On the Basis of Sex

Get your mind out of the gutter. I’m talking about the movie!

This is the world I grew up in. The world that Ruth Bader Ginsburg grew up in. The world where women came of age. 

I came here to recommend it. To everyone. It’s a piece of history that we need today. 

Some of you will be amazed at where we have come from in a very short time. Some of you will be nostalgic and reminded of important things. Some of you will find yourselves looking in the mirror. And some of you will be offended. 

But I doubt many people can watch this without being impacted. 

Thumbs up!

Noted. Added to my "make a point to watch eventually if I remember it when I stumble on it" list.

I saw the title and thought “what does paul know about the weekend i had???”

In reply to Patrick :

You slept with RBG? 

I haven't seen the movie, so this is more a general comment than anything. This movie is, as far as I am aware, a commercial fictionalization based upon historical figures and events, not a documentary. As such, it is not history, but rather a modern interpretation of history skewed to current sensibilities and designed to draw audiences into theaters. Taking it as a source of straight history is fraught with problems.

Sorry to sound pedantic, but I teach history, and I frequently have to explain this distinction to students.

In reply to 02Pilot :

I’m sure you can give a better balanced view of history.   Maybe you should see the movie and give some legitimate feedback. 

I am not a history teacher, but I did live then. It may have missed a lot of details, but it certainly captured the reality of what life was like. (And I am not an RBG fan). 

I understand the agenda.  It’s still worth seeing. 

In reply to 02Pilot :

And even if it is fictionalized, it still presents good models of people we should all ascribe to emulating. 

Who cares if it’s fictional?  All movies are. 

As an old geezer attorney who went to law school and started practicing when she came on the scene she deserves the designation of the Notorious RBG.  Brave barrister.

So what if the movie uses a little poetic license.

But where is Ruth Bader Ginsburg ? 

No one has seen her for a while. 

Dead? On life support until the clock runs out in 2020? 

Enquiring minds want to know.

Saw the movie at gym during a few workouts. It was ok. 

she’s a strong and smart woman . 

SVreX said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

And even if it is fictionalized, it still presents good models of people we should all ascribe to emulating. 

Who cares if it’s fictional?  All movies are. 

My issue is the blurring of the line between historical fiction and objective truth (i.e., provable with documentary sources). While you and others may understand perfectly the distinction, many do not, and this has broad ramifications. That's all I'm trying to say. If I have a chance to see the movie I will offer some more specific thoughts.

jharry3 said:

But where is Ruth Bader Ginsburg ? 

No one has seen her for a while. 

Dead? On life support until the clock runs out in 2020? 

Enquiring minds want to know.

Take your Russian trolling elsewhere, please.  It isn't needed or wanted here and it has little to do with the subject at hand.

02Pilot said:

SVreX said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

And even if it is fictionalized, it still presents good models of people we should all ascribe to emulating. 

Who cares if it’s fictional?  All movies are. 

My issue is the blurring of the line between historical fiction and objective truth (i.e., provable with documentary sources). While you and others may understand perfectly the distinction, many do not, and this has broad ramifications. That's all I'm trying to say. If I have a chance to see the movie I will offer some more specific thoughts.

 

How about the movie Vice then? 

At the very beginning they post up on the screen something like "Dick Cheney is a mysterious dude so being truthful is hard, but we did our berking best, ok?" and then they present the rest of the movie (insinuating that they know all the details including what he thought) like its the truth. And they might win best picture for it. I haven't seen the RBG movie (wife did - and she loved it), but at least it seems to be celebrating ideals that can be imitated, rather than Vice which seems to be promoting anger. 

But, again, this "objective truth" thing that gets thrown around a lot is only an ideal and is never really achievable. There are always multiple sides to any story. Here is a great example:

Robbie said:

02Pilot said:

SVreX said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

And even if it is fictionalized, it still presents good models of people we should all ascribe to emulating. 

Who cares if it’s fictional?  All movies are. 

My issue is the blurring of the line between historical fiction and objective truth (i.e., provable with documentary sources). While you and others may understand perfectly the distinction, many do not, and this has broad ramifications. That's all I'm trying to say. If I have a chance to see the movie I will offer some more specific thoughts.

 

But, again, this "objective truth" thing that gets thrown around a lot is only an ideal and is never really achievable. There are always multiple sides to any story.

The standard of objective truth is always going to be an ideal, but a reasonable standard of truth is that which is supportable by documentary evidence. Of course this still leaves room for interpretation and uncertainty, but it's the best we can do. The objectives of the presenter matter as well, whether the tone of the film set by the screenwriter and director, or the view of history advocated by the historian. But fundamentally my concern is less with conclusions than how they are arrived at - fictional entertainment films are not historical sources (unless the subject is the history of film), but when they address historical subjects, especially in plausible ways (which they often do, as the plausibility usually adds to their commercial appeal), they are often mistaken for such.

I fully admit that when I see a fictional film that portrays a political or historical figure in a way I support I find it appealing, and when a film pillories such a figure I don't. But in neither case do I mistake the fictionalization for reality. Again, my only point in this is to emphasize the importance of maintaining an awareness of the nature of the sources that inform our understanding of history. Apologies to the OP for derailing the thread - I'll shut up now.

In reply to 02Pilot :

That line was blurred, err eradicated a very long time ago. 

The only objective truth is that all of us are barraged daily with infinite images and data, all of which can be (and are) manipulated to fit various agendas. 

Even “documentaries” present a bias and a viewpoint.  The perspective of the eye of the director always has more influence than the actual historical facts.

Your training is in education.  Mine in in the entertainment and media industry. 

In reply to 02Pilot :

To say it a little briefer, history books are written by the winners of wars. 

I don’t have to present an objective truth if I can make you believe I have presented an objective truth. 

Stefan said:

jharry3 said:

But where is Ruth Bader Ginsburg ? 

No one has seen her for a while. 

Dead? On life support until the clock runs out in 2020? 

Enquiring minds want to know.

Take your Russian trolling elsewhere, please.  It isn't needed or wanted here and it has little to do with the subject at hand.

Right, the subject is the fictionalized account of Ginsburg's life.   Nothing about reality. 

SVreX said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

That line was blurred, err eradicated a very long time ago. 

The line is still very much in place among historians, at least those devoted to the discipline over an agenda.

The only objective truth is that all of us are barraged daily with infinite images and data, all of which can be (and is) manipulated to fit various agendas.

Data and analysis are two different things.

Even “documentaries” present a bias and a viewpoint.  The perspective of the eye of the director always has more influence than the actual historical facts.

Indeed. Documentary films are often produced with a predetermined agenda and set of outcomes, to which evidence is selectively then applied for support. From the perspective of a historian, an important part of viewing a documentary is identifying what evidence was left out and why.

Your training is in education.  Mine in in the entertainment and media industry. 

I have no training in education beyond some professional development conferences. My training is in history and international relations.

To say it a little briefer, history books are written by the winners of wars. 

That may have been true at a time when fewer books were being produced, but today there are many, many versions of history written by (broadly speaking) the winners, the losers, and third parties with various allegiances and motives.

I don’t have to present an objective truth if I can make you believe I have presented an objective truth. 

And my job is to train people to be better at discriminating between what has been presented and what the evidence supports.

and poo-slinging starts in 3... 2...

IBTL because human nature 

AngryCorvair said:

and poo-slinging starts in 3... 2...

IBTL because human nature 

Do you have any facts to back up your bonehead assertions? You are offending giant chunks of the world population with your absolute-no-brained, self-centered, small-minded, politically-driven, for-profit, minority-aggrandizing, hocus-pocus, liberal-right-wing comments that aren't welcome by me. 

I bet you don't even believe in science. 

jharry3 said:

Stefan said:

jharry3 said:

But where is Ruth Bader Ginsburg ? 

No one has seen her for a while. 

Dead? On life support until the clock runs out in 2020? 

Enquiring minds want to know.

Take your Russian trolling elsewhere, please.  It isn't needed or wanted here and it has little to do with the subject at hand.

Right, the subject is the fictionalized account of Ginsburg's life.   Nothing about reality. 

Try again.  It has to do with the movie and her actions and choices at the time and the content of the movie.  Current day conspiracies are not welcome or wanted here.

AngryCorvair said:

and poo-slinging starts in 3... 2...

IBTL because human nature 

It won't be from me. I'm exchanging perspectives on a topic. I'm perfectly content if others don't share my views, nor do I feel a need to have the last word. If anyone other than the OP had continued the conversation I would have bowed out as I said was my intention so as not to derail the thread; if the OP is OK with going in this direction, then I'll continue as long as it's a civil discourse.

02Pilot said:

SVreX said:

In reply to 02Pilot :

That line was blurred, err eradicated a very long time ago. 

The line is still very much in place among historians, at least those devoted to the discipline over an agenda.

The only objective truth is that all of us are barraged daily with infinite images and data, all of which can be (and is) manipulated to fit various agendas.

Data and analysis are two different things.

Even “documentaries” present a bias and a viewpoint.  The perspective of the eye of the director always has more influence than the actual historical facts.

Indeed. Documentary films are often produced with a predetermined agenda and set of outcomes, to which evidence is selectively then applied for support. From the perspective of a historian, an important part of viewing a documentary is identifying what evidence was left out and why.

Your training is in education.  Mine in in the entertainment and media industry. 

I have no training in education beyond some professional development conferences. My training is in history and international relations.

To say it a little briefer, history books are written by the winners of wars. 

That may have been true at a time when fewer books were being produced, but today there are many, many versions of history written by (broadly speaking) the winners, the losers, and third parties with various allegiances and motives.

I don’t have to present an objective truth if I can make you believe I have presented an objective truth. 

And my job is to train people to be better at discriminating between what has been presented and what the evidence supports.

 

Thank you, O2Pilot. I welcome your input.

In reply to Robbie :

... 1  ;-)

And in reply to 02Pilot :

not directed at you.   the usual suspects haven't arrived yet.   the over/under on pages before lock is 10.  i'm taking the under for $1.

AngryCorvair said:

In reply to Robbie :

... 1

lol