Is Mrs Doubtfire problematic?

Yer Da sells Avon

shutup wrote: »

Your post makes no sense because he didn’t use the term “normal” to differentiate between gay people and normal people, I mean straight people.

Try reading it again.

KAGY

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Stupid is as stupid does numb nuts

Are you assuming zhe has testicles! I thought a womxn like you would be more considerate of peoples gender or lack thereof

CrankyHaus

Seems a good time to throw this up.

shutup

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

Try reading it again.

Apologies if I’m missing something but it seems to me (in my sleepy state) that mrs g has not referred to gays as being abnormal.
Im happy to be proven wrong if you can quote his/her post.
So you just said something along the lines of, if you said such and such, which you didn’t actually say, but if you did, you would be considered a homophobic bigot.

Yer Da sells Avon

shutup wrote: »

Apologies if I’m missing something

The ability to read.

shutup

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

The ability to read.

I haven’t read the entire thread. Why can’t you just quote the bigotry for me and make it easy for someone who lacks the ability to read?

Sardonicat

So, OP, what do you feel about 'Tootsie'?

Yer Da sells Avon

shutup wrote: »

I haven’t read the entire thread. Why can’t you just quote the bigotry for me and make it easy for someone who lacks the ability to read?

These people might be more qualified to help you:

https://www.nala.ie/

ligerdub

Funnily enough I was only thinking about one aspect of this film which probably wouldn't pass the speech police numpties these days.

It was in the phone application section where Williams is doing an impression of an immigrant who can't speak English, which obviously doesn't go down well with the mother. That probably would be considered racist now or some rubbish like that!

What I had forgotten about that section was something even more triggering. Williams speaks about the sex of the children, and that he couldn't look after the boy because she (impersonating a woman) used to be a man. Again the mother was not keen on that. Transphobe!

Mad_maxx

Unlike Mrs doubtfire ( God be good to Robin Williams), you know what isn't funny?

That thousands of tax euro goes into paying some academic to fill young minds with the sh1te put to page in the OP

Bobby Baccala

Am I the only cúnt that doesn't know what cis means

OleRodrigo

Human evolution has been trundling along for tens, hundreds of thousands of years...nothing much happening...and then BOOM...at the start of the 21st century it branches out into 58 different genders.

Last time something like this happened was the Cambrian explosion, 500 million years ago. But it took 30 million years to gather pace.

Mother nature is pretty amazing.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

biko wrote: »

It was a great film, and still is, no matter what the weirdos say.

Steady on, it was fine. Nothing more.

shutup

Yer Da sells Avon wrote: »

These people might be more qualified to help you:

https://www.nala.ie/

Hilarious but just to be clear. You are unable to find and quote any bigoted comments?

JupiterKid

Its blatantly obvious that this is a trollish thread intended to goad a reaction...

...and judging by all the posts, it worked.

banie01

If the OP thinks that Mrs Doubtfire could be problematic...

They will blow a gasket if they rewatch Ace Ventura :P

The rush to infer an "ism" or insult where none is implied, is tiresome.
Have we learned nothing from the movements of new cultural norms and their drive to edit art and history?

Are we to support a new iconoclasm?
But rather than religious imagery, we know devalue, debase and destroy anything that might be "offensive"?

El_Duderino 09

ligerdub wrote: »

Funnily enough I was only thinking about one aspect of this film which probably wouldn't pass the speech police numpties these days.

Thought police numpties. Groan

I can't understand the desire to cast yourself as the oppressed minority victim. This thread shows you're in the overwhelming majority by not having a problem with the film.

Earlier a poster role played a society where people are thrown in prison if they font agree with transgenderism.

The desire to pretend to be oppressed and outnumbered is interesting though. A couple of posters expressed a problem with the film and you maintain the victim stance in spite of the vast majority saying they're fine with it. It comes down to throwing a hissy fit because some, somewhere holds a different opinion you.

That's a bit fragile, isn't it?

Greyfox

JupiterKid wrote: »

Its blatantly obvious that this is a trollish thread intended to goad a reaction...

To be honest there's people out there somewhere who believe what the op said and these people wherever they live are terrible people

mikhail

JupiterKid wrote: »

Its blatantly obvious that this is a trollish thread intended to goad a reaction...

...and judging by all the posts, it worked.

Yeah, how anyone can take the "penis" line near the end of the OP seriously, I don't know. It's pathetic trolling, and I have added him or her to my ignore list. It's amazing how much more civilised this place gets when you lock the loons, cranks and trolls away.

HorrorScope

Bobby Baccala wrote: »

Am I the only cúnt that doesn't know what cis means

You don't need to know what it means because only the ***** who follow this self ID bollixology use it.

Sunny Disposition

It is scandalous, no two ways about it, sending up Scottish immigrants and trans people, thinking its a great laugh. Thankfully enlightenment is coming now, just slowly.

El_Duderino 09

Sunny Disposition wrote: »

It is scandalous, no two ways about it, sending up Scottish immigrants and trans people, thinking its a great laugh. Thankfully enlightenment is coming now, just slowly.

I get that you're doing irony, but you'll notice that almost everyone else in the thread who expressed similar sentiment is also doing irony. Which kinda begs the question; if nobody was ironically saying they think the film is a problem, would anyone be saying they think it's a problem?

People pretending they have a problem seems to far outnumber people with a genuine problem with the film. Can't help thinking people art winding themselves up and convincing themselves there are loads of people who think the film is a problem.

Boom_Bap

OP, where you involved in campaigning to get the name of Man Sized tissues changed?

Notwithstanding the OP's trolltastic opener.

Re the term CIS. I don't know anyone who'd actually likes to be called CIS, but I'm okay with the transgender community calling us that when discussing such issues amongst themselves. Free speech and all that.

But they cannot expect us to accept being called CIS or that we adopt the term ourselves when they themselves are very particular as to how they are addressed. Maybe that's their point. Maybe they want him, her and they to be included on official forms.

I'm so glad that's not the type of thing that gets to me. Easy for me to say perhaps, but if that's an issue then there's a lot more to it than wanting to be referred to as 'they'.

Stevieluvsye

Deleted User wrote: »

It's on TV and it has me worried and afraid to laugh given what is, in reality, very serious subject matter.

The fact that a cis male is dressing as someone who identifies as a cis female is used in this film as a vehicle for comic relief. This is not funny because :

1 - cis males should not be dressing as a woman in such a flippant manner given the issues trans people face on a daily basis

2 - cis males should not project a gender insincerely

3 - when Mrs Doubtfire is "caught", it is for going pee pee while standing and her son reacts with horror and violence. This re-enforces the gender normative stereotype that women don't have a penis!

Given these issues, amongst many others I'm sure you will help me to determine, I do not believe Mrs Doubtfire should be broadcast any longer.

I would also suggest that we make more of an effort to reflect and search out potential issues before finding something funny. No one should be in that much of a hurry to laugh.

FFS

I'm so incensed by this "post" i can't even find the words from within to write how angry it makes me feel.

Let's all just pretend the world started last week

gazzer

Let us not forget the brilliance of Mrs Featherbottom

Tired Gardener

This reminds me of Gerry Sadowitz/Alf Garnet/Al Murray, half the audience are in on the joke, while the other half think it is real.

Two groups of people laugh at the same joke... bit for entirely different reasons.

MetzgerMeister

Is Mrs. Doubtfire problematic? No.

Are threads like this problematic? Yes.

It was made at a time when the world wasn't obsessed with PC bullsh!t and wasn't filled with the perpetually-offended like it is today. It is and will always remain a classic film by an out and out talented actor.

El_Duderino 09

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Notwithstanding the OP's trolltastic opener.

Re the term CIS. I don't know anyone who'd actually likes to be called CIS, but I'm okay with the transgender community calling us that when discussing such issues amongst themselves. Free speech and all that.

But they cannot expect us to accept being called CIS or that we adopt the term ourselves when they themselves are very particular as to how they are addressed. Maybe that's their point. Maybe they want him, her and they to be included on official forms.

I'm so glad that's not the type of thing that gets to me. Easy for me to say perhaps, but if that's an issue then there's a lot more to it than wanting to be referred to as 'they'.

Yeah I don't know how I feel about being called cis. But you can take from that I don't have a problem with it.

It comes from discussing these things in detail. If the focus of a discussion is transgenderism and transgender people, then how do you refer to the rest of people? "Normal" is actually a much less descriptive term than you'd imagine. So they define the term they're talking about, something along the lines of "people who's gender, sex and sexual orientation align with heterosexual and social norms". Which may be accurate, but is a mouthful which is a but cumbersome in a discussion about transgenderism. So they coin a new term to stand in for the description. Makes sense to me.

Cis doesn't have any other pre existing meaning that I'm aware of so I don't really see the need to get upset about it. It's just a new word.

HorrorScope

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah I don't know how I feel about being called cis. But you can take from that I don't have a problem with it.

It comes from discussing these things in detail. If the focus of a discussion is transgenderism and transgender people, then how do you refer to the rest of people? "Normal" is actually a much less descriptive term than you'd imagine. So they define the term they're talking about, something along the lines of "people who's gender, sex and sexual orientation align with heterosexual and social norms". Which may be accurate, but is a mouthful which is a but cumbersome in a discussion about transgenderism. So they coin a new term to stand in for the description. Makes sense to me.

Cis doesn't have any other ore existing meaning that I'm aware of so I don't really see the need to get upset about it. It's just a new word.

They also regularly use the Cis term to shut down opinions they don't like - if you are a "cis" male or female, your opinion can be silenced because you're just vanilla as far as they are concerned. They can all **** off with their special little pronouns and descriptors anyway, the real world is not a college safe space or echo chamber.

Plumbthedepths

Bobby Baccala wrote: »

Am I the only cúnt that doesn't know what cis means

It's a bull**** term to describe someone who identifies as the sex they were born with. In other words normal, mainstream. Personally I think it is a term to shutdown debate.

lawred2

fmpisces wrote: »

I watched this a few weeks ago, and do you know what? I enjoyed it more than I did when I watched it years ago. Probably because now I can appreciate the humour and the talent that Robin Williams oozed. Such a funny guy too. I know that's not the point of your post, but to suggest this movie should not be aired anymore is an insult to his memory, in my most humble and honest opinion.

maybe it's just me but I thought the OP was being sarcastic - and quite witty

El_Duderino 09

HorrorScope wrote: »

They also regularly use the Cis term to shut down opinions they don't like - if you are a "cis" male or female, your opinion can be silenced because you're just vanilla as far as they are concerned. They can all **** off with their special little pronouns and descriptors anyway, the real world is not a college safe space or echo chamber.

Does this shouting down with "cis" happen in real life? I've never been told my opinion doesn't matter because I'm "Cis". I also wouldn't stand for being "shouted down" in any kind of normal discussion.

Do you often find yourself being shouted down? Maybe if you argue from premises like "They can all **** off with their special little pronouns and descriptors anyway" it's not really leaving much scope for normal discussion.

razorblunt

I see OP has bypassed Big Momma's House, that awful shíte Taylor Perry does, and White Chicks to pick on Mrs Doubtfire.


I think we can all see this for what it is.




A blatant attack on a quality, classic movie and ignoring the awful much,

HorrorScope

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Does this shouting down with "cis" happen in real life? I've never been told my opinion doesn't matter because I'm "Cis". I also wouldn't stand for being "shouted down" in any kind of normal discussion.

Do you often find yourself being shouted down? Maybe if you argue from premises like "They can all **** off with their special little pronouns and descriptors anyway" it's not really leaving much scope for normal discussion.

Get in to any debates online around this topic and you'll regularly see these buzzwords being thrown around. I don't have any real life examples of it because quite frankly, if someone used that terminology in a conversation I'd laugh in to their face and tell them to **** off.

Cyclepath

lawred2 wrote: »

maybe it's just me but I thought the OP was being sarcastic - and quite witty

Yeah I also read it as fully intended sarcasm - quality trolling right there. We are in the AH forum after all.

MetzgerMeister

razorblunt wrote: »

White Chicks

Two black guys dressing up as white girls. Imagine the outcry if it was white men dressing up as black women...

Stevieluvsye

MetzgerMeister wrote: »

Two black guys dressing up as white girls. Imagine the outcry if it was white men dressing up as black women...

The days of brilliant shoe polish sales have long left us

In all seriousness, i feel like a minority or am regularly shouted down here for voicing my view from lefties and what not.

White, moderate right, 30's, (David Brent), little time for snowflakery

El_Duderino 09

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

It's a bull**** term to describe someone who identifies as the sex they were born with. In other words normal, mainstream. Personally I think it is a term to shutdown debate.

Not if you get into an actual discussion about it. In that case you need operational definitions of terms. Picking new terms Is easier as the new term doesn't have alternative meanings. I could understand if the term chosen for people who's gender, sex and sexual orientation etc. was "shyte" or some other term with an existing derogatory meaning.

The term cis has no pre existing meaning so how can you possibly take offence to it?

Cis is a new term. It has a clear and unambiguous meaning. Simple. This seems like a prime example getting upset about nothing. Ironic really.

Pretzill

I'm of an age now where I can happily just ignore all this woke sh.te. I thought Some Like it Hot was a better film and actually explored the relationship between two men at a time when that was generally taboo. (Nobody's Perfect)

Tootsie was a great film too. Mrs Doubtfire third on my list of movies where men pretend to be women. Robin Williams was a special talent though.

OP I think you're taking the piss.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

Notwithstanding the OP's trolltastic opener.

Re the term CIS. I don't know anyone who'd actually likes to be called CIS, but I'm okay with the transgender community calling us that when discussing such issues amongst themselves. Free speech and all that.

But they cannot expect us to accept being called CIS or that we adopt the term ourselves when they themselves are very particular as to how they are addressed. Maybe that's their point. Maybe they want him, her and they to be included on official forms.

I'm so glad that's not the type of thing that gets to me. Easy for me to say perhaps, but if that's an issue then there's a lot more to it than wanting to be referred to as 'they'.

How I feel, pretty much. It’s something I’ve yet come across in real life but if someone addresses me as cis-gender, that’s fine. I won’t throw a hissy fit. But I’ll never refer to myself as cis-gender.

El_Duderino 09

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

The days of brilliant shoe polish sales have long left us

In all seriousness, i feel like a minority or am regularly shouted down here for voicing my view from lefties and what not.

By shouted down do you mean they remove your ability to post your opinion? Or do you mean they disagree with you which gives you a sad, hence you feel shouted down?

El_Duderino 09

HorrorScope wrote: »

Get in to any debates online around this topic and you'll regularly see these buzzwords being thrown around. I don't have any real life examples of it because quite frankly, if someone used that terminology in a conversation I'd laugh in to their face and tell them to **** off.

So it's not a reality in either of our lives, but you're still cross about it as if it was a regular occurrence. Recipe for outrage and victim hood.

Stevieluvsye

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

By shouted down do you mean they remove your ability to post your opinion? Or do you mean they disagree with you which gives you a sad, hence you feel shouted down?

Ehhh the second one i'll go for.

As in i'll provide a fact or an opinion on something and provide relevant back-up for same but on occasions but will be argued relentlessy without providing a rationale behind their side.........

Boom_Bap

MetzgerMeister wrote: »

Two black guys dressing up as white girls. Imagine the outcry if it was white men dressing up as black women...

RRRiiiiiiiigggggggggggggggggsssssssssssss

Redneck Reject

No love for the film To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything?Heh

El_Duderino 09

Stevieluvsye wrote: »

Ehhh the second one i'll go for.

As in i'll provide a fact or an opinion on something and provide relevant back-up for same but on occasions but will be argued relentlessy without providing a rationale behind their side.........

Sounds to me like you've expressed your opinion in the example above. You can't really expect everyone to agree with you. And that's what you refer to as being shouted down?

optogirl

This reeks of a thread started in order to rant about PC gone mad, snowflake liberals, yada, yada yada.

Stevieluvsye

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sounds to me like you've expressed your opinion in the example above. You can't really expect everyone to agree with you. And that's what you refer to as being shouted down?

No, it's when i provide something that is factually true instead of what my opinion is on the matter, yet the factually correct evidence, or whatever it may be is then disputed with no counter evidence supporting opposite viewpoint

Feisar

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

How I feel, pretty much. It’s something I’ve yet come across in real life but if someone addresses me as cis-gender, that’s fine. I won’t throw a hissy fit. But I’ll never refer to myself as cis-gender.

I'd be sort of a similar viewpoint. This sewage is mainly online at the moment however it'll seep into our real lives soon.

IMHO there are two genders and all the surgery in the world ain't going to change that. However I'll be two faced/lie for the sake of someones feelings. Can't people, whoever they are, that want these labels do the same?