James Bond sexist?

[Nehru]

Is it?

Yeah, it's only a movie but normally leftists analyze even movies and books. Most James Bond movies show James Bond treating women like sex objects, so...

[#FF0000]

well yeah

[agnixie]

Is it?

Yeah, it's only a movie but normally leftists analyze even movies and books. Most James Bond movies show James Bond treating women like sex objects, so...

It's hard to say no.

[Tablo]

Yeah, James Bond is very sexist and reactionary as a whole.

[Wanted Man]

Only a little.

YJWfObq2cFk

[A.J.]

Far more worryingly Bond is pro-imperialist. Or as Matt Damon eloquently put it "...Bond is an imperialist, misogynist sociopath who goes around bedding women and swilling martinis and killing people. He's repulsive."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2009/jan/29/bond-bourne-matt-damon

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Far more worryingly Bond is pro-imperialist. Or as Matt Damon eloquently put it "...Bond is an imperialist, misogynist sociopath who goes around bedding women and swilling martinis and killing people. He's repulsive."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2009/jan/29/bond-bourne-matt-damon

Considering what scum wrote the books that's hardly surprising.

And this is where you'd need some form of vomiting emoticon.

[A.J.]

Considering what scum wrote the books that's hardly surprising.

And this is where you'd need some form of vomiting emoticon.

oh yes, I forgot to mention. Ian Fleming was known to be quite racist. Amongst other reactionary beliefs he held.

[El Chuncho]

The Bond novels are quite reactionary, but they are easy to divorce from politics because Ian Fleming was a bit of an airhead.

The films are worse than the novels though, as they are even more sexist. In the novels Bond often doesn't even sleep with the women.

[GallowsBird]

He sleeps with women only a few times (and is only with one per novel) in the books, yes. The books aren't as annoying as the films as the films are just ridiculous. The books are reactionary, imperialist et cetera but the films are even more ridiculous and unlikely.

[stella2010]

Bonds a daddys boy, he seems more like a sloth than a hard worker…he would surely be trampled on and those stupid women that fall for him.

[graymouser]

Is the Pope Catholic?

Some of the Pierce Brosnan era movies tried to create strong female characters (like Halle Berry in Die Another Day) but the attempts fell flat on their faces. For the most part, the movies aren't just sexist, they revel in their sexism. Women exist for Bond to seduce.

As action movies they can be amusing, because some of them are well done for what they are, but virtually all of them are politically awful. There are slight gaps; for instance in the latest one, Quantum of Solace, Bond is actually protecting a left-wing government in Bolivia for a change. But on the whole they should not be watched for political or cultural merits.

[PhoenixAsh]

The books and movies depict women as unthinking creatures easilly persuaded by sex, material gain and are quite contend devoid of being able to make moral decisions to side with anybody who can provide these...and have a primary function to be pretty, sexy, easilly persuaded and willing. Most of them are also depicted as unintelligent and unthinking needing to be told by a supposedly wise man what to think and do.

I think that classifies as sexist to the extreme...yes...


Seeing as Bonds job is working for and with the secret service of capitalist countries and his primary job is furthering the interests of these countries I think it does not need any further explanation that he is imperialis, capitalist and perfectly fits into all other stereotypes we hold against the very same establishment.


That however does not mean the books have no entertainment value at all...its unthinking pulp entertainment. It does mean however that they provide a platform to further gender stereotypes. Being products of their time it is not surprising that they do....and the more recent books and movies try to alieviate the stereotypes somewhat, but really build on the existing ideas.

I have no idea about the last two films. I generally was to stoned to notice anything of the story much less remember anything about them. But I seem to remember that they were somehow darker...more prone to make the audience think about what was happening and were less inclined to depict women as (sex) objects. But then again...I have no idea if I am remembering incorrectly.

[Red Future]

Richard Seymour's (Lenin's Tomb blogger) sarcastic hacking apart of Casino Royale

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/11/so-mister-bond.html

[PhoenixAsh]

Richard Seymour's (Lenin's Tomb blogger) sarcastic hacking apart of Casino Royale

http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/11/so-mister-bond.html

Hillarious!! THat guy is awesome.

[Ocean Seal]

Yes Bond is quite obviously sexist. Furthermore, and less obviously he's a racist imperialist. In one of his movies he promises a child 20,000 dollars to start a boat and then kicks him off the boat. That was pretty fucked up. He's also a proud imperialist and obvious anti-communist. I always hope that he dies in his movies:thumbup1:.

[El Chuncho]

Yes Bond is quite obviously sexist. Furthermore, and less obviously he's a racist imperialist. In one of his movies he promises a child 20,000 dollars to start a boat and then kicks him off the boat. That was pretty fucked up. He's also a proud imperialist and obvious anti-communist. I always hope that he dies in his movies:thumbup1:.

To be fair, I have always seen Bond in the Roger Moore era as a double agent as he usually teams up with Russia and even has a meddle from the Soviet government! :lol:

[Wanted Man]

I don't know about the books, but in how many of the films does he actually fight the USSR, China, etc.? Most "communist" villains that I can remember are renegade generals, or they've defected to SPECTRE, stuff like that. Or in a more recent film, it was a media tycoon trying to start a war between the UK and China (umm, right). In fact, didn't they basically invent SPECTRE to depoliticise it all?

Anyway, I haven't seen the recent films. The first Bond films that I saw were Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies when I was like 10. After that, I saw From Russia With Love and I was completely sold on the old films with Connery. They did an admirable job with those first few Brosnan movies, but I guess Bond doesn't really belong in this age any more.

[Tim Finnegan]

Anyone who shares the apparently rather common distate for Bond should take a look at Alan Moore and Kevin O'Neill's The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: Black Dossier, in which he gets rather satisfyingly bricked in the face. Moore, loveable chap that he is, is not shy about expressing his contempt for certain characters.

[El Chuncho]

I don't know about the books, but in how many of the films does he actually fight the USSR, China, etc.? Most "communist" villains that I can remember are renegade generals, or they've defected to SPECTRE, stuff like that. Or in a more recent film, it was a media tycoon trying to start a war between the UK and China (umm, right). In fact, didn't they basically invent SPECTRE to depoliticise it all?

Anyway, I haven't seen the recent films. The first Bond films that I saw were Goldeneye and Tomorrow Never Dies when I was like 10. After that, I saw From Russia With Love and I was completely sold on the old films with Connery. They did an admirable job with those first few Brosnan movies, but I guess Bond doesn't really belong in this age any more.

No, in the films he usually teams up with the USSR (apart from a few, oddly the least offensive in a technical sense because they are more serious and less sexist). As you have said, Wanted Man, he is usually against SPECTRE and other organizations not connected with countries. They even changed Dr. No from a SMERSH agent to a SPECTRE agent in the films. SPECTRE was invented by Ian Fleming for an unproductive TV production, I believe, which became 'Thunderball'.

In the novels, there is certain amounts of sexism due to the time - and many leftists at the time had some sexism in them, it must be said - but Bond was not quite the womanizer of the films and often didn't even end up in bed with the women in the story.

Ian Fleming worked for a capitalist country, officially allied with the Soviet union but hostile to it, and was a bit of an an airhead - his attempt at being anviliciously anti-racist in 'Live and Let Die' failed because of this - but he generally didn't bother with spreading capitalist propaganda usually, in fact he had a moment of thoughtfulness in his first novel ('Casino Royale') in which Bond ends up minorly defending communism (pointing out that the conservativism of the era was far left in the past, so are far leftists truly wrong?) and also Satan.

The Bond novels are infuriating at times, especially when it comes to politics and sexuality, however, I enjoyed them as pulp and hardboiled fiction (something the films never recreated). However, I prefer the works of comrade Dashiell Hammett, such as 'Red Harvest', one of the finest and most cynical novels ever written.

http://www.spinetinglermag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Hammett-Red-Harvest-Pocket.jpg

[GallowsBird]

Yes, 'Red Harvest' is great and was the basis for the films 'Yojimbo', 'A Fistful of Dollars' and 'Last Man Standing' as I know El Chuncho knows and think others here probably do as well.

'The Maltese Falcon' is great as well as is the film adaptation of it.

[El Chuncho]

I forgot 'The Maltese Falcon' for a minute. It truly highlights capitalist greed; the scene in which Gutmann frantically scrapes at the statue at the end was also well filmed in John Hustons films, making the point even clearer. The main characters, apart from Sam Spade, are bourgeoisie vultures.

[The Idler]

yiWeqVYYI1c

[Anarchrusty]

Fucking hell!

Never saw a James Bond movie before, but if he's anything like the vid portraid, I am ashamed for even being British. Even before I was a feminist, I knew how to NOT treat women like that. Bloody angry at that, that should be prohibited, images like these. Does anyone know the implications that has on society at large? No fucking wonder we still have wife beaters, Bond is endorsing that crap.

I never read the Bond author's books, but you say he was a racist and such. Can you give me any examples?

[El Chuncho]

yiWeqVYYI1c

Now that is sexist! But I see it as a spy-fi comedy about an old dinosaur, so all is good. Almost a guilty pleasure thing. :laugh:

Actually, I enjoyed the books, but most of the films are dreadful. The sexism in the 70s films is also more serious than the sexism in the books from the 50s.

[Dumb]

... unthinking creatures easilly persuaded by sex, material gain and are quite contend devoid of being able to make moral decisions to side with anybody who can provide these...

Sounds like a typical male sitcom character, too, if I remove this short phrase from any and all context. "Everybody Loves Raymond," anybody? :lol:

[caramelpence]

In all honesty, if people are shocked or angry that Bond is sexist, then they're idiots. The entire point of the movies is that they are grossly exaggerated and unrealistic in every respect - not just in the sense that Bond has car chases and uses all sorts of exciting gadgets (come on, it's not like there would ever actually be a car that can launch rockets or turn into a submarine) but that Bond himself is an exaggerated version of every single form of old-fashioned male chauvinism imaginable. The entire point is that Bond is recognizable as a chauvinist, and as an aggressive man with an inflated sense of his own skill and importance, in much the same way that his opponents are all supposed to be evil and devious in absurdly exaggerated ways. As one poster rightly says, it's pulp fiction - the movies and books are not intended to serve as models for good conduct either for men or women, they're designed as cheap entertainment and escapism.

What's most patronizing is the assumption that people can't actually recognize the absurd character of Bond and his escapades and that the movies should be banned because of their apparently devastating effects on male behavior! People can recognize that Bond is exaggerated, and wife-beating is not caused by people watching Bond treat women roughly in films.

[Tim Finnegan]

What's most patronizing is the assumption that people can't actually recognize the absurd character of Bond and his escapades and that the movies should be banned because of their apparently devastating effects on male behavior! People can recognize that Bond is exaggerated, and wife-beating is not caused by people watching Bond treat women roughly in films.
Yin, the complaint isn't that people are going to imitate Bond, but that the glorification of a character like him normalises aggressive and misogynist behaviour. Furthermore, the problem is not the Bond films in isolation, but the cultural milieu which they belong to and which they perpetuate. You can observe that he's obviously a user of women, but I'm not convinced that we live in the post-sexist world where that is considered by the majority to be a self-evident flaw, or that the films are crafted in such a fashion as to allow us to suggest that the creators are producing ironic, anti-sexist material that is being unfortunately misappropriated.
Twa, who in the name of great galloping Christ suggested that they be banned? You're pulling stuff of your arse, there.

[caramelpence]

Twa, who in the name of great galloping Christ suggested that they be banned? You're pulling stuff of your arse, there.

I'll deal with the broader issues another time, but on this, consider this comment from Anarchrusty:

"Never saw a James Bond movie before, but if he's anything like the vid portraid, I am ashamed for even being British. Even before I was a feminist, I knew how to NOT treat women like that. Bloody angry at that, that should be prohibited, images like these. Does anyone know the implications that has on society at large? No fucking wonder we still have wife beaters, Bond is endorsing that crap."

Do you know what prohibited means? Apparently not.

[Tim Finnegan]

My mistake. A single hypocrite ("Anarchrusty"? Evidently not.) is advocating that they banned. All the difference, I'm sure.

[StalinFanboy]

people should just enjoy movies for what they are: an hour and a half of forgetting reality.

[Agent Ducky]

Yeah. Really sexist and objectifying, etc. Also, the enemies are ALWAYS Russian/Communist and they're always depicted as derps....

[Tim Finnegan]

people should just enjoy movies for what they are: an hour and a half of forgetting reality.
http://globalfilm.foreignpolicyblogs.com/files/2011/03/triumph_will_poster.jpg

Because, frankly, I can't be arsed to dissect this sort of centrist-liberal nonsense right now.

[StalinFanboy]

http://globalfilm.foreignpolicyblogs.com/files/2011/03/triumph_will_poster.jpg

Because, frankly, I can't be arsed to dissect this sort of centrist-liberal nonsense right now.

Wait, I'm a liberal because I'm not up in arms that a hollywood movie is going to reflect the ruling ideology?

Time to get off your high horse bud

[Tim Finnegan]

Wait, I'm a liberal because I'm not up in arms that a hollywood movie is going to reflect the ruling ideology?
My objection is that you reject the legitimacy of analysis of that ideology through its expression. There's certainly nothing wrong with turning your brain off and watching the pretty explosions (not for nowt have I watched Independence Day about twenty times! :D), but to declare that people should do so, simply because that's the intended commercial purpose of the work, is a retreat from intellectual engagement more typical of everything-is-fine-dammit centrism than leftism.

Not, of course, that my original usage of "liberal" actually makes much sense, or was anything more than childish, barely-if-at-all defensible pejorative, but I never claimed to be perfect. ;)

[Dr Mindbender]

To be honest i think the general movie going public are to blame. If people want to watch spy movies where the main protagonist is a sensitive, left wing femophile then they should stop going to see these sorts of movies.

[caramelpence]

You can observe that he's obviously a user of women, but I'm not convinced that we live in the post-sexist world where that is considered by the majority to be a self-evident flaw,

My point is this - that even though not everyone is going to think at length about the relationship between culture and structures of oppression or automatically recognize Bond's treatment of women as abusive, everyone does possess some ability to critically reflect on what they are exposed to through different kinds of media, and to recognize that action films (especially action films but also other kinds of cultural artifact) are escapist in their intention and that they necessarily involve many forms of exaggeration, both in terms of the personalities of individual characters and technology, not to mention geopolitical scenarios that would never happen in real life, rather than being intended to serve as models for interpersonal behavior in a real-world context. The fact that this ability to critically reflect exists and that people are able to abstract themselves from their immediate context is what makes it wrong to say that the sexism of Bond films is inherently problematic or that it is likely to influence movie-goers. If people are sexist and if some men beat their wives (which is the case) then this is not because they watch Bond films, it is because of the material conditions in which they are situated, even if those material conditions are also reflected in cultural phenomenon to one degree or another.

I actually find it ironic that you then went on to respond to another poster by pointing to Triumph of the Will. If what other people in this thread (not necessarily yourself) suggest is true, and people can be influenced in a straightforward way by the kind of media they are exposed to, then we would probably have reason to be worried about the fact that people can quite easily see a propaganda film that celebrates a highly oppressive regime and deifies authority - but the fact that people can and do critically reflect is precisely why it is not actually a problem to show people films like Triumph of the Will and why it would be entirely appropriate to show that film as part of a history class, for example, because, by critically reflecting on the film, we can better understand the period in which it was made, its aims, and get other kind of benefits from watching it. In a way I think this issue comes down to how you view human beings - if you think that human beings are liable to be easily swayed by cultural phenomena and can't be trusted to think about their experiences, then it is understandable why you might wring your hands over the sexism of Bond films or the imagery of Triumph of the Will, whereas if, on the other hand, you are humanist in your intuitions, and see human beings as having the intelligence to reflect on and interpret their experiences, then you should be able to see why cultural artifacts embodying sexist characters isn't such a problem.

In fact, and to move slightly away from Bond, I would go further and say that it is precisely when characters embody what we regard as distasteful character traits (such as being sexist bigots) at the same time as being the victims of oppression or otherwise heroic in some way that we have the ingredients of thoughtful literature. Take Josef K in Kafka's The Trial. If Josef K were free from all bigotry the novel would not be nearly as good - it is because he is in many ways despicable (especially in the way he takes advantage of women and rejects their help) that we are forced to think about our opinion of him and the alienating bureaucratic processes to which he is subject throughout the novel. The same is true of the protagonist in Marquez's Love in the Time of Cholera - the best book ever written IMO.


My mistake. A single hypocrite ("Anarchrusty"? Evidently not.) is advocating that they banned. All the difference, I'm sure.

If Anarchrusty were the only person advocating the prohibition of cultural artifacts with reactionary characters for fear that it might provoke people or legitimize oppressive behavior then of course it would make no difference, but unfortunately there are many politicians and commentators in contemporary societies, many of them supposedly progressive, who want to see the state determine what people are exposed to - consider a recent case in the UK when a student was prosecuted for possessing an Al-Qaeda training manuel for purposes of academic research, for example, on the grounds that it legitimized terrorism. Support for paternalistic state intervention in culture is rife in politics today.


If people want to watch spy movies where the main protagonist is a sensitive, left wing femophile then they should stop going to see these sorts of movies.

I don't want to see the kind of movie you describe, it would be really boring - I prefer my characters to be multi-dimensional, not one-dimensional, and realistic in a way that prevents me from having straightforward opinions about them. I don't necessarily watch Bond movies for intellectual stimulation, but it is why I read novels where the characters are often sexist bigots.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

This is one of the problems I have assessing feminism and sexism, because I don't really see how you can tell he believes women are as general rule are "objects" or inferior to him. It seems like Bond has a large amount of sociopathic tendencies, I don't think the fact that he often treats women badly can be said to be sexist, or that we can infer from that that he feels women are inferior. Is it not possible that, being straight, he simply has more of an opportunity to treat women badly? I don't recall him, when he has the opportunity, treating men in a way that is markedly different from his general attitude of getting what he wants out of people?

I find it a bit confusing that a lot of people here believe that sleeping with women are not calling them back is sexist.

I don't get how you can hold that view unless you think that treating women badly can only be the result of sexist intentions. As far as I can see his "limited" relationships with women can be more easily attributed to his personal tastes, rather than the idea that they are inferior or "only good" for that in general. They're only good for sex for him, as thats really all he seems to be interested in most of the time. I imagine he thinks the men around him are only good for something equally "disrespectful", like beating in poker games or something. When he has an interest in relating to a women in a different way, e.g. with M, he doesn't seem to have any problems or issues with finding her inferior due to her sex.

Of course, he existed" in the 50s/60s etc, so its likely he displays traits that would be considered sexist today, in that they actively seem to demean people he knows, just for being women. You know, in the films, when he slaps that girl and tells her its "man talk time." or whatever, but I think the idea that he's automatically sexist because he's a dick to women is really weird. It even seems to be some sort of double standard - if you happen to get into more situations were you are able to mistreat, or disrespect women (i.e. something typically emotional, like sexual relations or whatever), to not be sexist, you are obliged to treat them, as a general rule, better than you do men or else be a sexist asshole that mistreats women. I think it is possible to be an asshole who mistreats people, but mistreats women more in general as you have a greater opportunity to do so.

Note here i'm against sexism etc. In case any of you were wondering. Its just recently i've had a lot of trouble with issues of gender equality and figuring them out and want to find some kind of clarity on this rather than the idea that if you find a woman attractive without considering other parts of her personality you are "objectifying her" and are sexist.

[Tim Finnegan]

@Caramelpence: On Bond films: It's quite true to say that misogyny is not a direct product of sexist media, and anyone who has suggested as much- which is to say, Anarchrusty and nobody else- is wrong to do so. However, sexist media still serves to normalise misogyny, and thus to sustain misogyny. Anyone on a leftist forum should understand that ideological dissemination is of real consequence, even in sloppy, half-concious forms like this.

On Bond the character: I fully concede that flawed, even flawed-yet-likeable characters are a legitimate artistic device, but my problem with Bond is that his flaws are treated as merely superficial. He is, for both the creators and much of the audience, "a bit of a rogue", someone whose failings lie in their non-observance of traditional etiquette and propriety, not in the fact that they are, in most (if, it must be said, not all) incarnations, a sociopathic user of women.

On critical reflection: Of course people have the ability to, but we live in a society whose ideological space is defined by the bourgeoisie, and so we must challenge the construction of those definitions directly if we are to disrupt them. Simply waving your hand and saying "people can work it out for themselves" is to accept unchallenged bourgeois hegemony.

On Triumph of the Will: My point was not to suggest that films like James Bond act as mind-warping propaganda, but to bluntly counter the suggestion that films can be reduced to simple entertainment. In retrospect, the example chosen was, given its overtly propagandistic nature, perhaps not the best.

On "Paternalistic State Intervention": I'm not sure, exactly, what references to draconian New Labourism have to do with the members of this forum. I'm fairly sure that few members here support such things.

[Anarchrusty]

My mistake. A single hypocrite ("Anarchrusty"? Evidently not.) is advocating that they banned. All the difference, I'm sure.


I don't see why I am supposed to be a hypocrite for wanting to protect the public from sordid influences. You do realise why some books and movies are forbidden, right? Because they are dangerous and they incite people. Or would you say ''The infernal Jew'' by Hitler was just another movie?

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't see why I am supposed to be a hypocrite for wanting to protect the public from sordid influences. You do realise why some books and movies are forbidden, right? Because they are dangerous and they incite people. Or would you say ''The infernal Jew'' by Hitler was just another movie?
I'd speculate as to why somebody claiming to be an anarchist wants to "protect" people from themselves. You also realise, I presume, that the same logic has been used time and time again to prohibit the distribution of left-wing material?

The proper reaction to misogynistic tripe is not to ban it- that's a pretty patriarchal reaction in itself, to be honest- but to educate people as to why it is misogynistic. The lasting changes of the women's movement have always been in changing how people think, not in the various Mackinnonite crusades to ban this or that form of undesirable material.

[Dragovich]

This is where I come in and state it's just a damn movie, cool down. So what if James Bond is supposedly sexist or reactionary? Those are still fine movies.

[El Chuncho]

They should just label Bond films as a comedy about a chauvinist dinosaur who saves the world, I doubt people would complain as much then! :D

The novels should just be seen as a product of their time, like a great deal of novels. The attitude towards women in the Bond novels is only a reflection of the era in which they were written, much in the same way that Greek plays portray events (such as legal revenge killings) as normal.

[Magón]

Entertainment wise, James Bond movies are cool and fun to watch. Better than the Bourne movies, that's for sure. The high end cars, and spiffy gadgets of Bond are nothing to laugh at, because you might just get a hidden missile right to the face!

Politically, James Bond has always been fucked from a radical left standpoint. There's just no hiding that.

[El Chuncho]

Actually, I always disliked the gadgets that the films started to rely on due to the lack of realism. The books had faults, but gave an OK view of the Cold War and had a lot of realistic gadgets that spies used at the time (such as the shoe with the knife and the case from 'From Russia With Love'), not the implausible gadgets as seen in the films.

I agree, Nin, that the stories can be fun but are screwed when it comes to leftist politics. ;)

[Anarchrusty]

I'd speculate as to why somebody claiming to be an anarchist wants to "protect" people from themselves. You also realise, I presume, that the same logic has been used time and time again to prohibit the distribution of left-wing material?

The proper reaction to misogynistic tripe is not to ban it- that's a pretty patriarchal reaction in itself, to be honest- but to educate people as to why it is misogynistic. The lasting changes of the women's movement have always been in changing how people think, not in the various Mackinnonite crusades to ban this or that form of undesirable material.


Anarchists, as well as all other self respecting leftists, should not only point out, but fight injustices and inequality no matter how small they may seem to you.
Would you say the same about a movie that portays a slave owner hitting his slaves just for the entertainment value? Off course you wouldn't, so I don't see why Bond's sexism is to remain unchallenged.

In my anger yesterday I may have gone over the top by saying it influences guys to hit women, but you cannot deny it doesn't glorify it. What it does, is provide a carte blanche.
Yes I do believe certain influences should be challenged AND banned if necessery for the greater good.

[Wanted Man]

This is where I come in and state it's just a damn movie, cool down. So what if James Bond is supposedly sexist or reactionary? Those are still fine movies.


Wow, thanks. I don't know where we would have been without your contribution.

[Invader Zim]

What a foolish thread. Noting that Fleming's James Bond is "reactionary" is about as useful as noting that Chretien De Troyes' knights were reactionary. Both writers were products of their environments as were their characters.

Bond is a womanising, middle-class tool of the British crown because that is precisely the background Fleming came from and the behaviour he engaged in. He was an Eton educated naval officer who had been recruited to Naval intelligence.

I also find the puritanical nonsense in this thread more than a little disturbing. Bond is not some kind of rampaging rapist and the women he sleeps with are not painted as poor suffering victims. In the vast majority of cases Bond no more 'uses' the women he sleeps with than they use him. And Bond, along with the sexually liberated women in the books, are a dman sight less reactionary (when it comes to attitudes towards women) than the old guard characters like M. Since when did this forum become the home of evangelicals advertising the allegedly inherent merits of the monogamous relationship and think that sexually liberated women is a bad thing?

[Tim Finnegan]

Anarchists, as well as all other self respecting leftists, should not only point out, but fight injustices and inequality no matter how small they may seem to you.
Would you say the same about a movie that portays a slave owner hitting his slaves just for the entertainment value? Off course you wouldn't, so I don't see why Bond's sexism is to remain unchallenged.

In my anger yesterday I may have gone over the top by saying it influences guys to hit women, but you cannot deny it doesn't glorify it. What it does, is provide a carte blanche.
Yes I do believe certain influences should be challenged AND banned if necessery for the greater good.
In regards to prohibition of media, I don't think that a good case has ever been made for what you're talking about. It assumes individuals as easily manipulated goons by nature, rather than as a product of circumstance - a bourgeois position if there ever was one!- and thus seeks to set imposed boundaries as to their excercise of autonomy. Now, nominally, those boundaries could be self-imposed, but, really, if you're arguing that people aren't together enough to be trusted around these kinds of films, then you're implicitly arguing that they can't be trusted to define "these kinds of films" in the first place. If you wish to eliminate something from a society, confront it an deconstruct it, don't just try to destroy it; convince people to shun it autonomously, not to cut them off before they even have the chance to make a decision.

In regards to the question of "hypocrisy", how can you really call yourself an anarchist and to argue for this kind of imposed ideological control? Yes, I understand that anarchism is not the Do-As-You-Please caricature it's sometimes made out to be, and that the community is able to institute certain democratic, self-imposted prohibitions, but those really don't extend to measures intended to pre-emptively repress ideological non-conformity. That's honestly edging far more towards the micro-authoritarianism of a religious commune than a truly libertarian position.

[A.J.]

Some of the Pierce Brosnan era movies tried to create strong female characters (like Halle Berry in Die Another Day) but the attempts fell flat on their faces. For the most part, the movies aren't just sexist, they revel in their sexism. Women exist for Bond to seduce.



Or the aptly named Xenia Onatopp in Goldeneye ;)

-1lu-Q_c0kQ

I must admit I quite like a Women.....on top :wub:

:p

[Manic Impressive]

They should just label Bond films as a comedy about a chauvinist dinosaur who saves the world, I doubt people would complain as much then! :D
Actually the only Bond film I like is the original casino royal with David Niven, Peter Sellers and Woody Allen. The film franchise had only just started and people were already ridiculing it's sexism and general absurdity.

Bond films are all shit on top of being sexist and racist James Bond is also totally classist.

[El Chuncho]

Actually the only Bond film I like is the original casino royal with David Niven, Peter Sellers and Woody Allen. The film franchise had only just started and people were already ridiculing it's sexism and general absurdity.

Bond films are all shit on top of being sexist and racist James Bond is also totally classist.

Good points but are the Bond films racist though? :confused:

[Manic Impressive]

Good points but are the Bond films racist though? :confused:
probably :D

[El Chuncho]

In the vast majority of cases Bond no more 'uses' the women he sleeps with than they use him. And Bond, along with the sexually liberated women in the books, are a dman sight less reactionary (when it comes to attitudes towards women) than the old guard characters like M.

M. in the novels did have a somewhat progressive view of black people, same with a few other characters, and berated Bond's naive racism (e.g. M. pointed out that black people were capable of goodness or villainy, stupidity or intelligence, just like white people, whereas Bond thinks they could only be good and hardworking, based on people he met in Jamaica). I think that was in 'Live and let Die'.

[Anarchrusty]

In regards to prohibition of media, I don't think that a good case has ever been made for what you're talking about. It assumes individuals as easily manipulated goons by nature, rather than as a product of circumstance - a bourgeois position if there ever was one!- and thus seeks to set imposed boundaries as to their excercise of autonomy. Now, nominally, those boundaries could be self-imposed, but, really, if you're arguing that people aren't together enough to be trusted around these kinds of films, then you're implicitly arguing that they can't be trusted to define "these kinds of films" in the first place. If you wish to eliminate something from a society, confront it an deconstruct it, don't just try to destroy it; convince people to shun it autonomously, not to cut them off before they even have the chance to make a decision.

In regards to the question of "hypocrisy", how can you really call yourself an anarchist and to argue for this kind of imposed ideological control? Yes, I understand that anarchism is not the Do-As-You-Please caricature it's sometimes made out to be, and that the community is able to institute certain democratic, self-imposted prohibitions, but those really don't extend to measures intended to pre-emptively repress ideological non-conformity. That's honestly edging far more towards the micro-authoritarianism of a religious commune than a truly libertarian position.

Tim, my tendency is not a devil-may-care, do-as-thou-wilt free reign for all.
I agree with you that education is important, and indeed prohibition is bourgoise of itself. However, living in a bourgoise world implies that we have to apply rules that are understood by the masses as such. You know as well as I, that as long this state of existence is sentient, people will not listen to you.
You won't believe how many blank stares or annoyed moans I get when I tell them about subtle racism and sexism, or how workers are exploited for a penny, as long as they can play their XBOX, get drunk on the weekend and occassionaly get laid.

The way I see it, is that explicit and implicit signs of both, should be eradicated and at the same time re-educating folks into the important factors that constue said societal poison. An outright ban may not work short term without a proper motivation.

If you do believe that is hypocrisy, you have a narrow idea of what anarchism is. Anarchism does not come about magically, but is an ideal we have to work towards. After the revolution, work is still not done and for a short amount of time their will be a state of transition, in which all former ills of capitalism will be adressed.

[Anarchrusty]

Politically, James Bond has always been fucked from a radical left standpoint. There's just no hiding that.



Very true, and therefor it should be not offlimits for criticism from said point, as it is perpetrating old conducts, just because it's ''fun'' and ''entertaining''.

I personally enjoyed ''South Parc'' in my time, but I had to admit to myself that is reactionary and offensive. Not sure if you have ever seen it, but they use words like Jew and Gay in increasingly derogatory meanings that cannot be left unadressed.
So, I decided to cut it out of my life as a bad influence and I talk to people about why it is so wrong, even though the fact remains it made me laugh.
Since I became political, and aware of the many stigma's modern life imposes on us, I cannot help but look at things in a different perspective.

[graymouser]

What a foolish thread. Noting that Fleming's James Bond is "reactionary" is about as useful as noting that Chretien De Troyes' knights were reactionary. Both writers were products of their environments as were their characters.

Bond is a womanising, middle-class tool of the British crown because that is precisely the background Fleming came from and the behaviour he engaged in. He was an Eton educated naval officer who had been recruited to Naval intelligence.

I also find the puritanical nonsense in this thread more than a little disturbing. Bond is not some kind of rampaging rapist and the women he sleeps with are not painted as poor suffering victims. In the vast majority of cases Bond no more 'uses' the women he sleeps with than they use him. And Bond, along with the sexually liberated women in the books, are a dman sight less reactionary (when it comes to attitudes towards women) than the old guard characters like M. Since when did this forum become the home of evangelicals advertising the allegedly inherent merits of the monogamous relationship and think that sexually liberated women is a bad thing?
There is an important line between womanizing and sexual liberation, which can be difficult but has to be rooted in the relations between individuals. The relationships shown in the Bond fiction - with relatively few exceptions - are principally featuring Bond in an explicit position of male power, a conqueror, with the women submitting to his supreme masculinity. He is practically the archetype for this sort of relationship. The women exist mainly for sexual reasons, except for the ones who are treacherous and betray him. It's a deeply misogynistic view of promiscuity.

Nobody here said anything about monogamy - just the deep problems with the kind of conquest-driven sexuality of the Bond films.

[Invader Zim]

There is an important line between womanizing and sexual liberation, which can be difficult but has to be rooted in the relations between individuals. The relationships shown in the Bond fiction - with relatively few exceptions - are principally featuring Bond in an explicit position of male power, a conqueror, with the women submitting to his supreme masculinity.

What a load of horse shit. Just because an individual sleeps around does not imply that they think less of the gender they happening to be sleeping with. And as noted Bond in no way exploits those he beds any more than they exploit him. In fact Bond is shown as a relatively facile individual who is regularly caught out precisely because he is too trusting of women who actually try to exploit him. Indeed the way Fleming portrays women, as crooked scheming individuals is a whole lot more sexist than the fact that Bond is a womaniser. Similarly, many of them women who do try to exploit Bond are usually manipulated into doing so, implying that they are stupid. Indeed, that is the entire point of From Russia With Love. Have you actually read any Bond novels? Because the reason you charge them with sexism is utterly foolish, and indeed arguably itself quite sexist.

[graymouser]

What a load of horse shit. Just because an individual sleeps around does not imply that they think less of the gender they happening to be sleeping with. And as noted Bond in no way exploits those he beds any more than they exploit him. In fact Bond is shown as a relatively facile individual who is regularly caught out precisely because he is too trusting of women who actually try to exploit him. Indeed, that is the entire point of From Russia With Love. Have you actually read any Bond novels?
I tried to read Casino Royale but the oozing anticommunism was too much and the writing wasn't good enough to look past it. I don't read a lot of fiction these days and if I bother it's going to be something I feel is worth reading.

But your "defense" actually proves and compounds the misogyny that runs through at least the films, of which I've seen probably the majority: the alternate role of women from being simple conquests, and occasionally damsels in distress, is to be betrayers. If you can't see why that's misogyny then you have to realize that the virgin/whore complex still applies if you sleep with both of them.

[Gorilla]

Wasn't Hoxha a big James Bond fan?

[Invader Zim]

But your "defense" actually proves and compounds the misogyny that runs through at least the films, of which I've seen probably the majority: the alternate role of women from being simple conquests, and occasionally damsels in distress, is to be betrayers. If you can't see why that's misogyny then you have to realize that the virgin/whore complex still applies if you sleep with both of them. __________________

And as I clarified prior to your post:

"Indeed the way Fleming portrays women, as crooked scheming individuals is a whole lot more sexist than the fact that Bond is a womaniser. Similarly, many of them women who do try to exploit Bond are usually manipulated into doing so, implying that they are stupid."

But ultimately you have abolsutely no idea how Fleming portrayed either Bond or the women in Bond novels, because by your own admission you haven't actually read anyway. So your opinion is not actually worth the bandwidth its wasting.


the alternate role of women from being simple conquests, and occasionally damsels in distress, is to be betrayers.

The problem with Fleming's portrayal of women is that they are two dimensional characters that Fleming never really fleshes out, but the same can actually be said of all of Fleming's characters with the lone exception of Bond himself. Even the villains are banal charactures of evil. In that respect Fleming is no more anti-woman than he was anti-man. Honeychile Rider has a far more well rounded and developed character than Dr. No. Fleming's problem wasn't that he disliked women or was a sexist by the standards of his day, rather he was a crap author.

Indeed your own comments strike me as being just as dodgy as Fleming at his very worst 1940s male Chauvinism - and unlike Fleming you don't have the excuse of being a product of the middle classes in the 1940s. While Fleming never managed to develop female characters, in your mind it is apparently misogynistic to portray a female character as being manipulative or capable of betrayal. This implicity suggests that betrayal is a 'male' vice and by painting women in such a way Fleming debases the female gender and therefore must 'hate' women.

[graymouser]

And as I clarified prior to your post:

"Indeed the way Fleming portrays women, as crooked scheming individuals is a whole lot more sexist than the fact that Bond is a womaniser. Similarly, many of them women who do try to exploit Bond are usually manipulated into doing so, implying that they are stupid."

But ultimately you have abolsutely no idea how Fleming portrayed either Bond or the women in Bond novels, because by your own admission you haven't actually read anyway. So your opinion is not actually worth the bandwidth its wasting.
Who really cares about the novels? By Goldfinger, the Bond films were a much more significant part of pop culture than Fleming's books - hell, the books were mostly out of print up until around the time the Daniel Craig Casino Royale came out. I've been addressing the movies in this thread, which have definitely been a much bigger part of reinforcing the patriarchal view of sexuality than the novels have.

If you agree that the way women are portrayed is sexist, what is the point of your boring fulmination about "puritanical nonsense"? You think womanizing (in your term) heroes are not sexist because they could be womanizing with "liberated" women? Nonsense; if Fleming didn't make the point the more popular films certainly did that Bond is the dominating masculine essence.

[Tim Finnegan]

Wasn't Hoxha a big James Bond fan?
And Kim Jong-Il. Kinda getting a picture of who that sort of character appeals to, aren't we? ;)

[Gorilla]

And Kim Jong-Il. Kinda getting a picture of who that sort of character appeals to, aren't we? ;)

Totally awesome dudes?

http://archive.250x.com/images/enver_hoxha2.jpg
"I'm tellin' you bro, George Lazenby's contribution to the series is seriously under-rated."

[Invader Zim]

Who really cares about the novels?

So not only have you failed to read the books, but you have also failed to read the thread:

"Considering what scum wrote the books that's hardly surprising."

"The Bond novels are quite reactionary, but they are easy to divorce from politics because Ian Fleming was a bit of an airhead"

"The books aren't as annoying as the films as the films are just ridiculous. The books are reactionary, imperialist et cetera but the films are even more ridiculous and unlikely."

"That however does not mean the books have no entertainment value at all...its unthinking pulp entertainment"

etc.


By Goldfinger, the Bond films were a much more significant part of pop culture than Fleming's books

The Bond books have sold in excess of a hundred million copies, putting flemming among the top 20 most successful series authors of all time. While it maybe true that the films have become more significant, it is not by much.


hell, the books were mostly out of print up until around the time the Daniel Craig Casino Royale came out.

What a load of crap. The fact is the books are so successful that they shall probably remain in print as long as the medium exists.



If you agree that the way women are portrayed is sexist,

No, I agree that Fleming was a product of his period and that the female characters lack depth because Fleming was a poor writer. The only way to really tell if Fleming was a sexist, by that I mean beyond the norms of his time and class, would be to read The Spy Who Loved Me, which is one of the ones I haven't read, because that is written from a female perspective.


what is the point of your boring fulmination about "puritanical nonsense"?

Because your posts are loaded with rightwing claptrap where you implicity imply that sexual freedom is socially objectionable.


Nonsense

Only if you're a reactionary tool who thinks that sexual liberation is a bad thing and women who actually engage in intercourse are sluts and men who do so are misogynists. Which apparently you do.

[graymouser]

Only if you're a reactionary tool who thinks that sexual liberation is a bad thing and women who actually engage in intercourse are sluts and men who do so are misogynists. Which apparently you do.
Get off your fucking high horse and stop putting words in people's mouths. It should be painfully clear why people are characterizing the view of women in the James Bond fiction as misogynistic, and it has nothing to do with criticizing sexual liberation. Your continued defense of them comes off as an attempt to use the excuse of liberation to validate a macho bullshit misogynistic view of women and drag it through the mud of a character who is practically the personification of the unrestrained masculine libido.

Your attempts to bait and slander people who view what is prima facie some of the most rampant sexist fiction out there as sexist are really and truly vile.

[Pretty Flaco]

If there is a woman in a James Bond film, 007 has sex with her. No exceptions!

[Invader Zim]

Get off your fucking high horse and stop putting words in people's mouths.

I haven't manipulated anything you have said. You suggested that James Bond was a womaniser and therefore the fiction (not that you have read any of it) is sexist in character. In order to make that mental leap several implicit assumptions are required.

1. That sleeping around is socialy and ethically repugnant - which is reactionary to the core.

2. That men who engage in such behaviour must devalue women and consider them as objects which exist as nothing more than male entertainment - which is bullshit.

3. That because of the former two women who sleep with the womaniser must be weak willed, and therefore powerless, victims or complicit - which is outright sexism.

In order to castigate sleeping as sexist each of those three assumptions must be held, there are no two ways about it.

My argument is that this is horse shit grounded in anti-sex puritanim and you're a reactionary of the lowest stripe if you actually think it.

The only actual charge that leftists should buy into, regarding Bond novels as being sexist, is that they portray women as being vapid, without depth, emotionaly fragile and often silly, or devious and manipulative. But Fleming did that with just about all of his characters regardless of gender, and that was because Fleming couldn't write and was incapable of producing more than the four of five characters which he recycled endlessly. But I can see where the charge comes from - they are just wrong. But what is not appropriate is to suggest that because a hetrosexual male has sex with multiple partners they must automatically dispise and objectify women. Fistly it is crass banal horse shit, and secondly it demands that women be seen as powerless victims incapable of formulating their own decisions.

[Tim Finnegan]

...secondly it demands that women be seen as powerless victims incapable of formulating their own decisions.
Arguably not, if that's how women are constructed in the fictional universe. Which, of course, gets you onto the debate of whether or not that is the case...

[graymouser]

I haven't manipulated anything you have said. You suggested that James Bond was a womaniser and therefore the fiction (not that you have read any of it) is sexist in character. In order to make that mental leap several implicit assumptions are required.
You are trying to make a defense, on the grounds of sexual liberation, of womanizing. They are simply not equivalent, and your attempt to equalize them is repugnant and should be rejected in the strongest terms. It should go without saying that your "implicit assumptions" are completely off base.

Rejection of the womanizing hero has nothing to do with rejection of promiscuity; your whole rant is based this false equivalence. Womanizing is a question of sex as conquest, which is celebrated without apology in the Bond mythology. Sexual liberation is a question of sex as personal expression, which is totally absent from the cult of machismo that you are defending. The difference between them should be obvious on the face of it.

[Niccolò Rossi]

If there is a woman in a James Bond film, 007 has sex with her. No exceptions!

Yeah, cos sleeping around makes you a sexist right? Women are afterall the victims of casual sex...

Nic.

[Gorilla]

If there is a woman in a James Bond film, 007 has sex with her. No exceptions!

I really wish that were actually the case.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/Rosa_Klebb_by_Lotte_Lenya.jpg

[Invader Zim]

Yeah, cos sleeping around makes you a sexist right? Women are afterall the victims of casual sex...

Nic.

According to some posters in this thread it certainly seems that way.


You are trying to make a defense, on the grounds of sexual liberation, of womanizing. They are simply not equivalent, and your attempt to equalize them is repugnant and should be rejected in the strongest terms. It should go without saying that your "implicit assumptions" are completely off base.


Women who engage in sexual intercourse are not powerless victims and men who also do so are not raging misogynists - however much you would like the opposite to be true. And similarly the women in Bond novels are also not universally powerless victims incapable of resisting Bond's charms.

You deny that I'm making a false equivalence, but that undeniably is your argument regardless of how much flip flopping and faux-outrage you produce; that because Bond sleeps around he must therefore devalue and objectify women. As noted that is sexist because it implies that women are powerless unthinking agents incapable of resisting male charm, which is neither true in real life or in the Bond novels, and deeply reactionary because it is a rejection of sexual liberation. Your position demands that women who have casual sex be painted as victims and that men who do so be painted as misogynistic sexual predators. Both of these assumptions are extremely reactionary.

You actually directly contradict yourself. On the one hand you reject womanising, or rather male promiscuity, as a form of sexism which objectifies women and glorifies reactionary male stereotypes - yet on the other contend that you aren't actually attacking promiscuity. You can't have it both ways. In fact you make the ridiculous assertion that womanising (which is hetrosexual male promiscuity) is not the same thing as promiscuity. Do you have any idea of just how ridiculous that argument is?

[Tim Finnegan]

Yeah, cos sleeping around makes you a sexist right? Women are afterall the victims of casual sex...

Nic.
The issue isn't whether James Bond the character is sexist- is that even an idea that makes sense when applied over the course of fifty years?- but that the series tends to indulge in sexism, specifically, that a lot of the women exist primarily to serve as Bond's fucktoys, rather than as autonomous entities. Of course, as Zim said, that's in part because the series tends to treat most of the characters as plot-advancing robots rather than as human beings, so it does get tricky to say how much of that is down to sexism and how much is simply down to creative incompetence.

[StalinFanboy]

My objection is that you reject the legitimacy of analysis of that ideology through its expression. There's certainly nothing wrong with turning your brain off and watching the pretty explosions (not for nowt have I watched Independence Day about twenty times! :D), but to declare that people should do so, simply because that's the intended commercial purpose of the work, is a retreat from intellectual engagement more typical of everything-is-fine-dammit centrism than leftism.

Not, of course, that my original usage of "liberal" actually makes much sense, or was anything more than childish, barely-if-at-all defensible pejorative, but I never claimed to be perfect. ;)

I don't see the point in intellectually engaging a James Bond movie. Like srsly.

btw, nice nazi germany reference, butthole. Bush was hitler too amirite?

[Tim Finnegan]

I don't see the point in intellectually engaging a James Bond movie. Like srsly.
There's no point in going into tremendous detail, certainly, because there isn't much there. However, if we're going to turn our nose at analysing the sort of media which actually constitutes the bulk of popular culture, then we're going to needlessly impair our ability to address the hegemonic ideology as experienced by the bulk of the working class. News broadcasts and political propaganda are not the be all and end all; narratives such as this, freed of the obligation to present a façade of objectivity, can be significant tools in sustaining ideology norm, if not actually going so far as to generate them afresh.


btw, nice nazi germany reference, butthole. Bush was hitler too amirite?
As I said, my intention was not to make any comparisons to Nazism. The choice was an ill-judged one.

Also, "butthole" makes you sound like you're about six. Insult me like an adult, or not at all. :p

[StalinFanboy]

There's no point in going into tremendous detail, certainly, because there isn't much there. However, if we're going to turn our nose at analysing the sort of media which actually constitutes the bulk of popular culture, then we're going to needlessly impair our ability to address the hegemonic ideology as experienced by the bulk of the working class. News broadcasts and political propaganda are not the be all and end all; narratives such as this, freed of the obligation to present a façade of objectivity, can be significant tools in sustaining ideology norm, if not actually going so far as to generate them afresh. Fair enough.



As I said, my intention was not to make any comparisons to Nazism. The choice was an ill-judged one.

Also, "butthole" makes you sound like you're about six. Insult me like an adult, or not at all. :p
It's all good, I was calling you a butthole for the lulz.

[Sun at Eight]

Wasn't Hoxha a big James Bond fan?

I really, really hope this is true. We know his opinion on so much thanks to the Hoxhaists on the board. I hope they can confirm this.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

There is an important line between womanizing and sexual liberation, which can be difficult but has to be rooted in the relations between individuals. The relationships shown in the Bond fiction - with relatively few exceptions - are principally featuring Bond in an explicit position of male power, a conqueror, with the women submitting to his supreme masculinity.

What a load of horse shit. Just because an individual sleeps around does not imply that they think less of the gender they happening to be sleeping with. And as noted Bond in no way exploits those he beds any more than they exploit him. .

I have to add, why would him "exploiting" ( I assume in this sense you mean decieving) the women he sleeps with mean that he, or the films, are sexist in any way? Being "mean" to women isn't sexist.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Nonsense; if Fleming didn't make the point the more popular films certainly did that Bond is the dominating masculine essence.

Sorry but what evidence do you have that a secret agent guy acting assertively and mistreating the people he sleeps with means the films specifically aim to make the point that Bond is "the dominanting masculine essence." I can see that a lot of people might view Bond as "the ultimate man" or some shit, but it think thats clearly the result of their own prejudes and views, rather than some ridiciulas idea that the bond films project bond as THE WAY REAL MEN MUST BE AND THE WAY WOMEN CAN NEVER BE. If i was to guess, i'd say you were projecting your own ideas onto the films. Cause while bond lives up to a lot of sterotypes i never once thought, while watching, that "these films make out women are inferior to men!". I mean for god's sake, bond is just one dude in the film, and yeah he's sucessful etc, but i don't see how having a film about a sucessful and "attractive" dude automatically implies that men are better than women - unless you are watching it from that viewpoint already.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

through the mud of a character who is practically the personification of the unrestrained masculine libido.

.

Damn those men with unrestrained libidos!

[Lanky Wanker]

Only a little.

YJWfObq2cFk

0:40 OWNED!!!1!!

James Bond is supposed to be the bad boy which is why the women love him and why the men (well... some of them) want to be him. hitting women makes him even more of a cool guy in most people's eyes, and sleeping with them puts the cherry on the cake.

that said what I find sexist is that men are horrible beasts for hitting women, yet women are allowed to hit men as much as they want. I think we should all avoid hitting each other in the first place, then we wouldn't have this problem. Why should a man even hit a man? Sure, iff a man killed my mother, I think smacking him up a bit is more than plausible. Likewise if a woman killed my mother, I wouldn't hesitate to beat the snot out of her either. But in the situation of "I is a man! I own u *****ez!" or "I'm a woman so that gives me a right to hit you but guess what? you can't hit me back because... *thinking of stupid excuse* I'm weaker than you!" it's stupid.

sorry to go off into a rant about this but seeing as we're on the subject of male sexists and hitting women, I thought I'd point it out.

[Sword and Shield]

Yes James bond is a sexist but i wish i could get girls him

Facepalm...