Morons of the Internet: Everyday Feminism (17/04/17)

This is the segment where I scour my favourite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words of my favourite human beings.

In this edition we once again return to the world of shit articles that is Everyday Feminism. Once again these overlords of bollocks gone through their list of things they can possibly claim are racist or discriminatory and have decided that outdoor recreation is plagued by white supremacy and the patriarchy. Presumably this article will be followed up with why blades of grass are discriminatory, and why the shades of beige on the Dulux colour chart are racist. Anyway, let's go through each one of their moronic points.

Do you know what? I'm almost in agreement with Everyday Feminism. Outdoor recreation is largely not free, although what is in life, especially if you want to take that thing up as a hobby. However where I and this stupid website start to differ is how we approach this conundrum. Everyday Feminism simply whinge and bitch about anyone who can get outdoors easily in the most childish way possible, whereas I would prefer to bother doing an actual evaluation to try and decipher why there is a vast inequality in the visitors of National Parks. Spoiler alert: It's not racism.

I don't know anyone who assumes that the great outdoors is free, especially in the context of this argument. This is literally just some woman applying her own subjective viewpoints to a national issue. I also just love the assumption that because something seems free it should therefore be a universal right. The feeling of misery for example is free; should that also be a universal right? With the growing urbanisation occurring in countries around the world of course finding a secluded spot in the wilds is going to be difficult for some; that's just a harsh reality of life, and will never be an issue that's solved. The facts are that the majority of Americans in rural areas are white, so obviously you would expect white people to be visiting attractions in rural areas in greater frequencies. Unless you have any real evidence we can conclusively say there's no proof that racist attitudes are at fault here, no matter how hard you try and sell that narrative. People shouldn't be forced into National Parks against their will to even out the race based statistics. It's such a trivial allegation of racism and privilege. It would be a bit like me complaining that I can't have as much fun in the sun as someone from Spain. Where's my fucking article? What this argument boils down to is some idiot claiming racism exists in a meaningless issue despite the fact there is no strong evidence to support her arguments, and she's never even witnessed this occurring, but instead decides it must exist because it follows her narrative. Peak 'Everyday Feminism'. Unfortunately for the reader the pathetic reasoning doesn't stop here, and neither does her constant need to desperately force racial issues into everything. And where better to begin whining than a little lecture on privilege.

Again, why should minorities be forcefully included in matters surrounding National Parks? Citizens shouldn't be forced to visit certain attractions for the sake of unity; this isn't North Korea. Surely this complex issue couldn't possibly be caused by anything other than race. Why for example would it not be caused by local demographics, base reluctances that this author blindly dismisses, cultural differences, or simply personal tastes? Oh right, I forgot that every fucking idiot at Everyday Feminism doesn't try and solve or attempt to analyse issues in an objective way, but instead create new ones and pass on the blame to whoever their narrative dictates they must. There is always going to be members of society with more money than others. Just because a higher proportion of white people have more money and are therefore more likely to visit National Parks does not give you an excuse to demonise them.

When you actually address this line of argument that welfare issues are causing a lack of diversity it becomes blatantly obvious that this is a wild conclusion that seems unlikely to be true considering only a small minority of the American population are in poverty. I'm a student and I can still afford to go to a National Park. You certainly don't need to take out a mortgage to enjoy outdoor activities, so please tell me how this point relates to a survey of people who merely attended a National Park. And when has anyone ever been discouraged from going outside? I mean that's fair for ginger people likely to catch the sun, Vampires, or people with bubonic plague, but just because no-one is bending over backwards to get minorities into National Parks doesn't mean there's some worldwide conspiracy theory to keep people of colour indoors. Then to top it all off this person states that discouraging people from playing outside would 'possibly' stop budding conservationists. As a conservationist myself I can inform you my position has very little to do with my ability to go camping. How about we start making arguments based on evidence rather than irrelevant rambling?

As a Brit I can happily agree that elitism and the countryside go hand in hand, however that doesn't stop me from taking a walk off the beaten track. I don't know if this is the same in America, but here in Britain a huge variety of people from different economic backgrounds visit National Parks. The fact of the matter is that for outdoor activities you need absolutely fuck all. All you need to do is haul your ass over to a natural wilderness, so what this elitism has to do with the lack of diversity in outdoor recreation is beyond me. Yes, there is a huge consumer market for outdoor activities, as there is for firearms in America, yet minorities have had no trouble in obtaining them. I still don't know what the argument is here. Is this person arguing that camping is too expensive? A lot of things are expensive, but that doesn't mean you're entitled to them; welcome to the real fucking world. It's becoming quite clear that outdoor activities and racism simply aren't the issue Everyday Feminism is making them out to be. And yet the arguments keep getting more ridiculous.

Are you fucking serious? You're now complaining about fitness culture. How dare the majority of people want to live healthy lifestyles. You have to believe that even if cancer was cured Everyday Feminism would still find a way to whinge about it in the most pitiful way possible. But this argument is just going back to consumerism again. Maybe if you actually comprehend what happens in the real world you might be shocked to hear that when products are not in demand there's less of them. Funnily enough most grotesquely obese people are not big on cycling, hence why there's not a lot on the market. This is just fundamental supply and demand economics, and not the fault of some made up culture. But my bigger issue is why the fuck you need sportswear for camping? Sportswear is designed to maintain optimal performance when the body is pushed to the limit, which is really useful if you're camping during winter time in Norway. Funnily enough most activities are not considered free if you decide to buy unnecessary shit. Again, stop pushing agendas into arguments where they don't belong.

Here you hit the nail on the head, yet you still can't connect the dots that location may be the key to why minorities don't visit National Parks, because of course racism just has to be the answer. How naive can you possibly get? The statistics you source on this article actually add up to around 22% of coloured individuals being less likely to have recreation facilities and 20% of visitors to National Parks being people of colour. You really think a 2% discrepancy is significant? But blindly adding statistics irrespective of context is not the only issue, no there's also some historical oppression hierarchies being forced into issues that aren't even remotely historical. This author can source shitty Everyday Feminism articles all they want, but the facts are that the central ideas of preservation were formulated from a predominantly white perspective considering it was white people who pioneered the idea of conservation ethics. However to simply state that this is still the case would be incredibly misleading, and doesn't accurately represent the complex conflict of ethics in conservation that have rapidly changed since they were originally drawn out. National Parks are centres for natural beauty. They have fuck all to do with where indigenous populations are located in modern times, and what you're describing is simply irrelevant to the idea of why camping isn't free. It's been centuries since indigenous people have roamed the lands of wild America, and since that time the subject of conservation biology has radically changed. Something of course you can't comprehend because every issue is about fucking race. Tell me this: If National Parks had never existed do you think this exploitation you describe would be cured? And when you're done bullshiting your way through that one explain what this has got to do with the original argument.

Oh Boo-fucking-hoo. How about instead of childishly whinging become the change you want to see and get off your fat ass. If not seeing others like you doing an activity prevents you from doing it then how much did you really want to do it in the first place? You can pass the blame to families all you want, but honestly why does that have anything to do with your laziness? Firstly I know of many families who don't want their kids playing in the great outdoors for security reasons, and not at all because of racial reasons. The author herself even goes on to explain that it was the location being the issue, which again puts more evidence towards my explanation of simple demographic distribution being the reason. It's certainly not families stopping their children from going outside. You are aware that once you pass a certain age you can have fun without your parents permission? The rest is just more horseshit. I honestly can't imagine why society doesn't socialise women to be physically strong like men. I mean there is absolutely no biological reason why people would associate men as the stronger sex. So yeah, I agree, fucking toxic. I mean you don't explain why they're toxic, but surely just calling something 'toxic' will improve your argument no end.

Just when you thought they were running out of buzzwords to shoehorn into their article good old rape culture makes an appearance despite being entirely irrelevant. I could twist their words here and claim that they think all firefighters and lumberjacks are racist considering that's what they're implying, but instead I'll just simply state that they have absolutely zero evidence to accuse these honest occupations of having the crime of rape embedded in their profession. How have we got to a day and age where whiny online fuckwads have the audacity to start criticising firefighters? The sources provided are a simple survey of one region that's evidently biased, never mentions rape, suspiciously doesn't include a methodology, and never even explores whether there's any truth behind their allegations. Even if you ignore the shit source I still have to ask what rape culture in firefighters has to do with minorities visiting National Parks? You know you can go camping without the National Parks using your stay as an excuse to seize you for indentured service in the fire brigade? The other source is an article from the notoriously unbiased Huffington Post, and essentially comprises of a series of anecdotal interviews. How the fuck all this evidence can be used to support the idea of universal rape culture is mindblowing, especially considering this allegedly proves discrimination in outdoor activities. Surprisingly it doesn't.

The article concludes by saying that ethnic minorities should be celebrated in the great outdoors. No, fuck off. I don't give a fuck how many minorities go on a tour of the woods, and neither does any normal person for that matter. Why the fuck should I care about someone else having a selfish experience? The author still hasn't explained why camping being expensive is actually an issue, and really this article is a thinly veiled attempt to demonise anyone who this moronic website have an agenda against. The final thought is that everyone should enjoy the privilege of camping, which isn't at all an oxymoron, nor is it an entirely trivial issue. I'm starting to think Everyday Feminism has a universal template of shit filled with their usual buzzwords. They leave a few gaps to make anything relevant or topical, which is about all their pea brained employees can smear on to the page with the same level of critical thinking as a walrus. I don't even know why I bothered reading this to be honest, it's just fucking shit.

Top 10 Films of 2016

#10 Hail, Caesar! (7/10)

This is the latest outing from the Coen Brothers, who always put forward an interesting film, and 2016 saw perhaps their most intriguing film yet. It's a comedy set in 1950's Hollywood, where a film star is kidnapped by communists. There's a lot more going on than that brief summary, and it's the stuff going on in the background that make this film. It's not 'laugh out loud' funny like some people would expect from a traditional comedy, and instead far more subtle and creative in how it delivers the cheer. It's parodical in tone, lampooning the film industry, and showing that money can't buy happiness in the most creative ways possible. It's not a scathing attempt to land some thinly veiled shots at the industry, rather just the illumination of historical standards in the film industry. It's hard to work out if the Coen Brothers created this out of admiration for 50's film, or actually just wanted to showcase it's many failings. Either way it's a film that in order to be enjoyed must be examined further than just the jokes.

The real draw in this film is the cast, which is absolutely stacked. There's no particularly notable performances, but it's hard not to be overwhelmed when you have George Clooney, Josh Brolin, Ralph Fiennes, Scarlett Johansson, Jonah Hill, and Channing Tatum, all vying for the same spotlight. If that doesn't impress you then the styling certainly will. This film really is a product of its time, and in actual fact the film looks superb with its classy art style, bombarding the viewer with references I'm sure are very relevant to the time. This film turned out to be a complete hit or miss that polarised the majority of its audience, but I personally think there's a certain innocent charm about this one, and it certainly deserves the accolades critics gave it. The mixed support is understandable actually considering this is certainly not a film aimed at the masses, rather resembling a high brow cartoon in an edition of the Financial Times. In any case this is high brow entertainment at its finest.


#9 The Jungle Book (8/10)

Boy was I worried this was going to be a disappointment. I loved the original Jungle Book as a kid, it was such a lighthearted and pleasant take on the brutal and pessimistic Rudyard Kipling novels. Like the original this version still retains that charm, with the only difference being the touched up visuals, which I must say look superb. You still get the great setting, the lovable songs, and a great cast of characters, only ignoring the strong themes of the original book for the sake of the modern audiences. As a zoologist I can't say I was particularly amazed at the attention to detail. The mere site of brown bears and Bengal tigers in the same habitat was enough to make me shudder, but then I suppose the source material was hardly 'On The Origin of Species' in the first place, so I'll let my anal criticisms slide.

One thing this modern version excels at over the original is the voice acting. Most notably Idris Elba as Shere Khan. He's absolutely great, and fits into the role perfectly, creating a real villain out of an already scary tiger. He's the complete opposite of the fun nature of this film, which on the whole is such a nice and pleasant experience. It made me feel like a young boy being allowed to stay up and watch this for his Friday night treat. I'm sure the new Jungle Book will go down as a future classic just like the old one. It's a true family blockbuster that can stand on its own two feet in comparison to classic Disney films, which is all anyone ever asked of it. At a time when sequels come and go like loose change, it was so refreshing to see one that actually had respect for the source material. The Disney original is still far better, but this was a credible and pleasant homage to a childhood classic.


#8 Fences (8/10)

Fences is based on a play, which usually isn't a great foundation for a great film, but any pandering towards homosexuals and aristocrats is absent in this hard hitting tale. Fences does a fine job of serialising the struggles of 1950's African Americans, with a fascinating to watch family carrying the story every inch of the way. The setting is also great here. It's such a believable environment, which is so crucial in a true story. The result of the attention to detail is a film that feels like a product of the age in question, which needless to say is incredibly important in a period drama. Another great feature is the acting of Denzel Washington. He owns his role and dominates every scene in the film. The whole premise is around the troubles of a single family, but you wouldn't know that from Denzel's almost selfishly strong performance. He's supported by a strong cast, who really make America seem like one troubled little family, but each is their own unique persona, all revolving around Denzel's fatherly figure.

I just thought this was a very serious story told incredibly well. It's simple yet effective dramatisation. As someone from across the pond who doesn't really understand the struggle of African Americans in the 1950's I should have felt slightly lost, but I just didn't. Every point this film brings up is relatable to any audience. It doesn't try and hide the main story with imagery and metaphor, and instead just presents the raw details. This simple story told in a simple way certainly won't change cinema forever, and is actually a rather conservative effort that will probably be lost in time. However it is a film designed to make you think, and a film designed to make you feel for the characters in question; and that's all I could ever ask of a serious period drama.


#7 Silence (8/10)

It's Martin Scorsese directing a film about Christians being persecuted in feudal Japan; a topic he is noted for being passionate for. You just know the results are going to be something special. And, well they are. What I especially love about Silence is how it doesn't get bogged down in the religious aspects like say 'Passion of the Christ'. Religious epics are usually very disturbing films from start to finish, but unlike many others in the genre you get the sense there is no ego behind this one. *cough* Mel Gibson. Silence is just an honest betrayal of a tail that obviously struck a chord with Scorsese, and as such has a personal touch that gives the film a feeling of artistic quality. I'm not a huge fan of spiritualism in films, but here's its done right, and never once feels pretentious.

Silence is a very traditionalist film. Nothing is flashy or overdone, often relying on minimalistic features to paint the picture. Needless to say it runs at a marathon pace. Some will find it overly drawn out, but it's certainly a film that should never lose your interests, and one that should leave you lost in thought as the mental quest develops. It might not be the most pleasant of experiences, and some many even feel dissatisfied with the many loose ends the film will leave you with, but then this is deep subject material that's not supposed to be taken lightly. The real highlight however is the cinematography, which is just masterful in every scene. Scorsese has proven over the years that he's possibly the best when it comes to the technical aspects of cinema, and in this film we can see his professional sheen throughout.


#6 Arrival (8/10)

Arrival is a rather unique film considering it takes the far more noble and realistic approach of actually making alien contact quite ordinary and boring. That's a risky move considering sci-fi is about creating the most awe-inspiring environments possible, but Arrival deals with this void by instead creating a ton of mystery and wonder that you would often find in sci-fi epics from the 1970's. The aliens in this film are more of a background plot point, with human relationships being the central theme, which may put a lot of people off because they assumed this was an action orientated sci-fi film rather than a touching drama. In reality this is a sci-fi film for people who've lost their virginity, and for those who appreciate artistic integrity.

Although Arrival is a film that focuses on the first contact part of an alien invasion, it still holds an incredible amount of tension, often arising through very basic dialogue. I ended up getting really sucked into this very simple yet imaginative narrative that builds towards a huge and satisfying climax. The film almost lectures you with its style, and although it may require a second viewing to really understand, it eventually becomes a film where you can really appreciate the sophisticated narrative. The central character, Amy Adams, is the star of the show. She's portrayed incredibly well, yet never feels like she's hogging the limelight. A rare and important trait for any protagonist in a subtle film like this one. It's a performance that like the film itself screams blockbuster despite actually feeling like a small budget but well crafted flick, which for me gives this film its own unique charm.


#5 Green Room (8/10)

It's a thriller with punk rock bands, Nazis, and some good old bloody murder. Sounds an intriguing mix, and that's because it is. Like the punk band in question this is a loud, action packed and obnoxious thrill ride that will leave you wanting an encore even if what you've just experienced wasn't particularly pleasant. It keep shouting 'look at me', even through all the excessive gore and violence in the most immature way possible. That sense of immaturity may reflect the incredibly young cast, but in my opinion revolves around the lack of humanity or morality anywhere in the film. This is a raucous riot of sadism if you will.

Green Room is such a unique thriller. It's a hard film to categorise, resembling more of a psychological thriller and an ode to free spirited individuals. It's also so well written, relying on old fashioned shock and awe to impress rather than visual trickery. It's actually quite like a traditional horror video game in its style of execution, with a grimy and claustrophobic setting being coupled with disturbing and gory scenes. However most old school horror games do let you sit back in your seat for a few seconds, which is where this film drastically differs. There's also Patrick Stewart around for some reason. I didn't think a serious Shakespearean actor would work in this style of film, but my God he does. He was so damn convincing as the villain that I couldn't help but feel he would be right at home in a fascist cult. To summise Green Room is about the most indie film you could possibly imagine, but my god does that hour and a half fly.


#4 Hell or High Water (8/10)

God I love a good Western. Hell or High Water was a more modern take on the tried and tested formula, with classic action sequences involving bank robbing being twinned with emotional family roller-coasters. The idea of family farms being a greater plot point than robbing banks isn't traditionally toyed in films when outlaws are on the run, at least not in the style this film takes. However the trick that Hell or High Water pulls is creating a film that adds a lot of depth to the often linear world of Westerns. The best bit however is that it's written by Taylor Sheridan, whose the man that wrote my favourite film of last year; Sicario. Hell or High Water isn't quite as good as busting some Mexican drug lords, but it's still a respectable follow-up nonetheless with equally fantastic writing.

You can feel the similarities this film has with Sicario. Just like Sicario this is down to earth, rustic and raw. Sicario may be more action packed, but this is far more meaningful with the emphasis on relationships rather than killing people. There's still the odd bullet being fired in this one, but characterisation is always at the fore. The sibling bank robbers are the focal point in this film, and their relationship is so interesting to witness. Their story is one of solidarity with society rather than a selfish action, yet emptiness and loneliness become the prevailing themes in the film. This film is a testament to not only quality writing but also top notch cinematography as well. Some of the scenes in this film were the best I'd seen all year, which isn't something I thought I would be saying about gritty crime dramas in the Wild West.


#3 Elle (9/10)

Not many films receive a seven minute standing ovation at the prestigious Cannes Film Festival. Elle was one of the few however, and it's easy to see why. It's a film about revenge. Revenge in it's most fucked up form. If you're looking for a good bit of rape or murder then it's all here, and the director isn't afraid to throw it in your face like it's something to be proud of. I'd love to sit a feminist down and make them watch this. They would watch in horror as rape is just brushed over as a trivial event in life The director is Dutch to be fair, and even better is the fact he's using a French script. You can always rely on the Dutch to go a bit mental and the French to be overly sexual, and funnily enough that's a great way to describe this entire film. In reality Elle is a film that examines mature subjects in far greater sophistication than anyone could ever manage in a gender studies classroom, and actually the style mixes both shocking scenes with dark humour expertly.

I personally found my internal psyche being spun around in every direction thanks to this film. In many ways it turns crazy events into an apparent norm. Even I ended up debating whether parts were unnecessary or pure genius, but then shouldn't all psychological thrillers follow this idea? They should certainly follow the sublime score, which is brilliantly intertwined into every scene, and also the leading performance of Isabelle Huppert. She's mesmerising as the ice cold titular character. You can sense the vengeful persona the character has in everything Huppert does. She manages to make her sexual relationships into a dark and confusing plot point, managing to shift my views continually as the film goes along. I also have a lot of respect for the director who was happy to push the boundaries on what is acceptable. The result is both empowering and flat out misogynistic, or maybe even misandrist. Either way, I felt I was being toyed with from start to finish.


#2 Moonlight (9/10)

I usually disagree with the Academy Awards, but I have no complaints about their Best Picture winner this year. Moonlight isn't typical Oscar fodder, it's actually an insightful but well crafted film that can stand on its own two feet. It may appear to be overly pretentious with the visuals and depth, but it's still a seriously great watch that the critics quite rightly loved. Moonlight is your typical bildungsroman, set in three stages of an African American homosexual's life, with all those stages feeling like entirely different time periods with entirely different characters. The transformations on display are just astonishing. The journeys of the characters are anything but fluid, yet the cinematography is so effortlessly smooth, perhaps reflecting the plethora of emotion found in this film.

Moonlight is an incredibly deep film set around serious themes like drug problems and childhood abuse, with each theme explored in great detail, following a journey of what it means to be human. What's great however is that this isn't just identity politics spilling over into the world of film, but simply a poignant story that aims to shed light upon big issues in a non-invasive way. It treats these big issues with great respect, but never forces them down the viewers throat, which for me is an incredibly admirable attitude. The characterisation is the star of the show however. The protagonist, Chiron, is portrayed in stunning depth. The story in question is incredibly powerful, but it's that emotional attachment you have with the central character that gives the film its immense depth.


#1 Son of Saul (9/10)

Okay, I know the best film of 2016 was actually released halfway through 2015, but I didn't see it until 2016 because it hadn't been released in the UK then, so being as it's my list we'll just make an exception. I'm only breaking the rules by six months, and anyway, who gives a shit? Son of Saul is a holocaust film that isn't just emotional dreariness. It's still full of emotion and treats the mature subject with the rightful respect it warrants, but actually seems to be a picture that's far deeper than the central conflict itself. All this from a directing debut is all the more astonishing. This film, despite its rather strong nature, is fucking exhilarating. It's emotional drama at its best, rather than the more standard biopic style films that dominate the holocaust based genre.

Son of Saul may be about a single character, but everything it does is in the grander scale, which as this film will demonstrate is much more important than the struggles of one man. Impressive when events outside of this man's life remain off camera, but what better way to see the horrors of war than through such an active participant. I can assure you that the screams of victims in the gas chamber will be audibly present in my memory for years to come, but then again so will many other scenes in this powerful film. The biggest horror however is discovering this film takes place over just two days. That feels like a lifetime with the sheer amount of horror subjected towards the protagonist. This truly is a film that shows the true scale of the holocaust, and becomes an almost unrivalled tribute to such a barbaric event in human history.