He Who Controls the Past...
In "1984", Orwell has a character assert, "He who controls the past controls the present; he who controls the present controls the future." Hollywood, the media, have taken this axiom to heart.
Although it began much more subtly much earlier (such as "Princess" Leia in Star Bores), I first noticed it in "Raiders of the Lost Ark".
Indiana Jones' love interest was a boozing, two-fisted, crude "broad". Notably different from heroines in previous movies, and somewhat out of character for the period. Not that such women didn't exist, but that they were, as throughout most of history, somewhat rare. And even in that movie they had the sense to blunt the PC a bit by having her be vulnerable to Nazis, although "tougher" than everybody else.
Video games proved a useful vector in "feminizing" the culture; young men are more willing to suspend disbelief when playing a game that titillates them, thus preparing them for two-fisted females in other media.
I have no problem with this, as I'm confident it was done for purposes of profit and not social engineering.
But, more recently, women's roles in history have been both blown out of proportion and masculinized. How this was being done is also understandable.
Progressives and their cousins are among the most intolerant people in creation. Their view is the correct view, and if you disagree, jam it down your throat until you accept that 2+2=5 when they say it does, dammit.
The Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, as an example, had fantastic action, terrific special effects, and almost no acceptance of history. That they made the East India Company the bad guys is laughable enough, but when they made murderers, rapists and thieves the protagonists... well, why not, the way was paved with Klingon barbarians as protagonists in TNG and DS9.
Were there female pirates, historically? Yup, there were. In the nearly half a millennium era associated with piracy, there were a few dozen... out of the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of pirates, all but that few dozen, male.
There was an earlier pro-Pirate movie starring Geena Davis that was, happily, a flop, but PotC was wildly popular.
Certainly it's a safe bet that none of the female pirates were the pampered daughters of aristocratic politicians, and an even safer bet that with no experience and little practice, she wouldn't be able to go toe-to-toe with real pirates. Frankly, she'd most likely find herself on her back fairly quickly servicing whatever pirates wanted to use her until she was used up and tossed over the side. Pirates were not nice men.
And I won't go into the historic license involved in making Calypso a black Caribbean woman rather than a Greek or Egyptian.
So when they made the 4th PotC movie, PC compelled them to once again stick a two-fisted broad into the storyline. Sure, cause female pirates were so prevalent.
They're making another pirate movie, and again there's a female pirate. They sure got around.
But, yesterday I saw the trailer for a 2nd "300" movie. Which I'm pretty sure will have almost nothing to do with Salamis, and the events of Plataea will almost certainly be sensationalized. But, in the trailer was a physically attractive broad with twin swords on her shoulders, and later firing a bow. She certainly can't be a Spartan; Spartan women weren't taught to fight. in fact, they were so valued that one of the causes for Spartan (and Athenian, and other Greek) babies to be exposed was the lack of penis.
Can't have a woman in the story as a love interest; can't have her in the story as the historically accurate reason why many men sacrifice themselves to protect and provide for. No, she's gotta be shoulder-to-shoulder in the front lines.
Then there's the farcical movie coming out called "Pompeii". The stereotypes involved are so over the top they're almost comical. We have the evil Senator lusting after the apparently unwed female who's in love with... a slave. Sure, and tomorrow Charlize Theron is going to marry me. In 79 AD, it wasn't really a good idea for a woman, even one of substance, to smart-off to a Senator with deprecating comparisons to a slave. "He's everything you're not" she says to Senator Stereotype... smelly, uncultured, poor?
I will be curious to find out what fact-finding tour brought the Senator to Pompeii. I'm somewhat more forgiving of Pompeii, since the story shouldn't involve martial conflict (just a lot of asphyxiating).
Why are these masculinized women being promoted disproportionately to their contribution to history? Two reason; to pander to modern female egos (which have been built by modern media to begin with) and in the establishment of the idea that history is unchanging. All societies in history were merely reflections of our own, with funny clothes. Women are on the ascent in the modern western world (why not,when the men have become such pathetic barbarian children), ergo this must be reflected in all depictions of historic events. And Americans have become so narrow-minded that no movie could succeed that didn't pander to their modern, artificial preconceptions.
Although it began much more subtly much earlier (such as "Princess" Leia in Star Bores), I first noticed it in "Raiders of the Lost Ark".
Indiana Jones' love interest was a boozing, two-fisted, crude "broad". Notably different from heroines in previous movies, and somewhat out of character for the period. Not that such women didn't exist, but that they were, as throughout most of history, somewhat rare. And even in that movie they had the sense to blunt the PC a bit by having her be vulnerable to Nazis, although "tougher" than everybody else.
Video games proved a useful vector in "feminizing" the culture; young men are more willing to suspend disbelief when playing a game that titillates them, thus preparing them for two-fisted females in other media.
I have no problem with this, as I'm confident it was done for purposes of profit and not social engineering.
But, more recently, women's roles in history have been both blown out of proportion and masculinized. How this was being done is also understandable.
Progressives and their cousins are among the most intolerant people in creation. Their view is the correct view, and if you disagree, jam it down your throat until you accept that 2+2=5 when they say it does, dammit.
The Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, as an example, had fantastic action, terrific special effects, and almost no acceptance of history. That they made the East India Company the bad guys is laughable enough, but when they made murderers, rapists and thieves the protagonists... well, why not, the way was paved with Klingon barbarians as protagonists in TNG and DS9.
Were there female pirates, historically? Yup, there were. In the nearly half a millennium era associated with piracy, there were a few dozen... out of the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of pirates, all but that few dozen, male.
There was an earlier pro-Pirate movie starring Geena Davis that was, happily, a flop, but PotC was wildly popular.
Certainly it's a safe bet that none of the female pirates were the pampered daughters of aristocratic politicians, and an even safer bet that with no experience and little practice, she wouldn't be able to go toe-to-toe with real pirates. Frankly, she'd most likely find herself on her back fairly quickly servicing whatever pirates wanted to use her until she was used up and tossed over the side. Pirates were not nice men.
And I won't go into the historic license involved in making Calypso a black Caribbean woman rather than a Greek or Egyptian.
So when they made the 4th PotC movie, PC compelled them to once again stick a two-fisted broad into the storyline. Sure, cause female pirates were so prevalent.
They're making another pirate movie, and again there's a female pirate. They sure got around.
But, yesterday I saw the trailer for a 2nd "300" movie. Which I'm pretty sure will have almost nothing to do with Salamis, and the events of Plataea will almost certainly be sensationalized. But, in the trailer was a physically attractive broad with twin swords on her shoulders, and later firing a bow. She certainly can't be a Spartan; Spartan women weren't taught to fight. in fact, they were so valued that one of the causes for Spartan (and Athenian, and other Greek) babies to be exposed was the lack of penis.
Can't have a woman in the story as a love interest; can't have her in the story as the historically accurate reason why many men sacrifice themselves to protect and provide for. No, she's gotta be shoulder-to-shoulder in the front lines.
Then there's the farcical movie coming out called "Pompeii". The stereotypes involved are so over the top they're almost comical. We have the evil Senator lusting after the apparently unwed female who's in love with... a slave. Sure, and tomorrow Charlize Theron is going to marry me. In 79 AD, it wasn't really a good idea for a woman, even one of substance, to smart-off to a Senator with deprecating comparisons to a slave. "He's everything you're not" she says to Senator Stereotype... smelly, uncultured, poor?
I will be curious to find out what fact-finding tour brought the Senator to Pompeii. I'm somewhat more forgiving of Pompeii, since the story shouldn't involve martial conflict (just a lot of asphyxiating).
Why are these masculinized women being promoted disproportionately to their contribution to history? Two reason; to pander to modern female egos (which have been built by modern media to begin with) and in the establishment of the idea that history is unchanging. All societies in history were merely reflections of our own, with funny clothes. Women are on the ascent in the modern western world (why not,when the men have become such pathetic barbarian children), ergo this must be reflected in all depictions of historic events. And Americans have become so narrow-minded that no movie could succeed that didn't pander to their modern, artificial preconceptions.
The movie 300 was based on a graphic novel, not Herodotus or Thucydides or any other of the Greek historians. The graphic noel was loosely (and I mean loosely) based on the histories. Spartacus (the movie and the TV series) were based loosely on true events in Roman history.
My point is true history rarely does well in theatrical release. Biblical epics do relatively well but even then they are more of an action movie that a historical one. Hollywood may control the celluloid past, but there are enough book from the old period still extant in moldy old libraries and in e-books to keep the truth alive, sorta. Remember the histories are written by the winner, not the looser. The losers account would be very different than the winners.
---
Actually, that's an attribute which virtually every group posses, whether they're progressive, conservative, liberal, or something else. Demanding that all others conform to one's own point of view is a universal human characteristic, and is not exclusive to any particular demographic.
Also, complaining about a movie where pirates were depicted as the good guys? Come on, you sound as silly as those religious nuts who complain about Harry Potter because it presents witches and wizards as the good guys.
As for the lack of historical accuracy, it doesn't matter. Movies are about the time periods in which they're made, not the ones in which they're set.
And whether women took part in famous battles such as Plataea isn't a matter of "point of view". It's changing history to promote a sick, twisted, perverted, hateful, destructive agenda.
And there is absolutely nothing sick, twisted, perverted, hateful, or destructive about promoting gender equality. Who cares if its historically inaccurate? The whole point of feminism is to try and free women from the oppression which they have historically been subject to. If that necessitates the creation and development of historical myths involving female empowerment, then so be it. :P