What Woman Know...and some other woman perhaps don't

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Bond...James Bond wrote:
Moniker wrote:My oldest daughter and I have watched Night of the Living Dead together. There are lessons on race relations in that film. It came out the same year King was assassinated and was groundbreaking to have a lead character that was the hero as a black man. Also, what precisely is a human being? Who is less than human? The zombies were white and the man that was alive and helping those that were less capable was a black man. The movie ends with grainy shots that would be akin to the Vietnam War footage of the time. The hero dies in this movie -- no happy ending. Who kills him?

There's a lot of meaning and historical relevance in that film. I'd rather have my daughter discuss and watch that film than The Singles Ward.


As I recall (from interviews with Romero or someone else involved with making the movie) they made the movie and King was shot soon after it began showing. Talk about coincidence (not to mention something to add context after the fact).

Excellent movie though. The whole thing can be viewed on youtube (one clip...quite a rarity since it's public domain I believe).


Yes, bond. I didn't mean to imply the movie was made because of the King assassination. I own the film and the remake which I'm not fond of. The ending of the original is so startling and really was something that lingered with me for months after witnessing it. He was NOT human, was he? Even though he was alive. I think Night of the Living Dead is a remarkable film and is actually one of my favorite horror movies. Of course I'm a fan of horror movies for so often they are commentaries on our fears and a reflection of our culture -- a glimpse into our collective boogey men psyches.

I soo need to go to sleep...
_Bond...James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 4627
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am

Post by _Bond...James Bond »

Moniker wrote:Yes, bond. I didn't mean to imply the movie was made because of the King assassination. I own the film and the remake which I'm not fond of. The ending of the original is so startling and really was something that lingered with me for months after witnessing it. He was NOT human, was he? Even though he was alive. I think Night of the Living Dead is a remarkable film and is actually one of my favorite horror movies. Of course I'm a fan of horror movies for so often they are commentaries on our fears and a reflection of our culture -- a glimpse into our collective boogey men psyches.

I soo need to go to sleep...


I watched the remake recently. I think it gives a better makeup to the female lead (in the first one she basically was a basketcase/in a trance the whole time~before she was eaten) but yeah the black lead was a zombie who was killed, unlike the first one where he's alive and gets shot from far off by one of the local yokels. So the political ramifications were taken outta the remake.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Bond...James Bond wrote:
Moniker wrote:Yes, bond. I didn't mean to imply the movie was made because of the King assassination. I own the film and the remake which I'm not fond of. The ending of the original is so startling and really was something that lingered with me for months after witnessing it. He was NOT human, was he? Even though he was alive. I think Night of the Living Dead is a remarkable film and is actually one of my favorite horror movies. Of course I'm a fan of horror movies for so often they are commentaries on our fears and a reflection of our culture -- a glimpse into our collective boogey men psyches.

I soo need to go to sleep...


I watched the remake recently. I think it gives a better makeup to the female lead (in the first one she basically was a basketcase/in a trance the whole time~before she was eaten) but yeah the black lead was a zombie who was killed, unlike the first one where he's alive and gets shot from far off by one of the local yokels. So the political ramifications were taken outta the remake.


Well, I felt as though the remake ruined the movie, truly. I think it's actually fairly reasonable to be a basketcase/in a trance if you've just been attacked by the walking dead and seen your brother killed. ;)
_Gazelam
_Emeritus
Posts: 5659
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 2:06 am

Post by _Gazelam »

I think it's actually fairly reasonable to be a basketcase/in a trance if you've just been attacked by the walking dead and seen your brother killed. ;)


I hate when that happens.
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato
_Bond...James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 4627
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am

Post by _Bond...James Bond »

Moniker wrote:
Bond...James Bond wrote:
Moniker wrote:Yes, bond. I didn't mean to imply the movie was made because of the King assassination. I own the film and the remake which I'm not fond of. The ending of the original is so startling and really was something that lingered with me for months after witnessing it. He was NOT human, was he? Even though he was alive. I think Night of the Living Dead is a remarkable film and is actually one of my favorite horror movies. Of course I'm a fan of horror movies for so often they are commentaries on our fears and a reflection of our culture -- a glimpse into our collective boogey men psyches.

I soo need to go to sleep...


I watched the remake recently. I think it gives a better makeup to the female lead (in the first one she basically was a basketcase/in a trance the whole time~before she was eaten) but yeah the black lead was a zombie who was killed, unlike the first one where he's alive and gets shot from far off by one of the local yokels. So the political ramifications were taken outta the remake.


Well, I felt as though the remake ruined the movie, truly. I think it's actually fairly reasonable to be a basketcase/in a trance if you've just been attacked by the walking dead and seen your brother killed. ;)


YEah. Oh course it also plays a damsel in distress card, but the remake (1990 if I recall) has to have the strong woman character (because action films now have to have strong women characters or somebody will get pissy and say "why isn't there a strong woman character?")

It seems interesting though that she snapped out of the coma/trance and attempted to fight back the zombies when she saw her former brother as a zombie. It seems that the only time she was in a coma was during the time when she was uncertain as to her brother's fate. What to make up that...I don't know.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Gazelam wrote:
I think it's actually fairly reasonable to be a basketcase/in a trance if you've just been attacked by the walking dead and seen your brother killed. ;)


I hate when that happens.


For real!
_Moniker
_Emeritus
Posts: 4004
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:53 pm

Post by _Moniker »

Bond...James Bond wrote:
Moniker wrote:
Bond...James Bond wrote:
Moniker wrote:Yes, bond. I didn't mean to imply the movie was made because of the King assassination. I own the film and the remake which I'm not fond of. The ending of the original is so startling and really was something that lingered with me for months after witnessing it. He was NOT human, was he? Even though he was alive. I think Night of the Living Dead is a remarkable film and is actually one of my favorite horror movies. Of course I'm a fan of horror movies for so often they are commentaries on our fears and a reflection of our culture -- a glimpse into our collective boogey men psyches.

I soo need to go to sleep...


I watched the remake recently. I think it gives a better makeup to the female lead (in the first one she basically was a basketcase/in a trance the whole time~before she was eaten) but yeah the black lead was a zombie who was killed, unlike the first one where he's alive and gets shot from far off by one of the local yokels. So the political ramifications were taken outta the remake.


Well, I felt as though the remake ruined the movie, truly. I think it's actually fairly reasonable to be a basketcase/in a trance if you've just been attacked by the walking dead and seen your brother killed. ;)


YEah. Oh course it also plays a damsel in distress card, but the remake (1990 if I recall) has to have the strong woman character (because action films now have to have strong women characters or somebody will get pissy and say "why isn't there a strong woman character?")

It seems interesting though that she snapped out of the coma/trance and attempted to fight back the zombies when she saw her former brother as a zombie. It seems that the only time she was in a coma was during the time when she was uncertain as to her brother's fate. What to make up that...I don't know.


Ah! Yet, the damsel in distress WAS the point, was it not? For who was her hero? There were other men in that house -- were they capable of being truly resourceful? One refused to listen to his wife and was a full out bigot. There was tension between the white characters, and when the man that was making the rational decisions did not become submissive to white authority that too was climatic. The film NEEDED damsels in distress -- and it needed a hero that would counteract the time's notions of who could play that role effectively.
_Bond...James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 4627
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am

Post by _Bond...James Bond »

Moniker wrote:Ah! Yet, the damsel in distress WAS the point, was it not? For who was her hero? There were other men in that house -- were they capable of being truly resourceful? One refused to listen to his wife and was a full out bigot. There was tension between the white characters, and when the man that was making the rational decisions did not become submissive to white authority that too was climatic. The film NEEDED damsels in distress -- and it needed a hero that would counteract the time's notions of who could play that role effectively.


Very true. I really have trouble understanding the significance of a strong black lead because I'm young and don't have first hand knowledge of how A.Americans were treated prior to the post-Civil rights period we're in. I guess that's a good thing though that the movie is becoming less relevant.
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
_beastie
_Emeritus
Posts: 14216
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 2:26 am

Post by _beastie »

Mothers who know build children into future leaders and are the primary examples of what leaders look like. They do not abandon their plan by succumbing to social pressure and worldly models of parenting. These wise mothers who know are selective about their own activities and involvement to conserve their limited strength in order to maximize their influence where it matters most.


This, like everything else in the talk, should be able to be said about fathers, as well.

So why are mothers singled out for lectures that all should apply just as equally to fathers?

Those not in denial about the point of the talk have no problem "knowing" why.

coggins:
One especially telling difference is this group's foray into political ideology, including support for specific policies (all of which involve, sure enough, feeding at an ever larger national trough at their fellow citizen's expense and ever greater government intrusion into personal and economic life) as if support for these specific policies is in some way implied by faithful adherence to the Gospel.


Oh, no you didn't. Oh, no you didn't!!! LOL!!!

Ok, let's clarify what coggins really meant. He didn't mean it's bad to merge political ideology with the gospel. It's only bad if it's a liberal political ideology. Far-right wing political ideology is divinely mandated to be part of the gospel.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

Penn & Teller

http://www.mormonmesoamerica.com
_Jason Bourne
_Emeritus
Posts: 9207
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 8:00 pm

Re: What Woman Know...and some other woman perhaps don't

Post by _Jason Bourne »


Mothers Who Know Bear Children

Mothers who know desire to bear children. Whereas in many cultures in the world children are "becoming less valued,"2 in the culture of the gospel we still believe in having children. Prophets, seers, and revelators who were sustained at this conference have declared that "God's commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force."3 President Ezra Taft Benson taught that young couples should not postpone having children and that "in the eternal perspective, children—not possessions, not position, not prestige—are our greatest jewels."4

Faithful daughters of God desire children. In the scriptures we read of Eve (see Moses 4:26), Sarah (see Genesis 17:16), Rebekah (see Genesis 24:60), and Mary (see 1 Nephi 11:13–20), who were foreordained to be mothers before children were born to them. Some women are not given the responsibility of bearing children in mortality, but just as Hannah of the Old Testament prayed fervently for her child (see 1 Samuel 1:11), the value women place on motherhood in this life and the attributes of motherhood they attain here will rise with them in the Resurrection (see D&C 130:18). Women who desire and work toward that blessing in this life are promised they will receive it for all eternity, and eternity is much, much longer than mortality. There is eternal influence and power in motherhood.



This is one area I had a problem with. Why is child birth equated to faith and testimony? Is a woman less valiant if she chooses to delay children? What if she desires a career? Can she have a testimony of the gospel and not have children or perhaps children later in life and perhaps in fewer numbers? I believe that this language is in manipulative and tells the girls and women on our Church that they are somehow less and defective in their faith in God and religious worship because they do not bear children as early or in as many numbers or even at ll if they choose not to. I am all for family and children and personally my wife and I have pretty much followed the counsel above. But some others may make valid choices and still be as faithful in their belief as others. Or perhaps delaying or not having as many children really is viewed as sinful in the LDS Church.

Mothers who know honor sacred ordinances and covenants. I have visited sacrament meetings in some of the poorest places on the earth where mothers have dressed with great care in their Sunday best despite walking for miles on dusty streets and using worn-out public transportation. They bring daughters in clean and ironed dresses with hair brushed to perfection; their sons wear white shirts and ties and have missionary haircuts. These mothers know they are going to sacrament meeting, where covenants are renewed. These mothers have made and honor temple covenants. They know that if they are not pointing their children to the temple, they are not pointing them toward desired eternal goals. These mothers have influence and power.


This bothered me as well. Why in the LDS Church are we so hung up on appearances? I think we are a bit like the pharisees of old in this.


Overall the talk really is portraying a charecture of what an LDS woman should look like and be. For those who don't or can't I think it creates a tremendous pressure and a culture that fosters others to snipe and criticize women who may not fit the mold. I think it was a pretty strong handed talk. I am sure I will now be resoundly condemned by some as a liberal woman's liber 70's secularists and an anonymous cowardly hypocrite for posting in public my thoughts on this talk. But I have no qualms about sharing how the things I though were not good, spiritually encouraging, Christ like and promoting of personal spiritual growth with many members and have other express the same to me. So no hiding on this one.
Post Reply