Just one more laugh we can share? We wish for these experiences to just happen once more as if that would ever be enough.
The reality is that even if we were privileged with one more, we would want another. And another. We'd never be satisfied. We'd eventually just wish for eternity. Loss is necessary. Loss is natural. Loss is inevitable. Loss was never defined as easy. In fact, it has to be hard.
It has to be hard for us to remember. To remember those warm embraces, to remember the feeling of their lips on yours, and to remember the smile on their face when you said something funny. But why are we so afraid of loss after all?
We are so blessed to have experienced it to begin with. It means there was a presence of care. That ache in our heart and the deep pit in our stomach means there was something there to fill those vacant voids. The empty spaces were just simply whole. We're all so afraid of change. Change in our love life or our families, change in our friendships and daily routines.
One day we will remember that losing someone isn't about learning how to live without them, but to know their presence, and to carry what they left us behind. For everything we've deeply loved, we cannot lose. They become a part of us. We adapt to the way they talk, we make them a part of our Instagram passwords, we remember when they told us to cook chicken for 20 minutes instead of We as humans are so lucky to meet so many people that will one day leave us.
We are so lucky to have the ability and courage to suffer, to grieve, and to wish for a better ending. For that only means, we were lucky enough to love. When Sony announced that Venom would be getting a stand-alone movie, outside of the Tom Holland MCU Spider-Man films, and intended to start its own separate shared universe of films, the reactions were generally not that kind.
Even if Tom Hardy was going to take on the role, why would you take Venom, so intrinsically connected to Spider-Man's comic book roots, and remove all of that for cheap action spectacle? Needless to say I wound up hopping on the "lets bash 'Venom'" train.
While I appreciated how much fun Tom Hardy was having and the visual approach to the symbiotes, I couldn't get behind the film's tone or story, both of which felt like relics of a bygone era of comic book storytelling that sacrificed actual pathos for that aforementioned cheap spectacle. But apparently that critical consensus was in the minority because audiences ate the film up. On top of that, Ruben Fleischer would step out of the director's chair in place of Andy Serkis, the visual effects legend behind characters like 'The Lord of the Rings' Gollum and 'Planet of the Apes' Caesar, and a pretty decent director in his own right.
Now with a year-long pandemic delay behind it, 'Venom: Let There Be Carnage' is finally here, did it change my jaded little mind about the character's big-screen worth? Surprisingly, it kind of did. I won't pretend that I loved it by any stretch, but while 'Let There Be Carnage' still features some of its predecessor's shortcomings, there's also a tightness, consistency and self-awareness that's more prevalent this time around; in other words, it's significantly more fun!
A year after the events of the first film, Eddie Brock played by Tom Hardy is struggling with sharing a body with the alien symbiote, Venom also voiced by Hardy. Things change when Eddie is contacted by Detective Pat Mulligan played by Stephen Graham , who says that the serial killer Cletus Kasady will talk only with Eddie regarding his string of murders.
His interview with Kasady played by Woody Harrelson leads to Eddie uncovering the killer's victims and confirming Kasady's execution. During their final meeting, Kasady bites Eddie, imprinting part of Venom onto Kasady. When Kasady is executed, the new symbiote awakens, merging with Kasady into a bloody, far more violent incarnation known as Carnage. It's up to Eddie and Venom to put aside their differences to stop Carnage's rampage, as well as Frances Barrison played by Naomi Harris , Kasady's longtime girlfriend whose sonic scream abilities pose a threat to both Venom and Carnage.
So what made me completely switch gears this time around? There's a couple reasons, but first and foremost is the pacing. Serkis and screenwriter Kelly Marcel know exactly where to take the story and how to frame both Eddie and Venom's journeys against the looming threat of Carnage.
Even when the film is going for pure, outrageous humor, it never forgets the qualms between Eddie and Venom should be at the center beyond the obvious comic book-y exhibitions.
If you were a fan of Eddie's anxious sense of loss, or the back-and-forth between he and the overly eccentric Venom, you are going to love this movie. Hardy has a great grasp on what buttons to push for both, especially Venom, who has to spend a chunk of the movie contending with losing Eddie altogether and find their own unique purpose among other things, what is essentially Venom's "coming out" moment that actually finds some weight in all the jokes.
Then there's Harrelson as Carnage and he absolutely delivers! Absolutely taking a few cues from Heath Ledger's Joker, Harrelson is leaning just enough into campy territory to be charismatic, but never letting us forget the absolutely shattered malicious mind controlling the spaghetti wrap of CGI. Serkis' directing itself deserves some praise too. I can't necessarily pinpoint his style, but like his approach on 'Mowgli,' he has a great eye for detail in both character aesthetics and worldbuilding.
That goes from the symbiotes' movements and action bits to bigger things like lighting in a church sequence or just making San Francisco feel more alive in the process. As far as downsides go, what you see is basically what you get. While I was certainly on that train more here, I also couldn't help but hope for more on the emotional side of things. Yes, seeing the two be vulnerable with one another is important to their arcs and the comedy infusions work more often than not, but it also presents a double-edged sword of that quick runtime, sacrificing time for smaller moments for bigger, more outrageous ones.
In addition, while Hardy and Harrelson are electric together, I also found a lot of the supporting characters disappointing to a degree. Mulligan has a few neat moments, but not enough to go beyond the tough cop archetype. The only one who almost makes it work is Naomi Harris, who actually has great chemistry with Harrelson until the movie has to do something else with her.
It's those other characters that make the non-Venom, non-Carnage moments stall significantly and I wish there was more to them. I wouldn't go so far as to have complete faith in this approach to Sony's characters moving forward — Venom or whatever larger plans are in the works — but I could safely recommend this whatever side of the film spectrum you land on.
The patriarchy seeks to control female sexuality, sexual preferences, sexual acts and sexual consent for several reasons. This means that women and girls are required to conform to male-accepted beauty standards, submit to sex when requested, enjoy sex acts which harm or abuse them and believe that their sexual prowess is their most important quality.
Patriarchal control has achieved this by ensuring that women and girls self-sexualise from 7 years old according to APA, , that women and girls believe and employ rape myths towards themselves and other women, blame themselves and blame other women and girls for the sexual and domestic violence of men Taylor, Further, patriarchal norms mean that globally, millions of women are expected to give or abstain from sex, whenever men tell them to.
This could be their fathers, brothers, husbands or men in their wider support networks. Millions of women and girls are subjected to FGM to remove parts of their sexual organs, including the clitoris, so that men can control their sexual activity, and so that female sexual pleasure is never experienced. We own our sexuality. We choose how to use our sexuality, if at all. We should have total control over who we are intimate with, when and why.
Our pleasure and our sexual organs belong to us. It should be so telling that female sexuality is directed, shaped and twisted to fit whatever men want from us at that time. Smaller waist? Thicker waist? No ass? Round ass? Big boobs? Small boobs? Showing your skin? Not showing your skin? Lots of make-up? We are simply tricked into believing that we have power over our sexuality and our appearance. No one has to work very hard to control or manipulate women and girls who already view themselves as sex objects to be used, abused, controlled or enjoyed by men.
The patriarchy has long sought to control the reproductive power of women. They understand that they are not capable of the reproductive process without female bodies, hence why there is more and more experimental medical research exploring how to create wombs to gestate human babies in.
And more and more fetishisation of female reproductive systems, periods, pregnancy, birth and motherhood. Before men ever achieved scientific and ideological advances such as this, they were controlling the fertility of women in other ways. Rape has long been used to impregnate women and girls, and features in thousands of years of history, art and literature. Lesbians will have heard these slurs too when they are mocked for not wanting or being able to have children via heterosexual sexual intercourse.
Oppressors are not interested in whether that is in the best interests of the babies or women, but will go to great lengths to debate and control fertility at every step.
They cannot do these things for themselves, so they must control the power of women, instead. Imagine how many industries, narratives and structures would collapse if women were able to take full control over their fertility without the pressure, obligation, expectation or oppression of patriarchy. Globally, women are not well represented in government or leadership. No matter how many men say that we have reached equality because of women like Margaret Thatcher, Hilary Clinton and Nicola Sturgeon being in senior leadership of governments and parties — these exceptions only prove the rule.
The fact that men can name a handful of female leaders means that they are rare enough exceptions to be noticed in the first place. They are abnormal. They are different to the default setting: wealthy man. At least, we should expect to be half of all world power.
The reality is much less equal. Often, when we discuss why this trend continues into , we will be met with comments about women being poor leaders, not being interested in power and being busy with motherhood and childcare another thing you could add to the previous section. Some people also suggest that female led countries and companies would be chaos, or incompetent. This is despite significant academic research which shows that there is less corruption and bribery in female led governments, as women are less likely to take bribes and allow corruption within their governments and institutions Swamy et al.
During COVID, it has been repeatedly pointed out by academics and journalists that the countries responding to and recovering from the pandemic in the safest, most ethical and most effective ways are all ran by women. In contrast, female leaders have been shown to take scientific evidence and medical advice, explore responses from other countries including South Korea and tried to reassure and support their populations.
This only presents more questions. Why are they so discriminated against in the workplace? Why are there so many myths and stereotypes that women are hysterical, emotional wrecks who cannot lead a company or country? Interestingly, rather than the patriarchy believing women to be weak, stupid and incapable — the opposite must be true. They know that women are smart, honest, capable and strong leaders. And so, it is of vital importance to a patriarchy to continue to reframe women as poor thinkers and leaders, to keep them away from power.
The stereotypes and myths about female leaders are not there because the patriarchy believe them to be true, but because they need everyone else to believe them to be true, so they can maintain total power. They also need women and girls to believe that they would be poor leaders, and induce imposter syndrome as early as possible — so they never attempt to buck the trend and fight for power.
In addition to the lack of women in government, we have a similar issue in justice. Whether that is criminal or civil law, legislation, investigations or independent inquiries — women are not equally represented and in some cases, are actively oppressed. Women are hugely underrepresented in crime. When women are imprisoned, it is largely due to non-violent offences such as possession of drugs, non-payment of council tax and financial fraud. However, more and more data is showing that crimes committed against women are going unpunished.
We know that the current conviction rate of rape is just 0. We know that the femicide rate is increasing. Out of 41 police and crime commissioners, 6 are female. So why the disparity here? What would happen if women were more in control of the justice systems? The pattern should be becoming clear by now, that keeping women out of power and influence is important for the upkeep of the patriarchy. Just one more laugh we can share? We wish for these experiences to just happen once more as if that would ever be enough.
The reality is that even if we were privileged with one more, we would want another. And another. We'd never be satisfied. We'd eventually just wish for eternity.
Loss is necessary. Loss is natural. Loss is inevitable. Loss was never defined as easy. In fact, it has to be hard.
It has to be hard for us to remember. To remember those warm embraces, to remember the feeling of their lips on yours, and to remember the smile on their face when you said something funny. But why are we so afraid of loss after all? We are so blessed to have experienced it to begin with. It means there was a presence of care. That ache in our heart and the deep pit in our stomach means there was something there to fill those vacant voids.
The empty spaces were just simply whole. We're all so afraid of change. Change in our love life or our families, change in our friendships and daily routines. One day we will remember that losing someone isn't about learning how to live without them, but to know their presence, and to carry what they left us behind.
For everything we've deeply loved, we cannot lose. They become a part of us. We adapt to the way they talk, we make them a part of our Instagram passwords, we remember when they told us to cook chicken for 20 minutes instead of We as humans are so lucky to meet so many people that will one day leave us. We are so lucky to have the ability and courage to suffer, to grieve, and to wish for a better ending.
For that only means, we were lucky enough to love. When Sony announced that Venom would be getting a stand-alone movie, outside of the Tom Holland MCU Spider-Man films, and intended to start its own separate shared universe of films, the reactions were generally not that kind. Even if Tom Hardy was going to take on the role, why would you take Venom, so intrinsically connected to Spider-Man's comic book roots, and remove all of that for cheap action spectacle?
Needless to say I wound up hopping on the "lets bash 'Venom'" train. While I appreciated how much fun Tom Hardy was having and the visual approach to the symbiotes, I couldn't get behind the film's tone or story, both of which felt like relics of a bygone era of comic book storytelling that sacrificed actual pathos for that aforementioned cheap spectacle.
But apparently that critical consensus was in the minority because audiences ate the film up. On top of that, Ruben Fleischer would step out of the director's chair in place of Andy Serkis, the visual effects legend behind characters like 'The Lord of the Rings' Gollum and 'Planet of the Apes' Caesar, and a pretty decent director in his own right. Now with a year-long pandemic delay behind it, 'Venom: Let There Be Carnage' is finally here, did it change my jaded little mind about the character's big-screen worth?
Surprisingly, it kind of did. I won't pretend that I loved it by any stretch, but while 'Let There Be Carnage' still features some of its predecessor's shortcomings, there's also a tightness, consistency and self-awareness that's more prevalent this time around; in other words, it's significantly more fun! A year after the events of the first film, Eddie Brock played by Tom Hardy is struggling with sharing a body with the alien symbiote, Venom also voiced by Hardy.
Things change when Eddie is contacted by Detective Pat Mulligan played by Stephen Graham , who says that the serial killer Cletus Kasady will talk only with Eddie regarding his string of murders.
His interview with Kasady played by Woody Harrelson leads to Eddie uncovering the killer's victims and confirming Kasady's execution. During their final meeting, Kasady bites Eddie, imprinting part of Venom onto Kasady.
When Kasady is executed, the new symbiote awakens, merging with Kasady into a bloody, far more violent incarnation known as Carnage. It's up to Eddie and Venom to put aside their differences to stop Carnage's rampage, as well as Frances Barrison played by Naomi Harris , Kasady's longtime girlfriend whose sonic scream abilities pose a threat to both Venom and Carnage. So what made me completely switch gears this time around?
There's a couple reasons, but first and foremost is the pacing. Serkis and screenwriter Kelly Marcel know exactly where to take the story and how to frame both Eddie and Venom's journeys against the looming threat of Carnage. Even when the film is going for pure, outrageous humor, it never forgets the qualms between Eddie and Venom should be at the center beyond the obvious comic book-y exhibitions.
If you were a fan of Eddie's anxious sense of loss, or the back-and-forth between he and the overly eccentric Venom, you are going to love this movie. Hardy has a great grasp on what buttons to push for both, especially Venom, who has to spend a chunk of the movie contending with losing Eddie altogether and find their own unique purpose among other things, what is essentially Venom's "coming out" moment that actually finds some weight in all the jokes.
Then there's Harrelson as Carnage and he absolutely delivers! Absolutely taking a few cues from Heath Ledger's Joker, Harrelson is leaning just enough into campy territory to be charismatic, but never letting us forget the absolutely shattered malicious mind controlling the spaghetti wrap of CGI. Serkis' directing itself deserves some praise too. I can't necessarily pinpoint his style, but like his approach on 'Mowgli,' he has a great eye for detail in both character aesthetics and worldbuilding.
That goes from the symbiotes' movements and action bits to bigger things like lighting in a church sequence or just making San Francisco feel more alive in the process. As far as downsides go, what you see is basically what you get. While I was certainly on that train more here, I also couldn't help but hope for more on the emotional side of things.
Yes, seeing the two be vulnerable with one another is important to their arcs and the comedy infusions work more often than not, but it also presents a double-edged sword of that quick runtime, sacrificing time for smaller moments for bigger, more outrageous ones. In addition, while Hardy and Harrelson are electric together, I also found a lot of the supporting characters disappointing to a degree. Mulligan has a few neat moments, but not enough to go beyond the tough cop archetype.
The only one who almost makes it work is Naomi Harris, who actually has great chemistry with Harrelson until the movie has to do something else with her. It's those other characters that make the non-Venom, non-Carnage moments stall significantly and I wish there was more to them.
I wouldn't go so far as to have complete faith in this approach to Sony's characters moving forward — Venom or whatever larger plans are in the works — but I could safely recommend this whatever side of the film spectrum you land on. This kind of fun genre content is sorely needed and I'm happy I had as good of a time as I did. Brittany Morgan, National Writer's Society 2. Kristen Haddox , Penn State University 4.
Welcome back. Sign in to comment to your favorite stories, participate in your community and interact with your friends. No account? According to research, women are more strategic than men especially in the third world countries.
Women in these countries took all the burden right through their arms. Their partners may live them and find their own luck with the arms of others but these women who are mothers of children could be able to feed all of them. Women have goals and purpose whenever they enter a certain situation or circumstances.
In comparison to men, women would be able to accept their defeat and work harder but men would probably stop from doing his responsibilities once he experience defeat and failure. When a woman entered a situation, she has the guts to kneel to her authority and be with her partner.
It exists in the aspect of religion. When a couple has different religion, the woman will bow down and accept the religion of her partner. This is a usual case for women who are part of religious countries like India.
It can be said as a form of ideology because women believed in the sense of acceptance and survival. Women are more prone to adjustment that give them the capability create more ideas and perspectives in every situation.
It goes on to assert that the population of minorities is on the rise due to more wives and children of Muslims. And this will result in this Hindu Rashtra being converted to Islamic country Puniyani, Gender will define the status of a person in the society. If she is a woman, more or less, she will experience certain oppression within her environment but through the depiction of ideology whether personal or communal will give a woman the capability to strengthen her use and status in her country.
Life as a woman is a continuous battle against social oppression and inequality. There is always a need for armor and logical justifications of facts and evidences to make the status of women elevate to the next position. Women need to face the different social threats and disabilities to show her dignity and pride in her field.
The purpose of each woman today is to make a change for the survival of women in the traditional society that deals with discrimination and social destruction. This essay was written by a fellow student. You can use it as an example when writing your own essay or use it as a source, but you need cite it.
Explore how the human body functions as one unit in harmony in order to life. Free Essays - PhDessay.
0コメント