Comment on Robbed
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 6 hours agoYou’re just assuming that (practically unfalsifiably) when the director suggests nothing of the sort, when footage gets cut from movies literally all the time for every reason under the Sun, and when there’s shit in that movie an order of magnitude more provocative (see: the skin room) than a woman with hairy armpits (let alone historically accurately).
texture@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
yeah thats why i said “id just assume” not “i think”
also, youre really mixing up provocative with patriarchal and thats unfortunate.
anyway, simple misunderstanding. cheers
TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
“I’d just assume” is functionally the same as “I think”, because nobody first asked you “well if you had to assume, what would’ve happened?” We’re all adults here; we all understand what words mean.
And I used “provocative” because you’re directly implying a form of patriarchical censorship for inherently one of two reasons or some combination: the patriarchical system 1) thinks it’s too provocative or 2) thinks it’s too superfluous, and (2) isn’t per se patriarchy; reasonable minds can differ on whether the scene merited inclusion. I’m sure it wasn’t like that scene from The Room where they make a big deal out of Mark’s clean-shaven face; I’m sure the protein filaments growing out of Robbie’s armpits weren’t the nominal objective of the scene. Thus I assumed you were referring to the only one that’s strictly, inherently patriarchical for which there wouldn’t be a more plausible explanation.
texture@lemmy.world 23 minutes ago
those phrases aren’t functionally the same. anyways i already edited my original comment for clarity.
im not reading all that.