Ruth wrote:Soooo.... I actually consider myself a feminist and someone who gives a shit about the problems that all females have to go through, in all regions of the world.
But this shit is becoming toxic. Are people even allowed to make stories about real life non minorities anymore? The title is dumb because it just has an awkward sound to me, but wtf is all of this. La La Land backlash lol??
Wow. What on earth are you on about? Who criticized the film?
Do you really not understand that first man is specific. It's like saying the first white person. How about the first heterosexual who landed on Moon?£
Ruth wrote:Soooo.... I actually consider myself a feminist and someone who gives a shit about the problems that all females have to go through, in all regions of the world.
But this shit is becoming toxic. Are people even allowed to make stories about real life non minorities anymore? The title is dumb because it just has an awkward sound to me, but wtf is all of this. La La Land backlash lol??
Wow. What on earth are you on about? Who criticized the film?
Do you really not understand that first man is specific. It's like saying the first white person. How about the first heterosexual who landed on Moon?£
Have we ever had a woman walk on moon? ...not really? They could name it the first white hetero cis man and that would be really dumb, but they're not wrong. I fail to see the problematic tones in the title since the only people to land on moon were indeed guys, and in fact, no one has done so since 1972, right?
I am glad the Times' Man of the Year was changed to Person of the Year though. Btw, someone did mention some imaginary La La Land backlash or whatever, so I'm asking to educate me on that
Master Virgo wrote:Well thank God in Wikipedia they at least regard him as the first person who landed on the Moon. Just curious do you guys know why they've changed the title of Time's Man of the Year to Time's Person of the Year?£
Cool, Wikipedia. I suppose that trumps the plaque left by Apollo 11 on the moon.
Ruth wrote:Have we ever had a woman walk on moon? ...not really? They could name it the first white hetero cis man and that would be really dumb, but they're not wrong. I fail to see the problematic tones in the title since the only people to land on moon were indeed guys, and in fact, no one has done so since 1972, right?
It's not about right and wrong statements. They used to employ first man instead of first person previously not because man means male human but because man was the equivalent of human. Of course woman only means female human.
There was no harm in referring to a group of female and male individuals as men, but if you regard them as women, the chances were the male members of the group would have been offended.
Now this was a slight and harmless advantage one gender had over the other and I'm not trying to make a big fuss out of it, especially since in this case there is no intention of implying male superiority behind it, but it's a remnant of human's sexist history and should be set aside, and thankfully it is being set aside.
ArmandFancypants wrote:Cool, Wikipedia. I suppose that trumps the plaque left by Apollo 11 on the moon.
Yup it's an anachronism. So what.
Yes it does. We don't live in 60s anymore, thankfully.£
Ruth wrote:Have we ever had a woman walk on moon? ...not really? They could name it the first white hetero cis man and that would be really dumb, but they're not wrong. I fail to see the problematic tones in the title since the only people to land on moon were indeed guys, and in fact, no one has done so since 1972, right?
It's not about right and wrong statements. They used to employ first man instead of first person previously not because man means male human but because man was the equivalent of human. Of course woman only means female human.
There was no harm in referring to a group of female and male individuals as men, but if you regard them as women, the chances were the male members of the group would have been offended.
Now this was a slight and harmless advantage one gender had over the other and I'm not trying to make a big fuss out of it, especially since in this case there is no intention of implying male superiority behind it, but it's a remnant of human's sexist history and should be set aside, and thankfully it is being set aside.£
I understand all of that, and you're correct.
Also, probably a non important detail, but we're not really sure of the current title's relation to the content of the film itself - whether the story is full blown glorification of everything these words "stood" for when it came to gender roles (not talking about Armstrong himself and his achievements - the man is amazing), whether the name is just old fashioned and refers to how Armstrong was called, or whether the is some sort of a different nuance to it. So I'm not going to jump and condemn as this sexistic yet.
Michaelf2225 wrote:i'll make sure to never refer to a human by their gender again, thanks
wouldn't want to offend anyone
The question that is being asked here is that, what the fuck Armstrong's gender has anything to do with the fact that he landed on Moon. He represented the humanity, not just one half of it.
First man basically means the first among men. The point is including women as a sub group of men is offensive. You don't refer to your sons and daughters as "Come here boys," that will upset the girls.
Is Usain Bolt only the fastest black person ever timed? No, he's the fastest person with nothing extra attached. What's the need for being specific.£
Michaelf2225 wrote:i'll make sure to never refer to a human by their gender again, thanks
wouldn't want to offend anyone
The question that is being asked here is that, what the fuck Armstrong's gender has anything to do with the fact that he landed on Moon. He represented the humanity, not just one half of it.
First man basically means the first among men. The point is including women as a sub group of men is offensive. You don't refer to your sons and daughters as "Come here boys," that will upset the girls.
Is Usain Bolt only the fastest black person ever timed? No, he's the fastest person with nothing extra attached. What's the need for being specific.£
I completely understand your point, I do. I still don't see this title as being malicious though. In a perfect world Armstrong would be known as the first person on the moon, but history wasn't perfect and he has been known in history books since then as the first man on the moon. It wouldn't make sense to call it "First Person" nobody would have an idea of what its about. First Man automatically brings to mind Armstrong for better or worse. I think they could come out with a better title than this anyways.
I think people should be aware and not try and purposely offend people, but also on the flip side, people should try to not let things offend them if there was no offense or malice intended.
