On 2/27/2024 at 4:42 PM, Enrico_sw said:

 

This woman is unattractive. Not just on the inside.

 

She's boosted by Disney's propaganda machine, but she doesn't have much qualities apart from that.

 

I don't know anything about her, her youtube channel just popped up in my feed.  The whole thing is her singing and playing guitar

Rachel Zegler is not unattractive. Not exactly my type but she is cute.

 

As for her acting, the only thing I have seen her in was the Shazam sequel and she was okay in that.

 

her music is mostly about relationship trauma and failure, unfortunately it is fitting for the times..\\

 

her fans see her as some sort of role model

9 hours ago, Cult Icon said:

 

I don't know anything about her, her youtube channel just popped up in my feed.  The whole thing is her singing and playing guitar

She was quite alright in WEST SIDE STORY and the latest Hunger Games installment SONGBIRDS & SNAKES.

 

If someone claims she also can't sing because of some sort of personal vendetta I simply say  

1 hour ago, Jade Bahr said:

She was quite alright in WEST SIDE STORY and the latest Hunger Games installment SONGBIRDS & SNAKES.

 

If someone claims she also can't sing because of some sort of personal vendetta I simply say  

 

17 hours ago, Cult Icon said:

 

I don't know anything about her, her youtube channel just popped up in my feed.  The whole thing is her singing and playing guitar

 

She's seen as an asset by Disney because she's the lead of their future Snow White movie. She's generally disagreeable and she made a very bad impression among the general public because of some interviews.

 

Disney is funding a huge campaign to try and improve her image. This is very obvious in their "allied" news outlets (either their affiliates or outlets they heavily finance). They also use lots of social media bots to boost her (it's a typical Disney strategy).

 

Here's the short version of the story:

 

 

What do you think @Cult Icon @Enrico_sw?

 

 

On 3/1/2024 at 11:12 AM, AnatasiaSteele82 said:

What do you think @Cult Icon @Enrico_sw?

 

 

 

very pretty and of course she has very symmetrical features.  However beauty has a lot of subjectivity and varies from person to person.

On 3/1/2024 at 5:12 PM, AnatasiaSteele82 said:

What do you think @Cult Icon @Enrico_sw?

 

 

 

She's cute, but calling her "perfect" is a bit too much. I mean her face is good, but to me a great woman has to have ample bosoms like Lauren Mellor:

 

 

And I think girls like Anna Mae have cuter smiles (but that's just a personal/subjective opinion - other people will disagree)

 

I don't believe "science" can define perfection.

 

7 hours ago, Enrico_sw said:

 

She's cute, but calling her "perfect" is a bit too much. I mean her face is good, but to me a great woman has to have ample bosoms like Lauren Mellor:

 

 

And I think girls like Anna Mae have cuter smiles (but that's just a personal/subjective opinion - other people will disagree)

 

I don't believe "science" can define perfection.

 

 

Science can define perfection but not own tastes. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Rihanna backs

 

https://elpais.com/gente/2024-03-04/la-opulenta-preboda-del-hijo-del-hombre-mas-rico-de-la-india-concierto-de-rihanna-tres-dias-de-fiesta-y-mas-de-1000-invitados.html?outputType=amp 

Just posting because it's not their first "sighting".

 

^ fun fact, Camila Morrone is famous because of her past relationship with Leo (the patriarch).

 

In "modern" words, doesn't that mean that she owes everything to the patriarchy?

She is mostly famous thanks to being Al Pacino's step daughter at one time. Probably opened a lot of Hollywood doors for her.

21 hours ago, Enrico_sw said:

^ fun fact, Camila Morrone is famous because of her past relationship with Leo (the patriarch).

Yeah and she was also bullied, harassed and slut shamed for this relationship on a disgustingly level. Actually every woman or man entering his inner circle would increase of Leos massive fame, power, influence and generosity. You can say the exact same thing about Tobey Maguire. He got where he is just because of Leo. Same for most of his other male companions just saying.

 

‘Spider-Man’ Star Tobey Maguire Has Leonardo DiCaprio to Thank for His Marvel Role

23 hours ago, Enrico_sw said:

^ fun fact, Camila Morrone is famous because of her past relationship with Leo (the patriarch).

 

In "modern" words, doesn't that mean that she owes everything to the patriarchy?

In Daisy Jones she is ok, good surprise.

 

Sad notice, end if Portman' marriage

 

https://people.com/natalie-portman-benjamin-millepied-finalize-divorce-exclusive-7503117?hid=a7038d1d7ff80625a930a239556159a7063a7813&did=12221955-20240308&utm_source=ppl&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=people-news_newsletter&utm_content=030824&lctg=a7038d1d7ff80625a930a239556159a7063a7813 

8 hours ago, Jade Bahr said:

Yeah and she was also bullied, harassed and slut shamed for this relationship on a disgustingly level. Actually every woman or man entering his inner circle would increase of Leos massive fame, power, influence and generosity. You can say the exact same thing about Tobey Maguire. He got where he is just because of Leo. Same for most of his other male companions just saying.

 

‘Spider-Man’ Star Tobey Maguire Has Leonardo DiCaprio to Thank for His Marvel Role

 

Leonardo is a very competent and talented guy; of course he deserves his power and fame. He acts like a patriarch, so he protects his close ones, all of them. Good for him. But that's the good old patriarchy, is it not?

 

I don't have a moral view on it, I just think that's how things are.

12 hours ago, Enrico_sw said:

Leonardo is a very competent and talented guy; of course he deserves his power and fame. He acts like a patriarch, so he protects his close ones, all of them. Good for him. But that's the good old patriarchy, is it not?

I actually highly disagree.

 

Leonardos behaviour isn't my understanding of "the good old patriarchy" at all. A man who's simply using his resources -no matter how small or huge- to support (and protect) his family is not a patriarch.

 

Maybe we should clarify our understanding of the word "patriarchy" (old or new) because these days people seem to thrown this word into the room just to describe "a man in charge" and how allegedly unthankful women these days are towards men who're "only taking care of them" and tend to completely forget what this system was actually about it and what it meant (mostly for women but not exclusively). It has absolutely nothing to do with a man just taking care of his family in the best possible, loving, healthy and respectable way.

 

Spoiler

In sociology, patriarchy describes a system of social relationships. Crucial values, such as power and order and concrete instructions for action resulting from these values, are determined by the male subject. What this means for women is that men can exercise power in the patriarchy as they decide how women should act.

 

A well-known sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu, speaks of the exercise of symbolic violence by a male actor in the spirit of patriarchy. This symbolized violence determines gender domination across places and times. The man therefore determines the role of the genders in a society.

 

According to psychotherapist Doris Wolf, the emergence of patriarchy goes far into the past. Patriarchy was violently enforced in society through kidnapping and rape of women. The aim was to ensure biological paternity by controlling female sexuality. Patriarchy was founded with the gods, or later with the one God: saints would demand that men rule the world. In the 18th century, the European Enlightenment led to a new declaration of patriarchy. This time it was based on Darwin's theory of evolution. This theory states that there is a struggle for existence in which the strongest wins and for the Social Darwinists that was the man.

 

In the present, gender studies are concerned with what can be opposed to patriarchy. They examine the role of gender in our patriarchal society. The patriarchy still exists, that is beyond question. But where can these patriarchal structures be recognized? These structures are already evident in everyday situations. For example, after a marriage, the family name is often that of the husband. In many parts of the world, girls and women still do not have access to education. In some countries there is also forced marriage, in which the fathers of young girls choose their future husband. In Germany there is an unequal distribution of pay in the labor market. In addition, women often only work part-time because they are more likely to take on parenting and care work. This unpaid work that women do is hardly appreciated in society. And these are just a few of countless examples.

 

In our society, we often only talk about patriarchy when it comes to countries like Syria or Iraq and, as with refugees, it fits into the political agenda. But these ideas about living conditions in a patriarchy can still be found in Germany. There are inequalities and oppressions in society and this is a form of the exercise of patriarchy. These unequal treatments exist towards women, homosexuals, migrants and other marginalized people. So it is not an outdated phenomenon, but it continues to exist.

^For me the best "modern" representation of a patriarchy is Kevin Costners character John Dutton in YELLOWSTONE. Maybe his character is a bit overdrawn but he hits pretty much every possible red flag of a man living by his own reckless rules no matter what.

 

 

He's using his power, money and influence not only to controll his land ("This is America. We don't share land here."), capital, politics but also to keep his family in line (every member male and female). There is only one way "to handle things properly" and that's the John Dutton way. Everything he does is for his own good. His worldview, his leadership, his morals is the only right way to live and and whoever disobeys will be punished. Physical or emotionally. Or both. Sometimes even worse. He is the man in charge and everyone must have his permission for actions or simply thinking.

 

And it's not like he's an unlikable idiot all the time. God forbid if it were that easy.

40 minutes ago, Jade Bahr said:

I actually highly disagree. Leonardos behaviour isn't my understanding of "the good old patriarchy" at all. A man who's simply using his resources to support (and protect) his family is not a patriarch.

 

Maybe we should clarify our understaning of the word "patriarchy" (old or new) because these days people just thrown this word into the room just to describe "a man in charge" and how allegedly unthankful women these days are towards men who're "only taking care" and tend to completely forget what this system was actually about it and what it meant (for women). It has absolutely nothing to do with a man just taking care of his family in the best possible, loving, healthy and respectable way.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

In sociology, patriarchy describes a system of social relationships. Crucial values, such as power and order and concrete instructions for action resulting from these values, are determined by the male subject. What this means for women is that men can exercise power in the patriarchy as they decide how women should act.

 

A well-known sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu, speaks of the exercise of symbolic violence by a male actor in the spirit of patriarchy. This symbolized violence determines gender domination across places and times. The man therefore determines the role of the genders in a society.

 

According to psychotherapist Doris Wolf, the emergence of patriarchy goes far into the past. Patriarchy was violently enforced in society through kidnapping and rape of women. The aim was to ensure biological paternity by controlling female sexuality. Patriarchy was founded with the gods, or later with the one God: saints would demand that men rule the world. In the 18th century, the European Enlightenment led to a new declaration of patriarchy. This time it was based on Darwin's theory of evolution. This theory states that there is a struggle for existence in which the strongest wins and for the Social Darwinists that was the man.

 

In the present, gender studies are concerned with what can be opposed to patriarchy. They examine the role of gender in our patriarchal society. The patriarchy still exists, that is beyond question. But where can these patriarchal structures be recognized? These structures are already evident in everyday situations. For example, after a marriage, the family name is often that of the husband. In many parts of the world, girls and women still do not have access to education. In some countries there is also forced marriage, in which the fathers of young girls choose their future husband. In Germany there is an unequal distribution of pay in the labor market. In addition, women often only work part-time because they are more likely to take on parenting and care work. This unpaid work that women do is hardly appreciated in society. And these are just a few of countless examples.

 

In our society, we often only talk about patriarchy when it comes to countries like Syria or Iraq and, as with refugees, it fits into the political agenda. But these ideas about living conditions in a patriarchy can still be found in Germany. There are inequalities and oppressions in society and this is a form of the exercise of patriarchy. These unequal treatments exist towards women, homosexuals, migrants and other marginalized people. So it is not an outdated phenomenon, but it continues to exist.

 

Loving and supporting your family is a man's task since dawn of time. Because when the woman is pregnant, her capacities are diminished. So, the man collects the resources for the family. The couple is the most efficient form of organisation to take care of children (the tribe was an alternative but a dysfunctional one).

 

Modern women who don't need no man (thanks to a man's invention... the contraceptive pill) are against people like Leonardo. I mean they're against 99% of men like Leonardo, until they meet their Leonardo. It's called hypergamy. It tends to cloud rational thinking around these subjects.

 

The "article/definition" you quoted mentions P. Bourdieu. This guy was everything but neutral. He was a far left activist who used the Marxist matrix (oppressor/oppressed) and tried to apply it in societal analyses. This approach is not scientific. Sociology is not a hard science and it's highly falsifiable.

 

Your "article/definition” says that what happens in Germany and the Middle East is the same. This is insane. Homosexuals are massacred and stoned to death in the Middle East (example). These “woke” and far left intellectuals are not serious. They don't live in reality. They live in fantasy world. They just want to blame their newfound scapegoat: straight white man. This is totalitarian.