Is "male fantasy" a fair criticism? What does it mean? Is it negative? Can it be used well? Tell me your thoughts

Are you asking Cred Forums to not only understand that all media is inherently reflective of the politics and beliefs of the creators, and that inevitably people will use their platform to try to challenge views they dislike and push forward their own?

Let's not set expectations that high.

>women are people too

reddit: the post

>what responsibility does the industry hold if it is exposing unreal, sexist views of women to millions of impressionable people?

To me there is nothing more abhorrent than the notion of censoring or pressuring people to not express themselves honestly because of possible negative outcomes. That kind of completely defeats the purpose of art.

If people feel an artist are bringing harmful things to the table by expressing certain things then they are free to challenge it with arguments. But the artist should never feel pressured to censor themselves.

>Rarely, because it is such a male-dominated industry.

You mean like how it's a whites-dominated industry?

What if my male fantasy is to protect women lel?

I think it's a fair criticism if the film or other art is aiming for realism and fails in that regard. It's not a fair criticism for things not aiming for that though.

Yes.
It means the object of criticism was designed to elicit approval from the standard heterosexual male subject by appealing to their desires and biases, whether "universal" (sexy) or "particular" (culturally/politically normative) or both (like a hot woman shooting guns and calling Muslims sandniggers).
It is negative insofar as anyone approving the prior such a example would necessarily find the claim of fantasy to be "bullshit", or would say "so what, I want a fantasy and that's ok"; what's more, the utterer of "male fantasy" will likely have a derisive attitude to the work for it centering the heterosexual male subject as its audience, for whatever reason they may hold.
It can be used well provided it is paired with an analysis of how the work draws from and or reinforces the "male fantasy", with a mechanical explanation and contextual references. If used merely as a dismissal, regardless of whether you agree with it or not, that's not an interesting or thought-provoking invocation of the phrase.

>implying Cred Forums cares about artistic integrity

People that shouldn't be allowed to vote desu

wow are people actually expressing informed opinions about this

No it fucking doesn't

Artist have zero responsibility for people not getting it

>What responsibility does the industry hold if it is exposing unreal, sexist views of straight white men to millions of impressionable millennials?

I wish people like you would just fuck off already.

Your shit has gotten old and played out...

Yes, male fantasy is a thing and valid criticism.

No, it does not apply to buffalo '66 because that was mostly about stockholm syndrome.

>it sort of begs the question

It doesn't. How is it that the people who obtain liberal arts degrees, of all people, come out of university being the ones who desire censorship of artistic or creative expression?

"Responsible" art is not art.

>what responsibility does the industry hold
The way I see it, people are responsible for their own actions. If they're too stupid to tell the difference between real life and a film, coddling them probably won't do any good.
This is my problem with this outlook. Filmmakers shouldn't be held accountable for how other people choose to think just because they're expressing their own ideas through art, and we should never censor them for doing that just because stupid people exist and do stupid things.

Because most universities require the students take a few sociology classes, and those'll be the closest thing to an actual science those kids ever encounter. To such mentalities, they'll be quite persuasive.

American (and others I'm sure but the SJW movement is the strongest in the US) liberal art classes consist of parroting the exact opinion and telling him precisely what he wants to hear or face a shitty grade, free thought is absolutely not encouraged

Can you elaborate?

But what happens when those ignorant people who can't tell the difference between reality and media depiction become creators themselves? What if most creators use their medium to spread ignorance?

With how much influence mass media has on the lives of the average person, where do we draw the line against the same toxic shit getting regurgitated indefinitely?

People framing this as a conversation about "censoring art" are missing the point. Any art sold as a commodity is inherently "censored" to an extent. It's as much about producing a financially successful product as it is "expressing" oneself. And since the golden age of film, movies have never been the product of a single vision. It takes a village to make a movie etc. etc.

If you want an honest explanation for why so many movies are skewing their perspectives for a particular demographic, consider the kinds of people who actually still regularly bring the family to the theater on Friday nights. Spoiler alert: it's not the average Cred Forums poster.

>we should protect the people from evil images
Why is the neo-left so authoritarian ?

well done

>But what happens when those ignorant people who can't tell the difference between reality and media depiction become creators themselves? What if most creators use their medium to spread ignorance?

Not him but that's the cost of living in a free society. Haven't any of you read Harrison Bergeron?

Also, just because art is bought and sold doesn't make it not art, or a creative expression, nor does it justify curtailing those expressions.

Better that art be crass or otherwise offensive than succumb to art-by-committee or consensus.

Is it really censorship if not about legality?

the philosophical problem with censorship is the possibility of violent force being used to dictate discussion and opinions

Theres no philosophical justification for being people protected from criticism for the things they present to the public

there IS a philosophical justification for art to be dealing with the totality of the human experience, including the dirty and morally reprehensible parts, but it's also reasonable that the depiction of these more controversial topics could have issues with glorifying morally reprehensible actions

I don't think you can end this discussion purely with a statement about the principles of censorship, censorship isn't really what we're talking about here, and each case has to be looked at separately

When people are criticizing "male fantasy", I tend to see the same mistake a lot, critics are assuming that just because viewers enjoy a controversial part of the show like nudity, the show is making a moral stand in favor of nudity. The bottom line is most of these criticisms have unjustified assumptions about the purpose of entertainment media

christina ricci had killer fucking titties

>art-by-committee or consensus
Literally every film and television show is this. How do you not see that?

>Also, just because art is bought and sold doesn't make it not art, or a creative expression, nor does it justify curtailing those expressions.
Tell that to the millionaires funding these projects who unsurprisingly aren't expecting chocolate kisses as a return on their investment.