Movie clip discussion/argument. Your thoughts?

From my viewpoint, this is what happens when amateur unbelievers attempt to perform literary analysis on a movie clip without proper qualifications (I have an English B.A. ). When dealing with trying to establish what literary identities that a literary work (in this case, an autobiographical film that won multiple film awards) is doing, the first question that should be asked is "If the gender and sexual roles of this particular movie scene were switched, would this change the impact the event has on the audience?"

So we need to think about what would happen if a mom, without external prompt from a man, sacrificed her breakfast on behalf of her son? Would the impact of that scene be any different than the one we see here?

This question really needs to be answered by others without me giving my own opinion on it. However, I believe there is no difference. This scene is therefore not a commentary on masculinity or femininity, and has no power to define either of them.

The second problem with this sort of literary analysis is that it is incomplete. We also need to consider the poverty of the scene, and the fact that the family may not have enough food to satisfy everyone. What does this scene say about poverty? If we consider that the family is impoverished, what does that say about the man's inability to provide for his family? Is this scene really held up as an example of what men should be, or an example of what they should not be?

Finally, we need to consider the context of Cinderella man, and finally, the literary context of Facebook, the latter of which is designed to provoke. The literary context of Facebook is outrage-for-clicks. The more angry a Facebook user is, the more likely they are to click on multiple pages, view more ads, engage with more posts, buy more products to relieve their frustrations, and continue the capitalist machine. Therefore, the platform incentivizes provoking people to anger and outrage posts. This means that this user is provoking other Facebook users in order to get more money for their business or more clout for their friend group. They aren't considering the film objectively, and neither are the people that are responding to them, because everyone is angry. Therefore, their analysis can safely be disregarded, because it's not analysis - it's just emotional reactions.

As for the literary context of Cinderella man, it's clear that nobody has actually seen the film itself. This film is offensive to feminists, because part of the reason the family is impoverished is because of the nervousness of the woman who doesn't want to see her husband in a boxing ring.


A key part of the film is the woman in the scene, Mae's, character arc toward accepting her husband's career as a boxer. Her misgivings about her husband's career is part of why her family is broke. The other part is the fact that her husband broke his right hand. Of course, a literary analyst might argue that the broken right hand is a metaphor for Mae's lack of support for her husband.

So then we have to ask the question: "What does the film Cinderella man say about femininity? How does this film square with feminist ideas?"

And then we have to ask ourselves about the impact of boxing. If the gender of the boxer and supporter was reversed in the movie, would that change the impact this movie has on feminists and feminism? And before you look at me all funny, female boxing is a thing:



And it's actually protrayed in media:



The last video is even a Christian video! The second to last video is clearly feminist, as obviously the woman in the ring is talking about beating men (with a male guitarist as a supporter!). From that perspective, Mae is pathetic - not only should she support her husband as a boxer, but she should get in the ring herself!

So we can conclude that Cinderella Man is a critique of weak femininity, which is actually in support of feminist ideals, since female characters are supposed to be strong. The guy is let down by his wife; she is his liability. (Frankly, the film is called "Cinderella Man" - shouldn't that cue us into the idea that this guy is being placed in a female role? Why would the feminists object to that, if female is superior?)

Of course, then we can turn that around and conclude that Cinderella Man is saying that femininity in general is a liability, that women deserve poverty for holding back their men. Which is the perspective of the Facebook poster, in addition to the obvious "feminism doesn't want men to be nice so they can paint them as the enemy." But it's way too simplified, and doesn't consider all the nuances of that clip and film. The feminist solution to the problem the film presents is not to slam the film; the solution is to promote female boxing (and I would argue, female self sacrifice). But Facebook isn't about finding solutions to problems, it's about finding ways to irritate and provoke people to make money. It's not a good source of literary analysis.

From my perspective, Facebook is basically "abuse people for profit". After all, that is what my dad did: provoke me to anger every morning for 23 years and proceeded to blame me for the fact that I got angry, among other horrible things. The fact that people voluntarily log in to a platform that is designed to cause them emotional pain every single morning - I don't get it. I never had a Facebook account and I will never have one. It never gets any better. Human beings are not designed to take emotional abuse (or physical abuse, in the form of boxing) and come back stronger. We just get damaged. Strength comes not from abuse, but from Truth, having correct expectations about how the world operates, and a network of healthy relationships.

Which is why I believe online forums to be superior to social media platforms. And now, new post, otherwise I'm going to crack the 18000 character limit.

Okay, previous post was my take as a secular literary academic. Now I need to deal with this situation as a Christian, which is more important, but I am talking in the unbeliever section so I had to deal with this on unbeliever terms in order to be understood by them. First of all "pseudo masculinity" is a valid term for this literary portrayal because it is a work of fiction, and I am saying that as a Christian and not as a literary academic. I'm pretty sure in terms of literary academia that pseudo masculinity is an invalid term. Either something is masculine or it is not.

And this is where I get to beat up on John MacArthur. If Christianity is true and the Bible is Truth, masculinity and femininity cannot be defined on a performance basis. To do otherwise to admit concessions to transgendered thought and enable male on female abuse and well as female on male abuse. John MacArthur believes differently from me, but he's wrong, too bad.

Genesis 1:27 said:

So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

Click to expand...

God created man and woman, therefore, He is the authority on what masculinity is and what femininity is. Not some movie clip.

Later on in Genesis, man and women are clearly defined:

Genesis 2:24 said:

24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Click to expand...

A male body is the body that is joined to a female body; male and female bodies are defined by sexual organs. They are not defined by any other thing. A special needs child in a male body is still male; a special needs child in a female body is still female.

The main lie of transgendered thought is that a transgendered individual can "perform" a different gender and thus be that gender. There is no performance. There is only bodies, and no obligation for any individual of any sex or gender to act in any particular way to be considered male or female. Now there are some Biblical commands given that address different individuals in different bodies, but the definition of what is what has never changed. From a Christian perspective, literary works do not get to define masculinity or femininity, because the Bible has already clearly defined both of them. A woman can obey the commands given to wives or not; neither choice makes her less feminine or less female.

A caution must be added that female bodies may make certain activities easier or possible, and male bodies may make certain activities easier or possible. But the argument must be made from the body, not some other basis.

Therefore, since sex and gender are defined for individuals by an outside power and are not of the individual's own choice, nobody has any license to mistreat, abuse, or harm another person because they are of a different gender or sex than them. To harm another because of a failure to perform as a man or woman, aka "be masculine enough" or "feminine enough" is an act of cruelty. If you remove the idea that sex and gender are defined by biological sex, you enable abuse because an abuser can set the performance standard for male or female impossibly high and use it as an excuse to attack. Even a reasonable performance standard can inspire fear of not measuring up, which is a drag on your mental health. It's much less of a mental health burden to just accept the absolute declaration of God and move on with your life how you want to live it.

And yes, I understand the intersex people don't have the option of just accepting an absolute declaration, but the vast majority of us can and should. Their unfortunate predicament isn't an excuse for transgender self-mutilation or domestic abuse.

In many cases, transgender folk change their gender in order to appease a former abuser. One of the first transgender folk I talked to was a man who changed his gender to female because his mother abused him and his father while his sisters were given preferential treatment and let off the hook from getting beat up on. It was all appeasement to try and win his mother's approval. The two states are connected - an environment of invaliding God's absolute standard by using a sex as a license to hurt convinces the person to flip genders.

Which is why this verse is so powerful:

Galatians 3:28 said:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Click to expand...

And there, all literary analysis, abuse, transgender nonsense must stop. A Christian literary analyst need only consider two identities: believer in Christ and unbeliever. The rest is all babbling. Now you can say "unbelievers view this about women which is feminism and therefore it appears in such a way to them" but don't give in to their ideas. Which is why I can write my previous post up above without violating my own beliefs about literary analysis. It's not even a good literary analysis by unbeliever standards, and most certainly should not be the basis for any argument about how Christian men should act.

And while I'm at it, MacArthur, Proverbs 31 is a poem, not a set of commands. Get your indicatives and imperatives straight.

LovebirdsFlying said:

A contrast between the styles of masculinity came up just a few minutes ago.

Hubby cooked a meal, and I assured him I'd be glad to clean up. Understand I have some disabilities left over from a long ago car accident. So as I was cleaning the kitchen, I started having worsening pain in my lower back. Part of my problem is sacroiliac joint dysfunction. I had to pause a few times until the pain improved, but I got through it. The kitchen is now acceptably clean. Maybe not up to Good Housekeeping magazine standards, but the health department wouldn't condemn our house because of it, and I just couldn't go any farther. Believe me, I'd like to have the house in general much cleaner than it is, but I'm not physically capable, and hubby doesn't have the time. Hubby thanked me for cleaning up. I thanked him for cooking, and I also thanked him for not demading an immaculate kitchen. Actually, my standards there are higher than his. I at least want the stove and countertops wiped. He's fine as long as there are no dishes in the sink.

The contrast is, my first husband would have hit the ceiling if the kitchen wasn't perfect. I had to wipe down every inch of every surface, every time, and he would inspect to see that it was done. If he found something not to his liking, such as dust on top of the refrigerator or fingerprints on the faucet, he didn't care if I had already gone to bed. He would wake me up and demand that I take care of that right away. He supervised other chores I did around the house, too, making sure I did them by his methods, even down to dictating which vacuum cleaner attachment I used to get cobwebs off the ceiling. (If it had been up to me, I'd have used a broom. But it wasn't up to me. His way was the only right way.) He would in no way pick up after himself, actually coming right out and telling me, his own exact words, "That's what a wife is for." After he took a shower, I was expected to pick his clothes, towel, and washcloth up off the floor, rinse his whiskers from the sink. put the caps back on the deodorant and toothpaste, and even flush the toilet after him. He wouldn't even do that much for himself.

Thank me? How ridiculous! That's my duty. Why should he thank me for doing something I am obligated to do?

I wasn't allowed an outside job, a car, or a driver's license,. We lived in the middle of nowhere, and he wouldn't take me out unless I first "earned" it by such services as drawing a bath for him, laying out his clean clothes, and if he felt like pushing it far enough, even putting his socks and shoes on for him, and tying his shoes. After being cooped up for so long, I was willing to do anything to get out of the house. As far as the babies, I had to use cloth diapers and hang them to dry on a clothesline, because disposable diapers would have been too convenient for me. No microwave or dishwasher, for the same reason. No TV, because then I might get sidetracked and neglect the chores. No telephone, so I coudn't call anyone for help or support. When I was pregnant with our second child, once right after supper I started having stomach cramps, and I went to lie down on the couch. He got so mad I wasn't immediately in the kichen washing the dishes, he went behind the couch and lifted it up and rolled me on to the floor. Then he demanded I get up and get into that kitchen and start cleaning it RIGHT NOW!

He also dictated personal decisions such as what I wore, what I ate, when, and how much. He felt he had the right to do all of this, because he was the Biblical head of the household. Yes, people from our church did try to tell him that's not what it means. He paid no attention. In one ear and out the other.

He did occasionally hit me, a few times to the point of visible welts and bruises. Not every day, but even once is too much, right? The kindest thing he ever did for me was to eventually leave me for another woman. (That same church, although they did attempt to set him straight, also counseled me not to leave him, but just to pray about it.)

So that's what my mind immediately goes to any time someone is rigid about "the men are in charge, get over it."

Click to expand...

Please allow me to express my grief upon reading this. May the Lord guard you from cleaning the kitchen out of fear of what will happen to you. Let me be absolutely clear: what your first husband did to you was absolutely wrong, it is abusive, and may the Lord punish him for his misdeeds. The context of Ephesians 5 is Ephesians 4:32, and I don't see any of Ephesians 4:32 here. Abusers really love those houses in the middle of nowhere, don't they?

Honestly this entire story reminds me of what it was like when my brother and I were just living in the house after my parents left; I couldn't get my brother to clean the kitchen at all beyond washing the dishes and I had to do it myself. He just does not clean things. It wasn't even that I was afraid that my abusive dad would come back and see that the stove was a mess; I just was tired of the stovetop crackling from all of the splatters that accumulated and the pots would shake when I wanted to boil vegetables. I'm getting shell shock vibes.

In abuse recovery, an extremely important principle is to be able to see people as individuals, not as part of groups. The more you view your husband as part of the "male humanity" group and less as individual, the harder it will be to recover and build trust with your current husband. What I am seeing here is you nervously grading your husband's behavior in comparison to your old one. What I think you need to realize is that behavior and trust needs to be evaluated on an individual basis, and that male and female is not an indicator of moral or immoral behavior.

While the domestic violence stats are what they are, they are that way because men have bodies that are better at punching, and women have greater verbal capacities as part of their biological brains and are better at squealing to authority figures. In recovery from trauma, gender is a wash. I've seen father-daughter abuse (mine), mother-son abuse (twice, including the nightmare trans instance above), and even the wife abusing her husband (granted, those two were unbelievers). There is father-son and mother-daughter abuse too, though for some reason I've seen the crossing of gender lines more often.

Of course, another thing Facebook loves to do is organize people into groups and pit them against each other as the enemy which really helps nobody. Facebook will happily convince you that all men are the enemy if you let it and put you on an endless quest to define how men should behave. No thanks. The bottom line is that men (and women) need to follow the commands outlined in Scripture if they are believers in Christ, and the rest of how they should behave is up to them. Therefore, any behaviors that aren't prohibited by Scripture should simply be accepted as an aspect of the individual, otherwise you run into the dangers of change codependency. Codependency turns the cycle around again and leads to more abuse. That would be the cycle of abuse in which you as the victim become an abuser of your current husband, which I would presume that you would want to avoid.

Most people don't accept other people's behavior (or they engage in "grading" it) because they don't want to accept their own individual agency and their own behavior. It's actually pretty frightening to consider your full range of capabilities and options. (Especially abuse victims who think they should have handled their situation better than they did.) Most people don't do that and just "conform to the patterns of this world." I have a genetic defect (or a feature) where I have no fear of this. I happily accept the fact that I'm pretty dangerous. Anyone who wrongly impinges on my God-given agency in violation of Scripture shall feel my wrath and get an earful. But not over countertops. I'll clean those myself if I want them clean.

Anyway, my apologies for the two long posts, but between literary analysis, Christianity, and abuse/trauma recovery, I got proverbially invited to the party and you told me there were lemon bars. Also, I'm sorry if this last section is too blunt for dealing with these memories - it was posted in the debate section.