Patriarchy hurts both women and men. This the first of in a series of examinations of popular culture presented with a feminist critique.
Progressive Bloggers
Your opinions…
 | Widdershins on Female Erasure – Boys in… |
 | tildeb on Female Erasure – Boys in… |
 | The Arbourist on Shouldn’t We Be Deportin… |
 | SM on Shouldn’t We Be Deportin… |
| The Arbourist on Life Has to Be Fought For… |
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
- Federal government highlights range of anti-auto theft measures
- What we know so far about the helicopter crash that killed Iran's president
- Omar Khadr denied appeal by U.S. Supreme Court to vacate conviction
- An artist made a video 'portal' connecting Dublin to New York. Then things got a little messy
- This French restaurant pitted ChatGPT against real chefs. Here's how it did
- I was a fool who fell for a scam. But at least I can laugh about it now
- Corporations are buying local vet clinics — raising questions about price, choice and quality of care
- Canadian Taylor Swift fans are flying to Europe for cheaper concert tickets
- Trump hush-money trial enters crucial phase as prosecutors rest their case
- Cargo ship that caused Baltimore bridge collapse removed from site as cleanup continues
Blogs I Follow
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
25 comments
June 27, 2012 at 11:48 am
VR Kaine
Interesting!
So the clip is trying to make the point that Campbell’s Hero’s Journey/Epic is somehow the domain of males only when it comes to Hollywood, and women’s roles are to only help them through that journey? Or, is the clip trying to criticize once again how females are (mis)portrayed in Hollywood?
Not sure about that one. First, do women go through the same sort of journey that men do in the same way in order to evolve? Second, does it make for as good of a story on film? Third, is it really worth trying to pick it apart and piece into another anti-male narrative, or is this simply a matter of human and market psychology 101 since ultimately, it’s the market that dictates what gets filmed and what doesn’t rather than some cabal of penises somewhere? Last I checked the market was pretty much a 50/50 split between males and females so I’d have to say that these so-called “Manic” characters are the ones that MOST women pay to want to see..
As for lack of depth, strong roles, etc., I can support that argument in a lot of ways, but what, we’re all supposed to be pining for characters like Helen Mirren’s in “The Debt” in each and every movie that exists out there? All the movies quoted in the clip are escapist movies – that’s pretty weak and is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill to me. For one, it’s FANTASY (hence escapist) and for another, just because Femimiseratis now want to slap some label on something doesn’t all of a sudden make it a cultural issue. Most clowns in movies are guys. Most people shot or maimed in movies are guys. Most midgets are guys, and most RETARDS in movies are guys. See anyone crying about it or trying to call these people Male Midget Clown Guy with capital letters in order to start some public awareness campaigns over it Nope, and I’d say mostly because there’s a life out there, people.
What I think this clip is really about is an attempt by Femimiseratis to label and demean the kind of women that they all hate: the happy ones, and more than that, the happy ones that guys are actually attracted to because they’re not puking up their misery all the time. Not only do they want to label them with some derogatory title, they go even further and try to pretend like these women actually DON’T exist.
I hate to break it to the woman in the clip, but these so-called “Pixie Dream Girls” actually DO exist in real life, and they are more real and in tune with themselves than the average guy or girl I know tends to be. For one, they’re the ones who aren’t so wrapped up in all their self-wallowing that they can actually enjoy life for what it is. They’re not like their Femimiserati counterparts who aren’t satisfied until they can read 10 layers deep into something and find (or create) something offensive to them,
Instead, they’re the ones that can let a guy be a guy and let themselves be a girl without having to overcompensate for someone else’s own male/female insecurities elsewhere. They can let a guy open a door for them and take a nice gesture for what it is without making a guy sign a detailed letter of understanding and telling him 1,000 “boo hoo” stories before doing it. And like their counterparts in the movies, they’re the ones that ultimately help us guys become more aware, more caring, and quite simply better men in the end as a result of all that they do during that time.
You see a two hour snapshot for crying out lout. We’re all that manic pixie dream character at some point whether male or female – it’s part of being human. You don’t see the preamble to the story that happens in real life – perhaps she had her own issues to go through before she could actually have the courage to lead herself to shout “Penis” in a public park but actually influence and lead others (like the guy) to do so as well. Perhaps after he’s evolved and grown and they’re still together she happens to hit a low point where he can return the favor and be her strength and guidance. That’s the beauty of being together and that’s what these escapist movies remind us of as a break from everyday life.
In between, however, IT’S JUST A MOVIE.
To me, Femimiseratis are less real than the characters in the movie in that the only sort of connection they see is through misery, and only connection through the misery of other women at that. They may want to call these happy, confident, secure women shallow, manic, and subservient, but guys have better words for them – enjoyable, fun to be with, easy to worship, inspirational, and even our “muses”. Of course Femimiseratis would have to say these kinds of women aren’t real, because they’ve already decided and convinced themselves that kind of happiness is simply impossible for them. Why should anyone else have it then, right?
To me these movies and these characters, being even just 10% reality or a moment in time, offer guys some insight (if we’d ever watch them!) into the great things women – as partners – can help us achieve in our lives and should be embraced rather that ostracized.
LikeLike
June 30, 2012 at 3:06 pm
The Arbourist
So the clip is trying to make the point that Campbell’s Hero’s Journey/Epic is somehow the domain of males only when it comes to Hollywood, and women’s roles are to only help them through that journey? Or, is the clip trying to criticize once again how females are (mis)portrayed in Hollywood?
The clip is trying to make the point that in the majority of cases the male is indeed cast in the role of the Epic Journey while women are often cast as foils to help/amplify the male lead. The clip also notes that Hollywood often does a poor job of portraying women in film.
I’m not the author of the film so consider these interpretations my particular take on the message being presented. Furthermore, there is much evidence that both these statements are true, just based on the cases put forward in the clip.
First, do women go through the same sort of journey that men do in the same way in order to evolve?
Maybe? How would we really know that though since womens journey’s in films are seldom told and often misrepresented by Hollywood.
Second, does it make for as good of a story on film?
Good question, it depends on what we deem is “a good story”.
Third, is it really worth trying to pick it apart and piece into another anti-male narrative, or is this simply a matter of human and market psychology 101 since ultimately, it’s the market that dictates what gets filmed and what doesn’t rather than some cabal of penises somewhere?
Yes it is, and its kinda funny you would term this an anti-male narrative as, being in a patriarchally dominant society, men wield the power and control in most situations.
since ultimately, it’s the market that dictates what gets filmed and what doesn’t rather than some cabal of penises somewhere?
Wholly frack, are you intentionally channelling Milton Friedman here and his flights of free market fairness and fantasy. The market is hardly nuetral and holds no superlative unbiased view divorced from the the constructs of society. And you get on my case for ideological Platonic theoretical meanderings ( :) ). Who makes up the market? Us. Who makes and even more importantly who finances movies? People – and most of them are men. Men have most of the backstage roles, post production roles and editing roles. So we are not tilting at windmills here, systematic bias exists whenever you choose to acknowledge it or not.
Last I checked the market was pretty much a 50/50 split between males and females so I’d have to say that these so-called “Manic” characters are the ones that MOST women pay to want to see.
So when your choices are misogyny “brand x” and misogyny “brand y” we can proudly proclaim that the “free market of ideas” has vetted Hollywood’s film making style? This is a weak argument precisely because of the aforementioned systematic bias – we rarely see strong women protagonists in meaningful roles because of preconceived notions of what is “good” and what “sells”.
Thus endeth this section of the comment as it actually deals with the clip. Parts of your comment read much like many anti-feminist screeds I run across on the net. I won’t give these MRA’s any link love, but if you find yourself agreeing with what is being said there, you can be sure that you’re on the wrong side of the issue when it comes to the rights of women. I’ll address more of your points in another comment, as segmenting out these sorts of issues seems to provide greater readability and clarity.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 2:03 pm
The Arbourist
As for lack of depth, strong roles, etc., I can support that argument in a lot of ways, but what, we’re all supposed to be pining for characters like Helen Mirren’s in “The Debt” in each and every movie that exists out there?
Err, no. What were supposed to realize is the there is a lack of strong roles and depth for females and female characters in Hollywood films.
All the movies quoted in the clip are escapist movies – that’s pretty weak and is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill to me. For one, it’s FANTASY (hence escapist) and for another, just because Femimiseratis now want to slap some label on something doesn’t all of a sudden make it a cultural issue.
How dare women take issue with the dude-centric nature of their culture? It is your place to set these women right and tell them where and when they can comment on the culture they inhabit?
Most clowns in movies are guys. Most people shot or maimed in movies are guys. Most midgets are guys, and most RETARDS in movies are guys. See anyone crying about it or trying to call these people Male Midget Clown Guy with capital letters in order to start some public awareness campaigns over it Nope, and I’d say mostly because there’s a life out there, people.
If the central point of the argument is that women do not get strong roles or characterizations in Hollywood movies how does the above statement apply. The marginalization of men as clowns, or stupid does not effect the role of women in film.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 2:22 pm
The Arbourist
What I think this clip is really about is an attempt by Femimiseratis to label and demean the kind of women that they all hate: the happy ones, and more than that, the happy ones that guys are actually attracted to because they’re not puking up their misery all the time. Not only do they want to label them with some derogatory title, they go even further and try to pretend like these women actually DON’T exist.
So, the act of pointing out a trope is that is demeaning to women, is actually demeaning to women. I see. So it is the feminists fault for finding all these negatives about this trope and if they would just shut up with all their complaints about equality, their rights, patriarchy et cetera things would be fabulous. Now, if I’m reading you correctly, it would seem that you are engaging in some victim blaming as well as some serious bashing of an imagined straw-feminist. (strangely enough, there is a future video coming on precisely that topic, so I’ll hold off on some commentary till it published, but if you are interested, here is a link to the video.)
I hate to break it to the woman in the clip, but these so-called “Pixie Dream Girls” actually DO exist in real life, and they are more real and in tune with themselves than the average guy or girl I know tends to be. For one, they’re the ones who aren’t so wrapped up in all their self-wallowing that they can actually enjoy life for what it is. They’re not like their Femimiserati counterparts who aren’t satisfied until they can read 10 layers deep into something and find (or create) something offensive to them,
I’m not sure what you are getting at other than saying that non-feminist patriarchal women are better because they are not such downers like feminists who don’t take kindly to being treated as second class citizens. Its just these damn feminists *looking for and causing trouble* for themselves and others, not the shitty system we live in and systematic biases that hurt both men and women. The status quo certainly isn’t the problem, just these uppity women finding trouble with everything.
Let me know if I’m off base with this reading of what you are trying to get across.
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 3:43 pm
The Arbourist
You don’t see the preamble to the story that happens in real life – perhaps she had her own issues to go through before she could actually have the courage to lead herself to shout “Penis” in a public park but actually influence and lead others (like the guy) to do so as well.
The problem is that we almost never see the preamble and that this trope appears time after time with a woman being a foil for the main characters aspirations and this is all. Leave it to those humourless feminists to point this reoccurring theme.
That’s the beauty of being together and that’s what these escapist movies remind us of as a break from everyday life.
In between, however, IT’S JUST A MOVIE.
Movies are a reflection of our culture and the norms and practices within it and there is value in analyzing how women are portrayed within movies.
To me, Femimiseratis are less real than the characters in the movie in that the only sort of connection they see is through misery, and only connection through the misery of other women at that. They may want to call these happy, confident, secure women shallow, manic, and subservient, but guys have better words for them – enjoyable, fun to be with, easy to worship, inspirational, and even our “muses”. Of course Femimiseratis would have to say these kinds of women aren’t real, because they’ve already decided and convinced themselves that kind of happiness is simply impossible for them. Why should anyone else have it then, right?
It would seem that you have almost a first hand knowledge of what Feminists think and how they feel. It most certainly seems look you are creating a strawfeminist based on your opinions of feminism and then proceeding to beat said straw-arguments into submission. That’s nice, but has little to do with the trope, feminism or movies.
To me these movies and these characters, being even just 10% reality or a moment in time, offer guys some insight (if we’d ever watch them!) into the great things women – as partners – can help us achieve in our lives and should be embraced rather that ostracized.
We should embrace tropes that seek to portray women as one-dimensional foils to men? Err..no. :)
LikeLike
July 2, 2012 at 8:24 pm
bleatmop
Love this video, although I might differ on her interpretation of 500 Days of Summer. What I got from that movie is that Summer outright rejected her just being a foil to Tom, to be nothing more than the thing that completes him. Basically, I think the movie was a critique of this trope. However, I may have my blinders on by my love for both Joseph Gordon Levitt and Zooey Deschanel.
Either way, nice find. On an off topic aside, have you been following Thunderfoot’s recent implosion into the realm of FreeThoughBlogs. It seems, according to him, that talking about sexism is the problem.
LikeLike
July 3, 2012 at 10:19 am
The Arbourist
On an off topic aside, have you been following Thunderfoot’s recent implosion into the realm of FreeThoughBlogs.
I have been following the train of slime issuing forth from TF and his entry and shameful perp-walk from FTB. Much of what he says boils down to this – Rules that would reduce sexual harassment and sexists BS at conventions impinges on my male mojo. Cue the end of the world because white male privilege has been sullied.
The madness spans several blogs, Pharyngula, Butterflies and Wheels, TF’s and of course Ed Brayton’s.
I’m thoroughly disappointed in TF’s behaviour and have unsubbed him on ytube and removed the link from this blog to his. Until he stops digging and gets a clue I do not need to be a party to that particular point of view. Although, I’ll probably check in to see if he’s stopped digging, periodically. It is like a slo-mo train wreck.
That reminds me, we have a spot open on Saturday if you’d like to do a post on all the Drama going down on FTB. :>
LikeLike
July 10, 2012 at 9:52 am
Moe
Okay Arb, this isn’t fair given how many times you’ve come to my rescue, especially on gender issues. But I’m going to question your premise here, at least your chosen example – movies. And I’ll agree with bleatmop about 500 Days – I didn’t come out of that movie seeing her in that role at all – he was love sick and she was aspirational.
First – and I know I”m a broken record on this – I’m old(ish?) and, as annoyingly slow as it seems, attitudes and cultural assumptions about women and our place have undergone astonishing change since I was in my 20’s. Astonishing. Much like gay riights – I can hardly beleive that we’ve gone from Stonewall to openly gay congress critters in 35 years. In both cases, we’ve got miles to go.
But deeply ingrained norms hold powerful historical sway over us. Undoing them is the work of generations.
That said, I have noticed a recent resurge in this ‘warm wonderrful girl to the rescue’ for whatever reason – it is a puzzle. Yet at the same time, we’re surrounded – in movies and on tv – with women detectives, superheros (Laura Croft?), with women in characters that were simply unthinkable just 25 years ago. When Cagney and Lacey came on tv,, it was a major breakthrough. Today? Ordinary.
Also, being a nurturing woman and Senator are not exclusive of one another. Anymore than being a hunter-biker and company executive are. But that’s another conversation.
There’s still at tremendous disparity. An emormous one. But I don’t think perception of gender roles is the primary obstacle. Only lingering perceptions, and attrition will take care of that.
(Of course,we leave all the Christianists out of this.)
Or did I miss the point.
LikeLike
July 24, 2012 at 8:45 am
The Arbourist
I have not seen 500 days Moe. :) If the trope does not seem to fit in that particular case, perhaps it was a bad example.
I agree Moe, we have come a very long way since the early 1900’s. As with any progressive movement though, the forces of the status quo will pushback as it is their territory and power being encroached upon. Consider the relative economic prosperity for all society until the reactionary conservative forces began to push back, most notably Regan, who started concentrating wealth at the top again.
It is the same for the status of women, the push back from the delusional religious crowd and conservative sectors is back with a vengeance. Denying patriarchy, rape culture and reproductive freedom are part of the same plan to get back to the “good ole days” where men could be men and everyone else can frack off.
Gender roles in themselves are not the problem. It is the strict enforcement of hetronormative gender roles that is the problem. It hurts men and women and sets the stage for many of the problems we have today.
I certainly hope attrition takes care of the problems with the gender-binary, but what I won’t stomach is being told that I’m being to sensitive, or emotional or too (whatever adjective) on the issue. These, among other tactics, are used to silence people in favour of the status quo just because the “normal” happens to be working for them at the moment. :)
LikeLike
July 24, 2012 at 8:44 pm
VR Kaine
Moe said:
I didn’t come out of that movie seeing her in that role at all – he was love sick and she was aspirational.”
Exactly my point – to me only Femimiseratis desperate for more misery would try and reach that deep into a “think nothing” movie.
Arb: “…but what I won’t stomach is being told that I’m being to sensitive, or emotional or too (whatever adjective) on the issue.”
Who’s saying that? I would say this clip is an overreaction and an attempt to make mountains out of molehills because I believe it pays more attention to these characters than I think any mainstream men or women would pay much mind to, and as a result I would say that it underreacts to the far stronger and far more impactful performances played by amazing female actors in films and therefore once again Femimiseratis ultimately hurt the cause.
Take Diane Keaton for example, or Ann Bancroft, or Jane Fonda… Sissy Spacek, Susan Sarandon, Jessica Lange, Meryl Streep, Marlee Matlin, Glenn Close, Judi Dench, Cate Blanchette, Helen Mirren, and more. Surely these women and their roles are more than enough to counterbalance whatever small, miniscule teenage fantasy role some romantic comedy puts in front of us every once in a while?
I think most would say so, unless a person perhaps wanted to find each and every excuse to cry foul and attach to some cause to feed some “perpetual victimhood” identity they have. In that case, we might as well go back to my black key piano argument and hate all pianos, or perhaps start picking out every “Funniest Home Videos” video where a boy or man gets cranked in the nuts and start a massive campaign trying to link it to low sperm count (please don’t tell me some idiot guy has tried this already!)
I agree with Arb in saying we should never back down when someone says we’re “too much” of something, primarily because I believe someone saying that is just projecting and dodging their own b.s.. There’s times, however, where one can look at the intended result to gauge whether something is too much or not. In the case of female roles in film, I believe it’s much more productive and effective to focus on the many strong roles played by the many great actresses I mentioned. This, I believe, through not only box office receipts but also Internet support, would promote them more and do much more to help with that attrition we’re speaking of.
Either way, when talking about how men view women I can tell you as “a viewer” that while I do believe these tropes are more real in society than Femimiseratis try to make them out to be, they don’t get much mind. if I’m looking for “female reality” in film I’ll immediately go to the roles played by the women that I’ve mentioned, and I think most other men and women would agree. (Helen Mirren and Jessica Castain in “The Debt” come to mind – not only a great movie overall, but incredibly multidimensional was the character they both played, in my opinion).
LikeLike
July 25, 2012 at 12:16 pm
The Arbourist
Arguments made from the minority tend to be dismissed by the majority as “overreactions” or “misunderstandings” or “emotional outbursts” et cetera without actually checking to see if the argument is valid or not. This applies when talking economics (socialism!1!!!!), poltics (liberal!!1!) and societal (feminazi!!) issues. It is a way of marginalizing peoples voices in defense of the status quo – the term “Femimiseratis” fits into this category nicely, just sayin’.
How many strong, female protagonists are out there? How many have stories that do not revolved around getting a dude or marrying a dude or finding a dude to complete her? This is the bigger idea being staged here, the “manic pixie dreamgirl” is a manifestation of the lack of women in central roles.
Another neat thing about not being in the minority is that the battles that you think that ought to be won, or prioritized might not line up with said minorities views on the topic.
Now Vern, I am also not part of said minority so I cannot respond as an authentic voice, however what I do “do” is listen to what they have to say and give them the time and space to air their concerns, because I am not experiencing what they are, and while I can understand to certain extent what they are going through, I cannot fully appreciate what they have to face and deal with on a daily basis, by default.
I’m on the easy track, I have my WMP working for me whether I like it or not. It is my responsibility to be aware of it and its corrosive effects on those around me.
LikeLike
July 26, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Moe
since the 1900’s? Dear god woman, I’m not THAT old. But it was the 1970’s when an employer with a straight face told me he was only giving the riase to my male coworker cuz ‘money is tight and Al has a family’. Were it the other way around, I gueaantee the reasoning wouldn’t have held up.
In spite of my comment, I am entirely with you on how woefully behind we still are and how ugly are the efforts to push the genie (us) back into the bottle.
Look at the polls though . . . on all gender issues, people are way ahead of the screamers. Those Christianists and conservatives are yelling so loud because they know they’re losing. I’d like nothing better than to see that god awful head of the “Catholic League’ caught with a dead girl or a live boy.
May they all pay for their ignorance while I’m still living. I need to see it.
LikeLike
July 28, 2012 at 3:10 pm
The Arbourist
It is not a struggle in which we can back down from because the weight of history is not on our side. The pressure needs to be maintained precisely because we are making a stink about the status quo.
I’m glad we are making some progress, some days it feels like you’re holding back a river instead of the usual ocean of patriarchal nonsense. :)
LikeLike
July 28, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Moe
(Whoops, I did it again didn’t I?) “Dear god, Arb, I’m not THAT old.”
LikeLike
July 29, 2012 at 10:10 am
VR Kaine
Hey Arb,
All good points, and yes, I realize the road I go down when I use the “Femimiserati” term so easily.
The clip argues that “the “manic pixie dreamgirl” is a manifestation of the lack of women in central roles.”, OK, however the argument can easily be made the other way that since it’s largely women paying for these kinds of movies, it’s not the lack of women in central roles that manifests these characters but instead what manifests them is that they are simply what the majority of women want to see when they go to a movie and Hollwood’s just meeting that demand.
“How many strong, female protagonists are out there? How many have stories that do not revolved around getting a dude or marrying a dude or finding a dude to complete her?”
Um, as many that show women two-timing and playing two guys at once? ;) Either way, Hollywood’s largely reactive, not proactive (just look at all the remakes/”reboots” as an example), therefore when it’s making movies targeted to women, it’s making movies that the majority of women have shown time and time again that they want to see. So either you’re demanding that the majority of women out there give their head a shake and wake up to the horribly misogyny or tropism whatever it is that they see on the screen, or you’re demanding that Hollywood produce a whole bunch of movies that you women collectively have said that you don’t want to see.
So to answer your question of how many movies have strong female roles, based on the attendance I’d say “enough movies with females as most women want to see”. Compare this with how many escapist movies are in Hollywood – a ton. What’s the “correct” amount of these movies? I’d again say that the market has decided.
Now perhaps you want movies to be more reflective of real life. Well most people call those movies “boring”. Furthermore, most men and women I know don’t want to comiserate their politics with what’s on the screen 99% of the time they go to a theater. How many films based on real life are there vs. fictional, escapist films? Probably in direct proportion to that, I’d say.
“I cannot fully appreciate what they have to face and deal with on a daily basis, by default.”
Same with you and businesses. ;) No, I get ya here, and you’re right. There’s no way any guy can fully connect the dots between these “tropes” we see on screen and how our wives, sisters, mothers, daughters, etc. get treated as a result down the line, but I also know a number of women who don’t agree with how far the hardline feminists take their positions supposedly on their behalf, either. Like Moe shared, they perhaps see a different character on screen than Femimiseratis do, and they don’t seem to share the same degree of complaints they do about female characters in their favorite movies, so why should the small minority become the majority here? (And by the way, men are the minority in these movies so that goes for us as well – we’d want to see more boobies! haha)
Thankfully, for me, the “free” market has spoken so while the Femimiseratis are trying to rewrite scripts and turn movies into boring, I have the very exciting Expendables 2, Bourne Legacy, Dark Knight Rises, Spiderman, etc. to look forward to with both my male and female compadres next door. :)
LikeLike
July 31, 2012 at 10:54 am
The Intransigent One
Vern: Please read the following excellent article about the catch-22 of talking about oppression.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/07/31/playing-the-victim-oppression-and-a-catch-22/
And yes, when you make up belittling names for people who see a problem where you and your associates maybe don’t, you are most definitely part of the problem.
LikeLike
July 31, 2012 at 5:16 pm
VR Kaine
Thanks, IO. I’ll be sure to check out the link. You and Arb always have good suggestions.
You mistake who I label with the Femimiserati name, however – much more narrow a group than you’re trying to suggest, and surely more specific than the general “Privileged White Males” label that comes from the other side. Besides, “Privileged” would be a matter of perpective, don’t you think?
If one was trying to generalize a large group of women, I suppose they’d use a label like “Privileged White Women” but I prefer to avoid sweeping generalizations like that and try to be more specific. Surely they can’t all be privileged. :)
LikeLike
August 1, 2012 at 12:26 pm
The Intransigent One
“Privileged White Women” is an absolutely valid label, if that’s who you’re talking about. It does actually come up a lot in feminist and social-justice-oriented discussions of issues like race and class. Especially when privileged white women fuck up and forget that while we have the best access to communication/resources/publication so you hear from us the most, ours is not the only experience of womanhood and we should really learn to stfu and listen to those whose experiences aren’t part of the dominant cultural narrative. Especially those who, whether we mean to or not, our privileged lives are at the expense of.
In many contexts, Privileged White Women is me. Having aged out of the fuckability bracket, and working in a field that’s all about brains anyway, I am very, very fortunate to not face many of the pitfalls of life that you get just for being a woman – at least at work. Because I grew up in a semi-affluent family and generally travelled in privileged social circles and got a good education, I just sortof naturally expect people to take what I say seriously and treat me with respect, and because I act that way pretty convincinly and naturally, that’s generally how I get treated. I don’t have to deal with racism. So yeah, I definitely am a very privileged woman.
On the other hand, there are issues that put me in a disadvantaged category, in particular the fact that I’m living with an invisible disability, I’m fat, and I’m queer. A well-to-do white man could be privileged in some ways and disadvantaged in others, too. It doesn’t work like math, either. You can’t go white +1, female -1, wealthy +1, has a disability -1 and so forth and come up with some kind of score. It’s more like how if you feel both happy and sad about something, that doesn’t mean it averages out to not feeling anything.
Also, I’m pretty sure I’m not mistaken on who you mean by “Femimiserati”. As I understand it, you don’t mean all feminists. You don’t even mean all feminists who point out things that are bad and say they should be changed. You appear to mean specifically those feminists who point out problems that you don’t believe are problems. In other words, you’re calling people dismissive names for not agreeing with you. Not cool, Mr. Kaine. Not cool at all.
Now please go read the article, and if you’d like, come back and explain how a feminist who sees a problem where you don’t, could present their argument to you and not just be dismissed with mockery.
LikeLike
August 3, 2012 at 1:00 am
VR Kaine
“Also, I’m pretty sure I’m not mistaken on who you mean by “Femimiserati”.
Women who choose to be miserable over just about everything and make others around them miserable as their primary vehicle for meeting their connection need.
“In other words, you’re calling people dismissive names for not agreeing with you. Not cool, Mr. Kaine. Not cool at all.”
I disagree. It’s not a judgment on the opinion so much as it is a criticism of the behavior/state. You’re saying you’ve never used a dismissive name to criticize someone’s behavior?
“Now please go read the article, and if you’d like, come back and explain how a feminist who sees a problem where you don’t, could present their argument to you and not just be dismissed with mockery.”
I think this is simple.
First, mockery will always exist with any group passionate and opposite of the side one happens to be on so there the strategy is simple: suffer it. If the person/group is strong and the argument is strong then ultimately both will survive and succeed in whatever cause is linked to that passion.
Second, I’d say forget for a moment what others happen to label you and stop labeling yourselves. Specifically, stop labeling a belief system as someone’s actual identity.
There’s a difference between having conservative views versus calling oneself a “Conservative”, much like there’s a difference between agreeing with feminist position and being a feminist, or sharing Christian views or being a Christian. No matter what the label happens to be, they’re all reductive and compartmentalizing and – depending on the identity one chooses – can automatically invite polarity and antagonism that run counter to the cause and in my opinion, more times than not do more harm to the cause than good.
Now of course an argument can be made the other way where if a person or group doesn’t give themselves such an identity label they risk not being recognized as a unique group with unique needs. There I say look at the overall results. Are the results where they should be? How fast have they come? Those I believe who are in power who stay in (soft) power do so by making sure they duck or diffuse all labels, never letting any one label about perhaps their views stick as their identity. Tactically and strategically, this offers a number of advantages that usually provides a win in the end.
LikeLike
August 3, 2012 at 9:31 am
Moe
Vern – there are always, no matter the ’cause’, who will use militant rhetoric and often annoy the hell out of the rest of us – white supremacists, the overly religious, anti or pro whatever. To define the larger group they belong to – whites, religous people – byt he behavior or rhetoric of the few is not productive. And it soulnds to me like that’s what you’re doing.
That said, in many instances, we need those agressive in your face types to move ideas forward. (I think we can leave a few out of this one – Westboro, supremacists etc)
For a millenium,, we’ve lived in a patriarchal world. That has had to change to satisfy both justice and modernity. We are NOT there, so I’m happy some of my sisters are out there reminding everyone of that.
LikeLike
August 3, 2012 at 10:43 am
The Intransigent One
Wow, way to miss the point while doubling down on the insults! Did you really just argue that women who are unhappy about things that are wrong with our culture, are being vocal because that’s how we make our emotional connection with others (as opposed to a genuine desire to raise awareness and bring about change)? That sounds a lot like dismissing women as hysterical and emotional. Is that really what you meant to do?
and sure I call people names. It gives me great pleasure to come up with a really zingy, apt, and preferably extremely crude moniker for somebody who deserves it. But I try not to do it at the same time as I’m trying to make myself out to be the wiser, calmer, more neutral and detatched and generally intellectually and morally superior person in a particular conversation.
And while it’s very kind of you to explain how marginalized people are Doing their Activism Wrong, I think you missed the overall point of both my question and the article: I’m not being all waaah my feelings are hurt please help me find a way to stop people from being mean to me/us; I’m questioning your intellectual honesty. Specifically, I want to know, is there any way arguments like those made in the Tropes vs Women series could be presented to you, that you would consider the argument on its merits, and then respond to the actual argument rather than using ad hominems to criticise the speaker for having dared to put the argument forward in the first place.
LikeLike
August 3, 2012 at 2:50 pm
VR Kaine
“And it sounds to me like that’s what you’re doing.”
Hi Moe, I’ll re-read what I wrote but not sure where you’re getting that I’m trying to generalize. I think it’s just the opposite. We’re talking fictional movies with fictional characters that by and large the majority of women don’t seem to have a problem with, considering that ROI for these kinds of fantasy movies comes almost entirely from women. Add to this the fact that there are women who don’t view these characters in the same way as the clip author suggests, and I made the suggestions that 1) perhaps the view of these female roles is not the only one, (or an accurate one), and 2) perhaps of the view of the clip’s author is in the large minority.
Basically if this is what women wanted to see in movies and most women obviously didn’t have a problem with it, then why make SUCH a big deal about such a small character in some fantasy movie? Because it’s some piece of a bigger picture? If so, then I argued that one could make anything a bigger picture of anything else, and both the futility and sometimes even the ridiculousness of it. I then brought up that there are those who would try and make these minor female roles a big major deal of it, and asked aloud why does their opinion count SO MUCH if they’re the extreme minority when obviously millions of women in the majority seem perfectly fine with them? At least fine enough to recommend the movie, buy the movie, and support the actresses in later films. My point was that only a “Femimiserati” – someone seemingly trying to be miserable about anything – would take such a large leap with these characters and state something like that these roles are clear example of male oppression as so much of an absolute. Based on theatergoers and even some of the opinions expressed here about the characters themselves, it would seem that it’s less some male conspiracy and likely more just the simple fact that they’re in so many films because the majority of women want them there.
I hadn’t accused anyone here of whining about it and I wouldn’t unless that person refused to acknowledge the fact that – again, by the numbers – that these movies and characters exist simply because the majority of women want them, not men, and that the ones who flat out hate these characters are in the minority.
How is that generalizing or trying to say “all women” in any way at all?
So I’m happy some of my sisters are out there reminding everyone of that.”
Unless I’ve missed something, aren’t these clips saying that male patriarchy has created these characters and is perpetuating them? How can that be when these characters are mostly enjoyed and “kept alive” by women?
There’s surely enough out there to blame us men for, but I’m not sure this particular instance qualifies?
LikeLike
August 3, 2012 at 3:21 pm
VR Kaine
Did you really just argue that women who are unhappy about things that are wrong with our culture, are being vocal because that’s how we make our emotional connection with others (as opposed to a genuine desire to raise awareness and bring about change)?”
No, and you completely cherry-picked what i had said above. There’s a difference for ANYBODY between trying to raise awareness and trying to make the leap that a film enjoyed entirely by women over and over containing characters meant to appeal to women is somehow yet again part of the male oppression engine. It’s one thing to say that there’s elements of that oppression or patriarchy in these characters, it’s another to try and dump it completely on men.
I make a clear distinction between someone complaining and someone living their life as though it’s one big complaint. What, no one can suggest that SOME of those complains might be at least partially unfounded? And let me guess, anyone who challenges Obama’s economic policies must be racist, too, is that it? :)
Nowhere did I say that anyone who raises the possible issue of these tropes here is a whiner, a “Femimiserati”, or a “waa woe is me”. What I did say is anyone continuing to attack me without ever even once acknowledging the fact that the majority of women obviously like and want these characters on screen (and obviously, see them differently) may yes, just want to simply insist that these trope characters are part of the male oppression and that’s it. What other reason for that could there be other than as yet another excuse to be miserable today about patriarchy? I gave them a label just as you’d call someone an idiot or an asshole momentarily. If you automatically just assumed that by saying “Femimiserati” I was talking about you, then you had made that association entirely on your own. In fact, I didn’t see one point at all where you were either miserable or whining over this?
“Specifically, I want to know, is there any way arguments like those made in the Tropes vs Women series could be presented to you
Do you see me challenging any of the others? This is the one to me where the data suggests something other than the conclusion.
I keep trying to get specific on a number of occasions in this thread, yet you keep trying to go back and generalize what I’m saying and turn it into some stereotype that is somehow something I apply to all women – and why? The only reason I can see so far is that it seems to fit into your own stereotype of men (i.e. that I’m “definitely part of the problem”). If that’s where you have to put me for your world to fit together, then knock yourself out, but that’s not how I am and not what I’m talking about here.
I have not characterized you based upon your beliefs here and I’d hope for the same courtesy. I think the point I made that this “trope character” problem may stem more from women than men is a valid one. You blew my “WMP” point pretty much out of the water and I was pleasantly surprised to hear that feminists smack the “WFP” phrase around all the same, so I was sincerely hoping that the point of attendance demographics for these movies and characters would be treated to the same objectivity.
“And while it’s very kind of you to explain how marginalized people are Doing their Activism Wrong”
Hey, you asked. ;) Do you disagree with my opinions as to why a lot of these movements get off to a good start but held back?
LikeLike
August 3, 2012 at 10:40 pm
The Intransigent One
The fact that many women consume and enjoy (and even produce) a particular product, is not a valid argument against that product playing a role in perpetuating the kyriarchal* matrix. It is merely the logical fallacy called appeal to popularity. Was that objective enough for you?
*Kyriarchy is a cool new-ish word that I like better than patriarchy, because it means not just the male/female thing, but the whole ugly web of intersecting power dynamics (gender, class, race, religion, and on and on) that keep the people at the bottom, down. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy for more information.
Also, when I respond to your posts, I’m not responding to a stereotype of all men, I’m responding to the kind of person I’ve inferred you to be, from the things you’ve said and the attitudes you’ve expressed while commenting on this blog.
LikeLike
August 4, 2012 at 2:43 am
VR Kaine
“The fact that many women consume and enjoy (and even produce) a particular product, is not a valid argument against that product playing a role in perpetuating the kyriarchal* matrix. It is merely the logical fallacy called appeal to popularity. Was that objective enough for you?”
I doubt it. :). I see your point, though – kind of like popular women’s mags being made for women, written by women, and yet still having fake-thin and unrealistic female images on the cover?
Kyriarchy – I like it!
“I’m responding to the kind of person I’ve inferred you to be.”.. And it’s such a treat when you do! ;) haha. Seriously, though, you offer some great steers to info and insights I would normally not be exposed to, so I do appreciate it. Gracias. :)
LikeLike