Actual Gawker quote: "If men actually count as people".

AcidJiles · 2016-07-13T11:37:09+00:00

Nobody cares if Kate McKinnon's Ghostbuster character is gay. Truly, no one. The film is so bad that nothing can save it.

The jokes fall flat so quickly you'd think the screenwriters hate the source material.
Every male in the movie is either a moron, an asshole, lazy, or pathetic.
Special effects look like they were lifted out of the recent Scooby-Doo movies.
The cameos from the original Ghostbusters actors were unrelated to the original characters, and Bill Murray is rumoured to have been pressured into appearing.
The movie entirely pretends that the original films never happened.
The movie steals all the plot elements from the first film (the three white characters get together, meet a ghost, get drummed out of their jobs, add a black wild card to their team, an annoying gender-opposite secretary, and a weird transportation choice. They handle a few small ghost situations, then reveal a massive plan to unleash ghosts all over the city, leading to a big showdown with a 300-foot tall cartoon character)
The movie alludes to a villain rip-off for a planned trilogy, and doesn't bother tying it to this story. THERE IS NO DANA, ONLY ZUUL.
The marketing team could not find enough good footage for one trailer - so they made three shitty trailers with almost the same footage in each one.
Ivan Reitman was originally set to direct, and to write with Dan Akyroyd years ago, with a mixed cast and some of the original Ghostbusters. A Sony Pictures executive wanted a young person to direct. She plotted and schemed for almost a decade to have him relegated to producer and quietly planned the movie around him so that she could hire Paul Feig to write and direct.
Sony tried to enforce an embargo on reviews of the film, only to have an advance screening a week early - and then stagger the film's release over two separate days. They also completely forgot that people on YouTube don't sign NDAs.
Sony and Paul Feig have been flagging and removing well-written negative reviews, and intentionally leaving up the sexist shit to make detractors of the film all look like they hate women.

The hideous joke of this movie clearly swells way over the head of Kate McKinnon's gayness.

orcscorper · 2016-07-13T13:55:57+00:00

Normal people: "Meh. I don't like the direction they took the film. I was kind of excited to see an all woman cast and was REALLY looking forward to see how the original guys cameo in what SHOULD be a solid comedy with the tech we have today and literally thousands of writers that have given us pure gold in recent films. They ruined it by pushing an agenda."

Them: "THEY SAID THEY HATE THE FILM CUZ WOMEN!!!!!! THIS MOVIE WOULD BE GREAT IF YOU WOULD JUST STOP SAYING IT WAS AWFUL!!!!! MAYBE IF YOU WEREN'T A SEXIST, RAPIST, TESTOSTERONE FILLED, HOMOPHOBIC, TRANSPHOBIC, GHOSTPHOBIC FUCKBOI YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE IT FOR HOW AWESOME IT IS!!!!!"

Tedesche · 2016-07-13T12:31:18+00:00

The astounding thing is that the article was written by a man. Internalized sexism if I ever saw it. What a pathetic schmuck you are, Rich Juzwiak.

Lumberingfeather · 2016-07-13T11:16:37+00:00

Hasn't Gawker gone bust yet?

Can't wait to see that shitty site go down.

davidcwilliams · 2016-07-13T13:05:08+00:00

But while [Kate] McKinnon is SNL’s first openly lesbian cast member, Ghostbusters offers only hints on Holtzmann, who spends her free time shamelessly flirting with Erin. I ask Feig: Is Holtzmann gay? He pauses, smiling. “What do you think?” I’d like to think yes, I say.

Why the hell would you like to think yes??

DarthMarvolo · 2016-07-13T14:07:40+00:00

This guy sounds like a white, feminist, man-hating version of Uncle Ruckus.

Penultimatemoment · 2016-07-13T12:57:41+00:00

A man wrote that.

a1eksanderr · 2016-07-13T14:18:28+00:00

Do these people not understand the concept of acting?

Why would a character be gay (or any other facet of their characterisation) simply because the person portraying them happens to be that way?

Ditto for Sulu suddenly being gay.

TokyoXtreme · 2016-07-13T15:42:52+00:00

It's funny that one of the very best (and most beloved by men) action films of all time has a woman as the leading character… an actress who coincidentally happened to be a star of the original Ghostbusters.

oneonezeroonezero · 2016-07-13T13:33:24+00:00

I wish men would count as people.

ThePigmanAgain · 2016-07-13T10:38:09+00:00

"Since it was announced, people (if men actually count as people) have been losing their shit over the new Ghostbusters reboot..."

I hope this guy gets hit by lightning -- or worse yet, by Hulk Hogan. Heh, heh...

baskandpurr · 2016-07-13T14:23:31+00:00

people (if men actually count as people) have been losing their shit over the new Ghostbusters reboot

No. They haven't at all, most people couldn't care less. The film studio would really like us all to be losing our collective shit over it and that's why the media keep writing articles like this. This is a film which I'm not going to pay to see because the premise does not appeal to me. Exactly like the very many other films I didn't pay to see because the premise did not appeal to me. I will continue to be completely indifferent to it no matter how often Sony tries to tell me that I'm not.

SacredWeapon · 2016-07-13T11:36:00+00:00

But by the same token, if what we’re talking about isn’t a big deal, then why shouldn’t Holtzmann be gay? If she was, in fact, conceived that way, but Feig is trying to obscure that through coy hedging because Columbia Pictures (owned by Sony) is concerned that a gay character will be unmarketable, or offensive to idiots, or maybe reach out from the screen to molest the children sitting in the theater, then that’s fucked up

Or, you know, it serves no narrative purpose and makes you look like a BioWare game character who loudly announces, "OH BY THE WAY PLAYER CHARACTER I AM GAY AND YOU CAN ROMANCE ME."

Romances so rarely fit in action films. The 'romance' between Wiig and Hemsworth's characters is equally stupid and hurts the film.

People are so eager to virtue signal that they forget, in real life we interact with gay people and it is exactly the same as straight people, because our real life interactions are mostly not romantic.

JackGetsIt · 2016-07-13T14:59:26+00:00

I'd like to get some funding together to remake 'How Stella Got Her Groove Back' with an all male cast.

Aaod · 2016-07-13T15:06:31+00:00

"If men actually count as people."

We don't count as people at all? Even the slaves counted as 3/5th of a person so your opinion of us is even lower than that? Nice to know.

Tmomp · 2016-07-13T12:04:14+00:00

If you hate men, your hatred will seethe out in everything you say and do, such as not seeing us as people, which seems to be the case here. Sadly for their world view, we are people.

3rdLevelRogue · 2016-07-13T15:52:45+00:00

I find it hilarious that he considers men not counting as people and then thinks we should consider his article as having any value since it wasn't written by a person

bobsotherson · 2016-07-13T14:17:17+00:00

This movie is Hillary Clinton. A less funny and charming rehash of the original with identity politics covering up every deficiency and answering every criticism.

Mythandros · 2016-07-13T14:46:14+00:00

The whole idea of a female Ghostbuster group is interesting... but.. this is what happens when you let feminists do something. It turns to shit in record time.

infinitude · 2016-07-13T16:40:58+00:00

"journalism"

falsekoala · 2016-07-13T15:40:51+00:00

I don't dislike the film because the main characters are women. I dislike the film because everything else about it sucks. If it were a good movie, I could care less if they re-booted the franchise with all-female ghostbusters. Good movies don't feel the need to trumpet the genders of their cast.

DemonSmurf · 2016-07-13T17:33:49+00:00

I was told Gawker was going bankrupt. Why are you giving their website hits? Let them die.

StillRadioactive · 2016-07-13T17:33:55+00:00

TIL Gawker still exists after its encounter with Hulkamania

Lrellok · 2016-07-13T17:34:48+00:00

Yes, the feminist movement has been overrun by neo-fuedalists who earnestly believe that people who do not benifit them have no right to exist.

pronida · 2016-07-13T13:24:11+00:00

If it doesn't matter why the character and is gay, why are you asking?

xCAPTAINxTEXASx · 2016-07-13T17:39:16+00:00

To quote Peter Griffin:

If you were a woman, I'd slug you

2016-07-13T20:00:03+00:00

Gawker is still publishing?

2016-07-13T20:03:27+00:00

"Since it was announced, people (if men actually count as people) have been losing their shit over the new Ghostbusters reboot simply because the Ghostbusters are all women this time around."

No. It's because the movie completely steals the original ideas, and does nothing to shift the series on to a new set of characters, like star wars did. No respect for their actor who we lost, no respect for the old Ghostbusters. THAT is why people are losing their shit; because it's a cash grab on a controversial subject. Just like Spotlight was a cash grab on the hot-button topic of rape, so is Ghostbusters a cash grab on the much broader topic of feminism.

589547521563 · 2016-07-13T20:11:27+00:00

Wasn't gawker supposed to go bankrupt?

Whisper · 2016-07-13T20:20:58+00:00

This actually makes sense.

There are only three types of people who read Gawker articles:

Radical left-wing man-hating feminists.
Cucks.
People drawn there by rage bait.

Saying that men are not people draws pageviews from all three. Why would they not be provocative in precisely this way?

If you pay assholes to asshole, assholes gonna asshole.

Who cares?

MadMonk67 · 2016-07-13T22:04:43+00:00

What a douche-nozzle.

I think this is all made-up hysteria designed to hedge their bets for when the movie tanks. Then, they can blame it on misogynists instead of the writers, directors, producers, actors, etc.

acox1701 · 2016-07-13T16:36:45+00:00

If you know Kate at all she’s this kind of pansexual beast where it’s just like everybody who’s around her falls in love with her and she’s so loving to everybody she’s around.

Are these people deliberately trying to destroy the English language?

Pansexual is one of the few "genders" they go on about that makes any damn sense at all, and here they are using it to mean "friendly." I'd take the entire SJW movement more seriously if they had some kind of vocabulary guidelines.

Xaayer · 2016-07-13T15:07:49+00:00

I feel like that was put specifically to get a ride out of this sub and for yes to pay attention to it. Don't really care about what gawker writes

trap_monkey · 2016-07-13T15:46:44+00:00

I just want this movie to come out and be done with it finally

letmereaddamnit · 2016-07-13T16:28:33+00:00

what sort of daft cunt edits this? If it said that about women then it would have been a shit show (just like this damn movie)

yourunconscious · 2016-07-13T17:12:55+00:00

Rich Juzwiak is the author of this article. Blame the author, not some nameless entity that's going bust anyway.

Slooth849 · 2016-07-13T17:15:01+00:00

Who fucking cares!?! It's fictional! Unless her choking box or gobbling cock moves the story along then it doesn't fucking matter. God damn I hate hate hate hate sjw nonsense!

SwiggityStag · 2016-07-13T17:21:23+00:00

Stupid article by stupid people about a stupid movie. Well, looks like I've reached my daily dose of stupid.

free_will_is_arson · 2016-07-13T17:24:54+00:00

this entire article was useless, there is nothing of merit in any of it's points. it's just a spoon-fed diatribe on the horrors of penises subjugated vaginas. i could be wrong, but i thought this was supposed to be about an 80's comedy remake.

what does it matter if this character was gay, is that in anyway applicable to the plot, to understanding the motivations of the character, does it add anything...no, then it's a superfluous character trait and is only there because you want it there, not because it's organic to the character. you're shoehorning it. the reason why feig talks around the issue is because there is no issue and he is trying to drum up speculation that there is, i can hear his brain ticking away through the fucking internet "is holtzmann gay?" ...oh gee golly, that's, that's a pretty good idea, spread some PR controversy, further a sexist audience narrative... quick, run with it but you gotta play this cool feig-meister, don't be too thirsty..."what do you think"...nailed it.

'i don't want to be coy', buddy, you've turned your production into a seeming revolt against sexism and used this malarkey as the foundation for your press junkets to try to get us to talk about anything but the damn movie, but you are so sorry to be coy about whether or not a character may or may not be gay. i might believe it if you weren't salivating so much, wipe your chin, you're drooling.

feig, you've made a bad movie, it happens. accept it, learn from your mistakes and move the fuck on. you aren't going to pull the wool of our eyes on this one, we can see for ourselves just how bad it is and what is wrong with it, and it's not for the reasons you are giving. it's just a shite film.

Drago1214 · 2016-07-13T20:43:41+00:00

That's where they are wrong in the first paragraph. No one gives a shit that it's all woman. People give a shit that they did not even try to make it good. Just said people like the first one soooo ya this should work. Don't take a very popular cult classic and then botch the circumcision. At least try next time.

RayZfox · 2016-07-13T20:48:00+00:00

"If men actually count as people".......... we shouldn't post that sex tape of Hulk Hogan, as we could get sued by him.

lyraseven · 2016-07-13T21:19:30+00:00

We need to try to make sure any potential buyers know they'll be inheriting a staff full of sexist, racist and authoritarian zealots. I don't know Twitter; how would we go about drawing attention to this shit there?

2016-07-13T21:21:04+00:00

Rich Juzwiak who wrote that vomit is not a man -- he is a piece of feces.

Dieselpoweredsybian · 2016-07-13T21:27:08+00:00

I've read that gays make up only 6% of the population. So to accurately depict our society you would have to have what? 6 gay people for every 94 straight? Is that correct?

2016-07-14T02:04:22+00:00

I am too people! My mother said so!

2016-07-14T04:26:53+00:00

sight... they care SO so much about whether or not some character from a ghost buster rip off is gay, don't they?

jeff_the_nurse · 2016-07-15T01:25:52+00:00

Can anyone say "Slavery?"

kutuup1989 · 2016-08-16T15:30:32+00:00

Well that's one way to lose 50% of your readers right off the bat.

TedTheAtheist · 2016-07-13T17:39:34+00:00

Guys, I THINK THE AUTHOR WAS BEING SARCASTIC when writing that line...

JebberJabber · 2016-07-13T13:32:29+00:00

"If men actually count as people" is an obvious joke on the the idea that some men are said to be deeply disturbed by the existence of an all-female Ghostbusters movie. It is suggested they are wondering if that is the thin end of the wedge and men will soon be ignored or banned or all shot in the dick or something.

The clue is in the sentence itself. One shouldn't need to have any knowledge of the movie or the controversy at all to interpret it.

Since it was announced, people (if men actually count as people) have been losing their shit over the new Ghostbusters reboot simply because the Ghostbusters are all women this time around.
If a particularly shrill segment of the male population can’t deal with the notion of proton guns as functioning ghost-capturing tools and not just neon penis extensions, could they possibly deal with a gay female Ghostbuster?

The obsessive misinterpretation in this thread is disturbing, it takes me back thirty years:
Q: How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: That's not funny.
Great, we have caught up with feminism's can't-take-a-joke stage of evolution. I was there, it wasn't fun. The good news is that our sense of humour is forecast to improve over the next thirty years.

BaconCatBug · 2016-07-13T16:23:11+00:00

[permanently deleted]

BaconCatBug · 2016-07-13T14:55:39+00:00

Except the quote actually meant to say "only men are upset". It was a bad way to say it but the author wasn't saying men aren't people.

Stop creating conflict where none exists. Try focusing on real problems men face rather than some badly written article on the Internet.

JebberJabber · 2016-07-13T14:31:01+00:00

Sony is not allowing a hugely popular movie to portray a gay character openly, they have to be "covered", as with the celebrated lesbian Subaru ads of the 80s.

Sony's censorship is a men's rights issue. Our sexuality in movies set and made in the west is being systematically misrepresented by a Japanese company, to suit the tastes of people in non-western countries and I guess US Christian tradcons.

In the rich western countries movies earn peanuts from streaming services and nothing from illegal torrenting. Cinema returns have dived and now much or most of a movie's profit comes from DVD sales in places with poor broadband coverage like South America and much of Asia.

Appealing to the needs of those markets has inevitably changed the movies that get made. They don't get subtle language jokes or complex language. They like explosions and special effects. They don't like gays, especially gay men.

Straight characters flirt in movies. A lot, because it is entertaining and sexy and often either drives the plot or is a side-plot. It is something we straights can all relate to.
The women were described as flirting a lot in this movie. Men flirt with each other too, but I would imagine Sony would be even less likely to allow male characters to flirt. So it's a men's issue, unless we all think that only straight men need to see ourselves represented.

Title	Actual Gawker quote: "If men actually count as people".
Author	BaconCatBug
Upvotes	1758
Comments	228
Date	July 13, 2016 10:09 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4smexo/actual_gawker_quote_if_men_actually_count_as/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/actual-gawker-quote-if-men-actually-count-as.945629 https://theredarchive.com/post/945629

Comments