what is not satisfying to me, I would probably start with my sense that the user base (a generalization, just like the lists it creates) is too "list obsessed," and "watch obsessed," and doesn't discuss films, filmmakers (and why they do or don't like them), or the art of film enough.
As I said in the post you have quoted from, I also think that the user base is too self congratulatory and somewhat righteous about their own lists, own taste, and own beliefs about movies, and not enough interested in dialoging about them, or considering different perspectives.
2) I don't know where you got the idea that I think my subjectivity is the objective truth because I certainly didn't say that, nor do I believe it.
I will say that I have passionately explored movies and the "art of filmmaking" for at least 40 years (inclusive of a 5 year period where I collorborated on 7 short films of various types), and that I have continued to engage and develop ideas about the medium of film, and film narrative throughout.
The key, for me, has not only been my continued passion about the art form, but the openness to continue learning as well as engage and reflect upon ideas and expressions on film that are different from my own, including those that seem to push against me.
3) Coming back to the Userbase, here, I realize that it (and the lists created here) represents many kinds movie lovers, and that people are attracted to different kinds of movies, as well as different things about movies- call it film taste- and that no particular "taste" is superior.
But, just as with food or drinks, as soon as the concept of "taste" is conceived, so too does it imply that taste can be developed, even change and improve with greater knowledge and exposure.
4) That I have discovered so many interesting film titles on these boards since coming here presumes that I not only think quite a few people here have interesting taste in movies, but that I believe many titles I am unfamiliar with are worth checking out.
That said, I have not been so thrilled by the cumulative lists for reasons I have stated throughout the list threads. While I have enjoyed the diversity of some lists, as well as learning about the various film cultures here through the lists themselves, there are also things that are disappointing and/or seem to be missing.
In a recent response from OldAle1, he jokingly noted the absence of women or female participation in a thread about women filmmakers and inadvertently commented on something else that not satisfying about the list that has been generated here.
There are many interesting titles, to be sure, but it seems to me that everyone here already knows and has celebrated what is good about the list. What remains are the ways it doesn't satisfy, and that's what I have pointed out.

User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 7742
Joined: Dec 29, 2012
Contact:

#259

Post by Lonewolf2003 » May 6th, 2019, 10:52 am

cinewest wrote:
May 6th, 2019, 1:28 am
Lonewolf2003 wrote:
May 5th, 2019, 5:38 pm
cinewest wrote:
May 5th, 2019, 3:09 pm


I tried very hard to be clear. Read carefully. I am not attacking anyone, just responding to and riffing off what Albajos said to me
Maybe I am misinterpreting you and how your comment come across to me isn't how you meant it (not this one, but many you make in these kind of threads), in which case that's totally my fault and prejudices. But to me it seems you do feel that lowly about this userbase and you feel that your subjectivity is the objective truth, like albajos called it.
Let me clarify:

1) I do not feel "lowly" about this user base (that is how you have interpreted me) but have more or less said what I think and feel pretty directly on various threads.
If I were to "criticize" the user base, or say what is not satisfying to me, I would probably start with my sense that the user base (a generalization, just like the lists it creates) is too "list obsessed," and "watch obsessed," and doesn't discuss films, filmmakers (and why they do or don't like them), or the art of film enough.
As I said in the post you have quoted from, I also think that the user base is too self congratulatory and somewhat righteous about their own lists, own taste, and own beliefs about movies, and not enough interested in dialoging about them, or considering different perspectives.
2) I don't know where you got the idea that I think my subjectivity is the objective truth because I certainly didn't say that, nor do I believe it.
I will say that I have passionately explored movies and the "art of filmmaking" for at least 40 years (inclusive of a 5 year period where I collorborated on 7 short films of various types), and that I have continued to engage and develop ideas about the medium of film, and film narrative throughout.
The key, for me, has not only been my continued passion about the art form, but the openness to continue learning as well as engage and reflect upon ideas and expressions on film that are different from my own, including those that seem to push against me.
3) Coming back to the Userbase, here, I realize that it (and the lists created here) represents many kinds movie lovers, and that people are attracted to different kinds of movies, as well as different things about movies- call it film taste- and that no particular "taste" is superior.
But, just as with food or drinks, as soon as the concept of "taste" is conceived, so too does it imply that taste can be developed, even change and improve with greater knowledge and exposure.
4) That I have discovered so many interesting film titles on these boards since coming here presumes that I not only think quite a few people here have interesting taste in movies, but that I believe many titles I am unfamiliar with are worth checking out.
That said, I have not been so thrilled by the cumulative lists for reasons I have stated throughout the list threads. While I have enjoyed the diversity of some lists, as well as learning about the various film cultures here through the lists themselves, there are also things that are disappointing and/or seem to be missing.
In a recent response from OldAle1, he jokingly noted the absence of women or female participation in a thread about women filmmakers and inadvertently commented on something else that not satisfying about the list that has been generated here.
There are many interesting titles, to be sure, but it seems to me that everyone here already knows and has celebrated what is good about the list. What remains are the ways it doesn't satisfy, and that's what I have pointed out.
Thanks for the response. I'm sorry I misinterpreted you about your feelings about the user base and your opinion about your subjectivity, that's my fault then. It sometimes hard to read how somebody means something on the internet. I will try to read your messages with this clarification in my mind from now on.

While I don't agree with that we are too self-congratulatory and somewhat righteous about our list and taste, I do agree with you there is not enough interest in dialoging about them. But I feel that's more too various practical reasons why this doesn't happen (anymore) than due to a lack of interest and willingness to do so. There have been various discussions in different topics about why people react and discuss so little these days.

I get that these cumulative lists for you (or other "more advanced cinephiles" or people with taste less corresponding to the general user base) might be less interesting and not a useful means to explore movies. I feel like these lists might than just not be for you, beside just general taking notice of them.

I still would like to invite you to participate in making these lists, because like every member here your contribution is valuable and you could help in correcting what you feel is missing or dissapointing in these lists and maybe promote some of your favorites trough these lists.

User avatar
Cocoa
Donator
Posts: 1476
Joined: Jul 17, 2013
Location: Chicago, USA
Contact:

#260

Post by Cocoa » May 6th, 2019, 3:43 pm

The fighting in this thread is now making me wonder how the list would look if only the lists by women icm users counted and all the lists submitted by men were excluded.

User avatar
Jimi Antiloop
Posts: 455
Joined: Sep 04, 2016
Location: Germany
Contact:

#261

Post by Jimi Antiloop » May 6th, 2019, 10:05 pm

XxXApathy420XxX wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 1:16 pm
I actually don't think that post should be removed either. Leave it on there so that you can embarass yourself with your transphobia.
How you know there is phobia for trans people in me? I am fine with them. I just question, that mind can be man or women.
St. Gloede wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 11:11 am
Jimi Antiloop wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 10:10 am
Oh! I have been censored, because I stated, that two humans with testicles (biological male) made the matrix movie!
What's up guys!
Can somebody not handle the obvious things. :shrug:


For me it is a :facepalm: to see this movie ranking in this list 'directed by women'. I think it missleds the background of this list. It's not that future film of the Wachowskis should't appear here.
Per definition: Male/Female are biological terms used for sex, Man/Woman are used for gender role/identity, whether or not someone has testicles is not relevant to this, though it can be argued that The Matrix should not be included if they did not yet identify/occupy the social role of women.
I just bring it in here not in an extra topic, just to keep yours statements and mine in the same threat.

The definition of man is: A man is a male human
The definition of a woman is: A woman is a female human being.

Gender defines how somebody feels.

To feel to live the social role of women doesn't make you a woman. At least there shouldn't be differernt roles for men and women in society, beside roles that comes from biological functions, which is at least men can not born babies. We should be treated equal. Because people think the are not fitting in there body, so the want to switch from male to female or the opposite shouldn't corrupt logical definition. The terms man and women lose there meaning at least, if you disconnect it from the biolocial matter they were deducted from.

And the thing is, that we made that list, because in anobviously more male ruled world, it is good to shine some more lights on those who had harder conditions, because society doesn't treat male and female equal. For what good is it then, to bring a male made movie onto this list ???
Last edited by Jimi Antiloop on May 6th, 2019, 10:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.
:ICM: :letbxd: :Crtiticker: Reality Checks on :imdb:

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”― Philip K. Dick

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 9880
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#262

Post by St. Gloede » May 6th, 2019, 10:20 pm

Jimi Antiloop wrote:
May 6th, 2019, 10:05 pm
XxXApathy420XxX wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 1:16 pm
I actually don't think that post should be removed either. Leave it on there so that you can embarass yourself with your transphobia.
How you know there is phobia for trans people in me? I am fine with them. I just question, that mind can be man or women.
St. Gloede wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 11:11 am
Jimi Antiloop wrote:
May 2nd, 2019, 10:10 am
Oh! I have been censored, because I stated, that two humans with testicles (biological male) made the matrix movie!
What's up guys!
Can somebody not handle the obvious things. :shrug:


For me it is a :facepalm: to see this movie ranking in this list 'directed by women'. I think it missleds the background of this list. It's not that future film of the Wachowskis should't appear here.
Per definition: Male/Female are biological terms used for sex, Man/Woman are used for gender role/identity, whether or not someone has testicles is not relevant to this, though it can be argued that The Matrix should not be included if they did not yet identify/occupy the social role of women.
I just bring it in here not in an extra topic, just to keep yours statements and mine in the same threat.

The definition of man is: A man is a male human
The definition of a woman is: A woman is a female human being.

Gender defines how somebody feels.

To feel to live the social role of women doesn't make you a woman. At least there shouldn't be differernt roles for men and women in society, beside roles that comes from biological functions, which is at least men can not born babies. We should be treated equal. Because people think the are not fitting in there body, so the want to switch from male to female or the opposite shouldn't corrupt logical definition. The terms man and women lose there meaning at least, if you disconnect it from the biolocial matter they were deducted from.
Incorrect:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gender

Fuller explanation from dictionary.com: https://www.dictionary.com/e/gender-vs-sex/

User avatar
Jimi Antiloop
Posts: 455
Joined: Sep 04, 2016
Location: Germany
Contact:

#263

Post by Jimi Antiloop » May 6th, 2019, 10:28 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
May 6th, 2019, 10:20 pm
Incorrect:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gender
Well, it says gender describes how somebody idendifies. So how he/she/it feels.
Or where does it say different?
Last edited by Jimi Antiloop on May 6th, 2019, 10:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
:ICM: :letbxd: :Crtiticker: Reality Checks on :imdb:

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”― Philip K. Dick

User avatar
RBG
Posts: 6108
Joined: Feb 13, 2016
Location: desert usa
Contact:

#264

Post by RBG » May 6th, 2019, 10:28 pm

Cocoa wrote:
May 6th, 2019, 3:43 pm
The fighting in this thread is now making me wonder how the list would look if only the lists by women icm users counted and all the lists submitted by men were excluded.

:lol:
icm + ltbxd

NO GODS NO MASTERS

User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 2718
Joined: Dec 23, 2012
Contact:

#265

Post by Onderhond » May 6th, 2019, 10:31 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
May 6th, 2019, 10:20 pm
Fuller explanation from dictionary.com: https://www.dictionary.com/e/gender-vs-sex/
What slightly confuses me there is how gender is often considered a social construct that stands in the way of equality, but at the same time is considered a very definite thing for people who feel social expectations don't match their sex.

It sounds to me like it would actually be good if we'd get rid of gender altogether. There would just be sex and all the rest is just human whatever.

User avatar
Jimi Antiloop
Posts: 455
Joined: Sep 04, 2016
Location: Germany
Contact:

#266

Post by Jimi Antiloop » May 6th, 2019, 10:34 pm

RBG wrote:
May 6th, 2019, 10:28 pm
Cocoa wrote:
May 6th, 2019, 3:43 pm
The fighting in this thread is now making me wonder how the list would look if only the lists by women icm users counted and all the lists submitted by men were excluded.
:lol:
I this case I would really easyly identify myself as a women then, because I feel excluded from giving my perspective into direction otherwise. (But who knows, maybe I am already female and would like to have all advantages of the male.)
:ICM: :letbxd: :Crtiticker: Reality Checks on :imdb:

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”― Philip K. Dick

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 9880
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#267

Post by St. Gloede » May 6th, 2019, 10:39 pm

Jimi Antiloop wrote:
May 6th, 2019, 10:28 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
May 6th, 2019, 10:20 pm
Incorrect:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gender
Well, it says gender describes how somebody idendifies. So how he/she/it feels.
Or where does it say different?
Exactly.

Male/Female = Sex
Man/Woman = Gender

User avatar
Jimi Antiloop
Posts: 455
Joined: Sep 04, 2016
Location: Germany
Contact:

#268

Post by Jimi Antiloop » May 6th, 2019, 10:41 pm

Jimi Antiloop wrote:
May 6th, 2019, 10:05 pm
And the thing is, that we made that list, because in anobviously more male ruled world, it is good to shine some more lights on those who had harder conditions, because society doesn't treat male and female equal. For what good is it then, to bring a male made movie onto this list ???
At least the only thing bringing this discussion about Matrix in, was this.
:ICM: :letbxd: :Crtiticker: Reality Checks on :imdb:

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”― Philip K. Dick

User avatar
Jimi Antiloop
Posts: 455
Joined: Sep 04, 2016
Location: Germany
Contact:

#269

Post by Jimi Antiloop » May 6th, 2019, 10:43 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
May 6th, 2019, 10:39 pm
Jimi Antiloop wrote:
May 6th, 2019, 10:28 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
May 6th, 2019, 10:20 pm
Incorrect:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/gender
Well, it says gender describes how somebody idendifies. So how he/she/it feels.
Or where does it say different?
Exactly.

Male/Female = Sex
Man/Woman = Gender
Male/Female = Sex
Man/Woman = Sex


Beside. Ask Wikipedia.
Last edited by Jimi Antiloop on May 6th, 2019, 10:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.
:ICM: :letbxd: :Crtiticker: Reality Checks on :imdb:

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”― Philip K. Dick

User avatar
Jimi Antiloop
Posts: 455
Joined: Sep 04, 2016
Location: Germany
Contact:

#270

Post by Jimi Antiloop » May 6th, 2019, 10:54 pm

empty
:ICM: :letbxd: :Crtiticker: Reality Checks on :imdb:

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”― Philip K. Dick

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 9880
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#271

Post by St. Gloede » May 6th, 2019, 11:12 pm

Jimi Antiloop wrote:
May 6th, 2019, 10:54 pm
The Point is that, people are to dumb to check, that women might behave like it is generally expected from men and men like it is from women. But that doesn't make them automatically beeing the opposite sex. Behaving is the choice of a soul in a certain body not the matter of the sex.
Why are you changing the topic? No one are suggesting that biological sex changes, however as you fully acknowledged , gender is based on identity - and the terms man/woman is used to define gender - which you somehow seem to disagree with. If you wish to cite wikipedia I would recommend that you read ever so slightly further. :whistling:

Anyhow, not much more to say on this.

User avatar
Jimi Antiloop
Posts: 455
Joined: Sep 04, 2016
Location: Germany
Contact:

#272

Post by Jimi Antiloop » May 6th, 2019, 11:36 pm

St. Gloede wrote:
May 6th, 2019, 11:12 pm
Jimi Antiloop wrote:
May 6th, 2019, 10:54 pm
The Point is that, people are to dumb to check, that women might behave like it is generally expected from men and men like it is from women. But that doesn't make them automatically beeing the opposite sex. Behaving is the choice of a soul in a certain body not the matter of the sex.
If you wish to cite wikipedia I would recommend that you read ever so slightly further. :whistling:
The point is, that this list must be called "Films directed by women and trans-women" then!
Women still stands only for female humans, while trans-women describes something different.
:ICM: :letbxd: :Crtiticker: Reality Checks on :imdb:

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”― Philip K. Dick

User avatar
albajos
Posts: 5734
Joined: May 24, 2016
Location: Norway
Contact:

#273

Post by albajos » May 6th, 2019, 11:48 pm

Transwomen are still women. And have been women all their life.

They don't become women on a whim.

Nobody hasen't ever made a movie with their uterus, so I don't see why this is even important to you.

User avatar
flaiky
Posts: 1399
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: London UK
Contact:

#274

Post by flaiky » May 7th, 2019, 12:16 am

Onderhond wrote:
May 6th, 2019, 10:31 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
May 6th, 2019, 10:20 pm
Fuller explanation from dictionary.com: https://www.dictionary.com/e/gender-vs-sex/
What slightly confuses me there is how gender is often considered a social construct that stands in the way of equality, but at the same time is considered a very definite thing for people who feel social expectations don't match their sex.

It sounds to me like it would actually be good if we'd get rid of gender altogether. There would just be sex and all the rest is just human whatever.
We're getting into contentious territory now, but I generally agree with this.
Let the ashes fly
ICM | Letterboxd | All-time stats

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 29347
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#275

Post by mightysparks » May 7th, 2019, 12:22 am

flaiky wrote:
May 7th, 2019, 12:16 am
Onderhond wrote:
May 6th, 2019, 10:31 pm
St. Gloede wrote:
May 6th, 2019, 10:20 pm
Fuller explanation from dictionary.com: https://www.dictionary.com/e/gender-vs-sex/
What slightly confuses me there is how gender is often considered a social construct that stands in the way of equality, but at the same time is considered a very definite thing for people who feel social expectations don't match their sex.

It sounds to me like it would actually be good if we'd get rid of gender altogether. There would just be sex and all the rest is just human whatever.
We're getting into contentious territory now, but I generally agree with this.
Yea me too. Especially as someone who would identify as ‘gender neutral’, the only thing that matters to me is biological sex. But labels are still important and I kind of think of it like, an adoptive mother is still a mother. Just because they aren’t biologically related to the child doesn’t make them any less of a mother. I will refer to, and think of, someone however they ask to be referred to as.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
flaiky
Posts: 1399
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: London UK
Contact:

#276

Post by flaiky » May 7th, 2019, 12:36 am

mightysparks wrote:
May 7th, 2019, 12:22 am
I will refer to, and think of, someone however they ask to be referred to as.
I absolutely will as well, but I kind of long for a time when it won't even be necessary.
Let the ashes fly
ICM | Letterboxd | All-time stats

User avatar
russa03
Posts: 76
Joined: Jun 28, 2015
Contact:

#277

Post by russa03 » May 7th, 2019, 1:15 am

Cocoa wrote:
May 6th, 2019, 3:43 pm
The fighting in this thread is now making me wonder how the list would look if only the lists by women icm users counted and all the lists submitted by men were excluded.
I think there should be a separate list consisting only of votes from women to see the differences. What percentage of the participants are women?


Why are there complaints of the lack of woman users like it's a problem unique to this board? Every film club (watching and making) I've been to has had far more men attending. Even when Sight & Sound for their Best of 2018 poll sent out an equal number of invites to both gender (despite there being far more male critics), the responders were 100/64 in favour of men.

User avatar
Dolwphin
Posts: 3709
Joined: Jul 10, 2011
Location: Sweden
Contact:

#278

Post by Dolwphin » May 7th, 2019, 1:40 am

But white bourgeoisie women's concerns are over-represented within feminist discourse, so actually I want to see a list where only minority women icm users is counted.
Top 200 | https://rateyourmusic.com/~Dolwphin

Member of the Experimental Mafia.

User avatar
RBG
Posts: 6108
Joined: Feb 13, 2016
Location: desert usa
Contact:

#279

Post by RBG » May 7th, 2019, 3:57 am

so woke cetacean
icm + ltbxd

NO GODS NO MASTERS

User avatar
Jimi Antiloop
Posts: 455
Joined: Sep 04, 2016
Location: Germany
Contact:

#280

Post by Jimi Antiloop » May 9th, 2019, 3:23 pm

albajos wrote:
May 6th, 2019, 11:48 pm
Transwomen are still women. And have been women all their life.
They don't become women on a whim.
Nobody hasen't ever made a movie with their uterus, so I don't see why this is even important to you.
But this is questionable because souls have not a "women/men" agenda and women is basically definied as female.
So saying somebody beliving to be a women neither the biological signs tells it (this discussion isn't about intersexuals) just destroys the meaning of the term "women".
Why shouldn't it be acceptable to take just a huge variety of men and a huge variety of women, with all kind of personal charachteristics, unless somebody decides to switch sex, up to the point it is possible and makes at least look like the opposite sex they were biologically born into? :think:
:ICM: :letbxd: :Crtiticker: Reality Checks on :imdb:

“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”― Philip K. Dick

Post Reply