Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.
- 157
- 2
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So, this used to be my favorite movie for years. I think I imprinted strongly on it because I saw it for the first time at age 8 and it was probably one of the first movies - along with Jurassic Park, which also had a profound effect on me at the time - I saw with actual dramatic stakes and spectacular visuals. (It’s also the first nude scene I saw in a movie, which probably contributed to my very positive first impression of it.) I also acknowledge that I was (and still am) a pretty low-T guy, and that my tastes and proclivities largely tended toward the feminine during my formative years.
Other commenters’ cynical and acidic takes on the film’s central romance are basically completely accurate; if you’re a man who is neither as virile and charming as prime DiCaprio, nor as rich and ambitious as Cal, the entire Rose plot is pretty blackpilling. It sucks to know that probably the best that most guys could ever hope to be is the nameless schmuck who later picked up those guys’ sloppy thirds, never being featured onscreen or even apparently occupying much of a place in Rose’s emotional landscape at all, despite being the father of her children. Far more realistic is being one of the innumerable guys who died horribly in frozen water, or just ended it all quickly by leaping off the deck. Me personally, I’d probably end up like poor First Officer Murdoch, gunning a man down in a panic and then offing myself.
The film really is a testament to the awesome power of artifice, spectacle, and aesthetics. On some level, nearly every modern person who appreciates Titanic does so because the world it depicts - no matter how much the nihilistic Hollywood shitlib James Cameron tries to paint it as stuffy and doomed - is glamorous, confident, impeccably classy, and features exclusively high-quality white people. Even the poorest people on the ship are charming European immigrants, with no signs of criminality or dysfunction, dancing a sprightly Irish jig. The music is lush and gorgeous, the effects are stunning, the sets and costumes are incredible. The emotional/ideological soul of the film is utterly poisonous and it doesn’t even matter, because the experience is so beautiful and tragic. (See also: Harry Potter)
I thought it was well-made female-centric garbage. However, redpillers types like you and @Sloot need to decide what you want. She did produce children for the nameless husband, that ought to be considered a worthy contribution. I get it, you want everything, children, reverence, eternal sexual and emotional exclusivity, and of course, to be „loved for who you are„. But „everything“ is hardly in the cards for mere mortals, now is it? Let me put it this way: would you give all that to your garden variety woman?
I mean, switching the sex of the protagonists, our boy Rosario going for the poor hot girl over the stuffy fiancee seems very easy to identify with. Women have enough flaws (like rose‘s selfishness in accepting the sacrifice of his life) , there is no need to stack on their failure to meet your unrealistic, hypocritical demands.
Not sure why "redpiller" was brought-up in a chain about a film being blackpilling, but I suppose I’m sufficiently somewhere on the continuum between red and blackpilled (as opposed to bluepilled) on life that I’ll play along.
And this is a false dilemma. I don’t see why I need to decide on anything in this moment, what I have to decide on, much less how my hypothetical decision would be pertinent to a discussion on what men in general may find sucky or horrifying.
Sure, that’s a worthy contribution—as I remarked just a bit further down: “At least, in the film, that sloppy third receiving schmuck was presumably the biological father of those children (I think).”
I suppose it’s somewhat of a favor, since via evolutionary psychology/biology, a given offspring—all else equal—is more psychologically/biologically costly to the mother (e.g., Rose) than the father (e.g., nameless, sloppy third schmuck). However, it’s hardly a complete favor (to say the least), as the offspring are hers too (and with greater assurances: mother’s baby, father’s maybe). In ${CurrentYear}, babies’ mommas and egg donors/surrogates can provide a man with children too, and without the requisite of lifetime commitment or serving as a retirement plan for an alpha-widow.
You clearly don’t, because I’m certainly not one that pines for “everything,” much less wanting to be “loved for who you are.” It’d be nice to be “loved for who you are” unconditionally, just as it’d be nice to win the lottery, but it’d be foolish for men to want to be “loved for who you are,” whatever that may mean. Hence why I remark from time to time about the inegalitarian nature of male sexual success, and reference links such as Chris Rock on how men are only loved conditionally at best.
I’m under no illusion: If I suddenly became three inches shorter, lost 1/3 of my muscle mass, permanently lost my hair, lost a fight in front of her, cried in front of her for whatever reason, etc., pretty much any of the girls I’m dating or have dated would lose some or much of their attraction for me, maybe even ditch me altogether. If I were three inches shorter, bald, had only 2/3 of my muscle mass at the time, had little or no social media preselection or social proof to engender female mate-choice copying, I’d guess over 90% of my one-night-stands, flings, friends with benefits, and relationships would never have happened in the first place.
It would be unpleasant from an immediate emotional standpoint, losing their attraction and/or getting ditched in such circumstances—but zooming out: such is life; it is what it is. (The three/3/90% should be thought of as arbitrary constants, I just put in numbers for illustrative purposes).
It’s not unrealistic nor hypocritical for men to expect that they’re first place in their lifetime partner’s heart, that they’re the primary landholder in their lifetime partner’s emotional landscape. Hardly a tall ask.
More options
Context Copy link
I certainly wouldn’t consider myself a “redpiller”. My stance toward women is one of the least right-wing things about my worldview, and as I said, I’ve historically found a lot of female-targeted media somewhat relatable or at least not actively off-putting.
Something can be blackpilling without being unfair. I’m not saying that women are wrong or shitty for thinking the way that they do, and certainly male sexuality and desire have demonstrable failure modes as well. Still, as a straight man, it makes sense for me to be somewhat discouraged and dispirited when I receive another reminder of the significant headwinds I’m facing in the realm of romance. Nobody’s in the wrong here - not even Rose DeWitt-Bukater - but the situation is shitty nonetheless.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I thought you were referring to a nude scene in Jurassic Park at first and quickly did a mental scan of the scenes in the movie. Et tu, Dr. Sattler?
Even more blackpilling for the male masses: even if you're as virile, handsome, and charming as Jack, you could get left to metaphorically freeze to death in icy waters and have it be considered romantic. You could be as rich, ambitious, and handsome as Cal, yet you could get literally cucked if your girlfriend/fiancee/wife felt like it and she and almost everyone else will screech that it was righteous and you deserved it.
At least, in the film, that sloppy third receiving schmuck was presumably the biological father of those children (I think). Nowadays, there is no such guarantee. You're the Asshole if you treat single mothers differently than chicks without kids in dating and/or if you don't Man-Up and raise said kids as you would your biological own.
More options
Context Copy link
The Titanic sank in 1912, two years before Europe destroyed itself spiritually and emotionally in WWI (from which it has yet to recover). I suppose one could make the argument that the Titanic represents the height of human civilization, a world where officers would lower partially empty lifeboats into the ocean because letting men get on would just be improper wouldn't it? All without a hint of irony.
Right, when I watch Titanic now, I weep not for charismatic hobo Jack Dawson, but for the quickly-impending self-inflicted implosion of European society - in which the vast majority of the people involved were hapless victims cast into destruction by the hubristic and unnecessary decisions of a sclerotic and insulated privileged class which had outlived its usefulness - that the film implicitly depicts. It’s grotesque what happened to those unsuspecting families on the Titanic, just as it’s grotesque what happened to the countless men who were slaughtered in the World Wars. At least on the Titanic, most of the men responsible for the disaster - Captain Edward Smith, Thomas Andrews - suffered the consequences themselves (although not the man arguably most directly responsible, J. Bruce Ismay, who escaped on a lifeboat and lived another twenty-five years). Most of the men responsible for the World Wars did just fine for themselves afterward.
I used to love WWI/WWII movies when I was younger, it scratched that Star-Wars-esque heroism itch. Now I avoid them unless I'm willing to end up demoralized watching Hollywood dance on the grave of Europe. Some are really good and worth watching like Dunkirk, but it's a genre where my interpretation of the films has radically changed from adventure-heroism to tragedy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Men weren’t banned from getting on the first few empty lifeboats at all, as far as I know. The few wealthier young men who survived were often those who got out early like this.
Depends on who was doing the evacuation. On the starboard side, First Officer William Murdoch certainly favoured women and children in the evacuation, but when he could find no more women and children, he allowed men on. On the port side, Second Officer Charles Lightoller interpreted it as women and children only and prevented men beyond crew from boarding them, even when there were spaces available.
"During the evacuation, Lightoller took charge of lowering the lifeboats on the port side of the boat deck.[10] He helped to fill several lifeboats with passengers and launched them. Lightoller interpreted Smith's order for "the evacuation of women and children" as essentially "women and children only". As a result, Lightoller lowered lifeboats with empty seats if there were no women and children waiting to board, meaning to fill them to capacity once they had reached the water. Lieutenant Colonel Arthur Godfrey Peuchen has the distinction of being the only adult male passenger Lightoller allowed into the boats on the port side evacuation, due to his previous nautical experience and offer of assistance when there were no seamen available from the Titanic's own complement to help command one of the lowering lifeboats."
What Quantumfreakonomics is describing did happen. And the relatively small proportion of men who did survive the Titanic came under public scrutiny and were often reflexively judged as cowards.
EDIT: As an aside, it should also be noted that there were instances of boys (at least by today's standards) being deterred from entering lifeboats on the Titanic. For example, there's George Frederick Sweet: "On the night of the sinking young George, alongside Samuel Herman, saw Mrs Herman and her daughters off in one of the lifeboats. George, although not quite 15-years-old, was probably deterred from entering a lifeboat despite his young age and he and Samuel Herman died together, George being just one day short of his 15th birthday. Their bodies, if recovered, were never identified." In a similar instance, Rhoda Abbott refused her place in a lifeboat because she realised her sons (aged 13 and 16) would not be able to enter.
Then there's this affidavit by Emily Ryerson: "We saw people getting into boats, but waited our turn. There was a rough sort of steps constructed to get up to the window. My boy, Jack, was with me. An officer at the window said, "That boy can't go." My husband stepped forward and said, "Of course, that boy goes with his mother; he is only 13." So they let him pass. They also said, "No more boys." I turned and kissed my husband, and as we left he and the other men I knew - Mr. Thayer, Mr. Widener, and others - were all standing there together very quietly."
Adult first class men on the titanic had a 33% survival rate. The lifeboats overall (if full) could have accommodated perhaps half the ship. I suppose Lightoller was ultimately a villain for turning men away (especially as he survived himself), but extrapolating his ‘chivalry’ into the rest of the men of the ship seems a stretch.
While it is true that Lightoller's behaviour was not necessarily replicated among other officers (something which I acknowledged), you seem to be trying to equate "They allowed men onto the boats sometimes" with "there was no chivalry involved" which doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Other officers did in fact prioritise women and children.
Furthermore, your isolation of that "33% survival rate" statistic and selective presentation of it is also misleading. First class men on the Titanic survived at rates lower than third class women.
They also survived at 400% the rate of second class men, if we’re cherry picking statistics to demonstrate supposed chivalry.
...Yes? Nobody is disputing that class mattered and that second class men fared worse than first class men. None of that invalidates the fact that men in every class were less likely to survive than women.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link