• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

'A gentleman allows a lady to maintain her fiction'

DRE

Well-known member
#1
What do you think Captain Jack Sparrow meant when he said 'A gentleman allows a lady to maintain her fiction.' in the movie Pirates of the Carribean: On Stranger Tides. When I heard it I immediately identified it in cases where women lie and instead of confronting them, you either ignore it, change subject or keep it moving.
 

Morgain

Well-known member
#2
I can't remember the situation in Pirates, but I expect it has a sexual meaning.
As in accepting a woman might lie about the extent of her sexual experience.
Patriarchal society still judges women much more harshly for having more than limited sexual experience: the old double standard is alive and kicking. There many abusive sexual terms for a woman of experience e.g. slut as one of the more polite ones. There are very few of these for men.

By the way the quote in your signature is quite odd.
"Man the living creature,the creating individual, is always more important than any established style or system." -Bruce Lee
This seems to exclude women by not using the word "humanity."
The use of "men" to mean "humanity" was a mediaeval strategy used by women-hating monks, to emphasise that women had no souls (an inferiority status). This was challenged from 1875 onwards and finally dislodged in the 1970s.
It was argued back then that "men" can be an "inclusive" term referring to women and men However we do not speak of "When Men menstruate" or whether Men choose to breast feed or how Men give birth; so this is nonsense.

;)
 

DRE

Well-known member
#3
I can't remember the situation in Pirates, but I expect it has a sexual meaning.
As in accepting a woman might lie about the extent of her sexual experience.
Patriarchal society still judges women much more harshly for having more than limited sexual experience: the old double standard is alive and kicking. There many abusive sexual terms for a woman of experience e.g. slut as one of the more polite ones. There are very few of these for men.

By the way the quote in your signature is quite odd.
"Man the living creature,the creating individual, is always more important than any established style or system." -Bruce Lee
This seems to exclude women by not using the word "humanity."
The use of "men" to mean "humanity" was a mediaeval strategy used by women-hating monks, to emphasise that women had no souls (an inferiority status). This was challenged from 1875 onwards and finally dislodged in the 1970s.
It was argued back then that "men" can be an "inclusive" term referring to women and men However we do not speak of "When Men menstruate" or whether Men choose to breast feed or how Men give birth; so this is nonsense.

;)
I was watching the movie for the first time last night (still haven't finished it) when I heard that quote. I'm not sure if it was in a sexual innuendo or not but you're probably right. That quote is in reference to Bruce Lee taking techniques from established martial arts like kung fu and boxing and creating your own style through his newly created martial art, Jeet Kune Do. He didn't mean only males. I like the quote because it applies to all things in life if you're an artist, writer, musician, author etc.
 

Morgain

Well-known member
#4
Yes it's a cool quote apart from excluding women. Bruce should have known better.
Easy enough to adapt -

"The human living creature, the creating individual, is always more important than any established style or system." Bruce Lee.

I'll add it to my Quotes directory in both forms.
 

DRE

Well-known member
#5
Yes it's a cool quote apart from excluding women. Bruce should have known better.
Easy enough to adapt -

"The human living creature, the creating individual, is always more important than any established style or system." Bruce Lee.

I'll add it to my Quotes directory in both forms.
Well back in the day when they used words like Man, they meant the race of humans which included both male and females. It's even in the dictionary: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/man I'm sure he didn't mean to offend.
 

TheRevTastic

Well-known member
#7
Many facepalms were had.

But tbh I am now going to have to re-watch this movie again as I barley remember hearing him saying that. So I shall be back.
 

EQnoble

Well-known member
#10
You know what I want to think of myself? As a human being. Because, I mean I don't want to be like "As Confucius say," but under the sky, under the heavens there is but one family. It just so happens that people are different. - Bruce Lee

He did feel all were equal and truly believed in the fundamental science behind equality.

As far as the use of the word man...it was used by Germanic tribes as far back as we have record of; as a term from anything including a single male directly to anything between including all of humanity at any time and generally covers any species under the Genus 'Homo' which we...'Homo Sapiens' (Men from earth of wisdom ) are.... human as a word derives from the latin humanus which is the descriptive form of the word homo which means earthly or of earth.

________________
"Man the living creature,the creating individual, is always more important than any established style or system." -Bruce Lee

to me this means:

Humans as a species will always be more valuable than any system that we can create.



________________________________
On the original topic.....

without relating it to a subject directly (i didn't watch it yet)....the quote sounds as if it literally means (to me anyways) , if you are a man with honorable intent, there is no reason to blow up a ladies spot if it is a harmless story she is telling (where you would call a man out for lying in the same instance).

I hear 'fiction' and it supposes that the matter is trivial like a storybook or the gossip column and not a life or death circumstance. If the act was treasonous and not trivial I don't think this quote would apply.

Being the movie series that it is however (and not knowing the context that this was said in and just the fact that cpt. Jack said it...)....I would relate it directly to a female's sexscapades and allowing her to not disclose them if she so chooses.
 

Reeve of Shinra

Well-known member
#11
The character of Captain Jack Sparrow, as a ladies man, is a very interesting study and of itself -- especially if you were to compare it to the hard-edged machoness of say Daniel Craig or Hugh Jackman. Jack Sparrow is very 'fluid' in comparison.
 

Kim

Well-known member
#13
What do you think Captain Jack Sparrow meant when he said 'A gentleman allows a lady to maintain her fiction.'
Ladies are not always 100% truthful about several things, not just their sexual experience (although these days most women I know are pretty up front about how many partners they have had) The quote is from a movie set in the 17th century era, so sexual experience would definitely be one of them, howeve there would be more.. much more - examples of the "fiction" a lady might have are, her age, her status in society, her upbringing, her education, her abilities, her prospects etc.

These days it might include such things as if she dyes her hair, or has had plastic surgery, as well as any or all of the above.

I think it is a lovely very honourable idea that we allow people their fictions, not just women, but men as well, so long as they do no harm to others, who needs the ugly truth all the time... in this horrible gutter press age, a little more allowing of fictions wouldn't go astray.
 

DRE

Well-known member
#14
Ladies are not always 100% truthful about several things, not just their sexual experience (although these days most women I know are pretty up front about how many partners they have had) The quote is from a movie set in the 17th century era, so sexual experience would definitely be one of them, howeve there would be more.. much more - examples of the "fiction" a lady might have are, her age, her status in society, her upbringing, her education, her abilities, her prospects etc.

These days it might include such things as if she dyes her hair, or has had plastic surgery, as well as any or all of the above.

I think it is a lovely very honourable idea that we allow people their fictions, not just women, but men as well, so long as they do no harm to others, who needs the ugly truth all the time... in this horrible gutter press age, a little more allowing of fictions wouldn't go astray.
Another perspective is that we already allow people to maintain their fiction religiously. When they say something that we might think is crazy and just plain wrong, we usually avoid trying to 'correct' them and getting into a religious debate. I think that's the extreme form of allowing someone to maintain their fiction... even if their religion was birthed by a science-fiction author or known pathological liar who decided to create a religion out of their stories.
 

EQnoble

Well-known member
#15
The way I view it is this...especially with religious things. If religion is such a big part of your life that you express it outside of your religious circle then you should be prepared to back up your view civilly and without altercation...a true follower of a religion should understand that not everyone has found their god and some that have did not find the god that another follows.

It is one of those things I don't believe in political correctness with, if someone can tell me about their god...I can tell them why I don't think he exists or why he doesn't apply to me...it should not be a problem if that person believes I am an equal as a human being. If it is a problem, it is because they believe their god is more important than your life experience.

Referring to your quote, religion as an organization was created by man and is less important than the virtues of a single man. I will not negate someone for their beliefs, but in the same respect that religious person should respect my view and not force an argument when I say anything other than I believe.

As far as applying religion to "maintaining fiction" I would think not...here is an unrelated explanation of my why. \/

When your a kid...santa is real..because you believe he is real...though physically no one ever sees him (besides the drunk one at the mall)...the thought is real enough to effect a child...(be good or santa wont come here) and the actions caused because of those beliefs make santa real to a degree. Does it prove or disprove him in a scientific manner...absolutely not...but a child behaving because santa "is watching' is as real as it gets. For someone who doesn't believe, it is fiction...but for a person who believes it is the opposite of fiction, they make real actions based on that thought. To maintain fiction, you would have to know it is not true and be lying...in this case parents would be maintaining the fiction not the children who actually believe.

Relate that to religion, someone who believes doesn't maintain fiction because they believe the teaching of their group to be true.

On the other hand for a person who doesn't believe, shutting their mouth and not voicing an opinion is actually them maintaining the fiction for someone else, because it is them that believes it to be untrue and not the other person who actually believes it.

That is my view with it at any rate.
 

Morgain

Well-known member
#16
You know what I want to think of myself? As a human being. Because, I mean I don't want to be like "As Confucius say," but under the sky, under the heavens there is but one family. It just so happens that people are different. - Bruce Lee
He did feel all were equal and truly believed in the fundamental science behind equality.
It's quite possible to believe in equality yet make mistakes on the details of it. This is particularly true of anyone on the privileged side of a dominant/ subordinate pair. The dominant class is just less likely to be aware of the detail.

As far as the use of the word man...it was used by Germanic tribes as far back as we have record of; as a term from anything including a single male directly to anything between including all of humanity at any time
The Germanic tribes were notoriously sexist so this is not surprising. Germanic women were for sex, breeding, and domestic labour. There were a few exceptions like Veleda the Prophetess but in general a usage that made the male mean the standard human fits them very well..

The usage of "Man" to mean "Human" derives from mediaeval monks.
They were the literate class who defined the educated language and the records for their times.
In their doctrine women were sub-human, lacking souls, a kind of superior animal comparable to a war horse or hunting dog. Only women were to blame for all the misery of the world so not as god as these faithful servants of "mankind."

To promote their point of view they deliberately mis-translated the Latin of the Bible - the most influential written record of their times. Latin has two words at issue:
HOMO = HUMANITY
VIR = MALE HUMAN
The monks deliberately translated both of these as "MAN" blurring the distinction between a human being and a male person.
Because of course women were not fully human, being created from a male (another mis-translation) and lacking the major human attribute of a soul.

This propaganda exercise was extremely successful all through the period of Christian Church dominance.
So much so that the usage became normalised and it can be difficult for some people to see how weird it is! It just becam,e "normal" as bound feet and Victorian corsets were in their locations and times.
Even to this day there are still some writers who persist in using "Man" to mean women as well - as if "Man" could have breasts, menstruate, give birth etc! all of which are standard Human experiences.
The fact that when a writer who has been using the term "Man" further up the page, supposedly inclusively, has to suddenly switch to saying "women" when referring to any specifically womanly behaviour such as birth, clearly shows the "Man"usage being inclusive is false.

generally covers any species under the Genus 'Homo' which we...'Homo Sapiens' (Men from earth of wisdom ) are.... human as a word derives from the latin humanus which is the descriptive form of the word homo which means earthly or of earth.
HOMO doesn't mean man it means human.
VIR means man (male human) FEMINA means woman (female human)
HOMO SAPIENS means the human subspecies which thinks
As you say HOMO is cognate to HUMUS = Earth, soil..
 

Lisa

Well-known member
#17
I think you read far too much into what people say. It appears you're always looking for negative connotations - sometimes people just say something without having any hidden meaning, insult or agenda behind it.

Who'd have thought innocently asking what Jack Sparrow meant would have resulted in such a convoluted, nitpicking thread. *goes to find something less pedantic to read*
 

EQnoble

Well-known member
#18
It's all about the interpretation...that was my whole point...I acknowledge that there is sexism...but I am not sexist...and yes you can interpret that mankind is a gender subordination thing sure...but I don't believe it, and I do not live by those words.

wikipedia said:
The word homo is Latin, in the original sense of "human being", or "man" (in the gender-neutral sense). The word "human" itself is from Latin humanus, an adjective cognate to homo, both thought to derive from a Proto-Indo-European word for "earth" reconstructed as *dhǵhem-.[5]
Per this, homo can be literally interpreted as earth-man or earthly man....and thus with sapiens which is short for sapience meaning wisdom , you get a descriptive for what we are from a scientific point; earth man of wisdom.

You say that because the term man is to glorify men and that is a gender specific thing meant for harm because of the need to prefix man for specifying a female...but I see it as man = human, woman = human+womb showing that women are so special in the unique ability to harbor a life for 9 months before it is ready to see the light of day. Because of that the short informal form of 'human' became 'man' as we are just referred to in the informal sense generally speaking like worker bees and not important like the queen who has earned the noteworthy WO prefix on her species gender classification. So hypothetically I could argue that because of language today women are put on a pedestal while men are just the general ole population because I have never seen it differently than that.


It is all about how you want to interpret it really...
 

Morgain

Well-known member
#19
I think you read far too much into what people say.
Not sure if that is helpful as it cuts boith ways. I could just as easily say that some people don't look far enough into the impact of certain words - which is true. Also true that some read too much in. Neither are easily quantifiable.

It appears you're always looking for negative connotations - sometimes people just say something without having any hidden meaning, insult or agenda behind it.
It's not that the speaker intends to insul, or dump a hidden agenda.
It's that since the mediaeval monks DID do it to insult and subordinate women, the usage became increasingly habitual and lazy until late 1thC and then late 20thC feminism exposed it.
So habitual that people no longer see how ridiculous it is - as I said if "Man" were inclusive we'd speak of Man giving birth and we don't do that. The speaker suddenly stops using the supposedly inclusive "Man" and switches to talk of "women" instead.

But although the speaker means no harm the harm gets done.
Hundreds of habits like this pile up to poison young people's minds so that girls and boys still make the poisoned asumptions that limit their lives.

Who'd have thought innocently asking what Jack Sparrow meant would have resulted in such a convoluted, nitpicking thread.
EXACTLY! ;)
It's fascinating when you look deeper.

Per this, homo can be literally interpreted as earth-man or earthly man....and thus with sapiens which is short for sapience meaning wisdom , you get a descriptive for what we are from a scientific point; earth man of wisdom.
You are. I am not. I am a human being, an earth woman of wisdom, but I am NOT an "earth man of wisdom."

You say that because the term man is to glorify men

No I don't think 'man' glorifies men. But when it's used to make women invisible it does damage us.

... but I see it as man = human, woman = human+womb
EXACTLY. The concept of 'man' (male human) became normal, the human standard.
To be a woman (female human) became defined as a man with additional bits.
But women are not men with extra bits. We are standard humans.Normal. Central.
Humanity is both genders, not one with the other one being the same with an additional capacity to birth.

Saying we are special because of this extra bit is just a nice way of saying we are not the central, standard type of human.
Nor are we bees with only one female and lots of male workers. We are gendered approximately equal in numbers which is a very different kind of society.

So hypothetically I could argue that because of language today women are put on a pedestal while men are just the general ole population
That was exactly the Victorian justification for keeping women separate, in the home, under the protection of males - because they said women are special and belonged on pedestals middle class or upper class women that is).
Some old fashioned courtesies can be very sweet like opening doors and bunches of flowers. But when push comes to shove, special is a graceful option which cannot replace the safety, power and resources of being a central human being, not an add-on. As people so often say here core is better!

I love popular films and novels as well as intellectual research. But enjoying romantic adventures or fantasy doesn't switch my brain off completely. I still see the deeper meanings in how we humans use language. There's masses of research on it.
 

Lisa

Well-known member
#20
It would be fascinating if it was the point of the thread.. it's not.. We're not medieval monks who are anti-woman (in fact I am a woman.. at least I was last time I checked) and I know I find your constant posts about "man is mean, woman is mistreated" fairly irritating ..... the gods only know what the men think (gods - as in male/female/animal/spirit/mineral.. whatever you believe... ). There are times and places for the kinds of discussions you keep trying to force on people ... I'm pretty sure a thread about the lush Jack Sparrow who I'd happily dress as a buxom wench and fulfil his every fantasy - no matter what... isn't it.

It wouldn't be so bad if you actually made it sound interesting.... unfortunately, I'm sorry, but you don't.. you just sound like you're whining. There, I said it... please.. for the love of god, make like a wine bottle and put a cork in it.