Sexism in movies

[benhur]

Oftentimes, I've noticed something in the movies. It's not about women displaying their you-know-what;), or about any of those things which the conservatives talk about.

It's more subtle, it's like women are taken for granted. For instance, I saw one movie (i don't remember which) where a man openly asks a girl (a stranger he's meeting for the first time) if he can touch her, and he starts touching her all over the place, even getting as far as under her shirt.

While this may appear ok (because one may say the woman didn't mind, so technically she wasn't being molested), doesn't this give an impression that women are easy and can be taken for granted?:( I mean, in real life, it's not like women are gonna put up with such behavior, so if a movie depicts women as pushovers especially in matters relating to sex, doesn't this insult women? ANd there are many movies like these, subtle in nature, giving an image that women are easy.

Again, I have to stress that I am not saying this from a conservative perspective at all, so please don't jump down my throat that I am too uptight about sex, bla bla bla. In fact, this post is NOT even about sex, it's about subtle sexism:crying:, it's about women being reduced to obedient entities. I am just trying to look at it from a woman's perspective. If I were a woman, how will I feel about this type of portrayal?

[Herman]

While this may appear ok (because one may say the woman didn't mind, so technically she wasn't being molested), doesn't this give an impression that women are easy and can be taken for granted?:( I mean, in real life, it's not like women are gonna put up with such behavior, so if a movie depicts women as pushovers especially in matters relating to sex, doesn't this insult women? ANd there are many movies like these, subtle in nature, giving an image that women are easy.

Usually it's men who are called "sex obsessed".

But really, it's far more sexist to depict women as never wanting to have sex. In your example, she didn't mind being touched, so what's wrong? Why would it insult women? Would it insult me if a man was seen as a pushover?

To me, it doesn't give me the image that women are easy. On the contrary, in many movies women are seen as being "hard to get".

[F9]

Nah i dont think this i sexism, its like when you watch porn, certainly there will be sex, what they are showing that they are "easy" both male and female?:lol:No i do not think so!

Fuserg9:star:

[ev]

Nah i dont think this i sexism, its like when you watch porn, certainly there will be sex, what they are showing that they are "easy" both male and female?:lol:No i do not think so!

Fuserg9:star:

crude analogy :blink:

[red-carnations]

crude analogy :blink:

Indeed it is!! Sexism in the media in general is so pervasive and accepted that it goes unnoticed by the masses!! I will never forget a HUGE billboard I saw for Chi Chi's restaurant. It had a woman from the neck down, and the waist up.. Huge breasts spilling out of her blouse.. and it read, "Come and Get It".. It stayed up it seemed forever, and I remember, even as a teenage girl, it disturbed me ALOT.. This is just ONE example of sexism/objectification in the media/movies in general.. ARG!!:(

[Wanted Man]

It does exist. In how many movies do you see the (male) hero throwing women around, hitting them, using them, etc. Or the inevitable "love" scene where he jumps on top of a woman, she struggles, but eventually "gives in". On the other hand, violent women in movies are nearly always "crazy *****es", sexually intimidating women are "crazy nympho *****es".

[Rascolnikova]

I think the problem is more that movies often promote gender stereotypes that are harmful to everyone--and that within those stereotypes, women generally end up with a particularly un-empowering role.

Some examples (off the top of my head) of film messages to women-

Incompetence is cute
Disney Tarzan (especially) and almost all other animation I've seen, Garden State, and all other romantic comedies (that I've seen). . . including cases like Kate and Leopold, which put up a pretense of competent and successful heroines

If you find yourself stuck with someone abusive, you just have to be pretty/sweet/kind/good enough and he will become human for you.
Beauty and the Beast (ESPECIALLY the Disney), A beautiful mind

The most important thing is to be pretty and charming while you are being saved
Snow white/sleeping beauty/etc., plus most romantic comedies and action films

Your job is to be amusing and quirky and teach the man, who has to worry about things like a job and living in the real world, to "live life."
Along came Polly, Garden State, Amelie, Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, etc.

All men want sex, all the time, and being sexy and seductive (but not sluttish!) as often as possible is of paramount importance to the main character (not you, silly, the man.)
damn near everything.


I don't watch a lot of movies besides documentaries, but if it seems that women are objectified in these roles--that they don't act human, and that they behave more promiscuously than normal human women--that would only make sense from what I've seen.

Edit: Relevant and short: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the%20electronic%20storyteller&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv#

[Dean]

I think the problem is more that movies often promote gender stereotypes that are harmful to everyone--and that within those stereotypes, women generally end up with a particularly un-empowering role.

Some examples (off the top of my head) of film messages to women-

Incompetence is cute
Disney Tarzan (especially) and almost all other animation I've seen, Garden State, and all other romantic comedies (that I've seen). . . including cases like Kate and Leopold, which put up a pretense of competent and successful heroines

If you find yourself stuck with someone abusive, you just have to be pretty/sweet/kind/good enough and he will become human for you.
Beauty and the Beast (ESPECIALLY the Disney), A beautiful mind

The most important thing is to be pretty and charming while you are being saved
Snow white/sleeping beauty/etc., plus most romantic comedies and action films

Your job is to be amusing and quirky and teach the man, who has to worry about things like a job and living in the real world, to "live life."
Along came Polly, Garden State, Amelie, Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, etc.

All men want sex, all the time, and being sexy and seductive (but not sluttish!) as often as possible is of paramount importance to the main character (not you, silly, the man.)
damn near everything.


I don't watch a lot of movies besides documentaries, but if it seems that women are objectified in these roles--that they don't act human, and that they behave more promiscuously than normal human women--that would only make sense from what I've seen.

Edit: Relevant and short: http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=the%20electronic%20storyteller&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wv#

Good post. An important thing to note is that most of those stereotypes involve males with moral faults who are vindicated through the woman's actions or character. That is, that while the man may be bad in this or that way, it is the woman who is expected to find the solution. I've noted with my fiance's family that the same attitude is prevalent - with men, their wrongdoings are excused as "sicknesses" or otherwise deficiencies of character, whereas with women they will be chastised directly - i.e. "he has emotional problems" versus "she is whining."

[Potemkin]

This is a good thread, and something that I think needs to be discussed more often, as it seems even radicals and revolutionaries are often unaware of the subtle ways sexism is perpetuated or that stereotypes are reinforced.

Red-carnations: There was a similar billboard out here for a radio station. The shirt just named the station, I think. However, the thing about these billboards, and many other ads involving women, is that they will often just show their body and not their face. I think this is a technique to objectify and dehumanize women, and it's really disgusting.

[Prairie Fire]

Herman:



But really, it's far more sexist to depict women as never wanting to have sex


Erm, how did you come to that conclusion?

Certainly too much prudery can be chauvenistic, this is true. My question is, how did you come to the conclusion that objectification and degradation of the female form (and all of the wonderful side-effects and results that come of it) are less
chauvenistic than prudery?

I know I would much rather have random guys avoid me because they think I'm frigid ,than the alternative.



In your example, she didn't mind being touched, so what's wrong?


It's "consent" within the context of un-equal social footing, based on gender identification; that is what's wrong. The man wants stimulation, and the womyn is a means to that end, nothing more.

Also, as Benhur said, it promotes unrealistic depections of womyn, and dehumanizes
us as sex objects.

Besides, I don't recall benhur mentioning that the womyn in this film consented.



Why would it insult women?


Why would it insult womyn that we are portrayed as nameless sex objects?



Would it insult me if a man was seen as a pushover?


I don't know, would it? Anyways, you are comparing apples and oranges.

Social norms are generally permisive (and encouraging) of male promiscuity,while simultaneously condemning of female promiscuity. Because of this, the films like the one mentioned above glorify and encourage male sexuality (which is a reflection of our social norms).

You are comparing two things that are not alike; is there a (heterosexual) masculine equivilent of the word "Slut"? Didn't think so.:rolleyes:



On the contrary, in many movies women are seen as being "hard to get".


"Hard to get", kind of like how the electric guitar in the movie Waynes World
is "Hard to get"; they are portrayed as an objective, as a goal for the male protagonist to achieve, nothing more.

For example, I was watching the film Accepted last night, and I was really blown away by how the female lead (that the male lead ends up with,)had only the flimsiest motivations for her characters existence: She dates the male leads rival, leaves the
rival over his predictably inevitable infedelity, and then goes over to the male lead.
There is also a part about her enjoying photography, which is her token plot point to try and create a connection between her and the male lead, but other than that ,her entire existence is as an objective for the male lead to conquer (hence her outfits :rolleyes:).

Fuserg9:


Nah i dont think this i sexism, its like when you watch porn, certainly there will be sex, what they are showing that they are "easy" both male and female?http://www.revleft.com/vb/sexism-movies-t95207/revleft/smilies2/laugh.gifNo i do not think so!

Wow. Just wow.

Fuserg9, do you know of any female oriented porn? I don't.

Anyways, read what I wrote above, in regards to comparing male promiscuity to female promiscuity.

Red-Carnations.


Indeed it is!! Sexism in the media in general is so pervasive and accepted that it goes unnoticed by the masses!! I will never forget a HUGE billboard I saw for Chi Chi's restaurant. It had a woman from the neck down, and the waist up.. Huge breasts spilling out of her blouse.. and it read, "Come and Get It".. It stayed up it seemed forever, and I remember, even as a teenage girl, it disturbed me ALOT.. This is just ONE example of sexism/objectification in the media/movies in general.. ARG!!http://www.revleft.com/vb/sexism-movies-t95207/revleft/smilies/sad.gif


Wanted Man:

On the other hand, violent women in movies are nearly always "crazy *****es", sexually intimidating women are "crazy nympho *****es".

Word.


Rascolnikova:


Some examples (off the top of my head) of film messages to women-

Incompetence is cute
Disney Tarzan (especially) and almost all other animation I've seen, Garden State, and all other romantic comedies (that I've seen). . . including cases like Kate and Leopold, which put up a pretense of competent and successful heroines

If you find yourself stuck with someone abusive, you just have to be pretty/sweet/kind/good enough and he will become human for you.
Beauty and the Beast (ESPECIALLY the Disney), A beautiful mind

The most important thing is to be pretty and charming while you are being saved
Snow white/sleeping beauty/etc., plus most romantic comedies and action films

Your job is to be amusing and quirky and teach the man, who has to worry about things like a job and living in the real world, to "live life."
Along came Polly, Garden State, Amelie, Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, etc.

All men want sex, all the time, and being sexy and seductive (but not sluttish!) as often as possible is of paramount importance to the main character (not you, silly, the man.)
damn near everything.



Good post, and it especially important that most of your examples are Disney films; social norms and gender oppression starts young.


An important thing to note is that most of those stereotypes involve males with moral faults who are vindicated through the woman's actions or character. That is, that while the man may be bad in this or that way, it is the woman who is expected to find the solution. I've noted with my fiance's family that the same attitude is prevalent - with men, their wrongdoings are excused as "sicknesses" or otherwise deficiencies of character, whereas with women they will be chastised directly - i.e. "he has emotional problems" versus "she is whining."

Nicely done, Dean.

Potemkin

it seems even radicals and revolutionaries are often unaware of the subtle ways sexism is perpetuated or that stereotypes are reinforced.


Unfortunately, and even discussion here rarely rectifies these views and outlooks.

[Plagueround]

I think the problem is more that movies often promote gender stereotypes that are harmful to everyone--and that within those stereotypes, women generally end up with a particularly un-empowering role.

Some examples (off the top of my head) of film messages to women-

Incompetence is cute
Disney Tarzan (especially) and almost all other animation I've seen, Garden State, and all other romantic comedies (that I've seen). . . including cases like Kate and Leopold, which put up a pretense of competent and successful heroines

If you find yourself stuck with someone abusive, you just have to be pretty/sweet/kind/good enough and he will become human for you.
Beauty and the Beast (ESPECIALLY the Disney), A beautiful mind

The most important thing is to be pretty and charming while you are being saved
Snow white/sleeping beauty/etc., plus most romantic comedies and action films

Your job is to be amusing and quirky and teach the man, who has to worry about things like a job and living in the real world, to "live life."
Along came Polly, Garden State, Amelie, Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, etc.

All men want sex, all the time, and being sexy and seductive (but not sluttish!) as often as possible is of paramount importance to the main character (not you, silly, the man.)
damn near everything.


I don't watch a lot of movies besides documentaries, but if it seems that women are objectified in these roles--that they don't act human, and that they behave more promiscuously than normal human women--that would only make sense from what I've seen.


Good post...although I loved Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. :(

[Herman]

Erm, how did you come to that conclusion?Because after centuries of constant "cover yourself" comments and prudish culture, you tend to find that far more sexist than the more recent phenomenon of making women seem promiscuous (and its condemnation in movies). Note that i'm not saying the latter is not sexist, just that it is less so than the former.


Also, as Benhur said, it promotes unrealistic depections of womyn, and dehumanizes
us as sex objects.Well, neither of us has seen the movie, so we can't say. We've only read a description of a scene, which could be interpreted in many valid ways, including yours.


Besides, I don't recall benhur mentioning that the womyn in this film consented.We don't know if she did or didn't. If she didn't, then you are correct.

[F9]

Wow. Just wow.

Do i see a big surprise here?Did i said something really "wrong"?


Fuserg9, do you know of any female oriented porn? I don't.

Me either tbh, but porn had nothing to do with the point i tried to set, just porn was the first thing came in my mind, at that moment!


Anyways, read what I wrote above, in regards to comparing male promiscuity to female promiscuity.

Of course, i do not deny, not even close, the fact that society really sees the things really bad and in great differential between sexes, and its not the same thing when you compare them with this situation , i can see the difference!
I can see your posts point but to be honest i never take movies seriously and make judgment about people through what people look like in tv, its pretty much stupid judging people and sexes through what the media are showing through movies!


Fuserg9:star:

[Potemkin]

Fuser: I can see your point. I think the danger of how women are portrayed in entertainment and pop culture though is that we are immersed in these roles and stereotypes until it becomes subliminal. Certainly ad agencies want to evoke something in you that most of the time we're not even aware of.

Noam Chomsky talks about this a bit. He says that often times people don't know they're oppressed (or oppressing, for that matter) because it's just the way society operates. He cites the example of his grandmother (I believe): As a kid, in public, her father would not recognize her. Not in the sense that she didn't know who she was, but in the sense that she was a female, and men wouldn't recognize them as present. Chomsky's grandmother didn't think of this as oppression, just how things are.

I think that's the danger with pop culture, advertising, and entertainment portrayals. We take away from seeing those interactions things that we're not necessarily consciously aware of, which might lead us to excusing that behavior in our own lives, because we see it so often. Not even excusing, but not even noticing, because that's "just how it is."

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

The one that gets me the most is the plot of the frustrated pretentions of women who try to be independent

and the promotion of the female fear of being manless or unwed
this is certainly the worst
this behavior is always portrayed as normal and healthy
disgusting

[Rascolnikova]

The one that gets me the most is the plot of the frustrated pretentions of women who try to be independent

and the promotion of the female fear of being manless or unwed
this is certainly the worst
this behavior is always portrayed as normal and healthy
disgusting

Indeed.

Though, this is the natural extension of the promoted gender-typing. . . as, if the types are acted out, are rape and severe economic dependence.



Good post...although I loved Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. :(

Yeah. . . I believe there are probably some really good things about it. I haven't really examined it closely (or watched it through. . . ). I included it in the list because a reviewer I trust put it in this category, and it's very popular among indie sorts. I do remember that there was a sort of violence to it that made it very hard for me to watch.

[Junius]

@ the point on whether the over-sexualized depiction of females is more sexist than denying their sexuality altogether. I would disagree that it is more sexist. The former is emancipating insofar as it actually gives some form of 'power' to females; their sexuality. The latter seeks to deny that altogether. If you believe otherwise then you would see, for example, females in Saudi Arabia as being more emancipated then females in the US. Female orientated porn also exists, and I think people would be surprised at how many females watch 'male-orientated' porn. Likewise, I would say there are more sex toys designed for females than males. I'm not sure of the social implications of that, however.


Originally posted by Prairie Fire
I know I would much rather have random guys avoid me because they think I'm frigid, than the alternative.In either case, I don't think anyone would like to be avoided because of their sexual behavior. However, I think your opinion is just that - an opinion. In your eyes it is worse to be labeled a slut versus frigid. But the real issue in my eyes, is whether it would be better to be a slut than be frigid. Let's not forget that sexual behavior is also something which is influenced by social norms.

[black magick hustla]

prairie fire is odd. like all the leftist feminists i know are probably more sex-crazed than your average woman, mainly because the left has generally taken the line of sexual liberation. even the stalinist bernardine dohm (dont know if she is a stalinist now( seemed craaaaaazy in her 60s when i spoke to her.

[Prairie Fire]

In your eyes it is worse to be labeled a slut versus frigid.


Actually, no, that wasn't my opinion at all. If that is what you got out of my analysis, I am deeply disapointed.

The comment I made above was more along the lines of "It's better to be avoided than to be the subject of objectification and un-wanted sexual advances." Now,obviously neither option is attractive, but I usually have no choice, so I prefer the latter.

Unfortunately, some how, some way, you interpreted that as sexual prudery on my part.

When I said "Is there a male equivilant of 'slut'?", I was trying ( and apparently not succeeding) to make a point about the inequalities inherent in the system in regards to men and womyn, and how male promiscuity is encouraged, and female promiscuity is scorned and frownewd upon. In fact, that is almost word-for-word how I put it.

I'm trying hard to grasp how you mangled my viewpoint into "I'd rather be frigid than a slut", but I just can't see how it's possible that you got that interpretation. My words are pretty clear.


But the real issue in my eyes, is whether it would be better to be a slut than be frigid

That is the "real issue" in your eyes?

(Sigh) Dare I say, you are getting too hung up on the terms "frigid" and "slut"; niether one of the terms is the issue in itself, and I only used them to illustrate a point, because both of these terms are opposite pejoratives to be weilded against womyn in terms of their sexuality: If a womyn has too much sex, she is a slut, and if she doesn't "put out", she is "frigid" and/or a "dyke". Either way, the womyns position in sex, wether she participates or not, is something negative.

That is the crux of the issue, that there is the social imbalance, as well as an economic and political imbalance between the two genders.

Marmot:

prairie fire is odd

Yes, objecting to gender in-equality is a persynality flaw on my part; my bad :rolleyes:.

It's unfortunate that you still have yet to reconcile your un-repentant male chauvenism, Marmot.

[black magick hustla]

:shrugs: sexuality is an inherent human trait, ackowledging this might seem chauvinist to you but I think it is only human. In certain contexts sexual objectivication might be sexist (if it perpetautes somehow an assymetrical relationship between men and woman), but in itself is not and saying otherwise is just a judgement on your part, but not a materialist analysis. But then again you think when a male tells you you are pretty is just downright sexist.:rolleyes:

[Junius]

Originally posted by Prairie Fire
Actually, no, that wasn't my opinion at all. If that is what you got out of my analysis, I am deeply disapointed. Well here is what you said:


Originally posted by Prairie Fire
I know I would much rather have random guys avoid me because they think I'm frigid, than the alternative. So, if you had a choice you would prefer to be labeled 'frigid' and avoid all the 'unwanted sexual advances' which being a 'slut' entails. And:


Originally posted by Prairie Fire
The comment I made above was more along the lines of "It's better to be avoided than to be the subject of objectification and un-wanted sexual advances." Now,obviously neither option is attractive, but I usually have no choice, so I prefer the latter.Obviously we don't live in a society where we get to choose people's perceptions of us. By the way, unwanted sexual advances are perfectly acceptable if in the 'correct context'; there is absolutely nothing wrong if you in a bar/club and a man approaches you (or you approach a man) and you reject him or he rejects you. Unwanted sexual advances are unfortunately a part of finding wanted sexual advances. Of course, how those sexual advances are 'applied' is a totally different topic (a sexual advance from your boss would typically be inappropriate, as would being leered at by an old man where clearly the sexual advance would not be reciprocated.)


Originally posted by Prairie Fire
Unfortunately, some how, some way, you interpreted that as sexual prudery on
my part. Nope, not in the slightest.


Originally posted by Prairie Fire
When I said "Is there a male equivilant of 'slut'?"I suppose the term 'player' describes a male whom has a lot of sex but in an endearing manner.

'Slut' on the other hand is typically used as a pejorative against a woman whom has frequent casual sex. So no, I don't think there is a male equivalent, since there is a double standard regarding the sexual behavior of men and women.


Originally posted by Prairie Fire
I was trying ( and apparently not succeeding) to make a point about the inequalities inherent in the system in regards to men and womyn, and how male promiscuity is encouraged, and female promiscuity is scorned and frownewd upon. I don't think you can simply put an absolute that female promiscuity is frowned upon. As a matter of fact, there are two contradictory attacks on female sexuality; that its wrong for women to be 'frigid' and its wrong for them to be 'sluts.' I would say, however, that they are applied in similar circumstances (frigid being applied when a woman refuses to have sex with a man, 'slut' being applied when a woman is happy to have sex with men - apart from the individual man spitefully applying the term. Also, the term is also used by women to attack other women who 'steal all the men.' I think its frustrating when women apply the term in this way). Which is what you said here:


Dare I say, you are getting too hung up on the terms "frigid" and "slut"; niether one of the terms is the issue in itself, and I only used them to illustrate a point, because both of these terms are opposite pejoratives to be weilded against womyn in terms of their sexuality: If a womyn has too much sex, she is a slut, and if she doesn't "put out", she is "frigid" and/or a "dyke". Either way, the womyns position in sex, wether she participates or not, is something negative Exactly! Two different applications, both a reflection of unequal economic conditions between genders and both socially reactionary. Then why would you 'choose' the 'frigid' option? Of course, we both agree that neither term is attractive, and that both are highly questionable, which is why we should refuse categorization altogether.


Originally posted by Prairie Fire
That is the crux of the issue, that there is the social imbalance, as well as an economic and political imbalance between the two genders.Absolutely! So in the here and now, where no economic upheaval is going to overthrow the existing order and destroy this gender imbalance, I would figure the best approach is to struggle against both of these reactionary social views, and not be 'caught up' in how people perceive you. If people don't like it, tough.

[benhur]

Prairie Fire is the only one who's taken the time to reflect on this. Her views are well balanced. With the exception of LC (and a few others), most of them are simply going from one extreme to another. If the wahabis in Saudi are one extreme, leftists at least on revleft are another extreme.

BTW, I found out the movie. In fact, it isn't a movie, it's an old TV show, Steele, otherwise a good detective series.

[Rascolnikova]

Prairie Fire is the only one who's taken the time to reflect on this. Her views are well balanced. With the exception of LC (and a few others), most of them are simply going from one extreme to another. If the wahabis in Saudi are one extreme, leftists at least on revleft are another extreme.

BTW, I found out the movie. In fact, it isn't a movie, it's an old TV show, Steele, otherwise a good detective series.

I'd like you to explain how I'm an unreflective extremist.

Edit: And also how Marmot, who I pretty much agree with, is. :)

[benhur]

I'd like you to explain how I'm an unreflective extremist.

Edit: And also how Marmot, who I pretty much agree with, is. :)

Line 2 explains line 1, I guess.;)

[black magick hustla]

"extremism"? I stopped worrying about extremism the day I went to communist meetings.

[Prairie Fire]

Then why would you 'choose' the 'frigid' option?


Maybe I should have phrased that better. I didn't choose "frigid", I chose "being left alone", as opposed to the "alternative" (ie. everything between wolf whistling and Rape).

[Rascolnikova]

Line 2 explains line 1, I guess.;)

Wow. . . your skill in argument is overwhelming.

I don't see how recognizing sexuality as a part of human experience is extremist. I like the point that Sut Jhally makes in Dreamworlds--some objectification is part of sexuality, for both genders. When that objectification becomes the central part in the way one gender is perceived or characterized in society, sexism is clearly taking place. That doesn't mean all objectification or all sexual advances--even all unwanted ones--represent sexism.


Edit: I might add that the question of being left alone vs. unwanted sexual advances is not a true dichotomy, as it quite ignores wanted sexual advances, the happy medium that almost everyone is looking for. I understand our culture has a terrible time understanding the concept that people--including women--sometimes (and from some people, in some relationships, some situations, etc.) want sex and sometimes don't. I would hope that the people most likely to recognize this fact rather than skipping over it and accepting the normalized social ruts of "slut" and "frigid" would those who call themselves feminists.

[benhur]

Most movies 'use' women to appeal to male audiences. The movie I mentioned is just one instance. There are many more, where women are portrayed as nothing more than sex objects to appeal to male audiences.

Most fights between women show some kind of sexual tension, which is far removed from reality. Moreover, they'll never show fights between men in this manner. Many times, women start fondling or kissing other women (not that there's anything wrong with it, even though it's far from realistic the way they show these things), but the motive is NOT because they're liberal enough to show such lesbian stuff, but simply to use women for a single purpose: to appeal to the male audience. And that's quite sexist. In other words, most people today use 'liberalism' as an excuse to push their sexist agenda.

But I am sure most people are going to ignore all this, and come up with the same old argument that women are liberated even though they're objectified, there's nothing wrong with that, etc. etc. This usually comes from perverted men who enjoy such stuff, and from women who're afraid to be labeled conservative. Conservatives cover their women and degrade them, while liberals liberate women (not because they care about women), but simply to use them as sex objects all in the name of women's emancipation. Both extremes are bad, and most revleft members belong to the latter.

[Rascolnikova]

Most movies 'use' women to appeal to male audiences. The movie I mentioned is just one instance. There are many more, where women are portrayed as nothing more than sex objects to appeal to male audiences.

Most fights between women show some kind of sexual tension, which is far removed from reality. Moreover, they'll never show fights between men in this manner. Many times, women start fondling or kissing other women (not that there's anything wrong with it, even though it's far from realistic the way they show these things), but the motive is NOT because they're liberal enough to show such lesbian stuff, but simply to use women for a single purpose: to appeal to the male audience. And that's quite sexist. In other words, most people today use 'liberalism' as an excuse to push their sexist agenda.

But I am sure most people are going to ignore all this, and come up with the same old argument that women are liberated even though they're objectified, there's nothing wrong with that, etc. etc. This usually comes from perverted men who enjoy such stuff, and from women who're afraid to be labeled conservative. Conservatives cover their women and degrade them, while liberals liberate women (not because they care about women), but simply to use them as sex objects all in the name of women's emancipation. Both extremes are bad, and most revleft members belong to the latter.

Hmn.

I appreciate your intent, but there a few things I disagree with, and perhaps a few things I can clarify about your post.

To start with, let us remember that when conservatives cover "their" women, and when liberals "liberate women," about half of the individuals doing the covering and the liberating are women. Also, I believe that it is clearer to say that when liberals "use women as sex objects in the name of women's emancipation," they are in fact using the name of women's emancipation as a tool for sexual exploitation.

On a note that ties together the two preceding points, I think we should also remember that the intended audience for art that encourages sexual objectification of women is not only men. Women are encouraged always to create themselves towards (impossibly) ideal sexual objects and to celebrate and consummate this process in the most consumerist ways possible. We have been granted the freedom to become public sexual objects, much as "free markets" grant workers the "freedom" to sell their labor by the hour.

I quite agree that both ideologies fail to realize equality. I am no apologist for conservative culture (http://difficultjane.blogspot.com/2008/11/provocateur.html), but I do see the argument that liberal culture (as the phrase is use in the US) is more sexist under it's pretense of equality and sexual liberation than the "conservative culture" (once more, as used in the US) it is so fond of deriding. Some glimmer of this might be hinted at in the fact that women are more religious, on average than men.