On Apr 17, 2011, at 12:13 PM, shag carpet bomb wrote:
> that sentence was in response to a thread that took place last year, so had little to do with the recent comments abotu neo-liberalism. I was pointing out how Apatow films resurrect the sexiness of the "icky" males I thought Doug might be talking about.
The sentence (in the post I was responding to, that I should have included) below, is the one that I was asking about ...
> Dwayne and I discussed this last year. I get the sense that the effort in Apatow flicks is to resurrect the crude and icky male in the service of neo-liberalism:
I didn't see how a resurrection of the crude, icky and 'anti-capitalism, anti-striving uppermiddle class culture of fools' would function in the service of neoliberalism. I'd expect that resurrection to have the opposite effect, or at least to exclude itself from the neoliberal agenda.
> In Apatow's films, the answer is for everyone to simply accept things as they are instead of asking about the structural impediments to employment. The answer is that there's no connection between the economy and what happens between men and women. Women, magically, are overachievers and men, magically, are fuck ups. To borrow a phrase I just read to describe the goal of sociology: If the task of sociology is to make reality unacceptable, the task of Judd Apatow's films is to make reality acceptable.
So, it's the exclusion from participation in the neoliberal agenda (by acceptance of reality) that serves the neoliberal agenda (in it's 'striving')? Mind boggling, but I'll take your word for it.