I can see this topic coming up here.
The question I wanted to ask is
'Is Liberal feminism always going to end up with barbarism?'
Further more Is radical feminism and creative power of art say through meg's painting able to tap into an eternal truth of indestructible compassion?
Yesss, I think so! :~))
What on Earth does this woman's crimes have to do with "liberal feminism"? You think when you give women some independence they're invariably going to end up torturing and killing children? How often does that happen?
shareHi.
Perhaps its the idea that she is Independent and free to act how she wants?
I don't think that if women have independence that they will end up torturing and killing children.I can't imagine it happens to often.
What does Liberal feminism mean to you?
I agree it doesn't have anything to do with it but I believe in the West, many women loathe babies and children and have made it their right to have children dismembered alive. For them, it's either women's right to mass murder babies vs babies right to live and not be tortured. So it has a very peculiar and horrific result in the West, I don't understand westerners sometimes. Almost like these people are not human but those monsters from horror films.
share[deleted]
What Ruth did had nothing to do with feminism, in fact it was motivated by misogyny. Didn't you hear all the bad things she was saying about women? She was very anti-feminist.
[deleted]
You have great taste in films.
shareCeephax:
So you're telling me it was the mere 'existence' of men that corrupted this sick twisted psychopath?
While we're at it, shall we make excuses for Dalmer?
What in the world are you talking about? The post you quote said nothing about "the mere 'existence' of men" and made no excuses for Ruth's behavior. Where does it say anything about blaming men? Explain, please.
Are you trolling, or are you venting some personal trauma regarding women in your life? (I'm not female, incidentally.)
Again I say, the reference to Ruth's "misogyny" is not an EXCUSE for her actions. Gaining insight into someone's behavior, by identifying something in their personality that drives it, is not EXCUSING the behavior. When the poster said it was misogyny that drove Ruth to do it, they didn't mean some outside force that controlled her like a puppet. She absorbed the misogyny from somewhere or other, but it was her misogyny; she still bore responsibility for her acts.
It would help if the English language didn't use the same word-- "understanding"-- to mean both "gaining insight" and "feeling sympathy or empathy". That seems to confuse things for a lot of people. After 9/11 there was a lot of, "Why do you want to understand what motivated the terrorists?"-- as if looking into what made them tick would somehow be a sign of weakness on our part. It wouldn't. If you want to defeat your enemy, you'd better be willing to figure out what drives them. Ignore that at your peril.
If I were writing a backstory for Ruth, it would probably go something like this:
Ruth father starts having sex with her when she's a kid. Her mother knows all about it. Both parents tell her that being used for sex is simply part of a woman's lot in life and it's much better that her dad does it than someone else. Ruth grows up and evolves into the town slut until she manages to coax someone to the altar. She has her kids and he dumps her. Maybe throw in that she had a daughter but killed the baby because she's been taught girls are worthless. She keeps sleeping around in exchange for guys taking care of her. Since she had a nice house in the movie, I would guess Ruth has been married more than once and is probably a widow as well as a deserted wife. I don't think her boys all have the same dad. In the movie, it was easy to see that Ruth was good-looking when she was young, so I think there were lots of men in her life and most of them didn't treat her too well. Along comes Meg and Susan and she's jealous of Meg, enraged that this extra responsibility has been dumped on her, and still carrying around the anger at her parents and every man who ever treated her badly, so she gets off on the idea of teaching Meg that "this is what a woman's life is like." Since she's also a sexual sadist, I would say she's also been into some twisted stuff with her husbands and boyfriends and has made passes at her sons. I think she probably sleeps with the oldest one. It's the sexual sadism that makes her get off on abusing Meg. She likes the power.
Women can be just as evil as men. Myra Hindley, Karla Homolka, and Gertrude Baniszewski (on who Ruth Chandler is based) are all prime examples of women who are depraved.
"This whole 'only men can be psycho' is utter bull. And making excuses for them by blaming the other gender, gimme a break."
No one says only men are psychos.
How many women abduct and murder people every year? How many men do?
++++++
Love means never having to say you're ugly. - The Abominable Dr. Phibes
thats impossible to definitevely answer. how many murderers and serial killers go unnoticed? we can't answer these but the FBI has estimated that there is between 25 and 50 serial killers operating throughout the united states at any given time and that at most there are 150 victims of serial killings in the u.s any given year
share[deleted]
I agree, Ruth was the product of internalized misogyny, and while it wasn't the CAUSE of how she was, it certainly was part of her psychology. What she wanted her kids to do, rape, genital mutilation, torture, humiliation of a young girl, calling her a slut, etc all modern feminists I know are against. In fact it's WHY they're feminists, to fight against this exact sh!t. Now there are aspects of liberal feminism that suggest any choices a woman makes is inherently feminist, since she makes a choice. But at least I have never come across ANYONE who believes it to the extent of Ruth, it sort of defeats the purpose of being feminist.
I thought it was fairly obvious there was a statement on misogyny in the time period in the film. The way the father answered the son about hitting a woman was misogynist. The way Ruth treated those boys from the beginning was pure praise for nothing but their gender, she treated them as special as possible. Ruth had something against men, obviously from the way she talked of her ex-husband, but she mainly was anti-woman. If you can't see she was anti-feminist, you don't know jack about feminism. [Also, if she was a 'manhating feminist' wtf would she harm the GIRL the most?]
And of course women can be psychopaths. It isn't feminism that states otherwise, it is the sexist notion of women being 'the weaker species', therefore being unable to do the harm a man can. Just like when domestic abuse cases happen against men, feminism isn't the cause of it being ignored. It's the same principle.
Yes indeed! This film was clearly the product of a gay liberal Jewish communist negro Muslim Mexican atheist Hollywood clique, orchestrated by Sean Penn at the behest of Barack Obama and his cabal of Satanic cohorts.
~.~
I WANT THE TRUTH! http://www.imdb.com/list/ze4EduNaQ-s/
Why are you bringing this up here? You have an agenda and it has nothing to do with this movie. Perhaps you hate women?
shareare you totally bonkers?
"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh
I'm sorry what now?
this is....deep. I need some time.