I think Jyn in the Rogue One is a nice example of progress in this stuff. Yes she's played by a very attractive person (as is everyone), but she's not sexualised in-movie, i.e. her attractiveness isn't made a point of, other characters don't go 'ooh wow she's gorgeous', and there isn't a contrived reason for her to run around in her underwear at some point. She's just there to do stuff. The ghostbusters remake, for all of it's mediocrity in other areas, also did a nice job of unfussily having female characters just being people. I guess it's equivalent to Night of the Living Dead having a black protagonist without making him talk jive or dance or anything?
Wait. Are people conflating Barbarella with Star Wars?
No one said Leia ran around in her underwear, I said Jyn didn't. Slave-girl Leia was massively male-gaze, and in that, yeah, kinda sexist. It doesn't make the whole thing sexist (it would be hard really, there's only one woman in the whole thing), but if Leia is a feminist character, it's only by the low standards of the time period.
Besides, whatever Koyla is getting at with going on about color blind people loving rainbows, in general if you want to know if something is sexist ask a girl. Gimme a minute...
Yeah, that bit was sexist.
Last edited by Vivian; 5th Jan 2017 at 17:31. Reason: removed grammar/vocab dickery, soz
I see. If you pop a boner it's sexist. It matters not the context or that the woman is a strong wisecracking character capable of saving the men. So Alien is not sexist because, although she was in her underwear, it was in context and I did not pop a pants tent. Oh wait I didn't pop one with the slave girl scene either so I guess it's just sexist for you.
And Star Wars had the same ratio of male to female as Harry Potter. Is Rowling sexist?
It doesn't make the whole film sexist, to repeat myself and others. The bit in alien was also pretty dodgy. Was there a bit in Harry Potter where the camera slides over Hermione's mostly naked body? If so, was there an equivalent treatment of the male cast?
Also dude you just did a really textbook strawman, nice one. Was that intentional?
Basically, ignoring your boners for a second, this is my actual thesis: If you want to do this to your principle (only) female cast member and not be sexist:
You should also do this:
Otherwise you are not presenting your male and female characters in equivalent ways.
Last edited by Vivian; 6th Jan 2017 at 05:25.
There you go.
always with the man-nappies
Right. Alien was dodgy. They were all (men too) in their underwear at the beginning because of cryo-sleep. She was preparing for it at the end. You (Vivian) absolutely do not take into account context. You knee jerk. Your friends knee jerk. You want stories to be altered. You want everything measured with an eye dropper to make sure nobody is offended by a portion of a body not even considered to be the sexual bits. What a pathetic weenie generation where people look for something to be offended by. I don't know how you enjoy anything at all with all the searching for things to be offended by. Oh heavens they showed this centimeter of skin for the woman we must measure the centimeters for the men. Pathetic.
And meanwhile you miss the import of the scene. You miss what it is saying. That is the true sorrow.
Last edited by Tocky; 6th Jan 2017 at 09:54. Reason: sorrow
God, whatever fantasy world that all came from sucks dude. Lighten up.
Seeing as we're making up what each other do, you really need to stop huffing paint in your mums giant vagina, it's making you grouchy.
Anyways, I'm not any of that bullshit you just spouted. I'm not even much younger than you, I suspect. Just because I've pointed out what I think are a few problematic sections of something you enjoy doesn't mean you have to ramble on about 'ooh this generation' instead of actually thinking about it for a bit. But then thinking about stuff through the fume-haze IS hard, I guess.
Last edited by Vivian; 6th Jan 2017 at 10:05.
Nah, I think Tocky is more correct than you are, here. Context is important, and I agree with him that you seem to be ignoring it when casting judgment on these films. (The Harry Potter one I can't speak to, didn't watch them beyond the second film.) Tocky may have gone to extremes representing your position at the end there, but I think the core of it is accurate.
Your thesis doesn't, and shouldn't, apply in all cases.
It can make sense and be empowering on one level while still being absolute male-gaze fodder on another, same as with that scene in Alien. Things usually have more than one dimension.
And Tocky's strawmanning of Vivian and his opinion is just sad, really.
Tocky, you are trying too hard. If it were simply a matter of Ripley getting into the cryo sleep pod to end the film, you would have a point. But the underwear scene at the end of Alien was completely gratuitous young male boner bait. Link below if you need to refresh your memory.
That said, I do not agree with Viv that movies should aim for equality of skin to meet somebody's idea of political correctness. There's nothing wrong with making a flick for a predominantly male audience and including some titillation to sell it, e.g. Alien or Porky's. And there's nothing wrong with making a flick for a predominantly female audience and including some titillation to sell it, e.g. Magic Mike or 50 Shades. Granted there is a lot more of the former than the latter, but that is a function of what sells to men vs. women. Marketing sex appeal is not sexism. Sexism is stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination.
Now, what I don't want to see is titillation in a movie marketed to kids. And that's where RotJ pushes the limit a bit. While it's true that Leia is a strong female character, there is no good reason for exposing kids to scenes suggesting sex slavery or bondage.
Hang on, you can't just go 'like Alien or Porky's', like they're anywhere near the same bracket. What?
Look, there's a lot of either miscommunication or misrepresentation going on here. If you are presenting what you intend to be a credible female lead character in a film that is supposed to have universal appeal (I can and will argue that Alien deffo fits into that category), and you then either dress them in a weird novelty sex outfit or have a reason for them to be skimpily dressed while the camera pretty much flies up their bum, then it seems fairer that you also do that to the male characters. Otherwise you are making a film thats for guys to get aroused to, which I guess is a similar way of saying what I'm trying to say, i.e. that it will probably make straight women a bit uncomfortable. If you don't admit that's what you're doing, and just say this is a totally normal representation of a normal female character, just that 'normal' means really hot and leaning into the camera at all the right angles, then you're straying into sexism. That's my point. Well, it's not as much my point, as it's my understanding of why those bits make my girlfriend think the film we're watching can't be taken seriously anymore. You can call that 'political correctness' if you want, but fuck knows why. Neither of us are politicians.
Going back to Rogue One, and the 'context is all' thing, there is a bit where Jyn definitely takes off at least some of her clothes, because she changes clothes. There is context there for showing us her in her pants. Do you think doing that would really add much, to her character or to the film?
Last edited by Vivian; 6th Jan 2017 at 12:08.
For some reason you cannot understand that I have thought of what you pointed out and rejected it as over reactionary. I have also pointed out how a woman breaking free of slave or sexual bondage and saving herself is very feminist which you reject as only by low standards. We will never come together on this because you are now seeking emotional triggers to derail me and though you fail it does let me know what sort of person you are and frankly it is disgusting to a point I no longer wish to converse with you. How you managed to even get a girlfriend has become something of a wonder to me. Low standards I assume. Thank heaven I raised my daughter to not only recognize actual sexism but the sort who resorts to low blows.
I am harsh but I am honest. I think the over reaction to a bit of skin anyone can see on the beach is pathetic.
I was thinking about the 'if females are exposed then men should be similarly exposed' argument and wondered what you guys thought of this?
'First man hired as face of beauty brand Maybelline'.
Manny Gutierrez is the first male face of make-up brand Maybelline, starring in an advert for their new mascara.
NB I have a girlfriend because I am good looking and cool, basically. And generally regarded as a nice man. Wonder no more.
Last edited by Vivian; 6th Jan 2017 at 15:58.
Yeah, you are a nice guy. You forget people can read what you wrote and it does not speak of nice guy. A nice guy does not continue to pick at someone over their mom when he has told you she may die this year and that is the reason he is sensitive over that issue.
Weird I own. Weird I enjoy.
Last edited by Tocky; 6th Jan 2017 at 21:35. Reason: Oops the huffing paint insult was three times. Oops again 4.
Men's mascara sounds like what goths and their descendants have done since the 80s and Maybelline is a Jenny-come-lately to the scene. But I don't even know what the current incarnation of goth is, if there even is one. Emo is already a decade ago. I guess now it's just that intersex look is in vogue, and there's a whole movement where "recognition" gets rewarded, which is another topic, but I distrust it actually helping the cause of tolerance. I mean in the long run. This news itself seems fine, even quaint.
Re: my general thoughts... Now that I've been working in human rights for a while, where we focus on serious things like domestic violence, the cultural side doesn't really move me. There's a general culture of dismissing women still around that a lot of it points to. So I'd rather go straight to the culture than the artifacts, which I see in terms of inspiring people to take the higher road. But some people don't want to hear it and think criticism is pretentious and arrogant PC or something. More lecturing is only going to get them to double down on their attitude. I wouldn't want to get dragged down trying to dispute the obvious with them so would just say my piece and live and let live, if they're not committing any crime.
As for ROTJ exposing kids to sex slavery or bondage I have to say pish. Kids did not attach adult concepts to the scene. They have yet to develop such concepts. They saw her in chains and Jabba gloating and that's about it.
As for trying too hard, hell I'm shooting off the cuff what I think is all. It ain't trying at all.