“Ghostbusters” (2016) and the Myth of the Disposable Woman

Someone working deep inside the Clinton campaign must really fucking hate her guts. Old Hillary is gearing up for an appearance on the Ellen show alongside the entire cast of the smelly-like-farts “Ghostbusters” (2016) re-make.  I am praying to Jesus that she comes out with the stupid uniform on, personalized with CLINTON across the left breast; she can have her own proton pack, maybe some impromptu CG will be employed. Please God, make her the honorary fifth Ghostbuster.

Don’t just finger me, God; I want it all the way in.

This stupid movie has the stink of death, and for Clinton to attach herself to it almost certainly means that someone working for her is either certifiably retarded or absolutely insane… but why is this movie so particularly hated?

After all, “Ghostbusters” is a movie and movies are bad.

After Hollywood dissolved the girl movie/boy movie formula and no one really seemed to notice, they got greedy and pushed so hard that the same internet nerds who cheered wildly for two-hours of a girl beating up Storm Troopers helped give “Ghostbusters” a historic million billion YouTube downvotes.

There was something different about “Ghostbusters,” and whether people had the language to verbalize it or not, the trailer managed to create a kind of subconscious irritation so profound that the same body which developed a heavy tolerance for trash and bullshit was able to successfully reject the damaged organ.

While this may happen automatically for the average person, someone who obsesses over bullshit- as I do- can pinpoint where this transition in the trailer occurs; when the body decides no mas, and a mind eager to move past the whole wretched thing forces an angry downvote.

It was when the fat one casually mentions how the girls had “dedicated [their] whole lives to studying the paranormal,” that we go off the rails.

Dedicated their whole lives, implying to the exclusion of everything else; the exclusion of socialization or romantic entanglement; the exclusion of comfort and fun.

Their whole lives, implying that women are as disposable as men… And I’d put a hefty sum of peanuts on this being the point where people check out of the trailer and click the misogynistic “thumbs down.”

And as the girls in grey go on to slug it out with pesky poltergeists it only feels increasingly ridiculous seeing women with laser guns risking their lives on the front line of a paranormal war; because women aren’t disposable. What kind of men inhabit this fictional New York City, anyway, letting women fight their battles?

Women aren’t forgoing social lives in the pursuit of science, nor are they acting as the first line of defense when shit gets real. These are masculine traits, and men realize both positive benefits and negative consequences of this reality.

We understand the inherent value of women and the disposability of men as cultural memes.

The disposability of men dictates that a man must either prove his value or understand he’ll be cast aside in favor of the more valuable; this idea is what maintains the stability of Civilization.

In a world full of animals who want to fuck, men are worthless monkeys dying to stick it in practically anything, and women are coveted selectors who only allow the most valuable monkeys to get their dicks wet; this is ultimately the reason why you have an iPhone, or really anything else for that matter.

Existing with inherent value creates an environment of entitlement and expectation, where a woman doesn’t have to work as hard to meet her needs. Women receive effortless attention and perpetual praise; with this foundation a woman may exert effort to further create an identity for herself- a doctor or lawyer- but it seems as though scientist has a quality of diminishing return; the amount of effort required exceeds the net high-fives received for even bothering. A scientist may spend their entire career as an anonymous link in a chain; hard work and long hours for results only other scientists might appreciate- this is hardly sexy, glamorous, or as effective a tool for identity building as the immediately recognizable Dr. Female Pediatrician would create.

Beyond existing as an unnecessary movie filled with awful comedy, and aren’t they all, this memetic rejection is why the majority audience will have an inherent distaste for “Ghostbusters,” while a small minority of Single Jewish Women will angrily see it with frozen smiles painted on their joyless faces.

Hillary Clinton catering to this hardcore Social Justice crowd is a misstep for someone already so easy to dislike. She senses this, and is responding by hedging all bets on the idea that voters will feel obligated to vote for a woman. While this is probably her best bet right now, using “Ghostbusters” as a vehicle for this pronouncement is the same kind of detached arrogance that Hollywood had in thinking that an all-girl “Ghostbusters” would work in the first place.

And this will be Hillary’s tank moment; the one misstep that sinks the Clinton bid for 2016.

All hail President Trump.

Follow me on Twitter @KillToParty

New to KTP? Check out an assortment of my hand-picked “BEST OF” material.

Like my post? I accept Bitcoin tips via ChangeTip @ killtoparty.tip.me/

Advertisements

16 comments

  1. Paul Murray · May 21, 2016

    The moment when I couldn’t watch that trailer anymore because vomit was “no one understands quantum mechanics like you!”

    First: A world full of eminent scientists. Feynman. Hawking. The dudes building the LHC, the various fusion projects, but the real understander of QM is some fucking chick in New York. Its a random superpower, it seems, like shooting eye-beams, or being able to wiggle your ears.

    Second: Isn’t it obvious with this line, that QM is simply a synonym for “magic”? It’s code for “stuff that no-one understands”? Despite the fact that dozens of people all over the world understand it reasonably well? There’s something in that line that just drips with contempt at the kinds of nerd who like science and math, the people they thought they were marketing this movie at.

    This line makes it utterly plain to the nerd contingent that this movie is simply a movie, done by some people who are not “one of us”. Hence the nerd rage.

  2. Robert What? · May 25, 2016

    It is very possible that everyone in the campaign think this is a brilliant idea. Don’t forget, SJWs have no capability for self reflection and believe that everyone thinks the way they do. (Except, you know, evil people.)

  3. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2016/05/25 | Free Northerner
  4. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2016/05/25 | Neoreactive
  5. EvolutionistX · May 25, 2016

    I was just thinking about this phenomenon in other movies–movies aimed at girls still stick to formulas that make for entertaining girl movies, (eg, Frozen,) but movies aimed at boys have female characters shoved in awkwardly, which makes them not work. Wreck-it-Ralph was a video game movie with its major plot set in a racing game… aimed at girls. The plot revolves around Ralph helping a female race car driver. Why is she a girl? Why can’t we have a movie in which a little boy gets helped out by a father figure? For goodness’ sakes, who do they think is into racing games?

    In Despicable Me, the super villain adopts three little girls; in the sequel, Minions, the minions go to work for a female supervillain who ends up dominating the plot.

    Girls want to self-identify with the characters in their movies, so they like ones with female characters. Same with boys. They like male characters in their stories. Take a male plot and shove in females, and you get a mismatch.

    • I’d like to agree, but in our heavily feminized western culture, little boys see women as tougher than men, more virtuous than men, and smarter than men, so in this regard they’re lucky to have a token male character in the movie at all.

  6. whorefinder · May 26, 2016

    I’ve taken to buying every single Disney cartoon movie made before 1980 in two copies—one to show my nieces immediately and repeatedly (Cinderella is blowing their minds currently), and one to squirrel away, safely, waiting for the day when Disney either blocks their re-release (as with Song of the South) or else Lucas-like desecrates them by deleting the old ones and “improving” them with edits, CGI characters, and new endings (“Cinderella don’t need no man!”).

    .P.S. If anyone knows where I can get a legit copy of Song of the South, hit me up. I actually saw the movie in re-release in the 1980s and loved it. Now Disney has banned it because racism.

  7. tommy · May 27, 2016

    haha trumpbusters! whats the over under on her saying “i ain’t afraid of no trump!” at some point???

  8. Pingback: Some Memorial Day Links with All the Gravitas You'd Expect from Me - Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money
  9. Pingback: Giant Apes, Dinosaurs, and Porn- Reality and “Boogie Nights” (1997) | Kill to Party
  10. Pingback: Giant Apes and Dinosaurs: Male Sexuality through “King Kong” (1933), “Jurassic Park” (1993), and “Jurassic World” (2015) | Kill to Party
  11. Pingback: Male Sexuality through Giant Apes and Dinosaurs | Kill to Party
  12. Pingback: Looks Blue, Tastes Red: “Super” (2010) | Kill to Party

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s