Actors which you used to think were cool

[General Zod]

Tom Cruise...before he came out as a fucking nut job working as the spokesman for a cult.

It's not like Tom Cruise is a very good actor anyway, so not much of a loss there. All of his most recent films have been Tom Cruise as Tom Cruise.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

I don't see why Alec Guinness is such an asshole. He wanted to be a sophisticated, Shakespearean actor, and now everyone only knows him for his role in some campy Flash Gordan fairytale, instead of Lawrence of Arabia. He's not really being a dick about it - he acknowledges the financial security it brought him - he just doesn't think the material is very edifying, I guess.

Compare with Patrick Stewart, for example, a man in a very similar situation. He's gone on record as saying he doesn't really care for science fiction, and he clearly prefers his Shakespearean theater work. Yet he doesn't "throw away fan mail" or tell off fans who love his Star Trek or X-Men work and are inspired by it. Stewart was struggling financially when he took the Star Trek gig, and I think it's fair to say he's probably not hurting for money these days, yet he actually appears at least reasonably gracious to the fans who ultimately buy those movie tickets and bring up ratings numbers. Stewart may have originally done it for the money, but he's decent about it. Guinness just brazenly said what pretty much amounts to, "Yeah I just did it for the money, fuck you."

Now it's one thing to prefer a life of privacy, embrace humility, or otherwise eschew fame. Neil Armstrong, though not an actor, certainly comes to mind... but he didn't talk shit about the Apollo program or blow off kids who wrote to him about their lifelong dreams of becoming an astronaut. This is what I'm getting at with Guinness - he may have been an excellent actor, which is all well and good on screen, but he seems like someone who would be pretty awful to actually be around, especially as someone who, as the thread asks, once thought that he must have been a pretty cool dude.

I guess what I'm saying is, it would be pretty cool to share drinks or a conversation with a lot of actors, since they tend to be charismatic people by their very nature, but Guinness isn't one of them.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

"I don't think there is anything particularly wrong about hitting a woman-- although I don't recommend doing it in the same way that you'd hit a man. An open-handed slap is justified-- if all other alternatives fail and there has been plenty of warning. If a woman is a bitch, or hysterical, or bloody-minded continually, then I'd do it. I think a man has to be slightly advanced, ahead of the woman."

When called on that quote since the interview, he's refused to recant it.

Why is hitting a woman any worse than hitting a man? Both should be last resorts and neither should be condoned.

Because our culture finds violence by men against female romantic partners to be so natural that domestic violence by men towards women used to be the norm that happened in the majority of relationships while violence the other way around was and is relatively rare, and even our justice system is stacked so much that women who kill their partners in self defense are convicted more often and serve average sentences literally 5 times as long as men who kill their partners out of rage or jealousy.

To rephrase your question in terms even you will understand are wrong, it'd be like asking "why is taxing poor people at high percentages of income any worse than taxing rich people that way?" When the field is so uneven to begin with, you can't just apply flat blanket judgements to everything.

And to cut away your usual reaction to this sort of thing, no this isn't Just An American Problem That Canada Has Never Heard Of.

[Thanas]

Don't make this personal, guys.

[Borgholio]

Tom Cruise...before he came out as a fucking nut job working as the spokesman for a cult.

It's not like Tom Cruise is a very good actor anyway, so not much of a loss there. All of his most recent films have been Tom Cruise as Tom Cruise.

Yeah I'm thinking of the films I grew up with, like Top Gun. I have yet to see the remake of War of the Worlds specifically because of Cruise.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Tom Cruise...before he came out as a fucking nut job working as the spokesman for a cult.

It's not like Tom Cruise is a very good actor anyway, so not much of a loss there. All of his most recent films have been Tom Cruise as Tom Cruise.

Yeah I'm thinking of the films I grew up with, like Top Gun. I have yet to see the remake of War of the Worlds specifically because of Cruise.

Whatever your feelings about Cruise, avoid that War of the Worlds remake. It's really quite terrible.

As for "Tom Cruise as Tom Cruise" that's hardly unique. Off the top of my head, Nicholas Cage, Sean Connery and Harrison Ford all qualify.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

To go off Alyrium's response to me earlier, I will have to say that Sir Patrick Stewart kind of is the opposite of this thread. To me he went from that cool guy playing Picard to someone who actually is an amazing human being the more I look into what he does outside of acting.

[Jub]

Because our culture finds violence by men against female romantic partners to be so natural that domestic violence by men towards women used to be the norm that happened in the majority of relationships while violence the other way around was and is relatively rare, and even our justice system is stacked so much that women who kill their partners in self defense are convicted more often and serve average sentences literally 5 times as long as men who kill their partners out of rage or jealousy.

To rephrase your question in terms even you will understand are wrong, it'd be like asking "why is taxing poor people at high percentages of income any worse than taxing rich people that way?" When the field is so uneven to begin with, you can't just apply flat blanket judgements to everything.

And to cut away your usual reaction to this sort of thing, no this isn't Just An American Problem That Canada Has Never Heard Of.

That still doesn't make hitting a woman any worse than hitting a man now does it? Nor does it make hitting anybody acceptable.

Besides, are abusive gay relationships where the physically stronger partner beats the weaker better, worse, or the same than if the weaker partner was a woman? If you think that it's a better situation because our culture tolerates it better you're a terrible person, if you think it is worse or the same you have to admit that hitting women is no special evil. Take your pick.

[Metahive]

Look at how Connery treats women like unruly children that need a good spanking once in a while to get set right by the big manly man. That's what makes his position supremely unsympathetic.

That still doesn't make hitting a woman any worse than hitting a man now does it? Nor does it make hitting anybody acceptable.

Deeeer, it's, like, you didn't comprehend a single word Grandmaster Jogurt wrote. Your privilge is showing, Jub, and it's not even the first time. Not everyone lacks self-awareness as much as you.

[Jub]

Look at how Connery treats women like unruly children that need a good spanking once in a while to get set right by the big manly man. That's what makes his position supremely unsympathetic.

That still doesn't make hitting a woman any worse than hitting a man now does it? Nor does it make hitting anybody acceptable.

Deeeer, it's, like, you didn't comprehend a single word Grandmaster Jogurt wrote. Your privilge is showing, Jub, and it's not even the first time. Not everyone lacks self-awareness as much as you.

You do know that I've ran this position by more than a few women who aren't afraid of speaking their minds and they agree with me right? This isn't something that I formed in a vacuum. Also, you have to think of what exactly Sean Connery is saying in that quote, because it doesn't read the same to me as it does to you.

"I don't think there is anything particularly wrong about hitting a woman-- although I don't recommend doing it in the same way that you'd hit a man."

Makes an allowance for a woman's reduced physical size and strength.

"An open-handed slap is justified-- if all other alternatives fail and there has been plenty of warning."

Don't hit somebody without trying to talk them down first.

"If a woman is a bitch, or hysterical, or bloody-minded* continually, then I'd do it. I think a man has to be slightly advanced, ahead of the woman."

This is the one most people likely take issue with. I read it as saying, if a woman is being a bitch and with the idea in her head that she's going to use physical force against you, you can feel justified in striking her. He also states that a man had best have a good reason to hit a woman because people will analyze striking a woman much more than they do striking a man.

Yes he's a bit old school in his value, but he doesn't seem like the type who enjoys hitting women. He just recognizes that there is a time and place for it.

*Bloody-minded: Ready and willing to accept bloodshed or to resort to violence.

I'd also like to see somebody tackle this:

Are abusive gay relationships where the physically stronger partner beats the weaker better, worse, or the same than if the weaker partner was a woman being struck by a man? If you think that it's a better situation because our culture tolerates it better you're a terrible person, if you think it is worse or the same you have to admit that hitting women is no special evil. Take your pick.

[Crazedwraith]

Check the second definition. Given the context Connery is much more likely to mean 'bloody minded' as in 'stubborn' rather than 'directing violence toward me'. The tone of the quote is not talking about self-defense. It's saying it's acceptable to strike a woman for complaining/being unpleasant (a bitch) or panicking (hysterical).

As to your gay relationship; it's frankly irrelevant. Because even granting your point that domestic violence is the same whether its man on woman or man on weaker man. And its not 'a special evil. It's still an evil and Connery was still saying it was acceptable. We can't condemn him for something he didn't say. He talked about beating women so people are condemning for that. If he said other kinds of domestic violence were a-ok, we'd condemn him for that too.

[Jub]

Check the second definition. Given the context Connery is much more likely to mean 'bloody minded' as in 'stubborn' rather than 'directing violence toward me'. The tone of the quote is not talking about self-defense. It's saying it's acceptable to strike a woman for complaining/being unpleasant (a bitch) or panicking (hysterical).

As to your gay relationship; it's frankly irrelevant. Because even granting your point that domestic violence is the same whether its man on woman or man on weaker man. And its not 'a special evil. It's still an evil and Connery was still saying it was acceptable. We can't condemn him for something he didn't say. He talked about beating women so people are condemning for that. If he said other kinds of domestic violence were a-ok, we'd condemn him for that too.

Meh, you can read the quote a few ways. If he hits woman that's a knock against him, but only about the same sized knock as I would give an actor that gets into bar fights or something.

You can read what I've said already on the matter of hitting people outside of self defense.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

As for me, I'd say Steven Seagal first. I could guess he was a tool, I knew his movies were just used to pass the time, but man I looked a little and it was supremely lame. From his stupid-ass music to the fact he's supposedly an Aikido master but never actually uses the technique in his movies, it was all lame. The fact that he was made a movie star pretty much on blind luck didn't help, either.

Secondly, Wesley Snipes. I mean... seriously, Blade? Tax evasion?

As for the lord of all assholes, Klaus Kinski. More because my parents said he was an awesome actor, since I've never arsed myself to see any movie with him (beyond a bit role in For a Few Dollars More because it was a spaghetti western and thus kicked ass). Yeah... and then you read up on him, how he was completely fucking nuts and how he sexually abused his daughter and just get the fuck out of here, Klaus.

[Borgholio]

I don't like to hit women out of respect for them. However, all too often I see on the news some crazy bitch beating on another woman or a guy. If that were the case, if some crazy bitch started beating on my wife, I'd pound her ass into the ground...female or not.

Another aspect of this that I don't like (and I may get some flak for this) is the idea that women are allowed to slap a man in the face just because he says something she doesn't like. At some point, women's equality should dictate that a man be allowed to slap her for the same reason. If I say something you don't like and you can slap me, I should be allowed to slap you if you say something I don't like.

Now if it's a slap to keep a guy from manhandling her or grabbing her arm or something, then that's ok. He's doing something that deserves a physical response.

[Losonti Tokash]

I think what this thread really needs is more guys talking about when it's okay to smack the shit out of a woman, particularly if it's because she's doing something you don't like.

[Borgholio]

I think what this thread really needs is more guys talking about when it's okay to smack the shit out of a woman, particularly if it's because she's doing something you don't like.

Well it's ok for a woman to smack the shit out of a man, particularly if it's because he's doing something she doesn't like. So what, is that acceptable? Shouldn't there be consequences for physically attacking someone without provocation?

[Lagmonster]

I don't think it's possible for any actor to seem as 'cool' as they did when they played their iconic characters, mainly because their iconic characters are fictional representations of unrealistically talented, lucky, or successful people.

That said, I remember when MASH was the best show in the universe and Radar O'Reilly was the personification of adorable. Then one day I read Gary Burghoff's Wikipedia page and had no idea everyone he knew saw him as a neurotic, paranoid guy. Because he played no other significant character, it's easy to be deluded into thinking that he was that other person.

[Scrib]

Look at how Connery treats women like unruly children that need a good spanking once in a while to get set right by the big manly man. That's what makes his position supremely unsympathetic.

That still doesn't make hitting a woman any worse than hitting a man now does it? Nor does it make hitting anybody acceptable.

Deeeer, it's, like, you didn't comprehend a single word Grandmaster Jogurt wrote. Your privilge is showing, Jub, and it's not even the first time. Not everyone lacks self-awareness as much as you.

I agree that Sean Connery makes it difficult to take him sympathetic but I don't necessarily see the problem with not buying into Jogurt's notion. Look, I get that you want to create a blanket ban on hitting women by shaming everyone who does it, regardless of circumstance in order to prevent real abusers from having social support, but the person you are shaming to achieve your social engineering process doesn't need to buy into it, especially when you note that yes,there are cases where it can be justified, we just don't want to open that door because it's inconvenient. I mean, sure, you can claim that it's a pointless bit of whataboutism when thrown against the very real and systemic problems and I would be sympathetic, but I wouldn't throw Sean Connery under the bus for not feeling that hitting women is some great,special evil (the general "crimes by majority against minority"> "crimes by minority against majority" doesn't seem to apply as well when you leave racial or sexist slurs, since physical damage is physical damage).


On the other hand, it's pretty easy to throw him under the bus for his actual comments. He wants to hit women when they annoy him, not when they actually attack him so...yeah, not that sympathetic in general (don't hit people) even before we get into the sexism. And then we get into it and wonder if he would hit a man for "not letting it go".

[Lagmonster]

Your privilege is showing.

Interesting thing about privilege: Once you have it, you will betray principles you swear you ardently believe in, to keep it. It's that old "Eye of the needle, rich men in heaven" problem, I think.

[Eleas]

Well it's ok for a woman to smack the shit out of a man, particularly if it's because he's doing something she doesn't like. So what, is that acceptable?

Pardon? Who other than you said that was an okay thing? You assert it, but it's not actually okay. However, the context is different. If we have the stereotypical constellation, in which the limit of what a woman is conditioned to do in terms of striking is a slap whereas the limit of what a man may be conditioned to do is broken bones, that is a lopsided scenario.

If, however, we have a situation (which is by no means unheard of) in which the woman offers physical intimidation and escalating physical abuse, then that is just as bad as the opposite, because then she would be the abuser. Whereas what Connery described falls squarely into the patterns of "I don't like how she's behaving so I'm going to abuse and intimidate her until she learns her place." That is problematic.

Shouldn't there be consequences for physically attacking someone without provocation?

Of course there fucking should be. But as bad as violence and/or intimidation between two random people is, it is worse when it happens from a position of entrenched structural advantage.

[Borgholio]

If we have the stereotypical constellation, in which the limit of what a woman is conditioned to do in terms of striking is a slap whereas the limit of what a man may be conditioned to do is broken bones, that is a lopsided scenario.

Right. We are conditioned by society that a man should never strike a woman for any reason, while a woman has a right to slap a man and expect to get away with it It's already lopsided.

Now what Sean Connery said can easily be taken out of context, and I don't agree with his reasoning for being allowed to strike a woman, but I do agree there should be times when it's acceptable. For instance, if your g/f comes up to you, yells "I saw you talking to my friend, I saw the look you were giving her, you fucking cheating douchbag!" And she proceeds to start slapping you or punching you...then you shouldn't hesitate to fight back just because she's a woman. I'm not saying flat out deck her, but a good shove or a slap or something to bring her to her senses and get her off you.

it is worse when it happens from a position of entrenched structural advantage.

Agreed. So I think when dealing with women physically, it should be no different than dealing with another guy if you happen to be much bigger and stronger than him.

1. Is he / she actually a danger to me?
2. Is he / she causing me any pain?
3. How can I stop him / her from hurting me without using excessive force.

I think looking at women in such a fashion is more beneficial than just "not hitting her" because she's a woman.

[Eleas]

If we have the stereotypical constellation, in which the limit of what a woman is conditioned to do in terms of striking is a slap whereas the limit of what a man may be conditioned to do is broken bones, that is a lopsided scenario.

Right. We are conditioned by society that a man should never strike a woman for any reason, while a woman has a right to slap a man and expect to get away with it It's already lopsided.

It's like you didn't read what I wrote.

Also, "we" are not conditioned nearly so simply. I would say that on average, men are conditioned to consider women a bit beneath them, and to know that striking someone weaker than yourself is considered to be a social lapse. Men are also conditioned to believe they're not fully in control of their anger (and sex drive, but that's another thing). The solution for some men is to prefer to strike when they're alone with the woman, particularly when the woman's arguing/intractability/whatever "overpowers" his feeble restraint.

Now what Sean Connery said can easily be taken out of context, and I don't agree with his reasoning for being allowed to strike a woman, but I do agree there should be times when it's acceptable. For instance, if your g/f comes up to you, yells "I saw you talking to my friend, I saw the look you were giving her, you fucking cheating douchbag!" And she proceeds to start slapping you or punching you...then you shouldn't hesitate to fight back just because she's a woman.

Which is not at all the common scenario, and nobody ITT afaik is denying that self-defense would be a valid reason to fight back.

it is worse when it happens from a position of entrenched structural advantage.

Agreed. So I think when dealing with women physically, it should be no different than dealing with another guy if you happen to be much bigger and stronger than him.

Do you understand what "structural advantage" means?

[Zaune]

How about we just go with the idea that using violence or intimidation against your spouse is never, ever under any circumstances okay no matter what combination of genders is involved, huh?

[Borgholio]

It's like you didn't read what I wrote.

Apologies, perhaps I misunderstood. I thought you were saying that we are conditioned to artificially limit ourselves based on the amount of damage we are capable of doing.

Do you understand what "structural advantage" means?

For some reason I thought it was referring to the size, weight, and strength differences between the sexes.

Oddly, when I Googled the term, one of the first hits that came up was about the Zumwalt Class Destroyer.

How about we just go with the idea that using violence or intimidation against your spouse is never, ever under any circumstances okay no matter what combination of genders is involved, huh?

Works for me.

[Grandmaster Jogurt]

How about we just go with the idea that using violence or intimidation against your spouse is never, ever under any circumstances okay no matter what combination of genders is involved, huh?

Avoiding the subject like that sounds nice but it leaves us with the status quo where violence in the form of self-defense when performed by women is treated by legal and social consequences as a much more serious offense than even violence of anger or possession when done by men. If you refuse to examine the structural inequalities you're allowing them to stay in place.