GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Nathan's Super Secret London Thingy

POSTED BY: CHINDI
UPDATED: Saturday, June 30, 2007 15:25
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 15231
PAGE 1 of 2

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 12:12 PM

CHINDI


Check out the link for this London art project...

and who did Martin Firrell select as his first hero?

Our Captain.. our Nathan.


http://www.martinfirrell.com/supersecretthingy.html

Chindi

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 12:27 PM

YINYANG

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.


Whoa... that's awesome! Nathan is such a good guy, to be a part of that.

"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 1:11 PM

PENGUIN


That's pretty cool!




King of the Mythical Land that is Iowa

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 2:35 PM

NICODEMUS


Very impressive, even if it did take a while to load on dial-up.

**************
Warning: Sig test in progress.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 3:22 PM

FLORALBUNNY


Yes, worth the wait on dial-up. Nice to see
Nathan as "himself."

Our Captain, OTOH, is pretty quick with a pistol,
a wrench, a fist, even against a female...

The text would fit Joss pretty well, too.
Will be interesting to see whom Firrell
has chosen as the rest of the "cast."



bun
Frisky Browncoat
~etc.~

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 4:11 PM

NCBROWNCOAT


It looks like this will be tremendous. I can't wait to see the whole work.

http://fireflyfaninnc.livejournal.com/








NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 7:27 PM

WHIMSICALNBRAINPAN


Wow!

"Well, my days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle." http://whimsicalnbrainpan.blogspot.com/

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 1:07 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


Very shiny! Thanks for the link. Nathan is so ruttin' cool.

__________________________________________
Holding the line since December '02!

[img] [/img]

Richmond, VA & surrounding area Firefly Fans:

http://www.richmondbrowncoats.org

Color Sergeant

[img] [/img]

http://76thbattalion.homestead.com/index.html


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 3:34 AM

CLEMENTINE


Awesome! Thanks for the link. I'd been wondering about that.

Go CSTS!
__________________________________________

Captain!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 10:45 AM

STOWEAWAY


I signed up for e-mail updates. I can't wait to see this unfold.
Just the promo on the website made me cry.

Anyone think it's possible to re-train men to think more like women? You know, kindness first. Or is it genetically encoded? I'd like to think it's possible.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 11:06 AM

HOPERULES


Guest it is just me but I like men who think like men. As a women, I think men are kind of cool the way they are. Also, I'm not so sure that women always put kindness first.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 12:40 PM

STOWEAWAY


Quote:

Originally posted by Hoperules:
Also, I'm not so sure that women always put kindness first.



You do have a point there.
Although I've found that since I had children, I tend to be more inclined to kindness than not.
So maybe it's not a matter of thinking like a woman but thinking like a mother ???

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 2:29 PM

HOPERULES


Maybe it is thinking like parent. No one can seem kinder or gentler than a father playing with or teaching something to his child.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 2:53 PM

NVGHOSTRIDER


Not to sound too condecending, but equality really is showed very well by the captain.

I am in no way condoning violence against women. Violence against anyone is wrong regardless of sex.

But Captain Malcolm Reynolds never forced his hand with a woman from what was shown in Firefly. He always asserted himself equally regardless of sex. And as for striking Yo/Saf/Bridg; I would done the same. He dealt with her as he would have dealt with any man. I'm sure he woulda shot her a few times if there were an absolute need.

So here is my view on equality: Women should be allowed into predominantly male everything. Any person that can get the job done well should be allowed to do so. Women have just as much right to die horribly as any man.

So in the coming years I will be more equality minded. Following the good Captains lead I'll be sure that if ever attacked, regardless of sex, the punches to the head I deal will be swift and without remorse.

*Please take this however you may. I do not condone violence but recognize that not all conflicts can be resolved without it. I do believe that Nathan Fillion is a dynamic, caring, and just individual. He is one of but a few celebrities who has truly found their way to my heart. I just find some of the piece to be a bit condecending.*






LIBERTAS SUMPTUS

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 5:48 PM

KAYNA

I love my captain


Hmmmmm.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Op: You're fighting a war you've already lost.
Mal: Yeah, well I'm known for that.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 7, 2007 8:33 AM

CHINDI


bumping

Chinci

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 7, 2007 12:14 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Wow, does this whole thing miss the point.

The fact of the matter is that if one looks at where the *vast* majority of violence is coming from (the dregs of society), the women are just as violent as the men.

Also, when one looks at where the least violence is coming from (the highly educated), the women are just as forceful (non-violently) as the men with just as little violence.

This is _not_ a insignificant.

This whole thing has extremely little to do with sex and what the difference is in how sexes are brought up. It has everything to do with the environment in which people are brought up in i.e. generally speaking, if one is brought up in a violent environment they become a violent person, but if one is brought up in a relatively peaceful environment (and gets educated), they become a non-violent person.

As a general rule: Education and upbringing in a non-violent environment breeds peaceful behaviour regardless of sex.


Quite frankly, I'm getting really really sick of this "a very specific part of society has a problem so lets attack this problem in this very specific part of society completely ignoring the fact that this problem isn't specific to this very specific part of society in any way shape or form especially considering the way that it is being presented" BS.

If we want people to be less violent, then we have to change society so that these violent pockets get smaller. The long term solution (b/c there is no short term one) is increasing the quality of education and getting parents to instill respect for education in there children.

If this is done, we'll be seeing (lasting) returns in a decade or two. But, to really see things happening, we'll have to wait till the new quality teachers start teaching and the next generation grows up.

I know that this doesn't appeal to the instant gratification people (read: most people), but there really isn't another way. After all, we're talking about changing society, not ordering KFC.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 7, 2007 2:44 PM

STOWEAWAY


My reference to "male behaviour" was merely an extension of what is stated in the Martin Firrell project.
No haters here. I likes menz.
No doubt there are pockets in society (all genders) who could use an attitude adjustment.
Apparently this project only addresses the male persuasion.

--Tanya

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 7, 2007 4:16 PM

TVCHICK


Ok, srsly, am I the ONLY one who thought that kinda sucked? I'm serious. Get to the freaking POINT already. At least if it was on YouTube, I could zip through the music till it got to words...

---
Join Operation Signal Boost 2007!
http://digg.com/movies/Fans_of_Joss_Whedon_s_Serenity_Firefly_try_to_B
oost_the_Signal

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 7, 2007 5:24 PM

DERANGEDMILK


Quote:


Ok, srsly, am I the ONLY one who thought that kinda sucked? I'm serious. Get to the freaking POINT already. At least if it was on YouTube, I could zip through the music till it got to words...



I take it you aren't the art show type

Thats okay, I'm not either although I wouldn't say it even kinda sucked. I liked it. Not sure of the point of the gray bars though. :shrug: I like the sentiment behind it though (A LOT!) and I'm glad Nathan is taking part in something very, very positive. Redifing masculine role models, especially in the main stream media and popular video entertainment, absolutely has to be done. Kudos all around IMHO.
-e

"Storms getting worse."
"We'll pass through it soon enough."

Vote for Firefly at http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 7, 2007 5:35 PM

ANONYMOUS1


Chindi,

Your post made the news sections! That means tons of people will read it.

Whoo-hoo!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 7, 2007 7:27 PM

HOPERULES


I suppose this redefinition of male role models in the main steam media would exclude Mal being as he uses force (violence) to do what is right when he protects River and fights the operative. Also, it seems to me he acts without much thought when carries River out of the bar instead of just leaving her for the Alliance. Not a very thoughtful decision when the safety of Serenity and the rest of her crew is his first priority.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 8, 2007 1:56 AM

TVCHICK


Quote:

Originally posted by derangedmilk:
I take it you aren't the art show type

Well, actually, I really like museums. When I went to college, my first major was art. (Changed majors, but hey.) I guess maybe I just don't like being a "captive" audience... Give me a chance to absorb it on my own & in my own time.

---
Join Operation Signal Boost 2007!
http://digg.com/movies/Fans_of_Joss_Whedon_s_Serenity_Firefly_try_to_B
oost_the_Signal

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 8, 2007 3:42 AM

MAL4PREZ


TVchick - I wouldn't go so far as to say it sucked, but...

OK, I love Nathan as much as any as of us fannish types, and him talking was nice. But all the pretty lights on Nathan's face times 3, times 5, over and over... silly. It turned from a social message into let's worship Nathan's pretty face time. It's a darned nice face, but is that really what they're after?

Yeah, it didn't work for me. And I'm talking about the artistic intent of it - the pretty pictures got in the way. I'd rather hear him talk more. His nice looks aren't what make him heroic.

-----------------------------------------------
I'm the president. I don't need to listen.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 8, 2007 9:36 AM

SIGMANUNKI


@StoweAway:

My comment wasn't directed at you in particular. But, rather the project in general.

Quite frankly, I find the whole project a waste of time; it isn't going to work one iota. The problem with it is that is doesn't address the underlying problem nor does even properly address the apparent target (i.e. males).

Basically, any male that this project targets is going to laugh at and ignore it. It doesn't remove the actual cause of this problem, nor other areas of society that are "infected." Thus any gain will quickly be not gains as the "neighbouring" parts of society that are "infected" will remove the gains.

Quite frankly, I find it sad that so much time, money, and energy is being put into such an obviously flawed project. Especially since the real solution is so bloody obvious. After all, when's the last time you heard of a Ph.D. gang banging?

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 8, 2007 5:13 PM

ANONYMOUS1


Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quite frankly, I find the whole project a waste of time; it isn't going to work one iota. The problem with it is that is doesn't address the underlying problem nor does even properly address the apparent target (i.e. males).



Remember we are only seeing a portion of the artwork.

And thinking about the apparent target audience being male made me think that maybe the artist is trying to reach women...especially women that feel men have to get weaker for women to be equal. But then I don't think the artist is limiting his audience to a specific gender.

Remember that one of the purposes of art is to make people think. And the artist does his artwork in public not just inside museums. So he is trying to do a little art education by bringing his artwork outside.

See his wiki page for more info.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 8, 2007 5:48 PM

ANONYMOUS1


Quote:

Originally posted by Hoperules:
I suppose this redefinition of male role models in the main steam media would exclude Mal being as he uses force (violence) to do what is right when he protects River and fights the operative. Also, it seems to me he acts without much thought when carries River out of the bar instead of just leaving her for the Alliance. Not a very thoughtful decision when the safety of Serenity and the rest of her crew is his first priority.



I think Mal thought about River and the danger and he also knew that Alliance had done this to her. When she was lying on the floor asleep, Mal reacted with his heart and brain. He thought about it and then he acted. That is Mal. Jayne acts without thinking mostly. Reavers act without thinking mostly too.

Mal he wouldn't kill unless he has to. Firefly deleted scene.

Mal: Somebody every tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back.

Strength without Force.

This is also Mal. Doesn't mean he doesn't use force. Doesn't mean he is never violent. The Captain walks softly and carries a big gun.

Remember when Jayne explained the chain of command to Wash. Jayne couldn't run the ship without violence or the threat of violence. Mal only uses violence against the crew when he has too. Like shoving Wash against the wall in Out of Gas or hitting Jayne with the wrench in Ariel. The Captain is the Captain because of his strength. The crew is on the ship because they want to be and when they don't want to be, they leave. Jayne would have trouble keeping any of the crew on his ship.

Reavers are definitely all force. All violence. But they don't seem to have trouble keeping other Reavers on their ships. I wonder if they have Captains.

You know I was thinking the artist picked Nathan because of something he saw in Nathan's face that would present the type of face he wanted to show and had nothing to actually do with how Nathan lives or Nathan's work as an actor.

It is interesting to think the artist is actually thinking about Mal and the future that Joss wrote about.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 8, 2007 7:48 PM

SPACEGIRL32


Very nice Anonymous1,

I do hope you sent your thought to Martin already. Do send in both of these posts.

Keep up the Good Work!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 8, 2007 7:57 PM

HOPERULES


I agree that Nathan's involvement in this project probably has nothing to do with his portrayal of Mal (except maybe for the fact that playing Mal has made him nearly famous). However, I do think Mal represents the kind of timeless hero who stands up for what is right and sacrifices for others. I also think heroes sometimes do heroic things without thinking through the consequences which Mal seems to do a time or two. While Mal is fictional, there are real heroes who exhibit these qualities. Examples include the man who threw himself under a subway train to save a stranger's life and the soldiers in WWII who defeated Hitler and stopped the Holocaust. These men should be heroes today and a thousand years from now. Finally, violence is just a tool heroes have sometimes used to stand up for justice and to protect others. I don't think the idea of a hero needs to be redefined. In fact, these days we could use a few more men who are willing to stand up for what is right and sacrifice for others.

P.S. My guess is that Jayne thinks about his actions, but he is often ONLY thinking of himself.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 8, 2007 7:59 PM

ANONYMOUS1


Quote:

Originally posted by Spacegirl32:
Very nice Anonymous1,

I do hope you sent your thought to Martin already. Do send in both of these posts.

Keep up the Good Work!



Nope. Too anonymous to do that. See I can post here because I'm anonymous. Took me a while to do that in the beginning even though I was Anonymous1.

Might post to the artist someday. Maybe after the work is finished.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 9, 2007 1:15 AM

ARTISOXYGEN


Thanks Chindi for the link!

Watching that gave me goosebumps, what an awesome piece of art. Nathan seems to me to be an excellent choice for this project.

"..new breed of hero where kindness is seen as a greater expression of strength than cruelty.."

...I like that.
Art.

Life beats down and crushes the soul and Art reminds you that you have one. -Stella Adler

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 9, 2007 4:04 AM

HOPERULES


Funny, I don't think the old breed of hero is considered cruel, just brave and selfless.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 9, 2007 5:41 AM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by Anonymous1:

Remember we are only seeing a portion of the artwork.

And thinking about the apparent target audience being male made me think that maybe the artist is trying to reach women...especially women that feel men have to get weaker for women to be equal. But then I don't think the artist is limiting his audience to a specific gender.

Remember that one of the purposes of art is to make people think. And the artist does his artwork in public not just inside museums. So he is trying to do a little art education by bringing his artwork outside.

See his wiki page for more info.




Thinking that art is going to reach anyone in the dregs of society, never mind effect them positively, is more than just naive.

Sorry, but this whole idea just doesn't hold water no matter which way you look at it.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 9, 2007 5:58 AM

ANONYMOUS1


Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:



Thinking that art is going to reach anyone in the dregs of society, never mind effect them positively, is more than just naive.




Maybe a child of a dreg or a homeless person or a criminal will walk by the outside of the museum and think people make money doing ??? that and start their own art project.

Really it could happen. I like being naive. Serenity sequel, sequel, Serenity ship we can tour at Universal studios, Firefly SCI-FI movie like episodes.

Criminal might go steal a camera though. Take films of crimes and be a yahoo-star. GRRRRH! ARRRGH!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 9, 2007 6:28 AM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by Anonymous1:

Maybe a child of a dreg or a homeless person or a criminal will walk by the outside of the museum and think people make money doing ??? that and start their own art project.




With what money? That is assuming that a dreg would pass by a museum. Which isn't exactly a good assumption given where museums are and where the dregs are.


Quote:

Originally posted by Anonymous1:

Criminal might go steal a camera though. Take films of crimes and be a yahoo-star. GRRRRH! ARRRGH!




Or, more likely, they'll fence it. Then go grrrh! arrrgh! with the drugs bought afterward.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 9, 2007 6:47 AM

ANONYMOUS1


Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:

Originally posted by Anonymous1:

Maybe a child of a dreg or a homeless person or a criminal will walk by the outside of the museum and think people make money doing ??? that and start their own art project.




With what money? That is assuming that a dreg would pass by a museum. Which isn't exactly a good assumption given where museums are and where the dregs are.




Nice pretty stack of aluminum cans and other garbage has been used for art projects. Lots of junk art out there. Heh.

The artists Wiki page says he also did this :

Quote:

Everyone should be entitled to at least one personal idiosyncrasy (placards, postcards and vinyl panels funded by the International Herald Tribune) 2005


Also this:

Quote:

described by The Guardian newspaper as a public artist who places text in public spaces because he believes art’s place is at the centre of everyday life, not as a specialist activity at the margins of mainstream society.


So maybe he is trying to reach the dregs. EEEK! THAT IS WHY HE HAS INCLUDED THE INTERNET IN HIS ART PROJECT AND INCLUDED NATHAN. TO REACH US DREGS OF THE INTERNET.




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 9, 2007 6:39 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"Strength Without Force"

I don't think I buy that we need 'a new kind' of hero for the 21st century. I don't buy that Strength must come without Force.

Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ghandi were, I believe, two 20th century heroes who embraced Strength without Force, essentially becoming catalysts for change without relying on violence.

On the other hand, the 20th century also provides us with examples of heroes who used violence to great success in opposing the forces of evil.

Violence is a tool. There have always been heroes who wield it, and there have always been heroes who choose not to. In every century.

I'm glad Nathan is getting exposure, but I dread the idea of any philosophy or art that is exclusive on the issue of violence.

Violence, or Force, is neither to be preferred nor shunned. It is a tool, and it should remain on the table for all heroes, everywhere, and in any time.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 9, 2007 7:56 PM

AVALONSMOMMY


Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Wow, does this whole thing miss the point.

The fact of the matter is that if one looks at where the *vast* majority of violence is coming from (the dregs of society), the women are just as violent as the men.

Also, when one looks at where the least violence is coming from (the highly educated), the women are just as forceful (non-violently) as the men with just as little violence.

This is _not_ a insignificant.

This whole thing has extremely little to do with sex and what the difference is in how sexes are brought up. It has everything to do with the environment in which people are brought up in i.e. generally speaking, if one is brought up in a violent environment they become a violent person, but if one is brought up in a relatively peaceful environment (and gets educated), they become a non-violent person.

As a general rule: Education and upbringing in a non-violent environment breeds peaceful behaviour regardless of sex.


Quite frankly, I'm getting really really sick of this "a very specific part of society has a problem so lets attack this problem in this very specific part of society completely ignoring the fact that this problem isn't specific to this very specific part of society in any way shape or form especially considering the way that it is being presented" BS.

If we want people to be less violent, then we have to change society so that these violent pockets get smaller. The long term solution (b/c there is no short term one) is increasing the quality of education and getting parents to instill respect for education in there children.

If this is done, we'll be seeing (lasting) returns in a decade or two. But, to really see things happening, we'll have to wait till the new quality teachers start teaching and the next generation grows up.

I know that this doesn't appeal to the instant gratification people (read: most people), but there really isn't another way. After all, we're talking about changing society, not ordering KFC.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"



Okay, unfortunately I don't have time to read this entire thread, but I had to stick my two cents in here. Society, in general, is not going to change for the better unless some tragedy takes place, probably to a celebrity or public figure, that makes people say, "Oh my god!" This is what happened when Lisa Steinberg was murdered by her adoptive parents years ago. Suddenly, the law went to the opposite extreme on disciplining your children. Prior to that, if you swore in front of your mother, she was well within her rights to slap you in the mouth. The gods know it happened in my house often enough! And it wasn't abuse unless your parent beat you to a bloody pulp. Now, if you spank your child, the whole world screams abuse. Our society lives on extremes. Part of the reason things do not improve is the fact that children receive less discipline because their parents are afraid of going to jail for child abuse. If you have a child who is obedient without spankings, more power to you. If you have a kid anything like I was, a spanking was the only thing that made any difference.

Parents, who are the backbone of society because they are a child's first teachers, are fearful of discipline, so the child receives very little of that and ends up bullying the parents. Add to that, everyone wants to be more "civilized": hand condoms to teens; give them choices, not orders, talk to them as rational human beings and let them make their own decisions. First of all, I haven't met a teen yet who has enough life experience to be able to make their own decisions about life. But society hands the reins over to children now, tells an adult that they are abusive because they hit their child, and then wonders why things go to hell in a handbasket.

When I was a kid, getting knocked upside the head when you did something wrong was a regular occurrence. Parents didn't need to go on a talk show to send you to boot camp to get you an attitude adjustment. You got it at home! And you didn't see parents in tears saying "Oh my god, I'm terrified of little Johnny", because little Johnny got his rear end tanned when he got out of line! Sure, you had some violence, and some kids were out there doing what they weren't supposed to do, but the vast majority of society back then were children being raised by parents who said, "If you do so-and-so, I will knock you to kingdom come", and the children had seen kingdom come and knew it wasn't pretty, and they did AS THEY WERE TOLD. If you hand a kid a condom and say "Now, this isn't me saying that it's okay for you to have sex, I'm saying that IF you must do it, use this", what the kid hears is "It's okay for you to have sex." The beginning and ending of the whole statement is lost in the ether. It isn't gender that is the problem. It isn't even the dregs of society. It's society's penchant for stupidity wrapped up in the guise of making everything better. Don't spank Johnny, put him in the corner for a time out/ground him/take a privilege away/talk to him. And if Johnny is anything like me, when all those things fail, then what do you do? My mother knocked us silly!

There are those that will say, oh, but spanking doesn't accomplish anything but making a child fear its parents, and obedience through fear is no good. Bulls***! You're a parent, not their gorram playmate. You don't do something wrong, you have no reason to fear. I got my hide tanned on a regular basis, growing up. If it didn't get tanned one day, I was either not home, or I was sick. I did not, and do not, fear my parents. I have a very healthy respect for them, but I don't fear them. I learned to fear consequences, and a child SHOULD fear those. My parents never laid a hand on me EXCEPT as a consequence of something I had done that I shouldn't have. So rather than looking at the area it's coming from, look at the laws that tie the hands of society's parents first. Education is good too, don't get me wrong, but all the education in the world isn't going to do you any good if the law says call the police if mommy hits you. Now, if they amended it to read "If your parent is beating you until you break bones, call the police", that makes sense. But if all she did was give you a good slap in the mouth because you were cussing? I say kudos to her, because she's teaching you that you can't get away with everything, and that every action has a consequence, and you won't always like those consequences.

My mother died last summer, and let me tell you: I was almost a foot taller, and 100 pounds heavier, and right up until she died, if I had ever committed a crime, I would have faked my death, not to avoid jail, but to avoid the parental consequences!

Burn the land and boil the sea; you can't take the sky from me

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:13 PM

LIVLASS


That is assuming that a dreg would pass by a museum

maybe they'd see on a class trip? they do that even for the dregs' kids, you know.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 11, 2007 12:18 AM

JETFLAIR


I think the project is beautiful, timely, and thought-provoking. I don't see it as attacking men, I see it as embracing their strength and their heroic natures, while stating very firmly that they need a different model of heroism.

Someone commented that the project might appeal to women that feel men have to get weaker for women to be equal. That rankles me a bit.

I'm a woman. I love strong men with all my heart. As a woman, I resent the implication that I somehow need a man to become weaker to become my equal. Equality is a matter of respect, not brute force.

Mal is stronger than me...physically and emotionally. He also has a deep respect for women, treating them as equals in combat and intellect while respecting their feelings and emotions. Would I want Mal to be a weaker man so he could be my "equal?" Not for a second. So don't get my motivations wrong when I say I love what this project stands for.

I love Mal and consider him my hero. He's a man living in a violent world, violence is part of his life, and I think no less of him for that; in fact I love him for many of his violent acts.

But Mal is fictional. Martin is addressing real people in the real, contemporary world with this project. Different thing entirely. While violence is *sometimes* a requirement in this world, we turn to it, worship it, and revel in it far too much.....especially men.

One of the strongest and bravest things a man can do in this society is to admit to compassion, kindness, and love. Why? Because there will be people like those on this thread lining up to attack him, underestimate him, and call him weak as a result.

I believe Martin's point is that kindness and nonviolence should stop being equated with weakness. I couldn't agree more.

Please understand that I am not a pacifist. I have been the target of violence and I have used violence against others in self-defense. But I think we need to stop equating violence with strength and heroism. We need to stop equating caring, compassion, and non-violence with weakness. I respect Nathan very much for being a part of this project.





"Love keeps her in the air when she oughta fall down, tells you when she's hurting 'fore she keens. Makes her a home." .......We love you, captain.

"This is the captain. We may experience some slight turbulence and then.....explode"

www.serenityverse.com - Zoe necklace replicas, Serenity dogtags, jewelry, image gallery w/ custom DVD covers, other goodies!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 11, 2007 2:35 AM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important


"Equality is a matter of respect, not brute force."

This is interesting to me. I consider women to be equals to men, but I don't agree with this analogy.

Equality is not a matter of respect. People don't become my equal because I respect them.

Respect does not breed Equality, in my opinion, but rather the reverse. Equality breeds Respect. Women who are physically inferior to me have consistently, throughout my life, shown their great intelligence, compassion, and innovation. They make physical strength a non-issue, thus demonstrating equality and earning respect.

It's important, in my mind, to understand that Equality doesn't mean, "Any woman can be as strong as any man," but rather "Any woman can be as good/effective with her own talents and attributes as any man can be with his." In essence, a pound of sand and a pound of feathers are very different things, but they are still a pound.

So, women have earned my respect by being my equal. They did not become my equal when I respected them. They were always my equal. The respect was a consequence, not a catalyst.

*********************************
*********************************


As for Strength Without Force... it's not a new concept, as I've said already. I've never equated compassion and love with weakness. But I also believe you can be full of love and compassion and use violent Force for the better good.

Violence is a tool. Like a wrench. And it solves its share of problems. Action films are usually filled with those kinds of problems, thus creating the false impression that violence is the only form of strength that 'the modern man' respects.

It's not. We make Dramas and Comedies and all other sorts of films, too. Works of art where violence is not the primary tool for solving problems. Rather, self-realization, wisdom, and internal growth and change seem to be the tools of choice for heroes in those genre.

So... this art project seems largely redundant to me. It has nothing new to say, and leverages itself on a false premise.

Or am I the only man on this board who hasn't used violence to solve problems in the past year?

--Anthony



"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 11, 2007 6:02 AM

HOPERULES


When reading this tread I DON'T see where people have attacking men who admit to compassion, kindness, and love.

Rather, they have been questioning the effectiveness of this project. This is a legitmate question because the people Mr. Firrell seems to be trying to reach are probably not that into art.

Also, some people on this thread are standing up of the "old breed of hero" who is kind and compassionate, but often expresses it through actions, not necessarily words and, yes, sometimes uses the tool of force to stand for what is right and protect others. This kind of hero risks everything for love. Mr. Firrell's project seems to be attacking him by implying he is not good enough. That somehow he is too violent. What is strange about this criticism is that the "old breed of hero" does not even always use force.

By the way, this "old breed of hero" does really exists. Please check out earlier posts for examples.

Finally, I wish people would stop attacking men as a group. I know there are some bad ones out there. However, generally I have found men to be funny, honest, kind without being sappy, competitive in a way that is fun to watch, practical when solving problems, romantic, and protective of those they love. I like all these qualities and think the world is a better place because there are men in it.

May have been on the losing side, still not convinced it was the wrong one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 11, 2007 6:58 AM

ANONYMOUS1


Quote:

Originally posted by jetflair:
Someone commented that the project might appeal to women that feel men have to get weaker for women to be equal. That rankles me a bit.



Read what I said again.

It is not that the artwork would appeal to THOSE women but that the artwork might be trying to get THOSE WOMEN to accept the strength that exists in men. And not try to make men weaker.

What I was trying to say that maybe the artist is trying to get through to the women who think men have to get weaker to make women equal. You know THOSE women are out there. THOSE women (NOT YOU. NOT ME. ) feel threatened by any sign of strength in men.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 11, 2007 7:59 AM

MAL4PREZ


Does anyone else question the artistic intent and presentation of this whole thing? I'm not seeing much actual critique of the creation, just a lot of disagreement over the message behind it. (Which, I think, is very telling.)

My take is this: the artist clearly has something to say something about the behavior and mentality of men in our society, (am I'm pretty sure I could like that message, and debate it all day...) but his way to do it is to make a few grossly general statements and then shine colored lights on a guy's face.

Am I the only one who sees this as just plain silly? It's impersonal, even superficial. Why was Nathan chosen? Because a few things in that general statement "rang true" with him? Because he looks good all lit up like a christmas tree? That's all there is in the video!

Wouldn't it be nice if there was something about *Nathan* in the little vid, so we get a grip on why he's being presented as a hero? Without something personal, this whole message is, imo, useless. Who (besides us obsessed folk) is going to give a damn? And even with us, who've heard stories and stories of how great Nathan is, it seems half the discussion on this thread is about Malcolm Reynolds. Again, very telling. We were given nothing to make us see Nathan on the screen instead of Mal. But they're completely different men!! Which is the artist calling a hero? Sure, I know it's Nathan, but again I ask - why?

Yeah, so I've thought about it and I'm agreeing with TVchick. This thing is just pointless. Unless there's a whole lot more to it that has actual content...


-----------------------------------------------
I'm the president. I don't need to listen.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 11, 2007 8:47 AM

HOPERULES


Mal4prez, you have a good point. I guess I've been reacting to the message I can glean from a few words and some funky pictures. It may not even be the message the artist is trying send. It is hard to tell.

Why Nathan? Good question. I think it is probably his looks. Not a bad reason. I don't know if Mr. Firrell knows Nathan well enough to understand his character. Nathan seems like a good guy who is generous, funny, smart, and charming. Does that make him a hero? I'm not sure. Personally, I've always seen heroes as the kind of people who run into burning buildings to save lives (firefighters and superheroes), protect society from violent evil doers (police officers and superheroes), and go to Africa to help the extremely poor and sick (saints).

I just had a thought. Maybe Nathan is secretly a superhero.

May have been on the losing side, still not convinced it was the wrong one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 11, 2007 3:04 PM

ANONYMOUS1


Nathan is my hero because he helped save a cancelled convention.

Remember we are only seeing Nathan's part of the artwork. And also only what the artist put on the internet SO FAR. We have no idea what will be displayed on the museum. I am thinking that the part where Nathan talks is not going to be shown on the museum. BUT I don't know.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 5:09 AM

MAL4PREZ


Quote:

Originally posted by Anonymous1:
Nathan is my hero because he helped save a cancelled convention.

Too true! I was there, and I'm still amazed at how this man can bring a room to life. I even got a handout from him.

Quote:

Remember we are only seeing Nathan's part of the artwork. And also only what the artist put on the internet SO FAR. We have no idea what will be displayed on the museum. I am thinking that the part where Nathan talks is not going to be shown on the museum. BUT I don't know.
Oh, I like the part where Nathan talks. I just can't believe there isn't more of that. Maybe there is, somewhere... but this clip is the one the artist chose to represent his body of work. It makes me wonder if the rest is greatly different.

Hoperules - if it's truly Nathan's pretty face the artist is out to show off, that's an odd statement about what the New Male Hero could be. (I'd even go so far as to say that rugged good looks are squarely in the Old Hero regime. Or maybe an Old Hero would beat up anyone who tried to shine girly lights on his face? ) It's soooo disappointing. Nathan is so much more than looks. We all know that, but it's not showing in the clip.

I do hope more is posted. I think the message, as much as I can figure it, could be a great one. Very needed by our violent, bullying society, which also happen to be largely male dominated and - hey - has anyone noticed that these school shootings are always done by males? I don't at all mean to pick on you Y chromozone folks. I think the flawed thing is the message our society gives you - that violence is the most fitting way to vent male unhappiness. That message isn't given to girls and young women. We're allowed to do other, more reasonable things.

It's just flawed, I tell you! So kudos to Mr. Firrell for at least getting this discussion going.

-----------------------------------------------
I'm the president. I don't need to listen.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 6:40 AM

ANONYMOUS1


Did everybody watch the behind the scenes stuff?


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 11:25 AM

HOPERULES


I doubt that school shooters are trying to emulate heroes like Malcolm Reynolds or Pat Tillman. I think they are more likely to be coping serial killers like Hannibal Lecter or Charles Manson.

How come men as group don't get the credit for the good things members of their gender do, but get the blame for the bad things members of their gender do? It doesn't seem fair to judge entire group of people based on the behavior of some in that group.

May have been on the losing side, still not convinced it was the wrong one.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 12, 2007 2:24 PM

ANONYMOUS1


Read on Our Captain's myspace today that students are being shown Nathan's Super Secret London Thingy in school. EEEK, trapped audiences.

So dregs can see it walking by the museum, maybe on a public broadcasting station, on the internet (lots of us dregs here) at libraries or whatever, and in the classrooms at schools and universities.

Maybe court ordered viewing. Heh.


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL