Apparently there’s a movie in theaters now by the name of The Hunger Games – it’s sort of obscure, so you may not have heard of it. Despite the title, it does not have anything to do with food. No, apparently it has something to do with young people fighting to the death on TV, or something.
Over on the Fox News website, Dr. Keith Ablow – described as “a psychiatrist and member of the Fox News Medical A-Team” – is shocked to discover that this film contains:
1) Attractive young people
2) Violence
This deadly combination alarms Dr. Ablow, who warns:
The Hunger Games … adds to the toxic psychological forces it identifies, rather than reducing them. …
It is an entertainment product of complete fiction and great potency, given its intense level of fantasy and violence. As such, it only conveys young people closer to “expressing” in a virtual format their powerful and primitive instincts (potentially kindling their desire to truly express such instincts) while conveying them further from their daily realities and a little further still from their real selves.
And apparently the film fails utterly in inculcating hostility towards the Kardashian family.
Almost no one will emerge from a theater swearing off shows like the Keeping Up With the Kardashians, or Jersey Shore because they are produced by adults happy enough to make a buck off of stupefying teenagers.
As I am sure you are all aware, inculcating hostility towards the Kardashians is the aim of all great art, as Aristotle explained so many centuries ago:
A tragedy is the imitation of an action that is serious, and also, as having magnitude, complete in … with incidents arousing pity and terror, with which to accomplish its purgation of these emotions. Those Kardashian girls are such stuck up bitches — “ooh i got a big ass, everybody look at me!” And don’t even get me started on Snooki.
Hey, can I get a goddamn gyro here?
That quote is, of course, from Aristotle’s famous treatise “Ho-etics.”
In addition to not inculcating hatred towards the Kardashians, Dr. Ablow warns us, The Hunger Games will make its viewers
more likely to come out of theaters having shed some measure of the healthy psychological defenses (which are, luckily, partly reinforced by socialization) that keep them at a distance from their violent impulses. …
Other than entertaining millions and millions of teenagers and making millions and millions of dollars, the net result of The Hunger Games is likely to be:
1) Females will be further distanced from their traditional feminine characteristics that … suggested they were not being real “girls” if they were extremely physically violent.
2) Young teens and many pre-teens will be awakened to the fact that they are capable of extreme violence, given the right set of circumstances.
3) A few psychologically vulnerable teens—who would have come to no good anyhow—may be inspired to replicate the film’s violence.
So I’m guessing that’s a big “thumbs down” from Dr. Ablow.
Given that the mainstream media is but a tool in the hand of our gynocentric matriarchal overlordsladies, I’m not quite sure how this article slipped through. But we’re lucky it did.
Over on What Men Are Saying About Women, where I found big chunks of Ablow’s essay quoted without any explanation of where they were from, our good friend Christian J. explains that:
This movie is straight out of the slut-feminists’ arsenal of the “You Go Grrrllll” mantras. They have promoted violent women and will continue to do so (think Valerie Solanas). Slut-feminists justify this action under their delusional and blatantly false claim that women should be able to protect themselves as they are constantly attacked and physically abused on a daily basis, everywhere they go..
Where they get that from is ofcourse by generating their own falsified and doctored statistics which they have done for too long to remember.
If anyone suggests you go see The Hunger Games, they are probably a slut feminist. You should run far away from them in case they decide to punch you.
Go watch old episodes of The A-Team instead, a show which is totally not violent in any way.
Ho-etics? If so, please fax me my pony.
Ho etics
Oh, it really was ho-etics. He oculdn’t give me the ponies I want, so no worries XD
(Twilight Sparkle, Rainbow Dash, or Rarity)
Aww crap! I really want an excuse to get some chickens..
Yep, it was ho-etics. Ponies for everyone!
I am really grateful we have free health care at the point of need in the uk and I don’t really understand the American fear of providing health care as a universal benefit. Still I am obviously a Marxist feminist for that belief alone. If these guys are threatened by “the hunger games” what the hell did they think of “kickass” or “Leon” ? Sorry once again on my phone – and too tired to think of a brilliant response but love what I have read so far!
But but David…I wanted chickens! Beloved thinks I’m a few nuts short of an oak tree, but I want chickens!
CHICKENS!!!!!!!!
For Rutee:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3YMRp36Ad8
For pillowinhell:
Those videos didn’t embed because they are BIGOTS!
Are those two things related? Doesn’t everyone have chickens now? What’s weird about chickens?
I’m considering buying a small goat-related businesss. True story.
Awwww….baby chickens!!!!! Thanks!
I live in a city, and bylaw won’t allow chickens. I also live in an apartment building and they won’t allow chickens either.
Still waiting for Beloved to win the lottery so I can buy a small farm…='(
Oh gawd, Kickass was fantastic in so many ways. (Now all MRAs hate it XD)
Seriously though, it was pretty great. Especially loved how the dad is treated as a complete *jackass* for doing this to his daughter.
On the topic of the actual thread (ahem) may I nominate Maya’s linking of The Hunger Games to Beethoven’s Fidelio as a potential thread-winning comment? The music geek in me leapt for joy.
On the derail: wow, knocking back the Obamacare health care reforms is a win for MRAs when you have fifty million uninsured people in your country? That must be reality on planet Earth-212, I think, rather than the planet we inhabit. What a twit.
If Obamacare was gender-neutral, I would not have any problem with it. However, under Obamacare, health care is a right for women, and a privilege for men. Not cool. Flush it down, along with its maker.
That’s not true. It’s not even the massaging-the-truth or deliberately-misunderstanding-information type of lie that MRAs usually engage in. It’s just straight-up making crap up.
I mean, it’s not that I don’t enjoy your fanfic where you come up with a bunch of imaginary amendments to the bill hundreds of years in the future that will require health care for men to be revoked so women can buy more cats, but… you understand this is stuff you made up five minutes ago, right? You remember making it up? Surely?
Anyway, what will you do if your FOREIGN WIFE gets sick? What about those two sons of yours; don’t you appreciate that your insurer is now required to cover them?
I’ve read a lot about Obamacare in the last few years. This is the first time I’ve seen it related to a gender issue.
Uncle Sam running the American healthcare system just won’t work out so well, IMO. There would never be enough money. Too many Americans are obese, smoke, are alcoholics, drug addicts, adrenaline junkies, etc. I wish there was an easy answer.
Shaenon, Antz wrote a long, delusional post for AVFM in which looked at a bunch of specific references to women in the bill, and concluded from this that Obamacare was going to be for women only. And the AVFMers applauded. They truly do live in their own separate reality.
I don’t exactly a dog in the fight as a non-USian, but I don’t like it either when people die. So…
“Uncle Sam running the American healthcare system just won’t work out so well, IMO. There would never be enough money. Too many Americans are obese, smoke, are alcoholics, drug addicts, adrenaline junkies, etc. I wish there was an easy answer.”
So the “hard” answer is to let all those people die? That’s sound extra easy on a logistical pov, not so on a moral one.
Sadface! I’m sorry … I always assume that everyone has equal access to chickens. Pretty much everyone I know has some.
This is the best thing I’ve heard today.
Honestly at this point I think Antz is a bunch of different people posing as one guy just to fuck with us.
This is total crap.
Seriously TOTAL AND UTTER crap.
A single third party payer would save anywhere from $200 billion a year to 25% of total health care spending just in administrative costs being slashed. Hospitals not having to have entire billing departments to deal with up to 1,500 different third party payers would be an immense savings. Same for doctors who could focus on treatment instead of on sorting out who to get paid from.
Preventative care (which is what the US needs most of all) would save up to 40% on top of that source
Even with fee for service being in place (ever wonder why the health care costs exploded after Medicare/caid were enacted? There is exhibit number one), savings of just having one single third party payer would allow people to be as stupid as they are now and not have it cost more than what you pay in premiums as a single person to some company that wants to screw you over if you need their services.
The 80/20 rule is still in place regardless of who is using the service so even if 100% of Americans are terrible managers of their health, at any one time only 20% of them will be using medical services in anything remotely resembling long term care.
But doctors will stop making $300,000 a year so naturally why even bother? /sarcasm
A little background on Dr. Ablow. He’s the asshole who said Newt Gingrich would make a fine president because he got three women to him. The guy is bat shit insane.
Thank you, princessbonbon for responding to that much better than I could.
How did everyone start talking about MittObamaCare?
Oh, I see, Antzie wasn’t getting enough attention.
The health care business reeks of conservative ACTIVIST JUDGES, shouldn’t something this huge be left to congress? Scalia doesn’t want to read all 2,700 pages of the bill, but he sure wants to kill it anyway! I’m nostalgic for the time conservatives claimed to be against judicial activism, but seeing as it’s currently the last bastion for their backwards way of thinking, they all luff it. <3
I liked this quote from David's article.
“SLUT-FEMINISTS,” how classy — and learning how to protect yourself is delusional.
Of course women aren’t being constantly attacked, does he think we’re already living in the MRAs’ dream Mad-Max future??
Another great addition to Mensrights.txt