web counter
 

Miss Representation Trailer: You Want a Real Female-Empowering Kick-Ass Action Flick? Here's an Idea: Let a Woman Direct It

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Trailers | Comments (48)

margaret-cho1.jpg

Included below is the trailer for the documentary, Miss Representation, which examines how women are depicted in media. The documentary, which I saw earlier this year at Sundance, is very much a preaching to the choir kind of doc, in that the people who might be interested in the film are already familiar with the message. It says absolutely nothing new and nothing that most people with a little common sense and a modicum of intelligence could not conclude on their own: Women are portrayed as catty bitches in reality television and as fuck toys in cinema. And those depictions trivialize women, making it more difficult for men and the old, white, male social order to respect them, therefore making it more difficult to take them seriously as potential leaders.

But it is a message the needs to be highlighted on occasion, and it’s particularly instructive in the wake of the feminism debate prompted by the release of Sucker Punch. That message, as applied to Snyder’s film, would be: No matter what the director says, it’s hard to take seriously the women of Sucker Punch as feminist role models if their wearing attire that trivializes them as sex objects.

The solution, of course, is the one promulgated by Miss Representation: Allow more women writers and directors to write and direct their own material so that men don’t get to dictate the conversation. Of course, the problem is: The more movies like Sucker Punch are made, the more difficult it is for the white, male social order to take women seriously, which makes it all the more difficult for them to direct their own female-empowerment action flicks.

Essentially, it’s up to the audience not to validate the choices of the existing powers that be, who are obviously driven by profit motives. The lackluster box-office showing of Sucker Punch is actually a good start.










Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance

← The Super-Sized Weekly Power Rankings: Michael and Holly Edition | All American Orgy Review: A Netflix Instant Public Service Announcement →









Comments

Here's a quick question to start things off: How much of the problem of women not taking a more dramatic role in public policy and the political arena has to do with the proscribed patriarchal structure of power in most religions?

I ask this because according to the Pew Research Group in 2007, 78.4% of the U.S. population is Christian of one form or another. Christianity is a notoriously sexist, misogynistic, patriarchal system that requires women to take a back seat to the male of the household. I grew up being taught this shit.

Maybe if the U.S. wasn't stuck adhering to bronze age philosophers who thought a bad thunderstorm meant their invisible space daddy was throwing a shitfit, we would be able to have parity between the sexes.

Personally, women have the right to be just as successful or boneheaded as men.

Posted by: bignick at March 28, 2011 3:27 PM

I'm cool with the message here, but if this doc is going to argue that I should take an unemployed former governor who can barely string a coherent thought together unless it's fear mongering or hateful then I'm going to have to pass.

Posted by: Will at March 28, 2011 3:33 PM

Christianity is a notoriously sexist, misogynistic, patriarchal system that requires women to take a back seat to the male of the household.

It's dangerous to make assumptions about an entire religion based on your personal experiences. I was raised in a Christian household too, but my experiences are nothing like yours.

Posted by: superasente at March 28, 2011 3:40 PM

I just watched that trailer and you know what I saw? A group of women all saying the same thing: "Daddy, why don't you let me __________ (fill in the blank)?"

As long as women keep framing this issue as not being "allowed" to do something, they are doomed. Women have to DO the things they want, and being "allowed" shouldn't even be part of the equation.

Posted by: Dave Frankel at March 28, 2011 3:42 PM

Um, wouldn't putting Margaret Cho, burlesque aficionado, in charge of a movie result in just as many women " wearing attire that trivializes them as sex objects"? I would refer you to Aril Levy's 'Female Chauvinist Pigs,'and Diablo Cody's pathetic second attempt at movie making for the answer to that rhetorical question,.

Posted by: soandso at March 28, 2011 3:44 PM

Can't take now. Looking at sparkly things on the Kwiat site.

Posted by: Mrs. Julien at March 28, 2011 3:54 PM

@Dave: I think part of the problem is, they aren't being allowed to - at least not at the same level as the big names (Nolan, Bay, etc.) It's not that women are barred from Hollywood outright, it's that the system that keeps Michael Bay or whoever up at the top keeps them there because the shit they make brings in ridiculous money. And as long as it makes $300 million at the box office, you can bet the studios have no problem with whatever racial, ethnic, sexist sterotype he decides to put into robot form next.

Sadly, it's going to take women contributing to films that make a lot of money in order for them to be accepted into Hollywood, and the last time a female writer gave them a cash cow, we got a bunch of vampire movies about a weak-willed girl with no personality who gets to choose between two abusive boyfriends.

Posted by: Markus at March 28, 2011 4:01 PM

And yet it is the women that take these roles...You hate how the media depicts women? don't take those roles. You get implants? That's your fault, not others.

Posted by: The Minn at March 28, 2011 4:07 PM

I would have a problem if the comment stated “Christians are notoriously sexist…” but, Christianity, collectively as a religion, IS incredibly sexist. I was raised in a country where there was (not sure of the current laws) no separation between religion and the government. In addition to my regular history, math, science, and biology classes, I had religion classes taught by Nuns. The very stereotypical Nuns who beat my hands with rulers and tore ribbons from my hair. It is the overt sexism I read of during Bible Study that made me question Catholicism in the first place.

Now, we can argue that Catholicism is much more evil than Christianity, but the fact remains that there are heavy sexist, misogynistic and patriarchal roots embedded in both. I agree that there are many, many Christians who are wonderful people. But the original comment didn’t call out the people, but the religion itself.

Posted by: Scully at March 28, 2011 4:10 PM

@ The Minn: If they didn't take those roles they would starve because there is so little for women in Hollywood outside of those roles.

Posted by: camila at March 28, 2011 4:19 PM

@The Minn: The filmmakers aren't the ones taking the roles. However, to your point, women do make those choices because we feel we have to. If we don't, someone else will.

More generally - not all feminists are looking for someone to blame (society, other "less-evolved" women, what-have-you). Maybe the film is just trying to teach other people (men and women included) that we all have to be involved to make lasting changes. And that includes convincing the Palins and the Munns that the way they're portraying themselves doesn't help.

Posted by: rockinrissac at March 28, 2011 4:21 PM

i totally get the issue of female representation in the media. but i get tired of it being represented as a gender issue (which is divisive) and not a media issue. both men and women are depicted in outrageous and shameful ways, and get limited to certain sensibilities.

the media is this enormous distortion of reality, and it has a huge impact because we spend more time engaged with media than with each other.

but when it is examined critically, the most common form is this stance that some how the media is patriarchal, or favours men, or demeans just women.

but the media simply responds to our basest instincts and then panders and then warps. it's an ugly synergy.

Posted by: idleprimate at March 28, 2011 4:31 PM

All I've got left to say is this: if the women in a film are written to be using their sexuality as a weapon to take advantage of awful sexist pigs, are the women being exploited because their costumes show off their bodies? That's all I want to know.

See, I thought exploitation was when women are chained up to trees and slowly beaten to death as a psychopath rips their clothes off and lets blood drain down their naked breasts. I thought exploitation was girls chained up as gogo dancers with no character development in an action film that actually has no reason to go into the girly bar. I didn't think the term now applied to any film that shows a woman dressed in a skimpy costume. If that's the case, I guess Blue Valentine is exploitation because poor Michelle Williams is forced to show her naked body in sex scenes so severe the MPAA originally rated the film NC-17.

Or else there's something else going on that people aren't willing to say. Let's be honest: is it only exploitation because a man made the film? Or is it the calibre of the man that made the film? Was 300 exploitation, too, for forcing all those male characters to run around with their shirts off, or does that not count because they're guys? Where do we draw the imaginary line, and should the people throwing out the "skimpy costumes=exploitation" argument be expected to see a film before they judge it based off of a few posters and a trailer? You know, be informed about the subject you're arguing and your stance before arguing it?

Posted by: Robert at March 28, 2011 4:31 PM

And this is exactly the thing about pseudo-feminists who don't have a problem with, say, Pussycat Dolls or Girls Gone Wild on the grounds that it's women taking control of their sexual agency. It's crap, because they're supposedly empowering themselves on men's terms, with all the "female signifiers" that men developed.

I know, I just parrot Ariel Levy, whether I agree with the whole of what she has to say or not. Doesn't make it not true.

Posted by: Absurdist at March 28, 2011 4:44 PM

Scully, Catholics are Christians; they're not separate. Just like dogs are always mammals and a square is always a rhombus, Catholics are always Christian. Christians aren't always Catholic, but Catholics are always Christians.

Posted by: superasente at March 28, 2011 5:24 PM

Absurdist, I don't know any woman who doesn't have a problem with Girls Gone Wild. I wouldn't want to know anyone like that. Eesh.

Here's one thing I wonder about Sucker Punch (which I haven't seen and don't want to); Snyder claims that the women take their sexuality and use it as a weapon. But...from what I gather they kick ass in this dream world while wearing fucking ridiculous, impractical outfits...while fighting giant robots and monsters? What...were they planning on first seducing the giant samurai mecha before cutting off its dick?

And, honestly, you can look just as sexy in a good pair of jeans and you won't get your legs all cut up to hell like you would while wearing a tiny skirt and fishnet tights. Practicality, people. Women like Kicking Ass outfits that look practical.

Posted by: figgy at March 28, 2011 5:44 PM

It seems that many commenters here think that men are just as equally exploited as the women in Hollywood. I find this very amusing. Those poor men. Especially the white men who had to run around half-naked in 300. After all, men have a long history of having their bodies exploited for the delight of women.

Come on. The real issue here is that many female characters are written to be defined by another character (usually the lead male character), sometimes there aren't many female characters (lest it becomes the dreaded "chick flick") in a film, or their roles are so useless that they're only in the film as accessories. Of course there are exceptions to this where writers and directors successfully create a movie with fully fleshed-out female characters. More female writers would at least lead to more honest and realistic depictions of women in film, but as The Ugly Truth has shown, this is not always the case. It leads me to wonder if it's the system at fault for perpetuating such stereotypes.

Posted by: Schadenfraulein at March 28, 2011 5:48 PM

"Allow more women writers and directors to write and direct their own material..."

i'll have to see it for myself, but your choice of the word "allow" makes me skeptical.
(And makes me mentally go "ewww")

i remember watching Rosanna Arquette's documentary Searching for Debra Winger and being terribly embarrassed for her.
Her film boiled down to a dozen or so mature actresses complaining:
"Why can't there be more strong, mature, well-written female characters to play?"
Which implies:
"I wish more men would use their male-brains to write better characters for us older girls."

If women are waiting to be "allowed" to create their own material, or for men to do it for them, then they've already lost.
The women who are making a difference are out there fucking doing it.

(Maybe they're out there fucking failing, but they're out there, and you have to fail at first.)

Posted by: Scott at March 28, 2011 5:50 PM

isn't girls gone wild just an enterprise for two guys to get rich off of barely adult girls boobs? how does anyone interpret that as feminist? I don't even like most shit that falls under the rubric of feminism, but I'm not so doltish as to not recognise crass cheap pseudo porn utterly disconnected from feminism, or any other ism that might promote dignity, power, fairness or a convivial continuum between the genders.

Posted by: idleprimate at March 28, 2011 5:59 PM

I AM A PERSON WITH A FUNCTIONING BRAIN AND WHAT IS THIS.

@Dave Frankel:

Mr. Daddy-fetish guy. Ok cool, you think we’re way too passive as women. You think our problem is that we keep asking permission instead of just, say, doing things. That’s cute. Do you also believe in that whole “American dream” thing? You know, that no matter what class or race you are, you just work real hard and act real polite, and soon you, too, will have your own suburban house and white picket fence? That’s nice. Must be swell as anything, living your life, golly gee.

Look at it this way. The entertainment industry functions pretty much like corporate America does, only worse. Corporate America has at least established hiring practices and incentives to allow more minorities and women to get a foot in the door and, ideally, rise up the ranks as easily as white men. To say it works perfectly would be absolutely incorrect, but it’s nice that they’re at least trying. A little. I guess.

However, in the entertainment industry, there's none of that. I want to be a comedy writer. Have you seen the recent breakdown of comedy writers on late night TV, by gender? The numbers were pretty much the same all over - about 18-19 male writers and one female. Craig Ferguson’s sole female writer is his sister. And don’t tell me that’s because women aren’t funny, because I’ll pretty much just bite a chunk out of your neck without thinking and I don’t want to go to jail. Then again, if I did go to jail, my chances of becoming a comedy writer there would be about the same, so fuck it.

It’s awful pretty much across the board. Novelists, directors, artists, animators, actors, comedians, etc etc. And even in these positions, women’s roles are minimized and highly controlled by supervising male figures. Do you know how many juicy, fulfilling, multi-dimensional lead roles female actors come across? How about just black female actors? Or latina? A pretty sad amount.

The entertainment industry is all about connections. If you have a buddy with an in, you’ve got much better chances. Women are consistently shut out of that. They have to work ten times as hard to appear intelligent, funny, talented to the often-male people watching and judging them. And even if they do, they get shitty roles and are shoved into skimpy clothing and heavy makeup and placed in the background to make it seem like our darling male protagonist has some residual morality, because look, a chick thinks he’s ok. I would LOVE to do the things I wanted, without needing permission. I would love to work really hard and learn a lot and stride on up to be judged knowing that, as the best and brightest, I would be guaranteed a role. It doesn’t work that way. Unless I took the time to discreetly murder every male simultaneously competing for attention, I would need a man’s permission. It sucks, but I don’t like murdering people. I’m working on other alternatives, though, involving time travel. It’s a slow process.

@The Minn

Yayyyy slut-shaming. It’s WOMEN’S fault for taking these roles! How could we! Because first of all, women work as a single unit with one combined mind, so that if we turned down a role because of our high moral standards, we could be sure that NO OTHER WOMAN EVER would then snatch that role up and thereby make said stand completely irrelevant and ineffective! And these poor harried men have to attract crowds! They don’t want to write demeaning roles for women or objectify them or rob them of a personality! It’s our fault that we even show up to audition, because we are dirty dirty whores with implants who secretly love when women are demeaned. And of all people, we know female actors have the financial security to turn down roles that don’t suit them or their creative standards. That part-time waitress gig on the side will surely cover rent just fine.

@idleprimate

No. You don’t “get” the issue of female representation. Because your post shows absolutely no understanding whatsoever. It IS a gender issue. I’m sorry if your privilege makes that uncomfortable for you. It must suck not to join in and feel like a victim without really being victimized whatsoever. I feel so badly for you.

The media does distort reality. Men are also demeaned, in some ways. However, women are systemically objectified, shoved off to less powerful or rewarding roles within the industry, made to work harder for less, etc etc. It’s not just about the images being flashed across the screen, its who’s behind the camera, who has an input in the script, who gets the roles that people care about and respond to and associate with. We have plenty of positive male roles out there. Women are not so lucky. Growing up, I felt weird and self-conscious because the women on TV did not look or sound or act like me, and I didn’t admire them. They were usually stupid and silly and didn’t aspire to anything that really interested me. They weren’t presidents or spies or artists or actors or musicians or doctors. That has an effect on girls who absorb this information and catalog it religiously. It’s how we understand what society expects of us, what will get us taunted, how we can fit in and be liked. Girls in high school were more worried about what outfit they were wearing and what boy they sat behind rather than what we’d learned in algebra that day. And that really, really sucks.

In conclusion, you're all being dumb. Stop being dumb. It hurts and I could've been outside playing with my dog by now.

*gets off soap box, kicks it at the patriarchy, which, in my imagination, is represented by a giant statue of Michael Bay sporting an erection. the end.*

Posted by: This is like my third time posting, I got mad at March 28, 2011 6:01 PM

I haven't seen the doco so my comment is based only on the trailer:
Why is Jane Fonda included? She trades on her 'activism' yet has had plastic surgery to look younger, and now shills in advertisements for a major make-up company -- telling older women they don't have to look old and wrinkled!!

Posted by: John Amiria at March 28, 2011 6:04 PM

@third posting, you know absolutely nothing of me, my circumstances, my experiences. i don't assume to know you from your one post, please do me the courtesy of not assuming i have some mythical position of privilege based on my genitals.

This is my main complaint with certain factions of feminism. not only does it not seek equality or any gender movement that involves, you know, all humans, but it launches the worst kind of hatred, ready at all times to slam a wide brush of condemnation at men as sole arbiters of everything, as though we cackle in power over hoveled women. it ignores the immense power of women, and if you acknowledge that power than you acknowledge it effects society. it ignores all the power structures that hammer down on most everyone regardless of gender or colour. it ignores the positive efforts of men and excuses the negative behaviours of women.

its cartoonish. i would ignore it, except it has this juggernaut way of plowing through law and media and common consciousness. i don't buy it, and i am regularly demonized for ever questioning it.

Posted by: idleprimate at March 28, 2011 6:17 PM

@idleprimate

I'm sorry for being overly harsh there. You have to understand that feminists hear these same arguments time and time again, and that can get really frustrating for us, especially when it's the majority opinion.

I don't hate you. I don't hate men. But yes, as a man, you have privilege. That's not my opinion, it's fact.

Look, as a white person, I have privilege. I can accept that. It doesn't mean I'm being intentionally cruel to non-white people, it doesn't make me racist, it doesn't mean I'm apologetic and submissive or "ignoring their power". It means I understand that being white affords me power and favorable responses in my day to day life, whether I want it to or not. I think this is wrong, no doubt. But ignoring the fact is not going to "empower" people of other races. It's mostly just going to prevent problems from being solved.

I think there are some great men, and some really shitty men. I think there are some great women, and some really shitty women. When I speak out against a structure of male power, I'm not expressing hate for men everywhere or demanding apologies or implying that my gender is superior. I'm asking that people be aware, that they consider what privileges they are afforded thanks to their position in life, and that they make an effort to listen to less represented voices and perhaps, god forbid, consider how we can even the playing field a little bit.

This is a really long, complicated conversation in its entirety, but if you're still interested in continuing the discussion off this comment thread, I'd be happy to get in contact with you to answer some questions.

Posted by: This is like my fourth posting, I'm not mad anymore at March 28, 2011 6:29 PM

Superasente, I speak as someone who has studied that religion extensively. The Bible that Christians hold to be the Word of God does not allow women to be anything more than property at best. My personal experiences in the church I grew up in weren't all bad. There are good people who worship the supposed teachings of Yeshua. The religion and the dogma established by said religion are virulently anti-woman.

Posted by: bignick at March 28, 2011 6:34 PM

@idleprimate

not only does it not seek equality or any gender movement that involves, you know, all humans, but it launches the worst kind of hatred, ready at all times to slam a wide brush of condemnation at men as sole arbiters of everything, as though we cackle in power over hoveled women. it ignores the immense power of women, and if you acknowledge that power than you acknowledge it effects society. it ignores all the power structures that hammer down on most everyone regardless of gender or colour. it ignores the positive efforts of men and excuses the negative behaviours of women.

Ummm... what? Cite your sources, please. By that statement alone, I can tell you haven't spent much time concerning yourself with contemporary feminism. I read your statement, and had absolutely NO idea what your are talking about. You need some Bitch Magazine in your life, stat. I know you said "certain factions" - I'm curious to know which factions of feminism are this way. Seriously.

Posted by: Rest In Peace at March 28, 2011 6:38 PM

Oh shit, Dave Frankel.
i should have read the comments before posting.
You totally made my point before i spoke up. (and more gooder, too!)

Posted by: Scott at March 28, 2011 6:43 PM

You lost me at the picture of Margaret Cho.

Posted by: D at March 28, 2011 7:01 PM

@fourth posting,

no, i don't think you get it. certainly there is a totem pole of power and privelege, it doesn't mean you can paint everyone with signifiers as having that power.

i'm a blue collar guy, from a lumpen proletariat family. i have been beaten by cops many times. i have been railroaded in court. i have been raped. i have been under the poverty line my whole life. i have been persecuted and accosted, and at times physically abused by angry feminists who saw me as the enemy. I have been dismiised, patronised, and pushed aside my whole life.

so, i get it.

and i resent being sidled into your neat tidy definition of "priveleged" simply because of a single gene. i haven't experienced one whit of that privelege. and neither have many I have known.

I live in a complex world with many heroes and villains of both genders, and i see a bigger picture that also includes players of both genders. and i see a mentality fostered by both genders.

I am wholeheartedly for evolving socially as a species. i just don't see it happening with this draw the line in the sand, simplified gender interpretations of the messy human condition.

Posted by: idleprimate at March 28, 2011 7:13 PM

The bible does have passages that advocate the poor treatment of women, bignick; I've also studied the Bible and I won't argue with that. But it also has passages that insist we stone each other to death, and we certainly don't do that anymore. The Bible demands that we slaughter cities that neighbor us if they are populated by even one infidel, and we've gleefully abandoned those lessons as well. There are passages that insist prophets can summon bears from the forest to devour people who taunt them, even (and especially) if those people are children. There are passages that insist you don't eat lobster lest you rot in Hell, that insist human beings can live to be centuries old (it's no mistake that I pluralized "century"), that insist a man can live in the belly of a whale. The bible is FILLED with crazy shit that doesn't make sense today.

The teachings of Christ speak of LOVE. Love for your fellow man, for your fellow woman, for your neighbor, for your enemy and for yourself. He had a very kind message and certainly never promoted any kind of misogyny. The message of love and acceptance is the foundation of his name-sake religion -- Christianity.

It's miopic and bigoted to make broad, general statements about the whole of Christianity based upon your peripheral and out-of-context Biblical knowledge or upon your negative personal experiences. Yes, bigoted. It's the very definition of bigotry. It's insulting to those of us with Christian family members who live the way Christ would have asked - with love and tolerance for everyone. Who would never promote or accept a religon that minimizes the value and importance of women.

Posted by: superasente at March 28, 2011 7:17 PM

i am not christianity's biggest fan, by far. i may even be an enemy, as a pagan. I may have even been an angry snotty religion student once. but i love superasente in full non-denominational internet unicorn glory.

you drop sensibility and calm into the vortex with the still aplomb of one remote from the icky maelstrom of stupidity and vitriol.

not that they exist, but you are nominated for a pajiba oscar.

Posted by: idleprimate at March 28, 2011 7:36 PM

I love you too, Idleprimate.

And I'm certainly glad to hear that I'll be the grateful recipient of some priviledge soon, considering that I'm white and male.

Any time now. Aaaaaany minute.

Posted by: superasente at March 28, 2011 7:43 PM

Let's ignore the FACT that there is no contemporary evidence for the existence of Yeshua or Christ. I don't cite biblical verses out of context. Everything I pointed out is in the book. Everything.

It's funny that you say Christ speaks of love and yet he also spoke of casting people out of heaven simply for the "crime" of not believing. Regardless of how you live, if you don't believe in that fairy tale above all the other fairy tales that make similar supernatural claims, you get to go to hell.

I make broad indictments (not generalizations) of Christianity because history backs up my claims. From the ignorance that led to the Dark Ages to demand that women obey their husbands as the head of the household, you have a system that encourages a male-dominated society. Are there female pastors and preachers? Absolutely. Are they the majority? Hardly.

You may disagree with the fact that I have a negative view of the religion I was raised in. That's your privilege. You don't know me and I don't know you, hence the reason I've not started calling you names. We disagree. Next time you talk to your family members ask them if they think the Christian way to live is if the man runs the household.

I sincerely wish you have a good day.

Posted by: bignick at March 28, 2011 8:27 PM

@superasente: Cute, but obtuse.

As a white male born in the industrialized world, you were ridiculously privileged from the minute of your birth. (So am I.) Granted, about a third of your privilege is as much the location of your birth as anything else, but make no mistake: in your life you have received preferential treatment due to your race and sex. (So have I.)

But I don't have to make a reference to the treatment of, say, girl children in China. The real problem with it is that, for the most part in the West, it's relatively subtle. Very few would admit to giving preferential treatment to men. Yet more than a few studies, and not the kind fabricated to find a desired result for some corporation or another, have shown that, in the realm of most employment, the longer someone's sex is hidden during the hiring process, the better women do. If you can believe it, it extends to fucking orchestras. For example, an orchestra that holds blind auditions is far more likely to hire, say, a female trombone player than it would otherwise.

If you don't understand the privilege of simply belonging to one group or another, regardless of whether you consciously exercise it, you don't understand basic feminist theory.

Posted by: Shadowen at March 28, 2011 8:53 PM

@shadowen, i have read the studies. apparently, females in china are going to school in higher numbers than ever. parents are relying on them to build a career and snag the best man. families are pouring all their resources into their female children.

and there are millions upon millions of men with no jobs to go to and no women to wed. are they the fucking asshole perpetrators?

I know in North America, that the percentage of women in university is 65%.

so, I am not really so interested in your vicitm mentality. it's old, and questionable, even in its time.

Posted by: idleprimate at March 28, 2011 9:11 PM

OMG. OK, here's a ">http://www.uakron.edu/centers/conflict/docs/whitepriv.pdf> link to a page explaining white privilege, here's a link to a page explaining dude privilege , and in case you don't feel like clicking in the chance it may disprove your worldview, here's what the dude privilege one says (since it's a bit more related to the topic at hand):

Posted by: Rest In Peace at March 28, 2011 9:26 PM

OK, it's not letting me cut/paste, so you guys (supra and idle), do yourself a favor and click on one of the lists or go to this website,

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/.

You're looking really bad right now. Let it marinate.

Posted by: Rest In Peace at March 28, 2011 9:32 PM

i've had white privilege explained to me young lady. plenty of times. what i asked was for you to question that bunch of bullshit. and the answer is no. so go bugger off to a university class where you can righteously spout shit. in ten years, you will understand and be embarrassed about now. guaranteed. i just wish universities didn't push garbage crap like you are ingesting right now.

Posted by: idleprimate at March 28, 2011 9:57 PM

@idleprimate

I have to interject here on the empowerment of women in China. What studies are demonstrating this? Because I think you are looking at relative improvements rather than the 'empowered daughter of China' you refer to in your post. As far as I know, China continues to have one of the highest female suicide rates in the world and I think offing yourself with fertilizer because the life you live/foresee is too grim is probably not a sign of happy ladies.

It is also worth noting that the high rates of female suicide in rural China is based on reported deaths (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-09/27/c_13531584.htm)

Posted by: hattie at March 28, 2011 10:00 PM

@idleprimate:

Dude, can you read? The topic of conversation is male privilege, and while I included the link explaining white privilege, I also included two on male privilege. Way to dodge the subject at hand. Especially with the "young lady" bit. Zing! You sure got me there, hyuk and hardy-har.

I've generally had a relative high opinion you, but not anymore. You try and call someone out about making assumptions about you, but you get to do it to me? Fuck that shit right up its ass. AS IF you know the first thing about me and what I want to do right now or in 10 years. How about you bugger off and learn how to capitalize and punctuate, learn how to stay on the topic that's been introduced, and not make assumptions about what I have or have not questioned over the course of my life. You obviously don't have anything of substance to offer this thread, so why don't you go to where you feel more comfortable. We're talking feminism, women's equality, and unexamined male privilege. Get with it or leave.

Off to work!

Posted by: Rest In Peace at March 28, 2011 10:15 PM

@idleprimate

"I know in North America, that the percentage of women in university is 65%."

I'll bet the percentage of men going to college (out of all men in America) is higher.

The moment when you started treating people on here---who are just as entitled to their opinions, moronic or not, as you are---condescendingly and with insufferable arrogance is the moment I lost all respect for you.

Posted by: thimble at March 28, 2011 10:34 PM

Next time you talk to your family members ask them if they think the Christian way to live is if the man runs the household.

I don't need to. I wouldn't waste my time or provoke that kind of laughter from my family.

===

Shadowen. I love you.
[hugs Shadowen]

Posted by: superasente at March 28, 2011 11:42 PM

OK, I’ve had enough. “Trivializes them as sex objects”?! Did you see the Green Lantern uniform?! It's fucking PAINTED ON! Did ANYONE see 300?! The women in that movie are the only ones wearing any clothes! They're running around in speedos the ENTIRE time! Enough treating women like they're poor fragile creatures to be protected and hidden! I like looking and feeling sexy, doesn't make me less empowered or less strong!

Posted by: Sarah J-Town at March 29, 2011 5:49 AM

Tired old ideologies going at it like dinosaurs...

LIKE DINOSAURS...

Stay vital, y'all...

Posted by: Recondite at March 29, 2011 10:04 AM

Two words: Karyn Kusama
Two more words: Aeon Flux

Having said that, I do think that there are female directors (Mimi Leder, Katheryn Bigelow) that can deliver big action films, and I do think that female action heroes can succeed at the box office without wearing Jabba's gold bikini (Aliens, Salt, Resident Evil series). But we need better than the female Kurt Wimmer, if we want to cheer on heroines with more skills than the Power of Sexy...

Posted by: Leroy Grey at March 29, 2011 12:25 PM

Why does Margaret Cho refer to herself as a comedienne, but also an actor? You're either a comedian and an actor, or a comedienne and an actress. I don't care which, just be consistent!

Posted by: Bert at March 29, 2011 1:55 PM

@Bert: She might have meant "Acter" which is starting to make its rounds as a gender neutral title as opposed to actor/actress. I'm a feminist, and I can't stand it, personally. It screams poor spelling.

Posted by: Lauralyn at March 29, 2011 9:33 PM

AGAIN?!

Posted by: Anna von Beav at March 30, 2011 1:33 PM

I ask this because according to the Pew Research Group in 2007, 78.4% of the U.S. population is Christian of one form or another. Christianity is a notoriously sexist, misogynistic, patriarchal system that requires women to take a back seat to the male of the household. I grew up being taught this shit.
Maybe if the U.S. wasn't stuck adhering to bronze age philosophers who thought a bad thunderstorm meant their invisible space daddy was throwing a shitfit, we would be able to have parity between t

Posted by: cosplay wigs at April 1, 2011 5:46 AM